City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the City Council regular meeting, City of Pearland, on this Monday, August 10th. I'll call this meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. At this particular time, we'll have the invocation and the pledge. The invocation will be led by Council Member Fernandez and the pledge by Council Member Cade. If you wouldn't mind, please stand up.

You will join me and bow your heads. Dear Heavenly Father, Lord, we just thank you for today. Thank you for being in this room. Your word says that when two or more are gathered that you are present, Lord. Lord, we just embrace your presence. We embrace your love that you give to us each and every day. Bless those that are in this room, those that are watching online, Lord, and just bless our city as a whole. Lord, we just ask you to continue to place your hands of protection upon our first responders, Lord, and just allow them to be safe each and every day. Allow them to go home. at the end of their shifts, Lord. Lord, we just thank you and we just give you all the glory. In Jesus Christ we pray. Amen.

I'll now have roll call, certification of quorum. Madam Secretary, we do have a quorum present. All Councilmembers are present except for Councilmember Echols. Moving on to the next item on the agenda is citizens' comments. And I believe we do have comments that were submitted. And I'll hand this over to Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria to facilitate. I'll just remind us that comments should be limited, if you're representing a group, to five minutes and three minutes for individual comments. And so I'll let you move it on, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you.

thank you mayor so we do have several comments so i'm going to go ahead and call you up in pairs of three or in threes um so we have bill lady bill lady denise barlett okay sorry and donnie strew hall okay sorry about that sir welcome you have three minutes Bill is first.

All right, my name's Bill Baldy, like a bald-headed person. I've been called every name in the book, so don't worry about it. But anyway, I'm here to talk about the Airbnb out there in Wesley. It's becoming a big problem right now. I know y'all are used to hearing about all this, but y'all told us a while back that whenever it got over more than 10 cars, we needed to call the police department to have them come out and take care of it. We've done that, and we were assured that the police know how to handle all that. Well, evidently somebody wasn't paying attention that day. So we had him out there, and all he said was, there's nothing I can do about it, except make them move the cars in the right direction. I said, well, council told us that we had to call you. Well, there's nothing I can do about it. We're having problems with it. At night, they go to two or three in the morning, partying. Neighbors around it are complaining about the noise. Cars are parked all over the street. I'm just wondering, are they requiring them to get a permit? I know the Airbnb people who own it have to get a permit, but why can't you make the people that are renting it have a permit also? You have to have a permit if you wanna have a garage sale. Make them get a permit if they wanna have a party there. What's wrong with that? Extra money for the city. And are they paying residential trash service or are they paying commercial? That's a good question right there. Because it is a business. But y'all need to think about what's going on with it. We've had some incidents out there. Mr. Barton's going to get up here in a minute and tell you what happened to him. He lives right across the street from it. It's very disturbing. If it had happened at my house, EMS would have had to come haul the guy off is all I can say. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Dennis, you have three minutes. Please state your name.

Dennis Bartlett. Sorry, I'm going to be repeating some of what Bill just said. I'd like to bring to your attention on Saturday, August 1, the Airbnb across the street at 3657 Meadowlark in the Wesley subdivision started filling up with people for a party, as they do many weekends. I lived in Wesley for 34 years, and just now, with all the unknown guests coming to the Airbnb, I feel like I need to keep the doors locked, garage doors shut, and gates closed if I'm not where I can keep an eye to watch out. This is a big change in the way the neighborhood has been all of these years. To get a better picture of this incident, the party had eight cars that had arrived already. I finished up with my yard work in the back and closed everything up to go inside and get cleaned up. On this day, a man walked up my driveway with no cars in it, mind you, through my closed walk-in gate into my backyard onto my patio and opened my back door to the house without knocking and came in.

He called out, where's the party?

I walked into that room and told him it's not here, leave. He inquired if this was an Airbnb. I told him it's not an Airbnb, leave. I really wasn't sure that he wasn't casing my place for a future robbery. So as he left, I watched him walk across the street to the Airbnb and directly into the house. Several months ago, three of us from the neighborhood met with a city attorney where he advised the Airbnb cannot have large parties, the house cannot have more than two adults per bedroom, I believe that house has four bedrooms, and that 10 people total could be there. They also didn't disturb the peace with loud, they can't disturb the peace with loud music and conversation after 10 o'clock. City attorney advised us to call the police for infractions so a record would be kept to aid in possibly pulling their permit to operate. I have counted as many as 19 cars attending parties parked up and down the street. The police now tell us all they can do is make them move the cars if they're facing the wrong direction. That's it. No more enforcement. Why aren't the owners of the Airbnb made to follow the rules set forth in the new ordinance 2000T-41 for short-term rentals? So we come to you once more to ask for your help to correct what's developed into an unsafe atmosphere that you've created in our neighborhood by issuing this business a permit to operate. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Donnie?

Good evening, I'm Donnie Struhal. I'm a Pearland Wesley resident for over 40 years. I've gotten involved with the Civic Club recently They elected me their president, and I feel like that it's my duty and obligation to come here tonight and talk about this VRBO vacation rental, short-term rental problem we have. The property that Mr. Bartlett was talking about at 3657 Meadowlark is very close to where I live as well. What I notice when I drive by that property is how strange it looks in front because now half the yard used to be St. Augustine grass, now it's caliche and gravel for parking. It looks kind of like a country honky tonk to me is what it looks like. Just strange looking. Anyway, the house is a four bedroom house as far as I know too. Sometimes we see 12, 13, 14, and like Mr. Bartlett said, one time we saw 19 cars there. Trying to wonder how could that be with a four bedroom that you'd have that many people there at one time. We know they have pickleball courts in the back. We know that they have a swimming pool. As we hear them hollering and partying, and I know they pay good money for this place when they rent it, and I can tell you the people that rent it, they get their money's worth because We live 165 feet away, Ann and I do, and we can hear it in our backyard when we're outside. We can hear them party and we kinda know that it's either a party weekend or a sports weekend or whatever because you can hear the hooping and the hollering. It's really hard for me though to watch my neighbors who live on both sides and across the street because I know they're dealing with the nuisance all the time. So my question really, I have a question for the city and that is can the city deny a license to an owner that has had numerous complaints to the police being called in for noise and traffic issues and what have you? Walking into people's houses or that kind of thing. I know the police have responded and I get the feeling they are caught in the middle and they are such a precious resource to be having to be called and expended each time things get loud and people start partying. It just doesn't work to have a business like this in the middle of a single family neighborhood. So I ask the city to please help us, and I ask on behalf of all Wesley residents to help us. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, so the next three, Lurnette Patterson, Steven Hickam, and Lee Dupring.

You have three minutes. Thank you for being here. Good evening. My name is Lurnette Patterson, and this is the second time that I've appeared before the council. I am here to ask the council How are the residents to feel comfortable and confident when we make a request, when we stand here at this desk, when we speak to you all and give our concerns, even through email, and we don't get any response? It saddens the community to know that the elected people that we elected as citizens and residents of Pearland have elected you all to hear our concerns and to help us to weed through areas that are foggy and we don't get any reply. How can you sit there and, you all are engaged in looking at me, thank you. But when people stand at the desk and pour out their concerns to you as the city council, I think it's your obligation to wholeheartedly listen. Do we all agree? No. Do we all have the same concerns? No. But the concerns are being addressed to the people that we thought would be able to help us. So I would appreciate if our city council in Pearland would really pay attention to what's happening, what's being said. I know you all know what I said in the email, and I don't need to address that, but you all know what I said. And I'm praying that this city council gets itself together, that we not stand on what we as individuals want, but we do what is best for the community, everybody in the community. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much.

My name is Steven Hickam. I live at 3725 Wing Chill Way in Wesley neighborhood. I'm here to follow up on what Mr. Baldy, what Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Donnie just said. This Airbnb, my fiance and I moved into the neighborhood about just over a year ago. And loved the neighborhood, big one-acre lots, and quiet neighborhood. Sorry, guys, but older people. and you know very very nice little retirement neighborhood kind of type thing it was awesome and this house this airbnb is two one street behind me and we're talking one acre lots and i've raised cars most of my life I've shot guns most of my life, so my hearing's already pretty shot, and I wear hearing aids. And from inside my house, I can hear the noise going on two acres away. It's a big nuisance. And then also, it brings a lot of speeding traffic into our neighborhood. um you know we're like i said we're a little retirement neighborhood you know we ride around our golf carts at night and go drive by people's houses and visit for hours and you know we're driving around there's been several times where you know someone's blown by me doing at least 50 miles an hour you know and our speed limit signs are 30. you know speed limit only does so much the signs only do so much but This Airbnb is bringing all kinds of bad stuff to this neighborhood that I love so much. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Lee?

My name is Len Duprang.

Apologize, it looks like .

That's quite all right, my dear. I have lived a couple of blocks from here for the last 43 years. I raised my children here. I finished my teaching career here after 20 years at Pearland High School, and I didn't have a hometown myself, but this has been a true hometown for me and my family. I've approved of it, and up until Mayor Reed's death, I used to feel like I knew at least one or two or three people on this city council. Now, there's no one that I know, and you're all relatively young. I'm 78. Everyone's young. So here we are, and I came today to do something I just think it's time to do. I use the dog park almost every day. I have a pup that I take out there, and I've been able to do that recently because I had a dog that was sociable. Going over there has been a great joy to me. It's been a really wonderful thing. I had to go, because I lost two pups last year, I had to go to the City Pound, that's not what they call it, but the City Pound and get a dog, and I did so, and I'm happy about that. The facility that I went to was beautiful. It was clean. The people were really nice there. They did everything they could to help us, and I appreciated it so much. The dog park, it turns out, didn't have certain things that it needed. The lights weren't coming on, the water, we have not a convenient way to get water to the dogs, et cetera, et cetera. Bottom line, I went and talked with our parks director, and within a day, they had fixed at least one of those issues and have continued until everything has been taken care of. Just couldn't ask for nicer and a snapshot, I'm running out of time. I went back to speak to Ms., I knew I was gonna do that. Capers, yes, I love Capers. Anyway, went back to see Ms. Capers and in talking to her, she said, Think about this in this day and time. She said, well, you know, they didn't get that hose out there, and they hadn't. But it may have been that I didn't communicate with them clearly about where to take it. And I thought, that's pretty important. A leader who takes responsibility rather than throwing it off on her employees. I'm sorry, not employees. But anyway, I thought that was noteworthy, that's character. I use the rec center. It's wonderful. The people when you walk in there, the kids and some adults that work there, they greet you. Pearland is doing a lot of things right and has done a lot of things right. Please don't slide into this horrible malaise that has taken over our national government.

I'm sorry, sir.

You've done well.

Thank you. Those are all the comments, Mayor.

Just before we move on, I just want to say thank you for everyone for coming and making comments today. It truly is appreciated and welcomed. And so we value input as we continue to move the city forward. So moving on to the next item on the agenda, the consent agenda. Are there any items to be removed? I think there's a yes as an affirmative. Council Member Koza?

Yes, you want me to put the consent agenda on? Yes, I'm sorry, would you mind putting it on? Fair enough, fair enough. Consideration of possible action on consent agenda items A, B, and H, with all other items being removed. So moved.

Second.

We have a motion to remove all items except for A, B, and H from the Consent Agenda made by Council Member Koza, second by Council Member Cade. All, I believe that's it, no, okay. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byron?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. The motion passes 6-0. Okay.

Now we're going to try to keep up with this. So, Council Member Kaye, would you present item number C?

Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Consideration and possible action resolution number R2025-CUP2025-0285-1. So moved.

Second. Motion was made by Councilmember Cade, second by Councilmember Fernandez. I believe, is there a staff report?

Thank you, Mayor. So, this is a previously approved CEP for SolveChem over off of Macawa and Schenck, and this is an extension. This will approve the extension of that CEP. So, the original CEP was approved September 22nd 2025 with this extension it'll be in effect through 922 of 27 so that they can get their project started which they expect to by the end of the year thank you for that any concerns councilman Kate discussion um I asked for this to be removed so I was just wondering is there some

What's, why is there, can we ask why the extension is needed? Are they here?

We can. I think what they identified in their application was balancing the financial institution requirements with city requirements and some redesign challenges. That's what I wanted to know. They are indicating that they're close to finalizing those and intend to break ground by the end of the year.

Thank you.

I believe there's, yes, if you see there's someone approaching the podium here, would you mind stating your name and then providing some context?

Sure. My name is Ed Baldwin. I'm the Director of Business Analysis for SoftChem. I'm the one who wrote the letter requesting the extension. So one of the reasons why we're trying to get the extension is This is a large project for us. We're spending over $20 million for this expansion. So it is involving our financing company, the ownership of the company, permits and stuff that are needed from city council, our insurance brokers, and most importantly, the customer that we're doing the business to expand with. We've had about a 20 to 25% increase in the cost that we were anticipating. So we are tweaking some things to make sure we make everyone happy. We're past the design phase. We're actually in the phase right now where we're trying to resolve things with our fire engineers. And then we're getting ready to go to the fire marshal. And we anticipate applying for construction permits in the next 30 to 45 days. We're hoping to have groundbreaking before the end of the year. We just needed a little more time. The cup was going to expire before we could get all the paperwork in order.

Thank you, thank you for that.

You shall ask for discussion. Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byron?

Aye.

Motion passes six to zero.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, would you present item D?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration of possible action resolution number R2026-61. So moved.

Second. Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria, second by Councilmember Koza. Staff?

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a development agreement with Beezer Homes for their development called Arcadian Estates, which is off of County Road 100. Under our normal requirements, all the infrastructure has to be completed before they can go through an SIA process which allows only a certain 5% of the homes to start before they complete everything because they've been delayed working through FEMA as well as the county on their section of County Road 100. We've worked through this process to put this development agreement together. Since that's the only piece of the infrastructure not completed yet, they do have plans and are ready to move forward. So this will allow them to incrementally add a different number of homes or start a different, more homes based on certain milestones that are enumerated in the development agreement. So it basically allows them to get going as they build their share of County Road 100.

Thank you for that. Council Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. So is somebody here from Beezer Homes? So, you know, my concern, Trent, on this is one, I guess, is this a part of UDC that we are basically giving a waiver to start on the construction of the homes before they finish their infrastructure project?

So we normally allow that 5%, and that's once they put up a bond. And so what's occurred here is they have completed all of their internal infrastructure, and it's just the County Road 100 portion that's been delayed through going through a conditional letter of map revision process through FEMA. so we they asked about going through a development agreement process that would allow them to exceed that 5% of homes if they go ahead and put up the bond for that portion of the infrastructure they have not completed at this point and so because there were delays kind of outside of their control you know we work through them with this process to allow additional homes as they complete the road

So I guess when I saw that, it's 30, 50, 75. 75%, so that would be 81 homes, right? So they could build 81 homes before they start construction of the road? That's the way I read it.

At the point they're issuing, once they issue the notice to proceed for the construction of their share, that's when it would increase to 75% that they could start up to that many.

So they can build, out of 108 homes, they can start up to, they can build 81 homes before they start construction of their road.

Sorry, excuse me. Christina Hansen with Beezer Homes. The 75% we will get to when we issue the notice to proceed, and as soon as we issue that notice to proceed, we'll start construction on CR100. So my understanding of the development agreement is as soon as we issue that NTP, and then once we start construction, we'll have those 80 homes.

Okay, so I'm just trying to understand this. you would be able to build 81 homes before you start construction off that road.

Before they complete it. They'd be able to build 54 before they start the construction.

Okay, technically start would be getting a dozer out there. What am I missing here? So technically 81 homes would be done out of 108. And then when 108 homes are done, you would have to have that road complete.

Yes, so we can, in reality, we're able to pull permits for those 81 homes. Now, whether we start 81 homes, but yes, according to the development agreement, as soon as we issue the NTP, 75% of those homes can be released, as long as we have the below as well, CLOMER, which we do.

And I guess every time the word messy comes along, I get real cringy. We've had some development out there that we've amended multiple times. And there are some homeowners out there that hold us responsible for some issues that we didn't have anything to do with. And so you got 81 homes technically you can build and people can move in without that road being done. And in case you guys decide, well, the cost goes up too high and you don't do it, There's no bond here. No, there is a bond.

We do have a bond.

Okay, bond is 125% of the cost that they already have a bid number on.

Okay, so to me, at the same time, I'm having a little bit of a difficult, why are we adjusting this? What is the cost of that road? What are you estimating that road to be?

Our bid came in around 768,000.

I mean, I don't know a bunch about Beezer Homes or construction, but Beezer Homes is a pretty big company, so you're talking about less than a million dollars. Why not just go ahead and finish the road?

We are, we're working on contracts right now. We couldn't do anything with the road until we got FEMA's approval, and FEMA was shut down for a while, which is why the process took a long time. But we recently got FEMA approval on the road, and we're working with contracts right now, and I've got everybody ready to start, I'm ready to start the road. And so as soon as I get contracts approved, we'll have dozers out there doing CR-100.

Okay, so then can we adjust this? Instead of 75%, can we say, hey, since you already got FEMA a letter, you can go ahead and start 54 homes, right, technically according to this agreement.

Yes, once it's signed, yes.

So then can we adjust that to say, hey, you can only do 50% of the homes until the, I guess, notice to proceed is at 75. Can we move it up? Right now, if I'm reading this correctly, 30% is execution of the agreement. Yes. 50% is at letter of FEMA. But you already have letter of FEMA in your hand.

Yes.

And you have 75% at notice to proceed. Am I correct? Yes, that is correct. So what I'm saying is the notice to proceed has to be at basically at 50%. Okay.

So when is the notice to proceed?

You can get up to 50%, and then you had to have notice to proceed.

Okay, so then notice.

And then you must complete the road before 75%.

Okay, but then once the road is completed, we're allowed 100%.

Yeah, absolutely. The road has to be completed at 75%.

Okay.

That's fair.

Okay. Yes, yeah.

Member Patel, if I could, essentially there is no 75% threshold. Once the road's finished, everything's done.

Exactly. Yeah, I agree. But they can't go above that standard 81 homes until the road is complete.

Yes, sir. So we would just essentially remove step three and make it a 50% cap.

Very good. Thank you.

What I'm hearing is a council member with a suggestion. Are you making a motion to amend the development agreement?

I would second that. I'll make a motion that we move the, I guess, road construction must be completed by 75% of the homes being built.

I was just going to recommend removing paragraph C altogether. That seems like it would make it cleaner.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. So moved. Second.

So it seems that there's an amendment, a motion to amend the contract by removing C. Yes, sir. Made by Council Member Patel, second by Council Member Koza. Any discussion on that further? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you mind calling for the vote on the amended motion?

Are you sure what we're removing?

The amendments. It's gonna be, I'm sorry, if you're asking for clarification on the amendment, it would be to remove paragraph section 2.1, I'm sorry, 2.2 C, which will take out the 75 percent threshold. So, it'll, Beazer will essentially be able to build up to 50 percent. And then, until that 50 percent, they couldn't go beyond that 50 percent until the road is completed.

Female Speaker 2. All right.

Thank you. Male Speaker 3. And just for point of clarity, it's an amended agreement, not the motion. Male Speaker 2. Well, it's a motion to make that amendment to change that development agreement. Male Speaker 3.

Correct. Sorry. Member Patel?

Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pracham Chavadilla? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Councilmember Koza, would you present item E, please? Pardon me, Mayor.

That was just voting on whether to amendment, and we have to adopt it with the amendment,

And we have to adopt it as amended motion.

Got it.

Member Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Council Member Koza, would you present item number eight, please?

Certainly, Mayor. Consideration of possible action resolution number R2026-139. So moved. Second.

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

Thank you, Mayor. So this item is a rejection of the RFQs that we solicited for our standards of coverage and staffing utilization study for the fire department. This has been put out as a request for qualifications. We want to reject these and go back out actually as a request for proposals so that we can have the cost considered as part of the scoring to go through the selection process for the consultant that we will use.

Questions? Yes, Mayor. So is this request here, is this for part of the study on the EDSs for the next two items?

Yes, sir. So this standards of coverage would include analyzing and looking at the emergency services districts, yes. Okay.

And approximately, if we reject these and go through the process again, approximately when will we be seeing the results from the study?

I would say within two to three months,

all right thank you is that you were looking at somebody a recommendation to award okay are you talking about that or the actual results of the results yeah so the no the actual study or the recommendation to award this no no no actual when when will we have data to take a look at oh no i would say sorry i thought you were asking when would this be back in front of you guys for for approval um then it will probably take us upwards of nine months to a year probably have any recommendations How much a year to have the results? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

So, Trent, real quick. You said you rejected the original proposal because it didn't include the cost of what the services were?

This is the item to actually reject the request for qualification process, so we can start over with the RFP process.

I'm confused. What is the difference?

So request for qualifications takes into account the qualifications of the consultants and does not solicit a cost. So then after you make a selection based on qualifications, you go through a negotiation process. For the actual cost of the work, we wanted to put it back out as an RFP so that the cost could be considered upfront as part of the scoring for determining who's the best provider for these services.

Okay, do we have multiple service people who do this?

We received nine statements of qualifications, so we're gonna go back to all those firms and basically I think they can put together what they put together for the qualifications plus an actual proposal, cost proposal as well. So I would expect most of them to participate. Okay, thank you.

And just to be clear, that whole process is nine months, okay? Nine to 12.

Yeah, no, I was just gonna go back in on it, so you know.

Any other comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Council Member Byrum, would you present item F, please?

Certainly, Mr. Mayor. Consideration of possible action resolution number R2026-140. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Byrum, second by Council Member Koza. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Mayor. This resolution is to approve an interlocal agreement with Emergency Services District Number 4. to provide emergency services within that district. It's basically the same agreement we've had for the past five years and is a new one extending over the next five years. Basically establishes that they will keep their tax rate at the 10 cents and basically after their administrative cost, they're contracting with us for those services. And it does include, for either side, a cancellation clause that allows you to give 12 months notice to end it. So it's not for the full five years if there were a reason to consider something different. So ESD-4 is the ESD that covers basically all of the ETJ except for MUDs 2, 3, and 6. So that we recommend approval.

Any questions, concerns?

Yes, Mayor. So, we briefly spoke about this, I think at our last meeting, in the special stuff about the SDs and whether they pay their full amount of what's owed for the services rendered. And it was stated that basically we need the study to be done before we can have that answer. The previous item that we just rejected to start over again We're looking at 9 to 12 months in both the agreements for E and F for basically ASD 4 and ASD 5. They have the same clauses in there, and it basically states in here that the standard agreement between the city and ASD 4 contemplates that, and it's got five different things. Number 3 says the terms of compensation reference to the importance of adopting a maximum tax rate in an effort to cover the maximum portion of the cost allowable, meaning setting the tax rate at $0.10. But it states in here at the end, as the district's formation will not fully cover all costs. When we had our last discussion in regards to this, it also goes down into the interlocal agreement number three, whereas both the district and the city agree that the city's cost of providing emergency service for the district may exceed the district's annual statutory authority to impose a maximum ad valorem tax pursuant to section 775.074 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. So, right there in the agreement, it reiterates kind of the definition up above. To me, it sounds like, and when I asked this last time, it sounds like the citizens of Pearland are subsidizing ESD 4 and 5. Is that a fair statement?

Yes, based on our internal calculations, we think that that is true. And, you know, we want to go through the study to evaluate the way we've calculated that and to make sure that's accurate and then actually be able to pinpoint what that discrepancy is or what that shortfall is.

Okay, so with that being said, what my questions from there are, I think if my memory serves me correctly, in our discussion, is it a 10 cent for fire and a 10 cent for EMS?

So what's currently been approved is just the 10 cents, and I believe that's, I don't know if it's specific to fire or emergency services, but my understanding is that you can also adopt a separate one for EMS that would be potentially up to another 10 cents.

So all in, total of 20 maximum? Yes, sir. Okay, so with that being said, with not knowing exactly what we're looking at, not knowing whether they're covering, not covering, if we are subsidizing, how much we are subsidizing. What I'd like to do is put a motion on this to amend this motion. Instead of a five-year contract, I'd like a motion to be for one year. so that we can get the study accomplished, see where it's at, and then at that point negotiate from there whether we need to seek additional money so that the citizens of Pearland aren't subsidizing the ESDs. So moved. Second.

I'll second that.

So we have a...

If I could interject just to make sure that I'm understanding the situation correctly. Unlike the last item where we had a motion and there was somebody at the dais who could speak on behalf of the company, we don't know that we could approve up to that limit, I guess is the way to start. Yes, we can say here, but we don't know if we have an agreement because we don't know that the Board has agreed to that term. And of course, their Board has to go through their open government procedures and adopt any proposed changes according.

So we have a month right now. We could just shoot this down and have them come back to us within a month, then, is what you're saying?

I'm saying that we could approve it today, but it might not be finalized until that board takes their action.

OK, so we could proceed with where we're at. And it would be finalized if they vote for it. If not, they have a month to come back, because this expires at the end of September, roughly speaking, six weeks, whatever it is.

Yes, sir. And then the other thing that I would just I understand the timing on your situation. If I understood the timing from the city and its study, if it's gonna take close to nine months and we have to give them 12 months advance notice, and then we want to give them time to do what they may need to do, what we expect the study's gonna suggest that they do, they may need time to get that adopted by the voters at whatever election cycle they are on. it may be more prudent to go with two years instead of one. That's...

I would rather have one, and we look up in one year and figure out where we need to go from there.

Yes, sir. Understood. Just wanted to offer an alternative, but I understand the negotiation and the concern that you've expressed. All right. Thank you.

Council Member Patella.

Thank you, Mayor. Trent, how much money are we collecting from each of these districts? I guess District 4 and 3, or 4 and 5? Yes.

So for District 4, we collect approximately $800,000, and that was in fiscal year 2026. And I have the other ESD's contribution as well for the next time.

So I just want to point one thing out. We're talking about ESD. The motion on the floor is for ESD 4. Sure. I just want to make sure we keep the conversation.

Sure. I apologize. I mean, they're both exactly the same things, except the number.

We'll go through the same. We'll go through.

Sure. So the contracts are the same, but the muds contained therein are different. Sure. I think the conversations need to be.

Okay, let's focus on District 4. What's the amount? $800,000. $800,000, okay.

Last fiscal year payment.

And assuming, and I don't know, Trent, you said internally you've done some number on crunching. I'm assuming the cost to run our services in this district is above $800,000, correct?

That's what we've calculated, yes.

Do you have a rough number of how much that cost is?

Yes, we do. Would you mind sharing that? So if I can predicate that with the information in the cost model, if you will, also includes the cost of preparedness. And we've also removed the costs associated with services that we cannot statutorily provide those areas like code enforcement, fire marshal, things like that. And we've also backed out revenues that we receive for charges of service and uh we've included the costs associated with debt service so we believe we have a good cost model it pairs out when you compare rooftop to rooftop when it goes through the full service area of the community as well as those etj areas and so we come up with a 26 percent cost coverage when it comes to what the ESD contributes versus the total calculated cost of that.

So we're approximately losing, correct me if I'm wrong, Joel, $600,000.

Much more than that. We're losing $600,000. Yeah, no.

Hold on one second, one second, one second, one second. So, Council Member Patel is a four. Sorry.

Yeah, you're right. You're right. Yeah. Okay. So that's just from District 4.

Correct.

Okay, keep that for District 5. We'll come back to that. Sorry.

Go ahead. I just want to clarify. That's all. I don't mind if I cut you off. 26%, because I heard some discussion, so I wanted to make sure we were clear. Before we move forward, 26% that you mentioned, could you kind of elaborate what the magnitude or value is? Because there was some confusion.

So for the last fiscal year, the target cost allocation is around $3.1 million. Okay.

I want to make sure we're talking apples to apples. So $3.1 million is the cost, and currently the contract covers one? $800,000. $800,000. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Joel. And I guess if you're asking for guidance, I would say one year. And if they want to cancel the service, I mean, we're okay with that as well. I hate saying it that way, but again, study of Farallon and that taxpayers are contributing significant amount of money of covering costs of services we're providing. The other thing I would also ask, we need to have the discussion of the additional 10 cents that we can charge. And I think if we're gonna negotiate now, I think we need to go back to the, is there anybody from that district four or five here? Four. Are you guys from district four? Five, okay. Well, you get to hear it. They're up next. Yeah, they're up next. So I think it is prudent, and I think it's only fair for the citizens of Bear Land to kind of have that discussion to add in the other 10 cents before we continue for a five-year extension. I'll stop there, Mayor. Thank you.

Question. So 10 cents, was there a 10 cents maximum cap, or are we allowed to go up higher than that?

There's a 10% cap for fire services, and there's a 10% cap. It's traditionally called EMS services, but because our fire and EMS is combined, when they adopted it, they only did one of the two. So theoretically, there is a 20% cap when you add the two together.

And even at that, they're only going to cover 50%.

I'm sorry, 20%.

I just wanted to make sure that I heard that correctly, because currently the contract as it is, is at 10 cents. So, I hear discussions around an increase to 20 percent.

I just want to make sure that we're all clear.

Twenty cents. Twenty cents. Twenty cents. And I have a question from .

Oh, that was the clarification, but correct me if I'm wrong, Lawrence, but we have, we already have an amended motion on the floor to change the contract from five years to one year. Correct. It's not one year at 20 cents, it's one year at 10 cents is the motion we have on the floor.

Correct, because the other one isn't entirely within our control. What's in our control is approving this agreement. Whether they increase or do another election or whatever other funding mechanisms they could do to offset the portion that's being paid by city taxpayers, that's part of what the discussion is meant to have when we meet with them. And I think we wanted to have the study before we meet with them so that we can have the data-driven discussion versus our internal calculations.

Right, there was just a lot of stuff. So the motion on the floor is amend five years to one.

Yes, and basically what the whole purpose is, is so that we don't leave them without service. So we're at least getting something, but this is a pretty big delta.

Understood, okay. And just for additional clarity, if, there's a proposal or a rate theoretically that they do not adopt. This entity was put in place because they, meaning people who reside in those areas, aren't able to provide those services. So if a contract negotiation can't be met, how would those people in those areas theoretically get access to emergency care and services?

Well, they could always petition the city for annexation. And I think you're going to get a strong response if they did that, but either something will cause a motivation to make a change from someone. I don't know what that will be yet.

I just wanted to be clear that As things currently are, they potentially are not staying the same, because I hear guidance from council that potentially we would propose to them increased rates to minimize the variance in cost that Pearland residents are paying above said services provided to them.

OK. Yeah, I mean, we're subsidizing them. We don't collect taxes from them. other than for this ESD?

I just, I'm choosing not to use the word subsidy because I just want to make sure that there's a cost difference because there's other things, I think, that probably should come into the conversation at a later time, not particularly with ESD 4, which is why I'm trying to keep the conversation to 4. So, are there any other questions with regard to ESD 4? I believe, Council Member Byram, you said there's a motion on the floor to... An amended motion. An amended motion on the floor to adopt this resolution with a one-year term instead of a five-year term. Is that correct?

And I thought, I heard a motion and I heard a second, but I... Motion was made by Council Member Koza, second by Council Member Patel.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Chair Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavadilla? Aye. Motion passes six to zero.

Council Member Patel would you present item G please?

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

Motion was made by Council Member Patel. Second by Councilmember Cate. Would you provide the, I guess then. Same story. Same story.

This ESD number five covers the areas that are muds two and three. That's the only difference. Well, the difference could be what the cost is as well.

Exactly. So, Joel? That's what I was gonna say. Yeah, so now, back at you, Joel.

A little bit better situation. So they cover about half of their costs. So the 679,961 we received last year covers half of the 1.3 million in estimated cost.

And you said that was 679? Correct. And some change, okay. 680. 680, okay.

So just to be clear, this particular ESD, what were the MUDs again? Two and three. Two and three. Two and three. Okay, any questions from council members? I'm assuming that because of the engaged discussion on the previous resolution that we would move to try to do the same thing.

Yes, sir.

I'll second that. What? I want to make sure someone does it.

Yeah, I'll make the motion to amend the motion from five years to one year, so moved.

Second.

Motion to amend the contract from a five-year to a one-year for ESD-5 was made by Councilmember Koza and second by Councilmember Cade. Councilmember Patel, questions?

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. We do have the gentleman representing District Number 5. Would you guys go to a podium for a second? One of you guys, whoever is a better speaker, I guess.

Just when you're there, just remember to state your name.

Richard Giesel, I'm the Vice President for ESD-5.

Mr. Giesel, thank you for coming today, and I do appreciate it. You know, we're in a pickle. I wish you were here at 3 o'clock and sat through for two hours of budget meetings. And there's a reason behind this madness of why we're trying to do this, right? we're in a tight spot, we are subsidizing, and we're trying to find, we're squeezing pennies to get dollars. And one of these things was, hey, we are subsidizing our services, our taxpayers within the city are incurring a lot of costs with services that are outside the city. And I think it's only fair that the districts that we're providing services to at least help pay for them. I'm assuming since you guys are willing to renew that our services are worth the money you guys are paying. Absolutely.

There's been never an issue.

And I appreciate that. And I like to believe that we do have some of the finest first responders. Absolutely. Even if we went to 20 cents, I know it's a shock. I understand that your residents will say that. But when you do go back, please explain to them the true cost of these services that we do incur. And I'll just say this, and I'll let you speak. Last year or a year before we bought a fire truck, I've been told first it's called an apparatus. Who knew? Two, would you believe how much that apparatus cost? Could you guess?

Over a million.

$2 million, something, yeah. It was a ladder truck. I know there was a little bit, two point something, sorry. So we're trying to get the best service for our constituents, but we want the cost to be shared equally. So that's where I stand for, and I think my constituents also want to kind of balance this, and that's why we're trying to renegotiate this, right? To say, let's be fair to everybody. So I'll stop there, and I'll let you kind of say your piece.

We couldn't agree more. The issue is that we've been waiting on a study for exactly what Joel was just bringing up, was what the cost of services is. Once we balance that out, then we can take something back to the constituents and talk about it. Until we have anything, there's nothing to talk about. And we're limited in what we can charge based on the current rules and the laws in place.

And I appreciate that. And we'll take full blame on that. We will as a council that we should have pushed this study sooner. But it's coming. And that's why we want to kind of say, hey, look, once the study's done, you get a copy, we get a copy, and we can make a better decision. Perfect. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. And thank you for being here.

One second. Are there any questions from anyone?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Joel, just to be clear, assuming the study comes back and says the numbers are pretty much what we talked about, in the case of ESD-5, if legislatively they're allowed to go to 20 cents, they would, at least in theory, fully cover their cost.

Of course, depending on our overall cost for the service area.

get awfully close versus the prior item, they're not even close.

Yes, sir.

My name is Dave Haynes. Just one minor point. From a legal standpoint, we were directed, as I understand the history of the creation of ESD-5, to combine both emergency services and fire services And that was the language the city council agreed to and required for the creation of ESD-5. I think the issue that you have to face, or we will have to face also, is the legal issue of being able to go back and make that modification if that was the decision by both sides. It would probably require a major legal decision by the lawyers, first of all, and then going back to the public for a vote if it goes the way you're proposing. And that certainly can't be done within one year.

Just while you're there, I guess to understand the proposition or the situation that you're trying to describe is that because conversations are geared toward or aimed at separate entities, that this contract was made in a combination of fire and EMS, that that may pose a substantial legal hurdle in order for us to gain some sort of recompense for the variance that has been discussed in trying to make up the difference. Do I hear that correctly?

I think the legal people will have to struggle with the path that you're proposing. Not that we necessarily agree with it, but the path that you're proposing, I'm not sure is legally correct, but that's for the lawyers to decide, not us.

So, potentially, the thought process on both ESDs, even though we're keeping this germane to the fifth, ESD-5, that in order to make up the cost variance that Fairland residents are paying to provide these services, we may not be able to increase that rate in this contract.

potentially and I'm looking at so I don't think it has anything to do with the contract I think it probably has to do with the ballot language that actually the voters in the district voted on and what it says and if there would need to be any modifications to that and a second ballot initiative for the second ESD or for EMS services so we can work through that with the other bar yeah if I can

finish speaking to that. I don't, and I want to make sure that we're clear. I don't think anybody is saying that we only going to have a one year agreement. What we're saying is we don't want to enter into a five year agreement knowing all of this is out there. So we get a year from now and we're just now getting the information, then we can have the conversation, anybody correct me if I'm wrong, we can have the conversation to say, okay, we'll go another year while we work out all this stuff now that we have the data. That's all we're saying, correct? Okay, just make sure we all understand that, so yeah.

Clarification, are you therefore saying what happens after one year

This time next year, we have another discussion on whether we extend the contract or we have the data necessary to make the changes.

So, would you give us notice of cancellation immediately?

I don't understand your language. Well, no, we're entering into a one-year agreement.

With what kind of notice? So, currently, based on a five-year agreement, the people in the contract, the district would get a 12-month notice with a one-year, essentially, if we sign them up or agree to a one-year term, then basically two months from now, we'd have to give them a notice to say that either cancel or not to proceed, if I'm hearing it correctly, based on the contract language.

This contract would only be good for 12 months.

Correct. So, essentially, as soon as we sign it, if there's an intention to move, not move forward, they would be getting a notice basically within two to three months.

Well, this contract doesn't become effective until October 1st. So, on October 1st, they will know they have a one-year agreement. However, we also know that we will have that study done within a certain time period. We would expect around this time next year, maybe a month before this, we would be doing something similar with a new contract for one year as we work through whatever ballot language may be necessary. And then at that point, if they wanted our service and they did the ballot and it was passed, they would have that coverage for that additional year, but that would be a vote that happens next year.

So let me just...

Right. Discuss this then.

And just for the sake that you all are here, thank you for being here. We've already decided for ESD 4, and I think the variance is significantly large. So, I think the consensus amongst even though we're going to put a contract out, the consensus is pretty much to do something different with ESD-4. I think it's safe to assume that at this stage, even though we've not entered into any negotiation of contract. With this particular ESD-5, because we're having the dialogue and we understand there is an intent to still provide those services, I would ask council to reconsider and at least give two to three years within the contract so that they can at least give their and they're the people that they're notifying some intent to say, hey, things are changing, the cost may be going up. Here's some opportunity for them to start the negotiations and discussions on their end so that and then we could get the study and we're better prepared to put something on the table that they're willing to look at and review.

Mr. And, Mayor, I would, oh.

Ms. Mayor, just from the preliminary numbers, it's 3.1 million for both ESDs. that our taxpayers are paying, the costs that we're absorbing.

Hold on one second. So, Joel, I thought for ESD 5, it was 1.3. That's correct. So, ESD 5 is 1.3.

You said it's 24% cost recovery.

That was for ESD 4, and it was 26%. Yeah, between the two, it's 3.6 million delta.

3.6 million. Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong. Yeah. So, if you said it's going to take a year to get the study done, why is it going to take that long? Brent, I'm talking to you.

So, we've got to go through the RFP process, get that awarded. That'll be two to three months at best, and then the time it'll take for them to, you know, the study's not just looking at this issue. We're looking at kind of holistically our standards of coverage. We want to make sure it's set up you know primarily to serve the residents and the citizens within our city limits as you know this is a contracted service doesn't mean it will always provide that so we want to have kind of our core services set up and the best way to serve what is within our city limits And then part of that we'll also look at then, of course, these costs and where the shortfalls are. So there's a possibility we could accelerate that piece of it, but we're going to have to have most of that time to let them crunch through the data And then, of course, once we know what the numbers are, we're still going to have to go through the process with, you know, talking to the ESDs, allowing them the time to go through the process. I believe they've got to go through the county to even petition to have these things on the ballot. So there's a process there that's going to take some time as well. So we'll move it as quickly as we can, but it takes time.

There's no chance it'll be done by October 1st.

This year? Next year. Next year? I think we can have our study and have the information at that point, but does that allow them enough time to go through the process to get on a ballot next fall? Probably not. Maybe by the following spring.

To the Mayor's point about adding some time on here, more than a year, I mean 18 months would be as much as

I mean, to me, at a year, we just look up, and if we're not there, we can extend it. I'm not sitting here saying play hardball and say no way. But at the end of the day, if we set it at a year and we need to renew it a year, it gets us there. It gives us the flexibility because if we commit to that, we're committing to $2.6 million.

We know a year is not long enough.

No, I understand that. But, I mean, for a two-year deal, we know we're committing right now to $2.6 million. So, well, no, but I mean, at one year, we just look up, and if we're not there yet, then we go one more.

So, I think when you say committing to 2.6, there's still conversations about being able to raise it, so that varies.

Right, right, but I mean, where we're at today, right now, is 1.3 million roughly in the in that district.

I just, Council Member Patel, sorry.

Yeah, and look, I, If I was in their shoes, I would want some reassurance. I would. And we're certainly not, I'm not trying not to give it to you. I think you raised a very fair question.

We really, really appreciate that.

I think that question was missed by us because we are not in your shoes.

I would like to say that the first time to get this done took nearly two years.

What was your name?

It's Brian Reagan. Thank you. I'm the treasurer for the ESD number five.

Sir, will you say what you said again, please?

said when we first started this process to get the ESD created, get it validated, and get the residents to vote for it, and then come up with a contract, it took about two years. Would you agree to that, Joel? Maybe about a year and a half. Okay, a year and a half. I'm fine with that, too. Also, with all due respect, this 1.3, without the study, we're not sure that that's Debating the validity, sir?

So here's what I would, I'm gonna give you a proposal, and Lawrence, you're legal, so you figure this out. What I would tell you is we wanna do a 12 month, but how about it automatically renews each month for 12 months forward? Does that make sense?

Excuse me for a second.

One second, state your name, sir.

We have a real issue here, I believe, it's open meeting. There's three of us. We have the same legal rules of binding as you.

We can't agree to anything. They're just providing input.

We can't agree to anything. We're on very dangerous grounds even almost negotiating, which we can't.

Sure, okay, so let's not negotiate. I apologize. Lawrence, is there a way to automatically renew each month a contract for 12 months forward until notice of termination is given? Can you put it in a contract where you say, hey, every month it just renews for 12 months forward until the day we give a notice, so in November 1st we give it, then hey, you got 12 months. We're telling you 12 months in advance.

Yes, sir, we could rewrite it so that it is a one-year contract with monthly automatic renewals. I don't know. That could be written, no doubt about that. I don't know what the triggers are to stop that, which would get me to where y'all would want to be, which is something that forces y'all to make a decision or forces somebody else to make a decision. Like if it's on auto renewals, you normally would have a term that that auto...

Put a three-year term on it.

Well, why not just with all due respect, why not just allow three years because we still can cancel it at any time.

You can only cancel a 12-month notice.

So, that 12-month notice provision could also be changed, but I think that that's where the reassurance comes. I think if you're from the ESD's perspective, you need time to do something different if we can't come to an agreement. And that's why they want the 12-month notice to do something different, which is why originally I suggested a two-year contract, the first year being certain, the second one being optional. the optional one can come back to City Council if that's how you want it to read.

So what you're saying is if we shoot this one down tonight, you could bring back at the next meeting that type of contract?

I'm saying that we can agree to that term tonight, and then that's what will go out. So it would be a one-year contract with a one-year optional renewal, and that optional renewal will have to come to City Council instead of being automatic.

Okay, so you're saying withdraw my motion, put another motion with one year with optional on either side, them or us. Yes, sir.

And it's not an automatic renewal, it's an optional renewal that has to come back to City Council for approval. Yeah, okay.

May I ask a question? State Attorney, one more time, sir.

David Haynes, Commissioner. If I understand your language properly, you're saying you're gonna have a one-year contract with a one-year renewal At the end of the first contract 12 months, you could say we're not contracting any further and we would have no notice and we would have no options as to what our alternatives would be under the language I hear being proposed.

which is why I proposed.

Yes, sir, because I've only talked about the renewal period. I've not talked about the notice provision. Okay. And I don't know what that would be yet.

So, that sounded like a negotiation to me with three of them in the room. Yes. I think we need to watch that out.

Yes, sir. Well, that's their issue. I understand that. But absolutely.

I mean, if there's three of them in the room and they're...

I don't know how big their board is and what their quorum are, but they're aware of their procedures.

They made a comment that they're worried about it. Yes, sir. We need to be careful about it as well. Yes, sir.

Any other? Yeah.

I understand where you guys are coming from. I do. I think we're overcomplicating it. Nobody is, at least I'm not hearing anyone saying that the intent of the City of Pearland is to not provide emergency services to this area. At least for four months. Period. The intent for the City of Pearland, or City of Pearland's City Council, is to ensure that, as best we can, the cost associated that our taxpayers are paying to do this is recovered as much as possible. And I think if we keep what the original motion was, one year, we reevaluate this in a year, for lack of better words, it provides pressure on all of us to resolve this. And if we get down to 10 months from now, state it now so you can bring it back up if you guys want to in August of next year, or I'll play the tape of what you said. If we get down to August of next year and we don't have this resolved, then we extend the contract for a year, period, while we resolve it, but we've got to put a timeframe on this, or it's just gonna become, okay, well, we still don't have this thing, so now we need to kick it even further, and we've got this thing, and now we need to extend it even further. It just creates guardrails to the process that requires us all to figure this out. That's what I like.

So, I understood, and I hear your concerns. I think the concern really is, is one year adequate enough to determine the feasibility? I think that's really what the question was. Is one year adequate enough for us to understand the cost, and then the people who we're to negotiate the contract with, for them to go back and get the necessary approvals, information to residents, contract, legal review, and then potentially, I guess, go to the county as well. Can they do all of those things in a 12-month period? That's really the question.

I don't think we're asking to do all those things in a 12-month period. We're not. I think we're asking ourselves to have an answer on how we want to move forward in a 12-month period. And at the end of that 12-month period, then we can enter into another 12-month period while they're doing all of those things and figuring all that out. We've got to have some timelines in here. in my opinion, and I understand, the challenge comes in with ETJs and city council and people that are in the city limits, people that aren't in the city limits, and we as representatives of the city of Pearland have to represent the city of Pearland taxpayer. So we're spending the city of Pearland taxpayer dollars with everything we allocate in that. So that's what we're trying to figure out is how are we allocating those dollars appropriately. So again, I think it's just reasonable guardrails through the overall process. I think we all understand that figuring this out is going to take probably two years. At least by the time this next year is going to be studies, then there's going to be another year figuring out what you guys are willing to do, what we're willing to do. We all understand that that's the process. I just think it's good that we put some markers in here so that we revisit it with intentionality.

David Haynes, again, point of clarification. Under what you're proposing, at the end of one year, if we do not reach agreement, would you cancel at that point? He's asking. Or would you give a one-year notice so that we can look at alternatives We're forced to look at alternatives in a reasonable time frame for our citizens.

I just want to make sure that it wasn't a negotiation, that the question was, if we do one year, will that give you adequate time to go back to residence? I think that's a question, not a negotiation, so go ahead.

Agreed. I'm one of seven votes, but what I can tell you is at the end of the year, I'm not going to vote to leave the ESD with no emergency services. Period. Now, how we figure out what we need to do moving forward into the future to ensure costs are covered, we're going to have that conversation.

Well, I think we obviously need a formal legal opinion on several things, but we would like to see what you're proposing in a contract. Lawrence, don't we have to give a 12-month notice? No.

No, ma'am, the 12-month notice is what's in the contract that is expiring. Gotcha.

Let me ask you one more thing. Right now, the 10 cents is for?

I forget if it's for fire or EMS.

It's for fire and EMS together.

I don't recall what was on the ballot that went out in their district. It was combined, but I don't know what the actual ballot language, which section it referred to.

But, so, he indicated that legally it would be difficult to...

I don't know if it would be difficult or not. It would be something that the ESD's attorney would have to review to figure out the path forward. That's not on you. Correct.

Gotcha. Thank you.

I was just concerned, provided that there's some additional...

I just wanted to know.

Absolutely. So, there's a motion on the floor for a... I'm sorry, go ahead.

I was just going to ask, did you want us to bring this one back next month and just add that conversation? Like, I'll reach out to the SD's attorney or somebody from the city could reach out to the other folks. That's what I was going to say.

You're withdrawing your motion? Well, what I was saying is, if we want to postpone, if we want to vote this down and bring something back at our next meeting.

I think. That's probably what we need to do. That way they're not having, you know, we can negotiate with their attorney and on the language. And the intent of council is to keep this thing as short as possible. I think their intent is to make sure they've got coverage going forward and that there's some notice there. So that might have to be longer than one year, but I think we can find a place to go with that.

So do you want to postpone it until our next meeting? Is that which one?

I would think postpone it until the next meeting, and then I don't know if we'd want to reconsider the last item so that we could do the same there as well.

Okay, so. I'm sorry, if we're saying to the next meeting, that would be the 24th. Yeah, we may need. That's sufficient time. We may need it.

I would say the first meeting in. In October? September. I mean September, excuse me.

Yeah, because October, that was when it's up. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so then I'll withdraw my motion. We'll set it to postpone to the first. I make a motion to postpone to the first meeting in September. So I'm like, okay.

A motion to postpone by Council Member Koza, second by Council Member Patel.

No, it's Fernandez.

Fernandez, sorry, I apologize. Discussion? Madam Secretary?

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

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Was there a desire amongst council to reconsider number ESD 4 on the prior item to do the same thing, or did you want to just keep it at the one year for that one?

That's what I was actually fixing to ask for a point of privilege, because I would rather do both the same, keep everything the same. I agree.

If that's the case, we would need a motion to reconsider. I would motion to, can you scroll that down so I can see it, Josh, sorry.

Motion to reconsider. Item number four. Well, it's item F, resolution number R2026-140, so moved. Second.

Motion to reconsider made by Councilmember Koza, second by Councilmember Cade.

Motion to reconsider item number F. First, it's a vote on whether we reconsider, and then it's a vote to, then it's a motion and a second to postpone.

I got it, I got it. Madam Secretary?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Motion passes six to zero.

So now I'll make a motion to postpone this item. to our first meeting in September, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Councilmember Koza, second by Councilmember Byram, to postpone item F to September. First meeting of September. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byram?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Councilmember Patel, would you present item I, please?

Absolutely, Mayor. Considering possible action, resolution number R2026-132. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Councilmember Patel, second by Councilmember Fernandez. Mr. Epperson?

We just do I or H? Let's do H. I was confused, too.

I was prepared to cover all of them. All right, so I, this item is ratification of expenditures on our preventative maintenance and repair services contract for our generators. This contract was up earlier this year as we went through the solicitation process and looked at different co-ops. We made a decision to actually bid out those services. And so as we went through that process, we had to add some additional cost to this existing contract. So this item ratifies that. and then your next item is actually the new contract. So we recommend approval of this in the amount of just under $66,000 with ARCO company services.

Do you have any questions? Yeah, so is anybody from ARCO here? Okay, they don't want the money then. Can you tell me why we went up? I mean, I read that thing, I guess this was emergency services?

So the contract was originally up earlier in the year. So as we were going through the solicitation process, we had to keep somebody on board to continue to do the preventative maintenance as well as any repairs. And so while this is the additional expenditures to get through that timeframe until we got to tonight to award this new contract to a new vendor.

Okay, so that contract total now is 308, correct?

Correct.

So that's for 12 months?

It actually extended from instead of just 12 months, it extended another six, eight months.

Approximately another six months, yes, sir.

Okay. So additional six months was only $66,000? Correct. Okay. And I'm assuming that's just maintenance, no emergency work?

More so the reverse, sir, making sure that we had somebody on retainer for emergency services and then some site maintenance in between. Yes, sir.

Okay. And I guess, Mary, you want to talk? Okay. Yeah, we'll talk about the other one later. All right. No problem. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions on this? No. Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Costa?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Council Member Fernandez, would you present Item J, please?

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-70. So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Councilmember Fernandez, second by Councilmember Cade. Mr. Epperson, would you provide some context, please?

Thank you, Mayor. So this is the new quarterly maintenance, preventative maintenance contract for our generators. So it includes load bank testing twice per year, two additional visual inspections, oil changes, belt replacements, coolant changes, all the things required to keep these things operational and ready for when we do have power outages. It covers 62 emergency generators. And this is a new bid and a recommend award to M&I Diesel in the estimated amount of $244,502.85. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. Is M&I Diesel here? Okay. Would you go to the podium? Thank you, sir. When I was reading this, okay, so on call, I guess the PM was $128,000. That was the, I guess, big surprise for the year. And we've estimated 116,000 for emergency calls, right? And that number could be significantly higher or lower, assuming hurricanes or whatnot. I guess, you know, I know you guys did a reference check. the difference between this vendor and the next seemed a large gap. And I was just really confused because I think you had significant bidders on this project, but the gap from, And if my memory serves me correctly, one bid like $2 million and then you had these guys at 244 something. And it was the same scope. So I got a little worried that the gap, the next highest bidder above this was still much higher. So you wanna explain like how did they come up or are we gonna get hit with a bunch of change orders down the line?

No, Sir Member Patel. We don't believe that that will be the case moving forward. Their reference checks did prove up well, and they were fairly close. ARCO, the next lowest bidder, was the incumbent, if I'm not mistaken. And so they were fairly close in alignment, and we anticipate that this contractor is going to be able to fulfill their obligations as we've signed up for.

Okay, and I guess if I read this correctly, we have some generators from like 1987. I'm assuming you have done some, I guess, analysis of all the equipment we have. And one of my fears is that they're so old, do we even have parts? Or are these, you know, when the emergency comes, are these obsolete?

Good evening. My name is Harry Lartek, Jr. I'm the COO at M&I Diesel. So to answer your question, yeah, in a lot of municipalities, hospitals, wherever, there is a lot of older pieces of equipment where, in some cases, some parts could be an issue based on vintage. I mean, one of the benefits in the portable is that if that generator's not, you can't bring it online soon enough, you can bring a portable generator, a rental generator in place and tie it into the building or whatever it may be and have adequate support. So in times, situations like that where it may be a part that may be long lead time or not available, there are other sources to support that and get it fixed or repaired, or rental units could be going in place and take that duty.

Well, that goes to my budget then. I mean, if I go get a portable generator, I'm pretty sure during a hurricane, that will go my any kind of, you know, budget I have. And, again, I'm assuming you guys have been in business long enough that your personnel will be able to fix these old generators. That was my biggest fear when I was reading this because I was just kind of looking at all the different generators we have, and I learned about diesel polishing. Yeah. and all this stuff and it's like i i guess what what is your you know again three o'clock we went through budget process but you know we we talk about a lot of things about capital replacement but when you talk listen to a 40-year generator with diesel i don't know much about generators but i guess natural gas is the new way to go uh i mean what's your opinion on all this equipment that we have there outdated

Well, I mean, first off, you guys are doing the correct thing by actually having a maintenance plan and doing a quarterly inspection. So the intent would be to capture any of those problems on the proactive side versus the reactive side. So even if it's an older unit, the intent would be to test, inspect, and verify as much as possible to ensure that when it is called to go online, it is operational. Now, anything can happen with a new unit or old unit, but what you guys doing a quarterly inspection as you do with the annuals and load bank testing and simulating the load that's called for, I mean, we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that when it does come online, it does not fail.

Okay. You know, the only thing I was more worried about, I guess, I know the lock price or fixed cost is $128. I'm really worried about the on-call emergency calls because in year three, your labor rate jumped up 20%. And it was, like, shocking. The first two years, you guys were pretty reasonable. The third year, boom, it goes up 20% for emergency calls or standard rates. And it's like, why?

Well, the first year and the second year is a discounted rate. So because of labor rates, cost of having personnel on payroll, to have qualified technicians, you have to pay a fair wage. So you actually get a discount on the front end and get more to what the market rate would be on the back end.

This is a three-year agreement, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Member Patel, just to kind of go through some of the history, after Winter Storm Uri, we did a full evaluation of all of our gen sets and our maintenance program, and that evaluation identified several generators that either needed to be replaced or did not provide full capacity for whatever facility they served, and we've addressed the bulk of those. I think a couple of the oldest ones you see on the left there, ones at Fire Admin, which... It doesn't power much of that building, and we don't typically operate or do not operate out of that building in extended emergencies. So we have not looked to upgrade that. And then I think the other one's on one of our oldest wastewater plants that we've got a short-term plan within the next about five-plus years to decommission as well. So I think... um based on that study and that those are those oldest ones i think for the most part we're we're based on the last time we evaluated this and all the load bank testing since then we're in pretty good shape thank you sir

House Member Koza. Thank you, Mayor. Member Patel, just to kind of fill you in a little bit, this, what Mr. Latridge said, is the right way to do it. First year or two, we had some major issues with some of these. Some of them had problems that, kind of like David said, the way we ran our water department is run it until it breaks. It was kind of the MO for what we were doing. And having this type of contract, as long as you service and maintain these, they can last a long time. So it's one of those deals, we're doing the right thing, and we'll get the longevity as long as we're looking at it and taking care of it. One, I applaud Eric for doing this, and also Mr. Latridge here and his company. I know someone that's dealt with him personally, and he gave me a very high mark for him and I.

Seeing no further comment or discussion, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

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

Councilmember Cade, would you present item K, please?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. Consideration and possible action, resolution number R2026-127, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Council Member Kaye, seconded by Council Member Koza. Council Member Patel, do you have any comments or questions on this one?

Yeah, and so I'll bring this back. Thank you, Mayor. This is the water line I know on Makawa, we talked about it. Couple of things, if you can pull up the details on this. One, the contingency was about 20%, which was shocking to me. And two, if there is an opportunity to kind of take this cost and plug it into the EDC, absolutely, I think this project makes sense. A $4 million, yeah, the contingency just blew me away. And that's what grabbed me. On a $4 million, we got a million dollars of contingency. That's almost 24%. So one, I want an explanation why the contingency was so high. And two, is there an opportunity for this project to be plugged into the EDC funds and have the EDC pick this up and get it off the general fund?

So, we haven't done any engineering on this yet, so I'm assuming that's why the contingency's still high, and as soon as we go through engineering and get good cost estimates and any of the implications of the relocation of the line, then we can pare that down. As far as flipping this over to the EDC at this point, we have an allocated budget over there to pay for that, so it has been allocated through the CIP. through the enterprise fund. So I'm not sure how we do that without amending budgets at this point.

Yeah, I mean, okay. So you guys are putting in, are you plugging in?

I think that kind of changed to where we're budgeting, where we're funding capital projects. We've got to have those conversations when we're going through the CIP budget and actually passing the budgets annually.

Well, I think I've been saying it for a long time, plug stuff into EDC that justifies EDC and not the taxpayer's tax rate, but okay. So, you want to have another conversation, we certainly can, but I think it's fair to say that projects like these should not be on the tax roll. We have an EDC that can justify something like this. McCullough is a business road. Multiple businesses are going to be served on this, and this cost should have been on their projects, but I understand what you're saying.

Council Member Bauer.

Just out of curiosity on how it works, I know there's significant legal requirements and restrictions on certain funds and EDC funds, but can it be looked at in next year's budget? Is it legally possible for the EDC to reimburse us for this if we look at it? down the road and say, yeah, this is an EDC justifiable project? Is that something we can look at? I understand what you're saying where we're at with budget now. We can't really mess with it, but is that something that's a possibility?

I'm trying to think. So this one's just for the engineering work. So if after the engineering comes in, if you wanted the EDC, if the EDC board was able to prove that as a project to do the big project that the bulk of it would be one thing. But are you asking to have the EDC retroactively reimburse the city for the 375,000 engineering?

I guess if we approve the contract for the 375, if I'm following what you're saying, if we approve this for now so we can start the design phase when we get into the actual construction cost, theoretically that could be rolled back into the total cost if we're asking the EDC to put the bill for 375,000.

we would absolutely be able to have that conversation.

Yes, sir. That was my question. Can we? Yes, sir. Does that help a little bit, Rushi? Yeah, thank you. Sorry, member Patel. No, sorry.

That's my point. I think we need to, and I appreciate you kind of thinking outside the box. I think, look, there's obviously a $400,000 budget for engineering. Fine. The city will have to eat it in their CIP. But you're talking about remaining $3.5 million that if we can move it off our books and put it on the EDC and use sales tax dollars, hey, let's move everything we can legally off our books to help our tax rate. That's my point. Again, who's the engineering firm on this? I had it down here. Are they here today? Oh, awesome. Thank you. You have 400,000 reasons to be here. My direction to staff is start looking at every project that we can pass off and go to EDC now. I think we talk about giving taxpayers a break. These are the ways we're going to find every dollar we can to stretch our tax dollars. Thank you.

So I would just say we need to do that through the budget process and make sure we've got the consensus of council to do that on each of the projects that's being proposed.

Yeah. And that's fine. I mean, certainly if you want a consensus today, I'm happy to ask my members who are willing to consider this project being moved to EDC. I would give consensus on that.

I would caution because what we're doing is making decisions in a silo without properly understanding the context of all the strategic priority and capital projects that we need to look at, because perhaps another project would be sufficient to move off and make that decision without moving forward. So I understand that there is some consensus to move and to not burden the taxpayers. I just would caution us making decisions at this point without having a robust conversation to move forward. That's all.

And I don't know if we need to do project by project or we just need to give general consensus and happy to do either one, Mayor. But I think we need to kind of think outside the box, and look at every dollar we can to stretch out and say, hey, we have an EDC that's well-funded, that has the capacity to bond. Huge bonding can be issued in all these projects that are justified or business-related. I'm not talking about residential projects. We're talking about lift stations down the road. Not talking about that. That's in the residential area. We can't touch that, from my understanding, on the EDC. But these are projects on Makawa. that are very justifiable to say these are construction projects that are related to businesses. We just approved an extension for solvent and chemical to say, hey, it's a business on McCulloch. So I think either way, I just would like to hear the rest of Council's opinion on this. Thank you. Council Member O'Connor. Council Member O' If I may, yeah.

trying to kind of stay consistent. We're on item K. I think the consensus we would look for for this item would be to approve the 375 engineering and give direction that we would look at the overall project and see if that could go to the EDC as far as funding is concerned and have the larger conversation about overall projects with our strategic priorities conversation in February.

I think that's an appropriate way to approach it. That way, we've got clear direction like we got previously through the resolution that said we were gonna spend 20% of EDC funds on infrastructure projects, and then we can work that into the budgeting process instead of trying to do it as we're awarding engineering contracts.

I'm just a little concerned that we're starting to get outside the scope of our agenda item. Yes, sir. Right, and so we start getting into TOME issues there. That would be my direction that we move forward with this 375 with direction from council. Obviously, other members can weigh in, but with direction to look at this particular project, see if that would be appropriate under EDC dollars before we move forward.

I would encourage us to look at any alternative funding sources and not limit that to EDC. The issue being this is water transite pipe replacement. Maybe you can get an interest-free loan from the Texas Water Development Board if that program is in existence in a year from now doing the same thing they're doing for the grant we just applied for. You know, don't limit ourself in our alternatives, especially if interest-free ends up costing us less than whatever bond or whatever other programs are out there.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Any other comments or discussion?

Do you all need to get consensus? Because I think you've got Member Patel and I agreeing on that.

But I think there's the consensus to move forward awarding this contract tonight. And then when the actual project comes forward, we need to have that holistic review.

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

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Mayor Procham Chavarria? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Motion passes six to zero.

Councilmember Byrum, would you present item L?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-128. So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Byrum, second by Councilmember Cade. Mr. Epperson?

This is an engineering design contract associated with the rehabilitation of the Wood Thrush Regional Lift Station project. This includes a rehab, increased pumping capacity, and adding a generator to the Wood Thrush Lift Station. So this is the design work. The recommendation is to move forward with LJA engineering in the amount of $279,855. Thank you. Councilmember Patel.

Thank you. Can you pull up the cost breakdown of this project? The same thing here, Trent. I don't know where you guys are getting contingency numbers, and you guys are just plugging them in. It was just a sore thumb. Again, over 20%. And I'll go through the other two that you have. When I looked at contingency on the other ones, you will see also. Again, I'm trying to get an understanding of how you guys are coming up with contingency numbers if there's not a design or, I mean, is this just a, do you guys have a?

So this is at 20%. If we haven't done any preliminary engineering work, that's typically where we'll have contingency until we get through that preliminary engineering work and the engineering design work. And then we'll start to ratchet that down as we move towards construction.

Okay, so you guys are just plugging in 20% for every project?

Not every project. If we've done preliminary engineering, we'll usually have that as a smaller contingency. But when we haven't done any of the work to really analyze those costs, we're going with our best estimates on the cost based on the size of lift station without really any detailed work on what is needed or what it's gonna take to actually do the construction. Okay. 20% is typical on that. Okay. Very standard.

Fair enough. Thank you. Any-Customer O'Brien? Yeah, I guess this is more of a question across L, M, and N, so it's just a general question. I know we've already rehabbed JHEC We're building Barry Rose. We've got three more, I know those are plants, but we've got three lift stations on here. How close are we to having basically rehabbed our whole wastewater infrastructure?

So the plants, we've obviously done all the plants, but the south down plant, which there's a longer-term plan to redirect those flows, as we saw at the last budget meeting, over to Reflection Bay. But we do have 72 lift stations, and if you're looking at a rehab cycle somewhere around 15 to 20 years, then we're doing several lift stations every year. So we'll see a number of lift stations every year forever, as long as we're operating a system.

That helps answer my question. So we're going to have three to five lift stations annually.

Probably five plus annually as we catch up. Yes, sir.

Sorry, Trent. Several, I guess, months back, we talked about how do you guys pick these engineering firms? I guess you guys do have qualifications or something like that?

We go through a qualification-based selection process, so engineering firms submit their qualifications. Those are reviewed, and based on their expertise and the qualifications they submit, then we select the best firms for each individual project, and then that qualification-based selection process that is based in state law, at that point, Once you've selected the most qualified firm is the way it's termed in the statutes, then you negotiate the engineering contract. So, you know, we utilize basically, you know, there's standard cost curves. There's all of our past contracts. So, you know, we're very, you know, well organized.

suited to be able to negotiate these um consistently uh over all the different contracts and i think uh when we had the previous mayor one of the conversations we had was uh you guys did a scoring and you guys were going to include your scoring and i guess the prev whoever else submitted the bid into our packages and i didn't see anything of how many people actually bidded on this project to before engineering services i thought we had to discuss you guys were going to give us more information than less and Just reminding you, we didn't see that.

I don't recall that we had that conversation because we do a large solicitation for qualifications on a periodic basis. On occasion, depending on the project and if it's got federal funds and there's other requirements, we'll do a specific RFQ for a specific project. But we do more of a general RFQ and have a stable of engineering firms that are qualified that we then negotiate contracts with.

So, if we wanted to know which other firms bid on the job on project L. There's no bids on these jobs. But not bids, I guess, who gave you proposals?

I mean, if we could give you the whole list of everybody that gave us qualifications last time we solicited those, it'd be 50 plus firms and Yeah.

So we don't have a way of knowing. I guess if a public wanted to know, hey, how did you pick LJ? Because LJ is on number L and N. What would your answer be? How can they get that information? Like how did LJ get picked?

So, we would share probably the solicitation that went out for that RFQ. That went out, I think, in January of 2025. And the number of firms selected. So, we broke our solicitation down into categories. So, you had water, wastewater, traffic, A bunch of different categories, and I can tell you we probably had, if I'm remembering right, over 200 responses across all of the different categories. So some of the firms were shortlisted within multiple categories. If you got shortlisted in this one, that didn't preclude you or prohibit you from being shortlisted on the other one, because it's qualifications-based, right? So there's a potential that you could get traffic and drainage and water. You could be shortlisted for each one of those categories. And so if you guys wanted that information, we could probably get that back to you, share the solicitation, and see if there's a way to get you the solicitation responses back.

And somebody was just asking that it seems like we go to the same firms over and over and over.

I think we probably use as wide a variety of engineering firms as anybody that does the amount of work we do. We use lots of different firms. Okay.

I guess I was just trying to understand, like, hey, how can I prove to them that there is a fair process?

Sure, and I think, you know, what you would see is what LJA Engineering submitted. They've got experience with lift stations and rehabilitation of lift stations, so we tie those, you know, those qualifications to the types of jobs.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote, please?

Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez? Aye. Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria? Aye. The motion passes six to zero.