City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the city of Montgomery's uh city council meeting Tuesday January the 27th 206 2026. My name is Cheryl Fox. I'm Mayor Pro Tim. Uh and I we have a quorum which is Stan Donaldson, Caroline and myself. Uh absent is Sarah Countryman who is near and uh Casey Olsen. And everyone please keep Mr. Olsen in their prayers. His father passed away a day or so ago. So he is out he is out of state. Uh could we ask our invitations stand to do this? Uh, heavenly father, yes, we do want to lift Casey and his family up, Father. Watch them and guide them as they go farther north, Father. And, uh, we pray that peace will overcome the family, Father. Um, we know that this is a sudden thing. And we ask you, Father, to give them comfort, Father, that only you can do. And Lord, we thank you for our meeting tonight, Father. We thank you that the city of Montgomery has escaped any serious harm or danger from inclement weather. Father, we thank you, Father, that uh we have power. Father, I thank you that our city is blessed. I thank you, Father, that we go about our business tonight with efficiency and with success in Jesus's mighty name. [snorts] Amen.

Amen. Pledge allegiance to the American flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now the Texas flag.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Okay. The we did have a public forum and we have two speakers. The city does allow to have the public uh speak at this time. It's limited to three minutes each. We have uh two speakers and we'll take the first one will be Miss Patricia Robot from 109 Cliffs Boulevard in Montgomery. Would you like to come to the podium please? Ma'am.

Good evening. Um this is a statement regarding the city of Montgomery water and sewer rate increases. Um at the start of this year I fully expected some increases water, electricity, gas. That is the reality we are all living in. What I did not expect was to open my city of water McGomery water bill and see 135% increase from the previous month. Especially when my actual water usage in my business is zero. Yes. Zero. Yet I had 135 increase. I'm a business owner leasing a small space in downtown McGomery at 301 Prairie Street operating low-end limited designs. I'm not a large business. I'm not even what you would call a small business. I'm a micro business. My space has one sink and one toilet used conservatively perhaps three times a day, 5 days a week. And this is a generous estimate. All right. Under the previous McGomery County utility rates, I paid $1,950 for the first 2,000 gallons for water for water and 2250 for the first 2,000 gallons for sewage. Today, I am being charged $45 for the first two,000 gallons of water and $45 for the first 2,000 gallons for sewage. This is $90 per month before any usage. Again, for a business that effectively does not use water, this represents a 133.77% increase in water rates and 104.55% increase in sewer rates from one billing cycle to the next. I [snorts] understand I understand that rates may need to increase. What I don't understand and what I cannot accept is an increase of 135% imposed without regard to scale, usage, or impact, especially on the smallest businesses in this city. This is particularly troubling when viewed

alongside the city's most recent economic development priorities. Taken from open sources, the city of Montgomery has secured major corporate retailers Kroger, Home Depot, and HB offering substantial incentives through many agreements, infrastructure reimbursements, and public utility improvements. Kroger received a 5.6 million rebate over 15 years, approved by the council in December 2014 to secure its investment. Home Depot entered into an agreement in October 2023 allowing up to 674,000 infrastructure reimbursements along with shared costs on a 1.4 million roadway and traffic signal improvement. HB will benefit from city funded feasibility studies and approvals to support water sewage and drainage needed for its development. These agreements were justified as investments in economic growth and expansion of the task base. Yet the financial burden of that growth now appears to be falling squarely on the back of micro businesses particularly those located downtown. What makes this even more difficult to accept is again the residential customers have reported

scared me [laughter]

have reported a decrease in their water bills 5 to 60% and I'm glad for them truly but I do not understand how in good conscience this council can allow such a dramatic disparity where residents see reductions while the smallest downtown businesses absorb tripledigit increases. All right. If the city's goal was to collect more revenue from large national retailers that we brought in like Home Depot, Kroger, HB, Starbucks, and Chick-fil-A, since then. But what is happening instead is that local independent businesses are being priced out. And that is the great shame of this policy in this council. Downtown Montgomery is not just real estate. It represents the historic heart of the city and the place that promotes Montgomery as the birthplace of the Texas flag. Yet it now feels as though that history only matters if you can afford it. A 135% rate increase for basically zero usage is not reasonable. It is not equitable. All right? And it sends a clear message about whose business this city values and whose it does not. So, I do not understand how 135% from one month to the next where I have virtually zero use. I figured it out. If I use the toilet three times a day, I'm 5 days a week, that's 15 times a week, 60 times a month, I'm paying a $1.50 every time I flush my toilet. I don't understand how that can happen with all this. absolutely wonderful economic upgrade that we're getting in this city that we look like we are trying to take away a historic downtown area. I'm the first of many that will come. The bills came out on Friday. I was the first today that went into ask about it because I thought this can't be you

can't do this. Thank you, Miss Rob. Uh since your three minutes was up, I'd be happy to speak to you after the meeting if you'd like to. I absolutely would. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Philip Lea.

Good evening. Good evening.

I'm here to talk about checks and balances on contracts given and people who work for the city. Back 101 15 years ago, city engineers were not allowed to bid on their own work. The idea of a city engineer was that they farmed out projects and then they got different ideas from different engineers and then they advised council on who was the best. They weren't able to beat both sides of the transaction. The documents I've given you show a couple of emails from me to the city that I sent while they were repairing Town Creek Bridge on Buffalo Springs Drive in 2018. After back-to-back storms, Hurricane Harvey had decimated thousands of roads and structures across Texas. You'll see I warned the city about erosion on Atkins Creek and that it could eventually reach 1097. The city ignored these warnings even though they agreed with them on the email CLC. And in the end I was right. The Atkins Creek went back ruined 1097. Textile had to come in and fix it. I also questioned the engineering design of the bridge as I felt the drop strain the drop structure for the drainage which are basically four big downpipes would silt up. That almost certainly happened. And if that happened the city probably wasted I think those drop structures were over 200,000 each. probably wasted $900,000 of taxpayer money on something that didn't work. You probably don't even know about that because the way things generally work in the world, if somebody designs something that doesn't work, they don't tell you about it. If you'd had independent checks and balances, if I'm correct, somebody would have said, "Hey, those drop structures didn't work." That's a lot of money that could have been spent somewhere else better. I also questioned whether the city in doing the bridge dug

the creek down an additional 7 ft. So, Hurricane Harvey had leveled Town Creek to what nature wanted and then the city came in and it dug an additional 7 ft and I questioned that and I I can give you exact quotes. Chris said it will cause it will cause erosion upstream and exab exabate the erosion issues. As a reminder, the goal of the project was to repair the bridge roadway and mitigate the risk of future failures of the bridge and roadway. The city could not address the erosion with federal funds. Okay. He continues, I agree there may be erosion from the bridge upstream as the stream tries to reach new equilibrium based on the lower elevation under the bridge. He further elaborates, "The plan all along has been for the property owners to dredge the canal up to the bridge and the city to dredge under the bridge. Regardless of the bridge, the erosion will occur until it's stabilized upstream. Philip quote unquote has done a lot of work to stabilize the channel upstream by widening and establishing turf on the banks. Even though the CDN engineers agreed with what I was saying about upstream erosion, nothing was done. Even if federal funds cannot be used to address something that is adjacent to the bridge, the city engineers still must design for collateral damage. In this case, the collateral damage not only occurred upstream on our private property at the time, but it also finally affected the Lonear Parkway and Anders Creek. Interestingly, Randy Burley, who is a very qualified engineer, uh gave the city similar warnings at the time. So, it's not just me who was talking about it. The city's own engineering BGE study in 2020 warned the city about erosion.

Randy Burley also warned them. I warned the city in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 about erosion on Town Creek. after which Gary Palmer, when he became the new city administrator, refused to talk to me or pay any of the outstanding debts the city had towards us. Still, the city management and most importantly, the city engineers, despite all these warnings, did nothing about Town Creek or Atkins Creek until it became very obvious 2023 that there was tremendous erosion going on. At that point, they filed a lawsuit to hide, in my opinion, their own gross negligence and blame others for their inaction. What the point is, what is the point of paying city engineers thousands and thousands of dollars on feasibility and drainage studies if then they just look at the reports and take no action? I think most of the issues that I've mentioned could have been avoided if the city had had proper checks and balances in place and if city engineers and public works proactively addressed maintenance issues as they came up. In the second email chain, you'll also see correspondence to the city on May 2021 along with pictures again. Once again, nothing was done until several years later when we were the ones that got the county involved and progress was made to repairing under the bridge. Proactively addressing this would have saved everybody time and money. So, when you sign new engineering contracts, please, please make sure that you reinstate some of the checks and balances that the city used to have no longer appears to have. Thank you very

Thank you for being here. May I drop this off before I leave? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next is the consent agenda and uh number four, the consent uh consideration possible action uh city council workshop meeting minutes of January 8th, 2026. Number five, consideration and possible action on ordinance of the city council of the city of Montgomery, ordering a regular and special election to be held jointly with Montgomery County on May 2nd, 2026 for the purpose of electing a mayor and two city council members, places two and four for regular terms, as well as electing one city council member for the place three to be filled in an unexpired term and providing details relating to the holding of such an election. Number six, consider and possible action regarding the adoption of the election services agreement by and between the city of Montgomery and Montgomery County elections for holding the May 2nd, 2026 election and to authorize the mayor to sign the agreement. Seven, consider and possible action regarding the adoption of the joint election agreement with Montgomery County elections for May 2nd, 2026 city general election and to authorize the mayor to sign the agreements. Council, would you like to take this separately or collectively?

Rumulatively, I make a motion that we accept the agenda item as presented. I'll second. I have a a motion from Stan. I have a second from Carol. All in favor say I. I. I. I'm going to say I because I'm a council member. [laughter] Okay. Our regular agenda uh number eight considering possible action on the final plat for Briley formerly known as Red Bird Valley Kramer Drive extension number 2006.

Good evening. Uh handful of items in front of you tonight. A lot of them are plats. Uh this one is starting with the Cameron Drive extension plat. So only part only portion that is in this plot is for the roadway of Camber Drive. Uh so if you look in your packets uh you'll see a copy uh of this. What is also included is the recreation center priority development. So this you'll see um a copy of in your packets and the this has gone to PNZ on January the 6. They recommend approval of the same. It'll be recorded subject to y'all's approval and accept our receipt of the required impact [clears throat] fees from the bill.

Okay. Any questions?

Not this one. Make a motion we accept agenda item number eight as presented. I'll second. [laughter] I'm so sorry, but there's only three of us, so it's kind of a I have a motion by Stan Johnson and a second by Carol Langley. All in favor say I. I. I. Item number eight passes as written. Number nine, consideration of possible action on the final plat for Briley, formerly known as Redbird Pond AI, development number 206. All right. Same thing.

Very much very similar to the last one. Uh this was re presented to PNZ on January the 6th. They recommend approval pass with the 50 vote. Uh this is adjacent to the last section we just looked at. This is just the detention fund. There are no impact fees due on this track. And you'll see copies of the plat in your packet along with the current land plan and an exhibit showing where this is in relation to what's out there. Any questions? So basically it's just the pond. A wood. It is just the pond. Okay. Correct. I make a motion we accept agenda item number nine as presented. I'll second. All in favor?

I say I. I. All oppose. The number nine carries as written. Number 10 considering possible action of the primary preliminary plant for superior properties. Uh development number 2215.

All right. Uh this is a preliminary plot. So this is not final. This is just approval of a preliminary plot. This is not yet recorded. Uh this is just the first step for the in the platting process. Uh this was submitted to planning zoning on January the 6th. They recommend approval. If you look on page one eight of your packets, uh you'll see a copy of the preliminary plat. It's broken up into three reserves. uh reserve A being a multifamily uh development which was previously reszoned this council meeting uh reserve B which is commercial and reserve C which are commercially zoned properties. Um this is over on Lonear Parkway west of 149 just adjacent to Mson Street. Uh so again we recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Now, what this does is it allows them to continue to address the final plat as long as well as well as construction plans to ultimately come back to you for uh review and approval and recordation.

Again, any questions, Carol? No. [clears throat] Can I get an a motion? I make a motion we accept agenda item number 10 as presented. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. Uh. Number 10 uh is passed as written. Number 11 uh consideration possible action on the variance requested regarding the required landscaping requirements for the Church of Montgomery development number 251.

Correct. This item that's in front of you. You have a handful of things. You have a copy of a letter from us describing what is being requested as well as what's more uh is the uh letter from planning and zoning also recommending approval. Uh to summarize the church of Montgomery which is at CB Stewart and Clipper Street on the northwest corner of the intersection there. It's a 14 acre development. They are developing approximately 4 acres of it in this phase of the work. The rest is going to be left as is and untouched. So they requested a variance from your tree ordinance to be based on what they the area they're developing versus the entire 14 acres. So the way the rule reads is 20% canopy coverage over the entire acreage. So they would have to provide 20% coverage for the entire 14. They're requesting to do the four approximately now for what they're developing and then as they do additional phases provide additional trees for those acres that or that area they develop at that time. Uh so it's not they're not requesting a permanent decrease in the rule. They're requesting to defer it to do it as they develop out um their church property. Uh planning zoning reviewed and they recommend approval of this variance and approved in the 50 vote at their January 6 meeting.

I have a question about first of all I need an understanding probably from Alan. I don't understand this section 78167A and 78167B is not in our current code of ordinances. It's missing. And when you go look in the code of ordinances, those ordinances were passed on February 25th of 2025. So, I don't understand why we're going at we brought this up under the old ordinances. And uh I need an understanding is I understand we need a verification letter and I see that that's fine. Uh but I don't really when I look at the new ordinances I don't even see a reason for this coming up.

So there's two things and I'll can jump in as well. One is when they started the development. So it was based on when they start and when it was platted which was prior to that date as well as in the interior ordinances which is what's currently on the website of chapter 78 that canopy coverage percentage was left out. It talks about trees it talks about planting it talks about plans but it removes the percentage and that is something that uh Kendis is working on to address in the final version but [snorts] based on when this development started it's based on those section of the ordinances. Well, it's still strange to me because the Woodland's church letter is dated June 23rd, 25. That's almost 3 or 4 months after uh we changed the ordinances to um on February 25th. So, where are we at? I mean, this is okay based on what

Right. So, the the the actual filing date though predates that letter, right, Chris? Yeah, the actual plans were submitted prior to Yeah. So you go by the plan submitt the the initial when the process start. Yeah. The rule under Texas law is that the the ordinances in place when a plan is filed are the ordinances that have to be applied to that particular plan. Okay. Yeah. Because I basically have about the same question for the next agenda item. Okay. Any other questions on number 11? Can I get a motion?

I make a motion to accept agenda item number 11 as presented. I'll second. I have a motion and a second for number 11. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Motion carries as written. Number 12, consideration and possible action on a variance requested regarding the required utility easement vegetation setback and the allowance of retaining walls and utilities within the vegetative setback for the Montgomery retail development development number 2402.

So this development um or what's in front of you today is a another various request for the rules you just listed. What's in your packet is a letter from us uh also a letter from PNZ uh with their recommendations followed by civets etc showing what is being asked. Uh the developer is also here to answer any questions you have uh because this there was a lot of discussion in planning and zoning about this and as you see on their report uh some of the requests were denied some of the requests were split vote uh on approval. So I will go through each one piece by piece. Uh so first one is the 16T utility easement. So along if you remember for the HUB development uh our the initial request was that they provide a utility easement along 105 and provide the water and sewer lines within that easement because our our um reasoning for that is we don't want to be in Texas right away because if Tex expands it would cause the city to have to relocate utilities at their cost. uh which is area other areas of the city of older lines that are in that case that we're looking at relocation in this case and for the HB case the distance between the edge of existing pavement and the actual where these utilities would be is in this case it gets down to 3540 ft which is a lot of expansion before this gets to it. Um so that is essentially the reason for the request. It allows them to develop and put retaining walls etc. utilities are within the rideway, risk is still always there. You know, textile could, you know, say, "Oh, we need to expand it 100 feet." Um, but if it's in a if it's in the rightway, it's the city's responsibility to relocate at their cost. If it's in an easement, it's the text has to pay for that relocation because they're requiring that. Um, so ultimately PNC recommended approval with a 3-2 vote to allow the relocation or excuse me to not require.

Excuse me, Chris. What was the vote again? 32 to approve. Okay. The second item is the landscape setback. Um, and I'll just tie the is the landscape setback along this the sorry the southern edge of the property. Same as HB. Same as Hatch H.

Exactly. Same as HV. This one, the motion was denied with a 50 vote. So they PNZ does not recommend approval of the uh reduction in setback. And the third item is construction utilities retaining walls within the setback. So back to HB, they requested the the reduction and they requested to put the wall within it. doesn't change the planting requirements along that setback. Um, and but they're recommending again to be able to put utilities in wall within the setback, not changing the trees, but reducing it and putting some utilities in that retaining wall. And that one re passed with a 4-1 vote to allow uh the set to allow the utilities and retaining walls within the setback. So to reiterate, utility easement recommended approval by planning and zoning to not require the utility easement. Minimum landscape setback recommended denial of a 50 vote to maintain the 25 instead of the reduction to the 20 and then approval uh to allow retaining walls and utilities within the vegetative setback approved with the 4 to1 vote by planning zone. In your packet, you'll see exhibits showing uh where this is, what is being talked about, and as well as the developer and the engineer are here to answer any question.

I don't understand why they wouldn't accept the 20 foot retaining wall. Why planning and zoning? Yeah, that would what was the the reasoning? They were essentially the thought behind it was they would have preferred that all the variances be requested at the time of the initial. So when HB requested their variance, they would have preferred that those variances be included with West or SR 105, which is the current development that we're looking at now. So if it would all packaged within one ask, they would have preferred it that way, which is why they denied it. That's all right. Can Can we speak to that? Sure.

If you don't mind the developer, I'd like to address some of the comments. Good evening, Miss Mayor Pro Tim Council. I'm Arlene Samson with Westwood with Civil Engineers for the property owner on this site. And I was in attendance at that planning and zoning meeting and was not really expecting the the push back that we had on that. you know, with the developer that's coming in, they're basically looking to have a very cohesive and consistent type development with their neighbors. So that when you see the development of the HUD and what's adjacent, you see one development basically. So, uh, as Chris has stated, they recommended approval for most of these with the exception of the 5T reduction on the vegetative setback. We would ask for your consideration of approval on that so we don't end up with a inconsistent look there. We have retaining wall where you get to property line. All said you got a 5ft offsite for the retaining wall as well as the drive on. And then myself and representative about the property owner here. Did you have any additional questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Any more discussion? Number 12. Chris, do you see another reasoning behind PNZ denying it? Oh, maybe I don't. Still, do you have anything to add from B&Z?

I don't have any other reason for their their just wanted to be able to keep what setback requirements are set in the ordinance and not able to Chris, do you see I'm sorry. Do you see anything also? Because I always hate to go against PNZ. I'll let Travis.

Uh the the only other thing I would like to add to is is is as you move from 2854 uh to the east, the the property in which we're developing, it starts to narrow down. And so that that setback would would help us tremendously be able to get, you know, parking requirements and and things of that nature. So, you know, having that extra 5T could mean the world, you know, to the development and how it's laid out, how it's designed. So, and again, you know, we want to be a cohesive development with um HB as our partner, and it seems like a really odd request that they would have wanted it all submitted at once when we're completely We may be in the same property, but we're a different owner, but we we just weren't there with them yet. We weren't as far ahead. So,

So, why do you think that that they declined it again? Why do you think so? What? Who me? Why do you think they declined it? I'm not sure. They said they declined it because it wasn't pursued at the same time as HB did. Was that the only reason? I mean, that was what they voiced. Um, aside from that, they didn't give any other clear direction as to why there's Tilly.

Yeah, they didn't really like the fact that H got that either. So, so they not being inconsistent. And I think they were consistent on HB, but at that time it was approved. So now you're creating a little bit of a design issue, I think. Yeah. And

I think the spirit of the ordinance is is providing that. I mean, it's a vegetative buffer. And so they're not requesting nor did HB request or obtain any type of variance for reducing the amount of trees, shrubs, screening, etc. that's required. And so it's the same thing that's being requested. They're not requesting change to it. It's just instead of a 25 ft strip that's full of I can't remember the exact number of trees, shrubs, and bushes that are required by ordinance, the request to reduce it to 20, but still have the same level of planting uh within it.

I would prefer to table it till February the 12th to give us some time to talk to PNZ because, you know, we're kind of stuck in a hard place. I don't uh don't quite understand it. I'd rather talk to them and see what their real objection is. Whether it's political, they just want to be hard. I'm sorry. I don't know. But I'd rather not make a commitment till I talk to them. Can I ask a clarifying question? Are they able to table one of the requested variances if or each one individually? Each one individually. So if there's no I want to hold up right the progress

of this and I don't want to do the whole of one you know I didn't realize the request came in part and that's why I didn't it's one agenda item so that's why I was clarifying too because if it if the main issue is around the 20 verse 25 but the other two there's no issue at least that gives them some clarity to continue to move forward while the last one's resolved. Well, that's fine. I don't mind table until we discuss the what second item or the setback. We're going to go to table that one section today. Would that be okay with you? Yeah, just the one section. Or are you going to go to the PNZ meeting and we'll have to talk to them some find out why they denied it. They meet Tuesday.

I could Yes. You mean for the first of the month? I don't know when they're meeting. Next Tuesday. this next. Yeah, I can go. How can how how can I uh have number 12 approved if we're only doing a portion of it? So, you can do two separate because it's three different various reviews. One for section 78-92A could be one motion. Section 7278-162A can be another motion and section 78-162 can be a third motion. and you indicate which ones you want to proceed with and which ones you want to table. Okay. So 7892A could be passed and 78 162A

Wait a minute. I know I got to read those again. Yes. Oops. I'm going to make a motion to approve section 78.92A and section 78.162 of item number 12. I'll second it. Okay. Uh, I have a motion to accept 12 with 78-92A and 78-162. All in favor say I.

I. All opposed. The eyes carry. Now stand. You're going to table. Make a motion to table item number 78-162A until February the 10th at our next regular city council meeting. Caroline second. You not going to second? Oh yes I can. I can second it. I guess I second it. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. So section I know it's nay. What? Wait a minute. Let me let me start back over again.

It was yes to table. You said yes to table. It just tabled it. Okay. So, we are tableabling it. So, it's passed that 78-162A has been tabled to February the 10th for more discussion on that on that subject. Is that correct, Chris? I don't think Good job. Yeah. Okay. Number 13, consider consideration and possible action regarding authorizing the city engineer to begin design of the Caroline Court sanctuary [snorts] sewer extension project V project development number 252.

Correct. Uh you have a paper packet in front of you. This was emailed out earlier this afternoon, not long before the meeting. Took a little bit longer to get this one out and wait on the final items. Uh what this is is at the last meeting you all created a development agreement with um Parkside Capital or the villages of Montgomery or was villages of Montgomery now it's Caroline Court. Part of that agreement has Parkside funding uh the city completing the design and construction of a san sewer extension. In this packet you'll see an exhibit uh showing the extent of that extension. Uh so this goes all the way from roughly in front of what is now the meeting place and lift station 5 all the way in front of Solomon electric and to their last commercial reserve to provide sewer service to all of them. Uh one thing it also includes is currently Solomon electric building. There's a little lift station on that site. This would be able to get rid of that lift station that's currently maintained by the city. Uh you'll also see in the packet a copy of the updated cost estimate uh for the project as well as a proposal to do the design. Uh this is all funded by uh the developer. He has been provided a copy of this and any approval would be subject to receipt of deposit from developer uh for the agreement.

Remind me is lift station number five is it at its permanent place or is it going to be moved? No, it's not. But there will be so what is now lift station 5 will all the lines that are there will remain. It'll be there'll be a manhole put in. So it'll connect to that same point. So lift station 5 is what y'all approved a contract for u back in December funded by um point tri point. Thank you to move it onto their property. So connects in the same location that it would if station 5 was there or not. Uh but it's obviously um ultimately won't flow to it'll flow to lift station five in a new spot.

Any more discussion? Make a motion we accept agenda item number 13 as presented. I second the motion. All in favor of the motion number 13 as written say I. I. All oppose. Eyes have it. Number 13 passes as written. Number 14, possible consideration and possible action approving the consent to encroachment by and between the city of Montgomery and the developer hills of Town Creek, section 5, development number 2406.

All right. Uh what this is is in your packet you'll see a copy of an exhibit. Uh but in short, Hillstown Creek section 5 uh their monument sign on Lonear Parkway was installed um with kind of out of process. Uh they one installed it partially within the county right away without county approval as well as city rightway uh without city approval. So this is a request for an encroachment agreement to keep the sign in its place uh but agree that any repairs u damage occurred to the sign by the city's repair of utilities or anything else in that area is not the city's responsibility. So standard question again you all seen before this one I just specific for the sign for Hills and town creek section 5 uh where Emma's way meets Lonear Parkway. Make a motion we accept agenda item number 14 as presented.

I'll second. I have a motion and second. All in favor say I. I. Say nay. Eyes have it. Number 15. Consideration possible action on formally ending the one-year warranty period and releasing the maintenance bond on the 2023 sanitary sewer rehabilitation PH2 project.

All right. I think last item I have for you tonight is um if you remember the san rehabilitation project was done in multiple phases uh due to one we were had the completion of all the work minus crossing 105 and then the crossing of 105 because you had to get text permits. Uh there was a one-year warranty period that ended in December. Uh shortly before that we had a one-year warranty inspection back on November the 12th. Uh we have attached a copy of the punch list which it was very minor. They had some resealing of the grout in the inlet which is is normal. Uh they have since completed that work and so we recommend formally ending the warranty period on the San Ju rehab phase 2 project.

Any discussion? It ended only in December, right? It did. December. Make a motion to accept agenda item number 15 as presented. Second. All in favor of I have a motion and a second. All in favor of number 15 as written say I. I. All opposed. Eyes have it. Number 15 is passed.

Number 16. Consideration and possible action on the ordinance of the city council of the city of Montgomery, Texas amending chapter 82 taxation of the city code of ordinances article six partial adver tax exemption for historically significant structures section 8295 82-97 and 82-98 making findings and cont and containing other provisions relating to the foregoing subject a savings clause providing for savorability

pro council. This item was uh brought forward a few years back and we did a review of it and we also had legal do some review. So there were some minor changes to it and we're just bringing it back for approval. One of them being to include that uh the applicant has to apply annually. So that way we can see that the receipts are actually being submitted to us so we can confirm and that it's a that they have on the properties. Question. It's still the 25% correct? Yes. None of that changed.

So that hasn't changed. Do you know how many uh how many uh residents we have in the city that actually are eligible to this? I don't know how many are eligible for it, but I do know that we've already issued two letters for two residents and a third applicant was inquiring today. So, there are there are candidate citizens that are utilizing this benefit. Okay. I because I read it and I didn't see that it was a lot different from before.

I just have a inquiry. Uh currently the court ordinance is only gives says sections 82 through 89 and 80 uh 82 through 94 or reserve. That's what it says. So when you want to pass this uh new ordinance, you're going to add sections that are not mentioned in our current code of ordinances. That's not a problem. You know, we just add because the way I read it is you're adding 8295 to 82100 [snorts] and you're adding 83- 101 and you're adding sections 3, four, five, and six cuz that's not in the code right now. None of that.

These are the codes that were uh taken from the last time this was adopted. If there's any for reserved, if the numbers are skipped, it'll be placed in the code as reserved for us to be able to utilize them later. I know we're adding we're adding more sections. That's not a problem, right? I didn't. Carol, do you have any other questions?

A lot of this was update with the county language, too, because our stuff didn't quite match exactly how that terminology went. So, the only two changes were the ones that you mentioned. There were a couple Alan, do you recall exactly what um there were a couple other wording changes, but it was essentially to allow use of the the structure for um more than you didn't have to actually live in the house to preserve the house just on the property and it to be homesteaded

which is the way the county looks at it too. Let me read you script. So the one before did not have that they did not have to reside there. Is that what you said, Alan? You have to reside on the property, but the the historic structure, you don't necessarily have to live in the historic structure. Yes. Our ordinance did wasn't clear on that. So it was to match up with what the county does. Okay, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. Any more discussion? Make a motion we tap the agenda item number 16 as presented. I second the motion. All in favor of the motion number 16 as written say I.

I.

I. All opposed. Number 16 passes as written. Number 17. consideration and possible action on resolution of the city of Montgomery, Texas, approving an amendment to the city Montgomery policies and procedure manual section six conduct and discipline reference number 6.08 8 subject use of the city vehicles as attached as exhibit A and further providing for efficient effective dates, severability and finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution is adopted was open to the public and that the public notice of time place and the subject matter of the public businesses to be considered was posted as required by law.

Mayor Pen Council, this is a housekeeping item. uh we had a request in with our police department to increase the city limits uh or the take-home vehicles from 15 miles to 35. So when we were looking at the requested information that was submitted to us, we cross referenced it with the policy for the personnel policies and uh we were bringing it forward to to do that request. But in the process of doing that, that's when we took the time to review the current policy we had that was from 2008 and tried to bring it up to par. And following this one with number 18 on the agenda will be the chief's request for the the personnel policies which they kind of tie in with cross reference to try to keep them in sync with each other so there's no um conflicts.

U pro tip and council. Uh I've just had a chance to to read uh the policy from the new manual and then compare it to our policy. We looked at some of it the other day was sent by email. Uh there's some conflicting portions uh for from our police policy from the Texas Police Association for this policy here. We're going to have to ask that you guys table this and let us take a look and get those things right because if something happens, it's going to have to be those policies are going to have to kind of to mirror each other. And right now, there's a couple sections in here that really mirror each other.

So, you want us to table 17 and 18? Yes, ma'am. If you can certainly do that. Thank you. No problem. You my questions. [laughter] Well, I got some answers. There was a whole lot of there was a whole lot of red line stuff here too. Do I hear a motion to tables number 17 and 18? Can I do that collectively separately? Can I get a motion to table number 17? I'll make the motion. Get a second. Can Huh? Second.

I have a I have a motion and a second to table number 17. All in favor of 17 say to be table say I. I. All oppose. Nay. Number 17 is tabled until should I put the date of what? The next meeting. Next meetings, February the 10th. It'll be tabled to the the following meeting for city council number 18. Do I get a motion to have this table to uh our next meeting, city uh scheduled city council meeting? Uh table table. Thank you. Stand

second. I have a I have a motion and a second to table number 18th until next city uh sir next scheduled city council meeting uh all in favor say I. I. All opposed. Number 18 carries as table for the next meeting executive session. We have a close session.

[snorts] We have a close session. Uh, city council will meet the close session pursuant to the chapter uh, procision of chapter 551 of the Texas government code in accordance with the authority contained in a section 551.071 consultation with attorney to discuss concerning a settlement of a claim. B section 551.071 071 consultation with attorney discussing concerning a reimbursement of claims. We are in executive session. It is 65 650.

1895. Was that 7-Eleven? We are back in session. Uh according to agenda item number 19 number A, I make a motion to approve the settlement of the claim. Second all in favor of motion number eight.

Yes. Yes. Uh okay carries. Uh for section B. Uh concerning section 19 number B, I make a motion to approve the reimbursement with a waiver of liability. I'll second. All in favor? I I

I uh item number B, section 55 071. It's passed. Uh council inquiry, any uh uh pursuant to Texas government code 551.042 042. The mayor and city council may inquire about a specific a subject not specifically listed on this agenda. Responses are read of existing policy or a statement of specific factual information given in response to the inquiry. Any inquiries? I have one. When are we going to get a report on the uh on the progress for the new city hall building? Dennis already left. We were just talking about that. He's they're they're coming in March to do u a whole update on everything. Um they're also looking at uh putting together kind of a well hopefully we'll do it sort of a a work process so you can have some input at the time but then they're going to do a full you know. Well, can uh can say possibly you give us a monthly report on what the

what the progress has got done and because you know was hoping that we could hopefully see a little bit more progress than what's been made on it so far. Yeah, I mean the last time we just did the the A&E um and they're starting on that. We're going to have some internal meetings, you know, on the spaces again, but yeah, we should have stuff to report now. Okay. Uh any any other inquiries? [snorts] Uh do we have any items to consider for placement on future agendas?

I have one. I have uh on the agenda is to have uh someone give us a report on the [laughter] on the progress for the new city city hall. Other than that, I don't can't think of anything else. I'll make a motion to adjourn. adjourn 7:14. Thank you everybody for coming. Have a good night.