Parks & Recreation Board - Regular Meeting

I'll go ahead and call call us to order for the June 18. Exactly. You could call the

roll, please. Uh-huh. Jared Gribbling.

Here.

John Elise Soko. Here.

Benjamin Peck?

Here. John Smedes?

Here.

Peter Sheerhurt? Yep. Charles Hickman?

Here.

Jordan Lane's not here yet. Dan Aldis not here yet. Amanda Fox? Is Amanda Fox? We're doing a roll call.

Sorry. I had to unmute you. Yes. I'm here.

We got you. Okay? Everybody are our people.

Yes. We'll

do it one more time. Yeah. Any as just a reminder for those board members participating online, in order to participate in conversation or to vote this evening, you will need to have your cameras on in order to be counted as present during that conversation. So just a reminder.

Okay. Jerry, do

have a quorum?

Okay. Great. And I know that we have some citizens wishing to speak. Is that correct?

Yes. There would have three this evening. Chris Skiles is joining us online. Mister Skiles, you will have three minutes. Please state your name for the record, and you can begin whenever you're ready.

Alright. Yes. My name is Chris Skiles, and we are I'm the founder of Elevate Development Partners. So we're the developer on this project, and I appreciate everybody's time. We're excited about the project.

Just a few notes. So as we were kind of into drawing construction drawings and civil engineering, we became aware that the code related to Parkland dedication had changed. And so we tasked Kim Lee Horn, our civil engineer, with kind of understanding what those kind of dedication requirements and fees might be. And after quite a bit of back and forth with the city, we learned of some Parkland dedication requirements that would have been impossible to satisfy, to say the least. And so without getting into the too much of the details of that, we are here with a request that would kind of allow us to move forward with the project.

The dedication requirements as they're being interpreted kinda render our product project unfeasible. And I just wanted to I don't wanna talk too much. I'll be available for questions, but I do wanna briefly point out just kind of a few stats, if you don't mind. So the Parkland fees as being assessed by San Marcos right now are on average 455 percent higher than an identical project in the surrounding areas of Kyle, Buda, New Braunfels, or Austin. The Parkland fees increased by 1927% or 20 x from the previous iteration of code with this new code update.

And so, yeah, we essentially are averaging 455% above all the surrounding cities for an identical project. So that's kind

of the the reason that we are here today.

And Thank you, sir.

Oh, go ahead.

No. No. I'm sorry.

Do you have anything to any anything you need to say before you finish?

No. I think I think that's I I'm concluded. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry. Next

Okay. Next is Ian Roberts. And Ian is in person with us?

Yep. That's me. Hi. My name is Egan Roberts. I'm a professional engineer with Kimberly Horn. I run our local office here in San Marcos. We've been here for about three years. I've got about twelve years of experience, but I've done a number of projects in the city of San Marcos. So I'm pretty familiar with the the code as it was when we started on the project versus what it is today. I'm really just here to answer any questions as y'all might have them as you kinda go through your discussions today. And just to let you know, I am the one that put together the calculation that's gonna be in front of you for consideration. So if you have anything to inquire about as you kinda go through the process here, I'm happy to help.

And lastly, was Mr. Rodrigo Amaya in person? You wanna check and make sure he's not having to jump on the attendees side?

No. He's not here. No. Don't see him. K. Yes. He's not here.

Alright. Well, that will conclude our Susan comment period, and we'll move to item one, our minutes.

Consider approval by motion of the 05/15/2025 regular meeting minutes.

And can we get a motion on the minutes, please? Motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the minutes? If not, could you call the roll?

Amanda Fox?

Yes.

Benjamin Peck? Yes. Aye. Peter Sheerhurt? Aye. Charles Hickman?

Aye.

Derek Griblin?

Aye.

John Ellis So to? Abstained. It's her first day.

Right.

Good. Thank you very much.

She passed.

Awesome. So we'll move to item two, please.

Consider approval by motion of a request by Elevate Development Partners on behalf of for a fee in lieu of Parkland in the amount of $936,624 for a multifamily and student housing development located on the South Side of Lindsay Street between North Comanche Street and North Street and Southwest of the intersection between Lindsay Street and North Street.

Sorry about that. Oh, it's okay.

Okay. And for purposes of discussion, motion to approve. Motion to approve. Okay. Yeah. The motion is do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. We have a a motion and a second to discuss and

And we

do have miss Julia Cleary here. Need to figure out a way to bring her here. She got it. Cool. Let me I'm gonna share my screen.

Yeah. So think it's Yep. The way you can split.

So you

guys think about Thank you. Hi there, everybody. My name is Julia Cleary. For those of you who can't believe, I am the senior planner with the city of San Marcos planning department. And I am here today for a fee in lieu request for a pipeline development located across the street from Texas State University.

So you may have heard of this development before. It did go through city council for an alternative compliance for seven stories and also to allow for student housing within our within our downtown area. It was approved for 259 units. One of the things that they were required to do as part of that was to provide a public plaza or or pocket park in addition to the parkland requirements that are required by by y'all today. So you'll hear me talking about a 100% fee and lieu request, but just also bear in mind that as part of their alternative compliance for their additional two stories, they were required and will be providing that bulk part in addition to whatever they are they are paying.

And may I ask a question quick question. When did the city council consider this?

This went in last year, '20.

'20.

Yes. They did submit the application did come in, I believe, prior to the code changing regarding the the fees, but it had been determined by legal that fees are not grandfathered.

And so this is eighteen months old, and I'll apologize, but I don't as far as, like, the location and everything, you're gonna have to paint a picture for me because it's it's hard for me to tell.

Yeah. Absolutely. So for context, Texas State University is is right to the north. So your southern boundary of the Texas State University campus, that is right to the there, we have Lindsay Street along the north. We have Kumasi Street along the eastern boundary, and then we have North Street that runs, I guess, through north, south, through the door, through the middle of the project.

Yeah. I looked at the maps, and I don't know if anybody else had trouble kinda picturing it. But when I was looking, I'm still trying to get my bearings on.

It's okay.

Is it where is it?

Is there one reference somewhere there that you can So everything outlined in yellow is gonna be the the boundary of the project.

Sanctuary Lofts is, like, the middle yellow two blocks south.

Oh, Sanctuary Lofts. Okay. So then the little ATV is out of the picture then?

It's to to the side. Probably just at all.

To Could could you go and point it?

Sorry. Little HEV would be right here.

Right there. That Sanctuary Loft is that red roof

Yep.

That we see.

The top of this one?

Yes.

Right there. Yeah. What is that? Sanctuary Loft?

Yeah. Or balconies now.

Oh, this one.

I know it is. Sanctuary Loft.

And the Ingram Building is two blocks north. Sorry. I bike through here all the time.

Yeah. No. Thank you. It was just it's you know, you look at the grid, and it's I I was having trouble even in the maps that were provided seeing the street names. So I apologize.

I mean, I can happen to pull up the map to the end if you'd like.

Well, I need to know where this is. So is that North Street?

That was North Street. Going

Yes. Straight to North. Yes.

North Street here. So, yes, that that's Sanctuary Lofts. Here? Mhmm. Yeah.

This was Street.

Down. Down. Yeah. Job's is down. This is

This is Yes. It's gonna be for this. Yeah. So there's Yeah.

Yeah. Mhmm.

Absolutely. Straight.

And then Lindsey Bold. Is that that

Do you want me to go on somewhere else?

So Yes, sir. Here.

We've got

Yes. I think we're good. I

understand. Yes.

You know.

Yes. Do you

have anything?

I think we're I'm good.

Is everybody online here as to where the location is?

Derek, are you okay? And miss Sotto?

Amanda gave a thumbs up. Derek, do you know where it's at? I'm interested.

Yeah. Which which one is the in lieu of one?

So it's gonna be so so it's gonna be everything in yellow. So it starts right over here and then extends all the way over

Okay. All the

way over here to the battery of my sheet.

Okay. I didn't know if it was all of it or just one section. Okay. Cool.

Alright. Thank you.

And then you just There we go. Okay. K. So just a little bit of a high level context within the parks master plan. It's not located within a neighborhood park area for the park's master plan.

As I said, they are proposing a publicly accessible plaza plaza, but it is a requirement of their alternative clients to do that in addition to whatever y'all require. And then for context, it's approximately half a mile from from the river from the river parks. So just a little bit of a background for those of you who weren't on on Parks' board. The previous fee in lieu dedication had a set per unit amount. You could either provide Parkland based on your proposed additional units, so population of your development, or you could request a fee in lieu of either $317 for a multifamily, which this would have fallen under, or $396 per unit for a single family.

So this development, if it had come in back in 2023, would have had a fee in lieu of about $68,000 for context. Parks Board did provide a rec recommendation resolution to reassess that fee. So the understanding was the the fees were a little bit too low. They weren't reflective of the actual cost of land. And so the methodology that was adopted in the code was that it would be based on the value of the land that the development was located on. So now at this time, the fee must be calculated based on the appraised value of the site, so not necessarily of the city as a whole, but of the site itself.

And may may just to energize, when you say the Parks Board approved

The Parks Board did not the Parks Board did not approve. The Parks Board approved a recommendation resolution to get to initiate the conversation. The code ultimately would be approved by council.

Right. Yes. It's not a Parks Board action that did that.

That is correct.

Yes, Yes, acknowledged.

Thank you.

So the request from the applicant is 100% fee in lieu. As I said, this is an addition to what they're providing. They are providing a public park, but we're talking about a 100% fee in lieu because the park is an additional requirement. We are going to be basing that on additional units. They are constructing 259 units.

However, this is an infill development. There are existing units on-site. We currently have, I believe, 39 multifamily units and four single family units. So we will look at the net population that is proposed by the development. So for the current so for multifamily, which is proposed on the western side of the development, Multifamily being development that is not just marketed specifically to students.

It is also restricted to three bedrooms or less, whereas student housing will be four, up to four bedrooms, and it can be specifically targeted to students. Multifamily units are considered to have 2.1 residents per unit. 97 additional units of multifamily will be which is two hundred and three seven on the eastern side. Purpose built student housing actually has a higher population assumption. It's either we're we're assessing on it a per bedroom because typically with student housing, you have one person per per bedroom based on the model.

That's assessed at 501 people. So the net population here, 612 individuals. The acreage that that would assess at would be approximately three and a half acres required. So one thing to note is this is actually bigger than the area site itself, so it is physically impossible to dedicate all the park lines on this site. In addition, as I said, they will also be proposing 0.09 acres, but that's not as part of this this app.

So per code, and I apologize for all the the math, per code, we would base the the on the value per acre based on the appraisal district data. So the value per acre would be at just shy of $1,000,000. So if you're calculating the the acreage required, that would work at $3,000,273.811. 200 $3,273,811 per grade. Staffing also said that is a very, very, very high figure, and it is relatively unreasonable.

Of Yes.

Don't be interrupting. But the Parkland dedication calculation and the fee and the when the when the city council approved the code change to require all of this, I it's a two part question. So hold on. The first one is, what did the when the calculations were being done, did the staff and the team of the plant the whatever whatever group we hired to assist us in writing this news deal, did they calculate that the fact that downtown development that required parkland required parkland would be almost impossible to do under the new code?

To my knowledge, that was not something that was really seriously looked at, honestly.

So you figured

that out.

That was not something that was serious. Again, I wasn't involved in that process, but my understanding is it was not it was not really considered. Looking at infill was not it it is a

Right. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. Right. It would because it doesn't work.

Right. And I think that's what staff staff are acknowledging that Yeah. This doesn't work.

This is Is there a proposed code change being thought?

Yes. Yes.

The next question I have is, thank you for that, is the point o nine. All of these numbers, including the proposed dedication that's a separate issue, that was all negotiated with the city council, but prior to their vote. Correct?

Yes. So so the 0.09 acres was part of the And all these numbers rest.

All the added population

This is also this is additional and separate. Yeah.

But the city council's already approved it that way. They've approved the extra height. They've approved it, all these numbers that you're showing.

So they've not necessarily approved the numbers. They've they've approved the the two additional stories. They've approved the use of student housing, which requires council approval.

But not the multifamily breakout and the purpose built student housing breakout. They haven't approved that.

The number of units. So one of the things that they required when it went for the conditional use permit for student housing specifically. So the request was for the entire site to be student housing, and what council had negotiated is that on the right hand side, you can have up to four bedrooms, kind of your typical student housing development. But on the Western side, they would restrict it to three stories, 80% of the pervades cover Yeah. And through up to three bedrooms, which ultimately is not really a street.

So various conditions. I guess my point that I'm trying to make for the board and for those watching is that the council would have had significant input already into how this thing is going to lay out, but then but we're being asked to to approve or make a recommendation to approve this negotiated because the code is impossible to accomplish. Correct?

Yes. So so Pennsyl never talked about the the dollar amount. That was not like that as part of the

That that is part of this body's purview. Yes. Correct.

Don't they have to approve after us?

No. No, sir.

No. No. No. So if y'all are so they you can either choose to accept or not. If not, then the appeal process goes

to counsel at that point.

But when counsel considered the original deal in 2024 at a city council meeting and they had a vote, I'm assuming, did they not know that the

The number?

The numbers at that point?

That wouldn't that wouldn't assist. All this come later. It comes later. Okay.

Yeah. That's all

I have.

Thank you.

Can I ask you a question about from the where is the 56,410 coming from?

Slide doesn't matter. I apologize. That is that is That would come from yeah. It it should be based on I apologize. That should be 950,000 types. Three workers.

Okay. Yep. We

And that would be a bargain, 56,000.

So you're saying that alright. It's almost a million dollars per acre going. Right?

Yes. Correct. And then if you and I apologize. That's that's a typo on my end. So that 3.4428 multiplied by the land value per per acre is what you get.

Okay. I heard Derek. Derek, did

you have question? I think it's Chris. Oh, is it Chris? Oh, I'm sorry.

Am I allowed to participate?

Well, hold hold. I'm gonna stop you. Let let us have our

Okay. Have

our conversation, and then and then if there's any specific questions, I assume I'm speaking to Bill.

Yes, sir. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

Julie. Very specific. We can't see you right now. So if you'll hold off, is there any other questions on this line?

So to be clear real quick to touch base on what John's saying, counsel

did approve a fee in lieu at that time of 68. Are they

No, sir. They would not the fee in lieu comes here. So if they consider the land entitlements and the use of the land, hence what Ms. Cleary was talking about with units and zoning and those kind of things.

If the math would

have been done

at that point, it would have been that. But

Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This it would come to this body and not to city council. So so they're not aware of of what happens with, you know, our new code changes impacting an in field development.

Okay.

Right.

Well, they voted on that new code change.

True story. That that is true.

But they probably

unintended consequence. Believe

Yeah. When they probably had this in front of them, all the housing units by bedroom and multifamily, that may not have been all broken out. So Exactly. Right.

But We

haven't seen one I hope

they do talk about it soon.

So just to kinda clarify. And staff are looking at we are updating right now, so it is an option because of that section, specifically how it relates to data data development. The amount that the the developer is proposing is shown on the right hand side in red. So they are proposing $936,624. This acreage is based on the additional units that are provided West Of North Street only.

The reasoning for this, I understand, is there is a specific section in the code that requires zero five percent of the land to be dedicated in what was formerly known as the downtown area in a scenario. So they're they're providing 5% on the Eastern side, and on the Western side, that's where they're getting their their acreage calculation. We've gone back and forth with the developer on how this fee is calculated and staff's interpretation of it. I think we have ultimately agreed to disagree. However, the final amount that they are proposing staff agrees is acceptable.

Can you explain that to me? Said y'all don't agree on the method, but you agree on the amount.

So

So the method that's step the developer was proposing is that this acreage so so the population is only generated West West Of North Street. And the reason for that is there's a kind there's an additional requirement that calls the code calls out for 5% of the land in the downtown area to be provided as public open space, and the developers interpretation as well. If that applies, then the other requirement does not apply. And staff, again, don't don't agree with that interpretation. However, we do think that given the unreasonable an unreasonably high result of the calculations, that the amount that they are proposing is is a reasonable is a reasonable request, albeit it's not backed up on working that we would.

So current capital budget for parks this year?

Capital is well, I have in

I know there's bigger things coming.

Well, I was gonna say I mean, it's really hard for me to calculate with all of the projects, but over a million?

Yeah.

Yeah. And cap yeah. And bond issued capital. That's what you Yes. Thank you.

So as I said, staff did not agree with their interpretation of the code that it only applies West Of North Street, but we do acknowledge that the way that the code is written does place potentially a disproportionately higher burden on downtown project. As I said, it's not physically possible to dedicate all the parkland within the site. They would be required to provide over three acres, and the entire site area is only 2.882 acres. For context, just looking at what we have approved or parts where it has approved since the fee was changed, Central Point Depot, which was kind of over next to the outlet malls, provided 363 additional units of the total fee of $254,107, which is about $700 per unit or $322 per person. And then Saleesa Medical, which is over at Wonderworld and Highway 123, they did a partial parkland dedication and fee in lieu of a $119,798, But if they calculated it, if they had provided a 100% fee in lieu, it would have worked out at $2,242 per unit or a thousand $67 per person.

Whereas this, what they're proposing with the lesser amount of $936,000, it's still significantly higher than those two previous multifamily units. And even accounting for student housing having a higher proposed population. So $4,336 per unit or $1,530 per person. So I mean, that's why we feel that this is a reasonable request from the developer, albeit we don't, again, we don't agree with their math, but we are looking to, in the future, make updates to address this specific issue.

And planning to make up I'm sorry. And that is, you know, something that we those of us that were on the board in 2023 remember, but but all that's changed now because it's based on the value of the land and not So this

this is the this is based on these these ones were done based on the value of the land.

Those those those examples right

there.

Yes, sir. Yep. That's just not good, Phil.

Those were undeveloped land, so the value is vastly lower. So if so it says $700 per unit. If that had been assessed, surgical depot, been assessed, for example, on the old code, it would have been $317 per unit. So it would have been about half.

Oh, under the

The old previous codes. Right?

And and to answer your your question, Mr. Hickman, of our five capital improvement projects, our budget is 2.3.

Got it. Yeah.

Okay. Just to finish up, this is a kind of a very high level close exhibit showing the location of Pocket Park, point zero nine acres. This will be publicly accessible of the public access easement, and it is required to provide seating. You'll see there, we have the multi family units on the western side and then the higher seven story street side. Do

you have any idea what the in that Pocket Park, what, like, this is it 0.09 or 0.009? How many square feet

is that?

It's point zero nine acres.

Which is see if I can.

Can It's

four four thousand square feet,

is it? Well, that's right.

Amanda,

we can't hear you. You got a really bad connection. It's just 4,000 square feet?

Thirty nine twenty.

Amanda, if you're asking a question, it's really hard to understand you breaking up.

Can't hear you. Alright.

Let me ask while you're, I know where this is geographically, but what is on the second and third track currently?

Court. So there's some existing multifamily units that are currently on the track on the West End.

Calculation of some that'd be coming out that were considered. Yeah.

So the so those were subtracted from the calculation because there's, you know, like, they're existing.

Got it. There's some

So that was the rationale for excluding them, but is that there's something already there? But I was trying to figure out, like,

why are they only focusing on tract ones? It make a lot of sense to me. So it's so tract one and and the re I guess the reasoning for just focusing on tract one is that this was previously when the code was under the previous code, this would have been what's called existing neighborhood, whereas the eastern side would have been downtown. And there was a specific callout in the plan in the code for to allow assess 5% of the land must be calculated as open space, which provided as part of the space. And so the developer's interpretation was because you said that this is required in the downtown area, then the other part, based on the population, doesn't doesn't apply.

And that's kind of where the disagreement came up. Whereas this this section was not in the downtown area at the

K. Is there any other questions for our staff member? She's here.

Just have one more. I know that there's been an issue that I'm just vaguely familiar with with some of these apartment buildings coming in and being able to get exempt from paying city taxes to some degree? Is that any relevance to this particular property?

This might be so specifically, no. Because when when we talk about student housing being exempt, one of the things that causes a student house student housing development to not have to pay taxes is when the university purchase it. And one of the things was with the alternative compliance and the conditional use permit is that the developer is required to file a restrictive covenant saying that people bought, effectively sell it to the university for I can't remember the number of years, but for for a number of years. That would years. Okay. Thanks. So that would effectively keep it.

So there is a restricted covenant on this property for

sale be required to file it before there's. Yeah. That was a condition of their conditional use permit for.

From the city council?

Yes.

Seven years. It's not very long. Is that the you're saying the only way that student housing comes off the tax rolls is if the university buys it? I don't think so.

I mean, that's not the only way, but that's one of the ways that we're seeing.

So what about these housing finance corps that are buying?

Those typically aren't student housing. Those are typically families.

Have actually the legislature actually recently took action on those. K. So squashing squashing

them Squashing that closing that loophole that they were utilizing in order to do that.

So that's

So it's prevent

Prohibited at this point.

Yes, sir.

By state law.

Correct.

We have seen other stew just for record, we have seen other student housing complexes come off the tax rolls and be and and get in through the low income housing tax credit as well. And there's student housing couple on post Road, predominantly student housing. So there is other ways, but I think seven years is is good. I hope that the developer would reassure us that seven years is just a restrictive covenant for the university sale.

I can speak to this if if you guys want me to.

Take that off and let us see our colleagues?

See if they have any

We'll swap again.

We're gonna swap screens, so if you'll hold on. Okay.

No problem.

Everyone else? Yeah.

I have

a raised hand. Yeah. But she's been telling you he can keep me checking.

I'm sorry. Okay.

Let me make sure.

Like, I

don't think we're on anymore. Right? And it's showing, like, it's on two screens. I'm sorry. Yeah. It's it's showing this. Can you guys see us?

I I can see you.

It's good time. Alright.

Here we go.

Before before we go, where is?

That? Where are you looking?

Oh, we lost Amanda.

Amanda.

Okay. I emailed her as well. So yeah. Yeah. Maybe she's just trying she'll be back.

Derek, did you have any questions before No.

I don't have any questions so far.

Alright. Thank you. Chris, you wanna go ahead and say what you're gonna say?

Yeah. So just to speak to the concerns y'all have around taxes, which are very understandable. So I believe I don't have the our conditional use permit in front of me, but just going from memory, we are precluded from selling the the property or the development to a to a nontaxable entity for that. Okay. So I don't think there's well, there's certainly no plan on my behalf, but I don't think there's really language or caveats that give us a, like, strategy for, like, not paying property taxes.

That's that's not our business model. So I I don't think that's a I I don't think that's a big big concern. We have no intention of selling to the university. Okay. And then just to to speak to something else that was kinda coming up, and I think it was creating confusion. Julia is exactly right, and we shouldn't unpack it here today. When she refers to the back and forth, we have different interpretations of the code. And so this is kind of what we're saying is, god, this is the most we could pay and this still be feasible. Can this work? And this is kind of like when she says, we both agree this is the right amount.

It's just, you know, we're trying to get to the way that the code is being interpreted. It would it would basically mean the city owns more land than a landowner has. Right? Like, you would have to dedicate 3.2 acres, and you only own 2.86. Obviously, the code was not intended to bestow. We're taking all of your land or you know? And so when that calculation is run, it comes to well over $3,000,000. I believe that you've already addressed this in your code. There's a very clear statement that says, if you're downtown, you and you're building over 30 units, you dedicate 5% of your project to Parksland. And if you're outside of downtown, you calculate it this way.

The city has told me that we are doing both. We're doing the 5% dedication, and we're calculating kind of the more suburban calculation. So now I'm sitting here kind of hat in hand saying you know, asking my people to tell me how much could we pay and continue to move forward with our project. And so that all the confusion you're hearing, Julia and the city interprets it one way. We interpret it another. But rather than trying to get on with that fight, we just say, will this work for everyone? It's it's kind of what we're all doing. So

Understand. Thank you for that. Amanda, you had started to say something, but we could not hear you. Do you have anything you wanna add or questions?

I was just looking at the pictures and stuff, and I was, like, thinking that it was, like, point nine for the plaza, but it's point zero nine. Because when you look at the picture, it looks much larger than the actual like, 0.09 is the size of a basketball, like, court. Right?

4,000 square feet. So, like, a large house. Medium large house. Yeah. Large house to me.

It's like stuff For

the record, I live in 1,200. And but yeah. So now that is there anything else that any other points, Amanda?

I mean

Or or comments at this time?

No. Y'all clarified that it was point zero nine, and that was my question because I was just looking at the picture on my phone and zooming in, and I was going on the maps and checking locations and doing all kinds of stuff. And it was just like, let me just ask just

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, I think we're at the point where it's time for us to discuss and and come up. We have a motion to approve and a second for discussion. So I'll open it up to anybody who wants to wants to make any comments or express therapy. I I have I

mean, like, I love urban infill development. I think it's great. I what I don't what I what I'm struggling with is this is how we pay for our parks. Like, as a community, do you you know, we don't tax people more in their property taxes because we're asking people who are developing property to contribute to the funding of the parks. So I get that it's expensive, but urban infill is expensive. So I'm struggling to see the justification before exempting somebody from, like

So it's a partial.

It's not a tax. I know it's a fee.

No. No. But, I mean, it's a partial I guess what I wanted to say was it was a it's a partial way that we fund our parks.

Right.

Certainly not the only way.

Right. We're doing we're parking and other things now too, which I think are great, but it just seems like this is this is the way. Mhmm. Just sort of with end up.

Sure. Okay.

Hold on

a second. I I wanna hear from Benjamin.

With Peter on this, I mean, it's expensive. That's how much it costs. If you wanna build downtown San Marcos, that's yeah. This is what we've come up with. You know, it might not be perfect, but it's what we voted on and we came up with. And I

think that, you know, $9,950 k is

not enough.

And it's yeah. It seems expensive, but for what you're gonna be building and the size and what you're doing, I

don't think that I don't think that that's a unreasonable number, and I think that 300 should be more like it. I don't think you know? Well and, yeah, I guess the follow-up to that. If we're gonna make an exception to the policy Yeah. What's the I feel like I need a better rationale than

this

feels fair to me. Right.

Well, I'm I'm gonna let everybody else speak, but I also do wanna I do wanna make just a short comment. What's the total parks budget?

6,700,000.0.

We're talking about

one seventh of the total budget department.

I almost don't even

care what the total budget department is. Okay. I think it's a principal.

Gotcha. But, I mean, I think that's important to keep in mind too. This is the biggest chunk of money we've ever seen for a fee and above.

So if we make an exception now, then down

the line, we're making another exception. But we've made exceptions on numerous ones. You know, throughout the time that I've been on the board, there's been minor points that I know confounded us a number of times, you know, and we ended up just in a point where it was like, well, we either get nothing or we approve this deal. And and and I'm not saying your your opinion is not valid. I'm just saying, no. We've made we've made exceptions. Right.

And their plan is to

make code changes so it won't look like this in the future.

Do you think the code will end I'm sorry.

Do you

think the code will compromise. Yes. Will end up looking more like what the outcome will be here? And I know it's impossible with you don't have a crystal ball, but, I mean, is that

I don't I mean, we haven't sat down and really hashed it out, but that's the ultimately, the goal is to make it to where it's, you know Workable. Workable.

I mean Reality.

Right. I mean, to to you, I I highly value y'all's comments because I completely agree. Y'all know we're we operate on shoestrings and bubble gum, and, you know, any any little bit helps. But I also don't want to I want it to make sense if if that and I I and so in my comments on the application rep on the staff report, in talking with the applicant, talking with staff, talking with our legal team, I felt like this was a a good faith effort and a balance in in trying to I mean, I don't I know where you're where you're coming from there too. I understand you.

You know, there's not a lot of science to to to it. But in my mind, I mean, this is a this is one of the largest amounts that we will have accepted since we

yeah. Since I've been in the department.

Do we know the total budget on

the project? Like, how much We I mean, mister mister Roberts, my bill speaks that. We have been told by the applicant on numerous times that this would kill their project. So if if they were required to pay this fee, again, you know, that's that's their word, but they have told us that it would mean that the project would effectively not

move forward.

The 9 the 900.

No. No. Million. 3,000,000.

Right. Miss So to does have her

hand. Yes.

Who does?

Miss So to.

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry. Y'all can call

me Jojo also. I go by Jojo,

so that

might be easier. Sorry. I just more or less have a question because I am very new to the board. This is my first meeting. And with the code changes, right, what what is an average part, like, Park And Lou that y'all what is the average for a downtown property since the code changes? Because for me, it's kinda hard to compare, oh, this is a large number or low number when I don't know what the the average is in a sense for the downtown properties.

We do not have one.

This is the first this is the first one. That's why it's more complex than usual. Yeah. It's the very first one.

Is it fair to say that we would be the first downtown project in history to ever pay a Parkland dedication fee? And so

don't I don't know the answer to that specifically.

I'm gonna mister Sciles, if you can hold off, and we're in kind of our board discussion right now. So let us have the conversation, and we'll reach out to you if there's questions. But I do wanna say to Jojo, well, you picked a good first meeting.

Yes. You did.

It's a simple little idea simple little agenda item. But I will say that since I've been on the board, most of the fee in lieu ofs are for the standard multifamily or student housing project of around 300 to 350 citizens. You're gonna be living in there, and they range from $2.50 to 3 to 400,000, say, for a fee. That's been pretty typical for what we've approved over the last couple of three years that I've been on. So now they weren't in downtown, so that makes a big difference. But

Right. And that would justify why this number is significantly higher than the ones you just said. Exactly. To the downtown realty prime real you know, prime spot type of thing.

Plus the new code change that calculates the value a little bit Okay. Which which we didn't we don't approve the code change. The city council approved that.

Right. We just get the backlash from it. Gotcha.

Yeah. There you go. Alright. Miss Mattingly, you've been waiting.

Thank you. Good to see everybody. Shannon Mattingly with Drenner Group. And so, we've been working with the developer, but a couple of points that I wanted to just kinda point out is the original application for all of the entitlements, the height, then the zoning, and the requirements for the CUP were all applied for in June 2023. So when they were making the decision to go through process, and as many of you know, with the student housing project, this being the first one actually that has gotten a student housing CUP in the city of San Marcos, it was a lengthy process.

But so the decisions that they made going into the project were based on the Parkland fees at the time. And so they applied in June and the new fees were not approved until October 2023. So they were all already well into their process. And I know miss Clary mentioned that, you know, obviously, fees don't vest, but, you know, the decisions that they made financially for the project were made at that time based on the fees that were in place. And so, you know, one of the questions I know was, you know, that it was mentioned by mister Skiles that there's a possibility that the project won't be able to go forward.

And I think that's if it if we end up with a 3 and a half million dollar fee, I don't anticipate that they'll be able to make that work in the mix with their investors and everything based on the decisions they made before the code was changed. The code previous to 2018, and I know, chair Tamides, you remember 2018 and all the code changes very well, but there was no downtown Parkland dedication requirement or fee prior to 2018. When the code was written, that was added back in. I believe and I know we said we agree to disagree, but having been the person who helped author that code that we went from no downtown park dedication to the 5% in downtown, and then the calculation for everything else was the new calculation. And so I just think it's important to know that one, they started this whole process well before the park new Parkland fee was approved and the requirement in the code is almost double the required amount of land to be dedicated than they even own.

So the intent of a Parkland Development Code would be to provide parkland to the community or if you can't to provide the fee in lieu. They can't even meet the parkland even if they wanted to because it's more land than they have by over an acre. And so as we have been going back and forth and working through this process, you know, the thing that we kinda came to agreement on was, you know, pay the fee how it would be estimated on the property that's out of downtown, but then we'd still be meeting the 5% on the piece that's in downtown. Even though we all don't agree on that interpretation, and that's something that I think we definitely need to address, but, you know, that's kinda how we got to this $900,000 number.

Okay. Shannon.

So

Shannon. Yes.

If you excuse me. Sure. We're bumping up our time limit, so I wanna I'll thank you for that. Let me get to our board member. Miss Fox has her hand up. Amanda, go ahead.

So everybody keeps saying that this is more land required than they actually have because that's based on how many residents are gonna be there. And the fees that we calculated and the money that goes to our parks has been thought about in these calculations that are approved. And these new numbers that they're coming up with for this plan and, you know, excluding certain parts and just saying, oh, well, this works for this and this works for that. All these things were calculated to protect our city and protect our land, and it just doesn't make sense that we would make exceptions when we're trying to protect our residents. And I just don't get it.

I don't even understand why we would, like, lower it by a third of what is required. You know? I mean, maybe if it wasn't seven stories, maybe they would be able to, you know, meet the requirement for Parkland dedicate

Charlie?

You've answered my questions. I've nothing further. I'm not here. The fact that the staff is recommending that the code be changed does does weigh on my decision. I don't I don't know exactly what those code changes are gonna be like, but I'm hearing that if I understood y'all right, y'all do feel that the way it's calculated is maybe not exactly with the intent of the previous changes. Do I understand that right? Thank you.

Thank you. Derek, did you have anything you wanna add?

I mean, I would just ask if if staff's talking about changes to this code, you know, it'd probably be good to wait and see what they change because, I mean, that's that's a lot of money. That's a huge difference. But if we don't wanna wait for that, then then I would I would say, you know, don't keep the rule the way it is at this point, and don't don't offer the exception.

Okay. Alright. I'm gonna give everybody else anybody else that wants to speak an opportunity, but I am gonna add just a couple of points that I I think are important to remember here. One is I think everyone agrees that the that the code, the way it was written, is an unintended consequence for this particular development or any type of development in our downtown. We used to have a planning director who once told the council that the downtown land, this was years ago before downtown was really booming, would I think he showed us a chart and said, here's your downtown values.

Here's your suburban out of town, you know, on the other side of the highway or or not downtown values. It's gonna be much higher here than it is for these other types of pieces of property. And I know that it may seem like an exception, but I don't really see it that way because they're giving us almost a they would be giving us almost a million dollars. That's that's weighing on my decision. That could go a long way to funding our park system this coming year.

The second thing is it's likely to be changed anyways, but I know for a fact that those changes take forever, Derek. I mean, a really long time. There's numerous processes. Gotta go to planning and zoning. Gotta go first city council, then planning and zoning, then back to city council, then three readings.

I mean, it's a long process. And that's if it goes smoothly, which it never does. So I don't know if I don't I don't really feel like waiting or making them wait might be a a reasonable thing for us to suggest. But I do wanna say that the and now the way I was thinking about it as well okay. How do you put a park in a in an urban downtown?

It's not easy. We bought a piece of property for $790,000. We got a tiny little piece of of non park parking lot. She remembers. It's tiny. It's right next to the right across from the showdown. It's got a few benches and and a couple of trees. Almost $800,000 cost to taxpayers. But the way I see this one is if I were living in this project, where would my park be? I'd go to the river like everybody else.

I could probably walk or ride a bike because I'm that close. She said a half a mile. That's a ten minute walk. Either Sewell or any of the other river park systems, and that would be my park land. So I so for me, this it doesn't make any sense for us to put green parkland in a infill urban spot. I mean, I'm not saying that's a bad thing if you have the property to do it in, but our downtown isn't that big.

Oh, I agree, sir. That's fine.

Large cities, I get it. They make a big square. I I just visited my hometown. There's massive parks, but it's a huge city of five, nine, four and a half million people. And so so I'm I'm and I I like the other thing I gotta figure is there's 700 people who are going to school who aren't driving through downtown to get to school. They're walking to school, maybe parking. They may drive to go to the mall or go to the river or go to work. I get that. But that's far fewer trips, and the housing is for the university. I mean, let's face it.

It's it's coming. They're they're growing. That's not something we could stop. But so, anyway, those are just my thoughts on it, and I'm gonna vote to support it. Jojo, you have your hand up.

She Oh, you're muted.

You're muted, Jojo. Can't hear you.

My apologies. My apologies.

That's okay.

So right. Like, student housing, like, they, like, they need, you know, they need dormitories, things like that. Not dormitories, but they need more housing in a sense. We all know that. And with knowing how long, you know, the process takes and things like that, do we do we have a number in a sense of how like, what is, I guess, the need? Like, how many people are needing apartments downtown? Because if that is giving 700 units right then and we're able to, like, kinda help that need and also take almost a grand with it, or not a grand, a mil. You know what I'm saying? I just do we have those numbers by chance?

I I don't believe we haven't adopted bigger.

I think it's more anecdotal based on university growth projections, state the state legislature, I guess, requirements or request that state universities grow at a certain level over add a certain number of students over the next number of years. I don't think they would be building it if they didn't feel like the need was there.

I've got their numbers if you guys want to

go to hear them. But

Okay. Well, if you you can set that slide on

it, Chris.

It was just it's a there's currently an 11,400 student housing bed shortfall in at Texas State. And so the challenge with the shortfall is these students are then out in the community living amongst the, you know, working, you know, people who are who are building their lives in a different way, not around the university, and that can create friction and challenges, putting 700 of those students directly across from the business and engineering school where they can walk to class. They don't have cars on the road and, you know, they can focus on school and not be disruptive. It minimizes the disruption to the community in a in an 11,000 plus bed shortfall kind of environment.

Okay. Thank you. Amanda, you have your hand up.

I just wanna reiterate that our downtown is small, and this is forever. This is the money that's gonna last us for that area for the rest of our lives. And I just think that it's important to keep in mind that, you know, 700 beds are needed at Texas State. I get that. But is this the right situation for what we need downtown, and is this bending the rules for things that don't necessarily need it? You know what I mean?

K. Thank you. I would like

to add real quick. I I understand the challenges of building green space within a city and particularly a city this small. Beyond the numbers, though, I still think 900 is a little low. The reason why I'm having a problem with it is that, yes, the $900 the $900,000 is to me, a little low, but the lack of, I guess, creativity that could come with this with these tracks. I I would be more inclined to say yes to that number if if the build out looked more environmentally friendly in a sense of I think that when we looked at, you could find a way to create green space or a throughway that connects all these tracks and even encourages bicycles or walking to that river.

This pocket park to me is not a huge selling point, and I would be a lot more inclined to be supportive at that 900 k if if I if I saw that that there was a little bit more effort in putting green space in these tracks. So

Okay. Thank you. Charlie?

There's a lot of numbers being thrown around. You know, to me, the most important number that I feel like I should be considering in this and this board should be considering is the number of people. That's what really drives, know, how our parks are gonna be impacted. That's something that weighs heavily on me as I think about the master plan. And, you know, I'm generally not in favor of making exceptions, but when I see that the calculation of the amount of money paid per capita is higher than other developments have paid significantly, then that tells me that there is maybe some room for considering an exception here.

You know, this will, you know, be more more money paid per person if I understood the calculations right than we're used to saying. So I think that that leads me towards thinking that we should make an exception in this case. Thank you.

I think is there anybody else on the board that wants to say?

What's or or maybe

Go ahead, doctor. I

was gonna say, yeah, maybe something we need to add into these presentations. Their their investment profit margin, you know, something like that, that would give us a better number. If we knew how much they were gonna make in five years of of the either the the proposed, you know, land versus, you know, or or per person, whatever. But give us a a value like that so we can know. That would maybe change it a little bit.

Not really the board's purview to get that information, though. The board's purview is to accept or deny the acceptance of Parkland or the fee in lieu. So while I understand where y'all are coming from as far as it helping to make your decision, it's not something that they're required to provide us. Sure. So just wanted to to put that out there.

Do you mind the gentleman here is

What is his name?

It's Ian.

Ian, do you mind if you if you know off the top of your

head a an estimated budget on this project?

I think

Are you think Styles would probably be best to

Yeah.

That would be better for me. I'm just a civil engineer. I know about the civil improvements, but the majority of the construction budget and everything else really is just structures, and that's that's outside of my scope. Okay.

Mister Styles? Yeah. So question.

Yeah. So I I I'm gonna try to put this or, like, simplify this into something short. But, essentially, to get a project like this capitalized, so to get the debt and the equity to build this project, we have to achieve what's called what's known as a 7% untrended yield on cost. And I can tell you that the million dollar parks fee dragged us down to a 6.9. So we are at the razor edge of what we could procure debt and equity to get financed to to build this project and bring it to life.

And so just take me out of the equation. Just put faceless developer, although I like to think of myself more than that. But nobody can get this project capitalized with the $3,200,000 fee. And so what will happen is capital markets won't invest, the building won't get built, and then not only will the $900,000 parks fee be gone and the 5,000 square foot pocket park that we're gonna build that's gonna cost, I don't know how much, but the great irony of all this is our the property tax revenue that our project will generate when built is $2,000,000 a year. We're right now gearing towards delivering in a 2028 season.

And so you're talking about two force. I mean, you start generating enormous amounts of money for the city that, otherwise, they just won't have. Like, it's not like, is it $900,000 or 3 or or 3,000,000? Is it 900,000 or nothing? You know?

I I think you've answered his question, but thank you for that.

$2,000,000 In one year, you said?

Property tax. So okay. I think we're we're coming to a point where we're gonna take a vote. And if nobody has anything else to say, I'll just want to make one final comment that I if I was a if I was a council member, we were considering whether to do this. And and by the way, let's remember, council already approved the the entitlement for this or essentially it for knowing that it was going to be built out this way.

So they've already done that part. That's not really for us to decide whether it should or shouldn't be student housing, whether it should be 700 people or 600. It's not our that's not our chart. I get it that it weighs on everybody's decision. But for me, a million dollars to the parks budget for something that is going to be built anyways.

Let's be honest. It's right across from the university. It's going to be built as student housing, whether it's this project or in three years, somebody buys one of those parcels and does a complex and somebody buys the other or the university buys the other two, which is abuts university land, which they've done before. And I don't know how many people are in the Aspire Building, the big tall one that we opposed for years on city council. I mean, we denied it over and over again.

You know the big one I'm talking about right by? And the developer took us to court, took the city to court. And, essentially, we sat around the table in an executive session one night after probably seven years of denials. And the lawyer sat in front of us, city lawyer, and he said, you're gonna lose. They're going to win.

So you have a choice. You can try to get something out of them now or let them let them build it and you get nothing. And because the that judge had ruled a certain way and the the the reality of the of our denials was that we couldn't deny it anymore. You can't deny that those properties will be student housing eventually. And my fear is the university because it abuts two of them, I think I saw, abut the university's land.

They're gonna just swallow it and we get nothing. So I'm gonna vote for the million for the for for Jamie's budget, and I'm gonna vote for the 2,000,000 for the city budget. And it's student housing downtown, and I'd I still say I'd rather have it there than than across the highway and then having a drive through get shuttled in buses or whatever. I I know it's hard. I know it's a challenge.

Some I'm too much of a content. I wish some principle by which we could make you know, if we're gonna grant an exception saying, oh, it

just feels really I wish it was a million. It's $9.30.

So I went up 2,000,000 instead of $9.92 cents.

Right? I'm like Or why not nothing? That's I mean, that's grow up.

Problem with exceptions. Right? So I feel like if and I agree with you. It's it's gonna happen. I I I actually support the project. I think it's great to bring people downtown. I think it's great. I just

But isn't it an exception, though?

Is it? Really? Because exception to our own code. Absolutely. And so To a On what grounds? One knows

is gonna be re this is gonna be removed. That there there's no way they're gonna keep this this flaws.

Missus Scott's.

You can't possibly require three acres of parkland for two acre.

Acre development. I get it. So so, like, then what's the what's the rationale then? That's sort of where I get. And I get it. And so, like,

if we're gonna and, I

say, I I think this is a good project. I think it's good to bring people downtown and support it, but, like, I don't want this discussion to ever influence another project we look at. That's sort of where I am with it. Like, if I'm gonna vote for this, I'm gonna hold my nose, and I don't ever wanna talk about

it again. So something makes failure of the code. Amanda, final thoughts.

Okay. So I I have a problem with this all or nothing thinking. I am a 100% for having student housing in those areas. I mean, I love it. It's needed. But, you know, did I hear correctly when he said that, you know, paying the 900,000 is gonna put them on shoestring budget already? I mean, that's a red flag right there. Do we really want that happening in the community on a permanent site? It's just a lot to think about, and it's just not this all or nothing thinking. It's just that there is gonna be student housing there at some point.

There is gonna be property taxes paid. It's just it just feels really long sections arbitrarily without a specific formula and to also just, I don't know, do this all or nothing.

Okay. Alright. We're gonna try to land the plane here and vote. The so our vote is on approving accepting the proposed or denying the opposed family. So a yes means yes, and a no means no. So do you wanna call the relatives? Yes. And mix it up.

Okay. Good.

Mix it every time.

Thank you.

Derek Griblin.

You're you're muted, so everybody come off mute, please.

No. Okay. Charles Hinkman.

Hi. Yes.

Benjamin Pack.

I will just say real quick. I would've just loved to see more green space to this because it's our job for the board to seek that out. But I I do agree with with John in the sense that this is gonna be built regardless, and I'm happy to see that number come to, the

parks department. I will vote for it.

Can you say yes? Yes. I or no? Thanks. Amanda

Fox.

No.

Doctor. Midas? Aye.

Peter Sheerhart?

Aye.

Open my notes.

Miss So to?

Yes.

K. Motion passed. Motion passes. Thank you all for your time, and, thank you for the board for a really important staff. Please take back what you heard and fix it.

Can we all yeah. Can we fix it?

We gotta be fixing it

quickly because we do have other things that

will be coming in the pipeline as well. So it's gonna be pretty important stuff. We need to get this.

Okay. That's gonna conclude our item number two. If we can go to a quick item

number three.

Yes, Received a staff update and a whole discussion regarding paved parking implementation in city park. We are implementing. So we have our kiosks. They're gonna be installed next Friday. We're still waiting on a couple of other pieces of equipment, but we have registered well over eight eighteen

hundred people.

We had our technically, second, but first very popular in person registration. They registered over 20 people yesterday evening at the activity center. Our next one is Saturday? No. We have one Monday. Yeah. Monday. During the day, like, twelve to Yeah.

I think

it's during the lunch hour at the activity center as

well because we wanted to hit game day. Right. Has everybody on the

board registered?

I have not. I was thinking about that. I only have picked the cards.

It's like, I got have not either.

But sure.

Send the board.

I will absolutely send y'all the link. I'll take care of that. 100%.

It's gotta have one perk

on it.

Working on it, and it's it's going, and it's a team member. It we have opened up a what we call a paid parking processing factory because it's, like, six, seven staff members that they're we have to review each one individually. So it does take an exorbitant amount of time. So we're working through that. We are hearing from ETJ residents, with, you know, concerns. We're addressing those, as far as, you know, this is our current direction from council. And speaking with the mayor, I believe that she wants to maybe open up a season pass potential option where they pay a one time fee. But those are future council discussions that have not been held yet.

Somebody two questions. I've heard from a couple of citizens questioning. It's all done by license plate. They're not gonna get a tag. Right?

That's correct. It's all digital. Okay. Yeah. So once you're registered, you're registered. There's nothing that you'll get to get your approval

Okay. From us. And the second thing is if you're using if you're a visitor if you're going to an event at the rec call. Right. Then what? And you're from out of town.

Sure. We'll be providing each renter. So whoever is renting the hall will be receiving a validation code. They will have to sign off on a waiver saying, I know it's my responsibility as the renter of this facility to provide my guests with this validation code. That validation code is set up in the back office side so we can set it up for specific dates, times, and then it will expire.

So if the city's doing you know, a meeting at the rec hall, you'll be sending out a validation code with the meeting notice?

So if it's a say it's a large open meeting, city council meeting, we will shut it down to where it's just Free parking. Because because it's a public meeting.

What if it's a like any the women's hall of fame, which we have.

Sure. Sure. Sure. We will provide because we're the organizer for that one, for example. So, yeah, we would make sure that everybody has validated their parking.

So if someone drives in, parks to go to the event

Mhmm.

And they didn't see the email with the validation code or didn't realize they needed a validation code, but now they get there and the person signed it and says What?

They don't have to enter that validation code until they decide to leave. As long as they have entered that validation

back code out?

If they leave and they have not validated, then they could be issued a citation.

Oh, they would validate upon leaving.

Correct. Yeah. So as long as they have entered in that validation code into the kiosk prior to departing, they'll

be fine.

Okay. That's

what It doesn't have to be done right away.

It doesn't have to be when you're coming in.

Correct. Yeah. It can be done at any point in time. Just needs to be done before they depart.

Thank you. Any other questions? Jamie? Okay. No. Oh. Go.

I just don't know if the Jamie, this kinda answered my question, but I don't wanna assume, so I'm just gonna ask it.

Please.

So, like, if people are going to these meetings, right, and then after they decide or, like right. Like, someone rents out, I'm gonna say, like, the event center. Right? And then after their event, some of their people decide they wanna go to dinner after on the square and they just walk. Would there be, like, a time restriction? Would they get in you know, because a lot of people I know will just, you know, leave their car where they parked and kinda walked and then come back to it with that time like, how would that kinda work?

Sure. Sure. Sure. So as long as their car is out of the parking lot, before 11PM, which is park curfew, then they're good. We still have to test that, obviously. Because right now, if, since 11PM is park curfew, if there's anybody in a park after eleven, they technically could get a citation. Will they? Probably not. But, that is something that we're going to have to work through on that end. Now as long as they have already entered, that validation code or, paid to park, then they'll be fine because it'll it'll last until yeah.

Okay. Does that answer your question, Jonah?

Okay. Thank you.

Do you have a general timeline for when I know we were gonna wait to consider the other areas based on getting further in the master plan.

Yeah.

What's our general expectation right now?

Let's get past this.

Got it.

Yeah. Let's I'll ask it. Our brains are

You had enough?

Yeah. Let's see how this rolls, and then let's see A lot. Post, managed access season. Let's see kind of how that goes, and then we'll go from there. But if we are gonna do pay parking for the other areas, then we will need to roll it out before next May. So

Okay. That's good. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for that. Commissioners, I know that we're we've always no. We're striving, endeavoring to our meetings to around an hour. We had a very long and important discussion. So is there a short item number four discussion?

Sure. Any big projects updates? So big ones, Swift Memorial Park and veteran or sorry. Bakery Gardens are currently under construction.

They will be done within a couple

of weeks. The Dunbar restroom facility will be delivered in a couple of weeks. They're wrapping that up. August mid August, they'll start mobilizing for the city park playground improvements. Major construction will start after Labor Day, so we'll start seeing that. I think those are Ameren's children's park are set to be finished, installed on Friday. So some of them are up, and we're still waiting on some.

K.

It's quite the process to get them up.