City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the City of Pearland City Council regular meeting on Monday, September 14th. I'll call this meeting to order at 6.45 p.m. At this particular time, I would ask that we all stand for the invocation. I'll give the invocation and then the pledge will be given by a member.

Yes.

Y'all will join me in the pledge of the United States. One second, first. Oh, I'm sorry. No, you're good.

You're quick. It's all good. If you could, just please pile your heads. Creator of us all, as we gather this evening, we do so mindful of the recent remembrance of September 11 and the lives lost. Families changed forever, and the courage shown in the face of tragedy. May that remembrance call us again to what is best within us, that our capacity to care for one another honor the dignity of every person, and to stand together across differences of faith, creed, culture, background, and experience be our guiding force. In a nation and a community made stronger by our diversity, help us resist division and instead seek understanding, mutual respect, and shared sense of purpose. As we conduct the work of our city tonight, keep us focused on the people we serve and the responsibility entrusted to us. Grant us wisdom in our deliberations, humility in our disagreements, patience in listening, and courage in making difficult decisions. May we act fairly, justly, and with compassion, always seeking what is best for the whole of our community. Bless our residents, our employees, our first responders, and all who work each day to make our city stronger. May our city's service tonight reflect our highest values and our common humanity. Amen. At this particular time, we'll have a roll call and certification quorum. Madam Secretary, I certify that all members of council are present except for Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria. Next item on the agenda, moving on to citizens' comments. I believe we have some general comments as well as some more specific items. I just want to remind everyone that in order to comply with the provisions of Texas Open Meeting Act, council may not deliberate on any item not listed on the agenda. However, city council will listen to public comment And during the public comment, the public shall comply with the council's rules of decorum. Everyone desiring to present comments should have completed the comment card in the foyer and submitted them to the city secretary. The rules allow for three minutes for an individual and five minutes for someone representing a group or an organization. And at this particular time, I'll hand it over to Member Byram to help facilitate.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Charles Ware would be the first if you would make your way to the podium. Mr. Ware, if you would, state your name for the record. And you have three minutes. Thank you for being here this morning.

Thank you for seeing me. My name's Charles Ware. I've been in Pearland since 1971. I was lucky enough to purchase a house just down the street here. And we have a short-term rental behind us. We have about five behind us directly. I have a bigger piece of property, so I have three directly behind me. This is paperwork from 22 to 26 behind us, the short-term rental. This is all just officers' responses. We've had a drowning back there. I've called the police multiple times. The big parties are kind of the big problem, but I didn't realize how much more is going on behind us. Guns, drugs, people just coming in and out, just using the party as a party house. I looked it up. It's still advertised tonight for $60 a night, single room, or you can rent the whole house for $380. On Airbnb, but as far as Pearland's concerned, it doesn't exist. They said they don't have any paperwork for them. Police officer was out Saturday night. They had a bouncer at the door. And I couldn't get my car past where all the Ubers were parked waiting to pick people up. This is, I mean, I could almost throw a rock where it is. It's just ridiculous. It's been going on for six years. I can't understand why we're still doing it. I thought with as much police response as there would be, that code enforcement would have already been involved. That's all I have.

Thank you, sir. John Jackson. State your name. You have three minutes. Thank you, sir. John Jackson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm here tonight to make some talking points about this ESD business that came up on August 10th here in the last council meeting. Basically, there's potentially a million-dollar-plus supplement that the citizens of Pearland are paying to support these ESDs as a concern. Seems like the city needs to be a little more transparent. The question I would ask, too, is how long has this been going on potentially? You know, looking at the cost, if you went out and had to form a fire department and just took the bare minimum of one fire truck, which involves four people and two EMTs on an ambulance, you're looking at probably about $164 million. Some numbers that you guys provided in the 2023 bond proposal. Other things I've gotten concerned about is the fact that they don't have any, these guys back here don't have any regulatory authority to go in these buildings and do anything. There's a lot of risk. And I'll give you an example. I know I've sent it to you guys. You know, when I walk in an assembly business and there's five 20-pound propane cylinders sitting on the ground in an assembly space, that's a real hazard. And those, the fire department should not be faced with those kinds of situations. You know, they should be able to identify and be able to walk into these buildings. I find it odd that that is not a concern of a risk that you are aware of, that you are even putting on radar. I mean, we send three pieces of apparatus to an automatic alarm for a water leak in the city of Pearland, and that's not a high risk compared to five 20-pound cylinders of propane. If these guys had to go out and form their own fire department, it would affect their ISO rating. Most areas around here volunteer. They've got usually like an ISO 3. I know Friendswood, I believe, is an ISO 3. The question I would look at you guys and say this. In the event that there was a fire in the area where we are paying for it, the taxpayers, and all the apparatus is tied up in this ESD areas where maybe all the funds aren't coming back right, how would you explain that to the taxpayers that there was a delay and getting to their property because you were over here addressing a fire or emergency in an ESD area where we are supplementing that. One thing I found in the contract that made me very interested is the contract you guys are gonna talk about tonight, it says the city and the district acknowledge that the actual direct and overhead cost of providing emergency services to the district may exceed the amount of the payment or services, but the city will not require district to pay the difference between the actual cost of providing emergency service and the amount of the annual payment for service. That to me seems a little odd. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And I believe this is the last one. Yes, Bill Baldy. Same, sir. State your name for the record. You have three minutes, and thank you for being here.

Bill Baldy, first of all, thank you, Mayor and the Council, for letting me be here. I want to apologize in advance. I'm bringing up a subject that's going to be probably next month, but I won't be available to come because I'm going to be tied up. But I'm talking about the apartments coming up again on Magnolia. I see Rockport Ventures is trying to come back with 296 more apartments over there. Y'all voted no the first time. I'm hoping that you'll vote no this time. I mean, we're fixing to have 518 all tore up over there from TxDOT. Fixing to have 1128 tore up by TxDOT. So that means all the traffic's going to be coming down Magnolia or Bailey Street. So that's going to increase things. On the way over here, I saw an accident at Magnolia and 1128. So it's just going to get worse. And I hope with the added... I hope y'all will vote against it, sorry. But you raised utility rates to cover your wastewater because you're not conformity with the state. Well, you're gonna add 296 more toilets, basically. So you're gonna overload your wastewater system more and plus your water system. Maryland is a single-family community, not an apartment community. They need to go somewhere else. I would certainly appreciate you voting no when it comes up to get their permit approved. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

That is all for public comments.

I just want to thank everyone for taking the time out to come and make comments. Moving on to the next portion, which is Consent Agenda. I know there are some items to be moved, and so I just want confirmation at which ones are we looking to pull.

Rishi, which ones did you want to pull? I'm sorry, I thought I'd give it to you. D, E, F, and G, sir. Thank you so much.

So Member Patel is pulling items D, E, Are there any other items council members plan to remove? Are there any items that...

Sorry, excuse me. We have one comment on consent A. We have a comment signed up for that. And then we have some comments signed up for PSD number four, which I think is one of the ones that Member Patel pulled.

So that would be D. Okay, so comment for number D. One for A. One for A. Any comments for five, six, four? All right, so items removed from consent agenda are A, D, E, F, and G. D, having a public comment, and A, having a public comment. All right. Any other items? Member Koza, would you... Present the consent agenda.

Certainly, Mayor. Consent agenda, consideration of possible action on items A through L with the exception of A, D, E, F, and G. So moved.

Second. Motion made by Member Koza, second by Member Cade. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

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

Member Echols, would you present item A, please? Thank you, Mayor.

Before I present item A, I do have a question for our attorney. Mr. Provan, with respect to this item on Agenda A of admitting it to a play-by-play, what is the actual law of the state of Texas that mandates cities to put on their minutes?

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ECHOLS, BUT I THINK FIRST WE NEED TO PLACE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND THEN TAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THERE WAS ONE, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE ADDITIONAL ISSUES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST August 5th, 2026. So moved.

I think it's a three-part section. It's more than that.

Member Echols. I was reading off the screen. continue with the August 5th special meeting, August 10th meeting of the City Council regular city meeting of August 10th as well. So moved.

Is there a second? Is there a second?

No, ma'am. It was just those three, so we need a second to have it on the agenda. I believe it was just those three.

No one's going to second?

Is there a second for the minutes?

So what's happened is, remember, Echols moved to place the consideration of the minutes from August 5 and from the special meeting and regular meeting to the floor. Is there a second? If there's no second, I would just say that the chair would highly recommend, since there's a public comment on the floor for discussion, that we make sure that we allow the public comment to be discussed as per state law.

We need to have a motion and a second to open this item so the public comment can be heard because it's for an item, correct?

Yes, sir, that's correct. So, I'm going to say commissioner because we were just with P&Z so long. Councilmember Echols, apologies, sir. I don't want to give you a different title than what you've earned. No problem. Councilmember Echols has made the motion. We need a second for approval of the minutes for those three meetings. Second.

Thank you. Motion was made by Member Echols, second by, I believe it was Member Fernandez. I believe there's a public comment. Right. Member Byrum, would you help facilitate this, please?

Thank you. Yes, there, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Monica Morgan? Make your way to the podium. State your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Thank you, Council and Mayor, for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Monica Morgan, and I'm here to speak on the consent agenda item for approval, specifically of the regular meeting of the August 10, 2026, City Council meeting. I need to make y'all aware, and I was at the last meeting, it wasn't an agenda item, that there were some irregularities related to the August 10th meeting. And following that meeting, I made some requests for public information because I thought that maybe there were some things that weren't done correctly. And in response to that request from the city, I got some further concerning documents that actually were altered, inaccurate, and caused me greater concern. I brought that to the attention of the city staff, the public information officer, and got no response. And so today I felt compelled in the interest of the public to make sure that there's transparency, because there was not transparency related to the August 10th meeting. that I filed a complaint with the Brazoria County District Attorney's Office, the Public Integrity and Complaints Division, regarding the Paralan City Council meeting of August the 10th for violations of the Texans Open Meetings Act and potential tampering with governmental records. These are two violations that are very serious and aren't just like, oops, I made a mistake. They are, in fact, real and need to be addressed. They can be corrected, but apparently there's been no one that seems to want to address these errors. So I've formally requested a criminal investigation into the Pearland City Council, the associated administrative staff for explicit violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, potential tampering with governmental records, Texas Penal Code 37, Section 3710. STEMMING FROM ACTIONS TAKEN DURING AND AFTER THE PUBLIC MEETING ON AUGUST 10TH. DURING THE AUGUST 10TH MEETING, THE PARALLEL CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON CHANGES TO CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE UNDER RESOLUTION R2026-143. The public agenda packet only contained staff-suggested revisions meant to conform the rules to current law. However, during the meeting, the city attorney introduced a PowerPoint presentation with six separate surprise redlined amendments drafted on behalf of several anonymous council members. These redlined slides with proposed changes were completely excluded from the public packet available to us in advance of the meeting. These hidden amendments directly targeted the structural authority of the mayor, seeking to strip the mayor's power to add consent or consult on agenda items. Furthermore, the anonymous sponsors attempted to unlawfully, I'm sorry. I'm really close. Another minute? Okay, thank you. The anonymous sponsors attempted to unlawfully strip the mayor's authority to call a special meeting, a power explicitly protected by section 3.08 of the Pearland City Charter. When the mayor objected to this overreach in real time, his objective was confirmed later in the meeting by the city attorney who openly admitted on the record that his office had erred, confirming that one of the secret proposed amendments did in fact violate the city charter. While the council ultimately omitted that single charter violating slide from their final vote, they successfully passed a motion to approve the five remaining unposted anonymous red line changes. Following the meeting, I submitted the Public Information Act request for an electronic copy of the full PowerPoint presentation slide delivered by the City Attorney. The digital file subsequently provided to me by the City had the special meeting slide intentionally removed. I have preserved the live broadcast screenshots proving the specific slide actively displayed on the projector screen inside the Council Chambers by the City Attorney during the meeting. Therefore, there are three specific violations I'm complaining of.

Time is expired, but I'll allow. Please continue.

One, the Texas Government Code 551.041, the notice requirement. The public was denied its statutory right to advance written notice of the specific subject matter being voted on. Hiding text that alters the balance of municipal power fails the legal standard of providing substantial notice to the public. Texas Government Code 551, Section 551-144, closed meeting offense. Deliberating and voting on anonymous, unposted legislation during an open session effectively functions as a closed, non-public action. Texas Penal Code 37.10, tampering with governmental records. Intentionally deleting a slide from an official city council presentation file before releasing it to a citizen requester constitutes the unlawful alteration and concealment of a public record. That's all I have. Thank you very much.

That's the only comment on this agenda item.

Does anybody have any questions? I added some. I want to just make this comment. Part of the agenda packet, I'm not here to deliberate. I want to make sure we're clear. We're not here to deliberate what happened on August the 10th. What we're asking with this discussion that I'm going to help facilitate is asking to make sure that what we approve as the minutes is accurate going forward with the city's records. So that's a clear distinction on what's being deliberated, what's being contained. The decisions were already made. And so what I have an issue with, I'm just going to start off now, is what I submitted. And I heard Member Echols before we even got to it. So I'll let you continue what you were going to say earlier.

Thank you, Mayor. And again, I'll reach out to... Attorney, city attorney, Mr. Provins. What is the guidelines for the state charter for cities on their minutes?

Yes, sir. I would suggest that there's really one requirement that we have to follow. Another one I think that could be confusing, but I'll address that as well. The first is going to be state law and the Public Information Act itself. Section 551.021 A, I'm sorry, B, 1 and 2 states that the minutes must state the subject of each deliberation and indicate each vote, order, decision, or other action taken. So the minute has to say the vote, essentially, or the action that was there, the agenda item, and then that action. Sometimes people will also turn to Robert's Rules. The city uses Robert's Rules for decorum. It doesn't exactly use it for procedure, at least not according to the council rules, but people often turn to Robert's Rules as guidance. And Robert's rules will tell you that the minutes need to contain a record of what was done at a meeting, not what was said by members at that meeting. So if you look at all the items, all the additional, every item that's on that minute in regards to the council actions, it's just documenting the vote, who made the motion, who made the second, what the votes were on those. And then if there were any amendments or something of that sort, it also documented that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Provins. And I have a follow-up question for our city secretary. And that is, in your tenure as our city secretary, have we ever formed a precedent on putting more on the minutes than what was stated that we need to by the law?

No, sir.

OK, thank you very much. Obviously, if there's further discussion, we'll hear further discussion. But if not, I move the question.

There is further discussion, and further discussion should be permitted as the chair. So one second. So as you've mentioned in the state law, I believe those aren't requirements as far as maximum. Those are minimums. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's what the state law requires. Exactly, requirements for minimums. What I'm asking for is to really set what happened, not necessarily a play-by-play, but in order for... For example, I think it's important to note that... When certain things were asked, it may not have to be as extensive, but there were certain comments that were made, particularly from the chair to the council, asking questions at certain points, points to postpone and points of order. The point of order came, which would then subsequently call for an amendment. So having it on there as it is makes it seem as though the rules were put in place are suggested by we know we have no clue who and that to me that should also be indicated in the record because the chair did ask and no one responded so for sure even though it's online it should be clear that in the minutes the chair made a request in which no council members made a response. Additionally, the chair also made a point of order because one of the proposed changes would have affected the city charter, which is a violation because the charter amendment should go to the public. Subsequently, an amendment was made. And so the way the minutes read currently, it does not capture all of those items, which in my opinion is incorrect if we move forward to adopt these minutes as they are, and the city and our council would be adopting minutes that are not reflective of the actions that we're taking in that meeting. Member Byron.

Lawrence Orr. Francis, either one. When you guys put together the meeting minutes, especially on items that we have, as I say, considerable back and forth of different things that are discussed, I don't recall in my tenure that we have done a breakdown in the minutes of that back and forth discussion and questions that were posed and all that kind of stuff. Have we done that and I haven't seen it? Or would this be something that is unique to what we typically do?

The request would be unique in what you're saying is correct.

One clarification, and I don't mean to cut you off. But do not discount the questions from the floor as the questions from the chair. These were questions made from the chair, not the general body. And those should be distinct. Continue, please.

Well, and they are. captured in the record, both in the live stream, the posting on the city's website, and the posting on the city's YouTube channel. The purpose of minutes is, correct me if I say this wrong, because I want to make sure our legality is correct. The purpose of the minutes is to generally summarize the votes that were taken throughout the course of a meeting, correct?

Yes, sir. It's to document the actions. So, if we take another item that happened on that same night, item F, regarding the Resolution R2026-140 with the interlocal agreement with ESD number 4. There was plenty of conversation about ESD 4. There were motions. There were seconds. The purpose, the basis, the dialogue regarding those motions and seconds aren't included. It is there was a motion to change this and then the vote on that motion to change it, just the motion to amend. That's the documentation that the minutes reflect. So it's not the dialogue and the basis of why it was there. Of course, the recording is available. The recording is, for however long records retention is there, we can always turn back and look at that recording if somebody wants that. But that's not what the purpose of the minutes is.

So are minutes as drafted fulfill their intent? as written. Yes, sir.

Let the chair also reiterate that it's a minimum requirement. So I would ask the body, what is the consternation behind adding significant points of of not just discussion, but of decision making in the official minutes. If this general body had the determination to vote on those items, why is there a back and forth, a discussion, to not put those items in the minutes?

That's a question. Because that's not the way we do minutes. That's inconsistent with all of our other processes.

Changing the rules in three months is not consistent either, Member Byrum. So when we're talking about consistency, I don't want to default to what we've historically done because we have, in the last three months, not characterized ourselves as acting accordingly to what we've historically done. So I'm going to ask the body again, what is the backup or what is the consternation for how I'm specifically calling out these items in the official minutes? Member Cade.

Are you, Matt, I want to know, are you wanting it to be word for word? Nope. Of the minutes?

Nope.

Because.

I'm sorry, I'll let you finish.

I just wanted to know exactly what are you asking for? It's not word for word. Because on YouTube you can hit CC and get word for word everything that happened in the meeting. So that is, if you want word for word, I think asking that of Francis would be a lot.

Very, very, very good question. I don't intend to put any more work on anyone else. However, there are significant points within that meeting that changed the course, not of the discussion, but of decision making. One of those items was a question as to who made these changes. Council said nothing at all when asked by the chair I believe that should be included in the minutes. In order for our body to vote on an amendment, something had to be discussed. A point of order was raised by the chair. That needs to be in the minutes. Everything else? I'm not arguing, absolutely, hey, no, you know, we can find it online. But those two items specifically impact the decision making of how we moved in that particular meeting and should be included in the minutes.

May I make a suggestion? Member Byrum, yes, sir. Since we, your supplement is very detailed, 14 pages. That's not what you're asking for. Or how many pages was it? Oh, it's 14 pages of the whole packet. Sorry. I wouldn't do that to you. No, fair enough. So perhaps maybe in the interest of moving the meeting along and having clearer understanding, perhaps we table this or postpone this to the next meeting. We can push the minutes, and you can make a proposal on what you would like to actually be in the minutes. So then we have something specific to do. rather than just kind of a few things thrown out here and there. It's a little more specific, and it would allow us to know exactly what you're asking for. Would table or postpone be the correct terminology?

Or what you're suggesting, Councilmember Byrum, that would be a postponement.

At this particular time, I don't think we can move there because Member Echols has a motion on the floor.

Correct. So I would be motioning that we postpone to the 28th meeting and have a recommendation and ratify the August 5th, 10th special meeting and 10th regular meeting on the 28th when we have a proposal on what you would like to see added to our normal course of minutes.

Is there a second on that?

Second.

Do I close the first one?

I think the question is whether the first one was appropriate at the time that it was made. And I think we need to ask, I need to ask maybe is the way to say it, Councilmember Echols. I think you said absent a discussion, you called the question. But I think that that was before we even had the public comment. It was there, but it was early, and we can't have two competing things at one time. So I think that we need to figure out if we're doing the calling the question first, or if we're doing the postponement first.

My thoughts are we have a motion on the floor. We have the minutes. The minutes are as per law. We've talked. We have the supplemental from the mayor. We've looked at the supplemental. To make an amendment to these minutes, I believe, is going to form a precedence that some member of council, if they want more clarity or more information, we're going to be finding ourselves in a roller coaster. And our city secretary's office will have to make changes upon changes upon changes. The information is online. where people all they have to do is just go to the YouTube, go to the city website and push the button and they can hear it all for what it was. I had COVID that night and I was unable to attend that meeting. And I myself listened to the entire three and a half hour council meeting. I'm not for putting more work on our city secretaries. And so at this time, I have a motion on the table. And frankly, I'll call the question. Is there a second?

Yes, sir. So there should be a second. I'm sorry. No, there's not a second on the call to question. There was a motion to call the question. There was not a second on calling the question. It does require a second as well. So I don't think that we can make a motion to postpone while the motion to call the question was there, but I didn't hear a second on that, but it hasn't been disposed of yet. If calling the question is seconded, then it doesn't automatically end debate. We have to have a vote on calling that question. And then I believe it's a two-thirds vote is required to call that question, according to Robert's rules. So if there's a second, then we'll figure out the math with one, two, three, four, six people here.

Sorry, trying to get clarification on what we're doing here. We have a motion and a second that put the agenda item on the table.

And then as he put that motion on the table, I believe that a call of the question was made, but it was in advance of the public comment. It was still there, but it was in advance of the public comment. It seemed inappropriate to call that question before you got the public comment. So I think we allowed that public comment to go forward, and then we started the discussion on the issue. We probably should have disposed of calling the question at that time.

Getting very procedurally heavy.

Yes, sir, we are.

And so calling the question means calling the vote. Yes, sir, it does.

But it does require a second before we do that.

Just making sure that the general public that doesn't deal with all of this nuance understands what we're talking about as we get through this. So we have a motion and a second that put the item on the table. Then we had a motion to call the vote. Yes, sir. And so we need to second the motion to call the vote.

No, it does not have to be seconded. It could fail for lack of a second.

Well, to call the vote, we would have to second it. Yes, sir. Two-thirds. Yes, sir. We would need a two-thirds majority of council to call the vote. Yes, sir. Without any additional discussion. That two-thirds would just allow the vote. Yes, sir. Okay.

Everybody follow that?

That's where we're at. So my motion to postpone can't be heard until we deal with Member Echols' motion. Call the question.

Correct.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

I'll second Member Echols so we can deal with that. It's already been seconded. We just need to call it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear the second.

Was it seconded?

We're calling the question. I didn't hear the second. Did you track it?

I just did.

Oh, yeah. That time. Yes, sir. So we can respond. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I understand now.

Then call the question. Then we can move forward.

Madam Secretary, just call for the vote, please.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade? No. Member Fernandez?

No.

Member Patel?

No.

Member Koza?

No.

The motion fails two to four.

Now we've disposed of that. So now I can put my motion to postpone on the floor.

Yes, sir. And if you could be so kind as you go to put it on the floor, please clarify if it is for all of those meetings or if it is for any particular meeting for the minutes that you want to postpone.

Okay. Fair enough. So I would motion that we postpone consideration of possible action for the regular council meeting minutes for August 10th to the September 28th council meeting. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Byron, seconded by Member Cade.

Okay.

Any further discussion, or now we can vote? Yeah.

It would traditionally be a discussion, but we could go straight to the vote unless somebody indicates that they wanted to talk about postponing. Seeing none.

I don't see anybody. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols? Aye. The motion passes 6-0.

Member Byrum, would you present item D, please?

Apologies. We only postponed minutes for the regular meeting. We still need to dispose of the minutes for the other two meetings. Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yes, ma'am, you can.

So we already motioned that on the table. It's now.

Yes. Yeah. So we need a final vote just on the special meeting on the 10th. Yes, sir.

We can just call the vote. We don't have to amend it. Yes, sir. Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

The special meeting on the 10th and the special meeting on the 5th.

Got it?

Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

The motion passes 6-0.

For the sake of clarity, if I could just reiterate, Mayor, with your permission. Please do. The minutes have been approved for the special meeting held on August 5th, 2026. The minutes have been approved for the special meeting held on August 10th, 2026. And the minutes for the regular council meeting held on August 10th have been postponed till September 28th.

Thank you for that clarity, Lawrence. And thank you all for bearing with us. Member Byron, would you present item D, please?

There we go. Consideration possible action resolution number R2026-140. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Byron, second by Member Koza.

Staff, is there a report on this one? We have a public comment.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a- I apologize.

We have three public comments. Oh, public comments, yes. Sorry, everybody. Getting into our rhythm tonight. So we have Mr. Gerald Hauser, followed by, is that Kay Hauser? And then Bill Brummett. Mr. Hauser, are you representing ESD4? I am not.

I am a member of ESD4.

But you're speaking on behalf of yourself.

Yes, I am.

Okay, so you have three minutes.

Or if you live in ESD 4, I am also speaking for every person in ESD 4.

Understood. State your name for the record, and you have three minutes, sir.

I'm Gerard Houser. I'm sorry to hear that and see that Pearland is over budget. I can always tell that when you offer taxation. I live in ESD 4, as I just said. Currently, we pay 10 cents per $100 for tax for EMS. I'm hearing rumblings about that Pearland wants to charge 10 cents per $100 for fire. That's double taxation for us and for people that can't afford it. Governor Abbott was on TV last night telling us to watch out for cities that charge unnecessary taxation. In my final statements, I love to read Texas law, and that's a good thing. Pearland is starting to show up on my radar again. That's a bad thing. I'm watching you. I look forward to your rebuttal. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Did I say, is it Kay Houser? Is that correct?

Hi, my name is Kay Houser. Thank you for letting me come before the council and speak tonight. I was very cautious about wanting to speak. I'm not really a good public speaker, but I'm going to give it a good try. We've lived in Brazoria County adjacent to the city of Pearland since August of 1978, so that makes 48 years already. We started 49 years. We have supported Pearland. through its growth, through its recession, and through its growth again. And I'm happy to be a part of Pearland. I like being in the EPJ. We moved to the country 48 years ago to be there in the country. So I'm hoping that the council and the citizens of the city of Pearland give the study that you're going to do a chance to see exactly where the costs are and what We need both of you. We need you, and you need us. We give you almost a million dollars a year for our services for fire and EMS, and I'm hoping that we can continue to use you as our service provider because you're a good fit for us. Honestly, I don't really know what else to say except that just I'm cautiously optimistic that this study will be given a chance, and I'd love to be on part of it. If you have a citizen's board that's part of that study, I think you could ask the ESDs. I think ESD 4 and 5 would be interested in looking at the study with you. I'm hoping we get the map corrected because I know the map is not correct. But since its inception in 2018, when I say the inception, the inception of the ESDs in 2018, because I've been a member of it since then. And I forgot to state that I am ESD4 treasurer and have been for the last six years. So I am speaking for myself as a property owner and ESD4. Thank you for your time.

Yes, ma'am, and don't sell yourself short. You did a great job. Thank you for being here. And Mr. Bill Brummett. Are you speaking on behalf of the board? Yes. The reason I'm asking that is organizations get five minutes.

Councilmember Byram, if he was speaking on behalf of the board, you would only have one speaker for ESD number four. Kay Houser is another person, so it would be three minutes each, because both of them are members of ESD number four.

Okay, so a total of six minutes between the two of them.

Yes, sir, so three minutes for Mr. Brummett.

Okay, my name's Bill Brummett. We're going to have to listen fast. This is about the August 10th meeting. We just expected a five-year contract to go through. It became a lot of fireworks in here with ESD 4 and ESD 5. Apologize that we weren't here. Lack of communication. Wish we would have been here, but we weren't. We did watch it on YouTube. I watched a lot of it on YouTube. And one thing that I realized from that meeting is it's going to be complicated to accomplish what we're wanting to accomplish, taxing ambulance and fire separately. The lawyers are going to have to figure that out, and we'd like to be able to figure that out while we still have coverage for our 2,700 single-home family units plus the other 2,300 various properties that are in our district. We're looking for a win-win. Obviously, we need you more than you need us. And after watching the ATEM meeting, I wanted to clarify a few points. Y'all were told that we contributed $800,000 in 2026. Maybe that is in 2026, but for our calendar year, it's a million dollars. By the time we true up, it'll be a million dollars. We're a pass-through organization. Everything that we take in in taxes comes to you. Whatever we don't spend on our overhead, comes to you and the only thing we can do is run a tight ship and send you more money everything comes to you whatever we don't spend comes to you in the end we're entitled to take a per diem of 75 or 80 dollars a month none of the commissioners in esd4 take anything we're serving and the reason we do that is like mr koza said we're short we're short on what paralan expects well we're not going to take a per diem if if you're short already but we've always questioned those numbers in 2018 we were just told that you know we're like 1.4 million bucks we don't know that in this study hopefully it'll it'll tell us that and what i really hope that the study does is if you look at it for the variable cost and the fixed cost and i hope that you will look at our million bucks for the variable cost that we cover we don't have a lot of representation when it comes to what you spend your money on, and that's what the contract says. It says we're parallel, we'll take in the money, we'll spend it where we want to spend it, how we want to spend it, and we'll do the very best that we can for ESD 4. I'm fine with that. I want coverage. I live here, my daughter lives here, my grandkids live here. I need the coverage. Gosh, I don't have a lot of time, so I'll skip to the end and I'll tell you one thing that you need to understand is we don't have any equity. All the money we pour in is for service. I always thought that y'all were a hired gun. And it kind of states that in the contract, that y'all just provide the service. That's what you do. And we have 65 to 70 call-outs a month. So it's $900 a year, and we give you a million bucks. Every time the ambulance leaves, it's $1,100. We're 85% ambulance, maybe 90% ambulance, only a few fire trucks. I can tell you more. I thought I had two more minutes.

Mr. Brummett, hold your breath. I'll give you another minute.

Okay. Appreciate it. Look for the fixed cost. in the variable and i'd like to be treated or two million bucks to be that i was going to point out that mr patel uh last uh at the 810 at the meeting he said that y'all had a new ladder truck an apparatus as it was and it was over two million dollars and i think you know that's great it makes the city of pearland even better because you need a ladder truck ESD-4 doesn't need a ladder truck. We don't have any structures that are tall. And that ladder truck has a 350 gallon water tank on it, too small to put out a fire if you happen to dispatch it to us. We don't have that. We don't have any input on what you buy, but it's OK. We're happy with whatever we get. We're happy when you build a new station. It's for your benefit, and we benefit from it. And we appreciate it. I went to the grand opening of the Station 4 whenever they moved over, and I think it was Keith Riley at the time, and I said, if I got a sticker about like this big, you could approve it. It says ESD4. Could we put that on the equipment so that whenever you go into our neighborhood, they can look at it and say, this is what our tax dollars go for? He said, Mr. Bill, you don't own the stuff. You just rent it. So if you go by the variables, if you take, you know, somebody also thought.

I'll give you 30 seconds.

30 seconds. $1.3 million, or $3.1 million was also thrown out. Like, if you cut us off, immediately $3.1 million will go back into the coffers. It won't. You're not going to shut down the station. You're not going to cut personnel. You're fixed cost or you're fixed cost. Can we cover some of that? Hopefully we can. But please judge us on the variable cost. Thank you.

You're very welcome. Is that for public comment?

Mr. Epperson, do you have a report or presentation or information to provide on this one?

Just to introduce the item, Mayor, thank you. Good evening, Council. So this resolution is for the approval of an interlocal agreement for emergency services with Brazoria County Emergency Services District Number 4. The changes from the last time when this was on the agenda and pushed to this agenda is that in this case, it is a two-year term, and it allows for the agreement to be terminated after 18 months with a six-month notice, so that ties well with our planned study.

Any discussion, Council Member Patel?

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I do want to say thank you for coming out here, Ms. Bill. And I do understand. And I think one thing I will, I can say this diocese is not trying to let you out or not be covered. That is not our intentions, okay? But it is our intentions to say what is the right thing for our tech space to happen, right? Budget deficits are getting larger, and we're just trying to plug our holes of where we're losing, and we don't know for sure, but one of the things we have found, it may be the services we're providing in 84 and five. So until this study comes back, we can prove to you and prove to ourself We're not trying to tell you that we're going to cut the service. I don't think anybody on this diocese is saying that. What we are asking is we want time from this study and bring it back to you, both of the EDs, to say this is our cost. You guys can do your own analysis after that, and you can determine whether our services are valid and the cost we're asking to be covered is justified, right? So you're going to get a fair look at this. So it's not going to be overnight. That's not what we're trying to do. But we don't want to do a five-year deal. It's because we don't want to lock in after we get the study, because by the time four years come, the study's old. So I wanted to be very clear on that. And I want your constituents to know the city of Pearland is not trying to burn anything down. We're just trying to be fair to our constituents in the city. Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense.

Can I reply?

Yeah, it's an agenda item.

You're good.

Sure.

One of the things that I wanted to point out, and I forget which one of you brought it up, but it was, you know, the city, the Pearland citizens are paying 26 cents for $100 valuation towards fire and safety, and we're only paying 10. And so you've got this 16-foot gap, or 16-cent gap in here. And, you know, I think you said go out and tell your citizens this news, that, you know, you're spending $3.1 million on us. And not variable rates, but fixed rates, allegedly. And I would come back and I would tell your citizens that for $0.16, here's the deal. You own the fire truck, that $2 million fire truck, you own it. And the buildings, you own it. And all the personnel, you own it. And the fire hydrants, you own it. That's what you get for your extra $0.16. The stations are right in the city. They're closer to you than they are to us. If you ask us where to build them, I got three commissioners that live on 127. They'd say build one at the airport.

it's not up to us and it never will be and it shouldn't be and i appreciate that and and you have to understand when these studies come in they're looking at a holistic view right i mean they're not just looking at the city of peril and saying you have extra capacity to go down there we're saying this is our service area so it's not just saying within the city limits we're actually i'm sure the studies are covering ed four and five so that that's Yes, we can get into this. But the reason I pulled this agenda item is there was a letter sent by Commissioner Cade and he said there's only 500 calls made in ED-5. Are we aware of that?

200. I would suggest that that might be more appropriate for the next agenda item.

Okay. Because this is ESP4. Okay. I mean, I just pulled it. Okay. And then one of this, in the agreements, I believe it says something about providing monthly incident reporting to the district. Are we providing that to them?

Yes.

We are? Yes. You guys are getting that. So you guys are seeing the calls that our fire trucks and ambulances are making in your district. Okay.

We have a liaison at every one of our meetings.

Okay. And so really, that's what I wanted to know. And while you're here in 84, and I can't remember whether you guys are the larger or the smaller one, please forgive me. We're spread out. Okay. So... There may be a time that, yes, if this study comes out and it shows that, hey, you guys may need to go to 20 cents, then you will have to come up with an action plan, right? So I want to make sure you guys are committed to that, just like we're committed to showing you what the actual costs are and how we're going to cover them, because this may be coming down the pipeline.

So Member Patel, I know we're getting into some heavy discussion. The intent of this particular item on the agenda is just to enter into a local agreement. If there's additional conversations that need to be had for correspondence, education, information, I would recommend and suggest we do that outside of this particular agreement. I don't think going back and forth is not going to change the fact that we go into an agreement. I could be wrong.

And I do appreciate that, Mayor, but this is, he has to understand, I guess my point was trying to explain to them why we're doing it only for two years, because of the study. There was no intention by this diocese to say, we're going to cut them dry and we're going to forget about them, right? Because I think their concern is, hey, you're... closing this in two years, but that's not the intention here. And I think you made that point.

I just want to make sure that the discussion is based on making sure that there's any issues with us going into an interlocal agreement or the city manager or his designee entered into that.

Sure. Thank you, Mayor.

For sure. Yes, sir.

Can I just interject real quick? I apologize, Council Member Patel. This is Mark Smith. I'm Mark Smith.

I'm the attorney for ESD4.

I just, especially based on the discussion on August 10th and tonight, you mentioned the 20 cents. I've been representing ESDs for over 20 years since 2003. The 10 cent cap is based in the Texas Constitution. So the only way to change that particular cap is to have a constitutional amendment. That's based on a district. ESD 4 and I would imagine ESD 5 were both created to cover fire and EMS. So they're capped at 10 cents for both services. The only way to go to 20 cents would be to potentially create an overlapping district, which as Mr. Brummett said, would create a lot of legal hurdles. So I just want the council to be aware that getting to that 20 cents is not gonna be easy. So thank you. I can take any questions if you want, or I just wanted to mention that so we're all eyes wide open.

Mr. Smith, can I ask you? Yes, you said the Texas Constitution says 10 cents. That is correct. And it says 10 cents for both together?

Or that's how we wrote it? So the petition that created ESD 4, and again, I would imagine ESD 5 is the exact same, said that it's for fire and EMS services. So in Texas, you can do one or the other or both. Sometimes there's overlapping districts. For example, we represent, or my firm represents two districts in West Texas that countywide, one is EMS only, one is fire only. So they effectively doubled up their tax cap. Unfortunately, when ESD-4 was created, it was created to cover both. So it's limited at the 10 cents currently. Again, you'd have to create another overlapping district that covers one or the other. And then, again, that raises some potential legal issues.

Okay, thank you so much.

Mayor, if I can.

I'm sorry, go ahead, Councilmember Koza.

I was going to ask if that could be repealed in a Tencent for Fire and a Tencent for EMS. If you had other comment, go ahead.

That is a possibility to explore. That would be for the next agreement, if we get to that. So, it's not going to affect this particular agreement. But if there is a funding gap, figuring out how to close that funding gap. We would want to explore all possible avenues, whether that be if there's sales tax capacity, whether you could repeal and replace ESD 4 with ESD 4A and 4B, or if there's some other funding mechanism that might be available at the time that that happens. But again, that is future funding gap. There is something that I did hear that would absolutely affect this interlocal agreement tonight, and I believe that that was from the board member, Kay Hauser, who indicated that the map might not be correct. I'm not aware of that, but if the map is inaccurate, we want to make sure that the map is an accurate map that defines the district boundaries.

Can you go to the podium and make that statement, please?

Yes, sir, the map becomes inaccurate. My name is Kay Houser. The map is inaccurate. That's on the website right now and even on our ESD4 website because we get it from you guys. And I did call, like the other lady said, I did call the city secretary's office and the engineer's office to get a new map, but nobody has a new map right now. But there is people that know that the map is wrong because they've told me so. And it really didn't make any difference because the city of Pearland is servicing the area anyway. So I'm hoping, and like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic that this study is going to get the map correct. Because this is it. Every year, y'all annex a little portion each time out of the ETJ. You know that. And so when you do, that map's not correct. So that's where I'm coming from, that the map is not correct.

I think if we could just get the information of where the map may be incorrect, and then we can address that.

No problem. Thank you, sir.

But for the purpose of this evening, that interlocal agreement reflects the district boundaries as Exhibit B. And what I would encourage us to do is to have a motion to amend saying Exhibit B should be the verified map of the district boundaries. Absolutely. with council for ESD 4 here. Mr. Smith, do you have any problems approving it upon verification of the map boundaries?

I have no objection to that. And just so the council knows, ESD 4 meets on the 22nd to discuss this, so I would imagine we'll have a resolution by the end of the month for sure.

Can I get a motion to approve of the amendment of a revised map, approved map? So moved, as Lawrence stated.

Second.

Motion to... Francis is probably saying, wait, what was that motion again? I need to make sure I wrote that down correctly. And it's going to be the motion to approve the interlocal agreement with ESD 4 would include an amendment to Exhibit B to make sure that the map accurately reflects the district boundaries.

And I heard a so move there. Moved by Member Bynum, seconded by Member Cade. Hearing no further discussion, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Cosa? Aye. Member Echols? Aye. The motion passes six to zero.

Member Kaye, would you present item?

That was the amendment to D. I apologize. Sorry, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. First off, for the board members that are here from ESD4, thank you for being here, and the attorney, I appreciate that. I would kind of like to go over with folks that are here also watching on TV as well. Joel, on ESD4, numbers that you presented at our last meeting, approximately what was the shortfall on ESD4?

So again, based on our single unit equivalency cost model, that number is $2.3 million, $2,318,879.

That's in 2025 numbers. That's 2025 numbers, okay. And as far as the percentages covered with the 10 cents that they currently have, that, if my memory serves me correctly, did you say it was approximately 24% of? I have 26%. 26%, okay, 26%. OK, so with that being said, to parallel Member Patel's comments, and until we have the study, because last meeting, the item prior to the discussion on ESD 4 and ESD 5 was for us to have a study done. And that study is to, one, verify and confirm Joel's analysis on where we're at, and then for us to be able to decide, you know, where do we go from here? Where do y'all go from here? Under no circumstances, like Member Patel said, we were not trying to, you know, throw anybody under the bus, try, you know, anything like that. We want to work through the issue. But at the end of the day, the 2.3 million, and Joel, correct me if I'm wrong, I think the shortfall on five was around a million. Joel?

It's more like $670,000.

So, the all-in, it was right at about $3 million. So, between the two, what we're trying to do is find out what exactly those numbers are, because at approximately $3 million per year, it's a fairly large number. Over five years, that number would be in the $15 million range. So that's all we're trying to do is verify what's right, what's wrong. The two-year agreement is to be able to get the information back. I don't know if Trent or Joel, approximately when do we think we would have results back.

Going to ask Mr. Randall to cover that. We're hoping to have the item in front of you probably second meeting in October. And the time period that we set was eight months, so eight months or less.

Okay, so we'd be looking at a month, roughly speaking, for us to vote on it. So what that means is to have the study be approved by whatever vendor they've picked or selected, have that approval done from there in approximately eight months to be able to get the results back. So in approximately nine months would be a fair assessment to be able to have some numbers, some answers to be able sit down and say, here's where we're at, what can we do from here? So, you know, with that being said, that's where we're at. We're not looking, like I said, to throw you all under the bus, you know, and say it's been fun. But at the same token, we do need to have some numbers to be able to analyze where we're at and what our constituents are paying to cover this. So that's my comments. Thank you.

Further comments, discussion? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, call for the vote.

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

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Member Cade, would you mind presenting item, please?

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

Motion made by Member Cade, second by Member Fernandez.

Same song, ESD-5 this time. So, same contract with the two years.

Just clarification, are the maps correct?

As far as we know, they are. On maps, we, anytime we make an annexation, provide that information to the ESDs and that's how the maps get updated as they update.

Yes, that's our process, and statutorily, you know, we're required to inform the district of those annexations, and they are in turn supposed to reconfigure the service area accordingly.

So as far as we know, ESD 5 is correct?

Oh, it's definitely accurate because we haven't annexed any territory at all in that area. And 4, I think there are probably a couple of parcels that we took in in 2020 maybe. Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Thanks for the clarification and updates. Any other questions, discussion? Member Cade?

Joel, I think it was Ms. Hauser who mentioned that we're annexing a little bit of them every year. Is that?

That's not true. We've made some minor voluntary annexations, and so that's what Joel referred to. As we make those, we're providing that information, and then the maps get adjusted.

That's what's making the map tough?

We're going to verify on ESD 4. They're going to send us some information. We'll verify that. As far as ESD number 5, there have been no annexations in that area, so those maps should be correct.

Okay, thank you.

Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. We recently received a letter from Commissioner Cade. Have we responded to his letter to kind of provide some data to him?

So I believe that was a letter to Commissioner Cade from the ESD. Okay. So nothing for us to respond to there.

Okay. And then I guess there's one more thing. We talk about the incident reports, and there's a prorated cost reporting. Are we actually doing those and providing it to the EDs? districts in the agreement it says hey we'll provide you prorated cost reporting to the district have we ever done that yes sir so we update the annual cost model uh periodically and we've met with the esd on occasions where that's occurred just to make sure that information is apparent so if you have provided that then they would know that i guess based on our internal studies that we're losing money i would say that we're informing them of the disparity that exists based on our cost model and the payments that we receive so their board has been aware that based on internal studies we are losing approximately three million dollars subtract whatever their share is i'd say that's correct You're shaking your head back there.

One second. So I just want to make sure you finish your thought and then I can recognize someone from ESD-5. Sorry, go ahead. I believe someone from ESD-5 is here. You're currently recognized. And would you please state your name? Just your name.

Sure. David Haynes, Commissioner of ESD 5. A couple of things. I don't think the question that Joel was answering on $3 million was for our ESD 5, number one. I think Joel's number for us was 1.3, if I stand correct, that he put up in the last meeting on cost information as per his modeling approach. The contract that we've had for almost eight years has always specified that the cost that Pearland has incurred was going to be higher than what we were giving them as revenue. Now, one can debate the cost structure and how you do the calculations. The letter that our president sent to Commissioner Cade referenced the actual number of service calls that are performed by Pearland for us, and we are given that report every month by the fire department. The average for the last 12 months has been 15.5 calls per month. So I think around 2% of the total service calls that the Pearland Fire Department calls on. So that's where that number was coming from. Again, those are your numbers that we're tracking.

Thank you for the information. Again, I'll just reiterate that this particular item

So our request as you do your study, and we're all for your doing the study, is that it includes, as mentioned by ESD 4, it includes the variable cost. Some of the fixed costs that might be incurred in the previous studies may be bonds. for buildings that you've already done that may be considered sunk cost. I think if you're looking at revenue, you should be looking at how much revenue we're giving you versus what it's actually costing you on a variable basis going forward. But that's your decision. Our decision will obviously have to wait for whatever you all decide. But we also have to say we do appreciate what the fire department has done for us, and the services that we've got, we think they are excellent, just to put that in perspective.

And on the record. Thank you, I appreciate it. So back to the item. Again, this is just for an agreement for two years. To enter into the agreement, that's what the motion is on the floor. Make sure we're clear with that. Yes, yes.

One relevant detail for this particular item for ESD 5 that I wanted to call to Council's agenda is that ESD 5 met on Friday, and they have authorized the approval of this agreement. So that one's done. ESD 4, that's not going to be until next Tuesday, I think, the 22nd. So they've already reviewed and accepted the proposed changes that y'all asked as a result of the last meeting.

Thank you for that clarification. So seeing, oh, Member Koza.

Thank you, Mayor. And just to reiterate, Mr. Jackson, who is a citizen of Pearland, did come up and speak about what the shortfall is. And to Mr. Hayes' comment, yes, it was approximately $600,000 is what Joel said the shortfall is through ESD-5. The combined number for both 4 and 5 is approximately $3 million together. So it wasn't that one or other, it was both. The $3 million is roughly what Mr. Hardy has for the estimate of where we're short for that. So back to the study, that's what we call for to be able to have that information. So that in two years, because if his numbers are correct, us as a body are looking at approximately $6 million that we are paying outside of our city limits. So that's where we want to clarify where we're at. and be able to make an informed decision on what is it. And so that's where we're at. And as Member Patel said, we're not here to say, hey, see y'all, it's been fun. None of us are suggesting that. We're trying to work through the situation, and part of what brought up this discussion last time was the one comment that you made in the contract that we realize, not only us but y'all, that the 10 cents doesn't cover that. And part of the problem is the longer that goes, the bigger that number will grow because costs very rarely go down. So that number will continue to increase as salaries become higher, as equipment gets replaced, whatever the different increases are. So we need to get a very good understanding on what we're looking at. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

I understand. I'd just like to, again, put forward our request that when you're doing the study that you look at the variable costs, not only fixed costs, to look at the total picture. The other thing, just following up on one legal issue, we've been told by our council that we would have to dissolve ESD 5 and then have another election where ESD eventually, I guess, to have a 5A and a 5B, even to get to the 20. So it is a complicated issue, and the districts do not match up exactly the same. So it's kind of an interesting problem.

Yeah, no, and with what you said, I agree with. Four is spread across the city, almost from Fort Bend to Galveston County, and five is concentrated in, if you want to call it slightly west of center or west, either way. But they are two different districts and two different if you want to say it, animals, you know, different entities that have different issues. So that is definitely a fair statement. And yes, you are correct. The current ESD would need to be dissolved. Then you'd need to do an A and a B to be able to get to the 10 cents for fire and for EMS. So you are correct there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Koza, I just wanted to say that presupposes that that is the solution. There may be other solutions that are available, and I would just encourage us to look at all potential solutions. A property taxes, a solution, there might be additional evidence.

Yes, yeah, yeah. No, I know there's other, or possible other ways, but I mean, just what his comment was, you know, in regards to that. So, thank you.

And we as ESD-5 are willing to work at any, on any angle to resolve the issue.

It needs a broad statement, but I appreciate you. Any other further comments from council? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

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

Aye.

Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byron?

Aye.

The motion passes six to zero.

Member Fernandez, would you present item F, please?

Thank you, Mayor. Consideration of possible action, resolution number R2026-158. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Fernandez, second by Member Koza. Is there a particular...

Thank you, Mayor. So this resolution is to oppose the inclusion of three TxDOT State Highway 35 freeway projects that they've proposed to add to the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. These projects are precursors to what they've previously proposed as an elevated freeway through the City of Pearland and the Macawa Railroad State Highway 35 corridor that we've opposed in previous Regional Transportation Plans. When this last came up about five years ago, we had requested along with City of Houston and HGAC to take a look at the overall corridor and see if there were alternative transportation, viable alternatives to the freeway. And that never moved forward. There is an opportunity for a call for planning study projects that is about to open at HGAC where we plan to submit the same. So this area can be looked at to see if there's alternatives. And I think at a minimum, we're asking to get a commitment to terminate the freeway at the beltway so it does not continue through Pearland with that elevated cross section through our old town.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I believe, Member Patel, you pulled this one. What was the reason?

I did, Mayor. Thank you. Trent, I know you, according to your, I guess, memo, you said you wanted them to do a study before they do it. And I guess when I was looking at this from the long, I guess it's in 2050. That's almost 25 years from now. And the way I was looking at it was, wouldn't this be a better thing going with the growth that we have going south, especially down in Elvin and Manuel and with hurricane evacuation? Again, for our neighbors next door, we only have 288 as an exit and 35 is obviously one of them. And I guess the way I was projecting this to say this would be a good project for our community, not just for Pearland. I understand that this would impact Old Townsite, but people down south who would be evacuating. And so that was my reasoning to say, why are you opposing this? And I know it's going to impact our community. And every development infrastructure project always impacts somebody, and they don't want it through their neighborhood or through their you know, backyard, but this was more of a, for me, it was a necessity for our neighbors down south and just for long-term growth, so I was kind of mixed on this, so I apologize, and that's the reason I pulled it, and the second reason I will say, I know, remember, Byram, you serve on the HGAC, and I didn't know if you had any insight on this, so thank you.

can kind of address a couple of those things. So it's not me just opposing it. The city council in the past has opposed this. So with it seeing it back on the, potentially back on the RTP, wanted to bring it to everyone's attention and confirm that opposition. I think what we've questioned is some of the growth numbers that HGAC and TxDOT used to the south of Pearland through the Hastings oil field that they used to determine that it would be a freeway. We've questioned the route and the impacts that would have not only on the Old Town and some of our Old Town redevelopment plans that we've just adopted the plan for, but also some of our industrial tax base that is in that corridor would be heavily impacted by it. So it's got a lot of implications for Pearland. And typically when freeways have come through communities and especially elevated freeways, they come with lots of major implications for the long term for those communities. So I believe that's in the past why there was opposition to it. And we believe that if studied with some more accurate information, more accurate growth data, that there may be alternatives to a freeway that can still provide the capacity necessary to move the traffic, as well as, you know, there is going to be a connection from Alvin's Bypass over to 45 with the construction of the Grand Parkway that's underway.

Any further comments or questions?

No, no worries. Thank you, Mayor. You know, from a perspective of the whole town, you put this elevated highway through, our depot district's gone. So you're gonna knock that out right out of the bat. I don't know what type of dollar amount there is, but you're going to take a fairly large swath of our industrial development along 35 that's been there for years, and you're going to wipe it off the map, and you're going to lose that tax base. Statically, it's going to look uglier than hell. So, you know, I'd be against it. But as far as that goes, I think there's better ways to address moving people other than coming through the center of Pearland or old part of Pearland with something like this.

Are there any other members that want to speak against it?

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I'll speak against this because I'm looking forward to the revitalization to O-Town as a eatery, entertaining, dining, live music venues to have that in Old Town, so I'm looking forward to that, and this would preclude that from happening. Also, with the extension of Pearland Parkway over to Friendswood, as well as the 35 bypass at Alvin and the 99 Grand Parkway. I think that's part of the state's evacuation, and I think that will be more than well. I don't see any need to put a major freeway through 35 in our downtown Old Town area. I am against that.

I just want to be clear. You're against the freeway, but you're for the resolution saying that we're against the development. I want to make sure you're clear.

That is correct. I am for the resolution. I am against the 105 or 105, whatever that spur is called. I'm against that.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the clarification. That was one of the things I wanted to point out as we started talking about for and against, that we know what we're talking about. To answer your question, I serve on HGAC's Board of Directors representing the city of Pearland. Trent serves as our representative on the Transportation Policy Council. This kind of stuff doesn't come before the Board of Directors. It goes through the Policy Council. So this item would be brought up here at some point in time on the TPC for discussion. So if I'm understanding our agenda item correctly, it is getting direction from council that when this is brought up at TPC, Hairland will object to the project moving forward without at least better and more recent studies being done by TxDOT to justify it. Correct.

That's correct. We'll go ahead and, if this passes tonight, we'll submit it as part of comments on the 2050 RTP. So we'll go ahead and submit that, and then it'll be part of the discussion as that adoption of the RTP process moves forward.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted to answer Member Patel's question. Uh-oh. Everybody's blowing up. Is that something we need to address? No?

Amber Alert.

Looking at law enforcement at this point. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Any other comments from council? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols? Aye. Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Motion passes 6-0.

Member Patel, would you present item G, please?

Sorry, G. Consider and possible action resolution number R2026-149, so moved. Second.

Motion was made by Member Patel, second by Member Byrum. I believe, Member Patel, you pulled this one. So if you wouldn't mind.

I did, Mayor. I do appreciate this. And this is just for parking reasons. I know this is a five-year agreement. But one of the things is this is probably one of the favorite places for me to visit. Matter of fact, I was there Thursday night. And parking was already very tight. So I don't know what the plan is to park during this event. because I think over five years it will grow tremendously, and if it does, parking is going to be a nightmare as it is already. So that was my main reason for pulling it.

So this event is taking place early in the morning before Valensons would typically open. It's only open for this particular race on a Saturday morning. So your regular traffic at that location and parking won't be an issue.

And I'm assuming they have approval from the neighboring parking because, again, that valances can hold maybe 30 cars tops. And I know even on Thursday they were parking at the closed down Wendy's. And so, again, I'm just saying over five years, you give them this agreement, over five years you've got to figure out what the parking situation is going to be.

That's a great point.

I want to make sure you're at the podium and you're not a resident. You are.

Yes, that's correct. I'm Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Capers. So while this is a five-year permit, each year it requires an administrative review. And so every year, if their plans change significantly, they have to submit their plans to us regardless. And so we look for things like, have their plans changed significantly? Have things changed in that area? Is there construction going on? Has the conditions changed to where parking would be an issue? And so we'll look at that each year and make sure that it's not a problem.

Thank you, Ms. Kuypers. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Patel?

Member Patel? Aye.

Member Koza? Aye. Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byrum?

Aye.

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

Moving on to our, let's see. All right, I will now open this public hearing on a request by Alberto Ruiz, applicant. and owner on behalf of George and Deborah Harrell, owners for approval of a zone change for approximately 7.77 acres of land, entirely of a 1.002-acre Track 1, further described below, from neighborhood services to single-family resident R1 district. Staff, would you kindly present on this particular item?

Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Mayor. All right, so this is to propose a down zone from the current zoning of neighborhood service to single family residential one. On the right side of the screen, you can see an image identifying that we have tract one and two. The idea is to replant this tract into one lot to construct a custom home. And then on the tract to the north, which is identified with the number three, that is also going to be included in this rezone, but developed as residential at a later time. A legal ad was posted in the Pearland News Reporter newspaper. 21 notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet, and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. And thus far today, we have received zero written comments and zero phone calls. Looking at the surrounding area, we have R1 zoning to the north with single family residence and commercial. To the south, we have neighborhood service district. It is a church. To the east, we also have neighborhood service and general commercial district. We have a church, some undeveloped parcels, and a minor auto repair. And then to the west, we have single family residential three developed with a single family neighborhood. Looking at the future land use plan from our comprehensive land use plan, this area is designated as commercial center. On the screen is an image of the applicant's proposed custom home. And so the request satisfied three out of the four approval criteria under UDC Section 2214. The proposed single family aligns with the established single family residential and the church along Harkey Road. And the rezoning from commercial to single family reduces projected utility traffic generation and commercial lighting and operational noise adjacency concerns. And with that, staff recommended approval of the requested zone change from neighborhood service to single family. And the Planning and Zoning Commission met on August 31st and recommended with a vote of 7-0 approval of the zone change. I'll pass it back to you, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Katya. Is there anyone here representing them that would? Anyone here? Anyone like to make a statement on it or speak to this change?

Okay.

Okay. Anybody up here?

Member Cade?

I think it looks few.

All right. If there's no one else desiring to speak on this item, on our closest public hearing, Member Koza, would you present new business number one, please?

Certainly, Mayor. Consideration of possible actions. First reading of ordinance number 2000M-287. So moved.

Second.

Motion was made by Member Koza, second by Member Cade. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

Member Byrum?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

Aye.

The motion passes 6-0.

I will now open this public hearing on a request by Paul Glenn, applicant on behalf of 4401 Rice Dryer, Inc., owner for approval of amendments to the Rice Dryer Commerce Park plan development on approximately 2.8185 acres of land.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a plan development amendment. This property is located within the Rice Dryer Commerce Park PD. And the amendments are proposed to reduce the proposed office space and parking requirements. The proposed development plan is a 52,773 square foot building with 1,663 square feet of office and 51,110 square feet of warehouse. A legal ad was posted in the Pearland News Reporter newspaper. 19 public notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet, and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. And thus far today, we have received zero written comments and zero phone calls on the request. Taking a look at the surrounding area, the subject property is highlighted in yellow and the entire rice dryer PD is highlighted in this red color. And the surrounding uses include office warehouse, equipment rental, warehouse and chemical manufacturing. Taking a look at our future land use plan, the place type for this area is professional services. And so going on the proposed amendments of this case, the current plan development stipulation identifies that a minimum of 10% of the gross floor area must be dedicated to office space. And the amendment is proposing 3%. And the parking requirement in the plan development identifies one space for 2,000 square feet of office space and the amendment is proposing one space for 5,000 square feet of office space, identifying that their office ratio will remain unchanged at a rate of one space for every 300 square feet. Shown on the screen is a site plan. On the left side is a more zoomed in version of their plan. And on the right side shows where you have the adjacent roadways of Rice Dryer Road on the south where there are entrances as well as Halleck Road on the north side. This is an image provided by the applicant identifying what their facade could look like. So overall, the proposed plan development amendment was consistent with the approval criteria. The office space amendment was consistent with the allowed uses in the standard M1 district. And the requested parking reduction is based on the proposed building being predominantly warehouse space. And so staff recommended approval of the requested plan development amendment. And on August 31st, the Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss this item and had a vote of seven to zero that recommended approval of the case. Thank you, Mayor. I'll pass it back to you.

Is the applicant here? If you could, please go to the podium. Please state your name.

Paul Glenn with Third Coast, chief of staff for them.

Do you have a presentation ready?

I do not, sir.

Just here to answer questions. Okay, perfect. If you don't mind, just stay there. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none. Council members, are there any questions for the applicant here?

Member Koza.

Thank you, Mayor. With this proposed layout here, how many parking spaces are there?

They're proposing 17 parking spaces.

And, sir, as far as the number of employees that would be working in this facility, how many employees would you be having?

Yeah, I'm going to say 17 at the most, 34 if we went to a second shift.

Okay, so even if you went to a second shift, it would be enough for both shifts? You know, to have parking for the employees that are there. Yes, sir. Okay.

All right, thank you. Any additional questions? Member Barnes?

Just real quick, looking at the overall site plan for this development, where is the, we can go back, not the zoomed in one, but the larger map, the whole outlined red area. Kind of hard to see is right down there in the bottom next to public use, is that their detention?

I believe so, yes.

Okay. And that has already accounted for this addition?

Yes, sir. That is correct.

Okay. And we've been talking with our UDC updates about reducing the parking requirements. Would this be more in line with what we were talking about shifting to?

I believe this is catered towards their proposed development, but we are looking at reducing parking ratios in general.

And, Member Byrum, one item I would mention is the PD also stipulates that if the use does change, they have enough parking to meet code as it is.

Their current development already has enough parking.

No, so they're proposing the current development to be able to have less, but in there they stipulate that if for some reason they move out and someone else moves in, they do have space to meet the UDC parking requirements should another tenant come along.

Okay.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

I don't think there's any additional comments. And if there's no one else desiring to speak at this particular time, I'll close this public hearing. Member Echols, would you present new business item number two, please?

Certainly, Mayor. Thank you. Consideration of possible action, first reading of ordinance number 2000M-286. So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Echols, second by Member Fernandez. Any additional questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Echols?

Aye. Aye.

Member Byrum? Aye. Member Cade?

She stepped out. She stepped out.

If you want to vote, you're up.

Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel? Aye. Member Koza?

Aye.

Motion passes six to zero.

I will now open this public hearing on a request by Dana Garnett, applicant, on behalf of Amidali Varani, owner, for approval of a conditional use permit for resale consignment shop use on approximately 2.438 acres of land within the Business Park 288 district. Staff, would you kindly? I'm sorry. Yes, you did mention that. I believe we have someone that signed up to speak on this particular item. And I'll turn it over to Mr. John Jackson.

I know you already spoke, but please state your name again. And you have three minutes. Thank you, sir.

Hi, I'm John Jackson. So this is a project, if I remember right, it's been presented a few times. And I kind of want to support it. If I'm speaking wrong, please correct me. This is for that Goodwill facility, is that correct?

Yes, I believe it is.

And then we can't interact. A couple things I've heard over, I guess, the last few months when they've come over here and presented a few times were, one, about the problems with other sites that you have around the city where they put, I guess, drop-off goods outside. And that seemed to be a little bit of a concern, I know, with you guys in council in the past. I want to just say, you know, when you look at the facility, Forgotten Angels, it's there. down here across from the Kroger, the older Kroger on the east side. They have that same problem, and it doesn't seem to be a concern to anybody. I know you guys seem to have a partnership with the Forgotten Angels, it seems like, because I know they've come up here before, and that discussion has come up. The thing over there too that concerns me that I would support their project is that Forgotten Angels, when you look at the east side of the structure, it's got a tractor trailer that's usually packed full of bags. And if you've ever had to experience a fire where something's that packed in there, it's pretty tough to put out. You've got to pull stuff out and you've got to put it all over the place, so that's a mess. The other thing that I wanted to talk about is this wet detention pond business. I'm not sure why that seems to be such a hangup with you guys and the council. Wet and dry, its purpose is to take water in to deal with flood mitigation, right? it's obviously a problem maybe because there's trash in it there's going to be trash whether it's wet or dry okay if it's not being maintained if it's dry then that's a city ordinance problem that you guys need to address so again i would support this project and i think you guys should support it that's all thank you thank you sir that's all the comments on this item thank you for that and this is a public hearing so at some point if there's another concern um is there applicant here or is there a

Oh, let me kick it to staff first real quick.

Thank you, Mayor. My last item. So the applicant is proposing a 15,000 square foot resale consignment shop. And this store is going to be open to the public for purposes of dropping off clothing and other apparel items for resale and purchasing. This case may have sounded familiar to some of y'all and that is because that is true. The conditional use permit was originally denied in February of this year and then the applicant resubmitted and the item was approved by the City Council on June 8th of this year with seven conditions, five of which were staff recommendations and the two were added by Council during the meeting. And those two were cross access must be installed between adjoining properties and what detention pond with a fountain shall be required. Now the applicant has returned with a new conditional use permit application to request the removal of condition number 7, requiring detention to be wet with a fountain. The applicant has noted that the proposed business insurance policy does not permit a wet detention pond and ongoing maintenance and cost associated with a wet detention pond would create a significant burden. Four public notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet, and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. And thus far today, we have received zero written comments and zero phone calls related to this case. Taking a look at the surrounding area, we have BP-288 zoning surrounding with floor and decor, a multi-tenant retail, State Highway 288, and some undeveloped parcels. The comprehensive land use plan place type identifies this area as commercial center. And shown on the screen are site plans provided by the applicant. The left side of the screen shows the site plan and the right side of the screen shows the proposed landscape plan. And because this case is specific to condition number 7, the detention pond is on the north side adjacent to State Highway 288. Shown on the screen are images of the applicant's draft renderings. And another image. The proposed conditional use permit meets the five criteria and may meet two of the criteria with the staff recommended conditions. And the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and the thoroughfare plan. And with that, staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit with the five conditions. One, two parking lot trees shall be provided in the in-cap islands in the row of parking adjacent to the northwest side of the building. Trees shall be a minimum of three-inch caliper measured at 12 inches above the root ball. Trees shall be evergreen with year-round foliage. Two, the keeping, displaying, or storing of any goods, materials, merchandise, or equipment outside of the principal building shall be prohibited. Any material debris and refuse dropped off on site must be located inside the building immediately or transferred into a dumpster. Three, the proposed elevations shall be substantially conformed to the attached concept elevation sheet with the requirement that a minimum of 25% of the exterior wall facing business center drive shall be transparent. Four, The exterior wall facing State Highway 288 shall provide a minimum of 18% tinted or spandrel glass as shown on the proposed elevations and materials shall be substantially conformed with those illustrated in the concept plan elevation sheet. Five, no signage shall be permitted to be placed on the spandrel glass facing State Highway 288. And we did include the two city council conditions in our recommendations for consideration for the Planning and Zoning Commission from that June 8th meeting, which is, What detention pond with a fountain shall be required and cross-access must be installed between adjoining properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission met on August 31st and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions one through five and did not include conditions six or seven. Thank you, Mayor. I'll pass it back to you.

Thank you for that. Yes, the applicants are here. Is there something that you would like to present? Is there a presentation that you have available? Please do. Just present, go to the podium, and then once you get there, state your name.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Nelfar Nazarian, and I'm the architect representing the landlord. I'd like to give a brief refresher on the project history and timeline. At each City Council meeting we have carefully listened to the comments and feedbacks provided and we have made every effort to incorporate those conditions into our design. Throughout this process our goal has been to work collaboratively with the city and create a building and site that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing to the best of our ability. In response to the Council's feedback, we have increased the amount of storefront transparency on this front elevation as you see. And we've added canopies to the front elevation and enhanced the landscaping on the truck dock to the left. Thank you. In addition, we included more landscaping by the drop off entrance area. At the last City Council meeting the only remaining concern raised was the request for a wet detention pond and fountain. Since then we've evaluated this option carefully, including its financial and insurance implications. Ultimately a wet detention pond would place a significant additional financial burden on the tenant. We've updated the rendering since last meeting and we believe the proposed dry detention pond shown in this rendering addresses the city's objectives while also providing a cost conscious and aesthetically pleasing development. Based on some comments from the last meeting, we've updated what we think accurately depicts the existing right-of-way trees and shrubs and a concrete barrier in this view coming from Highway 288. As you can see on the side plan and landscape plan, We've added additional landscaping from the last meeting even furthermore around the dry detention pond and in front of the drop off area location and the truck dock. We have the tenant representatives here with us tonight to answer any questions that council may have regarding the dry detention maintenance plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other comments from anyone in the audience? No? All right. Council? Questions?

Member Byrum. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Could you go back to your landscape plan in your presentation? I know you're kind of zooming around on the page. Slide it over. I'm going to call them sand traps. So what are all those shapes? Are those individual landscape beds or?

Yes.

You have trees. You've added trees to go all the way around the detention pond. And you've added 10 landscape beds around the detention pond. Is that what we're seeing here?

Yes.

OK. OK, thank you. And I will say. Two specific things. Number one, I think we should include the cross-access in our conditions. So that is one of the items that I think we should add. I'm not sure why that didn't get picked up when it came through. But I do think we need to make sure that that's in there, unless it's already included in the plat. Well, this is a public hearing, right? So can I ask? of our members of P&Z to go up since it's a public hearing?

You can, but they might not be able to speak on behalf of the entire body because each individual member's motives would be separate. Their action is what was given to you. But if they have insight as to why they said or didn't say something, you're absolutely welcome to.

Would either of you like to take the podium and just speak? Commissioner Fuertes?

Just remember to state your name.

Yeah, state your name, please, sir. Henry Fortas. And just on the cross-access was what I was asking about. What was the thought process?

My recollection is it was either on the plat or both. It was on the plat, and it's also a city rule that cross-access, or the city promotes it anyway, so we didn't feel like it was necessary to place that one either.

Okay.

And we verify that that's... You're nodding your head.

That is correct, Member Byrum. It is identified on the plat that cross access is required.

OK, perfect.

If I could add to that, Council Member Byrum, while access is required, meaning where that access is located or how it is provided are two different things. So if you have a particular place where you think it needs to be, the access doesn't give one person the right to go on the other person's property to build that access. Oftentimes, I think that that's what staff is trying to do, to make sure that while, sure, you can have access, we want to dictate where that access is, or at least allow or the engineering department or planning department to, when they're reviewing plans, let the other property owner build it, at least to the property line.

So is the cross-access that's in the existing plat, is it a footnote or is it specified on the plat? It's a note. It's a footnote on the plat. OK. So we may need to look at more specificity on that. The main thing is just making sure we don't have a break point in the parking lot where people can't traverse through the entirety of the overall commercial development in that area. So if the plat is not clear enough to resolve that, go ahead, Van.

I was just going to say, if you want to make the condition that the applicant build the cross-access as depicted in the site plan, the site plan shows cross-access.

The CUPs don't traditionally include the site plan, but that could be the condition. Okay.

So I would like to do that when we get to the actual new business item. I'd like to do that. The other thing I will say is I know... Do what? The cross-access. We'll put it in as a... I will motion that when we do this in the new business, we'll put the cross-access in. The other thing I will say is I know, as Mr. Jackson alluded to, there's always consternation about things getting stored outside, things getting dropped off, and yes, to a certain degree, that is somewhat unavoidable in these types of businesses. applications, but if I remember correctly, you were here previously. Goodwill talked about at the last hearing the efforts that they're going through to try to minimize those. And if anybody goes by the one in the Kroger parking lot, which I pass almost every day, I've seen a marked improvement in that particular issue. You can't do anything about somebody that comes by in the middle of the night on a Saturday. But can you state your name real quick, sir?

Yes, Michael Winkler, President and CEO for Goodwill of Houston.

If I remember correctly, you guys are now putting in cameras at all your facilities, so if someone does show up in the middle of the night, dumps a bunch of stuff, somebody gets alerted, and you all go pick it up. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. Like I say, I've seen that improvement because I drive past it all the time on the one out there. So I appreciate those efforts, and thank you for bringing back the landscaping. I understand member Patel, you proposed the wet detention in the previous conversation. I understand the reasoning behind it. My alternative to that was additional landscaping. I think that's a good compromise.

Member Patel. Thank you, Mayor. So I got a question about this insurance that you guys are saying your insurance won't allow wet ponds. I mean, we have them all over. And I'll tell you why I proposed this. Member Byrum, the discussion was this is where we have spent $22 million on this corridor. And this is where the exit ramp is to get on Magnolia. So as you exit down, you will see a car wash, which recently closed from eyeshine and turned into blue weight. They have a detention pond that is dry, which you may be right, or earlier someone said that there are dry ponds. But it looks horrendous. And if you guys can envision from a 10,000-foot view down at the corner of 518 and 288, those were all dry. Matter of fact, TxDOT used to dump a bunch of dirt out there and had piles of dirt. And I think EDC recently shared those photos with us. And my reasoning was I've never heard an insurance company not wanting to cover it. Now let's just do simple math. This site, according to them, is 0.43 is their acreage for detention pond, which is almost 25% of the land. Would you not want that land when people are driving through to have some kind of aesthetic view? And that was my point. And when I read this thing where your insurance won't allow wet ponds, that just boggled me because I know all over this place there are wet ponds. I've never had an insurance company tell us in a development that you can't have a wet pond. So that's my reasoning. I think just the fact that we are trying to keep some sort of a static view as people are driving through our community, whether they're exiting Magnolia or driving through, this will be seen. And I think it will be a good feature, and it's part of the cost. Thank you.

Member Cade?

I am okay with them not having the fountain. I know Goodwill, well, I think they're a 501c3, and it probably places a burden on them to maintain a fountain, and I'm okay with that. I think it's landscaping instead. Thank you.

Member Fernandez. Thank you, Mayor. Can you address a little bit about the insurance? I know he didn't ask a direct question, but can you elaborate a little bit more about what the conversations were with the insurance and why that happened?

I will do my best. I was not intimately in those conversations, full disclosure, so I will do my best to articulate what I had heard, which was it's not so much about the detention pond, but a detention pond in this locale filled with water creates a flood issue for the store being in such close proximity. So our insurance company had serious concerns about the flood risk that would be created by having a filled pond so close to a retail site that isn't designed, elevated in other words, to prevent overspill. And we do get sometimes torrential downpours here that could spill over and cause flooding both on the road as well as in our parking lot, which could then penetrate into the store itself. So the insurance concerns were more around damage to the building, the parking lot, and the areas that we would insure against such things. And as we all know, flood insurance is a hot button issue in the United States today for individuals as well as commercial. And this was a feeling from the insurance company that would be untenable for them to consider insuring because it has to do with it being filled and the proximity to it being a retail location at basically ground level.

Okay. My next question to the city staff, Trent, Vance, somebody. Floodplain in that area? Is it in the floodplain?

Or do we know? Let me just zoom out a little bit. No, sir, it doesn't appear to be. Okay, thank you.

One second.

Member Echols. Thank you, Mayor. Just an observation. The detention, did I understand that on the field retention with Fountain. Your insurance was concerned about the retention area overfilling and flooding the retail. And if so, why is the retention above grade to allow overfill to go into the retail?

So I really would be, I was not part of all of those conversations. I'm not able to answer those questions in detail for you. I apologize.

That's okay. Just your comment brought that question. What I wanted to speak of to say thank you for bringing this proposal back to us. I've seen detention, retention, and my thing is a detention area that is landscaped, structurally sound, and can do what it's there to do, and that's hold water, keep water from flooding your facility as well as other facilities in the way. part of different buildings. I'm not familiar. I have not looked at the site. Is there a present? Is the building there now? And if it is, is there retention detention there now?

I don't know at this time if there's any existing retention or detention at the site.

Could you put the image back up, please? I saw it was up there. It's just dry. It's undeveloped.

It doesn't show any of your neighboring areas having retention. It's up there on the screen. okay remember eccles there are detention ponds in the area they're behind that strip center to the left this is a currently undeveloped track of land so there's nothing there currently okay hey thank you vance um good job i i think the landscape uh i think the trees will add beautification let me encourage you to make sure your lawn maintenance Keeps it looking good. I think the car wash that Member Patel was talking about, they were in a bankrupt situation because evidently their Their clubs was not bringing in the money that they forecasted, and so hopefully Blue Wave will make a better neighbor. So thank you very much, and I'm good with this, but also I will support Member Byrum's amendment to place the crossings. Thank you.

Member Cozen? Thank you, Mayor. Could you put up the photo that was on before that kind of had the 288 view? Yeah, there was a big one, the larger. It was just by itself, the one on the right.

I believe you're looking for a zoom in. I actually figured you could switch back. It was in the applicant's presentation.

Oh, it was in their presentation? Okay, well, you could zoom in on the one on the...

Lower right-hand corner.

Yeah, OK, that works right there. OK, so good, bad, or indifferent, it was my question last time because the presentation you had at a wet detention pond, and I asked what the detention was going to be, wet or dry, which in turn spurred Member Patel to issue the amendment for the wet detention. So whether my question here or not does that, again, I don't know. But when I look at this photo right here, the hedge that you pictured here is continuous. It's not like the overhead landscape view. I don't see any breaks in the lower landscaping. I do see the breaks in the trees, but not in this depiction here. If we go back to the landscape. Yeah, we slide it over. There we go. There's one, two, three, four breaks along the landscaping right there. Is this what you propose or the photo that you supplied?

So on the proposed landscaping around the detention, I guess the larger circles are the proposed trees and in between are the shrubs. So I believe the shrubs and the trees are depicted on the artistic rendering.

Right, right, which I understand what trees are and what the landscape shrubbing is. But when you look at the photo, it looks continuous north to south. You have four different breaks in it right here versus right there. When I look at the landscapes, the little balls or whatever type shrubs those are, I don't see breaks in that.

So the landscape plan is portrayed more accurately on what we're proposing for the site.

Okay.

I don't know with my fellow council members. To me, I think more aesthetically looking, continuous hedge along the 288 corridor keeps you from seeing into the detention pond. But I would be in favor of a dry detention with a continuous hedge. So I don't know. I agree with that as well, Member Cozy.

Okay. I want to come back to Member Byrum if you're completed.

Yeah, yeah, that was my biggest concern. Looking at this versus looking at the picture, it was two different, if you want to say proposals or two depictions, whatever you want to call it, of the layout. So here again, I would be in favor of a continuous hedge.

Member Byrum? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On this screen, it says existing trees in the right-of-way. Those are going to remain, so those are what are in the foreground of your picture, correct? Yes. Okay. Is this area staff, is this part of the Lower Kirby District? No. Okay.

It is not. It is currently zoned BP-288 and is proposing to remain unchanged.

Okay.

And all of that landscaping... I agree. We spent a lot of money beautifying 288. All of that landscaping is managed by, is it BP2-288 or is it Lower Kirby? PMMDT, so another additional entity. And they wouldn't have anything to do with this property, correct? Ultimately, what I'm getting at is, When you show the aerial of this area, the lots on either side of this are not developed currently either. So whatever we do here is ultimately going to set the precedent for what happens with the adjoining lots. And I agree with Member Patel. There's been a lot of money spent on the 288 corridor and the beautification. that's one of our main corridors coming into our city so the aesthetic i think is important and so we need to consider the additional development that's going to happen over there and what kind of precedent that we're setting and so i think long term remember echoes your your point about making sure that it's maintained appropriately you know we can do we can do a lot with landscaping we do that for beautification all over the entire city so i do agree with member koza on more of the continuous continuous hedge look that will protect that view coming in there and I was hoping maybe we had a management district in that area that could maybe help with beautification and the landscaping along the feeder road but it sounds like we don't we do on the edges of .

Yes, sir. So, I wish Matt was here, but Trent might be able to correct me. But my understanding is PMMD2 goes all the way to Magnolia on the north two corners, so northeast and northwest corner. southeast and south corner belong to Manuel, so we don't manage it. So when you actually exit Magnolia, you'll see one side of the freeway weeds are growing and the other side is manicured, right? And so this district does fall into the PMMD, too, if I'm correct. Am I correct?

I believe that's correct, yes sir.

So it could potentially approach PMMD2 and ask about some beautification in that area as it develops as well, yes?

And I don't mean to interject. No, no. I apologize. I had the honor and the privilege to go to their last two meetings, or yeah, second meeting ago, and they're burning cash. So don't expect any new plants going in. I believe their own prediction was they will be out of money in about six years. So I don't anticipate that. I think they're burning more cash on maintenance than they're taking in. And Member Byrum, you're an engineer, and you're an Aggie, so I'm sure you know this better, and Trent is too. I'm not an engineer. Oh, you're an Aggie, so they all are engineers. So, you know, I do appreciate earlier's comment about detention pond, and just so I'm very, you know, it kind of bothers me, and so I'm going to say it. I've never heard, and Raj, where is Raj? There he is. I've never heard someone say a detention pond wet detention pond is a concern because you're an architect, I know you're not an engineer, but how is that possible because you dig it deeper just to hold that water, but there is a volume capacity that you have to kind of measure for that site. So I'm very confused. How is a wet detention pond, which has the volume capacity, whether it's wet or dry, And my understanding, again, you can correct me if I'm wrong, a wet detention pond has to be just deeper, right? Just deeper to hold that water, and you put a fountain in there. But the volume is the same. I don't understand this theory that, you know, they're saying, oh, if it's wet, it can flood, if it downpours. We have detention ponds up and down 288. I've never seen them over flood.

Hold on one second. Was there a question to Raj or was there a statement?

Well, absolutely to Raj, but I'm trying to understand their theory as well. So, Raj, would you explain that to me? Is that possible to have a wet detention pond that has a concern of flooding?

No, sir. There should not be any concern because for purpose of retention, dry versus wet, there's not any difference. But in terms of water quality, wet retention provides better water quality and that's the benefit of wet retention apart from aesthetic view.

So I think, I remember Byram had a question. I just want to make sure that we're getting around to at least coming to some understanding of what any type of issues are with the proposal as is in this hearing, so we can continue to move forward and provide some context as to how to move forward. Member Cade, yes, you have a question.

What are the landscape requirements for this property?

Can you state your question one more time? I'm sorry.

Gladly. What are the landscape requirements for this property?

Fifteen percent landscaping is the minimum requirement.

So are they meeting that with what they have?

They are.

Okay.

I'd like to add that we're providing additional landscaping beyond the minimum city ordinance requirements just because it's a CUP condition and the two adjacent tracks are not under a CUP. »» Okay. I'm trying to help you. Hold on one second.

So asking them to do a bunch of extra stuff, I don't understand why we're doing that. if they're meeting the requirements and going above and beyond a little bit, I think that's enough. We need to vote on this.

I think, Member Cade, I guess what I'm hearing is we're just trying to set a precedent of what we want it to look like and make sure that what we agreed to here will then, because there are other empty properties on either side, so I think that either you're okay with landscaping or you're looking more towards a wet detention pond with a fountain, but I think that's the discussion here.

But they have agreed to give us more landscaping, so I think they've agreed to that. It's like we're...

I'm just going through. I'm here with concerns. Member Cade, as it is, you said based on what they provided, you're okay. Member Patel, I believe there's some reservations. Member Fernandez, there's reservations. Member Byrum, there's some reservations. Member Echols, I said I think you're okay. And Member Koza, I believe there was reservations with regard to landscaping, correct? Yes, that's correct, yeah. I'm just trying to tie this thing back up, because it is a hearing.

I think there's consensus to have a more likely picture, if that's what you're asking.

I want to make sure it's clear that we get an understanding of what we're deliberating, what the ask is, before I close this public hearing.

Well, we'll have an amendment in the follow-up.

Yes. Lawrence. Lawrence.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD IN RELATION TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT I HEARD IN REGARDS TO PMMD 2, IF THERE IS LANDSCAPING PROVIDED BY PMMD 2 ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 288, THAT WILL BE ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SIDE. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THIS IS GOING TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, IF THE REQUIREMENT IS A CONTINUOUS HEDGE GOING AROUND THE DETENTION POND, THAT WOULD BE ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PMMD 2 WILL INSTALL OR WHEN THEY WOULD INSTALL IT. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO ADD IS I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY MAINTAIN AND I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY WHAT'S REQUIRED. I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY WHETHER IT'S COUNCIL'S WILL THAT THE DETENTION I'm sorry, the landscaping be irrigated to help it survive and thrive in that area, or if that's going to be an issue. And I don't know if that's something that the design team from Goodwill has looked at, whether we can put irrigation that goes that far back there. But putting bushes that die might not be satisfying what council is asking for. So if the requirement is that it be irrigated or whether it be that the condition of the CUP be that it be maintained because I think we've seen that in different places in the city. People install it but they don't maintain it and then you don't get what the person is asking for. So those are all things that just are based on things that I've heard from y'all that I would encourage you to consider when the item comes up for a vote.

Yeah, Member Koza.

Thank you, Mayor. So with what Mr. Provins just said, as far as a continuous hedge and irrigation, is that something y'all would be willing to provide to keep the plants alive and looking well?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Any other further questions or comments? Member Byrum, I know you stepped away, but any other comments? So seeing no other comments, are there any other comments you'd like to add before I close this hearing?

Just for a point of clarity, we really cannot afford to do, for a variety of reasons, plus the insurance, anything wet. As proposed is what we are asking council to approve. We will irrigate the landscaping and make sure that it upholds the spirit of that entire development area.

Thank you for those comments. Seeing no other comments at this particular time, I will now close this public hearing. Member Patel, would you present new business item number three, please?

Sure, Mayor. My pleasure. Considering possible action, resolution number R2026-CUP2026-0354. So moved. Second.

Motion was emphatically made by Member Patel. Second by Member Koza. Discussion? Yes.

Mr. Mayor, I would motion that Move that we would amend this CUP application to include council condition item number six from the June 28th meeting to ensure that the cross access is installed between the adjoining properties. And I would also move that we include language that the landscaping is a continuous hedgerow around the detention with irrigation.

And you would want it as per the depiction here on the?

As per the image shown.

Yeah, for both items.

Yes.

Second. Motion is made by Member Byrum, seconded by Member Echols. Motion to amend. Motion to amend. Yeah. Made by Member Byrum, seconded by Member Echols. Any questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, would you call for the vote?

Member Byram?

Aye.

Member Cade? Aye. Member Fernandez?

Aye.

Member Patel?

No.

Member Koza?

Aye.

Member Echols?

Aye.

The motion passes 5-1.