City Council - Packet - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Tonight's invitation will be given by pastor Kevin Dudley of Faith Culture Church. Pastor, thank you for being here.

Thank you for the invite. You know, part of what I wanted to say before we pray is recognizing the calling that you guys have on your life. You you you're it's not a mistake. Some of you are voted in. Some of you are appointed.

But in reality, the appointment is from god himself. God raises up kings and he also puts kings down. And in that same sense, you can't do it in your own strength and you have to really rely on a supernatural strength to do the things that you do, supernatural wisdom, strength, and understanding of what you're doing, meaning that you're a servant of the people, but you're also a servant of god. In saying that, I'm gonna go ahead and start my prayer. So, father, in the name of Jesus, I come before you, and I ask holy spirit that you would guide and lead the, leadership of this city, this town, this county, lord god, with your hand upon them, with your providence upon them.

And, Lord God, guide them into wisdom and truth that only you could provide. You are the only one that knows the end from the beginning, and you're the only one that can help bring true wisdom and leadership. So, father, right now, we invite you and we invoke you into this, mindset, into the leadership of this, city. In the name of Jesus, amen.

Amen. Thank you, pastor. Appreciate you. Alright. I'll call the 06:00 city council meeting to order in. Please call the roll.

Mayor Morgan.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens. Here. Council member Lee.

Here.

Council member Flores. Here. Council member Fleming. Here. Councilmember Ortega? Here. Mayor Councilmember Montgomery?

Here. All

right. If you'll stand with me for the pledges, if you're able. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one individual. It's only at two.

Citizen communication. Any citizen who wishes to speak during citizen communication regarding item on or off the gentleman to do so after completing the required registration card? All comments must be no more than three minutes and linked per section two dash two six b five of the Round Rock Code of Ordinance 2018 edition. Any comments regarding items not on the poster, Jim, may not be discussed or responded to by the city council per state law. Alright. Greg Kerwin.

Good evening. Thank you. I know you all are going to be disappointed I did not come down to fuss at you guys today. I know it's been a while,

but more important matters today.

But I do thank you guys for your service. Appreciate what you do. I actually want to address the citizens of Round Rock, those who haven't voted on the upcoming propositions, propositions A and B. Proposition a has been talked about as the billboard's proposition, and it's been kind of peddled to something that's gonna bring safety to Round Rock, and there's all these things we can do. And if a meteor hits my house on Sunset Drive, I can call 911, and immediately that information will go out on the billboards and it'll say, you know, meteor hit Greg's house. Don't go over there and take pictures. Go somewhere else. Right? It's really not about safety. It's not about public safety.

This is about private profit. We've seen this proposal come before in the same kind of deceptive manner. Last time it came around, a volunteer came and knocked on our door and asked us to sign a petition. Coincidentally, the volunteer apparently worked for the company that's making these billboard signs. Right? Now we have another cheerleader that's saying, you know, if we do this, we can get all this information out. In eight or nine seconds, we'll synchronize it with the city facilities. That's all proposals. That's theoreticals. It's not something that's happening.

It's not something we really need because we have a lot of other ways to get that information out. There's an old IBM commercial. Maybe you saw it years ago. The two consultants are sitting at the table with the executive, and they've got all their proposals here, and they pass them across the table to the executives and say, well, here we are. Here are our proposals. Executive looks at it says, okay. Good. Go do it. And they kinda look at each other for a minute and one turns to the other and he looks at the executive and says, well, well, we don't really do. We just propose.

And that's kinda what this proposal is about how this is gonna fit in with the city infrastructure. It's not gonna put money in somebody's pocket. So for those who have not voted yet, please vote no on proposition a. It is not gonna help. It's gonna bring more sign pollution into Round Rock.

Proposition b, which is also being cheerleaded by the same person, apparently, again, has been touted as fire safety and staffing at appropriate levels. And it's even been touted as saying, let's give the citizens of Round Rock control on how to vote about this. Again, it's not really about safety. It's about who decides the level of safety we need in Round Rock and that we can afford in Round Rock. And the mayor and others have done good jobs about pointing out how well we've done in that regard.

We could always use more safety. At what point do we say we can't afford this? If this proposition passes, the sit and I really am speaking to the citizen. I'm looking at you guys. But the citizens need to understand this is the last time you will ever get to say anything about the level of safety.

After this, it will be decided by unions and it will be decided by lawsuits. We will no longer have any control over how much money we think should be spent and where it should be best designated. So I really would encourage the citizens, if you're not familiar, look at these two propositions. You know, I know people like, oh, you know, it's thirty minutes or however long it takes to get over there and vote. If you think thirty minutes is a long time to get out of your house and go vote, you're gonna spend the rest of your years in Round Rock regretting not going over there and voting on these propositions. So please read them carefully, and please vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Greg. Jack Charles. CHILLS:

Good evening, everyone. I'm sure you remember me from last time. It turns out that the money behind the billboards is, in fact, media source. This is confirmed in writing in a 02/2025 email to the Round Rock Firefighters Association. Joe Johnson, current president, confirms that Bonner Fowles, the Keep Round Rock Safe treasurer, the same pack that was behind the last attempt to get billboards in, directly approached Round Rock Firefighters Association leadership with that offer.

They then spun off fireside strategies, which was headed by battalion chief William Colburn's wife, Tanae Brooke. She is the sole proprietor on the paperwork for that. That firm contributed $55,700 to the current PAC trying to do this. They are the only one with current public campaign finance reports stating such. The problem with this is we have people in RRFA branding identifying as RRFA members and block walking during the period of July to December 2025.

Use of RRFA branding, staff, and resources creates the implication that RRFA leadership is endorsing Prop A. By that, they should have listed that on their campaign finance reports. Three separate reports have come and passed. Nothing. The only reason we found out about these emails is because people inside released them.

Union leadership lied to our faces for over a year. They said they spun off Fireside in April 2025. That's when the company was formed. Fireside doesn't even appear until the most recent CFRs. And again, 55,007, that's not a lot of money. That's certainly barely enough to pay for the block walkers at $8 a signature. Where's the money? How much did Bonnerfowls and Mediasource, Media Choice put directly into the Colburn's pockets via fireside? Where did it go? We don't know.

Where is the money for these billboards, these ads going to go? We don't know. And to be frank, if that's all that was paid, they sold the unions on a real cheap, like scabs.

Thank you, Chuck.

Okay.

All right. Move to proclamations. No more speakers? I've got a couple that signed up, but y'all don't have to speak on you're speaking at your when we do the proclamation. Anyone else? All right. Proclamation z one, consider proclaiming May 2026 as historic preservation month in the city of Round Rock. Richard, why don't you come up and start? And then I think Frank's gonna speak, and then my favorite person, Shirley, is gonna speak. Hey.

Alright. Whereas the National Preservation Act passed in 1966, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has declared May as National Preservation Month. And whereas the city of Round Rock is dedicated to preserving its history and historic landmarks, and whereas historic preservation maintains our community's unique character, fosters local pride, grows tourism, revitalizes neighborhoods, and educates the public about history and local heritage, And whereas the city of Round Rock adopted its historic preservation ordinance forty seven years ago in 1979, and Round Rock's historic preservation commission and city planners work daily to implement the city's historic preservation programs, And whereas nonprofit organizations, including Round Rock Preservation and the Williamson Museum, businesses, schools, and the public are vital community partners in achieving the city of Round Rock's preservation goals and projects. And whereas as a tribute to Round Rock's origin and heritage, this year's preservation month theme is our history in plain sight. And whereas the city seeks to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions to Round Rock's history by celebrating National Preservation Month with a variety of events and activities, Now, therefore, I, Craig Morgan, and the rest of city council of the city of Round Rock invite everyone to participate in observing National Preservation Month throughout the month of May 2026 in the city of Round Rock proclaim this April 2026, mayor Craig Morgan.

Richard?

Thank you, mayor and counsel. On behalf of Historic Preservation Commission, thank you for recognizing this work. The Historic Preservation Commission works closely with Williamson County Museum and our Round Rock Preservation to continuously inform the public and educate the public about the importance of preserving historic structures, etcetera. And on a personal note, I was thinking today, the older I get, the more interested I am in preserving old things. So on behalf of all the old things, thank you.

But I'd like to introduce Frank Dahr from Round Rock Preservation to make a presentation.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor and council, I'm Frank Dahr, vice president of Round Rock Preservation. First, I want to thank the council for their continued support, past and present, for the historic preservation projects all over Round Rock.

Historic preservation across the city enhances public pride and boosts historic tourism. Plus, our preserving our shared history is simply the right thing to do. Round Rock Preservation is celebrating its tenth year anniversary this year. Of course, our crown jewel of preserved history is our Stagecoach Inn building, which we started with with Round Rock Preservation. Ongoing projects across the city right now that, the city is working on is refurbishing the Palm House, which was moved from Main Street and relocated to Old Settlers Pioneer Village and Old Settlers Park.

The Palms the Palm family were early pioneers that settled in the area known as Brushy Creek in those days. Through hard work and perseverance, they became very successful, and they create a community now known as Palm Valley. Another work in progress right now that the city is working on is the historic timeline signage in the walking trails in Veterans Park, which once completed, is gonna be a real asset to our community. And a big thank you to your support for the downtown Water Tower Park improvements, especially the Mayfield Service Station, sometimes known as the Johnson Building. It's a landmark for the iconic domino players.

I moved to Round Rock, and I actually witnessed those gentlemen playing 42 down there, and I thought, what a nice little town

to move

to. Little did I know it was gonna blow up. Yeah. Round Rock Preservation is a five zero one nonprofit. Our our quarterly lunch and learn presentations engage the public hosting presentations on various topics.

Things that are coming up in preservation month. Friday, May 1, from six to eight, the chuckwagon dinner at the Old Settlers Association is a relaxed night of healthy food, live music, and Texas charm in an outdoor setting. The dinner is a fundraiser for the Williamson Museum. On Saturday, May 2, ten to three, the twentieth pioneer day at Old Settlers Association. It's a real fun event.

Lots of lots of families come out for that. It's also sponsored by the Williamson Museum. May May 12, Round Rock Preservation is sponsoring a lunch and learn. We're very happy to have a mister Mark Mayfield, who's a long term resident. His family has been here for many, many years.

He's gonna speak at the Baca Center. That's cosponsored by the Round Rock Preservation and the Planning and Development Services Department. May 14, opening for these celebrate Round Rock Exhibit works by the Baca Art Center club members. The art club there is gonna have displays starting there on the fourteenth. Usually, they have about 30 different offerings on that.

And finally, May, both of those days, preservation month preservation month, we'll have a booth on music at Mann on the Preet Plaza, which is free. And before I say goodnight, I really need to recognize the planning staff. They're very professional people who we work with constantly, and we're so fortunate to have miss Joelle Jordan and Kirsten Harding, who without doubt always offer us sound advice and good planning.

Thank you, Mr. Barr. All right, Shirley.

Good evening. I am Shirley Markwick. I live in Round Rock at 2351 Masonwood Way. The month of April 2026, Round Rock Preservation celebrates its tenth birthday as a federally recognized nonprofit organization. Round Rock Preservation was founded in April 2016 for the purpose of sharing history of Round Rock with others and to set advocate for the preservation of historic assets within the city of Round Rock.

Round Rock preservation contributes its success over the past ten years to its partnerships with the city of Round Rock, community organizations, and our citizens. So our appreciation goes out to each of you. So thank you. As the founder of Round Rock Preservation, I am gifting three coffee book table books to the Round Rock Public Library for use in their reference library. These books share the history of Round Rock Stagecoach Inn, its relocation, and its restoration.

So book one is preservation through shared history. Book two is preservation through relocation. Book three is preservation through rehabilitation. And our stagecoach inn that was built in 1848 went through all these stages. So, as books in the reference library, everyone will have access to those that history forever after.

And I thank everyone in Round Rock and elsewhere who, helped Round Rock Preservation achieve our successes for the last ten years, and we look forward to the next ten years in Round Rock, Texas. So thank you very much. And I'm gonna give the books to the mayor, and I have notified the the library. They can pick them up at the city.

So I'm not supposed to take them. All right. Thank you, Shirley. We appreciate all you've done, and especially on the moving of this. And this is still one of my favorite pictures that's happened in the cities when the people don't realize it looks like it's just moving, but it's stuck on our bridge.

Yeah. It stopped.

And council member Flores had asked, well, what happens? Because we paid a company to move it. And he had asked before we ever did it, well, what happens if something happens, you know, it falls apart? And then this is what we're getting. I'm like, oh, my gosh, it's going to fall off in Brushy Creek.

Yeah. So, thankfully, it didn't. It didn't.

And so, if you look at that bridge, it's so thin. And I thought to myself, how is it going to sustain all that weight? But Mr. Snow, who moved the stagecoach in, said, you get that bridge very, very clear of any rocks and stuff because they laid down iron beams, and they actually drove the truck over the iron beams. So he said, if you get it clean, it's not gonna break. And he said, I've been moving, thanks, for fifty years. Yeah. And we've never lost a building yet. So, yay That's to the right. Thank you.

Mayor, I

need to comment on that photograph. I have that on my Facebook page, and it's gotten over 1,500 views from all over the world.

Yeah, no doubt. All right, well, we appreciate all of you.

And I have one other thing All

right, Andrew.

One other thing that Frank forgot to say. In the very near future, at the Old Settlers Association ground, everyone will be able to see the iron window from the first Round Rock Jail. So look forward to that because it'll be happening in the very near future.

Alrighty. Thank y'all. Thank y'all very much. All right. E two, conserve proclaiming proclaiming May 2026 is Air Quality Awareness Week in the city of Round Rock. So come on up to the mic. I'm gonna turn it over to council member Montgomery who sits on the Clean Air Coalition. Proclamation.

Whereas air quality can threaten our environment, economy, and the health of the residents of the city of Round Rock, children, older adults, people with lung disease, and people with heart disease are particularly affected by poor air quality, which make up half of all residents in Central Texas. And whereas in 2025, air quality in the Austin Round Rock San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area was moderated or worse according to the air quality index for 57% of the days, whereas in 2025, the Austin Round Rock San Marcos MSA exceeded the federal eight hour ozone standard, which increases the region's risk of being designated nonattainment and whereas in 2025, the Austin Round Rock San Marcos MSA exceeded the federal annual fine particulate matter standard for a second year, which increases the region's risk of being designated nonattainment, and whereas remaining in compliance with the NAAQS is important, not only for public health, but also for the region's economy and the ability to conduct transporting, transportation, planning. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated May 2026, as National Air Quality Awareness Week, and whereas the goal of Central Texas Clean Air Coalition is to maintain compliance with federal air quality regulations and to reduce the impact of air pollution on public health and welfare.

Round Rock is committed to the efforts of the regional Central Texas CAC. Now therefore, I, Hilda Montgomery, on behalf of Mayor Morgan, mayor of Round Rock, do hereby proclaim May 2026, as Air Quality Awareness Week in the city of Round Rock, Texas. And I encourage residents and employees to take action to be air aware. Proclaim the April 2026.

Mayor, counsel, I just wanted to thank you all. My name is Joseph Daley. I'm out of the City of Round Rock Public Works Department. Side note, that's the best department in the whole department, in the whole city. I'd just like to thank you all for supporting our efforts in air quality. And I'd also like to thank Councilmember Montgomery for supporting our efforts in air quality. It's not something that's exciting, but it is something that is important to the overall health and well-being of this city. And so I'd like to just say thank you. All right.

Thank you for your service to our community and stuff. And Michael can pay you later because I know he told you to say that about the department.

Oh, no, he didn't.

Oh. No, he didn't. Oh,

I was free. Well, thank you, though, for your commitment.

Well, thank you once again, counsel.

All right. Thank you all.

Thank you.

All right. Consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There'll be no separate discussion on these items unless requested by a council member, which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Anybody have anything they want to remove and discuss? All right. I'll read the consent. F1, consider approval mentioned from the 04/09/2026, city council meeting. F2, consider resolution authorizing the merit to execute an agreement with Vermeer Equipment Texas LLC for the purchase of ditching, trenching, debris scrap, and other utility equipment. F three, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a second addendum to the Department of Information Resources Agreement with AT and T Enterprises LLC for cellular and data service.

F four, consider a resolution authorizing the city to submit a grant application to the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority for the fiscal year twenty twenty seven catalytic converter grant program. F5, consider resolution authorizing the merit to execute a supplemental engagement layer with Allensworth Law regarding ongoing litigation with Argonaut Insurance Company, Heritage Trail West Project. F6, consider resolution authorizing the merit to execute an agreement with Preferred Technologies LLC for the purchase of video surveillance systems and related services. F7, consider resolution authorizing the merit to execute an agreement with Ray Security Inc. For security and access control supplies, equipment, and services.

FH consider resolution authorizing the remainder to execute a contract for engineering services with H. W. Lochner Inc. For the McNutt Lift Station Improvements Project. I entertain a motion to adopt the consent. So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Councilor Ortega, seconded by Councilmember Lee. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Councilmember Lee? Yes. Councilmember Flores? Yes. Councilmember Fleming? Yes. Councilmember Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Councilmember Montgomery?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. G one, consider resolution amending appendix a fees, rates, and charges to the code of ordinances related to parks and recreation fees. Rick, and then we'll do I'm gonna jump to h one where to do the other one too after you do this one.

Good evening, mayor and council. It's that time of year to bring key fees in front of the council to really look at them. We look at them every other year for the most part, and we pick different fees to take a look at. This year, we're really looking at several fees, one of those being the Rockin' River. As you know, we're completing a significant project.

An upgrade to that facility is going to give us greater capacity. In that greater capacity, we had to hire additional lifeguards. So you're going see a lot of additional expense and costs there. With that, you'll see a fee increase of $6 going to $18 for the youth, dollars 20 for the adults, and then a $10 increase to the season pass. And I know there's been a little bit of discussion out there about our residents.

What the proposal is and always has been is that we will sell those season passes to our residents before we make them available to anybody or our nonresidents. So that should happen once these are approved. That $10 increase, if you have an additional family member, it's an additional $15 and that makes it very much affordable to anybody in a family situation. As you look at the season pass for individuals, there was no increase for that. Those fees are anywhere usually $65 to $75, 65 for the youth, 75 for the season for adults. And no fee increase at Lake Creek or Kresbach Pool. Those pools are very affordable in our inventory. Lake

Creek,

I believe, for a child to get in is a dollar. Kresbach is $2 for Lake Creek for an adult, and then it's 4 and 5 at Kresbach. So once again, you can see very affordable facilities for us to to utilize. We're then gonna jump down to our baseball softball rental fees. When you look at this, we're going up by an increase of a $140 to $202,100 dollars a day.

Still the lowest fees in the Central Texas areas for the use of our rental fields for our baseball and softball. You look at the tournament fees going up by a $100 to 150, and then the light fees is going to be increased from $18 to $25 and a $7 increase. Pavilion rentals. We're gonna take those from $25 for a community pavilion with restroom to a $100. Still very much affordable and some of the lowest rates Central Texas are the lowest rate in Central Texas.

An increase for the backyard pavilion. As you know, that's been one of the upgrades to the old settlers' Lakeview area. That pavilion has been amenitized with several different things. We've got some additional smokers out there, and it's turned into a little bit of a party pavilion. So that one's seeing an increase for $300 for four hours and then $50 for an additional hour.

Lakeview Pavilion, and that's going be the big behemoth of a pavilion that we have out there. This is establishing a brand new rate for that. That's going to be $600 for four hours and $100 for an additional hour after that. And you can get as many as you need to make sure that you have a great time out there. And then when you look at the rest of our neighborhood pavilions, community pavilions, and then the rep pavilions, there is no increase. So as you can see, we're gonna have a multitude of options for just about anybody in our community, whether it's a neighborhood pool, more of a community pool or a regional pool when you look at the Rock And River. So we're very confident that we've got some of the best fees in Central Texas regardless of the increase. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have.

All right. Any questions? Councilor Fleming.

I think there's going to be a lot of excitement around the new Lakeview Pavilion. So are we going to be prioritizing the Round Rock residents first? How is that going to look? And I don't know if those are going be bigger events that would be outside of Round Rock, but just curious what you see envision happening there.

Absolutely. We've got a lot of events that are local events that we anticipate moving out there. And as we slowly move those out there, those will take priority for the actual residents and the things that we're doing. We also have a lot of programs that through Parks and Recreation that we put on. Those programs will be shifting over. Some are going to come from Yonders, the bigger events, and we'll go to that area. So there are gonna be very few windows, and those windows will be made available to residents on a priority basis.

Yeah. And I just think that's important because people approve the bond to have these renovations, and they wanna have access to it. So thank you.

Councilor Ortega.

Rick, can you go back to the first page? Right there. The Rock And River, you said the first province will be able to use that. It will be the residents. But at some point, there'll be a cutoff because I want to know what is that cutoff point. Is it a percentage or is it the number?

Are you talking about the family pass or are just talking

about Family pass?

We have prioritized we basically took the last couple of years looking at the total number of family passes that we sold. We increased that by about 10 to 15%. I'll have to go back and figure out what that percentage was. And then looked at the capacity of the new that we're adding to the pool. And that way, we've tried to make sure that we've got enough capacity to make sure that those family passes get in first, and then that we have enough capacity to also because we book, let's say, childcare, daycare centers, those kind of things, camps to come in, as well as just the general citizen that comes in.

So we're playing that game of trying to manage the capacity. And as you know that we previously had before we increased, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, we would be at capacity within probably an hour and a half. So we're trying to do a really good job of managing what we sell. I will tell you one of the things that I didn't mention before also with the family pass, they get in thirty minutes early. So they have the opportunity to get in, get shaded areas, take advantage of it, and those are the things we're trying to give to our local residents first.

Thanks for that information.

No problem.

Any other questions? Councilor Flores?

Hey, Rick. On the daily admission, the $18 for youth, is that anybody below a certain age is $18 or is it

Yes.

They have to be three years or above or infants, babies? And this

is one of the things that we struggled with before. We do make the make the youth I think our cutoff is two, and I'll have to go back and look at that. I don't wanna misspeak, but I think that is what it is. All the way up to about 18 years of age, 18 years of age and older as an adult. So they have those cutoffs. But I I tell you the way that this thing is structured, it's either the family pass or the season pass is the way to go. After about your fourth visit, it's paid for itself.

Thank

you. Any other questions? Alright. I entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. So moved. Second. Motion made by council member Ortega, seconded by council member Montgomery. Any other discussion? And please poll the council. Council member Flores?

Yes. Council member Fleming?

Yes.

Council member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Proton Stephens?

Yes.

Council member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council member Lee?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. All right. I'm gonna jump to h one real quick. Consider public testimony regarding an ordinance readopting standards of care for the city's youth recreation program in compliance with human resources code section 42.041B14.

Rick? Mayor and Counsel, this is a housekeeping item that we have to do on an annual basis to make sure that our camps and programs are in compliance with the state. We are not considered a childcare or childcare licensing, so we don't have to meet those standards, but we have to establish the standards of which we're gonna operate our programs, camps, and make sure that we monitor our facilities. We do that on an annual basis. If the state wants to come out and take a look at what we're doing, they get to come out and take a look at it. We keep all the books and the records. We just don't have to go through all of their issues and protocols. And we've been doing this for some time. It's just an annual item. I'd be happy to answer any questions if

you All right. Any questions on that? All right. This is a public hearing, so I will open up the public hearing on H1. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. I entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance. So moved. Motion made by the mayor pro tem, say it by Councilmember Flores. Any other discussion? And please poll the council. Councilmember Fleming?

Yes.

Councilmember Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Councilmember Montgomery? Yes. Councilmember Lee? Yes. Councilmember Flores?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan? Yes. G2, consider resolution authorizing Mayor Duke? Secondary. Oh, sorry. Oh, there wasn't anything on there. All right. All right. I entertain a motion to dispense with a second reading on each

of So moved.

Second. Motion made by the Mayor Pro Tem, seconded by Council Member Ortega. Any other discussion? And please spell the council.

Council Member Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council member Fleming? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Sorry about that. Alright. G two, consider resolution authorizing mayor to execute contract with Asphalt Inc, LLC doing business as Lone Star paving for the 2026 residential street maintenance program project. Michael? Good evening,

mayor and council.

Good evening.

This is our street maintenance program. We continue to maintain our streets in the city. We budget $4,500,000 a year for our residential street maintenance program. This is our next project. We have four neighborhoods that we will be doing work in, and this is based on an assessment. We assess the in all the streets in the city, and they get a rating, and that's how we prioritize which streets we're gonna do. So the four neighborhoods coming up next are Windy Park, which is right here. All of the the turquoise blue is the streets that we will be doing. This is South of Gattis School Road across from Clay Metzen rec center. Quicksilver is over here off University near the Eagle's Nest subdivision.

We'll be doing those streets. And then two other ones are Stone Oak Drive, comes off of 1431 on the West Side, as well as Chisholm Valley, which is along McNeil Road right here west of the interstate. We had five bidders on this project. Lone Star Paving was the low bidder lowest responsive bidder. Their bid was 4,491,000, and they've done work for us before here in the city and have done a done a good job.

I would say during our assessment, about 90% of our streets, residential streets, scored either good or satisfactory. So, really, that's a really good rating for a city. So those other 10 is what we're working on here to bring those up. So we continue to do this annual work. Tonight, we have Andrew Warner here as the lead estimator with Lone Star Paving. I was talking to him earlier. He's been doing work in Round Rock since 2012 with our street program. So glad to see that. So recommend approval of this contract for Lone Star Paving, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Any question? Councilmember Lee. The projects that you have listed here, have has Google Fiber already come in and done work on these neighborhoods?

Yes. So, we do work with we did work with Google Fiber on this. So, yeah, when they came in for a permit to do fiber, we looked at the projects that we like for this one, we know that we're going be repaving it real soon. So this was a perfect candidate for them to come in and get their fiber in because we knew we were coming in the next year to pave it. If it was a different situation where we paved it last year and they wanted to come in, we'd work with them to push those off. But, yes, we did work with Google Fiber on the scheduling.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? All right. Entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second. Motion made by Councilmember Fleming, seconded by Councilmember Ortega. Any other discussion? And please spell the council.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Otega? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Thank you for being here. G3, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a contract with Royal Vista Inc. For the Meadows Drive Area 2 And 4 water, wastewater, and stormwater improvements project.

We are on the West Side Of Round Rock. You see the interstate right here. Here is Round Rock Avenue 620. Sam Bass runs right through here. So this is in the Meadows area. This is an older neighborhood. When this was developed, the city standards for infrastructure weren't that high. So when they did build this, we do not have a storm drain system. It's more of streets with a bar ditch. So we do have not houses that are flooding, we do see that the roadway does get inundated with storm water during heavy rain events.

So this is a project to really clean up some areas. We're gonna add storm drains. We'll be replacing some of the older water wastewater lines and then doing a full street repair on the streets inside the area you see here in blue. This is the first phase out in this side of Round Rock. So in the future, we will continue to expand to improve the infrastructure in this area. We had seven bidders on this project. The low bidder was Royal Vista for $6,100,000 We have been in contact with the residential property owners in this area. We've been working with them throughout the design telling them what our plans are. We have now sent them a letter. They have the contractor's name.

They have our inspector and our project manager's name and phone number. So if they have any issues whatsoever, they can contact them. We've talked to Round Rock ISD on bus routes because we'll be under construction here. So we've we've done a lot of homework here to kinda set the stage on this project. So recommend approval of this contract. Steve Green with Royal Vista. I have not seen him, but I think he's here. There he is right there. So recommend approval. This came in under budget. We had about 7,000,000 budgeted, so it came in under. So be a great project for the West Side over here in the Meadows neighborhood. Recommend approval. We'll be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Mayor Pro Tem.

Michael, the east border of this looks like it runs right along the cemetery where it crosses over Sand Bass. Is are we gonna is it gonna touch the cemetery or affect it at all?

No, ma'am. Okay. We're not gonna affect that.

Thank you. On

the your comment about working with Round Rock ISD, I'm assuming students walking across there or, I mean, when you said you're working with them because they're bus routes. And the only reason I'm bringing it up, it's been in the news quite a about, you know, with road construction projects and removing bus routes or adding them on, you know, for a temporary period while it's being done. What was the communication

about? The communication was the best route, the routes that they run, and where does that affect the construction going on. So we may I don't know the specifics, but we probably if we had to adjust some of the locations of the bus pickups.

Okay.

And that was another thing. We wanted to contact all the folks that were in this area. So if they did have children, if there's any questions, reach out to us. Obviously, we're in a construction area. We want to make sure the kids have a safe route. So that is a that was a big part of our discussions with the school district. So we'll make sure that all parties are aware. Be careful with the children because we're working in a neighborhood like this.

Yes.

Please. Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions? I entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, second by the Mayor Pro Tem. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming? Yes. Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Thank you for being here. G four, consider resolution authorizing merit to execute quantity adjustment change order number 11 with JD Abrams LP for the

Kenney Fort Boulevard Segments 2 And 3 project and a related settlement agreement. As you know, Kenney Fort Segment 2 And 3 that runs from Forest Creek Drive South all the way to State Highway 45. We opened this road in December 2024, and our citizens have been enjoying this roadway. Since that time, we've been working on the closeout paperwork, as built drawings, and all that. The project was delayed quite a bit It's getting complete, so we've been negotiating with the contractor on liquidated damages.

This final closeout document does include $867,000 in liquidated damages to the city, so that came comes off of the contract amount that the city gets the money back. It was significantly delayed. So this is just to close out paperwork, to complete the project. It also has a statement that there will be, this is the end. There will be no other, items that come up regarding settlement of any sort, so it closes out the project with J. D. Abrams. So I'll be happy to report that, and I'll be happy to answer any questions on this project.

Questions? Council member Flores. Hey, Michael, on

the reimbursement, is that something that we had held back? Had we held back payment or did we made payment and they're out there giving us our money back?

We we hold the retainage back. So five percent so every time there's an invoice submitted, we hold back 5% in retainage. So this project, you know, north of $20,000,000, we had quite a bit of money held held back. You hold that money back until all as belts are submitted, any outstanding claims, all the sub subcontractors are paid. We did have money there. So that makes it easier here. We just keep the money, basically. Thank you.

Any other questions? Councilman Ortega?

On that same subject, we do that with any construction, right, 5% back?

Yes, sir. Pretty much everyone has a 5% retainage that we hold back from the contract amount. Yes.

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? I'm going take a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Motion

made by Councilmember Flores, second by Councilmember Fleming. Any other discussion? And please spell the council.

Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. G5, consider a resolution authorizing reimbursement to QT South LLC for the cost of oversizing a wastewater line for the Kwik Trip 79 and 01/2010 development project. Michael?

Mayor and council, a couple years ago, QuickTrip built a new store right at this location here. We're on the Northeast Corner Of Counter 110 And 79. This property is located in the City Of Round Rock's ETJ, but it's outside of our city limits. So they approached us about an out of city wastewater service agreement. This is Round Rock's wastewater service area, but it is in the Jonah Water service area.

So during our discussions of the development agreement, the project needed to the extension of the wastewater line from here's the Walmart on 79. From this location, they had to build the wastewater line along the North Side Of 79 all the way across 110 to their facility. During that discussion, the city decided we want to build that, oversize it. They needed a 12 inch diameter wastewater line. We want to plan for the future out here.

Right? This entire property here, there's some areas that could develop in the future. So we ask them to oversize from a 12 to a 24 inches right here, and then from here to the end, oversize that from a 12 to a 15 inches. We have an ordinance that allows us to reimburse them for that extra cost that they incurred for us, and that's what's included in this item here. So it's a $172,000 for oversize reimbursement that we will pay to QuickTrip for oversizing the wastewater line on our behalf. So I'll be happy to answer any questions regarding this item.

Questions? Entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. So move.

Second.

Motion made by council member Ortega, same by council member Fleming. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. G6, consider resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a first amendment to the out of city wastewater service and development agreement with QT South LLC.

This is the property I just talked about in the previous item. Because the property is located in our ETJ, not in our city limits, we are very careful of how much capacity we allocate. We refer to as living unit equivalents, LUEs. Basically, we allocate four LUEs per acre when you're outside of our city limits, and we want to make sure we protect our capacity. We base our LUE count based on the land use assumptions designated for this property.

So when they came in for the development agreement, there was the convenience store you see here that we allocated five LUEs, and then the rest was for multifamily development, which was 134 LUEs. So that was what was in the original development agreement. Since that time, QuickTrick came to us and asked for additional LUEs. They want to put a car wash in this area, so they were asking for eight additional LUEs. The first thing we do is we look at our capacity.

Can we handle that? We want to make sure we protect our future developments to be able to make sure we have the capacity to treat their wastewater. In our discussions, there's another item on the agenda that you will talk about, annexation of a quick trip up on University at 01:30. We talked to them about that. That property was not in the city limits.

So we kind of, during the negotiations, said, okay, the city will allocate an additional LUEs for this site if you will voluntarily annex into the city on the other site, and they agreed to that. Your next item will be annexation for that property. So with that agreement, the city here has now proposed to amend their development agreement to allocate an additional eight LUEs for wastewater service only for this site. They will pay the impact fees necessary for that as well. So recommend approval of this amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? I'm returning a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, same by the Mayor Pro Tem. Any other discussion? And please, public council.

Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Thank you, Michael. All right, G7, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement between the city of Round Rock and the Round Rock Transportation Economic Development Corporation to pay debt service on the 2026 combination tax and limited revenue certificates of obligation issued by the city of Round Rock. And we're going to keep you up there to do the ordinances after this.

Sounds good. Good evening. Item, G7, is for consideration agreement between the city of Round Rock and the Round Rock Transportation Econ Development Corporation, or Type B Corporation. Later this evening, you will consider an ordinance issuing $93,000,000 of certificates of obligation, or COs. Dollars 30,000,000 of that larger amount is for funding transportation capital projects included in our roadway improvement plan.

These projects have been previously adopted by the city council in our five year community investment program and our current year adopted budget. These projects have also been adopted by the Type B Corporation and their transportation community investment program and the Type B's current year adopted budget. Staff recommends issuing this debt from the city with our AAA bond rating. It allows us to get the best rate on the debt. We'll have an update on that later this evening as well.

And then shift the debt service payments to the type B corporation. So, again, this agreement is that the type B corporation will pay the debt payments on $30,000,000 of CEOs to be issued later tonight pending council approval. Type B consider this agreement in their meeting earlier this evening and approve the agreement, and staff is recommending approval. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Kevin? All right. Entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second. Motion made by Council Member Fleming, seconded by Council Member Ortega. Any other discussion? And please pull the council.

Council Member Ortega.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens. Yes. Council Member Montgomery. Yes. Council Member Lee. Yes. Council Member Flores.

Yes.

Council Member Fleming. Yes. Mayor Morgan.

Yes. All right. Let's jump to H2. Concerning an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City Of Round Rock, Texas Combination Tax and Limited Revenue Certificates of Obligation Series twenty twenty six, levying an ad valorem tax and pledging certain revenues in support of the certificates, approving an official statement and other related documents, in the sale of certificates and authorizing other matters relating to the certificates. First reading. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it works for you,

I'm actually going to talk about items H2, H3, H4, and H5 together. We went out to bids on our bonds today, as I mentioned, Tuesday morning. I am joined with Gary Kimbell, who for the record serves as our financial advisor with Specialized Public Finance. We also have Richard Donahue, who's the city's bond counsel in the audience. Gary will come up and present the numbers.

But before he does, I wanted to remind us what these bond issuances are for. So item H2 is for the issuance of $93,000,000 in certificates of obligation. City Council issued a notice of intent to issue DCOs back at the February 12 meeting. And again, these are for projects, roadway improvements, dollars 25,000,000 for the expansion of the city's public works facility, and the rest is for supplemental funding for public safety, parks, recreation, and sports projects. Again, these projects have been in the city's plans a long time, been in our long range financial plans, our debt plans, and are included in our annual budget.

Item H3 is for the issuance of $100,000,000 in general obligation bonds as construction continues for the public safety facilities, parks, recreations, and sports facilities. Item H four is for $5,300,000 in limited tax notes. These are a shorter term debt instrument as part of the city's debt plan to fund the purchase of vehicles and rolling equipment as part of our regular replacement program. And item H5, Gary will also walk us through. That is a refunding opportunity to refund some outstanding general obligation and certificate obligation debt if the market is favorable. So with that, I'm going to turn

it over to

Let me I'm going to read H3, H4, and H5 before you speak, Gary. That way we can go through them individually. So h three will be considered in ordinance authorizing the issuance of City Of Round Rock, Texas general obligation bond series twenty twenty six, 11 and ad valorem tax in support of the bonds, approving an official statement, other related documents that were in the sale of the bonds and authorizing other matters relating to the bonds. First reading, h four, consider an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City Of Round Rock Texas Limited tax note series twenty twenty six, levying an ad valorem tax in support of the notes approving an official statement and other related documents that were in the sale of notes and authorizing other matters relating to the notes. Age five, consider an ordinance authorizing the issuance of general obligation refund in bond series.

2026, allowing an ad valorem tax in support of the bonds, approving related agreements, establishing procedures for selling and delivering the bonds, and authorizing other matters relating to the bonds. So start at H2.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Mayor, members of the council, Gary Kimball, thank you very much for your time tonight. So you should each have at your place several pieces of paper that I'm going to walk you through, if that's okay. We'll start with the 100,000,000 worth of general obligation bonds. The actual par amount of the issuance will be $94,835,000 but you will deposit $100,000,000 into your project fund. Very pleased to report that we received 13 bids on this offering this morning.

That's an incredible showing. Seven to eight is normal for a deal this size. To get 13, that's pretty much everybody who deals in this space. And if you look at the location of the bidders, they're from all over the country, New York, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, really all over the country. And if you look at the bid receive time, you'll see that I had a very exciting last minute right before the bids were due at nine a. M. Your winning bidder came in twenty six seconds before the deadline and, you know, all of the bids but one came in in that last minute. But we ended up at a 4.07 rounded. Very pleased with that. We were using a 5% budget.

The same deal that we sold last year at about this same time came in at four point four five. So a 4.07 is tremendous, and we would recommend awarding the sale of the general obligation bonds to JPMorgan Securities. And I don't know if you want to stop there. Yeah, let me Take action, then we'll move on.

Yeah, let's do each one. Okay. Anybody have any questions for Gary on H2? All right. Entertain a motion to adopt that ordinance.

So moved.

Motion made by the mayor pro tem, seconded by Council Member Fleming. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council Member Fleming? Yes. Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. All right. H3, I've already read it.

Right. Next deal is what will amount to $93,000,000 in your construction fund of combination tax and revenue certificates of obligation. The actual par amount issued will be 89,815,000. The reason the number is a little less is we have bidders that bid with a premium, so the coupon will be a little higher than the yield, and we get the difference in cash. So, in effect, you still go $93,000,000 on this issue and then $100,000,000 on the geos. Again, tremendous reception for this offering, 11 bidders. We ended up at 4.09 on this deal. RW Baird and Co. Submitted the low bid, and we would recommend the award of the sale of the COs to RW Baird and Co.

All right. Any questions on this one for Gary? Entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance.

So moved.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, seconded by Council Member Flores. Any other discussion? Anne, please poll the council.

Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes.

H4? The last sale relates to $4,945,000 worth of limited tax notes. You'll deposit $5,300,000,000 in your project construction fund. We received seven bids on this offering. It's a much smaller deal in relative terms.

BOK Financial Security submitted the low bid with a rounded rate of 2.69%. That compares to 3.35 on the similar sized deal we did last year. So all of these rates, much better than budget. When you take them all together, our 5% budget on the bigger deals and a 4% budget on the smaller deal, we are $26,000,000 to the good over the twenty five year term of transaction, so better than a million dollars, better than budget,

all

the way through final maturity. So very pleased with this. That obviously is a function of the AAA that Kevin referenced earlier. Standard and Poor's went through their normal review of the credit and affirmed BBB with a stable outlook. That pays dividends, you know, until such time as they change their minds for the residents of the city of Round Rock. That AAA is very unique among Texas cities, so that's something that's saving you money every time we need to go out and raise money for projects. So happy to answer any questions. Would recommend BOK Financial Securities as the winner for the limited tax notes.

All right. Any questions on that? Yeah, that $26,000,000 in savings is, I mean, that's really good and I think that's the importance of the council having control over the finances of this city.

Yeah, for sure. And, you know, that 5% budget number, that's not a sandbag. We've had an incredibly volatile market, not just over the last year. As you can see, rates come down from where we were a year ago, but just the last ninety days have been extremely volatile. If we had sold just four weeks ago, we'd be about 45 basis points higher on all of these deals. So, you know, timing is everything. We'd rather be lucky than smart, but, you know, that accrues to your benefit.

Do we have any idea just, I mean, if you don't, it's not a big deal. But, you know, if we weren't a AAA bond rated city, you know, there's, you know, there's, you know, we have a AAA bond rate in several of our categories that, you know, 11 or 12 cities, I think, across the Texas have So if you were a AA, would I mean are you talking You're

15 to 20 basis points higher interest rate on $200,000,000 of bonds. That's probably 4 or $5,000,000. Yeah. Yeah. And when I started working for you guys going all the way back to 1993, you were a single A. Right. So, you know, your credit has improved every year, you know, thanks to Dell Computer. That deal continues to pay huge dividends in terms of your tax rate, but also the amount of projects you can cash fund. That's debt you didn't have to issue, and that's in the hundreds of millions of dollars since that deal was struck.

Yep. All right. Any other questions? Councilor Mertaglia?

I just want to give a comment to you and a compliment to you and our finance director. Like the mayor says, you know, very few cities have a AAA, and we are a very sound city, and I'm glad to feel that we are doing the right thing. And thank you both.

It's a team effort, for sure.

All right. Any other questions, comments? All right. Entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance. So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, seconded by Council Member Montgomery. Any other discussion? And please, public council.

Council Member Lee.

Yes.

Council Member Flores.

Yes.

Council Member Fleming.

Yes.

Council Member Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. All right, page five.

Final item for tonight. This is the summary page. We quarterly monitor all of the outstanding debt of the city against current market, and we have to look at whether the outstanding bonds are currently callable. That means when we sell bonds like the bonds we're selling tonight have nine year call protection for the investors. So you can't prepay those bonds until you hit the ninth anniversary.

So we're reaching back and looking at bonds that the city issued back in 2016 and 2017, And we do have the opportunity to save you some money, assuming the market holds. We're getting your approval tonight on a delegation basis. So we're delegating to the city manager and the mayor such that if we realize at least 2% net present value savings, which is the definition of an in the money refinancing transaction for political subdivisions, then we have pre authorization to move ahead. And so as the market stands today, there are approximately $14,500,000 worth of bonds issued in 2016 and 2017 that carry an average coupon of about 4.39%. Current market is about 3.32% for the transaction that would be required to refinance.

So we're taking almost 100 basis points off the rate, generates about $759,000 worth of savings over a ten year period, so about $75,000 a year. It's low hanging fruit, so to speak. We monitor that, like I say, quarterly, and whenever those opportunities present, we'll be in front of you asking you to move ahead, to go ahead and snatch that savings. We'll be able to lock that in, we're thinking, in about two weeks. So as long as the market holds, that's where we think we'll be. But I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone might have on this.

Questions? So I have a quick one on once you hit the nine year mark and do the refund, can you refund any other time afterward if Again, resets the says clock for nine nine no matter Okay. All right. Any other questions? Councilmember Flynn?

In the $759,000 that's over the remaining maturity the next, you know, what is that, seventeen years? It's not annually.

Right. Okay. Any other questions? Do entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance? So move. Second. Motion made by Council Member Ortega, second by Council Member Fleming. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Flores? Yes. Councilmember Fleming?

Yes.

Councilmember Ortega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Councilmember Montgomery? Yes. Councilmember Lee?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Thank you all both.

Thank you all.

Appreciate you do. Thanks, Kevin. Alright. G8, is there a resolution authorizing mayor to execute a service agreement with the property owners of 8.531 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Chandler Road and County Road 107 Spur right away? And if you wanna I'm assuming H6, seven, and eight are all together with it?

Yes, sir. Let me go ahead and read those two. H6, consider an ordinance annexing 1.517 acres of County Road 107 Spur right of way South of County Road 107 and North of Chandler Road, first reading. H seven, consider public testimony regarding an ordinance annexing 8.531 acres of land generally located Northwest of the intersection of Chandler Road and County Road 107 Spur right of way. H eight, consider public testimony regarding an ordinance on an 8.53 acres located North Of Channel Road and West of County Road 107 spurred to the C 1 a general Commercial Limited zoning District.

Good evening, mayor, council members. So, we've got a series of four items up here regarding the quick trip tract at the Northeast corner of University Boulevard and Chandler Road. This property is already developed with a fuel station there. There's additional vacant land over here currently partly being used as a septic field because this property outside city limits not hooked up to city wastewater. It is our CCN, however, but they're getting water from Jonah because they're in the Jonah Special Utility District.

So, first off, to precede the annexation is a municipal services agreement that will provide city services or the contract of promise to provide city services, all applicable services that is to this property. So, not water, but when city wastewater is available to this property, they will be able to tie on to that. Additionally, you know, planning code enforcement and public safety. Up next is item h6, the annexation of a segment of County Road 107 immediately on the east side abutting the quick trip tract. So, if you recall going back to February and March, city council conducted two separate public hearings that are required by state law that have to be done in order for the city to annex this property because the city has to annex the county road adjacent to it as well or in tandem with that.

So, overall, it's 1.52 acres of land, around six or 700 linear feet of roadway right here that the city must annex in tandem with the annexation of the quick trip property. So then here's item h seven, the annexation of the Quick Trip property. It's eight and a half acres. Again, consiguity via city limits with the CR 107 Spur, but as well as Chandler Road. You can see a dashed, a black dashed line around the Chandler Road right of way because the city annexed that right of way a couple of years ago.

And finally, item h eight is the original zoning. The future land use map designates this tract as commercial and the request which staff fully supports is for the C 1 a general commercial limited zoning district that supports the existing fuel station plus any further development, redevelopment they might seek. It meets all the applicable location criteria in the city's comprehensive plan. Typical uses that you could see in the zoning district are hotels, retail, fuel stations, restaurants, offices, you know, just about any kind of commercial use you could imagine would fit in well here at this particular intersection, and the maximum building height is 12 stories thanks to its frontage on the highway. In February, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by unanimous vote of six to nothing, and staff recommends approval as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Any questions on g eight? Entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved. Second.

Motion made by Council Member Flores, seconded by Council Member Ortega. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Fleming.

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. H6, consider an ordinance annexing 1.517 acres of County Road 107 Spur right of way South of County Road 107, and North Of Chandler Road, 1st Reading. Any questions on this? Entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance. So move.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, stand by the mayor pro tem. Any other discussion? And please spell the council.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes.

I entertain a motion to dispense with a second reading. So move.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, seconded by Council Member Montgomery. Any other discussion? And please vote the council.

Mayor Procham Stephens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. You entertain a motion or I said that. H7, is there a public testimony regarding an ordinance annexing 8.531 acres of land generally located Northwest of the intersection of Chandler Road and County Road 107? Spray right of way, first reading. Any questions on this one? And that this is a public hearing. I'll open up the public hearing on eight to seven. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Are we going entertain a motion to adopt that ordinance? So move.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Ortega, second by Council Member Montgomery. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Entertain a motion to dispense with a second reading.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Flores, seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem. Any other discussion? And please vote the council.

Council Member Lee?

Yes.

Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens? Yes. Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. H8, consider public testimony regarding an ordinance zone in 8.53 acres located North of Chandler Road and West of County Road 107, spur to the spur to the C1A General Commercial Limited zoning district, first reading. Any questions on this? This is a public hearing. I'll open up public hearing to H8. Any evaluation to speak? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Do entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance? So move.

Second.

Motion made by Councilor Ortega, seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council Member Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery? Yes. Council Member Lee? Yes. Mayor Morgan?

Yes. Entertain a motion to dispense with a second reading. So moved. Second. Motion made by Council Member Ortega, second by Council Member Montgomery. Any other discussion? And please poll the council.

Council Member Fleming? Yes. Council Member Ortega? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens?

Yes.

Council Member Montgomery?

Yes.

Council Member Lee? Yes. Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Mayor Morgan?

Yes. All right. H9, consider public testimony regarding and an ordinance approving amendment number one to the plan unit development PUD number 148, slate, to add an option for medium density urban multifamily development with allowance for surface parking generally located South of East Oates Oates Boulevard and West of West Mesa Park Drive, first reading.

This item proposed here is a major PUD amendment, the amendment number one to the slate Round Rock PUD. This property is at 901 East Old Settlers Boulevard, so we have East Old Settlers along the north side of the property here, and along the east side, we have West Mesa Park Drive. It is 10.85 acres. It is in between two existing constructed or two story buildings over here in the Commercial zoning district, and to the south we have the Chapel Hill North and Settlement residential subdivisions. You may recall in 2023, the property was rezoned from the C1 Zoning district to the slate Round Rock PUD to allow urban multifamily development as well as townhouses.

So, little bit of education first of all because we'd go through a lot of PODs, we go through a lot of POD amendments, but a lot of times I don't actually take a moment to explain what those are necessarily. A planned unit development is a unique zoning district that has been negotiated between the city and the property owner there for specific development standards, usually to allow something not permitted by the regular code. So, the developer gets something in return, something that's generally not allowed in a normal zoning district, and we negotiate development standards to ensure it's a high quality development that looks good and that lasts and is a great addition to the city. So, what's a planned unit development amendment or a PUD amendment? Well, are two different types of PUD amendments, and this is when the property owner or a future developer wants to change some of the regulations within that PUD.

Sometimes they're very small numerical changes that are less than 10% of a stated given standard in the PUD, or it might be a small change to architectural standards or site development. That's just a minor or administrative PUD. It does not have to go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. But for a major amendment, the one before you, these are changes that are considered very significant, and it's effectively a new zoning for the property. And so, to ensure that it's treated properly and that we still have the opportunity for public input, it is, you know, treated as rezoning.

So, we have a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission and a public hearing at City Council. And, so, these include changes to land uses, increases in density, and significant changes to development standards that materially affects the way the end product will look compared with the original PUD. So, the developer has proposed a major amendment to this property that will retain the original development proposal of high density urban multifamily, but will also add a second option for medium density urban multifamily, and this is due to some market conditions that have drastically changed in the multifamily market over the last few years. So, originally under the I'll go into the details of the existing PUD, but back then it was much more economically feasible to build a high density development with structured parking. Since then, with the flood, the building boom of units that have hit the market, it's no longer economically feasible because rents have come down in association with that building boom.

So, the financing is no longer there combined with high interest rates to build a lot of those high density structured parking projects. So, we have been approached by several developers, and this is the first one where we're going through a PUD amendment process to approve or to recommend for approval, I should say, a medium density project that instead has surface parking instead of structured parking. Removing the structured parking garage helps to bring that cost down and then helps to build more housing here in Round Rock. So, working with the developer on some of those high quality development standards in exchange for the surface parking option. So, we have two options that are being proposed into the PUD instead of just one.

Again, the first one is the high density urban multifamily. The second one that's being proposed is the medium density urban multifamily. Referring back to the comprehensive plan future land use map, this property has been designated for residential land use, so we are in conformance with the comprehensive plan with both proposals. I've kind of gone over this one already with site access to East Old Settlers Boulevard and West Mesa Park right there, but I will note that there will be no direct access to this property from East Old Settlers Boulevard. Instead, there is a shared access driveway with the property to the west over here and an access easement that will carry across to the east.

Additionally, there will be a single point of access, a full access driveway here on West Mesa Park. The existing PUD with a high density urban multifamily entitlement allows four and five story multifamily structures with a combination of a structured parking garage, some surface parking, and tuck under parking. The original proposal would have seen a five story multifamily development here with the structured parking garage and then a series of four story buildings along the southern portion or central portion, I should say. Overall, the PUD could have seen up to 375 apartment units built under this option. There's a 135 foot building setback from the southern property line for four story buildings that increases to 170 feet for a five story building, and the PUD restricts balconies on all south facing building facades.

There's a stretch of land along the southern part of the property where townhouses were permitted. These could be up to 12 units per acre, a maximum height of two and a half stories, and there's a 50 foot building setback for townhouses from the southern property line, keeping in mind that to the south here we do have a single family subdivision. There are some renderings in the PUD to show the general idea of what the developer would like to build on the property here, emphasizing just some architectural elements, elevation variation, roof pitch, building orientation. So not exactly a carbon copy of what would be built, but to illustrate some general architectural standards that we would review the project against. For the new proposed medium density development option, there will be a maximum of 285 multifamily units, so that's a reduction of 90 units from the high density option.

We're looking at only three and four story multifamily buildings instead of four and five story buildings. For the three story buildings, there will be a 90 foot building setback from the southern property line. That increases to 135 feet for a four story building, which is consistent with the setback for a four story building in the high density option as well. And, there's another restriction that no matter how the developer would like to lay out the buildings on the site, in no instance or no occurrence shall a four story building be closer to the southern property line than a three story building. Again, in lieu of the structured parking garage, surface parking will be permitted.

Unlimited amount of surface parking combined with detached garages, tuck under garages, and carport parking. There's a 90 foot building setback, again, for the three story structures. Within that setback, there's a 10 foot wide PUE along the southern property line. Just on the other side of that into this property will be a 15 foot wide landscape buffer. The remainder of that 90 foot building setback can be surface parking with or without carports, detached garages, and some amenities.

We're requiring the same number of amenities in the medium density option as were required in the high density option and the same compatibility fencing and landscape buffer requirements as the high density option as well. Again, some architectural renderings to show what a three story or a medium density option might look like. This is a view from Mesa Park to show how that would present to the street. On the south side here, it would look something like this. However, there are some balconies that are shown here on this rendering that would not be allowed to be a part as part of this PUD amendment.

Those balconies would be prohibited from facing the southern property line like that. So here's a comparison of the high density urban multifamily option and the medium density option as it relates to compatibility and how they transition from the on-site development to the single family development to the south. I've highlighted the two things or the two key components that are different between the two options. For the high density option, there's a minimum 50 foot building setback from the southern property line, but, again, that's for a two and a half story townhomes. That jumps up to 90 foot building setback from the southern property line under the medium density option, but those are for three story buildings.

The other different option for the compatibility is that or sorry, the transition and the compatibility to the single family is that balconies are prohibited on south facing building facades across the balance of the property in the high density option. In the medium density option, balconies are only permitted on south facing building facades when there's an intervening building of the same height between the single family neighborhood and the building containing the balcony. So, some balconies are permitted, but they effectively will be screened from that single family neighborhood and providing the single family neighborhood with some of that privacy. Under both options, there is an eight foot tall compatibility fence required along the southern property line. This is two feet taller than the six foot fence required by base code standards and a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, which is an increase over the eight foot standard required by the code.

We followed all the standard public notification procedures with this one. That's a published newspaper published notice, a mailed notice, a sign posted on the property, and occurred to see notice to neighbors who were interested and showed up to the public hearing process in 2023. We wanted to make sure that they were engaged with this one as well, that they understood what was going on. On April 1, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment by a vote of four to one with the condition regarding balconies that has resulted in what is being presented here today. Prior to that, the developer had proposed allowing Juliet balconies on southern facing building facades after much discussion, and it was part of the motion by the Planning and Zoning Commission to remove all balconies entirely from those south facing building facades unless there is an intervening building.

There was one speaker at that public hearing concerned about the pickup and drop off of school buses, the safety of the kids at the school bus stops, as well as stacking spaces for left turn movements onto Old Settlers Boulevard from West Mesa Park. And since that meeting, we have remained in contact with a few of those residents still to explain the process, what these new standards are, how they compare with the old standards, addressing some of the concerns they have about compatibility to the single family neighborhood to the south, and trying to address some frustrations that the Putnam amendment includes two development options instead of the developer committing to one. It is a little bit unusual, a little bit unorthodox in the PUD to lay out two separate paths for development. In this case, we staff, we support it, we think it is warranted because of the changes that occur sometimes quickly in the multifamily market to be able to keep the high density development option we think is still a good idea while still providing the option for medium density. So, with that, we recommend approval and I'll answer any questions you have.

All right. Any questions? Councilmember Fleming?

Can we look at the picture that shows the street view? Yeah, keep going back.

An aerial map?

Yes. Okay. There you go. So you were talking about how there's not going to be a road from East Old Settlers that it's going to come from that side road on the left side. Why is that decision?

So, the access from this point over here and then the shared access, even the easement across this driveway right here, is because the distance between these two driveways is too close to allow another driveway in between. It does not meet the separation standards in our design and construction standards that are required for transportation. So, there's just not enough room to have another driveway right here. Additionally, having one right here, and I think right here as well, are median openings to allow for full access movements at both of those instead of just having a right in, right out at either one.

And then there'll also be an exit onto West Mesa, which was part of the concern that there will be two other exits out of the neighborhood or out of that development.

Correct, yeah. So, this exit over here as well as at least one of these would be required to meet fire code to have two points of access for those emergency vehicles.

Okay, thank you.

But they both can't be open

on Oldsburg? They both will be open. On East Settlers, though.

Can be two on East Settlers? They can

There are currently two driveways already on East Old Settlers that exist right now, and the residents of this development will have access to those via a shared access easement. So there will not be a new driveway constructed

Okay. From this Sorry.

So there'll actually be three exits out of the neighborhood, two through the side views to Old Settlers, they can't close one of those? Do they have the option to close one of those?

They do not.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a question. Can you go to where it shows the 90 foot so you mentioned the 90 foot setback, plus there's a 15 foot Yes, there you go. So, is the ten and fifteen within the 90 or is it 90 plus that ten and fifteen?

Those fall within the 90. They make up the first 25 feet of that 90 foot building setback.

Alright. Do we know if the there's still a potential with the medium density develop to do development to do the townhome along that, you know, where we set that up?

I don't believe so. Not in this part. It only lays out the medium density multifamily under that option and not a townhome option.

So, doesn't allow it even? Correct. I guess I struggle. Does it I mean, if you're allowing two of them, they can't cross in cross into each other where you have the townhomes into the if they wanted to. I mean, you know, they may not want to do, you know, look, let's be honest, the the structured parking has been an issue that we've had brought to us numerous times in the last couple of years.

And, you know, just the cost of it, then that cost gets passed on to the people. And so but I think that, you know, for the compatibility purposes of, you know, having a two and a half story townhome, at least the potential for it to be next to, you know, the neighborhood.

I'm just

trying to understand it. True, yeah.

No. In in the PUD, as composed, it only allows three or four story multifamily buildings or multifamily buildings of any height with a maximum of three or four stories depending on the setback. But also keeping in mind that under the medium density option or the newly proposed option, there's a larger setback for any multifamily building there. So 90 feet for up to a three story building, but if you have a a two and a half story building, it's only a 50 foot setback with the high density option. So the compatibility, we feel like, is still pretty consistent. You're going from maybe a two and a half story townhouse to a three story multifamily building in overall height and mass. That's not that much of a difference, but you're getting an extra 40 feet in setback.

Yeah. You're getting 40 extra feet. Okay. That makes sense. You know, and then the reduction on, you know, I'm going off memory from the last time this came before us. I know there was concerns about the structured parking garage being so close to the neighborhood. That's gone now, most likely. And then, it's reduced. There was concern about the size, but now it's getting reduced by 90 units. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay.

Any other questions? Other questions? Right. This is a Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry.

All right. I was just going to comment as well. I mean, I think, I mean, obviously, we're giving them two options, but, I mean, the medium density seems to be an improvement over, you know, option one, at least to the neighborhood with regards to density and the setback. So, I mean, I know they'll make their decisions. I'm sure it's a financial decision to do one or the other, but I see as a good thing as far as the medium density being offered or thrown on the table to give them some options. Any other questions?

We'll open up the public hearing on H9, and I'll call names. Since you're up here, tell me your name, and I'll put I'll make you go first.

Thank you. Sorry about that. You're all good. Good evening, council member mayor Morgan. My name is Brian Allen. I live at 508 Clearwater Trail. My house is the fence that is on the other side of the field of what we're proposing. I don't mind that you're gonna put apartment complexes in there truly, but I think we should have a conversation about the traffic woes that we are going to incur. I was here a month ago with other council members, so I apologize. I brought five pieces of paper or five copies of the pictures I took. So I can put them out here on the screen if necessary. But the gentleman that was here last week, I appreciate his time. Basically

I want you to use that

and put that up there

just so everybody can see it. Thank you. If you want to

set him

down right

here. The

conversation was kind of just passed over real quick about, we'll take care of it. But what we have an issue is that those driveways coming in off of Old Settlers to the unit is not the issue. It's West Mesa Park trying to get out. Right now, I sat there for an hour this past week and I timed how long it takes that light to turn. It's an average of five minutes and thirteen seconds.

I watched two cars turn on a on a red light because they weren't gonna wait any longer. The road was clear for them, but they just went ahead and turned left. People are trying to get to Highway 35 out of my neighborhood, and getting out of there is an awful, challenge. Currently, the street only has turned left, and the other lane is turned right or go straight because people cut through there to go to the apartment complex across from those settlers. So if I'm in turning wanting to turn right, but the car in front of me wants to go straight, I have to wait for that five minutes and thirteen seconds for that car to go straight.

I propose that we consider that as we do this construction, we make that right hand side three options, turn left, go straight, turn right, Because the lane on the left hand side is wide enough for you to shorten that over and make those three lanes instead of just what we have currently. But again, my concern that we have is the pictures that I have here is going out the back way. Many of these people are going to figure out that you can get out the back way to Country Air, to Andover, and to Bowman, and that's how they get to the 35. Currently, at the corner of Country Air and West Mesa Park, there's a stop sign for me to go east and west, but this other traffic doesn't have to stop. And as you can see in the pictures, that sign is always hidden by traffic bars.

Cars that are parked there, it says cross traffic does not stop. Secondly, there's a park just at the end of West Mesa Park that we invite people to walk to and go jog, which I'm a runner. I go there and jog. But there's no crosswalk. So I run with reflective vest, but I've almost been hit twice because people coming on country air don't have to stop. So again, as we propose this apartment complex, let's at least be considerate about what we're going to have in the way of traffic. My career was in loss prevention as I was in California. And I learned a very good point that if you want to prevent something from happening, you do that ahead of time, not after the fact. So in all this process, if we could just still take some time to think about what we're going to have going on with the traffic. And then lastly, the trees

Go ahead. Go ahead.

The trees that currently are there on my side of the fence have taken the lines down and have crushed my fence. I had to spend $300 to take one tree down on my own and repair my fence. Whatever you propose to the trees, I see it says evergreen, but please don't put in any kind of furs that drop needles because they're going to come onto my side of the fence and then create that kind of a mess that we have there. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And I apologize. I came straight from the golf course, so I'm dressed a little bit casually.

I just hope you played well.

Where I work. Yeah.

Thank you.

Michael, to answer some I'm asking our transportation guy to come up. I'm gonna ask him some questions and you can listen. Yeah. You can sit down if you want or whatever to hear him. Hey, just so, I mean, I'm I am looking at these pictures and, you know, I do go down I've gone down Old Settlers quite a bit. So, a couple things. The five minutes and thirteen, do we go and check times on that just to make sure it's not?

Yes. We at every intersection where there's a traffic signal, we have a traffic transportation management center where we have all the cameras and it shows them. We're always watching those the cycling of the traffic signal. So in that one, when this right now, it's set based on what we see on that camera. Right? So there's not many cars coming in there, and I'll make sure I go look at that intersection. Obviously, with this development, that's gonna bring more cars on the mesa. We will definitely adjust the timing where we will allow more time to come out on the from Mesa on the old sellers. We're always looking at that. Now that I'm aware of it or if we get a call in, we always adjust. We're always looking at those those timings.

And then I know we did one of the best things we did before you became over transportation was right turn lanes. I mean, without tearing up the road and, you know, to the gentleman's point Mhmm. If if I heard him correctly, there's not a right turn. It's just you're both you're sitting there waiting. And if once the red lights happen to green, if you're way at the back, you can't even get over in the right turn lane. So is is there enough room there to kinda look and see if that's something we could do with the development as it's built?

Yeah, we've done that quite a bit around town, right? We want to make sure we have enough right of way. If we do have enough right of way, we can add that right turn lane in there to push cars out. We'll also look at that too at that intersection.

Okay. And then the, you know, country area is busy. How do we determine? I know it's warrants that determines all that, right? Yes. I mean, have we run warrants on that lately or, you know, just because it's a you know? And, again, what and and I don't know how you fix the I mean, this is a unfortunately, an issue across the city, people parking on the sidewalk or in the front of their house instead of and then they're blocking signs or, you know, it's always scary because kids are running across the street in the neighborhoods and, you know, if you're for cars there and you don't see the kid run out, you know? Yeah. So is there do we do warrants to be able to check to see if that would warrant a four way stop? Or

We do it with all intersections. We get calls all the time. Do you can you add a four way stop at an intersection or whatever? We will go out and put our our traffic tubes. We'll go out there and visually see it to make sure that we obviously, safety is very critical for us. Right? If there's not any cars there, we would not recommend a a stop sign. If we start seeing a lot of cars going one direction and maybe not another, maybe it's just a stop sign two ways. If it's a lot, we'll do four. We look at all those. We're always checking warrants. We're all always doing traffic counts, all those things. And we definitely if we see that we need to make some amendments, we definitely will do that. That's kind of part of our daily job, always looking at those things.

I mean, I think it's something we ought to at least look at. I mean, you know, just to see. And then the crosswalk, I don't know if we have any saying to help, you know, at least have something there that I mean, obviously, you had a four way stop, you clearly would have crosswalks. Yes. But, you know, with two, I don't know if they put crosswalks when it's just a stop sign on two directions. I just don't I'm not the expert on that.

We gotta be careful on that too. Right?

Okay.

You know, if if there's kids crossing and a lot of pedestrians, that would help warrant a stop sign more if we start seeing that.

We don't

want people trying to cross without stop signs and there's lot of traffic. So we look at that also.

Okay. If you'll just take some looks at that. Sure. All that, that'd be great. Okay. All right. Let's see. Is it Ronny Kulik? Did I even say that right? Come on up.

I was here two years ago.

I thought you you looked familiar.

Hi. So it sounds good. It sounds better to have lower density and have fewer neighbors, less traffic. But we have to think about, do they have enough parking? Are they going to park and line up all our streets?

Because when you take out this parking garage, they might need to park outside, so that's going to cause much more congestion around them. The next question I have is, when I talked to the developer and they gave us a design and it was a four story building adjacent to ours, you know, to our south property line, not three story. So you're gonna have a fence and four story building. There is no buffer because we don't have the townhomes anymore. That doesn't feel good.

I'm happy that the the planning committee can cancel their balconies, but still having, you know, four story building right behind us is too much. And let's address the elephant in the room. Money, cost. That's the reason we are here because if the inflation wasn't high and the interest rate wasn't weren't so high, they wouldn't be here. Well, we're have a new future coming up. The rate's gonna go gonna drop. Inflation's gonna drop. Prices will stabilize. Maybe they'll wait another year, and they will be able to build the high density that they plan to get approved. Why are you rushing to let them do everything?

Let's let them do what they wanna do, what they are approved to do. Just wait another year. That's my thought.

JOSHUA Well, thank you. I think on the Bradley, her concern about the four story, with the medium density, it only can go up to three stories, right, from there?

The medium density allows up to four stories.

It does, but it's farther back. Correct. How much farther back?

Well, it's actually the the building setback for the medium density and the high density option for a four story building is the same.

You

have Which is 135 feet.

135 feet. Okay. And if it's under the high end high what was originally bent, though, with the townhomes, though, is only going to be 50 feet. Right? Correct. Okay. Alright. And then on the parking, I mean, they shouldn't be parking out on either of those streets.

Right. So we are requiring the the same parking ratio for the high density option as for the medium density option, which is the same that we have in our base zoning district, which should be enough to accommodate all on-site parking entirely within the development. It should not be spilling over to any public streets.

Okay. Alright.

Okay.

Thank you. Theodore Ringer. Think you were here last time too, weren't you, mister Ringer? Yes, I was. Alright.

Three years ago. One of my concerns I'm glad the other speakers came before me because they and also your comments about the townhouses, why it cannot be on option two. I'm glad you spoke on that and also the concerns about the traffic. I did listen to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 1. And as he said, it was kind of dismissed that we'll look into it.

We'll monitor it. But I can vouch for what he says. We're waiting five minutes there now. And one of the things that came up a few minutes ago when the person says there was not enough room, my concern, well, I was supposed to introduce myself when I first came here and didn't do that. Theodore Ringer Jr.

614 Clearwater Trail. I was we moved here in 1985, So I've been here at that location about forty one years. There was no apartments there when we moved in and we thought the single family home were completely sellable. One of my concerns is when we we couched this as between high density and low density, I thought it was low density when we had single family homes. And now we have Parkwood Terrace that came in in 2001 and across the street on the North Side, we got another apartment over there too.

So from a homeowner standpoint, we're not low density anymore because we got two apartments right next to us, all real close to Mesa Park and Old Settlers. And the person said a few minutes ago, my concern is not enough room. And so I think if we move forward with this, as the late Colin Powell will say, you break it, you own it. And so if you put if you add more, quote, low density apartments to what I see is already high density, you're it's gonna be impossible to solve your traffic problem because now you've got a density problem in a very small area and not enough room. But my only suggestion about option two would be on the I went over to the Parkwood Terrace Apartments today and I said I looked at I kind of canvassed their situation.

They was built in 2001. They have a gated community where where their apartments are gated and the the the manager's office, the interest there is open, but it's closed at night. So if we do move forward with option two, I would like to see us consider making it a gated situation similar to Park Mainer, Park with Terry's. But that's it. I just think, as Ronnie was saying, because this is being economic driven and I understand that, we waited three years.

We didn't know this was coming. And then some of us would have spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission, but it was it came to us real quick and we didn't think this was going to be revisited again. And so if we go forward and we have all this density here in this little area, I don't think there's any kind of monitoring you can do with the traffic and and and because the the last thing I say is the folks who live there know that there is a steady stream of traffic from I 35 all the way to Redbud. And it just it just goes and stops. So when you add two eighty five more people there, in addition to our five minute wait we already have now, you can't fix that.

Once you've got the apartment up there and you got that low density added to it, you're going own that. So but thank you.

All right. Thank you for your time. Anybody have question? Councilman Fleming.

I just wanted to ask, sir.

Mr. Ranger. Yes.

What your reasoning was with the gated apartment complex, what did you like about that? Why were you asking for that?

Well, I thought it was access. I thought only the people who were tenants of that apartment renters would be on those premises. And I think everybody kind of knows that. So you had to have a passcode or the little clicker to get to get in. And so I've been living there since '85. I can't access it. Only thing I can do is go around on old cell list and go into the office managers, go into that access right there, And that closes at ten So at 10:00, it's locked down unless you are a person who's there or their guest.

So you're just thinking it's more safe for the entire community because it's gated and it's keeping people out?

Yes.

Okay. I just wanted to understand. Thank you.

Good question. Thank Do you do we know on

that with So, it's not a requirement in the PUD to provide gates at this complex, but the developer has stated explicitly to us that they plan either option, whether they go with the high density option or the medium density, that they will have gates here for security. And that is typical of all new multifamily apartment complexes of of any level of density.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. One other quick one other thing was that I I talked to the the planner, Lindsey Darden, and I was told that although it was not in the initial application on option one, it is part of the site development plan for option one. I was told that the gated consideration is part of this. It hasn't been approved yet. I said, okay, well, why don't you submit it for option one and not option two? So that's why I brought it up. It is in the process on option one.

In that case, the developer, they had already submitted a site development permit under option one that they were proceeding through the permitting process. So we were able to review their site development permit and the site layout, which did depict those gates. If they choose to go with the medium density option, they would then submit a site development permit following all the regulations of the medium density here in the PUD and that's, at that time, is when we would see or verify if they have a gate or not. But, again, they do plan on having a gate.

On either option? Correct. Well, mean, I guess why wouldn't we put that in our why wouldn't you put that on every unless it was out on the, you know, I-thirty 5 or something. But when you're in the neighborhood, you know, adjacent to neighborhoods, I mean, why wouldn't it just be required to have it gated? I mean, it keeps people from coming in and breaking into their cars, keeps people from, you know, parking out on the street. I mean, there's a lot of reasons, but just out of curiosity.

Yeah. Know, since a PUD at its core is a zoning document, we've never really seen a gated driveway as a zoning regulation. It's typically something that we would happily leave up to the developer to decide for themselves.

But anytime we do a PUD, we could put that in.

We could. Right?

Okay. Council Member Flynn.

And then I just wanted to understand, you know, one of the things they're concerned about is going from two and a half to four floors. So does the project not work at three floors, and that's why they're needing it to be four? And the second question to that is he had mentioned there's other apartments around there. Are those three story, four story? You might not know, but I was curious.

So under the proposed medium density option, the reason for the PUD amendment would allow buildings up to three four stories tall, and that compares with the original development proposal under the high density option where for multi family buildings, they could be four or five stories tall, or they could have townhouses of two and a half stories tall.

Okay. So it was kind of starting at two and a half and then it got bigger as it So worked its we're just starting a little bit farther back and higher.

Well, not higher.

Well, if it's four versus two and a half.

Well, no, but it can go up to five. Before. Before.

Right.

And then two and

a half was an option

to put the townhomes in line there, and now it's three or four.

But they didn't have to do the two and a half. They could have done four and five there or they had to do the two and

So, the high density option included a strip along sort of the southern portion of the property where only townhomes could be built. So, they were opting into that option at that time to have townhomes at the southern property line because they wouldn't want to leave that area blank of all development. So, they were reserving space to build townhomes to serve as a buffer between the four and five story multifamily buildings and the single family neighborhood.

So, does the new three, four start where the four or five were, or is it starting closer up?

The three starts a little bit closer than where the four was initially proposed. The four is at the same location in both the high density and the medium density option.

And then do you know what apartment heights are around there or not?

I wanna say that the Parkwood, across the street to the east, across Mesa Park, I think that's only a two story complex. Then across the street to the north is The Springs. I can't remember if that's two or three stories. That is one of the newer ones, but I can't recall if it's two or three stories, to be honest.

Okay. Thank you.

Mayor Proton?

Can you speak to the trees that I know have trees in our that's okay. Trees in our requirement, and then I have a question for Michael after that.

Sure. Yeah. So, typically on a property like this, and actually if we could get back to the slide show here, just so can have an aerial imagery to show what's going on. A lot of times on a property like this where the majority of it has been maintained, it has been mowed, but you will see a tree line in the back, trees growing up along fences. Those have been planted by the birds, so to speak. But typically, they're hackberries or other non protected species. They grow quickly. They provide a great buffer, but then they get diseased. They don't last. They rot, and they will unpredictably break, fall, take down fences.

And so those are not protected species by the city. The developer would be free to go in, remove all those trees without requiring any mitigation. But as part of our compatibility buffer requirement, they would be required to plant a new row of evergreen trees that would be at the landscape buffer. So, at least 10 feet into the property line because we have the 10 foot PUE immediately along the southern property line, and then just a little bit further in is our 15 foot landscape buffer. And within that buffer is where the developer will have to plant a new row of evergreen trees to provide a more year round buffer, you know, visually between the multifamily development and the single family development. They have to pick a certain mix of species that we prescribe in the code to make sure that they are evergreen and not deciduous.

Can we make sure that those hackberries and things are not in the easement and maybe could be removed to alleviate issues in neighbors' backyards? Just maybe check every once in a while and make sure.

That really would be up to the property owner, to the developer to maintain that. Once they have this property or once they own this property, know, then it'd be up to them to maintain those trees. But since they're not protected and they cause damage, they're incentivized to remove those.

What if they're in the easement, though? That