City Council - Regular Meeting

call the workshop test in order. Uh first thing I'd like to do uh is uh I give Edward we one of our employees Mike White want to pray for their family take just a minute. Heavenly Father God, we uh we come before you humbly God. We know that you are the mighty position. You have a great plan for for everything in our lives and we just pray for family Michael God whatever's going on there that that you first of all be glorified God through all this God that you just give the the family peace and patience through all this God. Um we know that we're the the worries of our hearts and cancer God. We just pray that you just miraculous. We love you so much in Christ.

Thank you. Item number two, discussion regarding historical relationship water supply and corporate relationship to the 2006 wholesale water supply contract.

Good evening, Mayor Council. So, I just wanted to take the time after the joint session we had the last meeting to answer a few questions, maybe a few concerns that we had. Um, uh, and I got a bullet point list there in the packet for you guys if you care to follow along. But, I just wanted to to go through the motions here and explain that the, uh, it is the it is staff's and consultant opinion that the water supplies that we're currently using on Steel House Lake um, are really the future of Lancast. Um there are supplemental supplies that are that can be found on a uh in the local area. However, at this point in time, we haven't determined that they're capable of actually supplying land passes without stills. So, I just wanted to make that point known that um at this point in time, still house is the future. Um supplemental supplies are a touchy subject right now. Um Jones and Associates has been working on a uh an alternative water supply study. He has completed it. So, we hope to bring that to you guys in March, discuss what potential long-term options actually look like. I didn't want to get too much detail tonight. I don't want to steal the Jason Jones. Um, but there are there's a handful of of possible solutions that would allow land passes to remain in service during times of water outages um and just supplement the general water supply from Still Hills. One of the things that was mentioned during the joint meeting was and we've heard it over and over again is uh uh Manassa doesn't pay for all its water. So um I want to de debunk that kind of right here and right now. So Lampasses doesn't have an obligation to purchase water from Kitner Water Supply directly. We do purchase water from Central Texas Water Supply. Kitner distributes it out. So there are some months throughout the year where possibly Kentner does produce water in excess of what the other water supply corp did that they would not have

gotten compensated for otherwise. However, in the past 13 months, I believe that's happened four times. So it's not a regular happening on a regular basis. Um, furthermore, I believe what they reference and the contract being unfair and in terms of um, Lasses not paying their fair share or it being a moral issue, which um, I kind of want to clear that up now. A, you know, a poor business decision made in 2010 does not make a moral decision today. Um, Kitner is obligated for the current current contract to pay a portion of Owen M to the central Texas Water Supply plant. Um, they don't use that plant. That's an issue between those two entities, not Lampasses. Um, that's just my opinion on the matter. That's just how I see it. Uh, the Lake Cliff Water Plant has been rumored for quite well probably about two years now to be up for sale. Um, I haven't seen any official documentation detailing that it's actually for sale. Um, staff did look at this option two plus years ago. Uh, we just kind of deemed it as an option that really wasn't financially feasible. Uh, we did tour that plant about July of 2024. U, it's going to need significant capital investment. So by the time you bought the plant and contributed everything financially you would need to in order to make it operational for additional long-term use probably at the point of buying, you know, building a new plant anyways. So it's just a it's not the best option. Furthermore, in my opinion, treating water on Steel House and distributing it all the way to Lamp Passes does bring issues in terms of water quality and water age and nitrification, which we currently deal with every summer. So if we were to ever consider building a water plant, it

would be my and consultant opinion to build it on local level, not necessarily treat it and push treated water all this way from still house. You just run into other issues when you do that. Issues that you that weren't fully conceived back in the 80s when the plant was built. It just wasn't thought about. So, um, staff does intend to meet, uh, in March to discuss joint projects, uh, potentially capital improvement projects. Uh, March gives us a perfect time frame to kind of get it in the budget if it's going to be possible this upcoming fiscal year. But furthermore, that's just that's that's all I've got. I if you guys have any questions regarding water, um, I'd love to answer them here today. I just, uh, for the sake of transparency, there's just been a lot of room around. I just want to be up front and kind of tell you how I believe things currently are and you know settle any you know opinions or anything else.

I have a question. Um you mentioned that there were a few times that we did buy um I couldn't even 17 months.

Sorry. So there's give you a little history behind that. There if Kentner water produces for any given day more water than central Texas water supply does we are not contractually obligated to pay in for that water. Um therefore in the past 14 months I believe it happened three times my numbers are correct. So they they produced water half a million gallons a million gallons that they weren't fully compensated for. Um, and the monthly the the monthly reports break this down on a daily level and on a monthly level. So Kitner has the same I mean quite frankly we get it from Kitner. So they have the same data we've got. So to to claim that we're not paying, you know, for most of the water that we use. Is it entirely accurate? For the most part, yes, we are. O&M, I think, is is Kittner's hang up on this. uh they're having to pay a large portion loan into that plant that they don't use. Uh quite frankly, you know, it's just you agreed to that deal in 2010. So, uh can't speak on why you did it, but you did.

So, on that same point, Stephen, you said four times or three times in the last 14 months that Central Texas is under produced. How many times in the last 14 months are they over produced? Every other month. So, so yes, so one's got to be over, one's got to be under. Yes. So, in those other months, Central Texas produced water that couldn't actually be used that passes. So,

I agree with you. I don't think that their hangup is on water that we don't hate for. I think it's the ODM and I stand behind you. I mean they they made a terrible decision business decision in 2010 and that company continues to make bad business decisions from what I can see and so I don't think you know they're trying to play the moral card now it's I mean that's that's really on them in my opinion

there on another note I believe it was mentioned during the last meeting that with the uh with the interconnect between still house lake and lake belton that the bar may have difficulty determining who's going to get what water. So, just to clear that up a little bit, uh, city of L passes has three water agreements with the Brazes River Authority. Um, they have responsibility to fulfill their side of those agreements, you know, up until they they end their term. Uh,

when does that end, Stephen? When does that term end? the most recent term. I'd be speculating at this point, but the most recent term might might expire within the next two years, but we will just renew them. So, it's just like a lease agreement essentially. You're talking about inter. Yes. Once the internet once the interconnect is complete, it's going to be similar to what's already happened with Georgetown. So, Steel House Hollow Lake uh interconnected with Lake Georgetown, water only flows one way. Water flows from Steel House to Lake Georgetown. It never flows backwards. The same thing will happen with Lake Belton. Once it's connected to Still House Hollow Lake, water's going to flow from Lake Belton to Steel House to Georgetown, not the other way.

And that's in that publication. Don't they have something on on the web that states it's only going to go from Lake Belton to Steel House, not I haven't seen that publication. So, I believe Mr. Sims has showed it in the past, right? Yes, sir. I just want I know there was a there was some mis assumptions with that, so kind of wanted to clear it up. Um, and also I don't I don't believe the core of engineers is actually involved in that project handle flood control projects. I'm not sure who's doing this work, but I don't believe engineers also mention too build on a local level. Sorry, build a a treatment plan on a local level here. Right.

And kind of I mean kind and my understanding is a studies that we've done. It's a it's a smaller just uh uh for emergency purposes. Right. So, uh, in March when we do come to council with the, uh, with the alternative water supply study, it's going to detail potentially a water plant as a supplemental source of water for land passes. Um, it would be on a local level. It would be more than likely within the city limits if we were to go through with it. Um, but it's just a supplemental resource. Um there's some there's some information where possibly wells could service land passes at this point in time to be supplemental as well. There's just not enough hard data out there to determine groundwater is a is a viable long-term option other than supplemental. So

and this water alliance that they've mentioned I think just started this year will that benefit in this situation at all or we're just speculating at this time? I'd be speculating to give you an answer on that. Um, quite honestly, it's they're it's still in the inception phase right now. So, they're they're just kind of getting the wheels moving. It's going to be hard to tell how much use they're really going to be to land passes. Uh, I'm very curious to see how it works out, but it's it's just too early to tell.

Stephen, I think you can tell them about the Wilox. Oh yeah. So the uh the central Texas Water Alliance um they are considering bringing water in from the Ciso Wilcox aquifer and utilizing some sort of aquifer storage and recovery. Meaning they take that water from one area, they deep well inject it and in an attempt to pull it out at a later date and use for really whatever you want to. Uh the CIA will cox pull the water out of it. It's fairly political. Um while it may work, it's not going to work without a fight, that's for sure. So, they've got a if that's the path that they that they're taking, I I would argue that they've got a a good debate on their hands.

And on that, we've not had any uh studies or anything done for estimated costs or locations or things like that. Any kind of treatment plan or kind of physical related to Oh, for supplemental use related to the central Texas. Oh, related No, not related to the central Texas water. No, there's there's been nothing. Yeah, there's been nothing of great value just yet. Just just some solid difference. So, they're they're definitely interested in bringing water to the area. Um they've got a good path. I'm I'm sure things are going to work out real well. Unfortunately, it's just it's just too early in the game to determine how this is going to play out.

Anything else? Item number four uh or three, I'm sorry. Discussion regarding any items on the regular session for February 23rd, 2026. Discussion regarding any items not included on the regular session for February 23, 2026 for consideration on future agenda. Action can be taken by city council. Just real quick, I know that we tal we had tabled um or we talked about coming back to looking at the schedules for the hostess house and in a future workshop. I would like to invite Kathy Ber to talk about how the hostess house was rented, how it worked back because she did it for so many years just to give us some feedback on that whether it's you know with the one story or the two stories in that. Harrison contact at this time get a motion to adjourn workshop second. All in favor?

All rise.

Let's pray. Dearly father, we just thank you for another day. We thank you for the people that choose to serve today, people choose to be here. Uh we pray for your guidance and anything decision we make today to be somebody used to glorify you. Uh we pray for your purpose and your peace. Please forgive us for your our sins and uh thank you for all your blessings in Jesus name I pray. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and alliance to the one and indivisible. Power's comments. Uh, any citizen who desires to address the city council on a matter not included on the agenda may do so at this time. for possible posting and discussion by council on future agendas. The city council may not elaborate on items presented up underneath this agenda item. And I think we have one. Yes. Mayor, city council. I am here to request that you consider adding the Junth National Independence Day holiday to the city calendar. As you know, it is a state and national holiday and I believe it was passed by the state in 1979, so about 25 years ago. Holidays are symbols.

This particular holiday celebrates the end of slavery in the United States and also the promise and opportunity that lay ahead for the newly emancipated people in this country. And these decisions have context. When Major General Gordon Granger landed in Galveston on June 19th, 1865, there were 250,000 enslaved people living in Texas. The first three Texas Constitutions, the one after the war with Mexico at which we became a republic, the one when we joined the Union, and the one when we succeeded from the Union, each contained a clause that specifically prohibited the emancipation of slaves. You can go a couple of blocks over to the courthouse and you will see deed restrictions prohibiting property from being sold to nonwhites. When I became the municipal judge, Sue Lily was the librarian and she told me that there were books with pocket parts in our library that stated for whites only. In the 1950s, the issue of integrating our public library here in Lasses came before the city council and that request was denied. Brown University versus Board of Education was decided in 1954, which is just about the same time as we had a brand new high school. And it took our community 10 years before we integrated. So the point I'm making is the contest. If you add this c this holiday to the calendar, the county has it, then it

says one thing. But if you don't add it to the calendar, you run the risk of sending an entirely different, not very favorable message about our community. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. 1.2 citizens comment. Any citizen city council on a matter of that is included on the agenda. Please and there is none. Consent agenda discussion and possible action regarding approval of minutes of regular meeting held on February 9th, 2026. Discussion and possible action regarding approval of minutes of the special meetings held on February 13, 2026. Discussion and possible action regarding the second reading of the ordinance amending the land passage code of the ordinance regarding a request to reszone property being 144.996 acres out of the family Daniel survey abstract 0631 more specifically being the Land Pass Economic Development Corporation business partner located on South US Highway 183 and area zone business park 1 BP Z1, business park zone 2 BZ2 and business park zone 3 B Z3 to business park zone 3 BZ3. Discussion and possible action regarding the second reading of an ordinance calling the May 2nd, 2026 general

election for the city of land passes to elect the expired terms of council members place 3 4 5 providing for early voting holding times and places and bilingual election discussion possible action regarding purchases and charges in excess of $4,000 for January 26. Move to approve this. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Department reports have none tonight. Upcoming special events meetings. Good evening, mayor and council. Uh, next Thursday, March 5th, we have a planning and zoning meeting. I will not be here, so Aaron will be running that meeting. March 9th, we have our next city council meeting. And then March 9th through 13th is building passes ISD spring break.

Any questions? All right. Thank you. New business discussion and possible action regarding the appointment Melissa Hunger to represent the Chamber of Commerce Parks Recreation Board. Mayor and Council Tasha Bates was sitting in this role. We reappointed her in September. She has stepped down from the board and Melissa was chosen to represent the chamber. This did go to the parks board last Thursday and they voted unanimously to pass her. I move to appoint Melissa to the parks board. Parks and Recreation. Second. All in favor?

Discussion of possible action regarding a feed correction for a bid on partial 8195 1acre. John Burlson survey awarded on October 27th, 2014. Mayor and council, I'm bringing this to council at the request of Mr. McBride. Um, we've had communication back and forth for about the last year in which Mr. McBride um tries to assert that he is due property um as a result of a bid for a tax resale that the city stance is not his property. Um, and I can go through if it's easiest. Um, I can go through this is just the last communication that he had sent to a council member. Um, so kind of his position and then the city's stance against it. But a little bit of history. Um, the property that he bid on was a 50 foot x 50t parcel. I identified as parcel number 1895, I believe. Um for several years there was back and forth with the previous property owner and the appraisal district. It would go up for taxes. Um he would pay it off at the last minute. Eventually in I believe 2000 the trustees uh of the school were awarded ownership of the property um because of the largest taxing entity. In 2013, I found a bid notification from LCAD that they would be selling the property on the courthouse steps in accordance with um property tax law. The val estimated value at that time was about $1,200. It's my understanding and it is identified in that ad as a 50T x50T parcel. Um it's my understanding that it didn't sell at that time. So the

appraisal district then accepted sealed bids for the properties. Mr. McBride's bid of $10 was the highest bid for the proper the only bid for the property at that time. So then the appraisal district would have submitted the high bid information to all the taxing entities and their um boards would either accept or reject that bid. As far as I know, all we were told at the time was the high bidder for this property or two properties sold completely different properties from each other. So there were two subject properties at the time. One was awarded to the high bidder on that property and then Mr. McBride was the high bidder on this 50t x50T parcel. In 2014 when it came to the council for approval, Mr. Degrath told the council at that time that it would be an unusable lot that no one really knew where it was. It's never been platted or surveyed. And there was a belief at the time that it was located under the Fourth Street Bridge. The council awarded the $10 bid at that time knowing that it would be difficult for the purchaser to do anything with it in the future, but he was in fact a high bid for that property. Um, recently, Mr. McBride has asserted that with his bid, he submitted additional documentation that entitles him to an additional 16 1/2 acres located along Sulfur Creek. um various times I have responded to him that that's that's not how it works to be quite blunt. But um if I could just go through this last letter, I can point out to council the um fallacies and his approach for this. He's stating that it was sold under local government code section 272.01, 01 which is titled um notice of

sale or exchange of land by a political subdivision. This property was not sold by the city. It was sold by the appraisal district. So it was not sold under 27201. It was sold under section 34.05C of the property tax code resale by taxing unit. So again the property was sold by the appraisal district. Um, we very clearly in the bid acceptance, again, I can't tell you what was presented to council. I know it was presented to the school district and it was, "Hey, this is the high bid. It was $10." This was the bidder's name. I couldn't tell you what Mr. McBride submitted in the bid packet at this time or past the retention schedule for that. It's not located at the district court's office. Purely just the bid information. Um the award letter was clearly issued by the nasis county or central appraisal district and was specifically identified as parcel uh 1895 or 8195. He um asserts that the surveyor's assessment that a title search would reveal approximately 10 to 15 acres remaining from the original track does not disqualify or undermine the bidder's intent. Texas law prioritizes the biders clearly expressed intent in bid documents upon unconditional acceptance. Again, there was no evidence that the bid contained anything other than the dollar value or debt that was related to the city. The city was not responsible for the bid packet, nor were the ISC or the county. Again, the city council awarded the high bid of $10. Texas law specifically outlines the methods in which a city can sell property. We can sell the property through seal good, but we have to do our own notification process and we cannot take less than fair market value. So, it has to go through an appraiser before it's listed for um bid. And I I think we can all see very clearly that even if the $10 was split three ways amongst the

taxing entities, $3.33 doesn't buy you 16 acres of land. Um, the bid's description, while imprecise, was sufficiently definite through its legal references and ties to the 1955 deed, allowing the city to ascertain the intended scope with reasonable diligence. In your packet, you'll see at at some point he's submitted a handdrawn map, and I'll put a map up here in a second, but the two don't correlate to anything. So even what he's claiming he's entitled to is from the Western Avenue Bridge all the way to the mouth of Berles Creek by the wastewater treatment plant. It encumbers the entirety of Silver Creek in that section. Um he quotes various lawsuits in in this correspondence that that don't have really anything to do with the issue at hand. It's a bunch of um again lawsuits that that don't pertain to the issue that we're discussing now. He states that the city's failure to conduct a title search or perform due diligence prior to acceptance does not invalidate the contract or prejudice the bidder. The bid documents that he submitted his bid on clearly states that it's the bidder's responsibility to do their own title examination and satisfy themselves as to the condition of title before submitting a bid. It is also the bidder's responsibility to satisfy themselves concerning the location and condition of the property on the ground before submitting a bid. All properties are sold as is. The law firm or the taxing entities will not supply or pay for any closing cost including but not limited to owner financing, abstract title, appraisal, title policy survey and termite certification. He argues a little bit about materiality. Um, I would argue that an additional 16 acres of of property is

not immaterial to a bid. He quotes that um, furthermore, after four years since the 2014 acceptance, the city is precluded from claiming mistake or contesting the contract due to the four-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts and real property conveyances. Civil practice and release code 16.04. 16.04 04 actually says that a person must bring suit on the following actions not later than four years after the date the cause of action occurs specific performance of a contract for the commands of real property. This actually indicates that based on his arguments of the city failing to convey Mr. Mr. has exceeded the statute of limitations for time for him to file suit on the city to force conveyance not for the city to refute his claims. Um, and I think the other thing that I'd primarily like to point out to you is is that section highlighted in yellow. Multiple times I've encouraged Mr. McBride to hire legal counsel to help him navigate this should he truly feel like he's got a claim in this property. He's not done so. All of this content is AI generated. Um, and to my knowledge, he's not hired legal counsel to help him navigate this. The staff has done a significant amount, spent a significant amount of time researching deed history. I've tracked this 50 foot x 50 foot parcel back to 1899 where it's clear it's cut out. Um there are no ties between one and the other. So the city stance is purely that his his $10 bid in 2014 does not entitle him to 16 and 12 acres of property. So, at this time, staff would be asking council to deny his request for a deed correction for that property.

So, moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Thank you. 4.3 discussion possible action 2006 new hall back as a surplus according to state law.

Good evening mayor and council. The cemetery crew is going through a lot of their old equipment and uh getting rid of things that they haven't used in quite some time. This backhoe has been removed from insurance for quite some time. So, nobody's actually been able to narrow down exactly what year it's from. We do know it's between 2000 and 2006, but it was removed from service over 5 years ago uh due to needing a new starter and an idling issue. The cost of repair supersedes by far what it would be worth. So, they're asking to do meta surplus. Make a motion declaring 2000 and 2006 new back circle completion.

The five years that's just been sitting there. Is that equipment sitting around? So in the past, yes, there were some departments that didn't almost never got rid of anything. they either used things off of it, used it as parts. Um, unfortunately, yes, we are getting more along the path of getting rid of things when we're no longer needing them, which is why we have three on the agenda tonight. So, we are trying that. Any other questions? All in favor? I

discussion possible action regarding the approval of to declare a 1999 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 single cab as a surplus fleet and to allow staff to dispose of according to state law. Mayor and councel, this uh Chevrolet Silverado is in the same boat as the backho was. It's been removed from service for over 10 years. Uh, and they've been using it as parts. Basically, it's been sitting at the cemetery.

I move to declare 1999 Silverado Chevy Silverado 2500 single cab surface and allow staff to dispose of it as state law. Any discussion? All in favor? 4.5 discussion and possible action regarding the approval to declare a 2008 Yamaha Venture 1 YTF golf course golf cart as a surplus complete allow staff to dispose of according state law

council this one has been removed from service for over 5 years it needs a new rear axle wheel and battery and isn't worth the cost of repair move to declare 2008 Yamaha Adventurer one YTF1 healthcart the surplus fleet and allow staff to dispose of the state law. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

4.6 Six, discussion and possible action regarding an awarding a bid to Hubert Technology Incorporated for one Huber screw press Q press for the amount of $56, $155. Evening, mayor and council. Um 2025, beginning of 2025, the city of Lass was notified that they had an EPA grant, a $1 million EPA grant to justify a uh replacement of an existing solids handling facility uh during 2025. This week during the budgeting process, we uh managed to set aside monies for this project moving forward. Uh two months ago, I believe we approved the engineering for this project. This is the equipment procurement plague part of the project. Um, we went out for a different type of bids. Instead of instead of comparing one unit to another, we went with a little bit more competitive uh type of a bidding process where we we uh we we requested manufacturers uh of all shapes and sizes to bid a solid handling unit. So instead of just a belt filter press compared with a belt filter press, we wanted to compare screw press, belt press, centuge incinerator, all different forms of technology so the city of my passes can really get the most bang for its bug. Um in that process only two bids came back. One for a belt press, one for a screw press and it's not been identified by staff in a grading process that the screw press just makes the most sense for the current staffing and for longterm use. The screw press is what is in the FY26 budget or was it a belt press in the FY?

It was it was just it was it was solid handling improvements. So, we weren't quite sure how we wanted to go. We wanted to see how the bids came back. See see really what we could do with the money. Are we over actually So, and that we didn't get many bids. Is that such a specialized piece of equipment?

It is. So, we Sorry. We let a lot of manufacturers know, but but yeah, it's a pretty small field. There's not very many Americanmade options. So, there was two screw press manufacturers, including this one that that were aware that we were uh seeking out proposals. Um the belt press, this is Alpha Lab, is probably one of the they are the only Texas made press to my knowledge. I might they may be the only American. What's the life expectancy for this?

Oh, realistically, 20 30 years easily. So this is the original unit um at the plant is approaching 30 years old and and it shows it. So but it should be able to make the 20 year to 30 year lifespan. It should be able to make that with decent or maintenance. I move to award the bid to Hubert Technology Inc. for one Huber screw press Q press in the amount of $516,155. Second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I need a motion to adjourn into executive session. So move

all in favor. City council, city of L passes, Texas will meet and close executive session pursuant to the Texas government code chapter 551 as follows. Section 551.087 087 economic development to receive and evaluate financial information receive from business to discuss the same and or to deliberate some commercial or financial information that the city has received from a business that the city seeks to have locate state or expand in or nearby the city with which the city is conducting economic development negotiations and or to the to deliberate an offer of any financial Other incentives for any business prospect describe above project sweet dreams section 551.071 071 consult consultation with an attorney to seek and or receive any advice legal counsel for the city concerning pending complated litigation settlement offers or any matter in which the duty of the legal council to the city council to advise the city government body regarding such matters pursuant to the state law statutes including the Texas disciplinary rules for professional conduct. and the state bar of Texas in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act 5.3 section 551.074 074 personnel matters to deliberate the appointment evaluation reassignment duties or discipline of the public officer or employee city manager or any other personnel matters as allowed by Texas government code chapter 551 and we'll get a motion to adjourn into executive session to executive session briefly session

It says we're live.

All right. Nothing coming out of executive session tonight. Um, get a motion to go home. Motion to second. All in favor? I