City Council - Regular Meeting

We have a corn present. Okay. And we've got several others that, um, they're in the building. They'll be here shortly. So we will begin with our invocation is the pastor here. I don't see him. Okay, then we will move on to the pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas. It is now time for our citizen comment. City Council will hear citizen comments at regular meetings, work sessions, and workshops. There is a sign-up process. For those of you, if you are Nobody is, okay. Speakers may speak once during the citizen comment time period, may not yield time to others. If you speak now abo

And that concludes our citizen comment time period. So now we are to the consent agenda. And items 113 can be acted on by one motion. However, council members can pull items. I'm pulling item four. Staff, do we need to do anything with item 11, Elise? 11. We're good with that? Okay. Council, do you all have anything you wish to pull?

Okay, so we're pulling four, six, seven, and eight. I would entertain a motion for the rest of them. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Paselk. And we're push button voting, yay. And what we're gonna do is folks who are in the chambers will be voting. Those will be locked in. And then Ms. Garza can give votes Did you push the wrong? Oh, you voted on the wrong one. Oops.

Thank you, John. Are you going to reset us, Ms. Torino? Yes. People do take screenshots of these. You're welcome.

And I'm going to be your guest, so. Two, three, and four.

I'm going to go on two, three, and five.

Yes. Okay. Yeah, four is pulled, so you'll have to do it again.

Not now. Which one? Sorry, four got pulled in. Which ones? Yes, ma'am.

Four and six and seven and eight. Stormwater fees and the three related to transit were pulled.

Okay, so then I'm a no on two and three. Everything else is fine.

Are we recording you as a no on some of them, Ms. Garza? I didn't quite hear what you said.

Oh, sorry, Mayor. Let me adjust the settings here. I said, can you hear me better now?

Yeah, because we pulled four. Yeah, sorry.

And Mr. Scott's no on four. We pulled four, so... Okay, so as our usual practice, we have those set aside, they are not yet approved, and we will go to our public hearing item, first one, item 14.

Okay, I will open the public hearing and ask is there anyone who wishes to speak for, against, or about this particular item? Going once, twice, three times, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I AWAIT A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE IT. YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE. PND'S RECOMMENDATION.

MAKE A MOTION TO CONCUR WITH PND'S RECOMMENDATION. BUT THEY SAID THERE'S TWO OF THEM. OLD JOHNSON. THEY PICKED OLD JOHNSON.

Okay. When I was watching the meeting, I thought they had said, oh, we'll let council decide. They finally got to Old Johnson? Yes, ma'am. They did. Okay. So I have a motion. I'll call it for Mr. Mendoza and seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. And... and that is for Old Johnson Farm Road. Any questions, concerns, thoughts? If not, we'll vote, Mr. Vigneault.

To comply with the law, I need to read the following text at this point in time. This is an announcement. State law requires that the city hold a public hearing on the city's budget. City Council considered the budget during several work sessions and council meetings starting in February of 2026. This is the second public hearing on the city's proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 annual budget, which begins on October 1 of 2026 and extends through September 30th of 2027. The first public hearing on the budget was held on September 1st, 2026. The proposed budget has been on file in the city clerk's o

Okay. Mr. Geary, can I make a couple of statements now before we open the public hearing on this topic? Okay. I just want to make note and ask a question because I pulled these stormwater rates from the consent agenda because I want to talk about them and we might change them, so What's going to happen if we finish this budget and it gets approved and then we change those rates? Are we going to need to come back to this? Yeah, that's my question.

Well, that's why I'm wondering, I'll go ahead and do the public hearing is if maybe we ought to, as we have a time or two, but this aside, Go deal with this. And then, well, we'd actually be tabling it till later in the meeting.

OK, we may end up doing that. OK. I'm going to go ahead and do the public hearing then. I will open the public hearing. We are on item 15, the budget. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for, against, or about the proposed budget? Anybody? Anybody in the lobby? Going once. Twice. Three times. I will close the public hearing on the budget and I await a motion. Mr. Scott, say that loudly into your microphone, please.

I have a motion from Mr. Scott and seconded from Mr. Mendoza. Um, I want to make a note that on the first reading, uh, those that were looking at is, uh, we call it the RF it's agenda review form. It's like the executive summary. That's at the beginning. Uh, you saw the budget was 406,000 three zeros and then $496. It is now 406,506, I'm sorry, 406,561,553. The increase, as was noted earlier, was in the stormwater revenues that we changed at the last meeting. So I believe the budget now includes that number. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So... Council, discussion on this. I am going to move to table so we

Okay. So, Mr. Geary, that means I can move on to item 16. All right. Thank you. Very much. And hold on a second. I got to say something even before you read that. All right. The next item, item 16, is not a public hearing, but we must complete item 16 before we can proceed to item 17 for which there is a public hearing.

Okay, and to comply with the law. I need to read the following text, which is what I just said. But this is the formal one. Although item 16 is not a public hearing, we're taking it up now before the tax rate item number 17 is required by state law. State law requires a separate action to ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget when more revenue will be raised from property taxes than in the previous fiscal year. This item is not a public hearing. Presentation on item 16. Is that correct, or do we need to?

So this has been read, but I don't have a motion or a second yet cause we haven't had a presentation or I've opened the public hearing. So we're just going to set this aside totally. and then we can come back to it. We'll just start over with 16?

I think that is excellent, but I was kind of afraid to ask about that.

No, I figured it would be easier. So in that case, we will go to item four, Ms. Trevino.

Motion to approve. We have a motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Peselk for approval as is. Could we go back to the page that shows the stormwater rate increases? I'm making some presumptions here in that originally the recommendation was not to have an increase. So y'all didn't prepare a sheet of what the impacts and things would be right away. And so we said we were good with it. But when we said we were good with the 5.8, we only saw residential and the impact of residential, which is more of a flat rate. We did ask about business. We now have that. Y'all, when I looked at this, I went

Yes, ma'am. For the sake of the conversation, could we pull up that?

I asked for that, and I thought maybe you're right, absolutely. I asked if we could get that, and yeah, looks like they were trying to get there. Thank you. But you're absolutely right. Everybody needs to be looking at this. So what do y'all think? I can't do this. That's not an annual increase. That's a monthly increase.

So I know mayor, we've typically stuck to the 3% every three years. Correct. Am I correct on that?

For the incremental increase or user fees and stuff. Right. Oh, activity center. That that we're going to talk about here a little bit.

So I saw your question on the message board, uh, as it related to cap a potential cap. And then I saw, obviously given it's based on impervious cover and that a cap may not necessarily be feasible. If you're interested though in entertaining perhaps I mean, while ideally I would be totally okay with a 5.8 given the capital investment that's necessary for some of these massive projects that are very critical, I can hear how given all of the other increases that we've made in terms of rates, this could be a sticker shock for some of these businesses. Are you interested in perhaps a potential one

Absolutely. And mine was to get this on the table so that we could even discuss it. So we're thinking alike on that one. But I'm looking at San Marcos High School. An increase monthly of $647.49. I can't do that. I could do some, but not that.

Just keep your microphone on, please. Yeah, it's the third from the bottom.

Well, I need to find out legally if it's a percent, does it have to be a percent? Can we put a cap? Can we say businesses are a different percent from residential? I don't know what we can do, and that was my question. There may not be much option.

Yeah, and what's missing from this, but I made my own spreadsheet and inserted the column. was what the current fee is. You said it, but it wasn't up here. For example, for premium outlets, they've got a lot of almost 3 million square feet of impervious cover. So their bill right now, correct me if I'm wrong, is $16,547.64 a month that they're paying. So this 5.8% increase is how you get that 959 77. That's not their fee. That's the increase. So that's bringing them from 16,005 to, um, you know, 17,000 something.

So, Mayor, I know on a couple slides prior to this one, there was the rate adjustment scenarios that provided scenario one, I believe, was the 0% of what we're at, the 1%, 1.9, and 3.8. I know we have one, 1.9, 5.8.

You're right, because it gave us how much that would generate that we could do the payment and the size of the project.

Right. And I was particularly interested, you know, if, if council's not amenable to a 5.8%, I'm seeing on the previous slide, uh, the 3.8% would generate an additional $368,000 in revenue, revenue compared to the 561,000 under the 5.8%. Um, mayor, are you more amenable to a 3.8 versus a 5.8? Like, are you trying to find somewhere in the middle? Just trying to see what, you know, where the interest lies?

Yeah, for the residential where it was, you know, less than a dollar. But if it all has to be the same percent per the ERU? Yes. Equivalent residential unit. Yes. I think I'm going to have to go lower myself because I just, I can't do... the other sheet. So let me pull up my spreadsheet. Does this say how much, see this doesn't tell us, this one doesn't tell us what the total is, but it does tell us that for option three, which is 1.9%, it would generate $10 million, and up to five, the 5.8, 24 million.

Yeah, that's fine. I'm looking for this. I'm trying to open my spreadsheet. So for y'all, you'll notice that the 1.9, that would increase premium $300 versus $950. For the high school, it would be $200 instead of 647. Folks, I'm going to make a motion that we change.

I just had a clarifying question. I'm sorry. Ms. Garza, jump in. Yeah, so I just want to understand. Your concern is a percentage increase rather than, like, I think you said that the residential is, like, less than, like, a dollar amount or something. Right.

for the residential was going back to in your packet page, whatever this is. because the difference in the current rate for a typical residential, $14.90, 1% was $15.05, 1.9% was $15.18, and the 5.8% was $15.76. It was $0.86 a month. And, you know, that didn't look too bad. Right, but they're...

The increase, yes, it's 86 cents, but it's also 5.8%. But you have an issue with this increase being here because why? Like, I'm just trying to understand, like, the... I mean, because there's a big difference between like a business and an individual resident, so. John, let me go back to that last slide real quick.

That's true. If we could go back to the other slide. I'm looking at, and what you did, this sample here is great. This is fine. But I'm glad you showed the premium outlets to be an increase of almost $1,000 a month. And for the high school, it would be an increase of $647 a month. And that's just for the high school.

What was the ask of just getting rid of what for the whole ISD? So I'm just confused where this energy about caring about the high school's bail is coming from. Like, did they write into, like, to be like, or like, what's, like, where is that coming from?

No, it was just on the list, and it's just one of the ones that I noticed that I went, that would be, that's a hard one for me.

Yeah, and Mayor, you know, this one, as all of the other rates, like we talked about the last time, these are not easy discussions that we have. They're not easy decisions that we have. But, you know, to the point my colleague just made, but also... The critical nature of this infrastructure that this fund specifically funds is actually saving us money long term should we have a major flooding event. A major flooding event doesn't just cost a municipality considerably, it also costs businesses considerably should there be damage. And so in terms of potential return on investment or return on t

But remember, they didn't propose any increase, and I'm the one that said our community knows the importance of this.

Y'all don't remember the discussion we had about a year ago on this? They came in and asked for an exemption. We said no.

From my colleague that wasn't here, the discussion at that time, while I think we all can understand, given especially state legislative action, the financial strain that school districts are under, I think without understanding, though, at the same time, that when Texas State chose to pull out, THAT COST US. THAT COST US SIGNIFICANTLY. THEY WERE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS FUND. AND I WANT TO SAY, AND I KNOW SAVAS IS HERE, I THINK WE WERE PROVIDED AT THAT TIME WHERE THE DISTRICT LIED ON THE LIST OF TOP CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS FUND. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING A POTENTIALLY MASSIVE HOLE IN A CR

OK. So I'm just going to give this a try. If it fails, it fails. But I'm going to make a motion that we go with 3% instead of the 5.8. Recall that staff had not proposed any increase. So this is kind of half. So that's my motion. And I'm going to see if I get a second.

I have a question. Is it... I don't know how I'm wording this. Is it an amendment or is your motion... If this passes, is it set at three or is there another vote afterwards?

I guess I'm making a motion to change it to three, but then that's an amendment, then we would still have to pass the motion as amended.

What that would do is that would make for San Marcos High School, basically three is a little more than half of 5.8. So that would make it $334.91 instead of $647. So if there's any more discussion on this, if there's not, let's vote. Let's see where this goes, and then we'll get back on track with budget. But thank y'all for showing us the business so that we know, and at least if we have this, it's a conscious decision that has been made to go with this increase. So thank y'all.

I'm sorry. Can you repeat what it is that we're voting on again?

I think this is too big a hit at once. for these businesses. I wish we had been incrementally raising this one and we could maybe even be at 5.8 now, but we didn't. So I'm concerned about the big hit. It'll help residences a little, but I mean, this is not every...

business in town that we have so that's my motion if it fails as i tell people i have been out voted in public and on television oh no i was just i was just trying to understand i'm not feeling well sometimes i'm a little slower so it's not that the rate is disproportionate it's just that it's coming to too much at once is what you're saying yes ma'am gotcha gotcha gotcha is this one of those situations where the argument is like if the

Yes. Well, I still had questions in order for me to have an informed decision. I'm sorry. I didn't know if everybody else was already locked in.

We had that, and we'll vote again. Thank you. I didn't realize I had not let her ask her questions yet. That's on me. So we will vote, and then Ms. Garza will vote.

I never got my question answered about is that the question of smaller ratepayers subsidize the impact of larger properties, but okay I'm not sure that I heard the question completely to be able to answer.

I feel like every time that we're... Who is it paying for? Thank you, Josh. Exactly. We keep asking this question. If we don't do this, would smaller rate payers subsidize the impact or... whatever, and so I just wanted to, I'm trying to wrap my head around whether that's what Josh said right now is applicable here as well.

Remember, y'all didn't ask for an increase. Correct. We did.

Because they've got more impervious cover by the Many times over.

Okay. So, Ms. Garza, did we have your question pretty much answered?

You're voting on the 3% instead of 5.8%.

So then unless somebody else has a motion to amend or more discussion, we will vote on this as it was presented to us with the 5.8. Everybody ready for that? Yes.

I actually had more discussion, I guess. Okay. Yeah. So, does anyone remember what the ISD's percentage of the total was? No.

I'm shocked that we are. I don't know. I'm shocked as we are at this number. This number is also just for San Marcos High School. San Marcos has other campuses that are going to have similar increases.

Well, they don't have football stadiums.

Okay. All right. So now the motion on the table is the original motion with the 5.8%.

All righty, so now I believe Mr. Aguirre, the best thing to do, what we need to do is to go back to item 15. The budget? OK, so I am going to make a motion to remove that from the table and hope I get a second. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And we can vote on whether or not we want to discuss this or not, which we need to.

This is for the budget? MS. This is just removing the budget from the table. MS. Oh, I see. MS. Yeah, just to get it back on for discussion. MS. Ms. Garza? MS.

MS. OK. Is there anything else that anybody? Otherwise, we'll vote on the motion. I'm sorry, the budget as it was presented to us. Everybody ready to vote?

Awesome. So this is going back on the charts that we had asked about the neighborhood averages. So yeah, I just wanted to say thank you for that chart, which responded to part of my question about which neighborhoods have higher average usage. And that information was helpful. But I feel like it's important to name that it still doesn't capture the full concern that I was trying to raise, which is that families are experiencing the greatest impact and how significant that impact is for them. I'm not suggesting that the averages are inaccurate at all. I'm just saying that the statistical middle

Not seeing anyone else here ready to speak. We will vote on item 15, the budget without any amendments. This is the budget as is right. Yes.

Okay. So are we just going to pick up as if we were doing third 16 for the first time, Mr. Gary?

I think that's a great idea. So I'm going to say it twice. 16 is not a public hearing, but we have to complete 16 before we go to 17, which is a public hearing. Ms. Trevino.

To comply with the law, I need to read the following text. Although 16 is not a public hearing, We're taking it up now before the tax rate item, which is number 17, as required by state law. State law requires a separate action to ratify property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget when more revenue will be raised from property taxes than in the previous fiscal year. This is not a public hearing. So we will have a motion and a second and then the presentation. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Peselk.

Okay. And that's it. Okay. Any questions, concerns, comments? If not, we will vote.

Thanking you all. So now we will go back to the public hearing portion of our program, item 17.

Announcement. City Council approved the tax rate ordinance on first reading on September 1st of 2026. This agenda item is for the City Council to consider the tax rate ordinance on the second reading and actually adopt the 2026 ordinance. tax rate. First, our presentation.

Yes, but I gotta, I got to have a, the public hearing first. So yes, excellent idea. So I will now open the public hearing on item 17, setting the tax rate. Is there anyone who wishes to speak far against or about this item? Going once, twice, three times. Close the public hearing and I await a motion.

I move that the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of 65.15 cents, which is effectively a 2.5% increase On the tax rate. Is it in the tax rate or just grammar? Is the state set in?

Thank you. It just feels grammatically incorrect, but okay.

Yeah. Yeah, there's been a couple of those tonight, but we're just kind of going with it. So... Discussion. Yes. I've got Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Perseval seconded. I mean, I've said that out loud, but I wrote it down. Any discussion?

So I know this is going to be a hard ask, but as simply as possible, can you explain how taxable value went down? The average annual tax went down. yet revenue actually increased, and we're calling this a 2.5% increase in the tax rate. I get we're doing it because of the state, but mathematically, how did values go down, the amount of taxes that the average taxpayer is paying went down? Is it all new property, or is it property that left, like tours, or like, part of it was previously exempted in some way that is now actually going to the general fund?

I'm just talking about new stuff on the ground.

So it is 100% just new stuff on the ground?

So the median value was of homes, not of property in general? Correct, yes, sir. That was just a home. That makes more sense to me. Yes.

It was like 290-something thousand and then... Yeah, 296 and 307. That's it?

Yes. Yes. All right, cool. It was just like, the math wasn't mathing it. I was going to get stuck on it all night.

With this stuff, it never does. It just looks weird, but... Are y'all ready? Mr. Vino will set us up to vote. I'll hit it again.

Look at John's face. Getting out of his soul.

Thank you all. And on to, thank you to everyone who has worked on this budget in any way, which is probably pretty much everybody here. Everybody works at the city. I've said it before, I'll say it again. We know y'all are making some really tough decisions. And thank you very much. And a sacrifice. Yeah. 18.

Okay, I will open the public hearing. and ask if there is anyone who wishes to speak on item 18, which is the schedule of fees, far, against, or about. If you wonder why I ask about, in the past there have been people who said, I just said far against, and they said, I just want to talk about it. So I just say far against or about. And wait. Going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing and await a motion for approval. Motion to approve motion by Mr. Mendoza. I will second it, but I'll let you know now that there's amendments coming. So, um, council discussion, Mr. Scott, we,

Does that show in this, list my thought is it would be really great if rather than thinking somebody going oh they have missed that they have omitted it let's put it in that we show that line item but we show it to be zero with the explanation that council decision was that we're not charging homeowners permit fees.

So there's, there wouldn't be like we, I get that, but there's no notation here. at all on the list. I think we could put some text that doesn't even, you know, isn't a fee, doesn't have to go into my permit now or whatever, but on a published schedule of fees, let people know that this is what we do here, or what we don't do.

I would highly recommend that because there's new people coming into our community. I assume that they will get the information they need at the, you know, planning and development services. But we, we had another issue with somebody that was exempted from a fee And when something happened and the people over here, what we don't have any record of that. And, uh, I'll tell you the details about that one later, but if we had just recorded that, uh, it would have saved somebody a weekend, a heartache with their business.

And it's not a fee that we need to approve. It's just putting a notation out in the schedule of fees. So it can be done after today and we don't have to vote on it.

I know. I know that's near and dear to your heart, Mr. Scott, and that's fine. Okay, so... If y'all looked at the message board, y'all saw that Ms. Rodriguez had a number of questions. I did not repeat hers, but I'm going, good job. And then there were some things that I asked. And in several cases, I will not speak for Ms. Rodriguez, but the explanation of the fee, I was okay with. But in several cases, it was an oops, we reversed two numbers or something, or something was left off. And so y'all provided a schedule of fees that was updated, but what I needed was one that showed the changes so

Okay. Okay, thank you. So that's reduced, so that's helpful to business community under planning and development. I'm sorry, neighborhood enhancement fees, short-term rental. We've called it home share in a lot of places, but it's really a short-term rental because home share is something completely different. So we're changing just the name on that one. Oh, and we're raising the fee. I think it was $79 to $81. And then here are some changes. And we put these in place a while back by ordinance, but they were not on this list, which is a hotel occupancy tax and short-term rental permits. We've

And it's at the end of our list. I see a lot of white space on the page. So that is my amendment, uh, to take care of those things. And Ms. Rodriguez, I'm going to conclude this one and then anything else you have, uh, I'll turn it over to you for any additional amendments. Is that good?

And just for, so I'll second, thank you for the sake of discussion. Um, I believe it was all encompassing of the things that were inverse and that I had flagged. Right. Um, but this isn't necessarily a substantive in the sense of you're changing the amount and it's just fixing the formatting. Am I correct?

Well, in a couple of cases, remember they had these two fees swapped, right? And they were fixing those. You mentioned that.

Yeah. So, uh, I guess what I was asking is despite them being inverse, now that they're correct, you're not necessarily proposing that not only are doing, enhance them in terms of... No, no. I just wanted to clarify.

No, it was in most cases, it was the right number in the wrong place.

Yeah, especially for all the jumping castle.

Yeah. In a couple of cases, there is a number change because the increase didn't fall in line with the others and it wasn't incorrect calculations. So thank you, Ms. Rodriguez, for seconding that. Does anybody have any questions on any of those? If a copy of that could be sent to us for our files, that'd be great. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Trevino, we're going to vote.

We're voting on your amendment specifically? Yes, ma'am. I'm fine with that. Okay.

Okay. And we're going to take a break after this one. Um, Ms. Rodriguez, did you have anything in addition? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

So I went through this as comprehensively as possible, just cause it's so much. Um, and I guess I'll start with, so the two, uh, that were subject, not just to the 3%, but to the review as well, where just so I'm clear parks and the library. Correct. Yeah. Um, so let me ask, I know that all of that, all of the. proposed rates were contingent on the study that y'all looked at, peer review cities, correct? And let me ask, did that study and did the methodology within that study account for, and I understand in terms of peer cities what classifies what, but does it actually go and further disaggregate the data to include poverty rates in comparison to other cities?

Okay, and I ask all this because the recouping of the fees isn't lost on me at all. It's just in terms of essentially some of these hikes that are being proposed are quite significant. And I want to support them, but I guess what I'm trying to understand is did we do an additional, and it doesn't sound like we did. An additional accounting for the individual nature of our poverty rate in comparison to the other comparator cities.

Okay. You know, because one of the questions that I had asked, I guess let's start from the beginning. The portable toilet cleaning, the 538% increase, I see that the rationale was that we were greatly undercharging for that service. I guess in terms of the recipients of those charges, are they normally big organizations that host events at Plaza Park or who all necessarily goes and requires the portable?

And this is going from $18 to $115 for those of you that want to know the actual numbers. Yes, ma'am.

Yes, so I guess the 118 dollars I guess in terms of y'all's ability to calculate this where y'all looking at the number of events that are already Hosted on that property and then basing the cost recovery on Like insuring or I guess guessing that they would reschedule in the subsequent years to do the cost recovery or I'm just trying to understand so that so the the fee that

Okay, and I'm less concerned about... No, go ahead, but I want to ask a question relevant to that. Oh, please, because I was about to...

Okay, so do those portable restrooms, do they stay there in the parking lot, or do they come in... come and go with the organization that's needing them?

I would wonder if whatever costs recovered from this could be actually for public facilities versus a portable, if they could be encumbered for that purpose, now that I'm thinking.

So the question would be what do we spend on that in a year? Exactly.

Is it more affordable to just build, similar like to the Dunbar? Yeah, I see where you're going.

But for each event, they would individually be charged $118, correct? Correct.

Yeah. I saw where our minds were going on that one.

Yeah. I don't have any more questions at the moment other than do we know how much we spend, uh, each year?

Yeah. Cause the purpose of the question was we were kind of having an off, uh, the, the conversation about would it be more cost effective to encumber the whatever funds that are raised through this particular fee for the purpose of constructing public restroom systems similar to what we have at Dunbar. Which would also have to be cleaned, but they do have restrooms.

But now we're talking about a lot more money that we're charging, so yeah.

Mr. Gonzales. So just for clarification, outside the summer when they just stay there, the cost to rent the portable toilet is just passed on to the renter. So what we're talking about is cleaning them. I'm trying to go back to what my colleague is thinking, but encumbering the cleaning fees to build four permanent facilities, wouldn't necessarily be an applicant. If anything, we would encumber the rental fees.

If I'm understanding correctly, the thought process was whatever they are, for us to encumber them from the general fund to potentially build permanent restrooms. But I'm on the same page, but I'm kind of thinking the $30,000 we're spending to rent the facilities over the summer. would it actually be financially feasible to just build permanent?

I'm going to suggest that maybe that being item on another agenda. Yeah.

Good idea, but another time. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so now the activity center membership fees. This was really the one that, so for the public, and if we could pull the schedule fees just so everybody watching both in-house and online could be. ON THE SAME PAGE. SO THE PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY THE ANNUAL FEE FOR A RESIDENT WHO IS AN ADULT IS $92 AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT BY ABOUT 40% TO $130. And, you know, I had asked other questions in the message board because I'm trying to think, like, I know I've been on y'all's tours before. The activity center is struggling. It's busting at the seams. I think that was the phrase that was u

Okay, so within our software, it would be possible to have payment plans for adult residents without a family. Yes. Am I correct? Absolutely. Is that something we can, I think it just would help me, you know, be able to support this a lot more when there's a monthly payment plan available for somebody who maybe they still want to go, but that's, it's just too much, that increase on top of all the other rates we just applied. Um, is that something perhaps mayor that we can get some consensus on from council to see if anybody would be interested in something like that? Um, so the question is rig

And I suspect that was originally probably due to the cost. And I'm thinking that adult resident may be getting up to that. same cost at which the family was done in the first place.

Council, what do you think? Do we want to ask staff to make that resident or I would say, uh, the resident adult senior or even youth? Cause somebody may be mowing yards to make that.

Right, so I guess what I'm asking is for it to apply to yes, the other categories aside from just the family, so the youth, the senior, and the adult. It's not changing the proposed fee, it's just allowing more flexibility to be able to pay.

And then you also mentioned the silver sneakers and Optum Fitness. Can you explain the difference between those? I took notes because I thought you might ask.

Do we have any programs to encourage those members to come more often?

So at maximum, it's $288 a year. So a senior 65 and older that's NC Silver Sneakers is getting essentially free access, but the city is able to recoup up to $288 for that member when a senior membership is only $84. So I would think we want those specific seniors to come four times a month. Right. Or whatever, eight times a month. But are we doing anything, like, specifically to try to encourage those seniors to come?

That popped up to me, because when you said we're capped at eight visits, I'm like, that sucks. Most of our seniors probably come more than eight times a month, but I'm like, wait. Once I started doing the math, I'm like, well, I guess it's beneficial, because normally they pay $84 a year to come every day. So even if they come every day, we're still getting $288 a year.

and non-resident memberships on a payment plan.

Ms. Garza's got her hand up, and then we really need to wrap this up because we're talking about fees. Ms. Garza.

Yeah. So I just want to understand the timeline. Do we have to adopt these specific fee changes tonight? I just feel like there's a lot more questions. Yeah. That's my first question.

About fees in general? These. Yeah, okay. I will ask the question of whomever can tell me, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Gary, do we need to complete these fees this evening?

So you could table just to know which one that is. We've got planning and development. There's some miscellaneous fees, building fees. Y'all tell me which one it is.

Let me ask them if that's what we want, because I need to find that out first. So I'm asking Ms. Garza, which sections of fees are you looking at?

For the parks and the library. Parks and library, okay. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, I was just asking because I feel like those are some of the most beloved programs of our community. And I feel like not many folks were aware that we're having this conversation tonight. And yeah, I think it's too big of a deal.

So parks and library. Did you have any others than parks and library?

Yes, ma'am. I actually was going to come in with a proposal specifically about the special events. I had asked a question on the message board if whether or not the current fee proposals account for the most recent block party hosted on the downtown square, particularly whether they accounted for the demand and staff, police, fire, and the like, and wanting to make sure that this conversation is as comprehensive as possible. I know that there was a suggestion about potential tiers and I just think that to do this without addressing that, I think we would be remiss.

So it's parks, library, and special events? Yes, ma'am. So I'm going to make a motion, and I've never made a motion like this before, so this is going to be kind of weird. I'm going to make a motion that we postpone parks, library, and special event fees only to, next meeting?

We're only going to postpone these three categories.

If we're postponing, now, current rate or the proposed rate? If we don't change them, then it stays the current rate.

That's what's going to happen if we don't change them. Right? They stay as is.

Well, I hadn't even finished saying the motion yet. And I'm looking for Ms. Garza and Ms. Rodriguez. I need to give a date certain.

Well, for mine, I just want to make sure that for special events, staff has enough time to comprehensively look at this. Hayden, sorry to throw a wheel.

It's either going to be next meeting or the first meeting in October or the second meeting in October because we need to not hold these forever.

Y'all will come back when you're ready for that. So do we want to stick with the proposal here because you're going up some, but we're talking about maybe going up more. So I'm going to take special events out of here so we let this go, but then we will come back for a more extensive discussion at some point in the future.

Right, and I know our committee was supposed to get a comprehensive update regardless. Yep, you're right. Okay.

Okay, so I'm restating my motion. Oh, I still need to know when we would be ready, and this is Ms. Garza and Ms. Rodriguez, as to when you would be ready to have a discussion on parks and library fees.

I'm trying to see what's on the rolling agenda for the next one.

Okay, I'm just going to say October 2nd meeting. Is that enough time?

What do you think about it? Okay, what's the meeting after that?

Correct, but she asked what's the meeting after that. Oh, you're saying second meeting in November. Oh, it'd be the second meeting in November. Correct.

So the second meeting, I'm sorry, Mary, what date did you propose?

October this? I don't know. I don't have a calendar in front of me. But remember that with our new calendar, we do not meet the week of the election in November.

You're right, you're right, you're right. Yeah, this will be the first year we've done that. Let me get my calendar.

Yeah, I guess it's the 15th, right? I can't believe it's already the 15th.

Right, no, but I'm just saying today. Had you originally said October 6th?

Mayor, if I could give my two cents, I would recommend the second meeting in October if the concern is the community doesn't have enough time to give their opinion or whatever.

That's why I was going to start it out with the 20th.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess the second meeting in October, which would be what day?

So I am making a motion that we postpone decisions on increases for the parks and library sections only to the October 20th meeting. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.

And Mayor, for that discussion, could we potentially, I don't know how much work it would be for staff, but could we potentially have The data further disaggregated in terms of peer city reviews to include poverty rates and how they differ between the ones listed.

See if they have those or at least tell us what the cities are.

Yes. Yeah, I would like to see the whole study. That would be interesting.

All righty. So we've got a motion and a second to postpone. Did anything go down? Postpone the increases.

Well, I was about to say that because I think some of the library ones did.

Okay. We're going to postpone the changes on parks and library to October 20th. And then if that passes, that's an amendment. And then we'll be back to approval of the rest of them will be on the table. So, Ms. Trevino, this will be just the amendment to postpone those two. those two sections, sorry.

All right, so right now what is on the table is all of the rest of the fee changes as presented this evening. The amendment to incorporate all the yellow ones has already passed.

Yes, but just real quick, Mayor, did your, like, kind of check on the sheet, did that capture the weird part of the animal shelter where the medium and the large range of the euthanasia and disposal?

You see, I think they were, like, the same, you know?

Well, no, the size, the unit of measure.

I'm sorry, Ms. Garza, I'm not sure what your question is. We've got people up here talking, and I can't hear you.

I'm sorry. Under this section, medium and large are both identified as 51 to 100 pounds. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's just like a typo. I thought that'd be something you'd get. Oh, you're right. Yeah, I was trying to see like how we compare to other areas and stuff like that. And that was just one of the things.

So somebody needs to make a note that the, we need that fixed. I had missed that one because I was just looking at the, I didn't look at that. Uh, we'll need a clarification on that. Um, but that can be emailed to us or whatever. Okay. So we are now ready to vote on the main motion with all of the staff changes. but not parks and library.

Yeah. We're voting on the main as amended and partially postponed. This will be the final vote on it. Am I right there? Yes, ma'am.

Thank you so much. And guess what, sports fans? We're taking a break. We have returned from our break, and council, would y'all be okay if we did item 20 next, which is the human services grant funding? Y'all be good with that? Okay. I'm not gonna forget you, Ms. Finn. Ms. Trevino, would you read item 20, please?

I've got a motion from Ms. Rodriguez and a second from Mr. Peselk. Do we have a presentation for this? I mean, I know there's one in the packet. Yeah.

And thank you. And does anybody have any questions? I have one small amendment, but anybody have anything? OK, my amendment is for Hayes Helping Hands. They had requested money under two categories. HSAB, Human Services Advisory Board, recommended funding for one of them, but not the other, which leaves that organization with money for shoes and coats, but not for community assistance, so my motion is to rename the Hays Helping Hands program from Shoes and Coats to Coats, Shoes, and Community Assistance, no changing the amount. Just give them some flexibility because the second one was not rec

Okay. And that's all I have. So whatever anybody else has, amendments, a conversation, now would be the time. I will remind everyone and the folks at home that we had a pretty extensive conversation. Was it July 7th? On July 7th. And in that packet, there's a lot more detail. So if anybody wants more information, the July 7th packet would provide it. If we're all ready to vote, we will. Yes, ma'am.

Really quick, Mayor. I want to give a huge thank you to the Human Services Advisory Board. They meet very frequently for a long time, and these are not easy decisions to somehow find ways to allocate to meet all the need when we know the need far outpaces what we have. But also, Ms. Griffith, I really appreciate your work on this. I know that this is a huge undertaking in addition to what you do for CDBG and your other responsibilities and just wanna say thank you for that. I'm very proud of what our city, I think one of the people who came and testified earlier did, really applaud us as a cit

Thanks to everyone. And thank you to the organizations that took their time to come in and present. I know that they were seeking funding, but still, that takes something in order to do that and speak before the group. So thanks to all. And we're ready to vote if nobody else is raising a hand or saying anything.

Don't we usually have a presentation about this?

Don't we usually have a presentation about it?

Well, I asked if anybody needed one. Ms. Griffith has the same one that we saw on July 7th.

OK, yeah, I think just a quick review of it. It feels weird to not put it on, to show where we're putting the money. I know it's in the packet, but I don't know. I'm just a nerd.

Yeah, I, uh, I noted that, um, it's the same as what was in the July 7th packet and the motion that, um, to men that passed didn't change the funding. Any didn't take, didn't move any around. It just gave one agency more flexibility. So do y'all want to see the, uh, see the presentation? I'm seeing no yeses here. Yeah. They're saying they've, they've, they've read the packet and they're good.

Yeah, I'm just, I mean, it wasn't for the benefit of the council. It was a benefit of the viewers at home, but that's fine.

I would suggest watch the July 7th meeting because we had some discussion, and that included CDBG.

Well, I mean, just for the convenience, can we put that screen up for a couple of seconds and someone can pause the video so they don't have to go look for an old meeting? They can go to this meeting.

No, no, I'm saying, because I'm assuming, Ms. Garza, the crux of what you want to see is how much each agency is getting.

Yeah, just a recap for people, like this is what, You know, we had a timeline, right? The recommendations came on July 7th. This is what. We have a process that we're not just giving out money willy-nilly. I think it's especially relevant given that, like, there are conversations in, like, the county where they're changing their process and everything. Like, we still had a process. Like, this is still a thing. Like, just, like, reassurance for folks.

Yeah, I was glad that Ms. Rodriguez stated and I was going to, she beat me to it, thanking the HSAB for the number of, I think they meet weekly for quite a while discussing all of this, listening to presentations. So that was really good. And the recommendations start on, I can't find where the page number is here anymore. They are in the packet under this item.

Yeah, I just also, I think it's especially important to name that these are the people we're giving money to because then when folks are not able to reach them, they know, like, okay, these, like, they can say, like, oh, wait, my taxpayer dollars is funding this because a lot of these organizations are sometimes hard to track down. Neighbors want to go to them with money. for inquiries about applications and stuff.

Yes, I will mention that all of the applications are on the website under the Planning and Development Services, and it's on the left side, and it mentions Human Services Advisory Board, and there's links to every application. You can watch the videos of the meetings. It's all out there for those who have that interest. So we will vote. Oops.

All righty. So now we will go back to item 19. I think it was six, seven. Oh, yeah. I think it was six, seven.

Motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Scott. Ms. Vann.

Council, do y'all need anything else? If not, we'll vote.

No, just if we could advertise that that's going to be on a future, since there's interest. I would say, Ms. Reyes, if y'all could do a little extra. Communications has been doing good on.

Motion to approve from Mr. Scott. Seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Finn.

Approve second from mr. Scott seconded from miss Rodriguez miss Finn Again, this is a federal requirement that we bring to y'all every year.

Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Mendoza. Anybody have questions? Let's roll.

Well, this is not a motion to approve. This is to actually vote for people, and there's several running for each slot. That's the blue page that was in your packet. And I don't know hardly anything about any of these folks. I don't think there's a requirement that we vote, is there? Although I kinda have a thing about not voting.

I move to submit the two incumbents' names.

The two incumbents, so for place one, JW Buzz Fallon, and for place two, Emily Crawford.

I mean, I figure none of us have a negative opinion of them. They must be doing something right so they can keep their job.

All right, so just voting on those two slots. Okay, that was a, hold on, that was a motion. And I'm looking for a second. Okay, here it is. So again, for place one, that was for J.W. Buzz Fullen. And for place two, Emily Crawford. Wait a minute, on place four, isn't there an incumbent?

I'm sorry, I didn't go down that far. Am I correct?

Austin Bless, Blease, something. Is that part, could that be part of your motion? Sure. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion by Mr. Gonzalez. Place one, Fullen. Place two, Crawford. And place four, Blease. Those are the incumbents.

Oh, yes, ma'am. So just for, I guess, procedural purposes, did the city formally vote on these incumbents or you're just saying because they're in place? Did we formally cast votes for these people?

I don't remember because there's a bunch of them. This is one, two, and three. I think they're three-year terms, so it's been three years since we've talked about these particular people. I really don't remember who we voted for before.

I'm going to abstain for this. To your point you made earlier, you just don't know. That's fine.

Thank you. OK, motion by Mr. Gonzales, seconded by Mr. Posel.

And maybe if this comes to us again, correct? Oh, that's not consent. That's right. Because I was going to say maybe staff could answer the question if council had previously.

But OK. No, we'd have to go back and look it up.

Yeah, I'm not going to vote on this. Things never give you enough information to even know what we're voting on. This is weird.

Yeah, and sometimes I know some of these people from my years going to conferences, but I don't know any of these folks. I know the guy who's going off three. Hold on. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So, Ms. Garza, was your vote a no or abstain? Ms. Garza?

All right. I understand the item's been disposed of, but I think the motion was for the incumbents, correct? Yes. Am I misreading that place three does not have an incumbent?

Yeah, and I called the names for one, two, and four, and I didn't call the name for three. Okay, just wanted to make sure. No, that's good.

SINCE I'M CHAIR. ANY CONVERSATION? No, happy to have her. Let's vote. I'm thrilled she's working for us.

I'm sorry, Mayor Houston, who seconded it?

Ms. Rodriguez made the motion. Mr. Purcell seconded it. Okay, got it.

And we do need to go into executive session. So I've got a motion for Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Purcell. We'll vote on that one. Y'all, we have not. adjourned yet, so please, no talking, no packing your stuff up. Just hang on.

We will go into executive session at 8.45. Good job, Liz. We have returned from our executive session, which we concluded at 11.50. Ms. Trevino, if you'll read item 24, please.

Okay, we had discussion on each one of these. And that's all. Question and answer with the press and public. Seeing none, the next item on our agenda is adjournment. And I will adjourn us at 1154. Good night, all.