City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the City of Pearland City Council regular meeting on Monday, September 14th. I'll call this meeting to order at 6.45 p.m. At this particular time, I would ask that we all stand for the invocation. I'll give the invocation and then the pledge will be given by a member.

You're quick. It's all good. If you could, just please pile your heads. Creator of us all, as we gather this evening, we do so mindful of the recent remembrance of September 11 and the lives lost. Families changed forever, and the courage shown in the face of tragedy. May that remembrance call us again to what is best within us, that our capacity to care for one another honor the dignity of every person, and to stand together across differences of faith, creed, culture, background, and experience be our guiding force. In a nation and a community made stronger by our diversity, help us resist d

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Charles Ware would be the first if you would make your way to the podium. Mr. Ware, if you would, state your name for the record. And you have three minutes. Thank you for being here this morning.

Thank you, sir. John Jackson. State your name. You have three minutes. Thank you, sir. John Jackson.

Thank you, sir. And I believe this is the last one. Yes, Bill Baldy. Same, sir. State your name for the record. You have three minutes, and thank you for being here.

I just want to thank everyone for taking the time out to come and make comments. Moving on to the next portion, which is Consent Agenda. I know there are some items to be moved, and so I just want confirmation at which ones are we looking to pull.

Rishi, which ones did you want to pull? I'm sorry, I thought I'd give it to you. D, E, F, and G, sir. Thank you so much.

So Member Patel is pulling items D, E, Are there any other items council members plan to remove? Are there any items that...

Sorry, excuse me. We have one comment on consent A. We have a comment signed up for that. And then we have some comments signed up for PSD number four, which I think is one of the ones that Member Patel pulled.

So that would be D. Okay, so comment for number D. One for A. One for A. Any comments for five, six, four? All right, so items removed from consent agenda are A, D, E, F, and G. D, having a public comment, and A, having a public comment. All right. Any other items? Member Koza, would you... Present the consent agenda.

Certainly, Mayor. Consent agenda, consideration of possible action on items A through L with the exception of A, D, E, F, and G. So moved.

Second. Motion made by Member Koza, second by Member Cade. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Echols, would you present item A, please? Thank you, Mayor.

Before I present item A, I do have a question for our attorney. Mr. Provan, with respect to this item on Agenda A of admitting it to a play-by-play, what is the actual law of the state of Texas that mandates cities to put on their minutes?

CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST August 5th, 2026. So moved.

Member Echols. I was reading off the screen. continue with the August 5th special meeting, August 10th meeting of the City Council regular city meeting of August 10th as well. So moved.

So what's happened is, remember, Echols moved to place the consideration of the minutes from August 5 and from the special meeting and regular meeting to the floor. Is there a second? If there's no second, I would just say that the chair would highly recommend, since there's a public comment on the floor for discussion, that we make sure that we allow the public comment to be discussed as per state law.

We need to have a motion and a second to open this item so the public comment can be heard because it's for an item, correct?

Thank you. Motion was made by Member Echols, second by, I believe it was Member Fernandez. I believe there's a public comment. Right. Member Byrum, would you help facilitate this, please?

Thank you. Yes, there, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Monica Morgan? Make your way to the podium. State your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you for being here.

Time is expired, but I'll allow. Please continue.

That's the only comment on this agenda item.

Does anybody have any questions? I added some. I want to just make this comment. Part of the agenda packet, I'm not here to deliberate. I want to make sure we're clear. We're not here to deliberate what happened on August the 10th. What we're asking with this discussion that I'm going to help facilitate is asking to make sure that what we approve as the minutes is accurate going forward with the city's records. So that's a clear distinction on what's being deliberated, what's being contained. The decisions were already made. And so what I have an issue with, I'm just going to start off now, is

Thank you, Mayor. And again, I'll reach out to... Attorney, city attorney, Mr. Provins. What is the guidelines for the state charter for cities on their minutes?

Thank you very much, Mr. Provins. And I have a follow-up question for our city secretary. And that is, in your tenure as our city secretary, have we ever formed a precedent on putting more on the minutes than what was stated that we need to by the law?

OK, thank you very much. Obviously, if there's further discussion, we'll hear further discussion. But if not, I move the question.

There is further discussion, and further discussion should be permitted as the chair. So one second. So as you've mentioned in the state law, I believe those aren't requirements as far as maximum. Those are minimums. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's what the state law requires. Exactly, requirements for minimums. What I'm asking for is to really set what happened, not necessarily a play-by-play, but in order for... For example, I think it's important to note that... When certain things were asked, it may not have to be as extensive, but there were certain comments that were made, particularly

Lawrence Orr. Francis, either one. When you guys put together the meeting minutes, especially on items that we have, as I say, considerable back and forth of different things that are discussed, I don't recall in my tenure that we have done a breakdown in the minutes of that back and forth discussion and questions that were posed and all that kind of stuff. Have we done that and I haven't seen it? Or would this be something that is unique to what we typically do?

One clarification, and I don't mean to cut you off. But do not discount the questions from the floor as the questions from the chair. These were questions made from the chair, not the general body. And those should be distinct. Continue, please.

Well, and they are. captured in the record, both in the live stream, the posting on the city's website, and the posting on the city's YouTube channel. The purpose of minutes is, correct me if I say this wrong, because I want to make sure our legality is correct. The purpose of the minutes is to generally summarize the votes that were taken throughout the course of a meeting, correct?

So are minutes as drafted fulfill their intent? as written. Yes, sir.

Let the chair also reiterate that it's a minimum requirement. So I would ask the body, what is the consternation behind adding significant points of of not just discussion, but of decision making in the official minutes. If this general body had the determination to vote on those items, why is there a back and forth, a discussion, to not put those items in the minutes?

That's a question. Because that's not the way we do minutes. That's inconsistent with all of our other processes.

Changing the rules in three months is not consistent either, Member Byrum. So when we're talking about consistency, I don't want to default to what we've historically done because we have, in the last three months, not characterized ourselves as acting accordingly to what we've historically done. So I'm going to ask the body again, what is the backup or what is the consternation for how I'm specifically calling out these items in the official minutes? Member Cade.

Are you, Matt, I want to know, are you wanting it to be word for word? Nope. Of the minutes?

I just wanted to know exactly what are you asking for? It's not word for word. Because on YouTube you can hit CC and get word for word everything that happened in the meeting. So that is, if you want word for word, I think asking that of Francis would be a lot.

Very, very, very good question. I don't intend to put any more work on anyone else. However, there are significant points within that meeting that changed the course, not of the discussion, but of decision making. One of those items was a question as to who made these changes. Council said nothing at all when asked by the chair I believe that should be included in the minutes. In order for our body to vote on an amendment, something had to be discussed. A point of order was raised by the chair. That needs to be in the minutes. Everything else? I'm not arguing, absolutely, hey, no, you know, we

May I make a suggestion? Member Byrum, yes, sir. Since we, your supplement is very detailed, 14 pages. That's not what you're asking for. Or how many pages was it? Oh, it's 14 pages of the whole packet. Sorry. I wouldn't do that to you. No, fair enough. So perhaps maybe in the interest of moving the meeting along and having clearer understanding, perhaps we table this or postpone this to the next meeting. We can push the minutes, and you can make a proposal on what you would like to actually be in the minutes. So then we have something specific to do. rather than just kind of a few things thro

At this particular time, I don't think we can move there because Member Echols has a motion on the floor.

Correct. So I would be motioning that we postpone to the 28th meeting and have a recommendation and ratify the August 5th, 10th special meeting and 10th regular meeting on the 28th when we have a proposal on what you would like to see added to our normal course of minutes.

My thoughts are we have a motion on the floor. We have the minutes. The minutes are as per law. We've talked. We have the supplemental from the mayor. We've looked at the supplemental. To make an amendment to these minutes, I believe, is going to form a precedence that some member of council, if they want more clarity or more information, we're going to be finding ourselves in a roller coaster. And our city secretary's office will have to make changes upon changes upon changes. The information is online. where people all they have to do is just go to the YouTube, go to the city website and pus

Sorry, trying to get clarification on what we're doing here. We have a motion and a second that put the agenda item on the table.

And so calling the question means calling the vote. Yes, sir, it does.

Just making sure that the general public that doesn't deal with all of this nuance understands what we're talking about as we get through this. So we have a motion and a second that put the item on the table. Then we had a motion to call the vote. Yes, sir. And so we need to second the motion to call the vote.

Well, to call the vote, we would have to second it. Yes, sir. Two-thirds. Yes, sir. We would need a two-thirds majority of council to call the vote. Yes, sir. Without any additional discussion. That two-thirds would just allow the vote. Yes, sir. Okay.

That's where we're at. So my motion to postpone can't be heard until we deal with Member Echols' motion. Call the question.

I'll second Member Echols so we can deal with that. It's already been seconded. We just need to call it.

Then call the question. Then we can move forward.

Madam Secretary, just call for the vote, please.

Now we've disposed of that. So now I can put my motion to postpone on the floor.

Okay. Fair enough. So I would motion that we postpone consideration of possible action for the regular council meeting minutes for August 10th to the September 28th council meeting. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Byron, seconded by Member Cade.

Any further discussion, or now we can vote? Yeah.

I don't see anybody. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Byrum, would you present item D, please?

So we already motioned that on the table. It's now.

We can just call the vote. We don't have to amend it. Yes, sir. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Thank you for that clarity, Lawrence. And thank you all for bearing with us. Member Byron, would you present item D, please?

There we go. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-140. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Byron, second by Member Koza.

Staff, is there a report on this one? We have a public comment.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a- I apologize.

We have three public comments. Oh, public comments, yes. Sorry, everybody. Getting into our rhythm tonight. So we have Mr. Gerald Hauser, followed by, is that Kay Hauser? And then Bill Brummett. Mr. Hauser, are you representing ESD4? I am not. But you're speaking on behalf of yourself.

Understood. State your name for the record, and you have three minutes, sir.

Thank you, sir. Did I say, is it Kay Houser? Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am, and don't sell yourself short. You did a great job. Thank you for being here. And Mr. Bill Brummett. Are you speaking on behalf of the board? Yes. The reason I'm asking that is organizations get five minutes.

Okay, so a total of six minutes between the two of them.

Mr. Brummett, hold your breath. I'll give you another minute.

You're very welcome. Is that for public comment?

Mr. Epperson, do you have a report or presentation or information to provide on this one?

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I do want to say thank you for coming out here, Ms. Bill. And I do understand. And I think one thing I will, I can say this diocese is not trying to let you out or not be covered. That is not our intentions, okay? But it is our intentions to say what is the right thing for our tech space to happen, right? Budget deficits are getting larger, and we're just trying to plug our holes of where we're losing, and we don't know for sure, but one of the things we have found, it may be the services we're providing in 84 and five. So until this study comes back, we can pro

it's not up to us and it never will be and it shouldn't be and i appreciate that and and you have to understand when these studies come in they're looking at a holistic view right i mean they're not just looking at the city of peril and saying you have extra capacity to go down there we're saying this is our service area so it's not just saying within the city limits we're actually i'm sure the studies are covering ed four and five so that that's Yes, we can get into this. But the reason I pulled this agenda item is there was a letter sent by Commissioner Cade and he said there's only 500 call

Okay. Because this is ESP4. Okay. I mean, I just pulled it. Okay. And then one of this, in the agreements, I believe it says something about providing monthly incident reporting to the district. Are we providing that to them? We are? Yes. You guys are getting that. So you guys are seeing the calls that our fire trucks and ambulances are making in your district. Okay.

Okay. And so really, that's what I wanted to know. And while you're here in 84, and I can't remember whether you guys are the larger or the smaller one, please forgive me. We're spread out. Okay. So... There may be a time that, yes, if this study comes out and it shows that, hey, you guys may need to go to 20 cents, then you will have to come up with an action plan, right? So I want to make sure you guys are committed to that, just like we're committed to showing you what the actual costs are and how we're going to cover them, because this may be coming down the pipeline.

So Member Patel, I know we're getting into some heavy discussion. The intent of this particular item on the agenda is just to enter into a local agreement. If there's additional conversations that need to be had for correspondence, education, information, I would recommend and suggest we do that outside of this particular agreement. I don't think going back and forth is not going to change the fact that we go into an agreement. I could be wrong.

And I do appreciate that, Mayor, but this is, he has to understand, I guess my point was trying to explain to them why we're doing it only for two years, because of the study. There was no intention by this diocese to say, we're going to cut them dry and we're going to forget about them, right? Because I think their concern is, hey, you're... closing this in two years, but that's not the intention here. And I think you made that point.

I just want to make sure that the discussion is based on making sure that there's any issues with us going into an interlocal agreement or the city manager or his designee entered into that.

Mr. Smith, can I ask you? Yes, you said the Texas Constitution says 10 cents. That is correct. And it says 10 cents for both together?

I was going to ask if that could be repealed in a Tencent for Fire and a Tencent for EMS. If you had other comment, go ahead.

Can you go to the podium and make that statement, please?

Can I get a motion to approve of the amendment of a revised map, approved map? So moved, as Lawrence stated.

And I heard a so move there. Moved by Member Bynum, seconded by Member Cade. Hearing no further discussion, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

That was the amendment to D. I apologize. Sorry, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. First off, for the board members that are here from ESD4, thank you for being here, and the attorney, I appreciate that. I would kind of like to go over with folks that are here also watching on TV as well. Joel, on ESD4, numbers that you presented at our last meeting, approximately what was the shortfall on ESD4?

That's in 2025 numbers. That's 2025 numbers, okay. And as far as the percentages covered with the 10 cents that they currently have, that, if my memory serves me correctly, did you say it was approximately 24% of? I have 26%. 26%, okay, 26%. OK, so with that being said, to parallel Member Patel's comments, and until we have the study, because last meeting, the item prior to the discussion on ESD 4 and ESD 5 was for us to have a study done. And that study is to, one, verify and confirm Joel's analysis on where we're at, and then for us to be able to decide, you know, where do we go from here? W

So, the all-in, it was right at about $3 million. So, between the two, what we're trying to do is find out what exactly those numbers are, because at approximately $3 million per year, it's a fairly large number. Over five years, that number would be in the $15 million range. So that's all we're trying to do is verify what's right, what's wrong. The two-year agreement is to be able to get the information back. I don't know if Trent or Joel, approximately when do we think we would have results back.

Okay, so we'd be looking at a month, roughly speaking, for us to vote on it. So what that means is to have the study be approved by whatever vendor they've picked or selected, have that approval done from there in approximately eight months to be able to get the results back. So in approximately nine months would be a fair assessment to be able to have some numbers, some answers to be able sit down and say, here's where we're at, what can we do from here? So, you know, with that being said, that's where we're at. We're not looking, like I said, to throw you all under the bus, you know, and say

Further comments, discussion? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, call for the vote.

Member Cade, would you mind presenting item, please?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. Consideration of possible action resolution number R2026-141, so moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Cade, second by Member Fernandez.

Just clarification, are the maps correct?

Thanks for the clarification and updates. Any other questions, discussion? Member Cade?

Joel, I think it was Ms. Hauser who mentioned that we're annexing a little bit of them every year. Is that?

Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. We recently received a letter from Commissioner Cade. Have we responded to his letter to kind of provide some data to him?

Okay. And then I guess there's one more thing. We talk about the incident reports, and there's a prorated cost reporting. Are we actually doing those and providing it to the EDs? districts in the agreement it says hey we'll provide you prorated cost reporting to the district have we ever done that yes sir so we update the annual cost model uh periodically and we've met with the esd on occasions where that's occurred just to make sure that information is apparent so if you have provided that then they would know that i guess based on our internal studies that we're losing money i would say that

One second. So I just want to make sure you finish your thought and then I can recognize someone from ESD-5. Sorry, go ahead. I believe someone from ESD-5 is here. You're currently recognized. And would you please state your name? Just your name.

Thank you for the information. Again, I'll just reiterate that this particular item

And on the record. Thank you, I appreciate it. So back to the item. Again, this is just for an agreement for two years. To enter into the agreement, that's what the motion is on the floor. Make sure we're clear with that. Yes, yes.

Thank you for that clarification. So seeing, oh, Member Koza.

Thank you, Mayor. And just to reiterate, Mr. Jackson, who is a citizen of Pearland, did come up and speak about what the shortfall is. And to Mr. Hayes' comment, yes, it was approximately $600,000 is what Joel said the shortfall is through ESD-5. The combined number for both 4 and 5 is approximately $3 million together. So it wasn't that one or other, it was both. The $3 million is roughly what Mr. Hardy has for the estimate of where we're short for that. So back to the study, that's what we call for to be able to have that information. So that in two years, because if his numbers are correct,

Yeah, no, and with what you said, I agree with. Four is spread across the city, almost from Fort Bend to Galveston County, and five is concentrated in, if you want to call it slightly west of center or west, either way. But they are two different districts and two different if you want to say it, animals, you know, different entities that have different issues. So that is definitely a fair statement. And yes, you are correct. The current ESD would need to be dissolved. Then you'd need to do an A and a B to be able to get to the 10 cents for fire and for EMS. So you are correct there.

Yes, yeah, yeah. No, I know there's other, or possible other ways, but I mean, just what his comment was, you know, in regards to that. So, thank you.

It needs a broad statement, but I appreciate you. Any other further comments from council? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Fernandez, would you present item F, please?

Motion made by Member Fernandez, second by Member Koza. Is there a particular...

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I believe, Member Patel, you pulled this one. What was the reason?

I did, Mayor. Thank you. Trent, I know you, according to your, I guess, memo, you said you wanted them to do a study before they do it. And I guess when I was looking at this from the long, I guess it's in 2050. That's almost 25 years from now. And the way I was looking at it was, wouldn't this be a better thing going with the growth that we have going south, especially down in Elvin and Manuel and with hurricane evacuation? Again, for our neighbors next door, we only have 288 as an exit and 35 is obviously one of them. And I guess the way I was projecting this to say this would be a good proj

No, no worries. Thank you, Mayor. You know, from a perspective of the whole town, you put this elevated highway through, our depot district's gone. So you're gonna knock that out right out of the bat. I don't know what type of dollar amount there is, but you're going to take a fairly large swath of our industrial development along 35 that's been there for years, and you're going to wipe it off the map, and you're going to lose that tax base. Statically, it's going to look uglier than hell. So, you know, I'd be against it. But as far as that goes, I think there's better ways to address moving p

Are there any other members that want to speak against it?

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I'll speak against this because I'm looking forward to the revitalization to O-Town as a eatery, entertaining, dining, live music venues to have that in Old Town, so I'm looking forward to that, and this would preclude that from happening. Also, with the extension of Pearland Parkway over to Friendswood, as well as the 35 bypass at Alvin and the 99 Grand Parkway. I think that's part of the state's evacuation, and I think that will be more than well. I don't see any need to put a major freeway through 35 in our downtown Old Town area. I am against that.

I just want to be clear. You're against the freeway, but you're for the resolution saying that we're against the development. I want to make sure you're clear.

That is correct. I am for the resolution. I am against the 105 or 105, whatever that spur is called. I'm against that.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the clarification. That was one of the things I wanted to point out as we started talking about for and against, that we know what we're talking about. To answer your question, I serve on HGAC's Board of Directors representing the city of Pearland. Trent serves as our representative on the Transportation Policy Council. This kind of stuff doesn't come before the Board of Directors. It goes through the Policy Council. So this item would be brought up here at some point in time on the TPC for discussion. So if I'm understanding our agenda item corr

Okay, thank you. Just wanted to answer Member Patel's question. Uh-oh. Everybody's blowing up. Is that something we need to address? No?

Looking at law enforcement at this point. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Any other comments from council? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Patel, would you present item G, please?

Sorry, G. Consider and possible action resolution number R2026-149, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Member Patel, second by Member Byrum. I believe, Member Patel, you pulled this one. So if you wouldn't mind.

I did, Mayor. I do appreciate this. And this is just for parking reasons. I know this is a five-year agreement. But one of the things is this is probably one of the favorite places for me to visit. Matter of fact, I was there Thursday night. And parking was already very tight. So I don't know what the plan is to park during this event. because I think over five years it will grow tremendously, and if it does, parking is going to be a nightmare as it is already. So that was my main reason for pulling it.

And I'm assuming they have approval from the neighboring parking because, again, that valances can hold maybe 30 cars tops. And I know even on Thursday they were parking at the closed down Wendy's. And so, again, I'm just saying over five years, you give them this agreement, over five years you've got to figure out what the parking situation is going to be.

I want to make sure you're at the podium and you're not a resident. You are.

Thank you, Ms. Kuypers. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Moving on to our, let's see. All right, I will now open this public hearing on a request by Alberto Ruiz, applicant. and owner on behalf of George and Deborah Harrell, owners for approval of a zone change for approximately 7.77 acres of land, entirely of a 1.002-acre Track 1, further described below, from neighborhood services to single-family resident R1 district. Staff, would you kindly present on this particular item?

Thank you for that, Katya. Is there anyone here representing them that would? Anyone here? Anyone like to make a statement on it or speak to this change?

All right. If there's no one else desiring to speak on this item, on our closest public hearing, Member Koza, would you present new business number one, please?

Certainly, Mayor. Consideration of possible actions. First reading of ordinance number 2000M-287. So moved.

Motion was made by Member Koza, second by Member Cade. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

I will now open this public hearing on a request by Paul Glenn, applicant on behalf of 4401 Rice Dryer, Inc., owner for approval of amendments to the Rice Dryer Commerce Park plan development on approximately 2.8185 acres of land.

Is the applicant here? If you could, please go to the podium. Please state your name.

Just here to answer questions. Okay, perfect. If you don't mind, just stay there. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none. Council members, are there any questions for the applicant here?

Thank you, Mayor. With this proposed layout here, how many parking spaces are there?

And, sir, as far as the number of employees that would be working in this facility, how many employees would you be having?

Okay, so even if you went to a second shift, it would be enough for both shifts? You know, to have parking for the employees that are there. Yes, sir. Okay.

All right, thank you. Any additional questions? Member Barnes?

Just real quick, looking at the overall site plan for this development, where is the, we can go back, not the zoomed in one, but the larger map, the whole outlined red area. Kind of hard to see is right down there in the bottom next to public use, is that their detention?

Okay. And that has already accounted for this addition?

Okay. And we've been talking with our UDC updates about reducing the parking requirements. Would this be more in line with what we were talking about shifting to?

Their current development already has enough parking.

I don't think there's any additional comments. And if there's no one else desiring to speak at this particular time, I'll close this public hearing. Member Echols, would you present new business item number two, please?

Certainly, Mayor. Thank you. Consideration of possible action, first reading of ordinance number 2000M-286. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Echols, second by Member Fernandez. Any additional questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

I will now open this public hearing on a request by Dana Garnett, applicant, on behalf of Amidali Varani, owner, for approval of a conditional use permit for resale consignment shop use on approximately 2.438 acres of land within the Business Park 288 district. Staff, would you kindly? I'm sorry. Yes, you did mention that. I believe we have someone that signed up to speak on this particular item. And I'll turn it over to Mr. John Jackson.

I know you already spoke, but please state your name again. And you have three minutes. Thank you, sir.

Oh, let me kick it to staff first real quick.

Thank you for that. Yes, the applicants are here. Is there something that you would like to present? Is there a presentation that you have available? Please do. Just present, go to the podium, and then once you get there, state your name.

Thank you. Is there any other comments from anyone in the audience? No? All right. Council? Questions?

Member Byrum. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Could you go back to your landscape plan in your presentation? I know you're kind of zooming around on the page. Slide it over. I'm going to call them sand traps. So what are all those shapes? Are those individual landscape beds or?

You have trees. You've added trees to go all the way around the detention pond. And you've added 10 landscape beds around the detention pond. Is that what we're seeing here?

OK. OK, thank you. And I will say. Two specific things. Number one, I think we should include the cross-access in our conditions. So that is one of the items that I think we should add. I'm not sure why that didn't get picked up when it came through. But I do think we need to make sure that that's in there, unless it's already included in the plat. Well, this is a public hearing, right? So can I ask? of our members of P&Z to go up since it's a public hearing?

Would either of you like to take the podium and just speak? Commissioner Fuertes?

Yeah, state your name, please, sir. Henry Fortas. And just on the cross-access was what I was asking about. What was the thought process?

And we verify that that's... You're nodding your head.

So is the cross-access that's in the existing plat, is it a footnote or is it specified on the plat? It's a note. It's a footnote on the plat. OK. So we may need to look at more specificity on that. The main thing is just making sure we don't have a break point in the parking lot where people can't traverse through the entirety of the overall commercial development in that area. So if the plat is not clear enough to resolve that, go ahead, Van.

So I would like to do that when we get to the actual new business item. I'd like to do that. The other thing I will say is I know... Do what? The cross-access. We'll put it in as a... I will motion that when we do this in the new business, we'll put the cross-access in. The other thing I will say is I know, as Mr. Jackson alluded to, there's always consternation about things getting stored outside, things getting dropped off, and yes, to a certain degree, that is somewhat unavoidable in these types of businesses. applications, but if I remember correctly, you were here previously. Goodwill tal

If I remember correctly, you guys are now putting in cameras at all your facilities, so if someone does show up in the middle of the night, dumps a bunch of stuff, somebody gets alerted, and you all go pick it up. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. Like I say, I've seen that improvement because I drive past it all the time on the one out there. So I appreciate those efforts, and thank you for bringing back the landscaping. I understand member Patel, you proposed the wet detention in the previous conversation. I understand the reasoning behind it. My alternative to that was additional lands

Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. So I got a question about this insurance that you guys are saying your insurance won't allow wet ponds. I mean, we have them all over. And I'll tell you why I proposed this. Member Byrum, the discussion was this is where we have spent $22 million on this corridor. And this is where the exit ramp is to get on Magnolia. So as you exit down, you will see a car wash, which recently closed from eyeshine and turned into blue weight. They have a detention pond that is dry, which you may be right, or earlier someone said that there are dry ponds. But it looks horrendous

I am okay with them not having the fountain. I know Goodwill, well, I think they're a 501c3, and it probably places a burden on them to maintain a fountain, and I'm okay with that. I think it's landscaping instead. Thank you.

Member Echols. Thank you, Mayor. Just an observation. The detention, did I understand that on the field retention with Fountain. Your insurance was concerned about the retention area overfilling and flooding the retail. And if so, why is the retention above grade to allow overfill to go into the retail?

That's okay. Just your comment brought that question. What I wanted to speak of to say thank you for bringing this proposal back to us. I've seen detention, retention, and my thing is a detention area that is landscaped, structurally sound, and can do what it's there to do, and that's hold water, keep water from flooding your facility as well as other facilities in the way. part of different buildings. I'm not familiar. I have not looked at the site. Is there a present? Is the building there now? And if it is, is there retention detention there now?

Could you put the image back up, please? I saw it was up there. It's just dry. It's undeveloped.

It doesn't show any of your neighboring areas having retention. It's up there on the screen. okay remember eccles there are detention ponds in the area they're behind that strip center to the left this is a currently undeveloped track of land so there's nothing there currently okay hey thank you vance um good job i i think the landscape uh i think the trees will add beautification let me encourage you to make sure your lawn maintenance Keeps it looking good. I think the car wash that Member Patel was talking about, they were in a bankrupt situation because evidently their Their clubs was not b

Member Cozen? Thank you, Mayor. Could you put up the photo that was on before that kind of had the 288 view? Yeah, there was a big one, the larger. It was just by itself, the one on the right.

Oh, it was in their presentation? Okay, well, you could zoom in on the one on the...

Yeah, OK, that works right there. OK, so good, bad, or indifferent, it was my question last time because the presentation you had at a wet detention pond, and I asked what the detention was going to be, wet or dry, which in turn spurred Member Patel to issue the amendment for the wet detention. So whether my question here or not does that, again, I don't know. But when I look at this photo right here, the hedge that you pictured here is continuous. It's not like the overhead landscape view. I don't see any breaks in the lower landscaping. I do see the breaks in the trees, but not in this depic

Right, right, which I understand what trees are and what the landscape shrubbing is. But when you look at the photo, it looks continuous north to south. You have four different breaks in it right here versus right there. When I look at the landscapes, the little balls or whatever type shrubs those are, I don't see breaks in that.

I don't know with my fellow council members. To me, I think more aesthetically looking, continuous hedge along the 288 corridor keeps you from seeing into the detention pond. But I would be in favor of a dry detention with a continuous hedge. So I don't know. I agree with that as well, Member Cozy.

Okay. I want to come back to Member Byrum if you're completed.

Yeah, yeah, that was my biggest concern. Looking at this versus looking at the picture, it was two different, if you want to say proposals or two depictions, whatever you want to call it, of the layout. So here again, I would be in favor of a continuous hedge.

Member Byrum? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On this screen, it says existing trees in the right-of-way. Those are going to remain, so those are what are in the foreground of your picture, correct? Yes. Okay. Is this area staff, is this part of the Lower Kirby District? No. Okay.

And all of that landscaping... I agree. We spent a lot of money beautifying 288. All of that landscaping is managed by, is it BP2-288 or is it Lower Kirby? PMMDT, so another additional entity. And they wouldn't have anything to do with this property, correct? Ultimately, what I'm getting at is, When you show the aerial of this area, the lots on either side of this are not developed currently either. So whatever we do here is ultimately going to set the precedent for what happens with the adjoining lots. And I agree with Member Patel. There's been a lot of money spent on the 288 corridor and th

Yes, sir. So, I wish Matt was here, but Trent might be able to correct me. But my understanding is PMMD2 goes all the way to Magnolia on the north two corners, so northeast and northwest corner. southeast and south corner belong to Manuel, so we don't manage it. So when you actually exit Magnolia, you'll see one side of the freeway weeds are growing and the other side is manicured, right? And so this district does fall into the PMMD, too, if I'm correct. Am I correct?

So it could potentially approach PMMD2 and ask about some beautification in that area as it develops as well, yes?

And I don't mean to interject. No, no. I apologize. I had the honor and the privilege to go to their last two meetings, or yeah, second meeting ago, and they're burning cash. So don't expect any new plants going in. I believe their own prediction was they will be out of money in about six years. So I don't anticipate that. I think they're burning more cash on maintenance than they're taking in. And Member Byrum, you're an engineer, and you're an Aggie, so I'm sure you know this better, and Trent is too. I'm not an engineer. Oh, you're an Aggie, so they all are engineers. So, you know, I do app

Hold on one second. Was there a question to Raj or was there a statement?

Well, absolutely to Raj, but I'm trying to understand their theory as well. So, Raj, would you explain that to me? Is that possible to have a wet detention pond that has a concern of flooding?

So I think, I remember Byram had a question. I just want to make sure that we're getting around to at least coming to some understanding of what any type of issues are with the proposal as is in this hearing, so we can continue to move forward and provide some context as to how to move forward. Member Cade, yes, you have a question.

What are the landscape requirements for this property?

Gladly. What are the landscape requirements for this property?

So are they meeting that with what they have?

So asking them to do a bunch of extra stuff, I don't understand why we're doing that. if they're meeting the requirements and going above and beyond a little bit, I think that's enough. We need to vote on this.

But they have agreed to give us more landscaping, so I think they've agreed to that. It's like we're...

I'm just going through. I'm here with concerns. Member Cade, as it is, you said based on what they provided, you're okay. Member Patel, I believe there's some reservations. Member Fernandez, there's reservations. Member Byrum, there's some reservations. Member Echols, I said I think you're okay. And Member Koza, I believe there was reservations with regard to landscaping, correct? Yes, that's correct, yeah. I'm just trying to tie this thing back up, because it is a hearing.

I think there's consensus to have a more likely picture, if that's what you're asking.

I want to make sure it's clear that we get an understanding of what we're deliberating, what the ask is, before I close this public hearing.

Well, we'll have an amendment in the follow-up.

Thank you, Mayor. So with what Mr. Provins just said, as far as a continuous hedge and irrigation, is that something y'all would be willing to provide to keep the plants alive and looking well?

Any other further questions or comments? Member Byrum, I know you stepped away, but any other comments? So seeing no other comments, are there any other comments you'd like to add before I close this hearing?

Thank you for those comments. Seeing no other comments at this particular time, I will now close this public hearing. Member Patel, would you present new business item number three, please?

Sure, Mayor. My pleasure. Considering possible action, resolution number R2026-CUP2026-0354. So moved. Second.

Motion was emphatically made by Member Patel. Second by Member Koza. Discussion? Yes.

Mr. Mayor, I would motion that Move that we would amend this CUP application to include council condition item number six from the June 28th meeting to ensure that the cross access is installed between the adjoining properties. And I would also move that we include language that the landscaping is a continuous hedgerow around the detention with irrigation.

And you would want it as per the depiction here on the?

Second. Motion is made by Member Byrum, seconded by Member Echols. Motion to amend. Motion to amend. Yeah. Made by Member Byrum, seconded by Member Echols. Any questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Right. That was amended, yes. Now we vote on the 8th. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

I'll now open this public hearing regarding the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 budget.

Any other comments? Sure, absolutely. Just go to the podium. If there's anyone, please don't hesitate. This is a public hearing, so you're more than welcome to speak on behalf of yourself. Ask any questions you need. Just go to the podium and just state your name before speaking.

Thank you for that. Any other comments from the audience? Seeing none, I'll move it to council. Any questions from council? I'll start on my right. Member Koza.

Thank you, Mayor. I just have a quick comment. I'd like to take time to tell staff and everyone in the budget department thank you. for working with us for, you know, from our strategic planning and our goals that were set there and coming up with this budget each and every department to accomplish the goals that we set back in late January. It's appreciated and thank you very much for the work.

Thank you, Mayor. To the staff, thank you so much. You've met our expectation, even went over our expectation on our no new revenue rate. I appreciate that. Maybe answer a comment from Mr. Cole. Yes. Taxes, even though we're getting a penny under new revenue with the appraisal districts, raising our houses for more, yes. comes more taxes, even though at basically 3 quarters of a cent lower than what you're paying this past year. And I've been scratching my head thinking, how do you answer that to your people? when you've told people, we're going to try to lower your taxes. Well, when you take

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll echo my council members. We've talked about this, a great process. We get better at it every year. And so I appreciate y'all's efforts to look at better ways to do this, more efficient ways to do this. Can we jump to slide five of the presentation real quick? It was commented earlier when we were having discussions about the ESDs, and I just wanted to make sure that this was clarified, that conversations around what we're trying to figure out with the ESDs are centrally considering cost recovery. It was commented in those conversations earlier that we were trying to

Make sure that's all my comments. Yes, thank you all. Can you repeat that statement again for me, please?

I have a question specifically for that, and I'm glad you mentioned that, but I'll let my colleagues continue to ask their comments.

Oh yeah, so real quick, when you compare fiscal year 26 where it says 7.748 million over the policy, is that what you're predicting or was that the actual?

Okay. Can you remind me, Rachel, what was it last year when we were at this point? What was the prediction then for this fiscal year 26?

And I guess I ask that I'm only assuming that number is going to increase because of the current drought and water sell. I'm assuming we're selling a lot of water.

Okay, yeah, and I'm just curious because, I mean, we're going from a 7.7 to $75,000. That's a little bit concerning, but I understand in order to maintain a 9.9 rate, there's not much of a, we're really on the edge, right? And that's really important to understand that we're right on the edge, that if we have wet year, 12 months, we could actually be in trouble. Is that a fair statement?

I understand that. But, so Victor, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only $75,000 over what's required. So you're on the edge. Because if you have a wet couple of months and you don't sell that water, you could be under $75,000. that $8.1 million. You could be. You're absolutely right. Okay, because you're on the very edge of that. Okay. And I will say, Trent, to you, I know I'm probably the biggest critics about budgets on this panel, but I do appreciate it.

I always use mayor, so I apologize. But I do appreciate that. And I think you guys did listen to us. And I know you guys did a lot of fund balance adjustments to get to where we are. But I think... I don't know if my colleagues on this panel really realized what the $125,000 exemption was going to do. I certainly did not. But you guys certainly have managed that well. I think there's a lot of lessons learned from here. So I think it will be an interesting January strategic planning on setting new goals for you guys to see how you guys do. But I do congratulate you and your team for that. So th

i just want to say thank you i i i gave up my turn a minute ago and i shouldn't have i should have said thank you rachel and your team for and uh city manager's office for doing the opinion or no new revenue and also mr cole said something interesting um he said you know we the property tax went down a minuscule amount but it still went down but then he said his taxes went up and that's because of the appraisals, but that's not us. So just wanted to point that out, Mr. Cole, just don't try to put that on us. All right, thank you.

And for those residents in Harris County, they couldn't hit with an 8% increase in the county tax.

So I just want to come back to you, Victor, on the statement you made. You're going to come back to us with a policy adoption to us to adopt a new policy for reduction. Help me understand that?

But I did hear in a previous comment that you said it'd be reduced. Correct. Why would you reduce the fund balance policy?

Okay, the reason I'm asking the question is because in recent, let me back up and say this. Yes, by far everyone You know, it's a tough task to have seven varying opinions, eight at the time and always eight, about how we're spending your money. And so strategic priorities are set in January, and based on those priorities, we all know in January a lot has changed. a lot to get us to this point. We've adopted no new revenue twice. This is the second time, I believe. And so on previous slides, there were indications that our reserves were on a downward trend. I see eyebrows. That's a confirmatio

Thank you, Mayor. So just we're all clear. This is just the water department we're talking about, not the sales or property tax. But you are right that, you know, obviously we're depleting our fund reserves just to be right above the minimum requirement. And Mayor, I would tell you at one point you wanted 0%. Imagine what would have happened to that number if you and us held this tax rate or increase in water rates at zero. So even at 9.9, I do worry that if we have a couple of rainy seasons, this water, and I've only been here three years, Mayor, And I know it sucks to go in a drought, but we

Absolutely. And I just, as you were speaking, I just noticed something. This table is a little bit misleading. It says a 9% rate, but then at 28, it's almost 20%.

You keep making... No, no, I'm just saying that... I'll let you finish. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Mayor. So what I was... Because it's been... Two arrows have been shot already about the 0% freeze rate. And so all I was really asking with the 0% freeze was not a continuum, was basically do the same thing that y'all just did with no new revenue on the general fund. Because I think residents need to know what's going on before we hit them with a 10% and a 20% rate increase. It was just more predicated on, hey, we need to inform the public, yes. There could have been some sort of challenges that we'd have to meet, but that initial rate was 12. So for me to ask for zero and we ended

I asked why we couldn't have 7.7, like, all the way across.

There's a reason. I'm sure there's a reason. I know there's a reason, yes. Member Fernandez, and I apologize, I want to continue, please.

Yeah, sure, Mr. Mayor. Since we're having this conversation again on the water rates, I think it's important to point out for the public to understand that the reason that there is a predicted higher number in FY28 partially is because we are pushing the water rate as low as we can. And we had that conversation when we had the water rate discussion that we're getting as low as we possibly can and still maintain our fund balances. When we look at these buy-downs that we've done, whether it's in the general fund or the debt service or the enterprise fund, in order to get the tax rate lower, whic

No worries, thank you. I'd just like to kind of shed a little light on this graphic right here. The first year that I sat at the dais, that 17 was somewhere in the range of 29%. With a subsequent year, the second year of 22, they were massive numbers compared to what we see here. The tenure that I've been elected, we've never hit those projections. It just, it's never come to fruition. Dry season, wet season, anything along that line. To remember Byram's comment that you know, we're seeing an uptick next year is because of the debt. But yes, wet years and dry years have always had an impact, b

Victor, in speaking with other city council members, it seems like the Councils of area cities are all having to bring the question of water rates, sewer rates, garbage rates, utility bill rates into their forefront of their mind because water is costing more. It's costing more to get and it's costing more to process the raw waste. Some cities have been able to limit their increases in water for their enterprise fund through impact fees. I would like before next year when we have to look at these water rates at the 17 20 whatever the rate's going to be if we could assess our impact fees with o

I don't believe there's any other comment. I will now close this public hearing. Member Byrum, would you present new business item number four, please?

Certainly. Consideration of possible action, first reading of ordinance number 1659. So moved.

Second. Motion was made by Member Byrum. Second, Member Fernandez.

Thank you for that, Trent. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Kaye, would you present new business item number five, please?

Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Consideration and possible action resolution number R2026-151. So moved.

Second. Motion is made by Member Kaye. Second by Member Byron.

Pull up that budget. Let's look at item number FA2802, public safety building roof replacement. Are we replacing that roof? I know we talked about just reapplying. Whatever happened to that? It's a $1.25 million.

So this $1.25 million that's on the CIP, I'm assuming it's over, the actual cost that's going to come in?

Okay, so Eric, there was a local company, I think our previous council member, Mr. Carbone, had recommended someone in Pearland that actually does this work. Do we have them look at this?

Okay. I mean, I don't know much about roofing. I'm sure I have a council member who's a contractor. How big is this? $1.25 million and we're not replacing it. I'm just curious, how many square feet is this covering?

Okay. They pulled it up. I don't know if that's the roof or the building.

Okay. And I guess how old is this roof? I believe we're getting close to 16 years. So in our business, TPO normally has a 20-year warranty. What is it called? John Manville? Is that right, Mr. Brown? The manufacturer? So when the contractor builds this, normally they give you a 20-year warranty on this. And we not try to... cover on that warranty? I'm just curious because we have buildings that have 24-year TPO and it's 60 mm. So, I mean, I don't know how thick of a TPO they put in, but it just seems

Sure. Do you have a concern with it being in the capital improvement plan, or is it just in general?

In general, because it's in the capital improvement plan, if we're going to adopt this resolution, then it's saying we're agreeing to this. But, you know, I'm just... Potentially.

Yeah, and I understand that. But okay, so let's look at something else on this. The public safety training complex, which is at FA2405, it's listed at 63 mil, including I'm assuming land. And Mayor, you bring up a good point, and the reason I'm bringing these projects up is because what has happened in the past is, of course, there's gonna be change on this diocese, and these projects tend to carry on CPI, and as council continues to approve it, What happens is they say, well, it's been on CPI for three years, no one has said anything, so you guys have kind of accepted it, and you guys knew ab

I 100 percent agree. The question that I'm asking, though, is at this particular stage in the adoption process, there is a risk of carryover and that it gets approved at some point. But this would come up in the strategic planning, and then we could then reprioritize and then set the priorities moving forward without investing any further capital in these projects at that particular time, couldn't we?

Just to your point, in fiscal year 27, the plan is 1.6. Yeah. No, I'm with you. I'm with you.

So, my thing is, this is going to add to our debt, right? So, you got to, and remember, debt is at 1.6 billion, okay? So, and again, we will pay down debt as well, and it's going to fluctuate, but as you know, we talked about it earlier, for the water treatment, they're estimating at 17.5% is because a large amount of debt is going to go on the books next year, right? And again, I know, Trent, this is just some future maybes, but one of them was the fire station number seven with Bailey Road, project number FA-1802. This is $18 million project. does not include, from my understanding when I re

Those are, that's what I'm, What I'm trying to make is this. Your questions are well received. They're extremely valid. I just think at this particular stage in the planning, what you're asking can either be reprioritized or taken out in January.

Yeah, and I guess the problem is there's a vote coming on this. So you're actually voting on this? Just to adopt the package of projects. Well, the projects are in the package. So when you are moving forward and it says, hey, consideration and possible action, and we are voting on it, so you're actually agreeing these projects are something you have reviewed and you kind of are accepting it, right? Like to move forward with it in some sort of mannerism.

So with the ones that you pointed out with the police station, obviously, it's a massive undertaking, comparatively speaking, in our budget. But in 27, one key factor is the land acquisition. And so based on the priorities that we move forward with in conjunction with all the other projects and discussions that we would have, that may be something that council may want to move forward with. I don't think we'd be able to do that at this particular time. That's all I'm saying.

if I may maybe I'm not understanding I thought and Victor correct me if I'm wrong we're not appropriating any dollars with this resolution correct where we're so that's that's correct we're a drop adopting the five-year plan the first year of this plan is

Correct, but even the dollars allocated, like for example, the first one on the screen, FA-2405, that 1.65, that's... That is for the balance of the land acquisition. Right. Well, okay, so that's a bad example because we've already approved. Yes, sir. My point is maybe there's a different line item, but just because it's put in the 27 budget, we still have to appropriate those dollars on a resolution in FY27.

You still have to bring it to us to approve the project?

Okay. Those are just mechanisms to stop what Member Patel is saying. We adopt this. We're saying we're going to tell staff and give them direction to move forward with everything in 27.

Correct. And not just 27, Mayor. I also say, look, a project like public safety, It's a big project, right? And that's something you're going to start working on it today, trying to put some of the wheels in the motion. And two other points, Mayor, real quick. One of the things I notice in this is consistently the lifespan is always 20 years on infrastructure or building, which kind of bothered me to say we're spending millions of dollars, and normally on the private sector, You know, we hope that's over 30 years. Usually, I mean, tax rate says 37.9 or 39.5 years. So why do we always put 20 ye

On here, it shows that on your deck. So you might pull up the deck of any of the development, like this orange service, street service center. If you look at it, it says 20 years, the new development. And so I was just kind of like, why are you guys putting only a 20-year useful life on there? That's on page, oh, sorry, I don't have it. Yep, there you go. Scroll down. Right there, stop, go up. Yeah, so, and all your buildings are at 20 years, so just FYI.

Yeah, and I guess the way I looked at it was, you know, project lifespan. I thought you were talking about the project itself, which is the building, the asset, right, not the debt. So I apologize. The way this was listed, I'm just assuming, hey, you're using this as a 20-year span.

Robust conversation, and I think at this particular time, we've had, A lot of information put out there, but I think we're ready for the vote. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote, please?

Member Fernandez, would you present new business item number six, please?

Motion was made by Member Fernandez, second by Member Cade.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE?

MEMBER PATEL, WOULD YOU PRESENT NEW BUSINESS ITEM 7?

absolutely mayor considering possible action first reading of ordinance number one six six one so moved second motion was made by member patel second member fernandez

Thank you for that, Trent. Any questions or discussion? Council? Mr. Patel?

Trent, would you be able to ask your team, if you go back to the, can we click on that fee schedule? Is there a way you guys can put the last time the fee was updated so people can see that how many years it takes for us to jump on a fee? Because we're not doing this on an annual basis. So I think it would be important for having a column just to show where the current fee is and last time it was and how much it was. So I don't know if that's possible because I couldn't even tell when the fee was, you know, updated last, so.

Additional questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza, would you present new business item number eight, please?

Certainly, consideration possible action first reading of ordinance number 569-4, so moved.

Second. Motion made by Member Koza, second by Member Byrum. Trent?

Thank you for that. Any other questions or discussion item? Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Echols, would you present new business item number nine, please?

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration possible action for resolution number R2026-156. So moved.

Second. Motion was made by Member Echols, second by Member Koza.

Thank you. I'm looking at Member Patel, you pushed the button. You don't have anything to say. Don't encourage him. So I did have one.

I'm sorry, Mayor. I do have something. My good friend Trent to the left said, I like spending EDC dollars. That's why I'm ready to vote. And he's probably right.

So the question I had was this. That's why you said EDC, so I came to you first. But you said reimbursement, and I just wanted to hopefully clarify that EDC is providing the cost mechanism to spend, and then there's a reimbursable from TxDOT.

EDC is paying, and the city's being reimbursed. There's no reimbursement from outside.

And would the same mechanisms or rules apply for EDC-funded investments for maintenance and those sort of things, or no? Sometimes when EDC spends the money on projects, there's a maintenance tag.

Is this clear? All right. Just wanted clarity. Thank you for that. Seeing no other comments or discussion, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Moving on to mayor council issues for city council discussion. First item up for city council discussion is regarding the multi-family housing forum. And I believe, is there a report from staff or someone?

Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. You guys are in for a treat today. I did not realize we were going to be here this late, or my apologies. First of all, Mayor, the reason I put this on there, I was kind of frustrated the day of this forum. I think this diocese had informed staff of the importance and I just felt the information on there was not adequate on the website. It was difficult to find and until the very last minute there was some missing information like live streaming And Trent and I had a conversation about it and we, you know, he got it up. So I think that was my frustration to say,

Is there anyone else want to add some comments or discussion? Member Byron?

Yeah, so if you read the Member Patel's request, and Member Chavarria's second, she talked about us putting together an opportunity to have further discussion on the housing issue and things of that nature. I didn't run into the same problem, but I also didn't go look for the live stream on our website. I'll leave you on that. I did want to add I put two supplementals in the packet for the general public to be aware of and I'll go through them quickly because I didn't fully understand the agenda item, so maybe it's not for discussion tonight. Just to point out for the public, if you look in th

Sorry, I just want to, Member Byrum, I did actually listen to that and TML was there. He was the second to last person speaking and I thought he was with TML. Second, about the lawsuits, yes, I heard about that too. And I believe they talked about, I think Senator King is the attorney, that I believe he's an attorney on that panel. And he basically said, you know, if you allow lawsuits, all it's going to do is tie everything up and you have a stay. So the developer can't do anything. And I think the question was, can the association sue on behalf of the developer? That's correct. And the comme

I do remember them calling on TML. I don't remember what they testified for, but they're not on their witness list from the hearing. So they may have testified on something different.

All right, so I just got a few points. Did we do a post-mortem on that particular forum? A wrap-up meeting on...

Perfect. That's a segue into my next piece of items. On this particular one, I could be mistaken, but in this forum, I believe the agenda had you listed to present something. Was that initially there to show the impact on the city, not just the legislators?

All right. based on the success i think that we had i don't want to get too far off but it was my understanding that this wasn't the only one because there's conversations about excessive housing forums because it's housing in general multi-family high density all these different things are important in to residents and so to create an opportunity for people to understand that I think was important. I see head nods, so I think that was kind of the consensus to talk about that moving forward and not just this particular one. And on the same line of thinking, I know communicating out to the publ

We've had people wait and apologize. So, are we finished with number one? Yeah. Good. Okay, so moving on to City Council discussion regarding Regional Conference Center.

Yep. Trent Perez, if you would like to make your way to the podium. Wake up, Trent. Thank you for hanging out with us for four hours.

Mayor Maris set the ground on this because it's not a... Let me just kind of tell you where this came from. About a year ago, a couple of the surrounding cities have gotten together informally, and it was Mayor Kennedy from Iowa Colony, Tico, myself, Mayor Dan Davis, please correct me, I know I'm forgetting somebody else, a council member from the Iowa Colony,

So we have gotten together informally just to say, hey, through Mr. Perez, who came up with this idea to say, we might consider building as a group, as a community, to look at the idea of an event or some kind of a center, right? Something that we all know we need in the North Presoria County. So we have been just spitballing this idea and obviously we were excited about what was happening behind Bass Pro Shop and obviously that's kind of fizzled out about the hotel conference center. So all the cities informal representation. None of the council members probably know about this. We met more a

and so that's why i've asked mr perez to come and kind of explain the idea behind it and where do we go forward so thank you mayor no no no no problem i just want to just or you said fizzle i think there's been i think that's a contention as to how that development moves forward but i wouldn't use the word fizzle but uh i'll turn it over to uh mr perez if you could just state your name and then uh comment

Thank you. And you've been a lot of extra time. And it's been used up. That was it.

Well, it is because you just signed up. Did he not sign up?

But I think that's it. Three minutes. Is this a discussion? What is this? It's a discussion, Mayor.

Yeah. It's not a public comment. It's easier presenting what we're trying to do.

So I want to make sure, for the sake of making sure we stay on task and on point, I guess the ask is this. There's discussions outside of the city that are happening that involve Direction for the city involve informal and informally members are involved in those discussions so the ask at this particular time during this discussion is that we formalize a committee of an inter-regional relation involving Council or council members including the mayor from a regional locale to start a strategic discussion on how to move forward on a

economic development on investments on like what is that the ask no sir the ask is uh if if the council uh feels that we would want to explore a regional conference center not economic development not any it's a conference center something similar to a conference center that we would want to participate in the discussion, right? Because it would be more of a regional, North Brazoria County region. So we would ask all the cities. So I believe, if I'm correct, I think Iowa Colony has formally, have they formally appointed two people?

So it's just a resolution to kind of have a discussion down the line to say, hey, the city would consider participating in the discussion.

It says Regional Conference Event Center.

I'm just trying to understand that we just approved a project that at some point may involve a conference center hotel. May or may not. I know it's at the future. So based on the discussions, it was planned that way. But a multi concurrent discussion about another conference center that's in Brazoria County, and I'm going to play semantics because that particular conference center would be in Harris County. So it seems like it would be competing interest at this particular time. That's what I understand.

And Mayor, I will remind you, I think part of the issue we had with the whole behind the bass pro shop is the cost. We didn't want to... take on the burden of the full cost of the conference center. And matter of fact, that developer told us he has somebody who is looking into it. And then even they kind of went away because today's cost don't justify going into these things by themselves. It just won't. The numbers won't pencil out. And if you read Business Journal recently, if you have, I should say, Montgomery County up in New Caney, they built the seventh largest conference center. I don't

I think that particular committee, correct me if I'm wrong, was a lobbying group. It wasn't just a committee.

I'd much rather the money stay here. That's the idea. I just, I mean, I'll pass it. There is an underlying motive. A motive is to move forward parallel to pushing forward a regional plan on a conference center while Pearland is actively working with a developer that has in its plan a conference center. So it's just really, it's hard for me to square, but, okay.

I've wanted a conference center since I got elected, so I mean, I will say I had to look at this like 20 times, like, is this Rushi asking for this? I mean, over and over I looked at it. I said, I must be dreaming what is happening here, because you said the other thing fizzled out. Well, yeah, it fizzled out. Why? You know, because I'm not going to name names. I'm not going to name names, but, you know, I did not have you pay for wanting a conference or event center. I'm sorry. And, you know, I love you, but I'm just going to say that out loud. This is very shocking to me. But I love the idea

So anyway, I mean, I love the idea. You know, we killed one.

It's not dead, but I understand what you mean.

But, you know, so I'm curious about a lot of things about this. I love the idea of a conference event.

So, well, I mean, I think we're speaking preemptively because by the time we get to the development and that is Pearland, it's not in Brazoria County. some of our terms will be expired, and other people will be on here, so to speak, that something is dead or won't go into fruition. We don't know what our presidents will want or motivate us to do, and I just, I mean, it's up to you all if y'all want to form a committee. I mean, obviously, it has to be majority vote.

And, Member Byron? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know we're not taking any action tonight. It's a discussion item just to throw it out on the table. As far as I'm concerned, I think as a community we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can look at two different things and see what comes to fruition first. I'd be perfectly fine. Member Patel, you've already started the conversation. They've asked for member Patel and the mayor to be involved in continuing the conversation if that's something you're willing to do. I'm fine with it. I'm all for conversations. I'm all for partnering within our co

I'm just going to make it quick. Really, I'm going to lean onto you. Do you want to do this?

You learn about peer pressure when you're young. On this side, I didn't come to this side, so I apologize.

No worries, you've got consensus, so move on. Okay.

I'll say this. If it's just a discussion, I don't mind having a discussion. The challenge is, I'll make it known, council is asking for Pearland to be represented on a committee for a discussion. So I will, at the behest of council, absolutely, I'll make sure to be there and to make sure we'll represent it. I'll just make it known, though, that I don't know what kind of message it's going to send to the people that we're working with, because specifically, that was one of the pieces in that development. And so moving forward in this way, in having other discussions with regional partners, abou

I don't think that's the decision. It's based on council members. I hear my peers. We want to be involved. So if we want to be involved, I'll be at the table with Member Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. And let me be very clear. I did talk to Don about this. And Don is aware. Matter of fact, Don was, he even asked if he could come and speak to us, right? And so... I think the point is, Mayor, like Trent said, this has been going on for years. I mean, I've been here since 2003 and when Hilton Garden Inn got built and with that conference center. And I can tell you everything about that agreement that the Hilton Garden Inn got in the tax abatement. I can tell you. 71% of the tax dollars that they collected went back, right? $1.2 million, I believe. Tracy might, oh. Oh, Tracy's

So based on that, I'll defer to Lawrence. At this particular time, it seems there's a consensus among council to participate in a regional discussion with regional partners and neighboring cities I guess varying discussion topics, including a regional conference event center. How will we move forward at this particular stage, given the conversations you've heard?

Okay, thank you for that clarity. All right, I think any further discussion on this particular item?

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Trent, for coming. I apologize. I know it's late. Thank you for not wearing a hat, Trent. You look good without it. I brought it, but I just wanted to look good on camera.

Next item is, was there anyone else signed up to speak? Got it. Okay. So moving on to the next City Council discussion regarding enhancing transparency and employee compensation. I believe that was you, Mr. Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. The reason I put this on here, I guess I felt that we were clear, or at least the diocese had some sort of direction to Trent. regarding on our website again you had to dig through the website to get the vendor payments that the city makes but I also like to start now for next fiscal year to start putting in last 12 months of gross pay that we have paid our employees to show our constituents The 70% that we always talk about, it costs to run the city. And so I wanted to kind of understand, I thought that we had consensus among our peers here on this diocese to say we're going

Mayor stepped out and asked me to continue the meeting. So is there any comment from council? Any discussion? Member Koza?

I was second on this. And I supported it when Member Patel brought it up. So I'd be in support of it again.

It is the city's cost. It's all about what is the city paying for it.

No, and I think, you know, if the health benefit cost, and really it's just what the city's portion of the cost is, right? I mean, that's all we care about. I mean, I'm not worried about what you take out. So it's really what is the city's cost? If I had to do a tieback, And if your CFO was here, I would say, hey, if I can tie back the city's P&L to the payroll cost, that's what I want to know, right? Like, what is that coming out? I do not care about their family members, because that's their contribution, whatever that may be. But really just the total health care, what is the retirement cos

And it's based on, I guess, the individual, right? You don't have to keep the name, but if we knew the positions, obviously you would have every single one right there, correct? Okay, that's a little different than in the actual. You want to put the total. I thought that's what you said a minute ago. For individuals.

Yeah. Okay. Like the one you emailed me. Can we upload that? With everyone's name on it? No, take the names out. Keep the positions.

So you're worried about the healthcare benefit?

So then I guess This is getting more complicated than in my head it was. When I asked you to pull those numbers, Trent, of gross pay that we have paid employees, did you have any of these other information in there? The health care, health benefits or retirement? I know you emailed us. I mean, I know I asked you for gross pay and you gave me gross pay.

Okay. Yeah. But you didn't have any of the other benefits?

Okay, so let's forget the health benefits. That's not important. But you're telling me retirement... because we're matching 14% of their gross pay, correct?

But what if you just did one column with a total pay and not break down? Let's just say we're not breaking down, but we include everything in there. How would somebody be able to tell? If it's just that. For individual positions.

Because I don't really care about the overtime. What I want to show is what is an individual getting paid total. Yeah. So you can just, whether, let's use Trent for example. $400,000 salary retirement is $50,000. I'm just making that, again, making that up. Let's make it down to $200,000. Let's take it down to $200,000 to make you happy. But let's say it's a $40,000 retirement that the city's contributing to and health benefits, whatever. But if you gave me a number that says $300,000, No one would really know what portion is where, would they?

Could I offer an alternative, perhaps? Sure. On our transparency page, could we link to govsalaries.com on our transparency page? Because you can pull it up by name. I'm looking at it right now.

Yeah, so it doesn't include the retirement packages that we're matching.

It says include where available salary, bonus, benefits, retirement contributions, pension, and other financials.

And that's fine. I mean, to your point about That's an easy short-term link we can throw on our transparency page now while the details of this nuance get worked out on something else.

I think that's the point we're trying to say. All you want to do is go 12 months and update it every 12 months, right? You're going back past 12 months, here's the data, and once a year you update it.

Member Fernandez, you were reaching earlier. Did you want to? No. You're good. Okay. Mayor's back, so I'll hand it back to you. Thank you.

I don't believe there's any further discussion. I'm looking both ways. All right. So moving on to, and I think if I heard correctly, there's clear direction understood? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. And then moving on to City Council discussion regarding adding language to engineering contracts pertaining to foreign performance. And, Member Barham, you said there's a speaker, so if the speaker would kindly go to the... Do you want Member Patel to explain it? Sure. Member Patel?

Thank you, Mayor. Do you want the speaker to speak?

No, I was going to have him go there, but you can clarify first.

Mr. Jackson, if you would state your name one more time. Thank you for hanging out with us. This is my last one, I promise. For five hours.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, there are no further comments. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mayor. So let me address the question that was on the podium. The reason we did this, if you look at our breakdown of cost when we get the bids, you will see significant amount of money being paid to engineers, right? And that's an assumption, that's the U.S. rate. Now, they're taking a lot of this work and shipping it out. And I can tell you in my business, and I talked to one of my council members in his business in construction, a lot of this is happening, right? So they're charging the American government or American taxpayers, and they're charging them the full American rate, y

So I'll just want to add, is it concern outsourcing, or is it concern overall budgeted cost?

I think it's both, Mayor. I think if I'm going to pay the rates, then it needs to be fair. If they're going to claim that the work is done here, all we're saying, and they're charging the rate based on the work being done here, then we should be compensating, or we should know that, right? And if it's going to be shipped out, then we should be not overcompensating for those projects, and that savings should come back to our taxpayers. That's the main reason I did it.

No, and that's why I wanted to make it clear. I mean, I've worked in various industries, and outsourcing is part of what you do, whether it be software as a solution, offshoring, whether it be manufacturing. It really just depends on what the end goal is. And if our end goal is to get things at... the lowest cost or quality value. I think all of that should be determined within the mechanism for procurement. And that's really how we should go about it. So if the contract goes out, engineering contract goes out, and it's up front that we're okay with outsourcing, to your point, as long as we ma

Point taken, I think it just reaffirmed the point that I was making was that it's a procurement process based on the requirements. If it's a water facility, those stringents, the requirements would be within those requests. If it were in data, it would be in those requests to make sure that we're safe. But I think it goes back to how we are procuring the services and products that we need, right?

Yeah, just real quick. So, I would agree with, you know, City Manager Trent. If there is some kind of affidavit that is attached to the contracts, I think that'll be at least a good starting point, and then we can go from there. Thank you.

Any other comments? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to say that I agree with everywhere we can utilizing taxpayer dollars within our country, even within our community. We talked about that with buying vehicles and things of that nature. How can we use the taxpayer dollars from the City of Pearland for the benefit of the City of Pearland? That's why I supported putting this on the agenda, but I did want to make the point, and you guys can correct me if I say this wrong, we don't have any indication that the engineering firms that we have used are offshoring anything, It is something that's happe

I'm good with the affidavit approach. I think you have a consensus.

I'm good with the affidavit approach. All right. Seeing no other items on the agenda, I will adjourn this meeting at 11.36 p.m.