City Council - Regular Meeting

Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity to gather today in service to the residents of Shirts. Grant us wisdom as we consider the decisions before us, courage to do what is right, and humility to listen with open hearts and minds. Help us to work together with respect, integrity, and a shared commitment to the well-being of our community. May our discussions be thoughtful, our actions be guided by compassion and fairness, and our service... States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

Thank you for the prayer, Councilmember Dietz. Today we have five proclamations and we're gonna go ahead and start with Human Resource Professionals Day, September 26th, 2026.

Okay, National HR Professional Day, September 26, 2026. Human Resource Professional Day is celebrated every 26th of September and is designed to pay tribute to those working in human resources departments everywhere. Whereas, Governor General Sir Patrick Allen first referred Human Resources Professional Day back in October of 2013. He created this day to recognize and celebrate human resource professionals who play an integral role in ensuring the success of organizations by nurturing and developing human capital. Whereas, in the City of Shirts, the Human Resources Department consists of a dir

Our next proclamation is going to be national manufacturing today, October 2nd, 2026.

All right. National manufacturing month, October, 2026 manufacturing month is a celebration of modern manufacturing that aims to inspire the next generation of the of manufacturers and increase awareness of the importance of this industry. And whereas the city of Shirts is proud to support a diverse range of over 40 manufacturing businesses that create high quality jobs, invest in local infrastructure and contribute significantly to the economic wellbeing of our community. The manufacturing industry is a vital part of our local, state and national economy, driving innovation, productivity and

Our next proclamation is going to be Fire Prevention Week, October 4th through the 10th, 2026.

Chief Boney, who else is coming with you? O-Team. Everybody come on up. How you doing, Chief? Pretty good, pretty good. Looking at the chief in back, God invented firefighters so that police officers would have somebody to look up to. So we're here for you, sir. You can see we're here for you. Maggie, escort me to my car tonight. Fire Prevention Week 2026 proclamation. Whereas the city of Shorts is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting The city of Church, Texas, and whereas fire remains a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and

Our next proclamation is going to be National Community Planning Month, October 2026.

Okay. Community planning month, October 2026. Whereas change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbs, counties, boroughs, townships, rural areas, and other places. And whereas planners can help navigate this change with data-driven insights and expertise that provide better choices for how people work and live. Whereas community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community, and whereas the full benefits of planning requires public elected and appointed officials who understand, support,

Okay, the last proclamation we have is Code Enforcement Officers and Sanitarians Appreciation Month, October 2026. Whereas code enforcement officers and sanitarians provided for safety and welfare of the citizens throughout the community through the enforcement of local codes and ordinances on a variety of issues, including building, zoning, housing, environmental health, and life safety, And whereas code enforcement officers and sanitarians often have a challenging and demanding role and often do not receive recognition for the job they do and improving living and working conditions for resid

okay moving on to city events and announcements announcements of upcoming city events We have Mr. Brian James.

Thank you for that. Next, we'll have announcements and recognition by the city manager, Steve Williams.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that. It's always good to see our people getting promoted like that, especially when they're internal promotions. I have no announcements of recognition, so we'll move on to the hearing of residents. This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the city council. Each person should fill out the speaker's register prior to the meeting. Presentation should be limited to no more than three minutes. All remarks should be addressed to the council as a body and not to any individual member thereof. All handouts and or USB devices must be submitted to t

Thank you. Next up, we have Jordan Barnes.

Thank you. Next, we have Kristen Potick. I hope I...

Thank you. Next up, we have Mrs. Allison Hayward.

All right, thank you. Next up, we have John Frias.

Thank you. That's going to go ahead and hearing of the residents. Moving on to consent agenda items. The consent agenda items one through nine is considered self-explanatory and will be enacted by the council with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are removed from the consent agenda upon the request of the mayor or a council member. At this time, do I have any council members wanting to remove any items from the consent agenda? Having none, can I get a motion to approve consent agenda items one through nine? Make a motion, Mayor.

Okay, there's a motion made by Councilmember Westbrook, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Watson. Can I get everybody to cast the votes? May I get the votes published, please? Having seven yays, no nays, motion passes. Moving on to discussion and action items. Resolution 26-R-100, acceptance of fiscal year 27 MVCPA grant award. We have Assistant Police Chief, Mr. Phillip Waller.

We have Council Member Ben Guerrero. Yeah, a couple questions, Chief.

Just to confirm, you stated that there's 42 total cameras in our city? Okay, 41. And these cameras, what they're basically doing is searching for the stolen tags. Is that correct?

So it's not reading every single tag that it sees. It's basically just searching for the hot list that you guys have.

Yeah, it reads them, but that's not what it's looking for, right? It's only looking for the hot list is what I'm saying.

Okay, but you're only picking up, of course, the hot list. Those are the ones you want.

Does accepting the award prevent any difficulties or struggles if we were to review the program or look at ways to modify the program at all?

Yeah, to accept the award. Does that restrict us from being able to make any kind of changes to the program at all in the future?

Thank you so much for the slideshow. I think this is a huge controversial topic. I see daily Facebook posts, social media. I've been getting emails, hearing from residents. And I think our public is really concerned about this. Would there be a way to possibly table this and maybe put this out to the public to kind of see what their input is on this? I just feel like some of this information that you shared would be good to share with the public, be a little more transparent, and just let some of them, the public, the community we serve, have some opinion on this because I think it needs to be

So would it be possible to table until after those town halls?

Well, a lot of it depends if this is time sensitive. on this grant award, on whether we're gonna be able to table it or not, because you can lose that grant. However, we can always go back and modify things after we have the town hall meetings that will be scheduled.

If we can go ahead and let our city manager, Steve Williams, comment on this item as well.

I wanted to, since it is in regards to the grant award, I wanted to motion that we approve Resolution 26R100.

Okay, I also have Councilmember Sheridan that would like to comment.

Just real quick, again, I agree with Councilmember Dietz. I've been getting a lot of emails on this as well. I guess with the grant, so if later on down the line we decide to disengage the FLOC program, the grant money can be used for other items that we have in your toolbox.

Yeah, I'm assuming with the freeze, you know, conversations probably has just ceased from the state level. At this point. I'm assuming, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So, okay. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you.

Okay. Now, is us accepting this grant, is it for the DFR program or is it for both?

Okay, and then we have Council Member Westbrook.

So a motion was made, so maybe we should either first or second it before we further discuss it one way or the other. I guess in order to move it forward, I'll second it, and then we can have a discussion on it.

Okay, well we did have a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Watson. We got a second by Council Member Westbrook. Can I get everybody to cast their votes? Nope, we want to discuss it. I know we got Council Member McAloosa.

Yeah, and that was why I asked that question, just to make sure that there weren't any kind of limitations put on us. And if there's not, I don't see why we wouldn't accept the grant if it's not going to affect our ability to do anything different with the program in the future. So just as Mr. Williams said, I don't see why we would not accept the money.

Any other comments? Yes. Yes, Mayor. So if there is an opt out, as the city manager said, and what I don't want to do is not accept it because that drone first responder is state of the art. It does have the ability to keep our first responders safe because it gets their situation size up. We will know what we're getting into before we actually get to the scene. So not accepting a grant. would sort of erode our ability for the drone first responder program. And so for that reason alone, I'm sort of in favor of moving forward with it.

Any other discussions? Council Member Dietz?

So if we accepted it, we're not 100% sure that we can modify it and just use the money for the drone and not the Fox.

But then that would leave us for the drones. That would leave us the money for the drones.

I would think maybe the worst case scenario is we might have to give them some of the money back if we decide not to continue with the cameras. But I think that funding for the drone is important. It's not a continued surveillance kind of issue. So to me, it seems pretty clear that we should accept it.

I would agree with that. If there are no other discussions, can I get everybody to cast their votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Having seven yeas, no nays, motion passes.

Thank you. Moving on to item 11. DISCUSSION NATIONAL ITEM ON OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL RISK POLL BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION. AND WITH US, WE HAVE OUR CITY SECRETARY, SHEILA EDMONSON.

Okay, so... At this time, I guess we need a vote to see who we want to represent, is correct? And so for place one, I believe we have J.W. Buzz Fulling, former mayor of Henderson. Place two, we have Emily Crawford, city manager of Abilene, currently on the board. And for place three, there was a recommendation that we support Andy Joslin, city manager for the city of Beeville, region 11. And for place four, we have Austin Bleas, city manager of Jersey Village. Is everybody good with those selections? All right, if everybody's good with those selections, can I get everybody to cast a vote? Okay

Mayor, I make a motion to accept the slate as presented. Second.

Okay, I got a motion made by Councilmember Westbrook, seconded by Councilmember McAloosa. Can I get everybody to cast the votes, please? Can I get the votes published? Having seven yeas, no nays, motion passes. Thank you all for that. Okay, moving on to item 12. Ordinance 26-T-031, Authorizing an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget. With us, we have our Finance Director, Mr. James Walters.

This time I'll open it up for discussion. We have Council Member McAloosa.

Question for the personnel. You had sent out a message kind of giving us an idea of what vacancy rates you use to kind of anticipate when you're considering the total expenses of the personnel. Is that accurate? So how accurate has that been in the last five years? I mean, is it something that you're constantly reviewing and considering, or is it something that was in place 10 years ago and still being used today?

Well, I just, I only ask because, you know, these amounts of money end up coming up in our budget discussions. And so if we're either overestimating vacancy rate or underestimating it, it could affect us. Yes, sir.

Yeah, this is just a finance budget related question here. I mean, why would we focus, why would we factor in anticipated vacancies? If we have a staff directory that says the city has X number of staff, why would we not just budget for that X number? And if there's no vacancies, then that's what our budget is, we're paying that anticipated amount. And if there are vacancies, then that would just mean that there's excess now left in that department that would roll up into a budget excess at the end of the year, versus we're factoring in, oh, we think there's going to be a vacancy, And then her

That's a good explanation, but to me personally, I would feel better... at the end of the year, having a discussion that we did not use all of our personnel funds. And because when we have our budget discussions, we look at what all the departments need and we look at a cut line and we see what's below the cut line. So I know there's things out there that the departments would have liked to have gotten, but during the budget discussion, they were below the line. I would rather come into this last month or two of the year saying, hey, we did not use all of our personnel funds. We can reallocate

As far as the budget moving funds to cover everything, what departments are being affected when you're moving these funds?

Thank you. Any other discussion? Having none, can I entertain a motion?

Second. Okay, I got a motion to approve by Councilmember McAluso, seconded by Councilmember Dietz. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Having seven yays, no nays, motion passes. Thank you. All right, now we're gonna move on to some public hearing items. We have item 13, ordinance 26-T026, conduct a public hearing and operating in capital budget for the fiscal year 2026, 2027 annual budget. With us we have our finance director, Mr. James Walters.

Thank you. At this time, I'll go ahead and open it up to the residents and public to speak at 728.

Yeah, but that's... Can we have that one slide put back up?

Thank you, and I think, if I'm not mistaken, the no new revenue rate, which is the 0.5296, if we approve that, will allow us to bring on those four officers. Without any increase. Because it makes it look like there's an increase, but there's really not. You'll be paying the same amount that you paid last year, you'll be paying this year. Is that correct?

And the only reason it makes it look like there's an increase is because there was a decrease in our property values. And so in order for us to bring in the same amount of money, we would need to adopt a no new revenue rate. Do I have any other residents wishing to come up to speak?

We'll go ahead and close the hearing of residents at 7.33. This time I'll open it up for discussion amongst council members. Any discussion on the tax rate that we want to approve?

a little disappointed in the presentation because we had like specific discussion in our retreats and I don't feel like any of that was addressed. I think the majority of us wanted to at least look at what it was if it was kept at the current rate that wasn't given to us at all. And also, you know, had discussions on trying to lower the INS rate in the future. I didn't see anything involved with that either. And so I feel like I'm not getting the information that we had asked for. And I don't know if anybody else agrees with me on that. But and this this thought about if we don't fund the four

I don't think anybody wanted to get rid of the dispatchers. I think everybody was on board with bringing on the dispatchers, improving their pay, everything along with that. I think everybody... or at least the majority of us want to see, is there an opportunity somewhere else to save money? And that was not shown to us at all. It was just kind of completely ignored. So.

For the future. Yeah, I understood that, but that was kind of, and that's something that we would need to discuss now.

Actually, my question was going to be that. Where is the cuts? Because I remember we had discussed that. We wanted you guys to go ahead and figure out where we can cut. That was going to be my question. So if we do these cuts, we're able to keep the four dispatchers, four police officers? Yes.

But if we want the four police officers, then we do have to do these cuts?

I'm just going to add to, well, I agree with Councilman McAloosa. What are you guys going to do in the future to cut off the, how would you say, cut off what's not needed? That way we can lower the deficit.

So I'm looking at things like police and fire. What are you going to be cutting there?

Sorry to interrupt. I really am. But I think we can all read here. I think the question here, Mayor, I'm sorry, we can all read, but the question before the council right now is if the council wants the four additional police officers. And if we want the four additional police officers either through cuts or through the no new rate. That's where we're at right now because we all agreed on the 5175 that gets us the four dispatchers. So we're at the 4175. So what the council has to decide right now is if we want the four additional officers and if we're willing to go to the no new rate or if we'

I would not. Seeing all these cuts in the areas that they're going to be cutting, that's not good practice, not for us. I feel that we'll be losing employees by doing that. And then you're also looking at trying to cut services in the library and things like that, and that's not good. So, I mean, I personally do not feel, right now is not the time to try and make like budget cuts and trying to, lower the tax rate because the property values have already been lowered. And I feel that our residents, it'll be a win for them by just not even getting a tax increase at all. And we're able to get the

That's why last time I recommended that we gotta figure out a way to increase our revenue. I know that if Gracia holds all these tournaments, we can definitely bring in some money. we gotta find a way to increase our revenue. These are a lot of cuts, and I agree with what's being said here. But then again, I also agree with everybody else. We need to keep our city safe.

Mayor, if I could, I wanna go ahead and start the process. Go ahead. Oh, you have one more discussion? Okay, okay, go ahead.

Yeah. The state feels cities have bloated budgets. They're gonna continue to work at trying to lessen the revenue that cities have. And so our answer is, well, let's just continue to go back and increase the property taxes, increase the property tax. We're gonna do that every single year. That's the only way you're gonna do that is to increase the property tax unless your sales tax increases a lot. So I think it's bad practice for us to continue to jump the tax rate. I mean, at some point in time, our spending has to slow, and that doesn't mean giving up any safety. I don't think anyone up her

Well, it's my understanding, and the city manager can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Once you hit the age of 65, it doesn't matter what you increase to, everything's locked in.

Well, I'm not just talking about senior citizens. I'm talking about disabled individuals. I mean, there's a lot of people that are on fixed incomes. Single moms, I mean, if you've lived in that life before, you know how tight $50 a month is. So I think you have to give those people consideration as well.

I think initially when I requested the, I just wanted us to look at efficiencies to see what we have. Have we looked at, have we gone through the drill to look at areas that we can potentially reallocate, et cetera. So today, when I asked for the vacancy report, one of the things I see that we have 34 vacants. And then I look at some of the dates that they've been vacant, it appears that some departments have been operating SOUNDS LIKE SUFFICIENTLY, YOU KNOW, WITH THOSE VACANCIES. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVEN LOOKED AT THAT OR CONSIDERED THOSE

I mean, I see vacancies here back from April of 26.

Okay. So I think that's the part that I'm missing because I'm not seeing that, you know, apparently we've been contracting out using that salary to support not having what we don't have internally.

Yeah, because the only thing I'm seeing is 34 bodies that you know, that looks like they haven't been filled in quite some time. And so to me, I'm like, well, did we look at that? Did we go through the drill and say, well, could we support bringing these officers in, reallocating, bring these officers in to support the current rate that we have now with, you know, with the, but now that I know that with the, that we're filling those gaps through contracts of some sort, to, you know, to... And also to have staff as well.

Yeah. And I agree with you because, you know, I actually spoke with an officer the other night, uh, who's on the night shift and, uh, You know, now that we're 100% manned, you know, and we got more officers in the evening shift or the night shift, he was so happy about that because it took a lot of toll on him, you know, just trying to provide that coverage. And now that we're 100% manned, he's got those additional officers that really opened. So that's the reason why I'm, you know, really... more of trying to find a way to bring these four additional officers because we have a lot of growth c

And again, the communication is, you know, I've been in there, and I know we really need those communication folks into that dispatcher room.

Okay, we also have Council Member Davis.

Yeah, I'm on the bubble on this. I mean, I can understand... some of the discussions that we have about our tax rate and maybe raising it. Mr. Mayor, I think you're a little bit incorrect. As I understand it, when you hit a certain age, your property value is frozen, but that doesn't mean you don't pay more in taxes. It means your property value is frozen, but if the city keeps on raising their tax rate, what you pay in taxes keeps on going up. So you may be 70 years old and your property may have been frozen for the past five years, but if we keep on raising, You're saying no?

But, you know, I think one of the, I have to agree with Councilman Macaluso. I think we have some hard discussions coming up. I think Mr. James did a great job in our budget process talking about the incredible wisdom that we have to deal with from the state of Texas. with the restrictions that they're putting on local municipalities. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but in 2022 and 2023, with the lost revenue to the city of Texas, or I mean to the city of Schurz on our appraised values because of a state policy, the state was kind enough to reimburse us 47 and 48% of that lost revenue. Las

Yes, and then I have Council Member Westbrook that would like to say something.

so just for clarity if we go with the proposed that means no cuts and it adds the four dispatchers but it is not the police officer right yes sir yes sir and the new revenue rate will add the four police officers so that's the decision between the two yes sir okay council member westbrook did you have a discussion on that

Right there. Too many buttons up here. No, Mayor, I sort of agree with... I think we had all found some consensus at 5175. I personally could sort of see it going to the no new revenue. I don't know if it's there one way or the other, depending on the motion that may or may not be made. But I'm pretty sure, Mayor, no matter what we do... We're not going to be able to get there through cuts. I don't think there's that appetite up here in council. So efficiencies, cuts, you decide, but you make all of those cuts. We'll be dealing with morale and other issues in the city of Schertz. The other por

I agree with council member Davis 100%, but I wanted to start the process after we've discussed a little bit more, obviously, and then go down. So I wanted to motion that we approve the no new revenue at 0.5296.

Have a no second. Second. Second, we have a second. So we have a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Watson, a second made by Council Member Davis. Can I get everybody to cast the votes? Can I get the votes published please? Having four yeas, three nays, motion passes. Can I have two thirds? No, not on that because...

Okay, discussion and action item on item 14, resolution 26-R-099, ratifying the property tax increase reflected in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2026, 2027. We have our finance director, Mr. Walters.

Any discussion on this item? Having none, can I entertain a motion?

So moved. Okay, you're making a motion to adopt tax rate.

I don't have it in front of me other than it was worded different.

I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE BUDGET BY 529.

BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT. I'VE ALREADY SAID YES THREE TIMES ALREADY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO SPECIFICALLY SAY SOMETHING.

SO MAYOR PROTEIN WATSON MADE THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

Okay, I have a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Watson, seconded by Council Member Westbrook. Can I get everybody to cast their votes? Wait, I need to discuss it.

Just read it. Can you just read it? Sure.

So the rate is the same. The rate is the no new NNR, no new rate.

And so even though the tax rate, okay, I think that's a question for the next one. I'm ready for this one. But no new rate, we have additional revenue, But theoretically, my taxes should not increase.

Okay. You can see how that can be confusing. Tax rates would increase, but... my property taxes aren't going up. The rate goes up, but maybe when I'm paying.

Exactly, I think that's the hurdle we're trying to get over.

So just for clarity, once we ratify the budget, then it will raise more total property taxes than last year. And then we'll move on to setting the tax rates. Is that correct? All right. So we do have a second by Council Member Westbrook. Can I get everybody to cast their votes? Can I get the votes published? Having six yeas, one nay, motion passes. All right, now you're talking about item 15, correct?

So before we do that, we'll move it on to a public hearing. And so item 15, ordinance 26-T-027, conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance approving the appraisal role, setting the tax rate, levying and assessing general and special ad valorem taxes for the use and support of the municipal government of the city of Church, Texas. We have our finance director, Mr. James Walters.

That's correct. So at this time, I'll go ahead and open it up for a public hearing at 825. Anybody wishing to come up to talk or discuss about tax rate? Going once, going twice. Having done, we'll close the public hearing at 825. Is there any other discussion items on setting the tax rate? Having done, may I entertain a motion?

I motion that we approve Resolution 26R099.

Setting the tax rate at 0.5296. That's to be the. Oh, so 115.

So I have a motion made by Council Member Watson. Do I have a second?

Okay, I have a second made by Council Member Davis. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Having four yeas, three nays, motion passes. Okay, moving on to ordinance 26-A-021, conduct a public hearing, consider a request for the voluntary annexation of approximately 10.7 acres of land located approximately 900 feet northwest of the intersection of FM 482 and Swab Road, more specifically known as Comel County, property identification number 56613, Comel County, Texas. With us, we have our senior planner, Daisy Marquez.

Okay, at this time, I'll go ahead and open it up to a public hearing at 827. Anybody wishing to come up to speak on the ordinance 26-A-021? Going once, going twice. Close the public hearing at 8.28. Any other discussion items on ordinance 26A-021? Having none, can I entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 26A-021. Second.

All right, I have a motion made by Councilmember Sheridan, seconded by Councilmember Davis. Can I get everyone to cast their votes? May I get the votes published, please? Having seven yeas, no nays, motion passes. All right, moving on to Ordinance 26-A-022. Conduct a public hearing and consider a request for the voluntary annexation of approximately 0.19 acres of land known as 12235 Aztec Way, more specifically known as portions of Bexar County, property identification number 308309, Bexar County, Texas. And with us, we still have our senior planner, Daisy Marquez.

Okay. This time I'll open it up to residents of the public to be able to speak at eight 30. Anybody want to come and speak on. on ordinance 26-A-022. Going once, going twice. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 8.30 on ordinance 26-A-022. Any discussion by council? Having none, can I entertain a motion?

I motion that we approve ordinance 26A022. Second.

I have a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Watson, seconded by Council Member Sheridan. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Having seven yays, no nays, motion passes. All right, moving on to ordinance 26-S-023, conduct a public hearing, consider a request to rezone approximately 10.7 acres of land to public use district, also known as P-U-B. Northwest of F-482, Schwab Road, North Pacific County identification number 5613, Melville County, Texas.

Have anybody wanted to come up and speak on ordinance 26-S-023? Going once, going twice. Go ahead and close hearing of residents at 8.33. Is there any other discussions on this item? Haven't done. Can I get somebody to entertain a motion?

Okay, I have a motion made by Council Member Westbrook, seconded by Council Member Dietz. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? May I get the votes published? Having seven yays, no nays, motion passes. Moving on to item 19, ordinance 26-S-024. back to public consider a request to zone approximately 019 because of land use district also known as P.U.B. 1-2-3-5-A way to be known as a portion of Barrett property identification number 308309 Barrett County Texas Senior Planner Daisy Marquez

Okay, this time I'll open it up for residents and the public to be able to speak at 837. Anyone want to come up and speak on ordinance 26-S-024? Going once, going twice. We'll close residents to be heard at 837. Is there any council member who wanted to discuss item 19 further? Having none, can I entertain a motion?

I motion that we approve ordinance 26S024. Second.

Okay, I have a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Watson. Second motion made by Council Member Sheridan. Can I get everybody to cast your votes, please? May I get the votes published? Having seven yeas, no nays, motion passes. Moving on to Item 20, Ordinance 26-S-030, conduct a public hearing, consider a zone change request from General Business District GB to General Business District on approximately five acres of land, generally located approximately 1,555 feet east of the intersection of FM 2252 and I-35 North Access Road, more specifically known as a portion of Comelk County property, identific

Okay, at this time, I'll go ahead and open it up to residents and the public to be able to speak at 846. Yes.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to come up to speak? Going once, going twice. We'll go ahead and close residents and the public to speak at 8.47. Any discussions on item ordinance 26-S-030?

this were to get approved um that area now is a dirt area where they've been storing equipment without proper development correct can you so that area where they're that we're talking about that five acres is currently used for storage of equipment and it's it's not developed because there was never a permit pulled for correct correct sir and if this were to get approved they would have to pull the permits and and develop that so it's compliant, paved surface and all the other improvements?

yeah staff was accurate in terms of what their recommendation was i think we've been pretty consistent with trying to keep that uh in as gb because you know again we're not just looking at today we're looking at 10 15 20 years from now and uh we only have so that that gives us opportunity for good retail sales tax i think this is an unfortunate one because we do have a good business there that uh you know has been a fairly long time resident of the area. But I think when you consider all the options that GB2 allows, I just, to me, wouldn't be able to support that. So I support the recommendati

Okay. Any other discussion? Can I get anyone to entertain a motion?

I'll make a recommendation of denial, or I'll make a motion.

You'll make a motion? Of denial. Of denial? Second. Okay, so I have a motion made by Councilmember McAloosa for denial. I have a second motion by Mayor Pro Tem Watson. Can I get everybody to cast your vote? Okay, so the yes vote means you're denying it, correct? All right.

All right, so we have six votes to deny the permit and one vote to approve the permit. So, Ordinance 26-S030 will be denied. Will be not approved. Okay, moving on to workshop. All right, we're gonna go ahead and move on to workshop on item 21. Workshop providing an update on unpaved surfaces. We have our senior planner, Daisy Marquez.

mayor pro tim watson i wish this was kind of presented um a couple months back on all the the problems with all the businesses because for me we're citing them constantly sending them letters and then they start being compliant and then we halt all business and the management and the maintenance on everything, then they have to go through the process and delay it more. So I'm definitely for it because I wish we would have had this sooner and maybe a little bit more forthcoming in deciding that they have to have these options. It has to be said somewhere because at no time did I even read it or

Yeah, I was going to say that just the whole time you were doing the presentation, I was thinking of how can we help them? How can we make it easier for them? So I was glad that you did have that as part of the recommendation. I think anywhere and everywhere we can find a way to make it easier, less expensive to help them. I think that we should look at that, at least from my side.

I think this is a great path forward and I'm all for it. I just wanna make sure that we are communicating for the example that you gave, you have a property that is out of compliance and they need 2,000 square feet of concrete or asphalt. I wanna make sure that they understand and it's documented that by them fixing that 2,000 square feet of concrete or asphalt, doesn't give them an opportunity to say, oh, we're gonna park on the next 2,000 feet and we can skip and speed through the whole process to add the second 2,000 square feet. As long as we have something that's communicated to them and

Council Member Westbrook. Yes, Mayor, so Over a period of time over the last three years, every now and then we hear the city of Church is difficult to work with. I think this is our opportunity, city council's opportunity to sort of decrease that sort of criticism and sort of provide you an opportunity to provide some more customer service to those 70. So I'm in support of it.

I kind of concur with everything that's been said by council because I too have been approached by a lot of the businesses and some of them are mom and pops and they simply cannot afford to make these changes that we're requiring them to make and then the length of time that it takes for them to be able to make it as well. But I do think because those businesses have been established, I would be in support of that. But I also think that we should give them notification that any improvements that they make, they would have to comply, you know, so that way they have that understanding up front t

Council Member Guerrero. Yeah, and Daisy, I just want to say, yeah, I do support the program. Anything that we can do to better shirts, to better the residents, I'm for it.

Yeah, at the end of the day, these residents, they're providing jobs for people that live in our community, and they're also providing sales tax, which benefits our city greatly. So I'm in support of it.

Thank you. Item 22 on our workshop, workshop of the quarterly financials, third quarter, 2025, 2026. We have finance director, Mr. Walters.

Any questions on the third quarter of quarterly financials?

Mayor, so just to be clear, all of your actions concerning these financials are governed by a policy that's already in place, and there's a committee, right? There's an investment committee?

Thank you. Have we no other questions? Thank you. Excuse me. We just had one more question.

The committee, how many times do they meet?

Thank you. So moving on to item 23, workshop on future water demand and supply. With us, we have our deputy city manager, Mr. Brian Jaynes.

Okay. Well, so with that, just for clarity, would SSLGVC, the Schertz-Sagin Local Government Corporation, would they be able back like in 2070, like 2070, 2080, would they be able to like reach out into Wilson County to do like do more wells if we needed more water?

Yeah, so I don't, I'm not saying let's set on the CCVLGC lease rights or anything like that. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm asking is, is the Scherzegin, yeah, local government corporation, are they able to expand to drill more wells as we need more water?

Yeah, and thank you for explaining that. So we have Council Member Sheridan.

All right. I ain't going to say I told you so, but I'm going to say I told you so. We needed the water. Again, just my comment is that I'm not a fan of selling the water, period. Selling the water leases, personally, I would not approve them if it were me. Secondly, have we talked to Cibolo? Have we discussed some of our plans? Because I know they're actively working a plan on their side. So I don't know if we've engaged with them or we working in cohes with them. And I think that might be the first step to do is get with them and say, hey, because I think they have some solutions that I think

EXACTLY. AND THE OTHER PIECE TOO, AND I'LL SHUT UP, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, maybe we need to consider, do we want to put all our eggs in one basket? I know with SSLGC, again, the reason why maybe this model, I don't know how old this model is, if it's a recent model, but again, there's going to be more water demands over there at SSLGC with the data center that's going to come over there with Guadalupe? Cibolo's putting up a data center, apparently, or the one that's in question or the one that's being talked about. So I'm not sure, but I know there's talks with it, right?

Well, I know, but what I'm saying is that I'm sure that's probably going to affect, with the water that's over there in Guadalupe County, that may affect SLGC because I'm assuming some of that water is probably going to be that supports Seguin, because that data center is in Guadalupe County, it's going to be near Seguin, right? In the border of that? So the water that Cibolo gets, they get it from a variety of sources. I'm talking about SLGC.

So what I'm trying to point out is that there's going to be a higher demand here within the next 10 years for that. So I'm just saying, and I'll shut up, is that we would put all our eggs in one basket. And I'll leave it at that.

And I know one of the options was, you know, is basically pulling the water out of the ground, not putting a, you know, a, you know, a, treatment facility was basically pulling the water out of the ground. I know that's what one of the recommendations were, you know, once they get the water out of the ground and send it to a treatment center, then, you know, I know that was part of the company. Which one? It says CCLGC. CVLGC.

Right. And I think if we share that cost, you know, the burden wouldn't be on us for so much. So, you know, if we find partners that we can share that cost with, then it might be in our best, you know, advantage for us.

We would make some control and where we can, you know, if we need more water, we can get more water. We have a baseline. If we need to put more water, we can do that. So, you know, we need to have that flexibility.

I'm assuming there's going to be a workshop between the parties. And I would like to see options. I want to see multiple options of what direction that we can take, not just one option. I want to see multiple options. That's just my thought. Thank you.

Yeah, and I'm not going to say the problem. It's more like the challenge is with the current rights, lease rights, we have to do something with them like now. So that's the problem. We cannot sit on it and wait until later until we need it. We need to move forward with doing something now. So that's the challenge.

And we sat on it too long, you know? And now we need to do something now. Now we've come to a point where we gotta do something now.

So yeah, but fair point. And the longer that we wait, the higher the cost is going to be. So if we're going to do something, we need to do it now.

I have a question to backtrack on the comment of the complexity and not being brought to our attention. Is that just we're not able to understand it and then we're never going to be given that information? Or I'm just trying to understand your comments. No, no, no.

I have Council Member Davis that's been waiting to speak. No, I'm fine.

No, I understand the logic of not. going with two entities and not having two sets of overhead. The leases that are jointly owned or that are owned by CVLGC, us and Cibolo, are located where? Wilson County. And does SSLGC currently pump any water from Wilson County?

So it's reasonable to drag it up there. So we could, in theory, if we're looking at increasing or securing our water rights, we could take our portion from Wilson County and transfer, sell it, whatever, to SSLGC and ultimately develop those wells and send it to one of the SSLGC treatment facilities and into that existing pipeline that we've got.

I mean, so again, I agree. We need to make sure we're secure on water rights, but if we're looking at that current table of what we already have, and it takes us out to 2070 or so, and On top of that, you've got the potential for what's existing in CVLGC. We've got approximately 5,000 acre feet, and we say that we'd be comfortable with 1,000 or 2,000. To me, we could potentially sell our portion of rights for 3,000 acre feet, and that would help fund the... costs that we would need to take our 2,000 acre feet that we retain and get it pumped into the SSLGC environment.

And they do that now. I mean, SSLGC is selling excess water to San Antonio and a few other locations, so.

But on the same token, if an agreement is reached for our portion with Green Valley SUD, Green Valley SUD is providing some water to the southern part of Schertz.

But we wouldn't have the overhead associated with Green Valley. Versus having a separate overhead to administer CVLGC like we do with SSLGC.

I mean, to me, if we don't need the full 5,000 acre feet, give or take, plus or minus, whatever it is, I mean, to me, the more logical sense is not have the secondary overhead and partner with those rights with someone we're already connected with that's providing a service, whether that's Green Valley or SSLDC.

Right. And I believe there's a third option coming down the road, but I'm not going to discuss that because that's at the very top of the surface right now. So I don't want to get any rumors started. But two of the options, though, does not put us at risk. I feel like one of the options that's currently on the table does somewhat still put us at risk because it we need to create a pfs you know because they need to go for bonds which and so we'll be representing them to be able to do that and so if all that falls through and i feel like that's a risk that we take you know on our credit rating s

Mr. James, I think if you do give us different options, that way we can make a better decision on which way we're gonna go.

Whatever deal, all of them, yeah, to me.

I don't know what everyone else is thinking, but the water leases, excuse me, the water leases.

For me, I think if we can maintain 100% of the water right leases that we currently have.

I'm not locked into I have a lease and I have to maintain that lease. Right. I'm focused on we have a right now a source a potential source for an amount of water if i can get that same amount of water from a different agreement from a different lease from something else it doesn't matter if i'm getting it from this lease or this understood i'm worried about the amount of water that's where that's from okay so i mean if there's some kind of an agreement that we can have where where we're getting Like I said, under these leases now with CVLGC, we have the potential for around plus or minus 5,00

Yeah, for me, it's exactly that. It's just for us to be able to, like, at least have rights to some of that water. So that way we can cover, you know, our needs. You know, as we continue to go down the road. Because regardless, I understand we have those lease rights. But, I mean, really the pie's cut in half with us in Cibola right now. And so we'll never have it all. So for me, as long as we're able to negotiate with someone to give us some water when we need it, I'm good with that.

Okay. For me, it's like this. I would prefer to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

And just to add on, you know, again, it's for our future needs, right? I recall earlier this year that we were talking about that, hey, we got more than plenty of water. That's what the comment was made to me earlier this year. We have plenty of water. You know, we were thinking about selling the water rights. Now, today, we're gonna run out of water, or we're projected to, in 2060 or whatever. 2070. 2070, that we're gonna need water. So to me, keep the water, maybe. But with all these different infrastructures coming in and the growth are coming in.

So if the partnership is maybe, hypothetically, if it would be just SSLGC, or would it still maybe be Green Valley?

All right, there are no further discussions on this item. We'll go ahead and go into closed session on item 24. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551-087, deliberation regarding economic development negotiations to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect. Item one, I mean, number one being last piece, shirts operations. Number two being Project Holly. We'll be going into closed session at 10-11. One last just in case. Okay, we're going to go ahead and come out of closed session, reconvene at 1025 p.m. Mo

I want to make a motion that we cover the last piece shirts operations, Delta, whatever that may be a hundred. Do I need to say the whole dollar amount?

I believe it's approved in Resolution 26-R-103. We should be able to cover, if you want to make that motion.

Yes, I want to make that motion to cover that cost.

All right, have a motion made by Councilmember Sheridan, second by Councilmember Davis. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Having seven yays, no nays, motion passes. Moving on to item 25B, resolution 26-R-105. And that's gonna be authorized, a resolution by the City Council of the City of Church, Texas authorizing an expenditure as reflected in an economic development performance agreement between the City of Church Economic Development Corporation and Hollingsworth Logistics Group LLC and other matters in connection therewith. There are no other dis

Okay, I have a motion made by Councilman Guerrero to approve Resolution 26-R-105. And I have a second by Mayor Pro Tem Watson. Can I get everybody to cast your votes? Can I get the votes published, please? Okay, having seven yeas, no nays, motion passes. Items 26 and 27 is included in your packet. No discussion to occur. We'll move on to requests and announcements. Requests by mayor and council members for updates or information from staff. Do we have any? Have none. We'll move on to request by mayor and council members that items or presentations be placed on any future city council agendas.

ATTENDED THE KANGJON MUSU EVENT, RIBBON CUTTING, ATTENDED THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING, ATTENDED THE RGE RIBBON CUTTING, AND THE 9-11 CEREMONY AT CLEMONS HIGH SCHOOL.

ATTENDED THE SHURTS HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING, NORTHEAST PARTNERSHIP, THE CLEMONS 9-11 COMMEMORATION, AND THE CHAMBER LUNCHEON TODAY.

the NEP lunch last week and the chamber luncheon today.

Attended the NEP luncheon, the chamber luncheon, and attended the 9-11 commemoration morning event. And again, I want to say thank you to the city council for a great job today. It was a long night. To the city, city staff, continue to do an outstanding job. Again, thank y'all for all what you do and appreciate you. To our first responders, thank y'all.

And again, much appreciation to our city staff and the city council for tonight's meeting. And other than that, I have nothing to report. This will end our city council meeting at 1030.