City Council - Regular Meeting

good afternoon everyone it is now five o'clock and i call city council meeting to order let the record show that all council members are present the invocation will be given by pastor adams and the pledge of leasing by council member brown

Father, we're so grateful that we're a republic. Thank you that you made government. And we thank you that you said occupy until you come. Father, we thank you that we are citizens that get to vote. And we thank you tonight that we're demonstrating by our leadership that we have voted in, making decisions from the knowledge they received from this meeting. In Jesus' name we pray for wisdom to make those decisions. Amen.

Council, I need a motion to approve the agenda. Okay, this is not working. I need someone to make a motion. Council Member Brown?

I move to approve the agenda, removing the following items from consent. Number two, RS-26-115. Sorry, one second. The other one is actually not even on consent, so just that one.

That's it, number two. Is there a second?

What was the motion again?

Could you repeat the motion, please?

Move to approve the agenda removing item number 2, RS26115 from consent. So that, sorry.

Is there a second?

So that means we will have that.

I need a second before we. Sorry. Will that be a second? May I probe Tim's seconded discussion?

So that means the only presentation we will have, if I understand correctly, is RS26115, the Youth Advisory Commission.

Correct. Up until we get into the resolution starting at number eight.

And we will have all the presentations in the resolution. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mayor.

Any more discussion? If there's no further discussions, all in favor signify by saying yes. All opposed, no. Did everyone vote? Motion carries six to one. Madam Secretary, presentations.

Yes, sir. Presentation number one, PR-26-017, Employment Engagement Survey results.

Good afternoon, Ms. McDaniel.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Bringing for you this afternoon the results of our employee engagement survey. This is a survey that previously we had completed every three years. Moving forward, we will complete it every other year. And we will complete it on years opposite of when the communications department does their engagement survey for the citizens. So a little background. In 2019, the city partnered with UT Austin to conduct a survey for employee engagement. The intent of the survey was to track employee satisfaction across multiple areas of function and to gauge culture across the organization. The city conducted this identical survey in 2022 and then again in 2021. 26 to allow for trend data across identical function areas. When I say that, I mean identical survey. The exact same questions were asked so that we could make sure that we were gauging metrics across the board. This survey consists of 68 different questions across 12 different constructs as listed on the screen. So workgroups, strategic supervision, workplace, community, information systems, internal communications, pay and benefits, employee development, job satisfaction, and engagement. When we talk about these results, I just kind of wanted to give some provisos and things to keep in mind. With regards to the response rate, UT Austin considers as a general rule rates higher than 50% suggest soundness, meaning we've pulled and gotten responses from enough people that the data can be used and acted upon, while rates lower than 30% may indicate problem areas. Also, scores of 350 or above are considered desirable, meaning we scored well in those areas. When scores dip below 300, you might look at those as cause of concern. Anything 400 above is a product of a highly engaged workforce. Okay, so to show you some of this trend data, the response rates and then the overall score. So our response rate has stayed fairly consistent within two percentage points of our population responding. to, I should say, our employee population responding to the survey. But the trend I really want to point out here is that our overall score has increased every year that we've conducted the survey. So we started at 342, which is just below that 350 desirable amount, and we are now at 381, which is above the desirable amount. So those are all good things. And again, it shows that our employees are consistently responding.

Okay, this is a crazy slide and I understand that.

I know that you guys got the survey results in there and tired yesterday. So you can see this is one slide to show a lot of data. And what this shows is the 12 different constructs and how year over year we've performed in those. The biggest thing I want to point out without going over them individually is each year our scores have increased, which is again a really good thing. We've definitely as a city taken that data since 2019 and year over year used it to make improvements in the workplace amongst these various constructs. And so I think this is all very positively trending data. Results and trends continued, so the climate scores. Now, these are places, as you will see, our scores go down, and that's purposeful. We want them to go down, because if you read these different areas, it's kind of on more negative topics. So, for example, the percentage of people that believe this information will go unused has trended down, so there's fewer people that think as a city we won't use this data when they respond to us. So as you go across that, this slide, all of these areas are areas that we want those numbers to trend down. That's a positive trend when these specific groups of numbers trend down. Some of the actions that the city has taken as a result of these surveys results, we've instituted city manager talks, or I should say Mr. Cagle instituted city manager talks where he would go out and talk with specific employee groups without supervisors present, get their feedback on the city as a whole, on their work areas as a whole, and then take that feedback back to the department head and say, hey, these things you're doing really good. Maybe these things you need to work on. That's had huge improvement. He's done those for the last several years. IT has come on board as it was one of the constructs and taken an inclusive approach to solutions. And as somebody that's been here almost 17 years, our IT department has moved leaps and bounds specifically in the last five years. I believe as a result of some of these surveys. Multimedia approaches to communication, so making sure our messages are clear, understood, communicating those across multiple approaches. We've instituted our Supervisors Academy and we restructured it in 2026 based on feedback even from that academy. We've also done things with regards to employee pay and benefits, made them a priority. You all have made them a priority in budget. COLAs continue to be included in the budgets, and also we've started bringing in some new wellness programming in 2026 to increase the ease of use and access to our wellness programming to our employee group, again, also contributing to what we hope is more clear and accessible communication. So in summary, again, it's a lot of data, but in summary, employee engagement and satisfaction continues to improve across all surveyed constructs, and the city is committed to continuing to survey, to making sure that we are paying attention to employee concerns in specific areas and increasing the employee satisfaction rating across the employee experience. So with that being said, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Well, thank you for that great report, Counsel. Any questions, comments? Council Member Bass.

Thank you. When I attended the University of Tulsa, we were allowed to provide input on our professors, which was good. And toward the end of my Army career, Army leadership, amazingly started paying close attention to what soldiers thought about their leaders and taking that into consideration when we officers were raided. So I'm familiar with these surveys. I think these are great results. And what I take from this is we have an excellent city manager. We have excellent department heads. And we have excellent division leaders, which is what I'm seeing when I go around to my new council member department briefs. So thank you. I think this is really good survey results.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When I looked at the brief over the last couple of days, one of the things that kind of stood out was the the benefits. So when we look at benefits for the last four or five years, there's improvement, but it started out low and it's increasing. What has been done for employee benefits, particularly on the medical side, when it comes to medical benefits? Has the benefits stayed the same? Are they increasing in their medical plans? Why did it start out low? And it is increasing, but there had to be something that happened to have concern five, six years ago to where they're at now.

Certainly, I think there's a number of things that we can look at with regards to that. We have changed benefit providers. We moved from United Healthcare to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I do think that that has had a positive impact on the employee group. Also, you know, we moved to self-funding, which has allowed us to control costs to the employee. In fact, if you look at the trend, and I think Mr. Cagle's provided it a couple of times, the trend on the employee premium is nearly flat for the last five years. I think that's really positive. Also, what we've been able to do is really increase the employee education on how to make their benefits work for them. The industry isn't designed to save them money, right? So we do our best to educate them in a way that makes that dollar stretch as far as it can because we understand that medical expenses are always expensive. They're never small. And so really leveraging the wellness programming tools that are available to them at no or low costs. Also, when we transition to Blue Cross Blue Shield, they have a bunch of programming that focuses on high-risk groups. with regards to like hypertension and diabetes and things like that. And they're able to supply folks with like insulin and things that are reduced cost. So I think that those have been huge. For 2026, we're implementing even more with regards to ease of communication and access of that programming and really targeting those folks that need the extra assistance. And we will also be, just to make sure that we are staying competitive, we will be bidding in the spring for medical benefits for the next fiscal year as well.

As a quick follow-up, has the cost of the premiums kept up with the COLA that everyone's getting?

Oh, it's been far, like, the increase in premium has been nearly flat. So we've been, the city manager's been very cognizant of measuring that if an increase is considered. what it will do with regards to the COLA. But even this year, our medical plans went up $5 a month. A 3% COLA way outpaces And this is one of the first increases, I believe, in the last four years that we've had to employee premiums.

Just being an employee that sometimes everyone's medical situation is different. Correct. And then when everyone's talking, they're playing versus someone else's plan. But I think overall, I think you just laid out excellent points that when you look at the employee benefit plan, I mean, it's a great plan. I mean, nothing's for free, but I think when we look at it, I think the city's done an excellent job of keeping those costs low, going self-funded and being intentional to keep the premiums low. So thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Brown.

That's a lot of information. Yes, ma'am. And I'm going to be honest, I did not get a chance to look through everything. I imagine not. In the last 24 hours. So I do notice that as I go through each of the departments, everything is broken down by department and then by division within those departments.

Correct.

Which is, just so everybody knows, that's a lot of information for council members to look through in a short amount of time. In going through them, clearly some departments are more satisfied than others. Which department, after going through all of it, do you see where we can make the biggest impact in employee satisfaction, where maybe it's lower than the rest of the departments or divisions?

To be honest with you, I look at more the constructs themselves versus the individual department and hit it across the whole. So when we're looking at education or conversations with leaders, we're looking at a specific construct that we feel needs help. And we hit that across the board versus just one individually. And I don't want to lie to you and say that I've memorized how each department fell individually. in their scores but when we look at that and we're talking about conversations we're looking at the whole and making sure that everybody's getting the same message but when you look at those things most of them were scoring near that So I don't believe anybody was lagging behind incredibly for others. But again, we focus more on which construct is struggling. And primarily, honestly, the ones that are more of the negative connotation attached to them, those are the ones we really want to focus on and drive those numbers down. Okay.

I understand that from your perspective at an EHR, you have to look at everybody and everything. So the one I have, I don't want to single any department out in public, but I'll tell you the one that I'm looking at right now, every category. on the page that talks about their construct scores compared to the whole organization. Every category is lower. And so I would like to see what we can do in those individual departments or divisions to try to increase their satisfaction with the city there. Because what was going to work for one department may not necessarily be what another department needs or is looking for.

Certainly, and then just to circle back to that too, that's where those city manager talks really came into play because he was going out and meeting actually divisionally, not just at the department. So more one-on-one data there, and so absolutely we can look at that, and if we need to circle back to some areas, we absolutely can.

Thank you.

Council Member Bass. Yes.

Mayor, this is a question for the attorney, if I may. You may. City attorney, is the speaking two times for two minutes rule in effect now?

Yes.

Thank you. That's a reminder for myself.

We ask that the secretary will reflect that on the time. I think we still have the three minutes, but we need to reflect it as two minutes. Thank you. Any other questions? Did a great job, ma'am. Thank you so much. okay madam secretary uh just uh again reminder council we do we are now into the two minutes uh two times each um as it refers to our governing standards it's our new governing standards so keep in mind as you are speaking madam secretary the first item please okay

Work session, resolutions, item 8, RS-26-120. Consider a memorandum resolution setting the preliminary property tax rate for the fiscal year 2027 annual budget and setting the date to hold a public hearing.

And then let me say this, Mr. Cagle. Also, we are in our work session now. No final action until regular session.

Yes, sir. And I think you pulled number two, so I think we need to do that first. Instead of start with number eight, we need to start with number two.

Number two. Okay, Madam Secretary, we will, could you read number two please, RS 26115?

Yes, sir.

You're correct. Thank you, Mr. Cagle. Yes, sir.

Item number two from consent, RS-26-115, consider a memorandum resolution approving revisions to the bylaws for the Youth Advisory Commission.

Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, distinguished members of council. It is my pleasure to stand before you today and present the proposed revisions to the Youth Advisory Commission. But I want to also present and have the newest members of our Youth Advisory Commission come up, as well as the advisor, Ms. Alicia Maldonado, in a show of presence. And to, again, elicit the confidence and support that these young people are definitely moving in the right direction for the city of Killeen. Bear with us, I'll allow them to introduce themselves, but these are all of our newest members, too. Please step up and introduce yourself to the council one by one.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Emiliano Quintero. I'm an upcoming senior, and I'm just grateful to be here and excited.

It's good to have you, sir. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Raina Cumbie. I'm so grateful to be here, and I can't wait to take part in the program. Thank you.

Thank you for your service.

Hello, everyone. My name is Gazelle, and I'm an upcoming ninth grader, and I'm here to thank everyone for their time. Thank you.

Thank you for your service.

Hello.

My name is Annalisa Mwako. I am an upcoming senior, and I'm very passionate about volunteering and helping people, so thank you for allowing me to be here.

And thank you for your service, ma'am.

Good afternoon. My name is Juliana Lewis. I'm an upcoming junior, and one thing that I've always been passionate about is trying to get groups of youth together, and I'm so grateful for this opportunity.

Thank you for your service.

Good afternoon. My name is Osvaldo Camacho Burgos, and I'm very happy to be here.

And we are happy to have you. Thank you.

Hi, everybody. I'm Alacia Maldonado. I'm the liaison for YC and Junior YC. I thank you for your time today. And this is my new group. I have 15 interviews and 13 that apply and got that position.

Well, you all deserve a round of applause. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

As you can see, the future of the YAC is in good hands, as well as the future of Killeen with our up and coming leaders. Just a little background. The Youth Advisory Commission was created in 1993 to serve as a liaison to the Killeen City Council. On March 19th, 2026, the Youth Advisory Commission passed a motion to revise their outdated bylaws. This mission remains the same. The format, language, and descriptions were altered. 12 sections were removed and 10 articles were added, including sections that describe each article in detail. Under Article 2 membership, 10 sections were added. The following changes were made. To reduce the number of commissioners from 37 to 15, applications would no longer be accepted through KISD, the city council, or commission. Instead, applications will be submitted through the City of Killeen's website. Commissioners may now, by motion, issue a mid-year call for new commissioners in January of the election to fill any vacancies with a required threshold of three applications. Under Article IV, meetings, the following seven sections were added and explained in detail. A quorum. A quorum is the majority of the commissions then in office required for the board to conduct business. Without it, commissions may only review matters and take no action. The call to order. Commission meetings are called to order by the president or if absent, by the vice president. If both are absent, then the meetings will be called to order by the secretary who has temporary presiding powers. Conduct a meeting. Commissioners' meetings will be conducted in accordance with the bylaws of the YAC governing standards and the City of Killeen governing standards and expectations. Voting. Each commissioner votes on all agenda items except where there's a conflict of interest, in which case they disclose and abstain from the discussion and voting. And approval requires a majority of commissioners present unless law provides otherwise. Minutes. Minutes are required for all open commission meetings, and the staff liaison with the secretary maintains the commission's record and documents. Attendance. Commissioners must attend, prepare to discuss agenda items, and notify the president or staff liaison if they can. Any excessive absenteeism, missing three or more consecutive meetings over 25% in a 12-month period may lead to removal and a vacancy filled by appointment. Open meetings. Board meetings must be given public notice and be open to the public, with all deliberations conducted under the Texas Open Meetings Act. Under Article 6 subcommittees, the following four sections were added and explained in detail. Formation. The commission may form project-specific subcommittees by majority vote, made up of commissioners, resource members, and junior youth advisory committee members, as the commission determines. Expenditures and obligations. No subcommittee or member of a subcommittee has the authority to expend funds or incur obligations on behalf of the city or the commission. Assignment of commissioners. Each subcommittee shall have at least one assigned commissioner. Commissioners may be assigned to multiple subcommittees. Dissolution of subcommittees. Subcommittees may be dissolved by commission motion once their purpose is met or by commission with a two-thirds vote if deemed unproductive. Under Article 7, bylaws and amendments, the following three sections were added and explained in detail. Authorization. The commission is authorized to amend its bylaws, rules, and procedures for conduct of its authorized activities subject to the approval of city council. Process. Written amendment recommendations must be submitted by any commission at least 14 days before YAC meetings. Then approved by two-thirds commission majority and a simple majority of all commissions present for the council recommendations. By-law review, at least once every three years, the commission appoints a by-law review subcommittee for all board offices and at least five resource members to peer review the by-laws over at least the last two consecutive meetings. And it cannot be dissolved unless it reports its findings to the commission. Under Article 8 of facilities and personal use, this article is added to require the city's manager's approval for the use of city facilities and city personnel. Just a little bit more background. These changes follow the City Council's governing standards, sections 3-20, which prohibit a board from amending its bylaws in ways that limits the City Council or that creates requirements for the City Council or staff. Staff recommends approving these revisions for the Youth Advisory Commission bylaws, and we will field any questions.

Council Member Bass.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to thank Ms. Maldonado for inviting me to participate in the interview process for new YAC members last Saturday. I can say that the young people who interviewed, standing here before us, are very impressive, very impressive. These young people are an example to their peers and to all of us in our community. They are true leaders. They are active in their churches, in their school governments, in the Future Farmers of America, in sports, in community events. They excel academically, and they are well-spoken and competent. These young people are the future of Killeen and of Texas, and it was an honor to spend a day with them. Their parents and families can be very proud. Thank you.

Councilmember Brown.

All right, to our commissioners. You have accomplished a huge undertaking. I was assisting kind of as an independent volunteer with YAC four years ago when they initially started trying to work on this process. You have accomplished something that hasn't been done in 22 years, which is updating the bylaws successfully as a group. That takes an immense amount of cooperation. A lot of being able to communicate with each other and a lot of compromise. This council went through numerous hours just trying to do our governing standards that we do each year. So I wanted to take the time to congratulate you. You've made some very important changes. You've made it very comprehensive. You've done a very good job. And for our newest members, I know that you are going to carry on in that same fashion and make the city your parents' New York School is all very proud of you, so thank you very much for your hard work.

Anyone else? Okay. Well, listen, thank you so much, Mr. Murphy, and thank you for all what y'all do.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, Madam Secretary, we can continue the resolution going back to number eight.

Back to work session. Resolutions, item number eight, RS-26-120. Consider a memorandum resolution setting the preliminary property tax rate for the fiscal year 2027, annual budget, and setting the tax rate to hold a public hearing. Setting the date to hold a public hearing.

Good evening, Mr. Cagle.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. And if you also notice on your agenda, since we've always been putting the budget, it's number 17. This may, I don't know, it's up to you. You may not need 17 when we get there. We may have talked it out on this one, but we shall see. Once again, to let you know where we are in the calendar, this started back February of 23rd, and we're at August 4th. And tonight, the action that you have to take is to set a preliminary tax rate for 2027 and set the date to hold a public hearing. If you remember, the rate that you set tonight is a maximum rate. You can go below it, but you can't go over it without restarting a process. And if we're not careful, we could run out of time in September if we wait too late. If you change your mind and wanted to go over whatever rate you set tonight. So I would say just keep that in mind as tonight You're setting a maximum rate, but it is the rate that's going to be advertised and published. So we have solid data now. The last time we met, we didn't. And we did some quick calculations here on some still data that wasn't correct. And so all the information that we had at the last meeting was not. But these numbers are now solid. We have a certified role that's final. And honestly, that role changes every day during the year, but it's frozen for our purposes now. Our current rate is .7014, so 70 cents per $100 of value. The no new revenue rate, which is the rate that's supposed to generate on the same property as the same amount of revenue that it did the previous year, that's slightly higher at .7048. Now, we proposed a budget based on a tax roll that changed pretty significantly, and that was .7215. And the voter approval rate, which is .7302, if you go over the voter approval rate, there would be an election. And if the election passes, it would be whatever rate you set. And if it didn't pass, then it would go back to the voter approval rate. So really the only reason you'd ever want to go over the voter approval rate if it was something significant. You wouldn't want just... It wouldn't make sense to have an election over a very small number. What I'm recommending to you tonight is 0.7301. And the reason I do that is I don't ever want there to be any confusion about whether we're over a voter approval rate. I know 73.02 is equal, but you never know what some folks might say. And I'll explain the recommendation in the next slides. So remember last time we talked about tiers of budget cuts. And so if we keep the current rate, the 0.7014, we will need to cut 3.1 million from the budget. If we go to the no new revenue rate, we'll need to cut 2.7 million. And then an alternate rate was proposed at the last meeting, a 0.7132. We would need to cut 1.9 million. You can forget the budgeted rate. On the preliminary tax roll, that doesn't mean anything anymore. And then the budgeted rate on the certified tax roll would require a reduction of $1.1 million. And then the recommended preliminary rate of $0.7301 requires a cut of $348,000. And this would be the first tier of recommended cuts. The two positions here, these are vacant, and it would be the traffic engineer. And as we've all heard, the Sleater Group has offered to work this year for $1, so I put that in there. We don't expect Rosa Herford to be open. Well, it's hard to say, but it certainly won't be open October 1. There was a custodian there. And then other operating budget reductions in the engineering department. to get to just a little bit of $362,000, which is a little bit over what we needed of $348,000. And then the next tier, a budgeted rate of 0.7215, we would add four more positions. So the first line here, that comes from the previous slide, and then we would add two equipment operators out of the streets department, the operations that we had budgeted for Rosa Hereford, emergency management senior specialist, that's a vacant position as well, and a parks ground maintenance worker that's vacant as well. And you add up the first slide and the second slide and we get to the 1.1 million. And these are, excuse me, let me go back just a second. think this is a little bit out of order. Yeah, let me go to the third tier, and then I'll go back to those slides. So to get to the alternate rate, the proposed rate of 0.7132, we need to cut 1.9 million. So the first two scenarios, you add up got us to 1.17 million and six vacant positions. And then we're gonna have to add nine more vacant positions, the assistant city manager to police officers, code enforcement officer, staff accountant, police communication specialist, secretary in the library, municipal court clerk, and an animal care specialist. And you put those positions in and you get to 1.9 million. And then let me, I'll go back to these slides. These were, we went through all the departments as requested. All the department heads got together. We worked on operating budget cuts and these were the reductions from parks and rec it's a it's a variety of reductions to every department you can see in parks and rec the biggest one part was rosa herford but there's another a number of other smaller cuts in the police uh the main reduction there was from only having one academy next year it flows through a number of line items there's a few other cuts but that was the main one Obviously we went through the lobby services contract and then in development services, the reduction in the historic district facade grants and third party inspections and building inspection, downtown developer workshop and some place making improvements. engineering tech services, traffic study, some training and travel, fire, tools, equipment, paramedic school physicals for CTC, some radio replacement, general supplies, the finance department, some contracts or sales tax consulting agreement, small amount of furniture, community development, once again, supplies, human resources, employee appreciation and recognition activities, leadership education speakers, some new employee onboarding supplies and general supplies, communications and marketing, The Clean Citizens Academy, United Way campaign. It's not total on United Way, but some of it. Print shop operations, which we've already been reducing. Advertising and promotion, a number of other cuts. Smaller cuts in municipal court. Legal, legal's almost all personnel anyway. Same thing with city manager and public works. So back to this slide. So there's the three scenarios. 1, 2, and 3, it gets us, I'll go back to the start, and it gets us to these scenarios, the cuts we needed to make to get to 7301, the cuts we needed to get to .7215, and .7132. If we want to go back to one of the first two rates, then we're going to have to go back and offer up and work on some more cuts. Then I will go back. I just want to do this to give you an example of things we do every year. We're doing this year round. It was mentioned last time that the communication had gone from two or three to eight. Well, that's not exactly true. We went back 10 years. If you go back 20 or 30 years, yeah, it was two. If you go back 20 or 30 years, we had a couple hundred less people in the police department, too. The town was a lot smaller. We're at the same level of staffing. Now, it's rearranged, but we're at the same level of staffing that we were in 2018 of seven positions. What we are doing is working on phasing out internal the print shop. We have a lot of expensive equipment that we'll no longer have to replace. We've already eliminated one position, and we'll – Trying to see how this is working out now that we've cut it in half and reduced some expensive equipment to see where we go there. But the idea is a lot of this has been contracted out. We're doing a lot less print. Everybody does a lot less print. There's less need. So this was something that was already in the budget. Once again, just to remember, when we're reducing the budget, then we're all talking about the general fund budget here. you quickly have to get to people because 75% of the budget is people. Um, and just to remind everybody public safety, which is mostly people, uh, 64% of the budget property taxes only pay for 45% of the budget. So the property taxes that people pay don't even cover the cost of police, police and fire. Um, This just goes through all the reductions that were made. Then this is a slide we didn't have the correct data in front of us when the question was asked at the last meeting. So the median homestead value went up by $237. That's the value of the median homestead, and that has the homestead exemption on it in the city of Killeen. So if the tax rate goes from 0.7014 to 0.7301, that's an increase of 0.0287, which based on that median value would be an increase of $68.48 annually, or a monthly cost of $5.71. And just to put it in a little perspective, a couple of slides here. Current tax rates. These are our for the folks that are new here tonight. We compare ourselves to some similar sized cities and our neighbors that may not be similar size, but you can see our tax rate. We've put it on here twice. The the existing and the proposed And we're on the high side. But you also have to understand that the tax rate is only half the equation. The other half is property value. And you can see this slide is flipped. So the folks that were on the bottom, generally, of the other slide are on the top of this one. You take the taxable value per capita to give you a good comparison. And obviously, we're towards the bottom on this slide. And once again, we're using here, we're showing our current and proposed. We can't tell you at this time what other cities are proposing. Some of the folks on this may not change, and some most certainly will go up. Um, so once again, what we, the only thing that you have to do today is set some maximum tax rate and you don't have to call it maximum. If it's the rate you think you want to adopt, you can, you can, whatever rate that is, that's the rate you can vote on tonight, but you have to make some vote tonight on some tax rate and then set the date of the tax rate public hearing. And then that would be September 1st, 2026, right here, 5 o'clock. And then on September 1st is when you would adopt the final tax rate. And we just went over these numbers. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Cagle. Council Member Bass.

Mr. Cagle, please correct me. Yes, sir. If... I go outside the boundaries of the different choices you have given us tonight. I have stated that I will not vote in favor of a property tax increase because of elevated inflation and the current expense of groceries, fuel, and health care. Of the residents who have spoken to me, half are urging me to vote yes on a property tax increase because of city services and employee positions they do not want cut, and half of the people who are who have spoken to me are urging me to hang tough and do not vote to raise their already expensive property taxes. Therefore, I am in favor of submitting the property tax proposal to the voters. Let our voters decide. If they vote yes, budget problem mostly solved. If they vote no, then we're back to a no new revenue rate, which I favor in the first place. Thank you.

VICE CHAIRMAN MILLER- Council Member Brown.

MS. Mr. Cagle, didn't you say if it fails at the ballot, then it goes to the voter approval rate?

Well, that's if you're proposing a rate that's over the voter approval rate. We're not proposing that. I think what Mr. Bass is proposing is something a little unique. It's just a vote on whatever tax rate you come up with. I haven't heard anyone saying they wanted to go over the voter approval rate. So it would be some sort of, we'd be breaking new ground there. It would be some sort of voluntary election that we would have to call in November. And you remember our budget starts October 1st. Now, obviously that same scenario happens if you propose over the voter approval rate. And then you get to November. and it goes back, you've got to be prepared that that's the tax rate and cuts have to be made, and it complicates sending out the tax notices as well.

Okay. So I will say that I am in favor of the – What I'm going to call the compromise rate, which is the 71-32. I think that is fair enough that we're not having to cut excessive amounts of staff or programs or items, but also it's not getting up to just below that voter approval rate.

I was getting on the right slide to put it in context.

I'm patient. Yes, ma'am. But in doing that, I would like to put it on the record things that I would like to see changed in the proposal. So I'm opposed to cutting any senior center programming or events. We just implemented a brand new fee that was supposed to be all-inclusive for the senior centers. It would be counterproductive for us to say we're charging this. It's going to be all-inclusive. and then turning around and saying, but we're also going to cut out some of the programming, which was the whole reason for us putting that fee in place in the first place. Also, I am 100% opposed to cutting equipment and uniforms for public safety. The reason we replace those is those are essential to their performance and their jobs and for the safety of not only those employees, but the public as well. I am also opposed to cutting out the employee recognition program. that I don't think that it is worth it for the employees to save that small amount of money overall in the budget when you look at it as a whole. I would still look at cutting back on some of the events that the city pays for. While we got the email today that what development services actually pays for it. There's a lot of overtime included, and that's who the other departments are having to absorb and eat that are also coming out of our general fund. So I would look into those, and I know it beeps, but Mayor, I would also ask before you move on to the next person, if I could make a motion to suspend the rule on the only two times while we discuss the budget and the tax rate.

Is there a second? Council Member Bass? No, not a second.

Okay.

Council Member, may I approach him? I can second that, sir. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying yes. All opposed, no. The motion fails, 43. Okay. Council Member Bass.

Mr. Cagle, what is the lowest tax rate that triggers a voter approval election? That would be 73.03. Can we see that slide again?

Yes, sir. This is probably the most helpful slide, I think. Well, this one.

Here's your voter approval rate. So you are recommending 0.7301. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And so if we move it up slightly to set – 0.7303, that would trigger an election. Yes, sir. That is what I am proposing. 0.7303. And we give it to the voters. And we let the voters decide. And we can all present our cases to the voters. Say, look, if you vote no on this, These are the cuts, and you have to live with it for services and employees. And if you vote yes, then it's a very small number of cuts. So I say let the voters decide. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez.

Mr. Cagle, you have done a tremendous job here of getting us these variable options. Thank you very much for what you did, because I know I can't speak for the council, but myself, it's been a lot of talking to our constituents and kind of going back and forth. Now, your recommended preliminary rate of 0.7301 is less than the voter approval rate point seven three zero three is that correct zero seven three zero two we have to go over that though to yes and then we have to go over that yes ma'am to trigger an election so at the seven three zero one the recommended rate what I'm looking at here is it's you know we had millions of dollars we went from a three million dollar shortfall at the different rates to now three hundred and forty eight thousand dollar shortfall at the recommended rate that's tremendous with this rate that means that we're not having to cut people and obviously based on what I'm seeing here not a lot of services even is that correct sir that is correct these are these are vacant positions and I did just want to state that, and thank you very much for doing that, because that was an area that was a pain point for us. I am strictly opposed to any cuts to IT as well, so I just want, again, for the council to go on the records. I'm not sure that we'll agree on these numbers, but I want to tell you I appreciate what you've done here, so without having us just happen to our employees and minimizing our cuts even to our services for our community. Thank you.

Council Member Kendricks.

Mr. Cagle, is the preliminary rate lower than the highest rate the city has had for a tax?

Yes, sir. I believe the highest rate was 70, very close, 74.5, I think, 74.4-something, I believe is the highest rate. folks are going to look and make sure.

I actually think you are correct. OK. And with saying that, the reason why I say this is the option number one is, I think, the better option. And I can see where Councilmember Bass is conflicted between the half and half. But I don't think it would benefit

majority of the the city for a vote because if we vote then it goes back down and i think we would be at option number two or three am i correct well no sir under mr bass's scenario there would be a very minuscule change if the vote was no we'd go back to well let me get a better slide So under Mr. Bass's scenario, he would say go to the voters with .7303. If it failed, it would go back to .7302.

So in essence, I'm not trying to be funny. Sure. In essence, it makes no sense to send it to a vote.

We'd be having an election over a tenth of a penny.

Thank you. Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cagle, I want to say good work to you and the staff. I know when we didn't have complete numbers last meeting, we were looking at, I think it was like 2.1 million now. That same rate is around 348,000, so... I just need some clarification for the operating budget reductions that you have listed. Yes, sir. Is it still common practice that for mid-year adjustments that if for some reason as we look through the budget and if we do have potential savings in some categories or per department, that for example, if we wanted to put the employee appreciation recognition back in based on mid-year adjustments, if things happen throughout the year that the departments, or the city or the departments can make adjustments to make some of these things happen.

Yes. Now, we're talking about, so this is next year's budget that starts in October 1. But you're correct. If they could find money elsewhere in their budget, it's possible. that they could fund some of it.

And even for the police department, depending on if they're going to run an academy or not, the number of people in the academy, you may have a surplus when it comes to equipment or uniforms that the department, individual department, can make adjustments mid-year if they need something. And then if there is a true need, we can come back and have some type of supplemental funds if there's a true need. I just want to make sure that You know, we say public safety, and if they need something, we're going to give it to them. This is for budgeting purposes, and that if there's a true need, we let the department head adjust as according, and then if that department needs something that is crucial, then we make sure that they have it. Am I speaking correctly? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

And also, when I'm reviewing the budget for the 27 budget, we look at where we are, on the same budget for mid-year for the current year. So it gets reviewed again halfway through the year and we make changes to that budget as well. Thank you.

Council Member Brown?

Okay, so being that this is my second time, I'd like to start off, make a motion and then resume the floor if I could, sir. So I want to break this in half. We have two motions that have to be made on this. So the first one is really easy, I think, for us all to agree on. And that is I move to set a public hearing on the tax rate for September 1st at 5 p.m. at City Hall.

There's been...

Mayor, we're in work sessions, so I would recommend holding any motions until the break of the session.

Thank you. I forgot where we're at. Apparently, you did too, so we're good. I am going to say that with all things being said, this might not be the highest tax rate that we essentially are going to set, but it would be the highest tax levy that we have set. So even though the rate is lower than the max it's ever been, the property values are higher than they were when we had the higher rates. Also, I highly disagree with going 1 100th of a cent below the voter approval rate. That is essentially maxing out what we legally can and still having no voter input. And that would be for the second consecutive year. So again, I will say that I am supportive of the 71.32 cent tax rate. And taking the next couple weeks, we still have at least one more meeting before that public hearing and before the proposed vote to fine tune what cuts would and would not be made. So I cannot support essentially maxing out the rate that we set.

Okay. Any other discussion? Council Member Nasky?

Thank you. So, Mr. Cagle, my question is, and I thank the council for giving their input, but we do know we have to do something. And what you recommended to the council is for the good of saving positions, really $348,051. 384.51. And what Council Member Bass recommend, which it could go either way, let's hear from the voters. My question to you, for the good of this city, because even if it goes to the budget, to the voters, we still got to make some changes. It doesn't change our expenditures. It's something still will have to happen. So would you please, and I know you have, we know, But when you came up with this recommendation for the good of the city, it was based on what I'm just assuming. It was based on how we can balance everything, meet all the needs of the council, and also function as a whole. Is that kind of in the ballpark?

Sure, and look in long term, not just in one single year. Sustainability. You can balance this budget a million ways if at the end of the year everything's over and we don't have a city anymore. But there will be another October 1 and another October 1 and another October 1.

Thank you, sir, and thank council for the input. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Williams. Yes, hello there, Mr. Cagle. I appreciate the hard work that you put in this as well, and I'll be voting for the second one, for 7301, as discussed earlier. And I appreciate all the hard time that you put in this here. Last week we didn't have a decision made, and I know it's been a lot and it's pretty heavy. So I just want to thank you for what you have done already, and I appreciate what you have done. Thank you so much, but I'll be voting for number two as well.

And thank you, Mr. Cagle, because I just believe that we are, you know, council have a lot of decisions to make hard decisions, but sometimes we have to make hard, tough decisions. We have to make tough. That's what they voted us to do. And let me ask you this, Mr. Cagle. When we talk about voters approval rate, would you explain that for the citizens when you say?

Yes, sir. And let me go to the. Better slide, yeah, because this one says voter approval rate. If the council adopts a rate that is greater than the voter approval rate, it will trigger an automatic election in November. And if it's successful, then whatever rate the council approved would be adopted. If it's not successful, then it would drop back down to the 0.7302.

And so when we say voters' approval rate, this is what has already been approved?

No, that's just a term that's in the state legislation. There's a very complicated formula. That's, I think, more complicated than even the IRS could construct, that you put last year's all the tax base information in and then the new tax base information in, and it kicks out the no new revenue rate and the voter approval rate. And it's called voter approval rate because if you go over it, it requires voter approval in an election.

Yes. And with the 73.7301, which you're recommending.

Yes, sir.

You're saying it's $5 in terms of a month.

A month. Yes, sir. And I will go to that slide very quickly. That is, we're showing the median homestead value in the city of Killeen. And the current rate my proposed rate and what that levy would be. And then the difference. That's the annual difference and then divided by 12. And I agree with Ms. Brown about the tax rate. This would be the highest levy. which when our tax rate was .7498 back in 2020, but a dollar's worth a lot less now than it was then, and we have quite a few more people living in town as well. I mean, there's a lot of factors involved. I don't think there's a – there's no simple solution or answer.

Yes, sir. No, it's not. Okay. Council Member Nash-King?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Once again, thank you, Mr. Cagle. But for clarity, and I may say this wrong, but for clarity, the 0.7048 that Council Member Bass proposed, could you explain how... If the voters say no... If it fails with the voters, will it go back to the no new revenue vote?

Yes, ma'am. So I wrote it up here. That was Mr. Bass's proposal was 7303. If it's approved, that would be the rate. If the voters reject it, this would be the rate. So essentially, you'd be presenting a rate to the voters.

We can't see the marking on there.

Oh, they're there, and they're there.

OK, I'm sorry. So 0.7303 would be Mr. Bass's proposal.

No, it's 0.7048.

Oh, OK. So that's misunderstood. So he's saying this is his proposal? Well, then that does not require an automatic election.

It would have to be over that.

No, ma'am. It has to be over that.

I see what he's saying.

It has to be over the 7302 to trigger an automatic election.

Can I clarify this, Mayor? No, sir. I'm sorry.

Thank you, because I was just helping the council member out. Thank you.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for the clarification, because I was a tad bit confused. So if for some, and I am not speaking in, in favor of going above the voter approval rate, I think we should be at the rate that you proposed at 7301. if we decided to have an election, maybe this is a clear, if we decided to have an election, we still have to figure out what that rate is because it doesn't make sense to have an election for 7,303.

No, sir.

So we would, you or your staff will have to figure out based on what we have discussed to figure out what that rate is. It may be 75. I don't, I have no idea what it is, but it would have to make sense. So there's no reason to have an election for 7,303. We would ask you if we wanted to have an election, again, I don't want to have one, but just for clarification purposes, staff would have to come up with a rate that would take care of budgeted items, then we would have an election on that rate, whatever that rate is. Because we would have a series of special meetings to try to find out what that new rate is and try to get it done before October 1. Am I speaking correctly?

Well, right. If you want, you can call an election, I believe. Nope. The city secretary is shaking her head.

No, I do not believe you can call a voluntary election. This would only go to election if you were at or if you were above the voter approval rate.

Right. But would it not be similar to a referendum? Is that?

No, for those things, there are statutory or charter required. The election code does not allow a voluntary election on just anything in specific. It doesn't allow a voluntary election for a tax rate.

Thank you. So we can't have an election? Well, the way to have an election is automatic, is to be higher, to propose a rate higher than 7302. Okay.

I guess my statement is we still would have to find out what that rate is. I mean, we have no idea what that is, I mean, what that number would be. Well, I thought I heard 7303. Well, yeah. Apparently, that's not the number. So we would have to come up with a number. That's what I'm saying. This body would have to say, we want to have an election for a new rate of, for example, 7501. Whatever that number is. You can do that.

Yes, sir.

You can do that. And that would still take meetings. We have to sit down with you. We're running out of time to do that. I guess that's what I'm saying. So I'm just trying to figure out the logistics of even how that works. Yeah, that's a hard one to answer. It's a lot of logistics. Again, thank you for the work you guys have done, but I think the 7301 is the way to go to cut down a $348,000 deficit. Thank you, sir.

Mayor, before I forget, I believe that there was a motion and a second, and I think the intent was to withdraw it, but it hasn't been withdrawn. So can we, before I forget, get that motion withdrawn, if that's what you're wanting to do?

I withdraw my motion.

No further discussion. Mr. Cagle?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Madam Secretary, next item please.

Item number nine, RS-26-121, consider a memorandum resolution approving a Chapter 311 tax increment reimbursement agreement with Philip Boghossian Living Trust, the Howard Sagasar 401K plan, and the Sagasar, Watkins, and Whelan 401K for the reimbursement of infrastructure improvements in the amount of $3,991,303.94. Good evening, Ms. Messier.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. This item tonight is for consideration of a tax increment reinvestment zone reimbursement agreement. So as you know, the city has a tax increment reinvestment zone known as TERS number two, which is intended to promote local economic development and stimulate businesses and commercial activity within the city. The proposed Santa Fe development is located within the boundaries of the TERS and the developer is therefore eligible for reimbursement of eligible infrastructure costs associated with the development. The proposed development includes approximately 115 acres of residential development, 131 acres of industrial, and 56 acres of open space. At full build out, the proposed development is expected to add approximately 657.8 million in real property tax value. And the applicant is requesting reimbursement for construction costs related to road, water, sewer, and drainage improvements associated with the industrial portion of the development only in an amount not to exceed $3,991,303.94. This is a concept plan of the proposed development, which you'll see again tonight when you consider the zoning for this property. The proposed reimbursement agreement would cover the cost of the infrastructure associated with just the industrial portions, which are roughly this area here, but not the infrastructure cost associated with the residential portion of the development. The proposed agreement allows for the reimbursement of 100% of all real property tax increment generated by both the residential and the potential industrial development up to, as I said, the maximum reimbursement amount of 3.99 million. The agreement prohibits the rezoning of the property, of any portion of the property that is currently zoned for manufacturing to a more restrictive zoning district. And construction must begin within 24 months and must be completed within 48 months. So the approved TERS project plan does include expansion of the business park as an eligible expenditure within the TERS and provides for $8 million for the development related to that expansion. With that, staff is recommending approval of the reimbursement agreement as presented in an amount not to exceed $3.99 million. The applicant for this agreement is present tonight and does have a presentation as well. But I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Mayor and Council, Bill McLean for Santa Fe Project. It's good to be back here at Killeen City Council. Good evening, sir. Good evening. The dais looks a little different than the last time I was here in October, but it's nice to meet you newly elected office holders. Congratulations. So tonight we've got our full team here. If you have any questions, myself. Our engineer, Joey Theriault, is here. Our TERS financial analysis, Patrick Warren, is here. And my colleague, the brains of the operation, Brita Wallace, is here. And we have two presentations tonight. She's going to do the second one. So you can be mean to me if you need to, but, you know, be nice to Brita. She can take it. But anyway, as Wallace mentioned, this is a request for reimbursement from the TERS for project infrastructure costs. And I'll get into a description of what those are in a minute. Just to give you a little bit of a background on the TERS, I know some of you are new and you may know this, so forgive me if I'm telling you something that you already know, but this slide kind of demonstrates how the TERS works. The left side is where we are today. We're at a base tax level on an AG exempt property that doesn't really generate much tax. And then development happens, the taxable value rises, and then you have a greater ad valorem total to draw from to pay for things that the TIRS was created to pay for. So, and the ask is, $3.991 million, and that's going to pay for infrastructure that I'll describe here in a minute. And what do you get out of this? And what you get is a lot of property tax value that's not there now. This is northeast Killeen, and the reinvestment zone is all about providing a shot in the arm to areas that need it. This is an area which... that I will tell you right now we need help bringing users to. And then hopefully the residential, which is the rooftops, which is an indirect result of the TERS investment in this zone, also create momentum for other businesses that this area needs. But our main focus is on the industrial. And hopefully that happens soon. Hopefully that creates jobs and it creates tax base. So the map that Wallace was showing earlier, again, we're starting here basically with the infrastructure on out to Roy Reynolds with that infrastructure. And that's water, sewer, roadway, drainage. And we have done, our engineer has done a detailed analysis and we worked with staff to apportion those costs between the residential and the industrial. The road, we are asking for 100%. But I would draw a comparison for our tours between us and Anthem Park. Anthem Park was Was another project that got approved in the tours number two and they received a total of 12 million. $12.8 million roughly in reimbursements, including $5 million for a roadway, which served commercial and residential. So we think we stack up well. We think that the ask is a reasonable ask. We are staff-recommended, and they didn't make that easy on us. But we ended up here tonight where we wanted to be, which was staff-recommended. The TERS board unanimously approved the proposal that we're bringing to you tonight, so we feel like we're in a good place, and we would ask that you confirm and vote for this number of $3.99 million in reimbursements from the TERS, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Council Member Brown.

Shelly had a question for Ms. Mesher.

Ms. Mesher? And if you could stay up here for further questions.

Yes, ma'am. So, Ms. Mesher, in looking through some of this, and I'm going to apologize in advance. I'm going to be talking about a future item because it directly relates to questions on this item. But of that amount of money, was that calculated on it being a collector road or a local road?

The intent is for the collector to... Can I go back to the concept plan? Just a second. Let's see. It was in my presentation, not this presentation. I apologize. Or maybe I can find it. So the roadway that extends through the project would be built to a collector standard to this point, but would not be designated on the map.

It didn't mark. It didn't. It's right here. Okay. On this side.

Yeah, it's not showing up.

Okay, sorry.

So if you're referring to the thoroughfare plan amendment, the reason for the proposed amendment is that the intent is to remove the designation of the collector. the entire segment is intended to connect all the way up to Rancier. That obviously won't happen, but the road itself would be built to a collector level standard to this point. So with regard to the thoroughfare plan amendment item, the council could theoretically accept staff's recommendation or make a different motion to designate it as a collector to this point, theoretically.

And again, I apologize, I'm going to have to drag another agenda item into this in order to figure out if $4 million is appropriate. But on the PUT agreement, then, it doesn't specify that that industrial portion would have to be a collector quality road, then. So I know it's kind of difficult to stay on one item when we have three that are all intertwined and connected. So I guess I'll phrase it in the form of a question. Would it then be possible or required if we were to do this and say that the $4 million is only acceptable if it is going to be a collector road and not a local road?

And I failed to mention what this concept plan doesn't include is the fact that there will be a required commercial truck turnaround provided in this area. So the intent, again, is not for commercial truck traffic to utilize the full street and exit through the residential subdivision. So there will be a required turnaround here, and we don't anticipate any commercial traffic going through the residential subdivision.

Right, going north of that line. But up until then, again, so in the emails that we exchanged, it was, Acknowledge that to make that industrial portion a local road would not be great for the road condition. Correct.

Right. Correct. So it will be built to a collector level standard. The intent is to remove it from the thoroughfare plan because, again, it won't tie in all the way up to rancier. As shown on the thoroughfare plan currently.

So then when we get to the thoroughfare plan, we could amend that. to indicate only north of that line where the residential starts. And in the PUD, we can put a condition that says the industrial portion has to be collector. Yes, you can. Okay. And also, I do want to make it very clear that I did meet with the applicant prior to tonight's meeting for full transparency to the public. And at that meeting, I did indicate that I felt $4 million was a high ask, particularly when we were talking about potentially lowering the standard level for the road through the industrial portion. However, I would support this now knowing and assuming that that portion through the industrial and manufacturing would be a collector road versus a local road. And the reason that's important for everybody else to understand, Can you just explain the difference between them and the level of traffic that they are able to handle?

So a local street, as you know, is a typical residential street. So it's designed to carry local vehicular traffic. A collector street is an... Mr. Zegers is here as well, but a collector-level street is intended to carry a higher level of traffic.

Mr. Zegers, can I ask you a follow-up question on that?

So... So when we're looking at this proposal with the PUD, we weren't just looking at just the amount of traffic, but also the type of traffic. The roadway section is a lot different between the arterial road, i.e. a collector, and the residential, so you're gonna have more asphalt, more rock. It can handle more traffic with heavy loads. So with the PUD, keeping the thicker road section in the industrial will serve the purpose of the traffic that's using it. And then separating that out with the residential, which will be a thinner section that really can stand or hold up to a lot of heavy trucks being used constantly.

and long-term for the cost to the city to maintain that section of road. What does that mean for us?

Well, so we maintain just the one portion, the industrial. It'll hold up longer. We're using a 20-year design life now as our standard. So up until 5 to 10 years, we're only doing minimal type of maintenance on those roads compared to if it was built as a residential section, we'd probably be doing some major replacement within 10 to 15 years.

Thank you.

Council Member Bass.

Sir, I enjoyed our meeting the other day. And you said something very positive about the KEDC. I've been talking about KEDC publicly lately. Mulling over, should we continue to fund KEDC? Should we not? Should we fund them at a higher rate, lower rate? But you said something very positive about KEDC and the industrial area of this project. And so I don't want KEDC to miss out on some good PR, because this is actually very good news. Can you tell the council what you shared with me?

Yes, they've been great. They have been big proponents of this project. Tyler has been great and Scott before that. That's who I'm dealing with at the staff level. And they have brought us a number of prospects. They haven't worked out yet. And I think mainly that's because of timing and we aren't quite ready to be shovel ready. We'll be shovel ready soon, hopefully. And this will give us a lot of incentive to get things going off the ground. So they've been great to deal with. And I did want to point out one thing, Councilwoman Brown, the – now I need to go – well, I don't need to go back, but I'll just mention to you the engineer's estimate that I showed before briefly. Thank you. It line items the costs, and that cost – of the roadway is for commercial collector. Um, and so we can only spend, you know, up to a certain amount on the road and get reimbursed for it. If, if we were to build it as a, you know, a lower level collector, then we couldn't, um, we couldn't collect for that. So, um, hopefully that sets your mind at ease a little bit on that, that one issue.

And so, um, The three companies that you mentioned specifically that Tyler had spoken to, I thought it was great. It was a polymer manufacturing company, an electric transformer manufacturer, and a railroad components manufacturer. And that's exactly what I think the council wanted. has charged KEDC the type of companies and industry to bring to clean. So I wrote all that down, and I think it's very positive for KEDC, and I want to thank them for working with you on this project. Thank you. Well, thank you.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My comments are just, I'm glad I'm following Councilman Bass because my comments are right along with him. I think for $3.9 million, we check a lot of boxes in this community. We listen to our residents, our constituents to bring manufacturing, bring industrial to this town, bring additional people to pay property taxes, and this is going to do that. So kudos to everyone involved in the project. For $3.9 million may seem a lot, but it's going to pay dividends. It's going to employ people here in this community. It's going to bring industrial. I think it makes us become competitive with our partners, our military partners. Again, you know, when we looked at our council priorities to make sure that, you know, particularly using the railway, I think it's going to start checking the box that it's going to put Killeen on the map as a place to look at. And I think KEDC is right on target for doing that, and I just want to say kudos to everyone involved in the project.

May I approach him?

Thank you. I second that notion, so I'm not going to belabor that point. It does put us right on track, though, to be competitive, and that's our key word there. So thank you for considering the City of Killeen and bringing this project to us. I do have a question, though. When do they plan on breaking ground on the industrial portion, and what was the timeline? I know we said it required 48 months, but what is the expectation?

I'll let the app answer that.

If we have a user and I mean a single user we will we will break ground As soon as as soon as permits are approved now What I cannot commit to you is that we break ground before we have users because we don't want to go build Streets and utilities just to have grass grow up in the road and the utilities not be used but We're going to list the property with a company called Headwater that's here working on the Wolf Tech Park, and we hope that brings some momentum as well and some attraction. But I feel like activity has picked up. within this project and the interest just because of the pace that the EDC is getting interest. And when we list it, hopefully that increases even more. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Council Member Williams.

Yes, I just want to, is that okay?

Yes. Thank you, I appreciate it. I was so glad to meet with you guys as well on the other day, and I'm so thankful for that. And I'm very familiar with the area that you all are talking about developing there. And I believe that it will bring good housing and jobs and things, and that's what we've been talking about all along. Now, how much acre of land is this area there?

It's 302 acres.

302 acres. And I think it's a good area, and we're coming to the town on that side as well. I'm well familiar with that area, Royal Reynolds and Ranciere there. And so I'm just glad that you all just chose Killeen in order to do this, and I'm grateful and appreciative of that. And thank you a bunch. Appreciate all of you guys.

Thank you. Well, thank you. For being out of town, I've done a lot of this in different places, and sometimes I feel welcome and sometimes I don't. And I felt very welcome and very supported here in this community. So we appreciate that. Thank you.

Council Member Brown?

I can't only ask Ms. Masher the question. So when we talked, I asked you a question. How long do you believe it would take you to be shovel ready on the manufacturing portion? Answer that public question.

So I think Joey's probably better able to answer that, and Wallace as well, on how much time it would take if we started tomorrow on a preliminary plan and construction plans. But I think I'm correct in saying within six months we could get through those processes. and be ready to break ground on the roadway.

I'm just watching for confirmation.

Yeah, we have an easy path to the first two lots of the industrial because we don't have to build the lift station and the force main. They just have water and sewer right there at the door. And so the hope is that we get buyers for those two lots or even one of them, and then we're off and running.

And so that's in about six months contingent on the TERS reimbursement?

Well, I mean, the TERS reimbursement helps us. I mean, and we need help from the market. I mean, you know, we're in a bit of stagnant market, both for the residential and the industrial. But let's just say that the residential heats up and gets going. You know, that helps the industrial, too, because we start on that infrastructure that the – the industrial needs to. So hopefully one or the other picks up, we get some good momentum in this market, and we can get started.

And then the last thing I just want to emphasize to everybody is that the reimbursement, the $4 million is only the portion of the infrastructure that is going to directly be for the benefit of that industrial area. It will not reimburse the infrastructure that is being directly used in the residential housing portion, correct?

Yeah, it is, let me put it this way. All of that infrastructure services, is that for me or Wallace?

Wallace, but that's okay. You can answer if you want.

All of that infrastructure is 100% needed by the industrial sector.

That's correct. So the intent is that the reimbursement is exclusively for the portion of the project intended to provide the industrial. So on exhibit B of the agreement that was included in your packet, you can see how those costs were attributed. All right. Thank you so much.

Yes. Council Member Kendricks.

How you doing, sir? Just correct me if I'm wrong. Most of this project, because you're going to be reimbursed, you're starting out with your own monies doing all of this. Yes, sir. And the reason why I say that is when the citizens see that big amount, they say, oh, well, they finna pay them $4 million and dah, dah, dah. But what they don't understand is that you have presented or put your money first and you are taking a risk. Because then you're waiting on the businesses and traffic and all of that to come and I I just want our citizens to understand that being a developer builder that you're taking a risk starting out and

That is correct. Yes, we are. We front the money. And then the tax increment grows. And then that increment is used to pay us back. But that's after there's buildings or houses

And that's what I was getting at. You don't start receiving any money back until after those houses and other things are starting to be built. And that's what I want, like I say, the citizens to understand that you're fronting your money to get it started. It's not the city's fronting something or making sure you're taken care of beforehand. You're starting it because this is something that you want to do in the city of Killeen. And we had great talks about the spurs and how that's going to help with that area and everything, spurs off through the railroad tracks. So thank you once again.

Thank you.

Council Member Bass.

Thank you, Mayor. Now, I do want to make a cautionary note to everyone. This is 540 new homes. And so that is 540 new trash cans to be picked up once a week. That is 540 new homes for police and fire and EMT to respond to. That is 540 new homes for code enforcement to keep an eye on. And so, in my new council member orientations, what I have been hearing from the departments and the divisions is we, as a city, continue to expand our infrastructure, housing, in other areas, But because of budget issues, we have not been able to hire new personnel to keep up with that infrastructure expansion. And so since we're talking about the budget and we're talking about property tax increases or not increases, let's just keep in mind this is a fantastic opportunity project, in my opinion, but this increases the burden of our departments and divisions and city employees to service this housing addition. So we have to keep that in mind. Thank you.

Council Member Nash-Kings.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Council, for your input. The bottom line is this. Our city is going to grow. People want to come here. They want to live. In order to do any kind of development, whether it's $4 million, $1.2 million, $20 million, you have to have infrastructure. If you don't have infrastructure, how are people going to come and build? It's just like your home. You can't just build a home and don't have the infrastructure to support it. We either want to stay with the 2040 comprehensive plan. It's already been voted on by the residents. Or we can do, is $40 million worth what we're going to get in the long run? We always... I can't say we. I feel that we're focused on today and not even trying to forecast our future on how we're going to sustain. But also with those homes, people buy water. Purchase water, that's one thing. Property tax, that's another thing. So there are pros and cons. Yes, we need more staff, but pros and cons that we can sustain it if we have more businesses and the property value. So it's either yes, you want to vote for it, or no. Because we can go backwards and forward, and you have that right. But the bottom line, do we want to see our city grow, or do we want to continue and be stagnated? Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Pro Temp. Thank you. And thank you for saying that, because that's exactly what I was going to kind of allude to. So you said it very well. Thank you, Madam. The thing is that this is also going to require us, though, to your point, Mr. Bass, to be intentional with our progressive growth and our paths and our projects and things like that. So be very intentional. So I do appreciate both viewpoints. But we have to have this, but we also have to be intentional. Thank you.

Okay, is there any? More discussion? Thank you, Ms. Mesher, appreciate.

Yes, sir.

Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Okay, Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 10, RS-26-122, consider a memorandum resolution authorizing a mural agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the I-14 underpass painting project.

Good evening, Mrs. Ager. Good evening, Mayor, fellow council members. This presentation is for the agreement with TxDOT as it relates to the mural underpass painting project, the CIP project. Okay, so if you remember in fiscal year, 2026, the capital improvement plan included that under I, 14 underpass painting project, which is to paint those girders underneath overpasses, such as Rosewood, premier, W. S. Young, few others and. essentially paint the girders and have the city of Killeen logo, similar to what the city of Belton and the city of Nolanville has done, kind of beautify and enhance those areas. The project includes underpasses of Rosewood, Stan Schluter, W.S. Young, South Fort Hood Street, Willow Springs, and Clear Creek. So a couple of them are actually on the freeway, like Clear Creek. The project includes painting the girders. Bent ends with solid color. We're looking at white. And then the city clean text and logo on that girder. So as you pull under the intersection, you can see those logos and letters. The project is spread out in four years, four phases, because of the cost of construction and roughly about $150,000 per overpass. That really isn't the cost of the paint. That's the cost of the labor, the traffic control, all the work it takes to actually get these things painted. These intersections are major intersections. There is a lot of traffic that we have to maintain while we're doing this work. So it's promoting the safety of not only the motorists, but also the workers. The mural agreement is between TxDOT and the City of Killeen. These bridges are owned by TxDOT. So for us to paint them, we have to have an agreement with them. This allows the city to install those murals on their structure and also clarifies the maintenance responsibilities of these murals because once we paint them, that maintenance is ours to take care of. So as they need to get repainted or they need to be cleaned off, that will fall into the city staff to do that or a contractor or however we're going to work on that in the future. This agreement is a requirement by TxDOT. The map shows those red dots are where those overpasses that we're proposing to have the logos and the letters and the City of Killeen logo there. And then staff, we recommend the City Council authorized city manager doesn't need to enter into the mural agreement with TxDOT. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Zager. Council Member Brown?

I want to start off by saying thank you. I brought this up a couple years ago as a citizen standing right there. And then I've brought it up a couple times since May, since sitting up here. And I appreciate you taking the time to go through this whole process and look into it. More just as statements than questions. One, it's called a mural simply because we are painting across a large open space. It's not a mural in the sense that a lot of people have been thinking where it's an artistic rendering of something. It is more like a sign, correct?

That is correct. It's the city clean in letters and then our logo. But because, yes, we're painting on a face, it's considered a mural.

And I liked it because it's cheaper than putting monument signs out, and they're less likely to get hit by cars. If someone hits one of these murals or clean signs that's on the side of the overpass, then they have really done something wrong, and we probably have big problems. However, as much as I love it and I would love to see this come to fruition, we have spent the last two weeks talking about potentially having to cut jobs out of the city of Killeen and cutting staff, cutting back on services, cutting back on equipment that each of our departments need, cutting back on potentially having any more hope for having a road engineer, a traffic engineer. The question that I am going back and forth with, is it fiscally responsible at this time to put our money into this? Even knowing that this is already budgeted in this current fiscal year, what we're talking about next fiscal year on all these budget discussions, there's still the opportunity if we don't spend it, that would carry over to next year and we could apply it to a different project. So as much as I love it, I feel like I probably will not be voting in favor of this tonight, but please keep it in mind for the future.

Council Member Bass.

Mr. Cagle, I asked, I got my briefing the other day from the budget department, and we discussed this particular project. Is it true that this $300,000 that we currently have for this project is money that's left over from a previous budget?

Yes. It is from excess fund balance, and it was placed in the CIP budget.

Is it true that we could move this $300,000 to our fleet services building project? It is. It's true. Yes, sir. At a previous meeting, Mr. Cagle said that financially we are a poor city government. He didn't say middle class. He certainly did not say wealthy. He said we are a poor city government. And the reason we are a poor city government is because our tax base is service economy based. And we get property taxes mainly from residential residents. And most of those homes are starter homes. So that's why we struggle with our budget. I've been poor. When my wife and I started out, we were poor. And we had essential items, let's put food on the table, make sure our son has clothing and supplies for school. And there were luxury items. If my wife and I went to a movie, that was a luxury item back then. If we went to Pizza Hut, that was a luxury item. I consider these overpasses to be a luxury item. I consider the Fleet Services Building to be absolutely essential. So I'm in favor of moving this $300,000 to the Fleet Services Building. Thank you.

Council Member Nash-King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Thank you for that, Mr. Bass. That was really good, and Councilwoman Brown. But I do want to say this, both sides of the fence. Councilwoman Brown, along with Councilmember Boyd, Mayor Solomon, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember Wilkerson, former Mayor Pro Tem, there's so many councilmembers that have requested this item to come forth for an identity. It's part of our 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and it's called branding. And that was a part of our resident survey. How do we brand Killeen? How do we make ourself unique that when people drive through, they know that they're in Killeen, Texas? I thank Mr. Cagle and his team and Ms. Tangeland and our finance team for going in the budget And this is a council request. It's not like, I want to make that clear, it's not like staff came up with this. Three or four councils through the years have requested this. So this is something like, yes, I do understand we do need other things, but this has been a priority, especially the first, I think, 10 pages of our comprehensive plan, maybe 14, about how do we brand our city and people know that they're in Killeen. Even though, like I stated earlier, there are a lot of wants. But this is probably the third, maybe the fourth council. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I hope I'm not. They have requested this item. But this has been a while, Mr. Zager, that this has been a request.

There has been a lot of discussions in regard to signs, mural signs, and city entrance signs, and then obviously these. So it has. And like I say, it was part of the last year's budget and last year's CIP discussions?

Yes, sir. Instead of putting one up in our old place to say we are clean, team clean, we're doing the safe way and putting it up high. So just like every other city, I don't like that word, but I think this is a great idea and we can find funds later or to assist with the facility. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Council Member Nash-King. And I want to say this. I want to add this. When I came on as a city council member, I asked for this. I remember it very clearly in 2023. I did not know anybody else had asked for it, but I'm quite sure they did. We could not put a sign, a welcome sign, because Texas would not. Is that correct, sir? Correct. Would not allow us to put the welcome sign.

Especially on the westbound direction, eastbound we have a location we could safely put it, but the westbound where we actually had a sign, it was hit several times to the point where TxDOT essentially directed us to remove it and not have another sign, at least on the westbound direction. Because of the geometry, the access limits, the closeness to the ramps, there really are no locations westbound where we can get one of those type of signs.

Yes, thank you. And so what this will do, it's a welcoming impression. It is like council member Nash King said, you know, for one thing, it will also, it builds our community pride. It labels us, it enhance the appearance of our city. We cannot put the welcome on the west side, but we can label our bridges, our underpasses, and just show pride on the city. I don't think it's a luxury. I wouldn't say so much of a luxury as it is appearance, and it's a pride thing. And, Colleen, you see it on the water towers. but I think it would bring, and we have it. We've been talking about this for years, like some of the council members said. So I would certainly love to see this happen. Council member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A lot has been said about the signs. I think they're a great idea. They're part of the comprehensive plan. We have gone through great strides to stay as close to that plan as possible. The signs and the waypoints are huge. We have a lot of visitors that come to this town. I like the waypoint signs downtown. I am not originally from Killeen. You drive down one street and it changes names on you. I think having the the pride, the signs, the waypoints. I think it's a great, great, great project. So I'll leave that as it, as is when it comes to the fleet services building. And this is a budget item, uh, by the way. So when it comes to fleet services, is there a plan, Mr. Cagle, when it comes to that building?

Yes, sir. It will be on an agenda not too far in the future along with the fleet services and improvements at PD. Now, as everything, inflation has eaten into a lot of that, and so we've been making some changes, and we're not there yet. I can't answer 100% that it's completely funded. I can answer that it's not completely funded the way we originally envisioned it.

And again, you know, with you being the manager and your department heads and your staff, you know, at least as far as I go, I think we should micromanage when it comes to some of those finite details. I like to hear, and I've heard from you, that there is a plan, so I'll be looking forward to that plan and it getting done, but Nonetheless, having this project done has been asked for for many years, and I'm glad that we can check the box and get it done for the citizens and the prior councils. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor.

Council, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. And so this is extremely important and so we talked about being intentional earlier. One of the things that we did as a previous council as well as having very thoughtful conversations was to figure out how we could do things affordably to continue to also promote and market our city. So we're looking at economic development. This becomes a place making strategy, not a pet project of just a mural with just our name. This is very strategic and it was very intentional. it was championed by you know several council members that mentioned it but also council member Boyd so I do want to make sure that we focus on that as well because developers and people that are visiting our city do look at that when they're coming into our town so it's very important we think of this as an economic development place making strategy we are city of Killeen we have to start establishing ourselves our vision our perception as such it's essential to our continued growth and development but also I just had a quick question Was Jasper, the Jasper Bridge included? Because I know we talked about going back the opposite direction. That was important to Council Member, well now Mayor Solomon, but back then. I think we're looking at Jasper.

I think what we have is we're going to have a standard plan that we can use on any overpass. Okay. So that may be one of those ones, since that is over the freeway, we could look at adding it to a phase four, phase five, whatever. The plan really is to paint every one of them. That was always the intent. I think right now, just with the scope, what we're looking at with our consultant were these locations. However, Jasper mirrors very similar to the Clear Creek one. So getting a contractor, getting quantities on board at that point in the future would be very easy.

Outstanding. Thank you. So I think you were starting with the Rosewood and Clear Creek.

So the first one that we're looking at right now is actually Rosewood and WS Young are the ones that are on schedule for this year.

Okay, I thought we mentioned Clear Creek.

Yeah, Clear Creek was one of the ones that's on the list, sir. Gotcha, gotcha.

Okay, Council Member Williams.

I think it's a great idea, beautification of the city and everything. And plus, too, when you come into the city, you see the beautiful lights. Remind me of even when I'm going through college, going through Waco, and we're going through Baylor and going across that bridge. I think it's so beautiful when I cross there and I see all those gorgeous lights. It's just gorgeous. And so I think these ideas are great, but although, too, I know that our budget is limited as well. And so it breaks my heart. as well that we are paying for these signs. And then we have other things in the budget that we have not taken care of as well. But my favor is for it. I will vote for it. I like how it looks in the sign, what you're saying about it. I like all those indications and everything about it. So I appreciate that as well.

Thank you, Council Member Williams. Is there any other discussion or comments? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zake. Appreciate it. Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 11, RS-26-123, consider a memorandum resolution approving an interlocal agreement with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles authorizing participation with the SCOF law program.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. So the item before you is the interlocal agreement with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles authorizing participation with the Scoss Law Program. A little background. The Texas SCOFF Law program allows municipalities to improve collection of delinquent court fines and fees by placing vehicle registration holds on eligible individuals with outstanding balances. Participation requires an interlocal agreement between Killeen Municipal Court and the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to authorize registration holds and releases. The program will be administered by McCreary, Valeska, Bragg, and Allen under the city's existing delinquent collection services contract. Implementation provides the municipal court with an additional enforcement tool to encourage payment compliance and improve collection efforts. How it works, the SCAW file program is a registration renewal hold program. Defendants retain the ability to resolve their cases at any time. MVBA submits a file to Texas DMV to identify qualifying cases. Texas DMV places a registration hold on matched vehicle records. And the defendant is prevented from renewing their vehicle registration until the court obligation is resolved. The court or MVBA confirms compliance, the hold is removed, allowing the individual to renew their registration. Benefits of the program. Encouraged compliance with the court orders, increases collection opportunities for delinquent accounts, provides an additional enforcement tool, supports accountability and voluntary resolution of outstanding obligations, the clearance of outstanding warrants and violations. Financial impact with the existing agreement with MVBA MVBA will be responsible for all costs associated with the participation of the scofflaw program Including the required $500 deposit and any applicable transactions or processing fees No, additional city funds are required to implement this agreement. I recommendation just to approve the item as stated. And then I also have Sandra Rodriguez here tonight, our courts administrator, to assist with any questions you may have.

Council, is there any questions? Council Member Brown.

Just one question. I know we discussed this at our finance briefing that myself and another council member had. So overall, what is the benefit to doing this? Because I know we already have the ability to suspend driver's licenses and other actions that we can take in the process of collections. And then how much increased collection do we anticipate as a result of the program?

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, City Council. What was the question again? I'm sorry.

What are the benefits to doing this, given that we already have the ability to suspend a driver's license? And then how much increase in collections do we anticipate?

Okay, there will be no increase in collections. The defendant does not pay anything extra under balance. The benefit of this, if they have an out-of-state license, we are able to place a hole under registration. We cannot place a hole under license if they're from out-of-state at this time.

Understood. You can flag or hold the vehicle registration.

Well, I understood what you were saying. I'm sorry. So we expect to be able to complete more collection of outstanding fines because of this program then? That is correct. And then you had told me this is a program the court is very excited about for that reason? That is correct. All right. Thank you. You're welcome.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ma'am, if we can just run through a few what-if scenarios, because I'm trying to figure out. So is this for fines imposed by municipal court?

That is correct.

For municipal speeding, for example?

So for traffic violations or failure to appears.

For traffic violations, failure to appears. What about failure to appears for municipal traffic violations?

That is correct.

Okay. Are there anything else that is?

No, it would not apply to any code enforcement, any parking violations, any animal violations. It will not pertain to that.

Just so I'm clear, just for the audience, that if you are, let's say typical, if you get your call for speeding, nine over, you go to the municipal court, judge say you're guilty, you never paid a fine. Registration comes up August, September 1st. You don't pay it under this program. You will not be able to renew your registration until that fine. The fine is paid. Will there be any additional fees they will have to pay in addition to the fine?

No additional fees. MVBA will take care of that.

Who would?

The collection agency that our third party.

So does MVBA, do they get any additional money?

No, they get that 30% if that case is sent to them.

Okay, so just so I'm clear, so you have to pay the fine, and then there's an... So does MVBA get 30% of the fine?

After we send them to collections, there will be 180 days of delinquency. Then they will collect the 30%.

then so the court gets 70% of the original fine.

No, that's on top of 30% on top of what they owe. So if they owe 300, we add 30% more. Okay. That 30% goes to collections. So there's some added fines.

Yes.

There's some added fines.

Is there notice, will there be a notice when people go to court that, I'm assuming the judge would do that or the prosecutor?

Yes, absolutely. We cannot do anything until they have a show cost hearing. to the court why they can't pay. Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate you. Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, ma'am. Good evening. I just have a quick question if I understand it. So the $500 is one time?

That is correct.

Good. I thought I understood that. I just want to say this. It's a statement. For $500 to have another revenue to collect fees that are due to this city, and I like the part where it can go, if you're out of the state, this system works in our favor to collect that fine. That is correct. So for $500, this is an amazing investment. Thank you all.

and the collection agency will take care of the $500.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Oh, yes, I forgot that part. It gets better. Thank you for reminding us of that. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you. Okay. Council, we just got two more before we go to break. Madam Secretary, next item, ordinance.

Item 12, OR-26-014. Consider an ordinance calling a charter amendment election on November 3rd, 2026.

Good afternoon, sir.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, council members. Good to see you. Good evening. I am here for the final time for the charter election. So tonight, as promised to you last week, we did get the proposed ballot language, and so I am here with you tonight with the ordinance. So just as a timeline to show the hard work that's gone in to get to where we are now, starting back in January 20th, the City Council authorized the creation of the Charter Review Committee to provide the recommendations for amendments to the city charter. So between February 2nd and April 29th, the Charter Review Committee met here and made 11 recommendations for charter amendments. Between June and July of this year, then the City Council considered those recommendations and moved to present eight of them to the electors. And then last week, the city council did move for staff to go ahead and move forward with those proposed ballot measures. And then tonight, this was the last regular meeting in order for us to timely call an election for November. And then, sorry, so then August 17th is the actual deadline to call the November election. Just as a recap, so the proposed amendments that are going on the November ballot would be to move regular elections to November during the odd-numbered years, repeal the resign to run provision, fill all vacancies on council by appointment. In order to provide 20 additional days to the initiative and referendum timeline for staff and petitioner, prohibit the adoption of initiated ordinances found inconsistent with state law. Require a petitioner allege specific ground when seeking the recall of an elected official. Provide four additional days for the city secretary to provide petition blanks in response to a recall affidavit. Require that an affidavit for the recall of a district council member be brought by an elector of that district. So tonight the city council may adopt the ordinance calling the November election on the proposed charter amendments or not adopt the ordinance calling the November election. Based on council's direction over the last few months, staff's recommendation is that city council adopt the ordinance calling the November election on the proposed charter amendments. Happy to answer any questions.

There are no questions. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 13, OR-26-012. Consider an ordinance submitted by Vincent Gerard and Associates on behalf of First Assemblies of God, Inc., case Z26-10 for a conditional use permit, CUP, to allow for the installation of a wireless telecommunications tower on property zoned B3, local business district, being approximately two acres, being lot one, block one, McClurkin addition. The subject property is locally addressed as 7432 East Tremier Road, Killeen, Texas.

Welcome back, ma'am.

Mayor and Council, thank you. This item is for consideration of a proposed cell phone tower. You've seen this presentation, I think this will be the third time, so I'll go through this pretty quickly. But the property is locally addressed as 7432 East Tremere Road. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a proposed 85-foot monopole tower, which is intended to improve wireless service coverage and is designed to accommodate multiple carriers and will include associated ground equipment. The red star indicates the location of the property, and this is an aerial of the site, view of the subject property, adjacent properties. an aerial showing the location of the proposed tower. This is their proposed site plan, property zone B3. It's located within the control growth sector and is designated campus on the future land use map. We notified 44 surrounding property owners and we received 12 responses in opposition. This map indicates those 12 responses in opposition. And as you know, approval of the conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications tower does require the three-fourths majority vote of the city council. So I'm sure the applicant is glad that there's a full council here tonight. With that, staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for the conditional use permit to allow the installation of the wireless telecommunications tower on property zone B3 with a number of conditions. First, that it will substantially comply with the site plan. Second, that the project will comply with the requirements for co-location, screening, lighting, and a site development permit in accordance with Chapter 31. The parking areas and drive aisles will be constructed with an all-weather surface. the site design will maximize use of existing trees and vegetation, and that landscaping will be installed and maintained in accordance with code requirements, and that the applicant will construct a public sidewalk along the frontage. Number six, that the permit will expire if not constructed within six months and not put to the proposed use within 120 days, or is discontinued for more than six consecutive months, and that the permittee shall notify the director of changes in ownership or operation within 30 days. Planning and zoning recommended approval by a vote of five to two, with the added condition that the proposed tower be camouflaged as a tree. Commissioner Sabrine Moss voted in opposition to that motion and concurred with the residents that there's no need for a tower in this location. As mentioned, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that the proposed tower be camouflaged as a tree. So this is an example of what that could look like. And this is an existing tower that is also camouflaged as a tree on Long Avenue. Some more examples of that. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. And the applicant is here tonight as well.

Thank you. Council Member Bess.

Thank you, Mayor. I went out there to the area and looked at the terrain through a signal officer's eyes, which was my job in the Army. I have no doubt there are dead spots in that hilly terrain for cell phone users. A friend of mine owns land out there. He confirmed there are dead spots in his cell phone service when he's driving around in that area. If I understand correctly, the two PNZ members who voted no based their no votes on saying it is their opinion there is adequate cell phone coverage in that area. An assertion, in my opinion, they are not qualified to make and has nothing to do with their responsibilities on the PNZ board. which is why we have to approve this six to one tonight and why we're discussing it for the third time. The church owns the property. I believe in property rights. The church has every legal right to allow a cell phone tower on their property and be remunerated $700 each month, which will help the church. I will vote yes for the cell tower. Thank you.

Council Member Nash-King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before my clock start, Ms. Mescher wanted to address the six to one.

I just wanted to clarify that the ordinance does require a three-fourths majority vote for all conditional use permits for a cell phone tower, regardless of what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended. In this case, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval. There were two commissioners that voted in opposition to the motion for approval, but it was recommended for approval, and the three-fourths majority requirement would be required regardless of whether P&Z had recommended approval or disapproval. Thank you for that clarification.

Yes, sir. Thank you, ma'am, and thank you, Council Member Nashke.

Thank you. So I just want to state, as always, I go back to a 2040 comprehensive plan. I think we need it. As our city continues to grow, I mean, who do not want an excellent signal? I don't have that. Even at my house, I still don't have it. I'm struggling today with it. But I think anything that's going to help and assist with the growth and productivity of our city. And it's just a tower. It's not hurting anything that we should do it because there will be homes built out there eventually. And we got to get out of the mind, my opinion, that we need to get out of the mindset that we will build when they get here. And I think we should have it already laid out for people to want to come here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Ms. Mesher.

Council Member Williams.

Yes. I visited this site more than one time. I know exactly where it's located at. And I think it would be great for the development as well. There are new homes and things that build up in that area. I believe that it would be great. So I'll be voting yes as well for this. Okay.

Thank you. If there's no other questions or comments, Ms. Mosher, thank you so much. Yes, sir.

Okay, we will take a 10-minute break.

OK, we call the meeting back into order. OK. And now it's the time for citizens comments regarding items that are on the agenda for tonight. 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 Secretary, please call the first name.

Katie Knox. Katie Knox.

Okay. City Attorney, you can call the next name.

Next name, William McClain.

William McClain.

He's saying he doesn't want to speak again. OK. Donald Smith?

Mrs. Donald Smith? Citizen comment?

on putting the tower exactly where it is in this guidance at the First Assembly of God Church where I am a board member and my house is only about 400 feet from where the tower is going. Government and councils exist for one main reason in my opinion. That is to solve issues before they become problems. You have a case here where you can do that, and I'll tell you why we have a potential problem. There's two big housing areas going in, one on Stagecoach and East Tremere, one on Chaparral. That's hundreds of families. What are all those families going to have? Cell phones. We will probably be overburdened with that additional addition. And what we want to avoid in my opinion is if we don't take action on this now and those towers don't go in, you've got hundreds of new people moving into the area. If they can't operate their cell phones, they're not coming to see Don Smith. They're coming to see you guys. So let's be sensible about this thing and solve the problem now and approve this so we can put that tower in so when the new citizens move in, there's no question that they have the cell phone coverage they need. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Madam City Attorney.

Cecil Adams.

Thank you. Just a little reminder, of course, we need this. All of us do, but sometimes we want the tower in someone else's neighborhood. And we know that issue. But there's another thing. Glad I came tonight. The budget. He said that that's agriculture land. Hardly any taxes come off of that. Zero comes off church property. But this tower comes on. Maybe it will save some employees jobs. So that will bring tax dollars from that area. So I think y'all should approve it because it benefits all of us and it helps our city's budget. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Madam City Attorney.

No further persons are signed up for citizen comments on agenda items. And I just would note as you move into your regular session with the consent agenda, RS 26115 was pulled from consent, will need to be voted on separately.

That was RS 26. Item two, yes. Okay, we will now go into our regular session. Madam Secretary, consent item?

As just stated, I start with item two that was pulled from consent. RS-26-115, consider a memorandum resolution approving revisions to the bylaws for the Youth Advisory Commission.

That was pulled so that would call so you'll need a separate motion and vote motion second vote on this item.

OK, Council member. Bass.

Mayor, I make a motion to approve the bylaws.

Is there a second Council member Nash King?

Thank you second.

There was a second any discussion? Okay, no discussion. All in favor signify by yes. All opposed, no. Okay, motion carries 7-0. Madam Secretary.

The consent agenda. Item 3, RS-26-116, consider a memorandum resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a local on-system improvement project with the Texas Department of Transportation for the W.S. Young and I-14 drainage and landscape improvement project. Item 4, RS-26-117. Consider a memorandum resolution authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement with Shibe Consulting LLC for the design of a low water crossing flood mitigation phase one project in the amount of $130,563.05. Item five, RS-26-118. Consider a memorandum resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a local landscape agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the W.S. Young and I-14 Drainage and Landscape Improvement Project. Item 6, OR-26-013, consider an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12, Flood Damage Prevention. Item 7, RS-26-119, consider a memorandum resolution approving an election services contract with Bell County.

Council Member Brown.

Move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Is there a second Council Member Nash King?

Second the motion.

Discussion. All in favor signify by saying yes, all opposed no. Motion to approve the gender pass. We will now go into our regular session. Resolution for individual consideration. Madam Secretary.

Resolutions. Item number 8, RS-26-120. Consider a memorandum resolution setting the preliminary property tax rate for the fiscal year 2027 annual budget and setting the date to hold a public hearing.

Mr. Cagle, City Manager.

Yes, sir.

We need to, okay. Council Member Brown. Excuse me, Mr. Cagle. I'm sorry. That's okay.

Okay. Again, just so I know we have one that I think we're in unanimous agreement on, so I'll make it as two separate motions. But first, I move to set a public hearing on the tax rate for September 1st, 2026 at 5 p.m. at City Hall.

Okay. There was a motion made to set a public hearing. Is there a second? Council Member Nash-King?

I second the motion.

Is there any discussion? All in there's no discussion. All in favor signify yes, all opposed no. The motion carries 7 to 0.

And then the second motion that I have is I move to set the preliminary tax rate of 71.32 cents. Okay, is there a second?

Is there a second? Motion fails, there's not a second.

is uh council member kimball thank you mr mayor i move that we set the tax rate at the recommend recommended preliminary rate of 7.7301 cents is there a second council member nash king i second the motion sir is there any discussion council member beth

Mr. Cagle and I spoke at the break, and we had a misunderstanding. My question was, I believe, if we take the voter rate to the voters, if we take the tax rate to the voters at .7303, my question was, If the voters say no, does it go back to the no new revenue rate? And what I understood was the answer was yes, but that is not what will happen. Mr. Cagle, can you clarify what would happen if we did take it to the voters and they said no? Yes, sir. Back to the voter approval rate. Yes, sir. Okay. So... Therefore, I am not in favor of taking it to the voters because I have said from the beginning I do not want to raise property taxes. So I am in favor of the no new revenue rate. And that's what I'm in favor of tonight. And I appreciate being up here with all these experienced council members and a very experienced city manager to help me learn how to go through this budget process. So be patient with me. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Bass. Okay, there's no more discussion. City Secretary will take a record vote.

Mrs. Williams. Shall I wait until everybody's punched in and then read them?

Yes. Okay, so we'll.

Okay.

Okay. Everybody can go ahead and vote. All in favor signify by saying. Shall we read them off?

Okay, thank you. You in favor?

Yes.

All opposed, no.

Okay, Beverly Ann Williams voted yes. Charles Kimball voted yes. Melissa Brown voted no. Jessica Gonzalez voted yes. Anthony Kendrick voted yes. David Bass voted no. Debbie Nash King voted yes. The motion passes five to two.

Thank you, City Secretary. Okay, Madam Secretary, next item. RS-2612.

Item 9, RS-26-121, consider a memorandum resolution approving a Chapter 311 tax increment reimbursement agreement with Philip Boghossian Living Trust and Howard Sagiser 401K plan and the Sagiser, Watkins, and Whelan 401K for the reimbursement of infrastructure improvements in the amount of $3,991,303.94.

Okay, Council, Ms. Mesher has reviewed the presentation. Would you like for her to go over it again? Okay. Then I will, Council Member, well.

Move to approve RS-26-121.

Is there a second? Council Member Nashke?

I am glad to say I second that motion.

Is there any discussion? There's no discussion. All in favor signify by yes. All opposed, no. Motion carries 7-0. Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 10, RS-26-122. Consider a memorandum resolution authorizing a mural agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the I-14 underpass painting project.

Okay, Council, would you like for Mrs. Ager to go over that again? Thank you. I will take a motion. Council Member Nashke?

Thank you, sir. I make a motion to approve RAS-26-122.

Second. Council Member Kimball?

I second that motion, sir. Any discussion?

Council Member Kimball? No discussion. All in favor signify by yes. All opposed, no. The motion carries five to two. Madam Secretary, next item please.

Item 11, RS-26-123, consider a memorandum resolution approving an interlocal agreement with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles authorizing participation with the SCOF law program.

OK. In a motion, Councilmember Nash-King.

I make a motion to approve RAS-26-123, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Kendricks.

I second the motion.

Is there any discussion? All in favor? Signified by yes. All opposed, no. Motion carries, 7-0.

Ordinances, item 12, OR-26-014. Consider an ordinance calling the charter amendment election on November the 3rd, 2026.

Counsel, Mr. Wallander did the presentation. Would you like him to go over it again?

No, sir.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I make a motion to approve OR-26-014. Is there a second?

Council Member Williams. I second it. Is there any discussion? There's no discussion. All in favor signify by yes or opposed no. Motion carries 7-0. Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 13, OR-26-012, consider an ordinance submitted by Vincent Gerard and Associates on behalf of First Assembly of God, Inc., case number Z26-10, for a conditional use permit, CUP, to allow for the installation of a wireless telecommunications tower on property zoned B3, local business district, being approximately two acres, being lot one, block one, McClurkin addition. The subject property is locally addressed as 7432 East Tremere Road, Killeen, Texas.

Council, Ms. Mesher has reviewed the presentation. Would you like for her to review it again? Council Member Nash-King.

Oh, Mr. Mayor, I already did three or four motions. I'm going to give it to Councilman Kimball and Councilman Williams. Councilman Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that we accept the staff recommendations to erect the tower at the location.

Councilmember Williams, is there a second?

I second it.

Any discussion? All in favor, signify by yes. All opposed, no. Motion carries six to zero. Six to one, my apologies. Six to one. Okay, we're moving right along.

Public hearings, item 14, PH-26-023. Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance submitted by Republic Engineering. On behalf of Boghossian, Phillip Living Trust and Sagasur, Howard 401k plan Z26-08 to rezone approximately 302.42 acres out of V.L. Evans survey, abstract number 288 from R1 single family residential district M1 Manufacturing District and M2 Heavy Manufacturing District to PED, Planned Unit Development with SF2 Single Family Residential District and M1 Manufacturing District uses. The subject property is located along North Roy Reynolds Drive, Killeen, Texas. The caption of the ordinance reads, An ordinance amending the City of Killeen Zoning Ordinance by changing the zoning of approximately 302.42 acres out of the V.L. Evans Survey abstract number 288 from R1 Single Family Residential District and M1 Manufacturing District to PED Planned Unit Development. with SF2 Single Family Residential District and M1 Manufacturing District, providing a savings clause, providing for the repeal of conflicting provisions, and providing for an effective date. Ms. Messier.

Thank you. This item is for consideration of the proposed PUD for the Santa Fe development project. The property is generally located on the east side of North Roy Reynolds, the intersection of Roy J. Smith. The red star on your screen indicates the location of the property. This is an aerial. And this map indicates the current zoning of the property as well as the notification buffer. So you can see it's currently zoned a combination of M1, M2, and R1. The proposed development includes 170.88 acres of underlying SF2 single family residential zoning and 131 acres of underlying M1 manufacturing district zoning. The residential component includes 188 40 foot lots, 219 50 foot lots, 129 60 foot duplex lots, and 56.25 acres of private HOA maintained open space. This is the concept plan for the proposed development. As you can see, it includes a mix of different lot sizes. And what this doesn't indicate, but I did mention it during my previous presentation, is that there will be a required truck turnaround for commercial vehicles located in this vicinity. The proposed PUD includes approximately 56 acres of open space, which as I said, will be owned and maintained by the HOA. The proposed open space will include a six foot wide walking trail and will offset the parkland dedication requirements. Eligible park improvements may also be provided within the open space to offset the park development fees. This is the exhibit showing the location of that proposed open space. So this area over here is encumbered with an inundation easement. So that's the reason for it being HOA maintained open space. Property is located within the controlled growth sector on the growth sector map and designated residential mix and industrial on the future land use map. This is a view facing north along Roy Reynolds. This is a view of the subject property facing east, view from the subject property facing south, and a view from the subject property facing west towards the industrial park. We notified the owners of 128 surrounding properties and we've received one written response in opposition from the property owner identified with the yellow star on this map. Staff finds that the proposed development does provide for industrial uses as well as a mix of housing types with varying lot sizes and open space amenities, and we are therefore recommending approval of the applicant's PUD request as presented. Planning and Zoning Commission met on June 8th and recommended approval by a unanimous vote. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is also here and does have a presentation that he'd like to make for this item as well.

Okay, Councilmember Nash-King.

I apologize. I was going to make a motion, but I forgot we were in public and I still want to go first to make that motion. Thank you.

Council Member Brown.

I'd like to request that we see the applicant's presentation, Mayor, if that's okay?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council would like to hear the presentation. Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members. I'm here, I'm Brita Wallace, and I'm here on behalf of the developer, Bill McLean. And I'm going to skip through some of my context.

Thank you.

I could just go ahead, y'all. Oh, here it is. Okay, perfect.

You're good, ma'am.

Okay.

I'm going to skip through some of the context slides that we already covered and move right into why this plan is better than what could be built today. So I'm going to, under the existing zoning, this property can already be developed with about 109 acres of industrial and 193 acres of residential. And that's the image that y'all can see on the left slide. The Santa Fe PUD just rearranges where those uses can go, and it's in a way that works better for everyone. So I'm going to go through four different points. The first one is that this new plan is actually going to deliver more industrial than what's already allowed. So it's 43% industrial under the PUD versus 36% under existing zoning. Two, the proposed industrial gets moved to where it ends up fronting Roy Reynolds Drive and the railroad and where it has close proximity to the existing gas line and the high voltage electric line, which is exactly where the industrial belongs and exactly the kind of location that will attract the kind of business that Colleen wants to recruit. Three, council already said yes to the underlying plan when the amendment that this rezoning implements passed unanimously last year. That vote was step one, and this PUD rezoning is step two along that same path. And the Planning and Zoning Commission has already recommended it to y'all unanimously. And four, staff supports this plan. We coordinated with staff throughout the PUD process to address staff concerns. So the purpose of this slide is to show why this site makes more sense in the context for the future homeowners in the residential area. First, there are going to be some walls and enhanced landscaping requirements that end up along the industrial side. So that when the future homeowners drive into their neighborhood, that what they see is landscaping on the right side instead of seeing industrial. And then the location also serves as a natural buffer. The industrial is pushed down to the south and then the homes are kept apart by that future collector road that runs through here and by the floodplain that comes down here. So the homes are also buffered from the railroad by the industrial. The in terms of the housing side there'll be a mix of 40 50 and 60 foot lots with some duplexes So the builders are able to deliver homes at different price points The variety rules built into the PUD prevent a cookie cutter look and the new rooftops attract quality commercial and retail that Colleen has been waiting on and there are also 45 acres of community green space and these are kind of concept rendering showing that there will be existing trees and preserve within the green spaces and then nature trails. And there's no cost to the city because the HOA maintains it. So this is just a summary of what I already said about the reasons why it makes sense to approve the Santa Fe PUD. And we respectfully request y'all's recommendation of approval. Thank y'all, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Nash-King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. I think the rearrangement of this lot gives more room to bring in manufactories, businesses, but still have that residential kind of feel, home. I love the buffers, and I think this is one of the, for the property, the land that's there, this is a great project that definitely... WILL ENHANCE THAT AREA AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE NORTH SIDE. SO THANK YOU. GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. YOU'RE WELCOME.

So again, for transparency, I met with the applicant and the representative for this case. And I asked the question there, I'm going to ask again, what will you be doing in order to protect the quality of that stream that's there from any of the manufacturing runoff? And then also to screen between the residential and the manufacturing on that southwest portion of the property.

So I'm going to read to you all from the PUD standards. The property within the PUD shall comply with the requirements set forth in Killeen City Code, except as modified in this document. So the document doesn't modify any drainage standards or any standards related to floodplain. So those standards would all apply. And to the extent there were any runoff from any of the industrial development, that would be regulated, or sorry, discharged from any of the industrial development, that would be regulated by TCEQ. And for your second question, it would be easier if I could show you all an image, if that's possible. Yes.

Yes.

So what the image shows is I went out on site and took a picture, and this is showing where the picture was taken, and it's showing that floodplain area and how mature the trees are. So I don't think any kind of screening requirement that the city has would be able to compete with the natural trees that are already on site.

Thank you. And then with that, so one of the things that I do know that I want to point out to everybody is that trees in and of themselves, that trees and plants, other foliage, act as kind of a screening device or a filtering device. So when you have the trees there, you have other foliage, the root system will actually help to catch some of those chemicals or any other pollutants that would be in the water before it gets to the stream. So I just want to make sure that public knows we did talk about that, making sure that the stream is preserved from any runoff. And of course, you'll have an environmental study in which you would be given any additional requirements through that, correct?

Do we have an environmental study?

There's not a requirement for an environmental study on this property that I'm aware of. But all of the normal, like the creek buffer zone requirements, all of the things that are in our regular standards, as Ms. Wallace said, will still apply.

I apologize. I presumed there would be a requirement for an environmental because of the wetland area right there. There's no wetland with the flood zone in the street?

There's floodplain, but there's no required for an environmental analysis. Okay. My apologies then. Thank you.

Council Member Bess.

Ma'am, I have some questions. The HOA maintains the park space, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So does that mean our parks and recreation has zero responsibility for that park space?

That's correct, council member.

Code enforcement. Since there's an HOA, will our code enforcement be responsible for that neighborhood?

So code enforcement is always responsible for the enforcement of any city requirements, things like high weeds and grass provisions, care of premise violations, nuisance vehicle violations. Code enforcement is always responsible for those things. The HOA will be responsible for any deed restrictions over and above the city's minimum requirements. Thank you.

Yes, sir. And who maintains the roads?

that's the city. These will all be public streets.

Okay. And then, um, a data center could qualify for that industrial area. True.

That I would defer to Ms. Measure, but that's my understanding.

So the city of clean currently does not have a use category for a data center. Um, That being said, it's staff's determination that a data center would fall into the M1 category. Yes, sir. So there's nothing that specifically allows or disallows a data center in this particular development because, as I said, our code is silent on that.

Right. So KEDC did a great job. They recruited, none of these have said yes yet, but a polymer manufacturing company, an electric transformer manufacturer, a railroad component, a railroad components manufacturer. But if somebody came in and said I want to build a data center on this, in this industrial area, that would go to P&Z through the normal process, correct?

The zoning will be decided here tonight. So if the zoning is M1, typically the way it works is that if there's a use that doesn't appear verbatim in the code, staff makes the determination of what the most appropriate zoning district would be for that particular use. And in this case, I believe that the most appropriate zoning district for a data center is M1.

And we're voting on M1, right? Yes, sir. OK. So bottom line, a data center will qualify for this industrial area.

Yes, subject to the provisions in the PUD, including the screening. Yes.

All right. Now, the developer might or might not be in favor of a data center. But that's out of his hands. Is that correct?

Well, you all have to recall that the developer has to find someone to build the houses as well.

Right. But the developer cannot veto a data center just because of that issue, correct?

The property owner could conceivably add deed restrictions to the property if they chose to do that.

Even if it's zoned M1, the developer could add deed restrictions saying no data center. Is that correct?

I suppose that's possible.

All right. Well, that's very interesting because we all know data centers are going to be a big subject at the legislature. So I just want to clarify that. Thank you.

And to be clear, the city doesn't enforce deed restrictions. Those would be enforced by the property owner. Thank you.

Okay. Madam secretary, would you correct the time to two minutes rather than three? Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Looking over the plan, if I did my math correctly, so you're going to have about 660 homes? 540 homes approximately. 540 homes, duplexes. dog parks, industrial manufacturing, the things that we've been literally begging for the north side of town. So, I mean, it's a great plan looking forward to you put into effect and literally people have been literally banging on our doors and do something about the north side of town. I'm glad this project is doing it for us. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Paul, Tim.

Yes, sir. Thank you. I just wanted to touch on Council Member Bass's concern regarding data centers and just for the record that our governor has halted any approvals on data centers until audits have been completed. We don't know how long that's going to take. Not only is the state of Texas being proactive, each municipality is being proactive, and I'll let Our council member talked about the request that she's made and why as it relates to your concern. So, Mr. Bass, as of right now, the governor has halted data center approvals at this time. Thank you.

Council Member Brown, second term.

Thank you. So I want to point out that we're reminded consistently on a zoning case, we can't base our decision off what might or might not be there in the future based on the zoning. The most we can assume is that if it's allowable by right in that zoning, then it would be able to go in there. But Ms. Metcher, I believe when we talked before, you had indicated that perhaps M2 would be the more appropriate zoning for that, which is more restrictive, correct?

M2 is less restrictive than M1.

Okay. So you already would recommend the most restrictive zoning anyway.

For a data center? Yes. I just want to make sure I understand the question. Correct. Sorry. So sometimes M1 is referred to as more of the light industrial and M2 being the heavy industrial. Correct. Realistically, it's more of a heavy industrial and a heavier industrial. So in this case, my opinion is that a data center is appropriate in an M1 and that M2 is less restrictive, meaning it allows more things. Okay.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, I got it. And with that, and this has come up as concerns on other zoning issues and other zoning cases. So once we get through our public hearings and a couple other discussion items, there is a request for future agenda items so that the council can address that and decide where we believe the most appropriate zoning is or what restrictions we feel appropriate. should be placed on any data centers in the future and realistically we would get through that discussion and any trips to planning and zoning on it and then back for a vote on that before if a data center did want to go into that area before they could even come in and go through that process I think with purchasing the property and going through all of the platting getting all that infrastructure in, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. We can get a code amendment to address data centers pretty quickly. Thank you.

Council Member Kendricks. Excuse me, Council Member Nash-King.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to remind the council and myself, we're really talking about rezoning. That's it. It's not about data centers or anything else. This line item for public hearing, do we want to rezone it or we don't? Any other further discussion will come later. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council.

Council Member McKendricks.

uh thank you for those words um council member um nash king had those my exact thoughts um we we're working so hard let's let's not stop the progress of what we're trying to do a few council members up here have said this is a wonderful idea and we're we're moving forward with all of the things that the north side is asking for and for us to make the north side hold on some things that they are looking forward to. So those are the things I think we need to concentrate on. How do we move forward and get – get to the prize. And the prize is all of that infrastructure over there and doing as much as we can for the north side so they don't feel like they have been left out. And like me, I stay on the west side. Yes, there's things I want on the west side, but I know there's things on the north side that probably need to be prioritized a little better or more than the west side. And so I think that's what we ought to concentrate on. Not so much the coulda, woulda, shouldas. We need to concentrate on the things that will do things for the north side. And that's all I have. Council Member Bess.

I just want to clarify I am not opposed to data centers. I really like using my cell phone. I just think they need to be in the right place. Maybe this is not the right place for one. We'll cross that bridge if we have to. But I am totally in favor of this project. Thank you.

Council Member Williams.

Yes, I am totally in agreement with this project as well, with everything the north side has been needing and in need of. I'm appreciative of this, and so I think it's a beginning as well for the north side. So kudos to you guys. Thank you so much for doing that. Appreciate that.

All right. No more discussion. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Okay. We'll now open public hearing. Madam Attorney, would you please call the press?

I have one person who signed up, Gina Powell.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I recently read a Colleen Daily Herald article titled Colleen Council to hold public hearing for development where North Colleen Grocery Store potential was selling point. After reading that article, I came away with one question that I hope you can help me understand. How does building more homes lead to a grocery store? I'm asking because I understand the proposal includes housing, manufacturing, and green space, but I don't understand how approving more homes results in a grocery store. Has the city conducted a market study or analysis showing that this development would attract a grocery store? If so, where does the city expect the grocery store would actually be located? Is there currently a grocery operator that has expressed interest or made a commitment or is simply in an expectation for the future? If the expectation is that a grocery store will be built near Roy Reynolds Drive, how does that improve grocery access for residents who already live in established North Killeen neighborhoods? I'm not opposing housing or development. I'm simply asking for clarification because the article connects this development with a grocery store potential, and I'd like to understand what evidence supports that connection. And also, if you go on Roy Reynolds, That is way far from North Killeen. I don't understand where we're going to do this grocery store and how this development is going to help. And if you look at how many homes, 500 homes, how much does that create the population on the north side? Where does a grocery store go? It's all about location, location. Roy Reynolds, like I said, I live up north. I know exactly where that area is. And one half has already got homes. The other half has got partly cows. And that location is not going to have a grocery store there. How are they helping us, the north side, to become better without any explanation of how they're going to create a grocery store? And what is very deceiving is what the newspaper said. And not one has anybody said anything about how this is going to help us with a grocery store. So I'm just going by what I saw in the newspaper, and that's all. And if it's not true? It's not true, but I'm just going by what I saw in the newspaper, and today I have not heard one thing about the grocery store and how this company is going to help that prosper. Thank you. Do I sit down now? Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam City Secretary, is there anyone?

No one else has signed up for this public hearing. I don't know if there's anyone else here.

Okay. Okay. Well.

Council Member Nashke. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was getting ready to make a motion, but the public hearing is still open. But I would like to, can I finish? You want to close it? I'm not sure. Do you want me to stop talking? No, ma'am. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Mesher, thank you, ma'am. I didn't read that article. Was a grocery store connected to bring this to clean? I don't mean council looking at me like they read it. I don't understand.

I can tell you I did see the article. I'm not aware that any grocer has indicated any interest to locate in this area. What I will say is that, you know, in talking to potential grocers, the response that we have often heard is that new rooftops on the north side would help to attract a grocery store, but that does not mean that this site will have a grocery store.

Right, because I don't want to miss... Yeah, I need that clear... clear it up before I make a motion because I don't want to lead them on because I didn't know about it.

There's no intention for there to be a grocery store in this location.

Was there ever said that that would happen that way? No. Yes, maybe so. Could have been just like you said.

There was a question at the Planning and Zoning Commission about whether there was a potential grocer.

Right. Okay. I can see why it was rolled that way if that was already said.

The only nexus between this project and a potential grocery store is the addition of additional rooftops.

Okay, I understand. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion, but I think it's still open. I'm sorry. I need to close.

Yes, sir. Public hearing, please. Public hearing is closed.

Thank you. So with my time. Yes. No, you want me to stop? Okay. Mayor Pro Tem would like to stop before I do that.

So Mayor Pro Tem. You have the floor. Did you complete what you wanted?

I didn't, but it's no need of me doing it, and other people would like to speak, and they may want to go another direction, so I'm just going to be a team player and yield my time.

Mayor Pro Temp.

Thank you for getting that clarity, Council Member Nash-King. But I do not want to go into a different direction as it relates to that grocery conversation. So I just want to make sure that also for the constituent, for the public, which we can talk offline if she's still here, I'll be happy to chat with you about it. We've got several pocket groceries that have opened in the area, and there's a lot of progress I'll be happy to talk to you afterwards about.

Council Member Brown.

I also wasn't going to make a motion. I had wanted to use my response time to the public hearing. Um, and I just wanted to say that I think the confusion is coming from a quote in that article and in defense of clean daily Herald, they're not quoting the city. or anyone from the city council. It's a comment that was made at the planning and zoning meeting by Commissioner Alvarez, who in his response actually stated that they, meaning grocers, said we want to see new life in these areas, new families moving into it, and that basically creates a market that's attractive and conducive to them, meaning grocery stores. So the argument that was made at planning and zoning that caused that quote and that headline in the paper is that the more rooftops we have and the more foot traffic we have through that area, the more of an incentive that is to a grocery store to come into the North Killeen area. So I just wanted to clarify that statement. It was in the paper. It's not entirely misleading, but it's important to have the context behind it. So I wanted to provide that context.

Thank you, ma'am. All right. I would like to entertain a motion. Council Member Nashkin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Brown, for that. And I understood that when Ms. Messinger said it, that it was just, it came from planning and zoning. But thank you for going into detail. With that being said, I would like to get back to the motion. A motion to approve PH-26-023. Okay.

Is there a second? Councilmember Williams. I second the motion. Is there any discussion? There is no discussion. All in favor signify by yes. All opposed, no. The motion carries seven to zero. Thank you, Council. Madam Secretary, next item.

Item 15, public hearing dash 26 dash 024, hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending the City of Killeen's thoroughfare plan. The caption of the ordinance reads, an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan to update the thoroughfare plan, providing a severability clause, providing savings clause, providing for the repeal of conflicting provisions, providing for publication, and an effective date. Ms. Mesher?

Yes, sir, thank you. This item is for consideration of a proposed thoroughfare plan amendment related to the Santa Fe development. The city's thoroughfare plan, as you know, establishes the transportation network for the city and provides for the orderly development of roadways, including their alignments, connections, and transportation linkages. As the city grows, it does become necessary to occasionally amend or revise the thoroughfare plan. So staff is recommending that the existing thoroughfare plan be changed to change the classification of the future Roy J. Smith extension from a collector to a local street. So this map indicates the alignment of the current collector roadway that's identified on our current thoroughfare plan. As you can see, it comes through the property that you just considered the zoning for and then ties into Reynolds Crossing up here and then ultimately would have connected to Ranciere Avenue. However, when this subdivision up here was constructed, the connection does not exist through that area. There's also a lot of floodplain in this vicinity. And really the most important factor here is that the proposal for the industrial development we didn't want to facilitate or encourage commercial traffic to go through a residential neighborhood. And so that's the primary reason for this proposed amendment. So what we are proposing is to essentially eliminate this segment of collector roadway. The recommendation is to change the alignment to a local street. I will point out that the thoroughfare plan does not include the alignment for local streets. So when it says to change the classification from a collector to a local street, essentially what that means is that this alignment of a collector would go away. Again, with the reason being that we're not trying to encourage through traffic, through an industrial development and into a residential neighborhood. So again, the current classification is collector, the proposal classification is a local street. All of that is to say that the collector wouldn't be shown on the thoroughfare plan anymore. So on the left is the current plan and on the right is the proposed thoroughfare plan. Staff does find that the proposed Santa Fe concept plan removes the need for a collector in this area, again, because we're not trying to encourage through traffic of commercial vehicles. So staff is at the determination that a collector street linking the proposed industrial development to residential neighborhoods is not necessary or prudent, and the presence of the floodplain and topography negatively impact the feasibility of that collector. So staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment in order to ensure consistency with the existing residential and proposed residential and industrial development in this area. Planning and zoning recommended approval by a vote of six to zero on June 8th. Happy to answer any questions.

Council Member Brown?

I fully understand what you're saying about the way the map is or the plan is used and the way things are mapped. I'm still very firm that we need to at least amend the recommendation so that the collector, that it's reclassified after the point where the manufacturing ends and it goes into residential. And a big part of that is for future planning purposes. When we look at that map of our thoroughfare plan, we have everything listed for what is already existing. So none of us in this room will be here at some point. When we look 20, 30 years in the future and there are brand new people sitting up here, there are brand new staff members, we have a brand new city manager, it's important, I believe it's important that we have everything documented the way it actually is. So if we're going to say that that has to be a collector road anyway, I feel like the thoroughfare plan should reflect what that actual roadway is so that We don't go 10, 20, 30 years in the future. We have another thoroughfare plan that we're updating, and people forget what that is, and that adversely affects the planning process or the maintenance process in the future. So for continuity's sake, I support reclassifying the residential area to local, but I feel like we need to keep the manufacturing area as collector on that map.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. In layman terms, compared to what we're presenting to the council to vote on, to what Councilwoman Brown would like to see, what's the difference? I'm just simple. She said a lot. It was great information, great information. I just know that me personally, because I've done it for a while, it's too big to be a collector. So is that what I'm understanding her to say it or not? Is it too big to be a collector, a collector role? That's what I'm trying to understand. What's different? Oh, Mr. Zager's comment. Mr. Mayor, I didn't call him. I just said he was coming. I just want to know what she's trying to propose and what we should do because that confused the council. Let's just focus on what we're saying because that was a lot of information, why this is better and we can move forward.

So it's not necessarily a question of is it too big. It's more a question of does the existing development that's already out there, as well as the contemplated development, facilitate or necessitate a collector in this location? To Councilwoman Brown's point, the PUD that you've just approved does contemplate and does specify a collector up to a certain point. I think what she's suggesting is just that the thoroughfare plan reflect what was approved in the PUD concept plan. Does that answer your question?

Yes, ma'am. But still, we can vote on this item and make the corrections later to add it. Is that what I'm understanding? Yes, no. Is there a hindrance? I'm voting on this tonight. You can make a recommendation to. There you go. She'll make it. Okay, we got that. Thank you. Just, I don't know. I just want to move forward.

Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Mesher.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Thank you. Miss measure. Appreciate it. Um, public hearing is now open. Yes. Madam city attorney.