City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City of Montgomery regular meeting for August 25th, 2026. That's exactly, it says 601, so we didn't get this thing going. Ms. Devlin, we have a quorum. Mr. Glazier will not be here this evening. And with that, if you please check your phones to make sure they are off so that we are not disturbed during this meeting, that would be fantastic. And if you rise, Mr. Donaldson would give the invocation and he'll do the Pledge of Allegiance.

Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for another opportunity, Father, to address the needs of the city of Montgomery. We thank you, Father, that you bless the works in the hands of the staff, the police, everyone involved, Father, with making this city operate on an efficient basis. Father, we speak over the Family of Dolly Parton, in the name of Father, in the name of Jesus, give them comfort, Father, in their time of loss. We thank you for all of these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.

Pledge allegiance to the United States flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

with liberty and justice for all.

Now the Texas flag.

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

Let's have a business on your opening agenda as citizens comment. I did receive one Citizens comment, speaker request form. Ms. Miriam Walker, would you please come to the podium regarding item number 12 on the agenda. Hi, my name is Miriam Walker and I live down the street.

And I've lived here for approximately 30 years.

And I also sit on the PNC Commission. And last meeting we had, we had on our agenda the request for the required treatment assessment for the crossing of Montgomery. And I was the only one on the commission that said no. Everyone else said yes. So it passed to come to you, the city council, to pass this. My concern is what they agreed to was that we just do a complete say, hey, we're not going to do any more tree assessments on the crossing. We're just going to move forward a good 50 acres. And my concern is every other developer, you know, in phase one, phase two, phase three, they bring it before the P&Z and we look at it, discuss it. That's 50 acres and I've driven by that piece of property quite often. It's a beautiful piece of property and now they're gonna put beautiful homes on there. My concern is, is that you have some trees, you have gravel ditch, you have a railroad track, you have gravel, and then you have some tree shrubs weeds, probably trash. And then you have the fence line of the previous owner. And then you have some more trees and grass and weeds and all that. So I was just talking to someone and there is going to be a residential fence that is put up that you build a home, they have a yard, they have a fence. And then there's a 20, should be a 25 foot setback for vegetation. And the dilemma that they're coming into right now is that with the variance of variation of the land that they're finding that the water or runoff is going down in there so they're possibly going to have to make a ditch there. Now this is me speaking and I've just briefly heard about this. So my concern is We've got one subdivision, a street that is going to have 500 people, that's single car from the homes that they've built. Then there's a road that's highly traveled by school and now the people that live in that subdivision. And then you've got some trees Then you got the railroad track, and then you got trees, and you've got now another subdivision. First of all, it's beautiful when you drive down there and you have the trees. And I'm a tree person, so I just want to make it... I wanted my statement to be said more than just my minutes at the PNZ meeting and also as a citizen of Montgomery. I think we have a lot of growth going on and I think phase one, phase two, phase three should be considered instead of, hey, here's 50 acres, we're gonna wipe the trees out. Now I say that because that's how I feel about them knocking down trees. If you talk to the developer, you know, they're going to give it to you on a pretty piece of paper. They're going to make it look all pretty. And I know this because I sit on the PNC and we get told pretty things all the time. And I know that they make a good presentation and I know that they keep their word with saying that it's going to be pretty. But I just want to be especially careful with now this little piece that they're fixing to have to I just wanted to make that why I said no and everyone else said yes to bringing it to y'all. Thank y'all.

Thank you, appreciate it. Next item on your agenda is presentation. Number five, presentation and discussion regarding proposed chapter 380 economic development program guidelines and application process. Ms. Kimberly.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight, I am presenting the city's proposed Chapter 380 economic development incentive guidelines. As we've discussed over the past several months, one of my goals as the Assistant Director of Economic Development has been to make sure that Montgomery has the tools it needs when it comes to competing with other cities and jurisdictions. The city's current Chapter 380 guidelines were adopted in 2007. They're about a page and a half long. Montgomery's economy, development landscape, and priorities have changed significantly since then, so it's important that we update those guidelines to provide a more modern, clear, and structured framework for evaluating economic development incentives. Chapter 380 agreements, which we'll talk about in the presentation, are one of the tools cities can use when negotiating with developers. At their core, these guidelines give the city a clear, consistent, and transparent framework for evaluating incentives. They do not promise incentives to everyone who wants to move into the city, and they do not take the decision-making power away from city council. These are guidelines, not automatic incentives, and every project would still require careful review, negotiation, and formal approval by city council. The question we should be asking when it comes to these incentives is what does the city receive in return for offering a tax incentive, and how does the development benefit our residents and our community? That benefit may come through new investment, quality job creation, revitalization of an underutilized property, or other improvements. Tonight, I will walk you through the proposed guidelines, explain how the program would work as presented, and highlight the safeguards and performance requirements that are built into the process. And later on tonight's agenda, there is the new ordinance that have the new guidelines attached and the application that supports that later in the agenda. So with that, we can go ahead and move on to the presentation. If you can move on to the next slide, Ruby, and then the next one. So again, this is the 380 economic development guidelines that are designed to help facilitate economic growth in Montgomery by providing a framework for financial assistance and project development. This presentation will briefly cover the guidelines and make sure the council understands the new structure that I am proposing. I know you've all dealt with 380 agreements before, but just as a quick reminder, and for the public, a Chapter 380 agreement is simply an economic development tool that's authorized under Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code. It allows cities to provide financial and other incentives to developers that wish to locate or expand here. There's a lot of freedom when it comes to 380 agreements. There's a lot of lead way as to how the city can structure them. Types of incentives may include performance-based cash grants, reimbursement of eligible project costs, this is used a lot here at the city, along with sales tax rebates. You can also reimburse the maintenance on operations portion of property taxes if that's an incentive that's chosen to use under a Chapter 380 agreement. Next slide, please. And the next one. So just as another recap, the current ordinance is from 2007. The 380 guidelines are designed to foster economic growth, and this is really just to provide a more clear structure when it comes to the city and to protect the council, to be quite honest, when it comes to entering into these agreements. The goal is to attract investment, create jobs, and enhance the overall economic environment. Again, it's to serve to protect the city's interest by providing a standard of incentive offerings while still allowing the city council flexibility. So as we go through a little bit more with some of the guidelines that I'm proposing, it still allows a lot of flexibility for the council. There's a lot of lead way as to what you can choose to do with your agreements. Again, this will create consistency, improve transparency, and of course, it'll help protect taxpayer funds. And next slide, please. So let's get into the key components of the guidelines. So eligibility criteria is clearly defined in the guidelines. Let me go over... So I left it again very open. The eligibility criteria is simply that the project must expand the local tax base, the funds must be spent for a public purpose, the project creates permanent full-time employment opportunities, and the project contributes to enhancing further economic development in the city of Montgomery. This is a good starting point as we move forward. The city council can always say we want a minimum investment of this much. We want this many jobs with this amount of salary. I've seen that before in guidelines, but as a starting point, I left it open. It supports various types of projects. There's multiple funding mechanisms available. So again, that's through sales tax reimbursements, property tax reimbursements. One distinct change is that it requires a Chapter 380 application and a non-refundable $1,000 application fee to be submitted for consideration. The reason behind this is it is a lot of information to gather to put together a Chapter 380 agreement. There's a lot of things that you need that you may not think of. All the planning, you really want to make sure they have their financials submitted to ensure that you're not signing a deal with someone who doesn't have the financial capacity to live up to their standards or their promises. So all of those things are written into the application, the requirements to apply for a 380 agreement with the city. And does that go into the MEDC fund? Yes, it'll go into the MEDC general fund, which is of course the branch of the city for economic development. It's non-refundable, so even if someone doesn't get a 380 agreement, we keep the money. And really it is, I have worked on projects for months before and then we'll have the developer pull out and go to another city because they shop for incentives a lot of times, right? That's just the nature of it when it comes down to the numbers game. Again, it allows for flexibility for the council and the MEDC when considering incentive request. I wanna stress that the council has the ultimate authority to enter into chapter 380 guidelines. So even if the MEDC chose We're going to offer this amount of reimbursement. Of course, the city ultimately has the authority to sign off on that agreement. And it does implement term and percentage limits for agreements. And this is another big change that was not in the 2007 ordinance. The term that has been included in these guidelines is a term limit of 10 years. and 50% of the expected incremental sales tax revenue. So a cap of 50% of the expected incremental sales tax revenue or property tax revenue that's coming in from that specific project. So that splits the 50-50 for 10 years. The council can always go around that. You can do more. you can do less. The purpose of this is to again create more fairness when it comes to signing development agreements. So it's a clear share of 50-50 and you're also you're not signing agreements that last 20 years. One other thing, I think it's on the next slide, is that if you can move to the next slide Ruby, And yes, I also wrote in a minimum productive life of 15 years for projects. Here's the reason for that. So if you sign a 10 year tax incentive agreement and year 10, the company decides we can't do, like we can't do this anymore actually, it's not sustainable. The city is actually never fully realizing the full tax value of that project. So this lengthens at least trying to ensure five years longer than that agreement, five years longer than the agreement is what the city would at least receive for the full value of that property being on the rolls. There are job creation targets written in, but again, I did not put a specific number. I did not put a specific salary for now. I just left it very broad as in we would expect quality job creation to be created from projects that are supported by the council. There's the typical environmental considerations that you have to consider when it comes to any project that's written in that it cannot have a substantial effect on neighboring properties. There's a portion that was written in that the developer may have to pay for impact studies if it comes to that. So environmental studies may be requested if we determine that we don't have sufficient information to support the incentive. Request for tax incentives will not be considered if prior to the submission of an application, the project is already substantially underway or completed. A lot of times this is considered vertical growth. So if there's vertical development happening on the property, the reason behind this is In economic terms, it's the but-for clause. It's you don't want to incentivize projects that are already happening because you were assuming that they would happen even without the incentive being offered. So it really has to be, if not for this help from the city, this project would not happen and we would not reap the economic benefit. And again, funds must be used for a public purpose. So they must benefit the public as a whole. Next slide, please. And then this is a pretty quick process here. If you can go to the next one. So there is an application, like I mentioned, that is attached to the 380 guidelines. That application would be filed with me I would review it, review it for completeness, review it for everything that we need. Of course, a lot of times when you're dealing with 380s, you're dealing with development agreements at the same time. So that's going to necessitate a lot of coordination between me and the engineers and Tilly. So once that application comes in through me, I review everything. Next slide. And the next slide. I'll just walk through this one. I'll just talk through this. So it comes to me, I review it, and then it's presented to the council. And we talk through, determine what does the council want to do? Does the council wish to do anything? What is the benefit to the community for offering this incentive? And then of course we have the implementation of the approved project and the incentive agreement with ongoing compliance monitoring. It is written into the guidelines but it's required that we submit these agreements to the comptroller that they're updated, that everything is current. And then there are other mechanisms if we get there to where we can track employment, wages, all of those things we can build into agreements when the time comes. So, that is a brief overview of the chapter 380 guidelines and the application process that I am implementing. Again, the goal is to create transparency, to have a very solid framework when it comes to development and to provide a way to objectively analyze projects that are seeking funding from the city. Question? Yes.

There's a project and midway through the developer changes hands. Does that incentive go with that developer or does it stay with the project and developer two gets to take advantage of that?

You typically would have to transfer it to the new developer. That's what I've seen in the past. You would have to rewrite, amend the agreement, come back. So it's really tied to the developer.

Let's say that they've done the application and submitted their thousand dollars and so it comes to council and we vote it down. Is that a possibility to vote it down even after they've done all their stuff?

Yes. Yes, the council ultimately has the authority to decide whether to support or not to support. And I've, you know, a lot of cities have these, I should caveat, 380 guidelines are not required by state statute. However, a lot of cities do have them because they provide a protection to the city. Cities our size have them, you know, smaller cities, they have them in place and they have application fees in place as well. And they range, your larger cities, like really large cities, they charge thousands of dollars for the applications and the state charges for their applications as well. Some of theirs I think are like $10,000 for certain state programs. So you see the language for application fees written into a lot of programs, but you still have the authority to say no? That's really to protect our resources too. We don't want our staff to be running around and doing a whole bunch of work and then it doesn't come through. Well you know it's not really a matter of like do I like it or not it's a matter of have they submitted their application with all the required documentation and then the council has to decide so even if I personally am like I don't think we should do this the council ultimately has the decision-making power so

I was just wondering though, like you said, if they can handle the submissions.

Yeah, they usually, I mean, it's happened before.

I'll handle it, don't worry, they'll call me. That'll be fun. Any other questions? Great job. Thank you. Thank you.

Next item on your agenda, it's the consent agenda. Item number six, consideration of possible action on the city council workshop meeting minutes of August 10th, 2026. Number seven, consideration of possible action on the city council meeting minutes of August 11th, 2026. Eight, consideration of possible action on the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting minutes of August 18th, 2026. Nine, consideration of possible action on resolution of the City Council of the City of Montgomery, Texas calling a public hearing to be held at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8th, 2026 regarding the special use permit for a proposed pooled-in parking lot adjacent to the model home in the Montgomery Bend development by Pool T Homes of Texas. Council, we can take these cumulatively or individually. What is your pleasure? A motion by Mr. Olsen to go cumulatively, seconded by Ms. Fox. This motion is debatable and minimal as far as authority vote. All those in favor of accepting the consent agenda cumulatively say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it, the motion carries, and we'll accept the consent agenda as presented. Regular agenda, number two. Consideration was collected and authorized by the city administrator to sign the consent to encroachment by and between the city of Montgomery and the developer of Cruise Real Estate Venture LLC, development number 2505. Mr. Griswold.

Good evening. in the agreement that includes an exhibit, which is where I'll take your attention to on page 75. So this is development immediately adjacent to Atkins Creek on 1097, where Texot has been staging all their equipment for that work. And so what they're proposing is they're proposing retaining walls and some paving within the existing easements on the front and back of the property. And so this is just your standard encroachment agreement that says that you'll allow the placement within the easement of the walls as well as a fence, but you're not responsible for the improvements. They're responsible for maintenance and taking care of it. And if you have to get in there to make any repairs, et cetera, it's not your responsibility to put it back. So attorneys reviewed it and prepared it. Developers reviewed it. They're in agreement. And so it's for approval to you all tonight.

Motion to accept agenda item number 10 as presented.

Motion by Mr. Johnson to accept item number 10 as presented. Second. Second by Mr. Olsen. This motion is debatable and notable. Requires majority vote. It's open for discussion. All those in favor of accepting item number 10 as presented, say aye. Aye. Those in favor say nay. The ayes have it. The motion carries and we'll accept item number 10 as presented. Number 11 on your agenda. Consideration of possible action on a variance request regarding the required tree assessment for the Legacy Grove section 2 development number 2501. All right.

The next two items are the same request for different developments. So Ms. Walker was talking about the second item. So this one that we'll talk about now is for legacy growth, which is the TriPoint development. So this is for Section 2. So Section 2, there's a map in your packet, connects to 105 between Napa and Mid-South. It's that portion of the development. They are requesting a variance not to do the assessment as part of the preliminary plotting process. They are still submitting tree plans and landscaping plans. They're not requesting a change from that. They're just requesting not to do the assessment portion for a couple of reasons. One, they did not do it and were not required to do it on section one, because that started before the interim ordinance changed. Second part is when they did their masquerading of the site, that included a portion of section one, so they've already cleared and graded a good portion of the site. And the remaining area that has the most trees, which is the small strip between Napa and Mid-South, if you've driven by, there's a massive trench going through right now for city utilities, and there's a road that's going through. So there's not a lot left So it doesn't change their planning requirement. They're still proposing to provide the trees and the monumentation and landscaping. They're requesting not to do the actual study as part of the requirement for the preliminary plot. There's a letter from us regarding this, a letter from L-squared, the developer's engineer, and L-squared is also here to answer any questions that you may have specifically for him on the reasons, et cetera.

So it's 59 acres is what they're asking to not do the . Correct. 59 acres is section 2. Section 2. Correct.

Like they're doing, and Jonathan mentioned this at the PNZ meeting, like they did on Section 1, the intent is to still keep trees. This is a larger lot neighborhood. They try to keep trees along the back of the lots. That's still the intent with this development. They're just the cost of the tree assessment. doing that with section one. Correct. Correct. Yeah, section one is the model homes going up. If you look on page six, I can't read that small, 82 of your packets, 82 and 83, I believe, you'll see the preliminary plat for section two that shows that, where is section two? It's the southern portion. So it's the southern of 1598. Correct, the 105 side.

Yes, sir. So what's the reason for not wanting to do a tree assessment? They haven't done any work over there yet.

So with the... So with Section 1, we actually did a mass grading project that was done separately prior to Section 1. The mass grading project was clearing and mass grading for Section 1 and 2. So all the clearing for Section 2 is actually already complete. So Section 2 is cleared, graded. There's a few areas that we are going to have to clear out just for unanticipated infrastructure or drainage infrastructure that we need to install with them. But basically all the treaties are already gone.

So what we see there is what will remain?

For the most part, I would say there may be an extra acre or so, that's to be cleared. But we have to provide a WGA assessment of how we meet the minimum standards, what we're going to be planting to make sure we're above and beyond the ordinance. As you all know, the current ordinance doesn't have any minimum plantings, but we're basically saying that in lieu of the assessment, we will provide a landscape planting plan from the previous ordinance. That was most likely what we're going to be seeing soon, but we're going to be doing it the same way. We prefer the old one. So the new one is tree assessment, but no planting requirements at all, or no tree assessment, but we'll provide the plantings. And so we're just trying to basically ask for the previous version.

I mean, it looks nice. I'm going by the little numbers that are on your plan here. Is that correct?

the smaller of the plots provided?

The numbers with the little circle draw?

Is that your section? No, so those are the blocks. So the section is everything that's shown on this document? Correct. If you look on... Sheet two? Yeah, what says sheet two and sheet three, both of those, if you're looking on that overall sheet on page... 88. Sheet 2 and sheet 3 are both?

Section 2. Correct. Everything on that block is the section 2. It's the southern half of it.

Correct.

Section 1 is cut off from this block. We would be here all night.

Yeah.

Make a motion to accept item 11 as presented.

Mr. Olsen, that we accept item number 11 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Langley. All those in favor of accepting item number 11 as presented, say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it, the motion carries, and we'll accept item number 11 as presented. Number 12 on your agenda. Consideration of possible action on a variance request regarding the required tree assessment for the crossing in Montgomery, government number 2403.

So very similar to the last request, other than this is a new development, this is what Ms. Walker was mentioning before, the concern with just overall the development. So the request is to not do the tree survey over the entire property. They're still proposing to plant the two trees per lot, plus keep the common areas vegetated as much as they can. And again, Jonathan is here and can talk to kind of the specifics of what the plan is of the development regarding trees.

Yeah, so a very similar reason for the request is that the tree assessment is basically a requirement to go get individual tree survey, not only tree survey, but the of every single tree. This track is not as wooded as some of the other ones. And so, you know, there's not 10,000 photos at WGA that three of you, but the benefit and the reason behind the tree survey, there's not anything in the ordinance that says with this data, tell me what you're removing and then replace. equal to or something like that so there's no replacement requirement and so instead of us providing a tree survey that doesn't actually require us to replant what was cleared we're simply asking to waive the requirement for the tree assessment so we can do the plantings for the previous ordinance which would be plantings there's i think it's a minimum of 20 percent of the gross or the net land areas that's a land area minus easements right minus right-of-ways we have 20 plantings And in addition, excuse me, you have to have one tree pre-dark, one in the front, one in the back. There's certain, I think, caliper inches that are required for those trees as well, so you would meet all that criteria. And I think within the development group, which is included in our mass grading and overall development plan as well. So we're trying to adhere as much as we can to previous ordinance and development agreement, but just not do the tree assessment that doesn't seem that there provides much of a value to the overall project in terms of what is ultimately required if we show you the trees that we're copying.

I'm a little concerned about this particular one. I think as the president, who lives very close

So I guess the question is, based off of the 25 foot setback from the railroad and all of that, why are we wanting to knock all the trees down?

across the site. So there's a lot of topography across the site. I was explaining to Ms. Walker above foot reserve, which is what we have. I just didn't want Chelsea to apply at some point in time. I'm wondering if it's 20 instead of 25. But there's some water that sheds off of the railroad track that would come onto the lots. And so that 20 foot buffer, we actually are proposing a drainage ditch so that water doesn't sheet flow through the lots. It actually is picked up on the back in a dedicated reserve that would be owned and maintained by the HOA. That swale can take it around the lots, not through the lots. There's some areas that's very minimal, either at a high point, but as we start to grade it further out, when we have a high point and we start to grade it further out, we're starting to eat up more of that area. It's not to say that we can't do some plantings in an area. You can plant ditches on the slopes that we propose in the ditch, and certainly on the areas where we've got some extra space that we certainly can do that as well. But we are providing that 20 foot buffer, at least .

They don't want to let that railroad track out to the backyard.

So if you cut their trees down... So there'd be a gap between the fence line of the railroad track and the fence line of the wrestling track.

So are they going to clear the buffer zone now?

Right now, because of the dish that's needed and the amount of topography, we've already got a bunch of retaining walls across the site as well, just to be able to help step it down. These are small lots. I think they're 60s or maybe 55s. I can't recall. 65. 65. Yeah, so they are bigger lots, and so we're trying to help. utilize that to our advantage to help with the topography to be able to step down some norms that we still have quite a bit of retaining walls across the site just to be able to to make the grading work that these developers or the home builders will be able to do.

I would think that would be a benefit.

So really the only argument we had, we can do the tree cert, but the assessment, we can provide that. That's part of the preliminary plot, but it doesn't require us to plant anything under the current ordinance. And so we could potentially, or not we, but the development could potentially not propose any trees because there's no requirement currently. And so I'm attempting to try to do the trade-off of using the older ordinance as the, something that we rely on.

Only talking about 27 acres at this moment, or we're talking about all of the- And this question came up during P&Z as well.

The request is, the intent of the request is for the entirety of the development, for the request to not do the assessment over the entirety of the development. Over the entire project. Yeah, what we included, this was on us, we just provided the current section plot. Which is old players and robes. Right.

yes and so i think the intent of the variance was to be project-wide but the their tree assessment is tied to the plat so the earlier plot can't be approved without the tree assessment so technically if we did the tree assessment we would only provide the tree assessment if you denied it tonight we would do the tree assessment for only the platted boundary that we would propose at this time the variance was for the overall project so if you'll deny it we would just do the tree assessment for that 27 acres think of no trees I think that doesn't matter what council says I think nobody would buy the homes I mean and I'm not saying that the developers or home builders they may put in the trees as well you know I just I don't know if we can develop an agreement entirely of what could be in there, could not be in there. I know that there was minimum parks, but I don't know if there was anything that was mentioning requirement for trees. But certainly, there may be less in the park areas. And certainly, I would believe the home builders would most likely, I just don't know if they would be required.

How many tree assessments have we had in the past, Chris?

Recently, it's been a while. So the history of the tree ordinance, it started out with the tree assessment. There was a lot of uproar about the tree assessment because it was an 80, I think you said the quote for one of them was $120,000 for Caroline Court. the tree ordinance changed to take away the tree assessment. And then in the interim ordinance, the tree assessment came back and some of the plantings dropped off. And so you haven't seen them because that haven't been submitted, requesting variances.

We did one at the shops a long time ago. Correct. And that tree assessment was just provide a tree script. So we did find just the species and size, but you didn't have to do a tree with four photographs, which is, that's what it says there. Yeah, so that was the last one was 2017, 2018 time frame. That's it.

Thank you. The current motion is to deny the variance.

Yes, there's a motion on the table to deny the variance for item number 12.

I guess my thing here is because the ones that he's being able to reference aren't written very well, so we demand a certain amount of trees in our green upper area. Am I understanding that correctly?

That's my understanding. Yeah, at least during this time, it's been so far, most of it have been asked to do the variants because that makes more sense. That makes it easier for them. That doesn't say one way or the other how you have to do it. So the way the idea...

You can't tell her how to vote. She's already done.

She's already put a motion on the table.

Well, I don't know. Is there a second? I mean, y'all are still discussing it. I didn't know that anybody's decided not to second it. And that motion does die.

I move the motion to accept the variance of agenda item number 12 as presented.

Motion by Mr. Dalton to accept the variance on item number 12 as presented. I second. Seconded by Mr. Olsen. This motion is debatable, amenable. Requires majority vote. Open for further discussion. All those in favor of accepting item number 12 as presented, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. Nay. The ayes have it. The motion carries, and we'll accept item number 12 as presented. Number 13. Consideration of possible action on an ordinance of the City of Montgomery, Texas, establishing an economic development program pursuant to Chapter 380, of the Texas Local Government Code, authorizing the city to provide economic development incentives through loans, reimbursements, infrastructure participation, tax rebates, and other authorized forms of assistance. Establishing eligibility requirements, application procedures, evaluation criteria, performance standards, and administrative processes authorizing the execution of chapter 380 economic development agreements, repealing ordinance number 2007-13, adopted on January 23rd of 2007, and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for severability, providing for publication, providing for an effective date.

All right, so... How long is it published? Just one time in the newspaper? This doesn't have to be published in the newspaper? It's not to be? Yeah, but it says providing for publication. So are we not doing it or are we going to do it?

So no publication is required?

No, no publication is required.

No, it would be effective upon passage.

It'll be published on our website, but in terms of any official publications that would go through the newspaper, you don't need any of those because this is not a requirement by the state. So it will be published on the city's website under the economic development page.

I know you've done a lot of work at ULISA, thank you. You bring in a lot of expertise. Gina Adams should miss it, providing her publication. Thank you.

Motion by Mr. Olsen that we accept item number 13 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Fox. All those in favor of accepting item number 13 as presented say aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The motion carries and we'll accept item number 13 as presented. 14, consideration of possible action of the chapter 380 economic development and incentives application. Okay, motion by Mr. Olson, seconded by Ms. Fox. Do we accept item 14 as presented?

You don't put the application in the ordinance, so you don't have to go back and repeal or change the ordinance. So this is just the form of the application itself. So you can go back and change the application separately from the incentive guidelines.

Motion or second?

All those in favor accepting item number 14 as presented?

Aye. The ayes have it. The motion carries. We'll accept item 14 as presented.

15 on your agenda. Consideration of possible action on a service agreement renewal with CBO partners LLC and authorize the mayor to execute.

Good evening mayor and council. We've mentioned these during the budget hearings that we haven't had a fee increase since 2018. We've been with previous administrations other than the chief coming forward has made it difficult to get a raise, but we are experiencing huge cost increases since 2018. Steve and I are here to support this, but Cody and Siobhan had other things to do tonight, but we really hope the council will accept our proposal. We're basically increasing the fees for inspections. In the past, we've been charging the city $50 for an inspection that was out of a mechanical electrical plumbing or irrigation permit. We're proposing to go to $75. And for building permits, we've been charging $100. Anything out of a building permit, structural framing, foundations, from 100 to 150. This kind of goes in line with what we charge other builders outside. So in the budget, we've flooded Marianne with cost estimates and proposals and all that. So the idea is that the increase in permit fees will cover our increases. Have we raised all those, Marianne, our permit fees?

We are working on fee increases and putting that in line with this. This is one of those things that the revenue is what pays for his expenses. So you saw that in the budget where we had the increase in the revenue and the increase on the expense size, but we should be bringing that to you.

And when do your fees go into place?

October 1st. Service giving goes into effect October 1st. Same story. How many years? I started with a young lady who was right out of high school and was the city secretary about 22 years ago. I do make a motion to get the approved item. Motion by Ms. Fox that we accept item 15 as presented.

Seconded by Mr. O'Donaldson.

Are there any other questions? All those in favor of accepting item number 15 as presented, say aye.

Aye.

Those who say nay, the ayes have it. Commissioner Giers will accept item 15 as presented.

Thank you, Rich. Thank you.

Number 16. Consideration of possible action to authorize the creation of one police captain's position within the Montgomery Police Department to be effective October 1, 2026.

Good evening, mayor and council. As captain positions, the responsibility is starting to widen. The function of that responsibility comes with the captain doing more administrative work. What we're going to do is we want to promote a captain somewhere from within also. bring someone else into that lieutenant slot. That lieutenant slot needs to be more focused on being out on the streets and available to officers. As a matter of fact, we'll have to change those hours from those 12-hour shifts that all the sergeants are working now. But even with our sieges and TCOs, everything is starting to have more time that the captain needs to concentrate on. any grants and things that we're looking at. So it's becoming more of an administrative position. And so it's time to make that change. It's also time to make sure that we're still getting the same amount of coverage that we're getting. We want more coverage outside, because what we'll do is we'll promote a lieutenant to a spot, and then we'll bring one of the guys that were in our last sergeant's group that came in one of those positions, we'll move those to a sergeant's spot. And of course, we've hired two new people.

So it's not really creating a new position. I mean, it's a new captain's position. It's not a new, it's not a headcount increase. No, it's not a headcount increase, no. So you're promoting within? Yes. I make a motion to accept item 16 as presented.

A motion by Mr. Olson, seconded by Ms. Langley, that we accept item 16 as presented. This motion is debatable and movable. Prospectory vote. It's open for discussion. All those in favor of accepting item number 16 as presented, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have the motion. Here is item 16 as presented. 17 on your agenda. Consideration of possible action to authorize the creation of three full-time public safety officer positions for the Montgomery Police Department to be effective October 1, 2020 states.

Can we talk about these two, 17 and 18, together? Because these are the proposals that we've been making for about the last two years. It's going to be three full-time PSOs, public safety officers, and we'll hire one records clerk. Those were all budgeted for this year, but we won't do any hiring until it'll be around July before we start to do anything. So from October to July, it'll be nine months down the line before That way we put it way reduced.

Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Donaldson, that we accept item 17 as presented. All those in favor of accepting item 17 as presented, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The motion here is to accept item 17 as presented. 18 on your agenda. Consideration of possible action to authorize the creation of one full-time public police record for a position for the Montgomery Police Department to be effective October 1st, 2026.

Here again, council is a position that we've been talking about creating for the last two years at this particular time. This is going to take a tremendous load off of Ms. Good and the things that she does. It'll also give us better opportunity to keep better records. And once we've moved into a new place, because this will be the person that you'll see up front when you first come into the new facility. So it's a much needed job.

As good as swimming in boxes.

More than swimming in boxes, yeah. And also, same thing position-wise, it'll be around July before we attempt to start hiring for this.

I second.

Motion by Ms. Langley, seconded by Mr. Olsen, accept item 18 as presented. All those in favor of accepting item number 18 as presented, say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it, the motion carries, we accept 18 as presented. Number 19.

Thank you.

Thank you. Consideration of the nominee to represent the cities and the county on the Montgomery County Emergency Communications District, NCECD, Board of Managers. one-on-ones.

How is that?

I mean, did we just pick one of the three names? I'd like to make a recommendation that we use Lieutenant Delmar for that position. He does all of our emergency management things. He's done all the training. He's done all those things that need to be done. I have his certification. I still have his certification, but he's really active in that. And so if you guys are looking for a nominee, I think he'd be a good nominee for that.

I don't know if it's a nominee, though. I think we just get the casting vote.

Casting a vote for the nominee. So if you want to nominate him, that's what we would cast the vote for.

It doesn't matter. We're asking for a nominee.

The casting.

It doesn't matter for our vote.

He's asking for the vote. There's three.

There's three nominees. Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it. Other.

Other.

Oh, we can put other. Let's do that. Yeah. Don't we have to vote for two? No, just one.

One.

OK.

It's a two-year term, though. So we didn't have to have our nomination do a write-in for the MCEBC? Yes.

I don't get it.

All right, there's a motion on the table of Mr. Olson to nominate Mr. Belmar, second by Ms. Fox. All those in favor of casting a vote for write-in nominee of Lieutenant Joe Belmar for the MCECD board, say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it, the motion carries, and we will put in Lieutenant Joe Belmar and the other Fox for the MCECD board of managers. Number 20. Consideration of possible action on ballot voting for the election of places one through four of the TML Intergovernmental Risk Control Board of Trustees.

Ruby, can you help us on this?

So there's four places, and there needs to be a, or if you choose to want to place a ballot, vote on each one of the four places. You can choose the candidates. Place one, we've got Kevin Clark, J.W. Glasgow, John Kenner, Kerry D. Neal Jr., Place two, we have Adam Vennefield, Emily Crawford, and Andy Francis. Place three, we have Corby Alexander, Jim Corberson, Cecil A. Hudson, Jr., Andy Joslin, Ronald Perez, Garrett Crawford's family, Isaac Tallweil, Alun Thomas. And then for place four, we have Austin Bleese and James Thompson. The one that's closest to us is Jersey Village.

I do know some of these people, yes. Garrett Spradling out of Porter, Texas. He's also a very sharp guy.

So place one was who?

Kevin Clark.

Buzz Fuller. Did you have a recommendation? I didn't know anything.

Can you just leave that blank?

Yeah. But the names on the... J.W. Buzz Pullen is the one that currently holds it. Right? So he's been on it. How long are these terms? One year? Two years? Oh, wait. Six years. Yeah. And this is TMF. That's the risk factor.

So in place two, you don't know any of those people?

That's place three. That's place three, yeah.

Place one was Kevin Clark from Gladewater.

The fallen man that's already there.

MacLennan Central Appraisal District, and Cary Neal, Seagoville. Seagoville?

Yeah. I actually know where that's at. That's near Mesquite, so not near any Seagulls.

I'll just put that man in there that's been there.

She's fine again.

Is everybody okay with that?

And he's a really good guy.

OK, let's go with him.

Let's go.

All right. So we've got Justin. All right.

Oh, I made a new option. Nominate all of us. Nice second.

Mr. Olson, that all of those people are nominated. Our place is 134 for TML Intergovernmental List Board of Trustees. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. The motion carries, and we'll put all of their names through. All right. Executive session, closed session number 21. City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code in accordance with the authority contained in A, Section 551-071. Consultation with the attorney. Litigation. It is 7 p.m. on the dot, and we will head into executive session.

Okay. It is 7.27, we are back into open session. Any new action?

Closing agenda, item number 23, council inquiry.

I have a question.

I received a call today from Napa that they've been trying to get a permit or do something with the city for a year, and we're not helping.

Napa.

Was that the expansion permit? Yeah, they have to build a big wall over there because they're building kind of over in the drainage, but I've

I know they have that well that they were proposing in the floodplain area. I believe the engineers are.

They're talking to the county.

Do they mention what kind of permits?

I had a call from Sarah and her friends, and he said, hey, what's the holdup there? Y'all are sitting on permits for a year. I'm like, we haven't even talked about that.

I don't know that they've applied for any permits, yeah.

development agreement, I said that wrong. But application and all of that and the engineers looked at all that and qualified that.

So they just have to come back and apply for the permit. There's some miscommunication somewhere.

I think so. I don't know what's holding them up. We just figured they... Is there someone that I can call?

Yes, I got your phone number. Yeah, thank you. Okay.

It's on the white. Do you have anything to say? Do you want to call them on this necklace? I just wanted to know. I was like, we haven't talked about them. I don't remember anything about them.

All righty. Nothing else? Then we'll go to item 24, which is items to consider for placement on future agendas. We'll go to item 25.

A future agenda. We have a meeting on Monday. Correct? Yes. Correct. Did you send me a Zoom link?

I have it established. I created it. I just need to get it to you now. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I make a motion to adjourn.

Motion by Mr. Olson to adjourn.