City Council - Regular Meeting

48 p.m. If possible, if everyone would please stand. We'll have the invocation by Councilmember Fernandez and the pledge by Councilmember Cade.

All right, if you all will bow your heads for me, please. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for allowing us to be here today to gather in your presence. Your word says that when two or more gather that you are here, and we're just thankful for that. Lord, we just ask for your guidance in everything that we do to each leader, to each citizen, to those that are attending here today, to our staff, the city staff. We just ask that you allow us to feel your presence in everything that we do. To our first responders, Lord, we just ask for you to continue to place your hands of protection upon each one of them. As they put on the uniforms, as they go out, Lord, we just ask for you to Just surround them and just allow them to know that you are there in everything that they do. Lord, allow them to go home safely. And to their spouses and to their families, just be with them as well. Lord, thank you for all that you do in our lives. Thank you for just steering the ship in what we do. Lord, we just ask all this in your mighty name. In Jesus Christ we pray. Amen.

Thank you, everyone. Now I just want to move on to roll call on certification of quorum. Madam Secretary, I certify that we do have a quorum present of all Councilmembers. Good. Now moving on to citizen comments. and i just want to remind everyone to comply with provisions of the texas open meeting act the city council may not deliberate on any item not listed on the agenda however city council will listen to public comment and during said comment the public shall comply with the council's rules of decorum everyone desiring to present comments should have completed the public hearing comment card in the foyer and submitted it to the city secretary. At the podium, each participant shall have a maximum of three minutes, and if you represent a group, five minutes shall be allotted. At this particular time, I would hand it over to Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria to facilitate.

Thank you, Mayor. So we have two public comments. Angela Huffman, if you would please proceed to the podium, and you have three minutes. Please state your name. Thank you.

My name is Angela Huffman. And I'm here because I've lived in Pearland for 20 years. I live in the Southern Trails neighborhood, which Shadow Creek High School was built next to me. I was there before the high school. What I wanted always was to have a covered backyard, covered patio, and finally found a way economically to do that, which was to buy a gazebo from Costco and have it put up in the backyard. I called the HOA and got permission from them, but I didn't get permission. They said I need to first talk to the city of Pearland first and then find out what was required and then come back and submit to the HOA. I called the city of Pearland in the middle of March. I was told that I need to get a permit but they said I had to submit online, and so I did that. I gave them, I required pictures. I sent them pictures of what the gazebo was going to look like. That's from the Costco website. They went to how it was going to, you know, how the water was going to drain off, so I submitted pictures for the gutter that I was going to buy with the gazebo and where it was going to go. Selena Lopez in the permits department, who said, I had submitted the wrong form, I had to resubmit. So I did it again, second time. Then I got a call back the second time from Selena Lopez and someone else from the permits department named Laura, who was supposed to be more experienced. And she said, I had to get a little bit more experience. I had to get plans from an engineer. I had to get plans from an engineer because I needed to submit plans from them before I could get a permit. And I told her, this is very cost prohibitive of what you're saying. This sounds expensive and I know there's 40, 50 of these in the neighborhood. And I told her, I'm sure nobody is doing this. But they said I had to get a permit. I had to get engineer plans, and I went to do that. And then three weeks later, I got a call from someone else in the permits department named Kelby, and he said I didn't need a permit at all because it's not attached to the house. And I explained I did say that, but yet between those three weeks' time, I had spent $1,500 for an engineer that I didn't even need. So they wasted $1,500 of my money giving me wrong information. So I'm really unhappy about it, obviously. And it totally blew my budget out of the water. And I, one, think, I don't know if the city will compensate. I doubt if they will. But if they would, that's something. But at least they should make sure, if information's going to be given, that it's given correctly. That's the main thing. They should be giving out correct information.

Angela, you've exceeded your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. We appreciate your feedback.

Thank you.

Louis McGowan. Mulligan, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I can. I don't think.

Hey, how's it going? This is the second time I've been here about this subject. I live at 2907 Yorkshire Court, right off Westminster. It's a cut through. I moved out here in 1974 when there's 8,000 people in this town. Now all these other neighborhoods that are popping up are using my street for a drag strip to get to Pearland Parkway. And, uh, I mean, how much could it cost to put a few speed bumps there? I got cc'd to a couple of emails, got one phone call. A police officer showed up one morning, about 45 minutes, it was like he wrote about three tickets in that time. I mean, traffic calming committee? I mean, what is that? Broadway's a gauntlet, so if they need to calm something, they need to calm Broadway down. Now we can't spring for a couple speed bumps, we got all these fancy ornate light poles going up down Broadway. I mean, I'm just gonna keep showing up and speaking my mind until something's done about it. Somebody's gonna get run over, one of those kids getting out of a school bus from people cutting through that neighborhood. A lot of y'all know about Westminster. It's a cut through to get to Pearland Parkway. From stop sign to stop sign, they should be driving 25 miles an hour and they're doing 50 down that street. And it's just, it's gotten ridiculous. I've been running the ditch several times, walking my dog just around the block to go to the YMCA to walk my dogs at the park. I mean, it's gotten really ridiculous. Sorry about that. But I don't know, man. I don't know what it's going to take to get something done about it. A couple of speed bumps. It costs that much. And I mean, the cop showed up just one morning, he wasn't there maybe 45 minutes and that was the end of it. Nothing sent, cc'd to a couple emails and not another word. So I don't know if that was just to shut me up or what, but next time I'm bringing a bunch of my neighbors up here with me, because we're about all fed up with it. You know, we're one of the oldest neighborhoods in Pearland. So, you know, it should count for something. You know, we're not half million dollar homes in these fancy gated communities around here, but we are Pearland. You know, and I don't know how long you've lived out here, Mayor. Congratulations to the new mayor. But I spoke here the last time when the other mayor was here. So that's all I got to say about that. I'll just keep showing up every chance I get. Appreciate it. I wish y'all would do something about it.

Thank you, sir. We do appreciate your feedback.

I think that ends public comment. I want to thank everyone for coming and showing up to voice your concerns. Moving on to, I think there was one other comment, but you said it was reserved for one of the items, item number one. So moving on to the Consent Agenda, are there any items that need to be removed? C through F? Okay, so I believe, There's items that are pending removal, items C through F. So if possible, Council Member Koza, can you present the items A through F?

Yes, Mayor, before we do, I'd like to ask for a point of personal privilege. I wanted to talk about, on May 18th, we had a workshop, and on that workshop, or from that workshop, I received quite a bit of input about Member Patel, whether you want to call it filibustering, he was very passionate, and I don't take that away from him at all. But it left the rest of us without time to speak. and so much so that member Fernandez showed complete frustration at the end of the meeting after it was concluded and we basically ran out of time. I can tell you from there I didn't get to speak and we kind of deferred to other council members to be able to get a few minutes in. But with that being said, one of the charges that Mayor has here in Pearland is to run the meetings. I can tell you from that meeting to tonight's meeting, it was handled, I'm not gonna tell you 100% better, but it was a marked improvement. I appreciate Member Patel, he made a comment, something to the fact that he was chastised. I had talked to him about that. And as one of the senior members here, most tenured, I felt that it was wrong on his behalf to take the time up and what I call take the air out of the room. And so I ask that you keep improving on the ability to run the meeting and limit people's time. One thing that I would suggest moving forward is when we have topics that, if you want to say, are more passionate and need more time, like tonight, I don't think the workshop got its due that it needed. I know Trent has an impact, but so do you as well. So I just wanted to point that out and let you know that hopefully in the future we can get it better where we do have appropriate time for everyone involved to be able to speak. So I just wanted to say that before I entered the consent agenda. If you would like to remark or if Member Patel would like to remark, I'm completely fine with it, but I did want to voice that opinion.

If we're talking about moving on, the personal point of privilege is up. Let's move to the consent. We can get to the end where there's new business and other meetings, and I'd use this point as an improvement in my meeting facilitation. So please move on to consent agenda. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration and possible action consent agenda items A through F with the exception of C through F. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion made by Council Member Koza and seconded by, I believe, Council Member Byrum to remove said items. Secretary, could you please call for the vote?

Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Councilmember Koza, can you present the items removed?

Yes, Mayor, consideration and possible action, resolution number R2026-89, so moved.

Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Koza, second by Council Member Cade. Madam Secretary. Staff report, I apologize, staff report.

All right, so thank you, Mayor, and good evening, Council. This item authorizes an additional appropriation of $320,000 to the maintenance contract we have with Vector Controls for our water and wastewater electrical, mechanical, and SCADA system maintenance. This additional funding is necessary due to the time we worked through to put in place our new contract that covers these services so that it was finishing up some things that were underway. There are budgeted funds within the water and wastewater fund. FOR MAINTENANCE, AVAILABLE, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER ECHOLS. I HAD THIS PULLED SIMPLY BECAUSE I WANTED OUR CITIZENS, PEOPLE ON THE DIAS TO KNOW THAT THE UNINTENDED The spill we had of wastewater after a flood was not a vector problem. It was some other problems. And if the staff could just make people aware of what that problem was and that it was not vector, we can approve this.

So maybe David could summarize what occurred.

Absolutely. Mayor, council, council, The discharge that occurred was the result of many things, largely communications and the alarm system that is intended to call out, was not a failure of the SCADA and had nothing to do with Vector, its contract or this extension or additional funds. It was just simply communications, and that has been resolved.

Any additional questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez? Aye. Member Patel? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

OK. Moving on. I believe that was Eccles. I mean, C. We just did C. It's D. Councilmember Koza, I believe that was item D was pulled. Would you mind moving?

Presentation first. We haven't put the motion forward. Okay, sorry, sorry. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-90. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Costa, seconded by Council Member Fernandez. Staff.

Thank you, Mayor. This item awards a contract for a full redesign and upgrade to our website. The award includes the initial implementation plus support and subscription cost for five years. It's been about 12 years since we've done any major overhauls or upgrades to our current platform, which is obviously in need of upgrades and more modern interfaces and more modern tools. The launch of the new website is expected in about 12 months. The contract is funded by our PEG, our public educational and government funds, which have a specific use, and we can use them for this, and came in well within our budget. So we do recommend award to Civic Plus for the amount of $399,069. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Koza, discussion?

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, the reason I pulled this is we have new council members that do not know. We might have some older ones that don't know, but Josh, could you please explain to us, and since we have a rather attended meeting here, a bunch of citizens will get to understand, but what a PEG fund is, where it comes from, how we use it, what we can use it for, that type of stuff, because About four years ago, when we were redoing the train depot out here, I had plenty of people tell me, just push in the train depot. And I said, well, the money that we're spending on it is not coming from the taxpayer's property tax assessment. So they didn't quite understand where it was coming from. So could you please delve into what a PEG fund is, where it comes from, what we can use it for?

Yes, thank you, Honorable Mayor and Council for the opportunity to expand on this. So, excuse me, as a home rural city over a population of 50,000, we have the responsibility to broadcast our meetings and an opportunity through our cable providers to have a cable channel as a vehicle to do that. In exchange for having that channel, cable subscription fees have a franchise fee that is Sent back to the city in the term of peg funds being public information education and government Those funds as you mentioned are not part of the tax base in any form. They're Simply a line on the cable subscription and they are designed to support the information that goes on that channel the capital expenditures specifically that are applied to the to the peg channel so infrastructure, excuse me, office equipment and office space costs like the train depot. The website being a very prime example of a place where information is stored and used for the PEG channel, but the PEG channel is also housed on our website. So there's a strong symbiotic relationship between those two. But those funds give us the opportunity to provide high quality resources to the community in certain situations and not impact the resident tax base of the tax base at all thank you um do you know kind of roughly on an annual basis what what we get i believe our peg fund collection is roughly two hundred thousand dollars a year rachel's gonna prove me wrong here in just a second she's good about that I love watching people type. It's one of my favorite hobbies. Sorry.

Like putting her on the spot.

Yes, about between 150 and $200,000 a year.

Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that, just wanted to let anybody at the Diocese that is unfamiliar with Aged Funds what we can do. So I appreciate that and thank you very much.

Thank you for the context. And so if there are no further, oh sorry, Council Member Patel.

Mayor Trent, is the, what's this company, Civic Plus, are they here? Would you go to the podium, I just saw Aaron. I know you guys are going to build this website, and I guess the question I have is before you guys do a final launch, I have made Josh aware that what we would like to do is along the way, how often will council be able to see and kind of play around with it just to kind of see, make sure it's user-friendly, or if we have some feedback, we can give it to you?

Yeah, certainly. For the city, there is going to be an in-house design team that's going to work directly with the city and the communication team to make sure that the website is something that's going to be resident-focused. Okay.

But I guess... Can you provide your name, please?

Yeah, my name is Brian Kim.

Brian, sorry about that.

I think we can probably plan on having some interim updates and some options there as we get into test mode with things. I don't know that that's built in as specifically when we would do that, but I think we can work with Josh's team and Civic Plus to make those touch bases. Okay, thank you.

Any additional questions on this particular item? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, could you call for the vote?

Member Koza. Aye. Member Echols. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria. Aye. Member Byrum. Aye. Member Cade. Aye. Member Fernandez. Aye. Member Patel. Aye. Motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, would you present item E?

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-91. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, second by Council Member Byram. Staff?

Yes, so this is a rate application. It's from Sea Energy Gas. They provide natural gas services to one neighborhood in the city of Pearland in the Baker subdivision, I'm sorry, the Alexander subdivision off of State Highway 35 near Bailey Road. I believe it's about 181 properties. So typically, no, not typically, The city has original jurisdiction for any utility that adopts rates within the city's boundaries. which means we get the first chance to say yay or nay, and if we oppose it, then it goes, well, this one, because it's natural gas, goes to the Railroad Commission. We've looked at it, but we don't have in-house counsel or statisticians to say, hey, this is right, this is wrong, and because it is such a broad base, sea energy providing so many things throughout the state of Texas versus, you know, kind of a limited area, our pocket, It's best to have a coalition or attorneys who represent a broader group of people for that action in front of the Railroad Commission. And this resolution will authorize us to retain Lloyd Goslink. They've got the people on staff and they have the experts to look at this to see if they're getting the best possible rate to make sure that the capital expenditures are coded correctly and that they're They're frankly within the means or the allowable amount that the Railroad Commission would normally allow a utility to earn a profit on. So this resolution authorizes those things primarily to hire Lord Goslink in this particular case to... make sure that all the i's are dotted all the t's are crossed and uh it's a fair and equitable thing i think that the rates for the residential areas are going to be about 13 12 84 or something like that uh for a proposed increase and we would expect that to come down uh through the pendency of this case thank you for the context uh mayor protein

Thank you. I'm the one that actually wanted to pull that item, or I pulled that item. I just wanted to know if we were negotiating rates and why we were hiring legal counsel. So, thank you so much. You answered my question.

Any additional questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byron?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols?

Aye.

The motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you for that. Councilmember Cade, can you present item F?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. Consideration and possible action, resolution number R2026-93, so moved.

Second.

Motion was made by Councilmember Cade, second by Councilmember Byrum. Staff.

Thank you, Mayor. So this development agreement is between the City of Pearland and Ashton Oaks Homes. That's a new development that's going in near the intersection of 521 and Broadway. Before a developer can start building vertically, they have to have all the public infrastructure completed. One of the things required here is a traffic signal at the intersection of Shadow Grove Lane and Broadway Street. So, with TxDOT having the 521 project under construction, It really kind of precludes them from going in and building the signal at this point. So this development agreement allows them to start building before the traffic signal goes in and has a requirement that within six months of substantial completion of the TxDOT project that they move forward with the intersection improvements. And to that point, they can get up to 60% or I believe it's 91 residential dwelling units built. So with that, we recommend approval.

Any discussion, questions? Council Member Patel?

This is on the northeast corner, or east corner, correct?

Yes, sir.

So how many lots are there? I thought I read it was like 100 and something. They're not built to rent, right?

Yes, sir, it is a build-to-rent community, is my understanding. It's allowed by right in the Shadow Creek Ranch PD. Their product is allowed by right in the Shadow Creek Ranch PD at that location.

Okay, thank you. And when was this approved? Because I don't remember. Which this?

I'm sorry.

When was this development approved?

When the Shadow Creek Ranch PD was originally done. So they didn't need to come to council? No, sir, they did not have to come to council for this one. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions?

Hearing or seeing none, Madam Secretary, call for the vote.

Member Cade? No. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

The motion passes six to one.

Thank you for that. I will now open this public hearing on a request by Dana Garnett, applicant on behalf of Amidali Varani, owner for approval of a conditional use permit for resale consignment shop use on approximately 2.438 acres of land within the Business Park 288 district. Staff, is there any information?

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, everyone. This is a proposal for a 15,000 square foot resale consignment shop. This proposed store is open to the public for the purpose of dropping off clothing and other apparel items for resale and purchasing. We have received no written comments or phone calls to date. Public notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet. We sent six letters and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. Looking at the aerial and zoning map and surrounding uses, you can see that the surrounding zoning is BP 288 alongside with State Highway 288. We also have floor and decor, a multi-tenant retail shopping center, and undeveloped land surrounding this property. The property is located within the commercial center future land use place type. And this case may have started to sound familiar to some of you all, and that is because that is true. This case was seen and heard on the February 23rd, 2026 meeting and was unanimously denied by the council. And since then, the applicants have come back with some revisions to their application. One is they revised the west elevation to incorporate a minimum of 25% transparency. They also revised the east elevation to incorporate aluminum and glass storefront, as well as prefabricated aluminum canopies with glazing to be tinted or have spandrel glass to block visibility. They also provided a larger canopy at the donation drop-off area. And then they revised their landscape plan to incorporate an additional tree. And they also reduced the landscape setback adjacent to Business Center Drive by five feet. So you'll see that the CUP number has changed to the 2025 cases. I wanted to show the site plan as well as the renderings from that previous case that was heard in February of this year. And then this image is a little tough to read, but it is an overlay with the previous CUP application site plan and the current CUP application. The changes, you can see the 2025 case is in green color, and the current case, the 2026 case, is in the red color. So you can see the added building articulation bump outs with the red, and then you can see the larger drop off area. as well as building articulation was increased on the western elevation, and then you can see that decreased landscape setback from 25 to 20 feet. And then looking at the elevations adjacent to Business Center Drive, I wanted to showcase the CUP from 2025 as well as the CUP from 2026. You can see when looking at the transparency that it has significantly increased from the application. All right, so let's get back to the 2026 plan. Here on the screen we have the landscaping plan on the left side as well as the site plan on the right side. Here are the elevations. The left image is fronting Business Center Drive and the right image is fronting State Highway 288. More renderings provided by the applicant. Left side images are from business center and the right side is from State Highway 288. So the staff's analysis is that the proposed conditional use permit meets five criteria and may meet two noted in section 2.2.3.4A with staff's recommended condition. The proposed use is consistent with the policies recognized in the comprehensive plan and the thoroughfare plan and this property does have access to water and sewer. A lot of words on this screen, but staff does recommend approval with the following five conditions. One, two parking lot trees shall be provided in the end cap islands in the row of parking adjacent to the northwest side of the building. Trees shall be a minimum of three inch caliber measured at 12 inches above the root ball. Trees shall be evergreen with year-round foliage. Two, the keeping, displaying, or storing of any goods, materials, merchandise, or equipment outside of the principal building shall be prohibited. Any material, debris, or refuge dropped off on site must be located inside the building immediately or to be transferred to the dumpster. 3, the proposed elevation shall be substantially conformed to the attached concept elevation sheet with the requirements that a minimum of 25% of the exterior wall facing Business Center Drive shall be transparent. 4, the exterior wall facing State Highway 288 shall provide a minimum of 18% tinted or spandrel glass as shown in the proposed elevations and materials shall be substantially conformed with those illustrated in the concept elevation sheet. and five no signage shall be permitted to be placed on the spandrel class facing state highway 288. the planning and zoning commission voted six to zero to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with staff's condition at the may 19 2026 meeting and that concludes staff report thank you mayor thank you for that does the applicant have a presentation sure please go to the podium remember to state your name

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for allowing us to be here again. My name is Jason Miller. I'm the architect. on the project and we also tonight also have Mike Winkler with Goodwill to discuss some of the items that came up on the P&Z. More to just echo some of what staff has already presented, we did take into advisement comments received both from P&Z previously in the council meeting where we were rejected and tried to incorporate those into the building design. We did increase the transparency along the frontage the main road to meet the 25%. We did address the rear as well on 288 to give it more of a storefront look and less of a back of house look with the glazing and the canopies. Some of the screening concerns that were brought up during the P&Z presentation we have tried to address as well by adding additional landscape areas. near the dock and the drop off area to help with some of that screening and visibility. And just going through the elevations again, the front elevation, we slightly exceeded, but we met the 25% transparency and the 18% on the rear that were part of staff's recommendation, part of the conditional approval. The other two elevations have remained unchanged except for the larger drop-off canopy to help with weather protection. And then just for reference, we included some photo examples of the materials we are proposing with a texture painted tilt wall, which will have a texture that will not be a smooth surface. So there would be some relief on that with reveal patterns and such. Integral color stucco as well. The vision glass and spandrel glass, you can see the difference. We would not be doing a gray, though. That's just for reference. It would be a black. But that would be the difference between that on what's on the transparency side versus the 288 side. Of course, the prefabricating canopies that we're proposing and the split space CMU, which would be on the dumpster enclosure itself. And then lastly, one comment we received is that the vertical lines looked like metal panel. That is actually a form liner with kind of a wood grain texture on it. So we do not have metal panels on the project. And then we already went through the comparison. And that concludes my presentation, thank you.

I don't believe there's anyone else that signed up to speak for this item.

Mayor Quilts, as this is a public hearing, you actually don't have to sign up for this one, unlike a new business item where you do have to sign up.

So the confusion was that we did have this person sign up and that's what it was, so I apologize for that. Please proceed, just remember to state your name.

Sure, Mike Winkler, President and CEO for Goodwill of Houston. Thank you so much for having us here today to speak on behalf of this project. I'd just like to share that I've been CEO now for about two and a half years. And I understand that there have been some concerns. Well, first and foremost, let me just assure you that Goodwill is a federated model. There isn't one singular CEO. I'm not it. There's actually 154 different CEOs around the country. There are a lot of myths floating around the internet about CEO compensation at Goodwill. If my wife were here, she could assure you that those myths are far from true. My compensation is set by our local board of directors, which does include a citizen of the city of Pearland. Katrina Johnson has been a resident here in Pearland for 28 years. She would have liked to have been here tonight, but I failed to give her the exact time, so that's on me. But she is on our board of directors. The concerns around the donation door and items that are dropped off, I'd like to assure you that we take that very seriously. And through a camera system, we are able to now with our new stores and we'll be refitting our current Pearland store with a camera system to monitor 24 hours a day the activity at the donation door. We do run our logistics 24 hours a day now. We're actually one of the largest Goodwills in the country. We operate 46, soon to be 48 stores, hopefully 49 stores in the area, so that allows us, the critical mass, to be able to run logistics 24 hours a day with the help of AI. Who doesn't like AI these days? We'll be able to live monitor the activity at this store and should there be any after-hours drop-offs, if we're not able to intervene with a live operator and a speaker, then we would dispatch a logistics team to pick up those items and bring them to our warehouse operations. I do want to share that the Pearland community has been particularly supportive of our presence here. Last year, we received 110,000 individual donations from the Pearland area. That represents four million pounds of household waste that was diverted from your landfills. In addition to that, our store ranks amongst the largest stores in the entire metro statistical area at $3 million a year. It employs 30 individuals. The new store will employ 30 individuals and provide five to 10 training slots in addition to that. So, what happens today is half of those 110,000 donations go to other stores. By adding a second store, we'll be able to keep those Pearland donations here, for the citizens of Pearland and create 30 new jobs and five to 10 training slots at the location. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Council Member Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. Sir, when you say training slots, are you training them for some kind of skills? Can you explain that to me? I'm sorry.

Yeah, so a lot of times, it varies. So the training that we'll be providing will be typically for students that are aging out of Pearland ISD and providing them with some work experience, some work skills, customer service skills, and production operation skills. So the populations that we serve would vary, but generally it's students from your ISD. Okay.

And currently you don't have anything at any of your locations here in Pearland, I'm assuming?

We right now do not have, and we could use the current location, but we know that having both locations signed up would enable more students to be able to utilize that opportunity.

And sorry, one more question. On the west side, you have one on Kingsley and 518, a location there in a retail center. So is that location gonna close because they're so close? Or is this, are you gonna keep all the locations currently in parallel?

So the Kingsley location is actually a tended donation center. and that will be up to, I doubt it'll close. It only employs two individuals right now. We know that donations are made based on convenience, so more than likely that center will remain open and continue to feed the new store.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Cahill?

Thank you, Mayor. One question for you. Did I hear correctly 30 new employees is projected for this location?

Correct.

Okay. Now, out of those 30, what's your average entry-level salaries? What do you pay for your employees?

So an entry-level individual with no experience would earn 14, on average right now, $14.35 an hour.

Okay, and then your entry-level supervisors?

That's a good question. I think $19 an hour, and managers make roughly $28 to $35 an hour.

And what about benefits?

We have medical available to all of our full-time employees. For single individuals, it's roughly $78 a month. for full coverage. In addition, we offer from day one the ability for an individual to participate in our 401, excuse me, our 403 with a match. So, basically, if you put in 6%, You get five, no, I'm sorry, five gets you four. 5% gets you a 4% match, fully vested from day one. In addition, you get paid time off and sick leave.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate you doing the work to make this look better and appreciate the Goodwill mission. Also, I want to, I live real close to the east side, east end, sorry, east end Goodwill. And a lot of times, I know people are putting stuff out there when they aren't open. So I am curious, you mentioned the AI watchdog that's going to, Yes.

Yeah, we're employing that now. It's not eerie. We're employing it in all of our new stores first, and then we're retrofitting all of our existing 46 stores.

So it'll be soon?

Yes, it will be very soon. In fact, I can assure you by the end of the year, the current Pearland location will have this camera system.

The new store will have it?

From day one, yes.

Because it's very visible, and I would like for that to not happen at the new one.

We understand that, and I actually, I don't know how we can pull it up. I had a presentation. Did you distribute it? Oh, so you have the slide presentation. So you can have color, you have color pictures there with what today, as of today, what the current store looks like. That has been the case for at least six months that we've maintained that level of cleanliness at that store and you have my commitment that that will continue. What the camera allows us to do is more aggressively deter individuals that come in the evening with, we'll have actually live, surveillance officers that will have the ability to interact with individuals before they drop off to inform them that they're being recorded and that our normal business hours are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

I love that. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Seeing that there's no one else to speak.

Sure, go ahead. Yeah, I wanted to add some questions.

Oh, for sure.

So your operation hours are nine to nine, correct?

Yes, currently they're nine to nine.

And you can donate through that time period while somebody's there, is that what?

That is correct. And we do have signage that explains that very clearly on a number of windows and inside the store we have a recorded message.

That's fine, I just, I didn't know and I just wanted to clarify that. As far as the pictures, and actually it's up right here, on the detention aspect of it, is it going to be, no, the one that was up there, on the right hand side there, is the detention going to be wet?

I do not believe so, that was more of an illustration for purposes of showing it as the pond. We don't have that designed yet.

That's because I was just going to ask if it is, if we could have some fountains in it, but I wanted clarification on that. As far as the five conditions that staff has put in, are y'all okay with those five conditions?

Yes, we are.

All right. And thank you for coming back with a better product than what we saw last time. I appreciate that. That's all I've got.

Council Member Byron.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll echo my fellow council members. Thank you for taking our input and adjusting your project. Not everybody does. They just try to come back and see if maybe it'll change the next time. But thank you for listening to us and putting a product that will fit with the area and make the changes. The one main question that I had because it hit most of the other ones is on the site plan. It says proposed proposed cross access drive. I don't know how this property is currently plotted, but is there any way we can memorialize that to ensure it remains that way. And the reason I'm asking is because I had a resident that's looking to develop some property on the other side of 288 just very similar to this. Not a good will. Obviously you guys aren't doing that, right? But the existing plat has that same language proposed cross access drive on existing commercial. They want to develop in between existing commercial. And those commercial properties are telling them, no, you can't use the cross access. And so if we're going to start to develop this area that's got more room to develop around it a little bit later, how can we ensure that this doesn't become an argument with adjoining property owners?

And I would suggest that as a conditional use permit, you can actually make that a requirement to the conditional use. So there are several staff proposed comments and when that item comes up, we would expect the staff proposed issues be there as member Koza asked about them and Goodwill has said that they're willing to do that. You may want to include another one that the access drive as depicted on the applicant's site plan, have the paving go from edge of property to edge of property for that access, for that cross access. And then because it's already built, the adjacent property owner doesn't need their permission to come in and connect.

You guys have any issue with making that an additional condition to the CEP? No, we're fighting with that.

Member Byram, if I may, we are looking at the subdivision plat right now, and there is a plat note that states access rights to driveways are hereby granted to all adjoining commercial properties. So it is currently on the subdivision plat.

In this case, we don't need to make it a condition because the plat's covering it.

I would encourage you, it's one thing to grant access if they have something that touches. It's another one to go on the other person's property and build that driveway to make them connect. So if you want to make sure that it happens and you're in control of that, have that be the condition and have them build that cross-access to the edge of the property. So pave it.

that we would need to make, I would need to propose an amendment to the staff recommendations, a sixth amendment to ensure that the cross-access is built property line to property line.

Yes, sir.

Can I just stay so moved at that point, or do I need to re-say all that?

Because it's not on the table yet. Whoever makes that motion might be kind enough to include the staff conditions in that. Otherwise, it may need to be repeated. Do we need to do it under new business?

Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much for the presentation. I do know that y'all have career centers. I just want a clarification. Is this going to be a career center? Because you did mention job training.

So at this time it is not going to be a full career center, but we do have connect centers in all of our new stores. So what that will be are kiosks or a small phone booth type entryway for individuals to connect with a live, well, to in real time connect with an individual caseworker. that will be offsite but available via Teams to be able to help them enroll in our services, and then we can work with them remotely. So in other words, it's like a substation, if you will.

Thank you.

Can I ask you a question? We have a lot of empty space around our town. What's making you choose this site right on 288 to build a new one instead of picking up, let's say, for example, Bed Bath & Beyond? It's right around the corner. Wonderful store location, 288. Why?

So thank you for the question. So there is a economics to what we do, and I can't speak specifically to the Bed Bath and Beyond that's there, but generally they're much larger and much more expensive because of the square footage. then what we'll do, this one will be 15,000 square feet. In addition, I don't believe the Bed Bath & Beyond lent itself to a drive-through donation site. The lifeblood of our stores, which by the way, enable us to invest $6 million in the Houston area each year in free services, including the Job Connect, that we'll have at this center. So the answer is most of the existing space that is here is either too expensive or does not allow for a dock for material handling and a drive-through for the donor, which we get about 25% more donations when we have a drive-through.

Right, and so my understanding is you guys will be selling, so there'll be a sales tax associated with this, correct?

Yes, I believe so.

Do you know approximately what your estimate is in sales tax collection?

I can tell you, I cannot tell you that. I can tell you what our revenue is. Our revenue projections are for this to be a $3 million store within five years.

Okay, and then you guys will be paying property tax, so you're not tax exempt, correct?

That is correct, unless the council would like to consider that. Okay.

Not in this public hearing.

You know, the one thing I'll tell you, down the road you have something called iShine. Have you seen that down the road from this location? Well, take my word for it, it's there. They have a detention pond that's right along the frontage road, and it looks like crap. and you got to drive right by it to exit to Magnolia, okay? And you start seeing debris flying in there, and this is our thoroughfare, right? And so your art rendering looks really nice. It's beautiful looking, but that's never the reality. So, you know, the pond that was mentioned earlier, I would like to make it a wet pond if possible. I would like you to put fountains on there, fountains that actually work. Because I've also seen developments that put fountains in when they open and then code enforcement doesn't do anything. Matter of fact, there are some right there on 518 I can show you. So for me, because of that exit, when people are exiting, and us spending $20 million for those beautiful pear structures you see on 288, it kind of just makes the corridor a better look and feel, right? And I'm assuming you're the engineer who's going to be designing this. So I would like for you to go look at the iShine. And they have their detention exactly like you do, way in the back of the property. But it's horrible. It's absolutely horrible. And you can see it as you're exiting. And so would you consider making this a wet pond with fountains?

I mean, we can definitely talk with our engineer. I'm not the engineer, I'm the architect, so I wouldn't be involved in that part. But we can work with ownership to

Because I think you guys are focusing on business center drive, but I think what's being missing is that other piece that the most traffic is going to be exiting. That actually, yes, they won't be able to come into your property, but they will see your property, right? And so I think that's where my fear is to say, hey, we missed a boat on the other development. I don't want to miss the boat here, right? So, yeah, I mean, my vote would be you got to make both sides, unfortunately for you, both sides count, right? So that would be my feedback and that would be my opinion.

I'm looking both ways. I'm looking at no comments, okay. Are there any additional comments? Anyone else desiring to speak? Seeing none, I will now close this public hearing. Councilmember Echols, can you present new business item number one, please?

I will try. Consideration of possible actions for resolution number R2026-CUP2026-0184 with the five staff provisions plus the drive-through of Councilman Biden. So moved.

Second. Does that get you what you need, Lawrence?

As he referenced your prior comment, I think that we'll pull that together from your prior comment, and it'll be included in the resolution if it's adopted tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Motion was made by Councilmember Echols, second by Councilmember Cade.

mayor if if i may can i amend that motion i would like to add that the detention pond is wet with a fountain please i'm sorry i just want to make sure i understand so mr eccles made the original motion yeah it was second but that wasn't it so do we need to move on and then

Yeah, we have to adopt the first one, and then there's a new amendment with the Patel condition, or however we want it, the wet bottom pond. Yeah, the first one's on the floor.

The amenitized wet bottom bond condition. Let me amend my original motion.

You can't do that. It's got to go through. So, moved and second. So, discussion, and then we vote, and then come back.

Yes, sir.

Okay, well obviously there's discussion. So I think there's a discussion that we move forward with this and we'll come back and we'll make another amendment recommendation. Okay, sir. So Madam Secretary, call for the vote.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavadilla? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

The motion passes seven to zero.

So we now have a new amended motion on the table, and somebody would like to amend that motion.

Yeah, Mayor, I would like to amend a motion to include the detention pond that will be on the east side of the property to be a wet pond with a fountain as an amenity. Second. Second.

Motion was made, amended motion was made by Council Member Patel, second by Council Member Koza. Question, Council Member Byron? Somebody come back.

The applicant is here, yes. Sir, I could ask you one question about that. Can you briefly explain what it entails, what this change would entail for you guys, the difference between having dry bottom, wet bottom with a fountain? What does that look like for you all?

I know I can't speak to the engineering of it, but I know on another project I have not in this jurisdiction, it's quite cost prohibitive because we're required to run a water line to it to make sure it maintains a certain level, which is an extra cost. And detention is expensive in general, so it would put quite a big cost on the project, above and beyond just having the detention meeting Atlas 14 requirements and the drainage for our site.

I agree with member Patel. I mean this is this is the entry corridor That is what you guys got feedback from us the last time about that. That's the main main coming through our community so I would be Curious which when you say it's cost prohibitive, what that dollar figure is. And maybe you, I mean, I understand you're not an engineer. You don't know where your water tap's gonna be, how far your water line's gonna run, power, all that kind of stuff. Just wanted to know if y'all had any experience with it. I would, again, agree with my colleague here that anything we can do that makes our corridor an attractive pass-through for our community is something we would definitely be interested in. So I was just curious if you had any input on that.

Any additional questions on the amended?

Are there other things that you could do with a retention pond to make it look good that might be less cost prohibited?

You can bury it. You can put it underground. It won't be less, I mean, but you could.

So my question is more in terms of making sure we can move forward the applicant. Based on the initial first amended resolution, now the second, if we go to a vote and it doesn't pass, are they able to move forward?

If the second amendment does not pass, we still have the original amended motion that includes staff conditions, and for the sake of brevity, I'm gonna call it the Byram Amendment.

Okay.

I would be interested in keeping the retention problem looking good. But I understand and sometimes if the fountains break, and then then it just looks, it's a breeding ground for mosquitoes. So I understand your your point. But if it's cost prohibitive, or if it's going to break, then what? It's not a good idea either.

So if there's something else we could do, could we check and see if we've got landscaping requirements or anything else screening around the detention bond required?

The proposed landscape plan is on the screen and within the BP 288 zoning district detention does have to be amenitized and so that could be trees around it or a fountain, but this application shows trees around the detention which satisfies the requirement, thank you.

it will take a while for those trees and bushes to grow. And I will just tell you, if you go to iShine, you will see exactly what I'm talking about. And I'm telling you, this is, we've spent millions of dollars on upgrading this corridor. And I think it is important that we set the precedence going forward for all of these developers to come in to say, build it to a higher standard. On 288, we must do that. We spend millions, and that is our main corridor.

So would increased landscaping work for you? I mean, I understand where you're coming from. I don't disagree with you. Versus having a row of trees that'll take 15 years for them to grow up and be healthy, putting a hedge row in between that screens it all the way through or something like that?

No, and look, if you look at the fact what happened on McCard Road or even 518 after we installed those fountains, there is a different appeal. There is a different feel when you drive through on 288. As people are driving through our city or whether they're exiting, there is a different ambiance to it. And that's all I'm trying to tell you, that yes, there is a cost. I'm not disputing that. You guys are spending $6 million on the ground. And I think, you know, you have a choice to either bury that thing. And I know that's also expensive, but there's not an ongoing cost then. And you can reuse that land for something else. But I think just the fact that you're right by the exit. I mean, if you look at it, you guys are right there where the exit and the roads back up. And at 4 o'clock, it starts backing up until 7. So people are looking at this development on the right. And I believe that the Chinese restaurant has started, they clear ground out there. And so all this development is coming. I think we need to elevate our development out there. So that's my point, Mayor Byron, or Council Member Byron. We have very little land left out there, right? And then there's a 10-acre tract that's being looked at. So if these guys' office buildings and stuff come, we want them to say, hey, if a Goodwill store can do it, you guys should be able to do it, right?

Agreed. No, again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just asking if they stuck with their dry-bottom detention but had an improved landscaping plan, would that meet the objective of having it aesthetically more pleasing than just, admittedly, an empty hole at the exit of 288, right? Would that be better, or is it wet detention with a fountain, or?

I think a wet detention with a fountain is just better. I think it's just a better deal. So, I mean, again, I mean, yeah.

I went to the Ivy District, those new apartments, there's fountains there, and only one of the three was working, and I was very underwhelmed. How much did they spend on those? And they're new. Right, those new apartments. Anyway, I'm saying, if there's something else... you know, extended landscaping or something. I'm just wondering if that would be less cost-prohibited.

I just want to make sure, so we're clear on what we're voting for, right? The fountain, so if this passes, that means that they would have to incorporate this before they would move forward with their development.

It's wet detention with fountains.

I just want to make sure everybody understands that this amendment, this is what we are voting for, or you all are voting for, provided no tie. So if there are no other questions, Madam Secretary?

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? No. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

The motion passes six to one.

So now that we have the second amended motion, we're actually voting on the whole motion that includes all of these staff conditions, the Byram amendment and the Patel amendment.

And the Patel amendment, for sure. Are there any questions, comments? Speak your piece.

I already did. I wish we could put some extra landscaping in there instead, or that's my piece, but whatever.

Because we just had a three-hour session before about triggers. and a code and being prohibitive on business owners. So I just want to make sure we understand where we are on this vote. So without any further comment or concerns, Madam Secretary, we call for the vote.

Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavadilla? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. The motion passes 7-0.

All right. Councilmember, I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, would you present the next business item?

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-80, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, second by Councilmember Fernandez.

Thank you, Mayor. This item approves an engineering design contract with IDS Engineering for the fight road drainage improvement project between Cullen and Harkey. This project was approved by the voters as part of the 2023 bond program. The project basically improves the undersized system along fight road and includes a full asphalt road rehabilitation after the drainage work is complete. The design is scheduled to take about 13 months, and construction is anticipated to begin in approximately November 2027. So we recommend approval in the amount of $857,310. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for that, Trent. I appreciate it. Any questions? Concerns? Seeing here, none. Madam Secretary, call for the vote.

Excuse me. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you. Councilmember Byrum, would you present next for this item number three?

Certainly, Mr. Mayor. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-86. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Byrum, seconded by Council Member Cate.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a contract award to O'Day Drilling Company for water well maintenance and rehab services. The contract will provide inspection services and pre-established pricing for any emergency repairs. It's the same proactive approach for our water wells that were taken across the full system, like with our lift stations and our water tank rehabs. The award covers the inspections as well as normal repairs and emergency repairs. And we're recommending awarding in the amount of a little over $1.8 million. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Questions?

How many wells do we have? This is for nine?

Ten, I believe.

Yes, sir, we have ten active wells.

Thank you.

How many bids did we receive for this?

So, I believe O'Day was the only company that bid on this.

Single-member bid?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

We've worked with O'Day on many projects many times before. They do good work. We've had to use it many times on emergency repairs, and this pre-establishes the pricing instead of having to do that on an emergency basis for any type of repairs like that.

Yes, sir. Is anybody from O'Day here? Could you go to the podium, please?

Good evening. Patrick O'Day with O'Day Drilling.

Thank you for coming out. I just wanted to know, you know, the contract looks big, 1.8 million, but could you kind of explain what you see in this contract, you know, for year over year kind of?

Yeah, so basically this contract almost replaces everything in every well. So as they failed over the past years, you know, wells have failed. They've been done on an emergency basis. Things have been fixed and got back up and going. So then this came out as a publicly bid project. And so that way, going forward, everything's fixed. contractually taken care of as far as us doing repairs and the price is already fixed in the document. So every well may not need to have something, but the prices are there for whatever's needed when it's needed.

Okay, and it also alleviates, if you want to call it an ambulance arrival because a well failed and we have extra costs because you're having to do it.

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think this is a great thing you guys are doing, not just because I got the project, but just because it's good, Stuart, that you'll be able to look at the data that we're able to provide on the inspections and say, oh, are we having a pump that's failing or are we having a well that's failing? With two completely different problems, a pump fails, all it takes is money and three or four weeks. A well problem, you could, a couple of months, you know, more stuff, more things are involved that you can plan ahead that, okay, this well started to decrease production. We need to make sure we got this taken care of and it gives you more time to fix it, you know, without just, oh, we got to get it done right now.

Emergency call.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

I appreciate that. And, David, I wanted to tell you thank you. You know I've been a proponent for maintenance and not emergency or, like you said one time, our maintenance policy is run until it breaks. So, I truly appreciate this being brought to the table and being proactive. So, I do appreciate that. One question that I had, under the scope of contract agreement, I was a little confused and maybe I don't understand the vernacular here or not, but in the first paragraph it says it provides for annual maintenance inspection reporting and repair services. And then in the third paragraph in that same section, it says does not represent anticipated routine annual repair costs, but above it says repair services and then annual repair costs. What are the difference or what are we saying yes one way, no the other way?

Mayor, Councillor, I'd have to look at that exact language, but the intent, and Patrick will agree with what I said.

Hold on, David. If you'd pull up page 2 of 17, you can see what I'm reading. It was in the package that came up. And I was just looking for clarity if we're covering repair costs or not. Because it says, I mean, then when you go back down in the contract, I think it said that it's in it. But I was kind of confused that it said, one, is it two different things? But it was page 2 of 17. is what I was talking about here.

Right, well, there are two primary different services. And the greatest thing that we get out of this is a baseline performance report on every single well. And in order to gain that information, that's a much smaller part of this agreement. The remaining balance, and I think, I can't tell you exactly how much that part was, but the remaining part is absolute worst case scenario. But yes, it's all inclusive. And the main thing that we start with is the condition or the initial inspection and performance report for each and every well. and I confessed this earlier to the city manager's office, Patrick knows more about our wells than I do. Maybe not more than Julian, but more than I. And he will get us data and information that we can actually begin predicting what's going wrong or what is decreasing in its performance. we can address it way before it becomes an issue and we're in the middle of peak demand and in the heat of summer and we've got wells down yeah yeah that's what that's what this is intended to and i appreciate you your comment earlier the difference in the language of you said page two of 17 17 they they brought it up uh uh here it's right under maintenance impact costs

If I could provide a little bit of clarification.

That's the AIR, not the contract.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, okay.

Yeah, not the contract.

Just so you would know, to get that baseline, all the stuff that we're talking about, we're talking about around $5,500, $6,000 for all the wells to get the baseline, to get the data that we're going from.

And that's per year.

Whatever it goes, sir.

That's per year?

Yes, sir. And then when you go above that, it's going to be that you have some failures, you have some things that go on for repairs. So in essence, that for $5,500, it's we're going to go around and start the baseline, be able to have and I'll take the data that we have from back repairs that we've done from 24, whatever, the last time we worked on the well and put those on the information sheet as well. As you get failures, you start to see issues with the data that we get, or the data that we get shows issues or shows problems coming up. That's when those additional funds could come into play as far as the well's need liners.

Which I'm fine with all that. There's under maintenance impact and costs on our AIR right here, um that's where the two kind of conflict where it says uh uh right and just it's actually on the third plate third page josh Well, right here, yeah, it says 2 of 17 on the ARR right here, Scope of Contract Agreement. If you go to where it says Scope of Contract Agreement, yeah, right there. So it says provides, in the first paragraph, provides for annual maintenance inspection reporting and repair services for the city water well system. And then you go down to the third paragraph, and then it says, you know, under that same, where the third paragraph says the total annual, not exceed 1.8 million, the last sentence does not represent anticipated routine annual repair costs. But above it says repair services. So that's what I didn't know why it is repair services and repair costs. Two different things. I mean, that's what I don't know. And one says it does, and one says it does not.

That's what I was just ... And I can see the point of confusion. The intent was, from what I understand, the intent of that part of the AIR was to ... was to try to make it clear that we would not be necessarily, or I doubt we would ever spend this entire $1.8 million in any given year. Yeah, I mean, that would be all the wealth having issues. I think that was... Well, the point that was trying to get across it, it's not inclusive of that. And I think it goes back to what Patrick was saying, the 100 and... Yeah, yeah, I get that he's not being inspected. Now, the 115, 450, which is the inspections. And I think that's where that language was supposed to have been.

Okay, like I said, it created some confusion. I understand we're going to inspect the wells. Well, from that inspection, we'll get, you know, this needs help, this doesn't. You know, it's good for another year or whatever the inspections get taken care of. I just, when I saw that, I was kind of like, why does it say one year and not the other?

That's our mistake on the IOR, but the contract is very clear.

It's confusing, yeah, but the one point, it's referring to the 1.8, that that amount is intended, that's why the contract is so large, and that the 1.8 doesn't represent the actual routine annual repair cost. That cost is much smaller, so it is confusing, but that was what it was intended.

That's fine, that's what I just wanted, I understood that we're gonna have annual maintenance inspections, so I was fine with that, I just didn't understand why it said one way and the other, but thank you.

Thanks for the question, Councilmember Fernandez.

Thank you, Mayor. Mine is more of just a comment. Patrick, thank you for being here. Thank you for, you know, we ask for people to be here when it comes to an item on the agenda. So thank you for taking the time to be here. I want to echo Councilmember Koza. David, thank you for, you know, for this maintenance, the maintenance service. Obviously, the more maintenance we have, the more we're taking care of our existing stuff, which in essence last, you know, can last longer, which means we save money. in the long run by maintaining it, by having a company that's looking at it. So just thank you for what you're doing. Thank you, Patrick, for being here. Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome. Council Member Cade.

I just wanted to say basically the same thing. Thank you, Patrick. I'm glad we could use a local company for this. Thank you. Appreciate it.

I did have one question. So it's a not to exceed. And so from private sector, there's some things that happen. And but once maybe there are some wells that exceed what we anticipate and we go beyond this not to exceed, could we clarify what happens at that particular point with either change orders or anything like that? Is there something?

That's correct. So it's unit supply on a lot of these things. So if we see the need to go beyond that, we would have to bring it. Bring it back before council. Either operate within our administrative discretion for change orders or have to bring it back to council if it exceeds that. Just wanted to clarify, but thank you. Thank you for that.

And I know you can't predict, and so the age and life and all that comes into play, so I appreciate you being here and answering questions. Thank you for the questions on council. No further questions, so Madam Secretary, could you call for the vote?

Member Byron?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

I believe I'm on Fernandez. Council Member Fernandez, could you present the next item, please?

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration of possible action resolution number R2026-95. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Fernandez, seconded by Council Member Cade.

Thank you, Mayor. This approves a subrecipient agreement with Forgotten Angels for facility improvements to their Dayhab Center, which this project was included in our Community Development Block Grant Program Annual Action Plan. Improvements include the equipment for a commercial-grade kitchen in Forgotten Angels' new multi-purpose center. The allocation's for $349,591, and we recommend approval of the agreement. Thank you, Mayor.

Questions? Council Member Koza?

Thank you. Joel, just kind of like what Josh did earlier with paid funds, could you kind of explain to the public where this funding comes from? Because here it is, again, another special revenue. And just so the public knows that it's not coming out of federal funds. Sure, absolutely. Where it comes from.

So these are federal dollars allocated to the city on an entitlement jurisdiction basis from HUD, and they basically give us the annual opportunity to plan for their uses within the confines of the hud regulations which allow us in some part to fund social service agency activities either their social service activities themselves to help members of the community that need various types of support or their facilities improvements. And over the last 20 years, we've been doing this type of work with the program. So we've invested in the nonprofit agencies that have growth in their facilities, growth in their service population, and the complexity of their services. We've helped to mitigate damage from disasters. improvements and repairs and things like that. This particular facility is one that's very special to the community. It serves 50 mentally disabled adults and it's expanded tremendously since I began working here in 2010. It was one metal building and now it's a complex of various service attributes that help those individuals along with their processes. So this will outfit the multipurpose facility, a 17,000 square foot facility that they've just completed with a commercial grade kitchen that allows them to feed the individuals they serve and it actually can act as a shelter. So it's hurricane resistant. and this is the kind of work that's been ongoing over the last 20 years of our entitlement status with HUD funds and we'll be presenting the public hearing on the 22nd for the next plan year which will include much more detail about CDBG and how we plan to use those funds in 2027.

All right thank you for that explanation and also thank you for all the hard work because I know you're the individual that's charged with securing these funds year in and year out. So really, it's appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Questions, further questions, comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, could you call for the vote?

Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? No. Sorry. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you. Council Member Patel, could you present item number five, please?

Yes, Mayor. Considering possible action, first reading of ordinance number 1650-2, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Patel, second by Council Member Fernandez.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the first reading of our normal budget amendment number two ordinance that projects revenues and expenditures for the remainder of fiscal year 26. And it basically sets our taking off point for our fiscal year 27 budget. And we're going to have head of our OMB, Rachel, walk us through the presentation that will highlight the changes to the different funds.

Thank you, Mr. Epperson. Good evening, Mayor and Council. So I just have a brief presentation highlighting some of the changes for our second budget amendment. We'll cover our general fund, debt service fund, enterprise operating fund, as well as some future budget dates. For general fund, we'll start out with the revenue changes, including revenue increases. For fiscal year 26, we'll be increasing sales and use taxes by 2.6 percent based off of higher than anticipated sales tax collections for the fiscal year. will also be including charges for services and intergovernmental revenue. This is money we're anticipating to receive back from TIFMIS, which is an exchange program. So it does correspond to an increased expenditure further down. It is for the time and effort of our firefighters across the state. We're also seeing franchise fee increases based off of year-to-date performance. Some revenue decreases that we're seeing include investment earnings, which is based off of the market, some minor fluctuation in property taxes. Our miscellaneous revenue decreased by 192,000, but this is mainly due to the recategorization and correct line iteming of revenue that we're receiving, as well as some minor decreases in licenses and permits based on year-to-date collection. So this chart shows all the different revenue categories, what the revenue categories were budgeted at budget amendment one, and what we're changing going forward. For the general fund expenditure changes, our primary increase is in salaries and benefits, as well as inventory and contingency, and we see a large corresponding expense decrease related to professional contractual services, materials and supplies, as well as capital outlay. We had our departments perform target-based budgeting for fiscal year 26 projections, so we had them reduce quite, a number of expenses in those decreased categories in order to ensure that we were only budgeting dollars they were gonna spend. As a result, we did increase that contingency line item in case something were to come up. So for general fund, we can see that overall our expenditures are only increasing net by 456,000. We continue to meet our 90-day policy minimum balance And we will be $1.3 million over fund balance policy minimum at budget amendment two. So for our debt service fund, we just made adjustments in order to meet our fund balance policies, including some transfers in. Our miscellaneous revenue decreased by $2.45 million. This was an anticipated additional TERS reimbursement. that we will not receive in FY26 but will receive going forward. There were no expenditure increases and we decreased some minor expenditures relating to our debt defeasance as well as mud rebates. So we do continue to meet our fund balance policy minimums in the debt fund going forward for FY26. Finally, our enterprise fund, there were some minor revenue changes in our enterprise fund largely relating to year-to-date performance, as well as the past trend. And then the expenditure increases relate to exchanges between different types of expenditure accounts, so professional contractual services increased, while our transfers out for mud rebates and materials and supplies decreased. For the enterprise fund, we do continue to meet our policy minimum, as well as our debt service requirements. And there were no major changes overall to the funds revenue or expenditures. Our future budget dates will be back on July, June 22, to have budget reading number two. And then on July 13, we'll start our budget discussion for fiscal year 27 with our non property tax supported funds. And some other future dates are shown there as well. Thank you.

Does that conclude your report, or the reading?

Yes.

Thank you so much for that. I believe you have a question from Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria.

Thank you so much for the presentation. So, Trent, I noticed that there was an increase in salary and wages by 1.9 million. Can you give us an explanation of that, please?

I think there's multiple things. Rachel, can you run through the highlights of those?

Yes, certainly. To start with, we and we saw higher than anticipated retirements by long tenured employees for that as well as some additional changes. The tip must Yeah, we just thank you. We saw increasing TIF misdeployments. So that'll be reimbursed. And that was about 600,000. And then we just saw some minor fluctuations across departments that require some adjusting. We moved code and health and fire marshal. And so some of that's just money moving around within general fund. think we usually at this time see more salary savings than we normally then we've seen this year that usually handle those sort of some of the fluctuations because the tenured retirements were so high we did not see any salary savings but we did budget for salary savings so going forward we're going to look more at an average for that and probably reduce our salary savings budget going forward customer customer bar thank you mr mayor um slide

What is that? 24 of 29 in our packet, it's the debt service income statement.

13 on the PowerPoint, I think.

There we go, yeah. Can you help me? So we originally budgeted to be under policy by 2.7. Now we're going to have year-end projection at zero, which is great. The only thing that I see really having a dramatic swing would be that net originally amended going to be negative 2.3. Now it's positive 2.7. So is that a $5 million swing that I'm seeing there, and what caused that?

So we didn't budget to be under policy minimum with budget amendment one. That was a result of how we finished fiscal year 25. Our fiscal year 25 revenue was lower than anticipated. So originally when we budgeted for fund 200 with the adopted budget, we did meet policy minimum requirements. This is ultimately a result of our estimated ending fiscal year 25 fund balance coming in lower with the audit than we anticipated and so we're just adjusting for that with budget amendment to to make sure that we do continue to meet our debt service policy minimums this is more cleanup than anything else correct okay and then on the enterprise fund income statement yes ma'am um

This school year in projection, we're looking at 15 million over on projected into cash equivalent 8.5 million right below that that's our policy, right? So we're going to be over by close to 7 million.

Correct. In here, this does only show the 15% policy operating expense, it does not reflect the debt service ratios. But we do anticipate the 1.15 minimum debt coverage ratio isn't shown on here. We don't usually adjust for that at mid-year, but we will take that into consideration when examining the rates for fiscal year 27.

to where I was headed. So hopefully that will help us. And I wanted to point that out because this is kind of the crystal ball conversation. We always get in with water rates as we set a rate, but we don't know how much rain or water consumption, all that's gonna happen. So sometimes when we exceed, then we can utilize that to smooth out future rate increases. So thank you for thinking the same way where I was headed. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Council Member Kitt.

Rachel, the miscellaneous, you said it had decreased 50 something percent? Is that right? There, I found it.

Sorry, miscellaneous revenue general fund? Think so. Yeah, it decreased 51% or $192,000. So primarily, We decided that that was a poor revenue category to use, and we recategorized that revenue into more appropriate and descriptive accounts, but I don't know what they are offhand.

Well, that's fine. I appreciate you doing that because I know miscellaneous always threw me off, so I really appreciate that being recategorized.

Additional questions? I'm sorry. Yes, sir.

No problem. Could you bring up the, on the enterprise fund, the water rate or the water usage decrease? So right there, remember Byram, this is the uglier side of it. When we don't sell water, it pushes rates up. So that's one thing that while we saved on one side, it pushes water rates up. So that along with our debt and then whether we have access or not.

Yeah.

So I appreciate you pointing the other part out, but this one's an integral part as well. So at any rate, just wanted to make that.

There's two sides to a coin.

Well, on this, yes. Yeah, there's multiple. So at any rate, I just want to point that out that that 1.7 or 1.57 million, whatever. I don't know what the impact is. Rachel knows, you know, a ballpark, but that does put pressure upwards.

I don't know the ballpark at this time. We'll have a very preliminary rate forecast with the CIP workshop on June 22nd, and then we should have a more concrete rate forecast in July.

Yeah, no, I know. I just, when he was talking about that, we also have another side of it that hurts, too.

Council Member Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. Can you go to slide eight? There was a significant amount of professional services, I guess 1.2 million. Are you guys anticipating, Trent, that this is just a true savings, or are we just punting the ball into next fiscal year? That's a big number.

I wonder if you guys had details. That was a big portion of what we worked through with the departments on kind of looking at the three-year trend spins and trying to bring down those projections and future budgets to matching what we'd seen on on the three-year trends, plus some inflationary costs and any known additional costs. So this is really the result of that process. So I do not expect that to bounce back up the following year.

It should not bounce back up significantly, but we'll see.

Okay, so it's not something that we're punting the ball and saying we're gonna do it like the UDC rewrite to say, hey, we don't have the money or we need the money to be saved for something else and we'll do it in year two or year three.

For the most part, no, there might be some minor reductions. It should be primarily based off of the service they expect for this year.

Okay, and then if you go to slide 16, it's kind of the same thing, right? In this case, it's the opposite. Oh, sorry, maybe it was 15, I can't, it was the same slide of the enterprise where you were showing, comparing the budget versus, I'm falling asleep now, so. But it's in there where when you look at the professional services, it actually had gone up, so I didn't know if you knew why the enterprise.

Yeah, no, it is 16. So this one is more that the expenditures changed. There were some minor decreases. So it's offset by that materials and supplies decrease. Some of that came, moved from materials and supplies to professional contractual services.

So are these contracts for like, for example, like the O-Day for service contracts? Is that what you're?

Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

You're welcome, no problem. Any additional questions? Nope. With that being said, I believe this is the first reading that's still required. Vote. If it does, Madam Secretary, I call for the vote.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

The motion passes seven to zero.

Swinging it back around, Council Member Koza, could you present business item number seven? Six, six, sorry.

Consideration possible action. First reading of ordinance number 1656, so moved. Second.

Motion made by Council Member Koza, seconded by Council Member Byrum.

Thank you, Mayor. So, this item, as well as the next three items, are all related to our annual debt sale. The first one, this item covers our general obligation bonds. The second is our general fund certificates of obligation. The third one is our water and sewer enterprise fund certificates of obligation. And the last is the fees of TERS COs. The actual debt sales have been reduced since you approved the intent to reimburse last fall based on current project progress and cost. And so, all of those factors will go into the FY27 budgeting process based on the debt sales, the actual debt sales here versus what we projected back last summer and in the fall. So, our financial advisor, Mr. John Roebuck with BOK is here to walk us through the debt sale. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Epperson. Mayor, council members, my name is John Roebuck with BOK Financial Securities. I'm your financial advisor. Tonya Fisher is also in the audience. She's with Jackson Walker. She's your bond counsel. She's the one who drafted the documents we're asking you to approve tonight. But I'm going to go through the financial part of the three items and also the defeasance, which is item number nine, and then answer any questions you have on the presentations. As I always like to do, I like to start off with the Bond Buyer Index. This is basically a weekly average of municipal bonds across the country. We are selling general obligation, tax-backed debt, all three series. Currently, the rate is actually at 4.7. Over the last two weeks, rates have come down considerably. I'm shocked that they're not more volatile, given what's going on in the other parts of the country right now. But with oil and gas prices coming down slightly, you're starting to see a little relief on the interest rates. And so we're seeing a better interest rate environment. Plus, there's also a lot of money in the market. It's on the sidelines trying to get into the market right now. So there's not a lot of bond issues right now. So as a result, when you get in the market, we'll probably get a low rate, given the rating and also the amount of debt we're issuing. I want to kind of go over the historical refundings and defeasances. We do have a refunding portion we're going to present tonight and also defeasance. Since 2016, the city has saved almost $42.7 million in interest cost savings, which is a real impact to the taxpayers and helps us manage the tax rate and also the future debt issuances. Like I mentioned earlier, there is a refunding opportunity. These are the summary of the potential bonds we're looking to refund. There's five series here. We are looking only at maturities that have 4 or 5 percent coupon on them that generate over 3 percent savings. So, the total amount of bonds we're looking to refund is about $35.8 million. We are asking to approve a parameter tonight of almost $62.1 million because there is additional debt outstanding that could, if rates continue to drop, generate over 3 percent savings, and we can lock in those savings. I do want to point out all these bonds are currently callable. So, they are interest rate driven, but they're not going to get better if it waits any longer on this, because they are currently callable. And we're also going to include the new money piece, which generates about $20.375 million. So, on the far left, you have your current general obligation tax support debt service requirements. Then we have next column is less the bonds we're refunding, those five series we talked about earlier. And so the estimated principal interest on the refunding portion is there in the next two columns. And we're showing savings of about 1.2, a little over $1.2 million in savings, which is a little over 3.1 net present value savings compared to the debt we're refunding. The next two columns are the proposed new bond issuance for the permanent improvement bonds, which the voters approved through various bond elections over the years. And those generate, again, proceeds of $20,375,000 for the city. Then the resulting debt service after the sale of the bonds is on the right. And again, these are just projections based on current market rates of interest. And these were run a couple weeks ago, so rates have come down a little bit. So we should do better than this when we enter the market. Estimated source uses of funds. The refunding portion is on the left, looking to issue about $33.3 million in bonds. We do expect to generate a premium on those bonds, given the current market, about $2.3 million. Less year expenses, and generate about $35 million for the escrow or to pay off those bonds that are being refunded. Estimated all cost to interest rates there in yellow, a 3.223%. And then again, estimated savings, there's another yellow column, a row of $1,260,000 of savings. Again, the net present value is 3.1. I ran the numbers again this morning to kind of give you an update. We're closer to almost $1.3 million, and it's about 3.2% present value savings, so a little bit better. I think we'll do better as we fine-tune the expenses and we allocate the expenses based on the new money and the refunding portion to generate a little bit more savings for the city. Then the right side is the new money portion, about $19.6 million in bonds to be issued, premium of $960,000, less your cost of issuance, generates proceeds of $20,375,000 for the city. The all-cost interest rate on their new money piece, because it's longer, is at 4.66%. Then for item number seven on your agenda, we're talking about the Certificates of Obligation. These are the projects that are going to be funded for general obligation purposes or general purposes. And we are looking to sell $3,635,000 in proceeds. So based on current markets, you have your current debt, which includes the refunding and the permanent improvement bonds that we just referenced. You have your estimated principal interest in total there in the middle. We are looking to issue about $3,495,000 to generate the $3,635,000 in proceeds. And again, this is a layer into the debt, so we try to structure the debt to minimize the tax rate increase. And so there on the far right, you have your total debt service after the issuance of the 2026A Certificate of Obligation. Then from the sources and uses of funds, you have your, again, principal amount of $3,495,000 plus premium, less expenses. Again, generates the proceeds the city's looking for of $3,635,000. And again, because it's 30-year debt, we're looking at 4.612% off cost to interest rate. And the last one is the 2026B, the water sewer projects, related projects. This item number eight on your agenda. We are looking to sell, again, 30-year debt to generate $59,516,171 for the city. And again, the total debt service requirements there on the far left, plus the principal interest in total there in the middle, and your resulting debt service requirements here on the far right. Then for the estimated source use of funds, we are looking to sell about $57.4 million based on current market rates, which we believe will generate a premium of $2,716,000. Last year expenses generates a proceeds of $59,516,171. And again, because of the large amount, 30-year debt, all cost to interest rate is a 4.708%. To accomplish all this, tonight we're asking you to approve the ordinance, the first reading ordinance for the permanent improvement and refunding bonds, and then also authorize the intent to issue through the resolutions for the Certificates of Obligation Series 2026A and 2026Bs. And then if you do that, we'll publish the notice on June 17th. and the last page of the presentation. But there's one more page of the presentation. We'll publish that another week later. We'll actually come back at your next council meeting and ask for the second reading of the permanent and permanent and refunding bonds. And then we'll have rating calls and then we'll sell the bonds on, I shouldn't know this off the top of my head, but I don't, so I'll have to look it up. sell the bonds the 24th of August, and then ask you to approve the Certificate of Obligation sales, and then on the 24th of September, we'll close, and at that point, you'll receive your funds for the projects. Happy to answer any questions you have on the bond sales before I get to the defeasance.

No, so based on the way it was presented, I would just ask council to just approve or vote on, or not approve the first reading, and then we'll come back and then make a motion on the following in tandem. All right, possible action for six, seven, and eight.

All right, we'll do all these as individual items, but I think Mr. Roebuck was gonna cover the defeasance, which is the fourth item we have as well before we start voting. Item nine.

Item nine is the defeasance. So we're fortunate that we are able to do this every year. The TERS gives us a reimbursement for the projects we've already completed and actually sold debt for. And so we receive those funds and we allocate some of those funds to pay off the debt that was issued for these projects and keep some in the debt service fund. We are looking to defuse 9,255,000 bonds, a portion from the 2021B Certificate of Obligation and a portion from the 2022B Certificate of Obligation that both were issued for TERS-related projects. We're looking here on the estimated debt search requirements and interest cost savings or difference. We are looking, like I said, to pay off $9,255,000 in bonds, which generates, those bonds generate interest of $1,851,000 in interest. And at the end of the day, once we pay these off, we'll lock in savings of $1,717,000 for the city. At that point, the bonds will be defaced, but I missed this one too.

There he is.

So tonight we're asking you to approve the defeasance order, and then we'll structure the size of the escrow tomorrow, and then pay those bonds off on July 9th, at which point it'll no longer be obligations of the city.

Thank you for that.

You said no longer obligation of the city, but it's really the tourist obligation.

It's actually, these were issued as a city debt. These were city debt that were getting reimbursed.

Reimbursed by the church. Got it.

Correct.

Okay.

Got it.

You're sitting on another question, I see it.

Okay, all right.

So, thank you for that, appreciate it. Your time. Questions? And so based on where we were, I'd like to go back and propose.

We're going to vote this one down and then go back and do it. Correct. So ask for the vote and then we'll go back on the table with all of them. That's what he asked to do. So he asked to vote down six so we can put six through nine together.

Thank you.

Some of them are resolutions and some are ordinances.

If you vote six down, you'd have to come back for a motion to reconsider, so it's not gonna be more effective. It's actually gonna require three votes to get you through just six alone. So I would recommend voting on six now, and then come vote seven and just do it subsequently with each one. Each one separate. Got it. Yes, sir.

Sounds good.

All right, that's fine.

No problem. I just wanted to be clear.

I got it.

No, we're good.

When you said you want to do it, I'm like, whichever way, it doesn't matter.

So no, I appreciate it. So let's, Madam Secretary, we'll call for the vote. Thanks for the clarification.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byron?

Aye.

Member Cade?

Aye.

Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Now theoretically for seven, eight, and nine, we could place all three of those together and vote as a slate.

That's what you wanted to do. Yes. Is that what you want me to do? That's exactly it. Okay, that's fine.

That's exactly it.

Fair enough. Mayor, I'm sorry. John, real quick on the TURs, do you know what the outstanding balance due is to the city?

What's remaining to be paid, I don't have it off the top of my head. It's a nice, and we'll have this one more time next year. We'll have another defeasance next year. Okay. Actually, probably the next two years, a small amount.

And we have to pay that off before 2030, correct?

One more time, sorry.

I guess before the TERS expires.

We'll have it all paid off. We'll have about three years, or two years left, three years left. After we pay it off, we'll have three years where we're done. We have no debt outstanding unless we decide to do more projects. I believe that's the case. Is that right, Trent? I think that's right.

That's correct. We do have other projects, but I believe we've decided that we're not gonna sell any additional TERS, reimbursable debt. We'll do those with the proceeds from the TERS.

Okay, all right, very good. Thank you. All right, so are we ready? Fair enough.

Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote, please?

No, no, I got to put it on. That's what I said.

I got to tee it up first. Tee it up. Tee it up.

I'm ready to roll, man.

Consideration of possible action. Resolution number R2026-97. Resolution number R2026-98. And resolution number R2026-96. So moved.

Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Coles, second by Council Member Cade. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

The motion's passed seven to zero.

Thank you all for that. I appreciate it. Thank you all. I'll roll it back to Councilmember Koza. Would you present item number 10?

Certainly. Consideration of possible action, first reading of ordinance number 1635-1, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Koza, seconded by Council Member Biro.

Mayor, the 2025 legislative session, state legislative session limited some municipal regulations on food related establishments and food trucks. The proposed amendments here in chapter 11 of our code of ordinances brings us into compliance with the state law on these items. And then the next item is related, it's actually our non-development usage fees. So along with the Chapter 11 amendments, we also need to amend our non-development fee ordinance structure to comply with the new law. So, it basically replaces a bunch of different classifications in two categories on the different types of food establishments to three risk-based classification systems. And then that removes those fees associated with the mobile food vendors or food trucks that we can no longer charge. uh we recommend uh approval of the change to chapter 11 as well as on the next item the non-development usage service fees associated with those changes in state law happy to answer any questions thank you thank you councilman closer so with that uh verbiage as you said we're just gonna agree with or follow state laws what you just said I think we have to.

No, yeah, no, no, no, I'm not saying we have to, but the way you were saying it, I just want to make, we're just.

Yeah, we're just making all of our amendments to our local ordinances and development fees to get in compliance with the state law.

Yes, sir. All right, that's all I want to clarify.

While the state law was amended, I believe in June, it didn't become effective until July of 2025. I'm sorry, July of 2026. So we're doing this tonight. The second reading of these two ordinances will be on the 22nd, and then we will be in compliance with state law by the time it becomes effective on July 1st.

Okay, makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. I don't believe there's any questions, so seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavadilla? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you. Councilmember Echols, can you present new business item number 11, please?

Consideration, possible action, first reading ordinance number 1358-33, so moved. Second.

Motion is made by Councilmember Echols, seconded by Councilmember Byrum. Staff report, please.

Just reported on this one, sir. This is the non-development usage service fees associated with the changes in state law with food establishments and the food trucks. Okay, making sure.

Madam Secretary to call for the vote.

Member Echols? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

The motion passes 7-0. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, can you present item number 12, please?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Consideration of possible action to appoint Councilmember Fernandez to the Advisory Board Committee. So moved.

Second.

Questions, discussions? Seeing none. Madam Secretary.

Well, I made the motion without.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, motion second. I believe it was.

Member Koza.

Koza. Sorry. Thank you.

Mayor Patim Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. The motion passes 7-0.

Councilman Byrum, would you kindly present new business item number 13?

So, that's discussion of the discussion regarding future growth and development workshop. We're just, that's just an open discussion, I don't really.

Yes, sir, I can kind of kick it off. So at the May 18th meeting, there was a desire to explore a public workshop or a town hall type meeting to discuss lots of different things, and there were lots of different ideas, so we wanted to kind of have a little more structured discussion get some consensus on exactly what we want that to look like. So I think Vance is gonna walk us through a couple things of how we got here and then some, the main questions we developed to try to determine what we wanna do moving forward. So looking forward to your input, thank you.

Yes, sir. Good evening, everybody, again. So Trent kind of summarized this piece from the May 18th meeting, so I'll skip past it. But before we jumped into some of the talking points, I did want to take a moment and reflect on some of the adopted language in our existing plans, just for whatever may resonate or not. So from the recently adopted comprehensive plan, and I'm not going to read all these, just a few of them, we have expand housing choices beyond traditional single-family apartments, parallel and prosperity, support housing that attracts workforce talent and young professionals, and then in the lower Kirby master plan, Promote walkability, housing variety, and transportation choice. And again, these are just from some recently adopted plans. We did want to take a moment to help reflect on those. So, so far, we have received some feedback from council. Some of these are a little repetitive just because we want to try and encapsulate everything that was shared. But overall, we've seen consensus on educational overview related to Senate Bill 840 and 815. Those are the two bills related to multifamily and commercial zoning and smaller lots by right. Have it be a fact-based discussion of growth, housing, and community impacts. Overview of local authority, state preemptions, and available options. Again, kind of a comment back to the change at the state level. Opportunities for residents to ask questions. Perspectives from legislators, legal experts, and peer cities. Discussions of multifamily, small lot development, and mitigation strategies. Multiple opportunities for participation. focus on education again, and the community concerns regarding future growth and development patterns. And again, this is just kind of a summary of the feedback we've received from council so far. So a few discussion points we wanted to bounce off of y'all and get some direction on. Does council envision this as a single event or a series of meetings? And what overall format would we think would be most effective? So moving on, who should participate in the process? There's been talk about panel discussions. Maybe some input from y'all would be great on who those panels could be or local participants that you'd like to see. Should this discussion focus broadly on Pearland's future growth patterns and development trends, or would you like to speak more specifically to multifamily and related state legislation? What level of public participation, both in events and then throughout it in general? So would you like to see open mics, Q&As, submitted questions? And then what outcomes should the process achieve? Just to brainstorm and share this with the group, looking at the format and kind of digesting what's been shared, I think staff at this point does believe it would be best for this to be a city-organized workshop. And given that it will have a quorum and some of the other items that need to be moderated in the topics, it does look like being a city-organized workshop would probably be best, so wanted to bounce that off of y'all. A series of discussions rather than a single workshop. Obviously have that educational component that covers growth trends, housing data, and state legislation. Panel discussions to share information and hear from stakeholders. But again, we would like some direction on who should be on these panels and which ones there should be. Include moderated public participation and feedback opportunities. And then use this community input to help with the ongoing UDC update. And so again, this is just kind of a brainstorming slide of us trying to digest and get ready for what's to come next. But we did want to share these with you and see if we had some alignment on that direction. And so quick and to the point, I'll bounce it back to y'all.

Just a quick question. If I were to click this on the website, some of the slides have varying discussion points.

I'm sorry, say it again another way.

So the slide you presented doesn't match the slide that I'm looking at when I click the link online.

I can't double-check it from here, but I'll look at it.

So I'll take liberty to tell you what people who are publicly viewing this would see, where it says, if you go back one slide, discussion points. Let's see, for the first one, it just, number one, doesn't really match. which is number two, and then, let's see, I'll read it. What outcomes should the process achieve, right? And then, I'm sorry, what? You see it? Yeah, let's switch. Okay, next slide. Potential format. Are they mixed up, is that what it is?

These are all there, they're just in different numbers.

So this is the online version, correct? Now flip to your version, potential format. First bullet, there's a key person left out of one of them.

So I would say the mayor facilitates all of our workshops.

It's explicit in one, but not in yours. I just wanted to make that point of clarity.

So to be candid, I wrote both of these. Sure. So it's just more of a shortening it for the presentation, but I mean, the mayor runs all of our workshops.

Thank you. That's it. That's the only question I had. Any other questions? It was, it was a question. Why was one missing? He clarified.

So why don't we flip back and work off the one that was published with the agenda. So, just to add a little bit, you know, when we asked for some feedback from everybody, we got lots of feedback, but there really didn't seem to be a full, you know, a consensus or, lots of gelling of the different ideas there, so that's why we thought a discussion item tonight would be able to facilitate some of those discussions to maybe arrive at a consensus. And I have talked to Jim with the Chamber, and they've indicated a willingness to participate, host, or be a part of this as well. So anyway, some of the questions in the presentation were really to help guide the discussion. But I'll throw it back to you, Mayor, for you and the council to address.

No, thank you. And I will just add another point that I do appreciate the level of thought and communication that has been presented across these few weeks with all of us to make sure that the level of expectation meets what was presented. And through some of the conversations, I don't think that it would serve our residents to be a single event. I think there's so much content and conversation that Each one of the council members, including myself, want to make sure that the public has from either this side of knowledge and information versus what's being pushed down from the state and other things. And I just don't think that all of that could be facilitated in a single session and be as effective as we all think and need it should be. So I think my recommendation, based on what some of the question discussion points are here, is a series of events I think would be critical. The other would be how would we facilitate moving forward with capturing the information to make sure that whatever these workshops or town halls or whatever, are clearly crafted so that all of the expectations are met from now until whenever that time is. Plus, to incorporate, I know there was some elected officials throughout the region or state that we want to be able to participate. And so I want to make sure that we have time for them to say their piece and and talk to the residents and constituents so it's going to be you know i want to make sure that whatever we put out there it meets the expectations for every council member sitting up here and that uh also that residents also get information that we feel like they need so that's Those are some comments that I'd like to make. Councilmember Koza, I see you have a question, discussion. Yes, sir.

Thank you. So when, I guess, Councilmember Byram and myself came up with this idea, this has expanded way beyond what my original intent was. One, there's some confusion in our community about what Senate Bill 840 does. And so what my thought process was when Member Byron and myself talked about it was we need to have an informational process session, town hall, whatever you want to call it, where we have members from our school district, members from city hall, members from our legislative group that represent our area, so that they can explain what each aspect has to do. Now, all the rest of this, I would be fine with any kind of extended deal, but to tie it into what the impacts of Senate Bill 840 are, I think we're going to be all over the map. So if we want to have continued education, town halls, workshops, whatever you want to call it, on other items, I'm fine with that. But to dilute what Senate Bill 840, my discussions with State Representative Jeff Berry, I asked about would you be willing, because Member Byrum had reached out to Dennis Paul, who is not state senator yet, but will eventually become one. And then he also reached out to Representative Cody Vasu. So that's the three people that cover our city. So from that, I would be fine. if we want to separate all the rest of this noise and have different discussions on different items but to put it all into one and muddle it up you're going to have all kinds of opinions about all kinds of things that aren't towards senate bill 8. it's pretty clear my discussions with member barry have been if we go to ryan push this up What's going to happen is it's going to go down because Dan Patrick is the one behind it. And Dan Patrick is the one that when this next legislative session opens, 90, he is going to come back with affordable housing. And that is his, I want to call it baby, to push out there. That's what his drive is. So, you know, when we start getting into the other things that are in these slides, that's a little bit more than what my participation, and I have not talked to Senator Barry. I don't know if Member Byrum has reached out to anyone else about it, but I have not talked to Senator Barry. Would he be willing to attend however many different deals about different things that we did not discuss on the front end?

No, Representative Barry, but please add some context.

Yeah, and I'll just kind of rapid-fire go through the questions on here. What outcomes should the process achieve, and what would constitute a successful result? I think one of the main outcomes is education for the citizens. That was the entire point behind this. Education for our community about what's happening in Austin, what kind of pressures they're putting on our cities, what are the triggers that are built into some of these bills. and really getting out in the community. So I was not envisioning something that happened here. I was envisioning something that happens out in our community. It's a little less challenging for people. Let's get into central Pearland. Let's get to the west end. Whatever we need to do. But an informed citizenry is an effective citizenry. And there is a tremendous amount of information being shared about SB 840 and SB 15. And a lot of it's wrong. Or incomplete. And so the vision behind doing this is making sure that we as a community are clear eyed about the decisions that we're making as a community and the impact that these decisions that are being made in Austin will have on us. This council envision a single event or a series of events. The initial Vision behind this was a single event to be informational that had our legislators. They committed to come and talk about SB 840 and SB 15. So no, they haven't committed to come and talk about ADUs or SDRs or townhomes or anything else. They committed to come talk about that. Superintendent Burger has committed to be there to discuss the impact of multifamily housing on the school district and our community. And it was kind of, you can kind of go down the list of the things that we hear anytime someone proposes a multifamily or a high density development, what are the objections from the community over traffic issues, do we have to do this, what's the impact to our school district? And we've said a lot of it from this dais, but I don't think a lot of it's being heard. And so we want to get out in the community where people are instead of waiting for them to come to us and inform them about what's really going on. Who should participate in the process? Panel participants. I do think it should be a panel discussion type environment where the technical experts on the particular topics, I think the Chamber should be there so they can discuss the impact on the workforce in our community. have these technical people, have the experts on there. I know Member Chavarria has recommended having some attorneys that can really explain how these laws work and what we can do, what we can't do, what we know, what we don't know. There's a lot to this. So the other people outside of this council that have agreed to be there have agreed to come to an event, not a series of events. I think the initial event needs to, at a minimum, cover the legislative side of things, let our legislators come and talk about the temperature they're feeling, they're seeing in Austin. the conversations they're having, all that kind of stuff. We can have additional events ourselves around the community. I'm all for that. The more information we can have, the more information we can share, the better. Discussion flows broadly on Paralympic's future growth patterns. I don't think that's what this is about, at least not right now. It's really about this overall situation. I will go back to what constitutes a successful result. I said this to a group of people earlier in the week. I said this in an email to the staff. The result, the intent behind this is information. The intent behind this is not to promote a development. It's not to sway the public's opinion one way or another. It's to get clear, concise, accurate information in the hands of the public so we can make good decisions for our community. that's my goal that that was my mindset behind this entirely it's easy to for social media to just start blowing stuff up and say all kinds of things that aren't true and it's very hard to combat the false narrative that's out there with a lot of this stuff and so i really wanted to give the public an opportunity to have somewhere in a less formal environment less structured less I don't know what word I'm looking for.

This can be a little intimidating, being at City Hall and going up to a podium and doing all that kind of stuff.

So more casual environment. I do think there needs to be a Q&A situation. I think it's hard to get the public to pre-send in questions on this stuff. There's some stuff we already know because we get the same questions on all the proposals that come in, so we can address those. But I do think there needs to be a moderated open mic that after people have heard from these subject matter experts, they have an opportunity to communicate with them and with us in a live environment. Though I do say a moderated environment because that can get out of control and you can start talking about streets or your neighbor's dog or whatever. So we try to keep it as concise as we can. I hope that helps bring some clarity to the intent behind this. I know the general public, people I've spoken to, they're very excited that we're doing this. They're very anxious for it to happen. I have people contact me every week since we proposed this saying, when's it going to happen? When's it going to happen? When's it going to happen? So I'm glad we're continuing to move, and I hope we get this on the schedule very soon.

Council Member King? Council Member Patel?

So I do appreciate that, Mayor, thank you. And I do appreciate Council Member Koza and Byram for coming up with the idea. But I will disagree that this is not just an educational. I think this needs to be also where you guys hear what the constituents are feeling about this issue. It's one thing to educate them, but you also must have solutions. You guys have provided no solutions. You guys keep using this SB 840, but what's the solution? So you can have the legislators there, but the question you keep hearing about social media that people are just blowing smoke up there, but what they're telling you is how they're feeling about this issue. That is what I hear from them. It's not a false narrative when people post their thoughts. That's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying.

Hold on, hold on. You're not gonna put words in my mouth. But allow him to finish, allow him to finish.