City Council - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat.

[music] I [music] don't

[music] [music]

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. Hello, my name is Isabella Perez, recreation leader for the city of Sakuro. Thank you for joining today's meeting. Before the meeting begins, we would like to remind our guests to remove all hats and silence all electronic devices. No destructive behavior or outburst will be tolerated and bias are subject to ejection and possible prosecution. Good evening. I want to welcome you all to the December 4th, 2025 Sakoro City Council regular meeting. And um it is now 6:06 p.m. and I call this meeting to order. As always, we begin our meetings with the pledge of allegiance. And tonight we have some very special guests with us today. Uh we have Ernesto Cerna Fine Arts Academy. Is that correct? All right. Do we have Robert A Roas? We have Robert A Roas uh students today that are going to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. So if you would all please stand for the pledge.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Texas pledge. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge aliance to thee, Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. Please remain standing for a moment of silence.

Thank you. You may be seated. Let's begin. from Robert Aroas. Yes.

Hey y'all. Um before you leave, we we also want to recognize you and on behalf of the city of council of Sakoro and the entire city of Sakoro, we want to acknowledge your efforts and we want to thank you all for being with us here today. We have some certificates that we'd like to uh give you all. We're going to be calling out uh five names. I know there's only three of you here, but we can have um the the one of the school administrators or or teachers take these certificates back to the school so they can give to your your buddies at school. Okay. So, when you hear your names, uh come up here and and receive your certificate. Isaac Montavis. [applause] Make sure you shake everybody else's hand in the crowd. Noah,

Damian Amager. [applause] Jasmine

I got Randy Tippens [applause] with you guys standing right here. However you want to line up first to oldest

all your friends are watching Marcus. Thank

[applause]

I don't have a certificate for you. So, Robert Arroas is named after our police chief's grandfather. So, he's got a lot of pride in that school.

Uh, we're going to go ahead and establish quorum at this time. Ruben Rees here, Craz. Alejandro Garcia here, Mayor Rudy Cruz here, Gina Cordero here, and Irene Roas present. Mayor, we have a quorum. Thank you. Uh, at this time, we're going to go ahead and proceed with the public comment uh portion of our meeting. Our first speaker is Jeremy Hendricks. Mr. Hendris, you have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and Staff. My name is Jeremy Hendricks, and I live in District 4 in the Arterial One project area. Tonight, I want to speak to you about El Paso's proposed road fee on their water bills and what it means for Oral. I've submitted my written comments to the city secretary and I respectfully request that those remarks be reflected in the minutes and my and my written statement be included in the record. Right now, El Paso is considering a new transportation user fee, a monthly charge on their El Paso water bill to help pay for their street repairs. A few dollars every month may not sound like much, but across the whole city it adds up to million dollars a year. That's millions. Just to keep their existing streets drivable. They are talking about this fee because their current budget cannot keep up their basic road maintenance even though residents face higher water and wastewater rates. I'm bringing this up because of Sakoro is headed down that same road with new roads we cannot afford to maintain. The Sakoro is relatively lucky. Currently most of our current corridors um are our residents drive every day which include North Flute, Sakoro, Alamita 375 and horizon are maintained by Texot. Text dot carries a long-term maintenance burdens on these big roads which helped keep the local streets relatively the cost relatively low. Arterial one is different. However, the city of this is a city of Squirrel project. As the project sponsor of the city of Squirrel must find money to build it, buy the rideways and then pay for it for decades of overlays, pothole repairs, drainage fixes, and eventually reconstructions once this four-lane city road is built. We own the bill, not Texot. That means a future council like yourselves will face the same choices that El Pas El Paso is facing right now. Will we raise property taxes? Will we add a street fee on our own water and garbage bills? Will we add more debt on top everything else already discussing for roads infrastructure? I'm asking you to be honest with the residents about the long-term cost before you move an inch further with arterial one. Before advancing this

product, the city should publish a realistic life cycle cost estimate for arterial one with a clear explanation of which revenue sources will pay for. I'm asking the council to make a public comment that you will not impose future transportation fees on Sequoral utility bills to pay for the road your own residents have repeatedly asked you not to build. And finally, El Paso's proposed road fee is our warning label. We still have a choice. We can keep the no build on the table, which is in your emails. I'm referring to the no build resolution draft that nobody wants to sponsor, and focus on improving the existing state corridors we already have instead of creating a brand new fourlane city road that our small tax base will be stuck maintaining forever. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. Kyle Greenup,

Mr. Greenup, you have three minutes. As a resion, I'm here to comment on agenda item number 35 you have before you tonight. According to the Texas State Historical Association handbook online, it gives a little bit of history to the city of Sakoro. Part of the history that is stated online reads, "Sakoro has disincorporated and reincorporated several times. In 1985, the town blocked El Paso's plan to annex the town and voted by a margin of 263 votes to remain a separate corporation." The reason I bring this up is because we're in a very similar situation as to what Sakoro was in 40 years ago. Your forefathers didn't want to be part of El Paso. And I can only assume that it was because they wanted to control their future or your future rather and protect uh the culture that your community represents. I know this is very important to the city of Sakoro because also on the agenda tonight is another item to help protect the U mission trail which I commend you for considering that the position that Squorro was in 40 years ago is very similar to the position that we are in with the communities to the south and east of you and like I said I live in Athena West. We just want the opportunity to control our future and to control or help preserve the way of life that we're presently living. That that's the reason for the request.

I humbly ask the mayor and the council to release us from your ETJ in response to the hundreds of signatures that we've given and in support of this cause. and we promise if it is released we will still be very good neighbors. Thanks for your time.

Thank you Mr. Greeno. [clears throat] Miss Namaro, before you call the next uh public comment speaker, um there were some inquiries and I think that it it um we we owe it to our residents to provide um some factual statements. Um, so the city would like to provide some factual statements at this time in response to the uh the first public comment that that was made. So the city of El Paso has declined the proposed transportation user fee at this time. As a result, no such fee has been adopted. Um, also notably the city of El Paso and the city of Sakoro differ significantly in terms of population size, infrastructure network, and geographic coverage area. And so consequently, the long-term maintenance obligations and financial impacts faced by each city uh cannot be directly compared or assumed to be similar. Uh it's also essential to note that the city of Sakuroto does not own or operate any utilities including water services as a separate entity. The lower valley water district is entirely independent of the city of Sakoro. Uh so therefore uh any reference to the city imposing fees through utility bills is not applicable as we do not issue or control any of the water bills. Uh to ensure uh transparency, the city of Sooto has taken proactive steps to prepare for long-term roadway maintenance obligations. Uh for example, um the transportation reinvestment zone, also known as the TRZ for Novo Waco tanks. Uh this was established in 2010 and so the TRZ currently holds an estimated $7 million which can be used for the future maintenance of the roadway. Uh this demonstrates how the city has been planning ahead and will continue to prepare responsibly for future infrastructure needs. Um, so these statements are provided to ensure that accurate information is available to the public and that there's no

misinformation presented here today or any other day at our council meetings regarding the city of Sakoro's financial planning, infrastructure responsibilities or util utility authority. And you can go ahead and call the next uh public speaker, James Loenberg. Mr. Loenberg, you have three minutes. Is there any way to play the uh homepage video real quick?

So during public comment, we um we we can engage and but you know what what we can do is um when when item 35 comes up um we can have discussion and I think a lot of questions can be answered and there can be uh back and forth during item 35. Yes, sir. That's fine. Come back. Yes, absolutely. Um Um, how many more speakers do we have? One more. One more. Okay. Maris, Miss, you have three minutes. Good evening.

Well, this is the first time I'm here and the reason I am here for is for number 25, if I'm not mistaken. 24. I'm sorry. So, my concerns here with um 10371 Mansana, I don't want I don't want to We'll stop the clock. Okay. Um Jim, is can she speak on any of the items before we get to the item or during public comment? Can they address uh any of the specific items that are in the agenda or does she have to wait for 24 to come up?

Okay. Um do you mind waiting until until item 24 is is um up on the agenda. That way we can we can also engage in discussion as well on that one. when we signed up for public comment, it's it's kind of a like a general um it's not specific to any certain item, but since you reference a certain item on the on the agenda, um we have to we have to just specify um that. Well, I would rather go because I do need to go to my second job if you all don't. Sure thing, you can make a public comment. Um and we'll So, I'll make I'll make it very brief. Mainly is um

you can start your three minutes again. I'm sorry. My big concern is that they're they're trying to bring uh build some apartments in my backyard. And my main big concern is traffic. We don't have the main in and out main street is Elsid. The rest in my understanding years of living here, they're all farm roads. You know, we recently got approved for some apartments two blocks away. That's going to increase our traffic. The subdivision that is next to place road that has increased our traffic. So that is what my main concern is not only for us as residents but for the school for safety for police department all the way around. That is really what I wanted to bring out.

Okay. Thank you ma'am. I'll make it short because I know I need to go and I know you guys have no worries and we appreciate your comments and and if there's any other um questions that you might have or concerns, you're always welcome to visit our offices and sit with staff and we'll be more than happy to sit with you and answer any questions or I sure will do that because I'm very interested. I mean, I'm willing to, you know, we're I I want to see Saporo grow and be better. Correct. But we can't if we're still here 50 years ago. Yeah. Or plus because those old Soro has not changed. Yeah. And so our offices that are at um 124 Horizon and you're more than happy to go in there and schedule a meeting,

sit down with your city rep or myself or even staff. Uh can you let me know who is this? Your city rep is going to be Miss Gina Corddero. She's sitting to my left and she represents district three because if I'm not mistaken, was it that was mine a year ago? Yes, ma'am. and I didn't know who to go to. All right. Excellent. Thank you for your comments. All right. Have a good evening everyone. You too. Have a good evening. Those were all our speakers later.

Yes. Thank you. Um so we're moving on to consent agenda there. Um there is a slight discrepancy on agenda item six. Instead of the month of December, I should have read November. So, we'll be taking action on either approving or disapproving um with the exception of item six. So, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve consent agenda with the exception of moving December 13th. No, no, no, no. It has to be We're deleting item six.

Oh, okay. Um motion to uh consent agenda with deleting item six. Motion to approve consent agenda and delete item six. A second. So there's been a motion second and third uh to consent the agenda with the uh deletion of agenda item number six. All those in favor say I. I.

That motion carries. And so we'll be moving on to the regular agenda. And you know, council, I I don't I don't want to keep um our neighbors waiting. I know there's there's a large group of individuals here that are waiting to hear um about agenda item number 35. Would anyone like to entertain a motion move agenda item up on the list? Motion to move item 35 up. Second. So there's been a motion by Mr. Garcia and a second by uh Miss Roas to move agenda item 35 before 12. All those in favor say I. I.

That motion carries. Um at this time we're going to be. Presenting agenda item 35. [clears throat] And this is the discussion and action [snorts] regarding petition to release the following real property from the acres described as Vista Bonita subdivision blocks. I'm sorry. Releasing the property from the city of Sakoto's extra jurisdictional extra territorial jurisdiction approximately 2,00 I'm sorry 2.689 square miles or 1,830.4 acres described as Vistabonita subdivision. These are blocks 1 2 3 456 789 10 112 1314 Peon Valley Estate Subdivision blocks 1 2 3 456 789 Grihalva subdivision block 1 Athena West subdivision blocks 123 456 789 1011 Angel's Park subdivision blocks 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 40 40 42 43 44 and Sanisio grant blocks 22 23 24 and 36. Motion to approve.

Second. So I have Mr. uh Bettis presenting this item um as as per the agenda. Mayor, with your permission, mayor, address this. Go ahead, Mr.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Jim Martinez, city attorney. Um, your your staff has done the analysis on this. I think we've talked in the past. Um, first of all, let me make sure I I understand count have council's permission. Generally, my advice to council is done in close session because it's privileged. Is it council's wish that I address this in open session today? Uh, how do you all feel? Um, I know in the past we've discussed these types of items in executive. I' I'd like I'd like to personally discuss this in in open session um in front of the residents of all of these blocks and the applicants. But again, it's up to you all um how you'd like to proceed.

For purposes of transparency, I agree um to leave it open. Um, I need a consensus on the table. Do we want to discuss on the table in open session or would you like to enter into executive? Let's do it here. Okay. So, there's a consensus. Uh, Mr. Martine, we can go ahead and discuss this.

Understood. Thank you, council. Um, your staff did the analysis. As you may recall, there's there's a recipe. There's a statute that says there's one of two ways you can meet satisfy the requirement. And once it's satisfied, then it's just a ministerial act. The city is required to release the jurisdiction to release that uh property from the juris from the ETJ. It's either a majority of the voters or a majority by value of the land of the owners of the land. A majority by value as determined by the CAD. Your staff has done the analysis. This petition doesn't meet either requirement. They don't have the right number sufficient number of voters. And then using the CAD data, they don't have majority of the owners of the value of the land. A majority, I'm sorry, they don't have the owners of a majority of the value of the land. So in light of active staff's recommendations to Mr. Martinez, um this is something that's that's new for us. Um for me, at least this body. Um, but can I ask because I've read I've read the rules. Um, these types of applications are are something that they um whether a municipal or local government agrees or disagrees or or votes to disapprove by law, Texas law, it's still it's still um it still goes through. But if if they meet the requirements, but the requirements that are not being met right now um that that's something that the applicants have to go back and correct or they just they don't meet it. There's there's no the statute. Well, let me start with your comment. It's new.

It is new. It's relatively new in Texas law. Municipalities around the state are struggling with this. They're figuring out how to navigate this issue. Um there's a couple of parts of the statute that I wish they were written differently. You kind of have to think, well, I guess that's what they meant. It's it's not altogether clear. It says, for instance, it says a majority of the voters of the area. Okay. Well, the v voters who live there or the voters who own property there or or does it have to be both or some does it mean something else? It's just it's not clear. It says the voters of the area. Um but to to answer your your specific question, the statute doesn't contain any tale. doesn't contend any wind up provision like a resoning application which you know if it fails the ordinance says and the statute says you got to wait a year you got to wait one calendar year to come back that's not in this statute um the way I read that then means that they're they're free at any time to try to come back and submit a new petition that does have a majority of the owners or or a majority of the voters rather or the owners of majority of the value by of the land by value

is it's just it's time consuming for for our staff to have to sit there and go through every single um description of the blocks and then and then also the coordination with the uh the El Paso County Elections Committee as well. What what can we do to help the applicants and in in this because um I I think it's fair to say that Sakoro is is is not in disagreement. Um, I just I just feel that if this is something that that that we were to approve right now, what what are the consequences for them in the future and trying to to uh submit this application once again? I mean, it gets denied. Yeah, I don't think you can. I mean, the way the statute is written, it's it's a very narrow path. It's very simple, but it's very narrow. You there's one of two criteria. You meet this recipe one way or the other. or you don't. And the way the statute's written, you can the city can only release it, can only grant the petition if one of those criteria is met. And the negative implication is, well, if neither of those criteria is met, then the city cannot release it. And so my point is, I don't think the city's authorized to do that right now. I don't think the city has legal grounds to to grant the petition to the release and to release the ETJ in light of the num the numbers of voters who have signed it, in light of the total value owned by the people who did sign.

What's our liability if we do or we don't release?

Yeah, that that that's not clear. The problem with with real estate is it's expensive. And you're talking about a fairly large piece of real estate here. This is a big area. Um and if you can't tell from the from the block the subdivision and block descriptions of the agenda item, there's hundreds and hundreds of individual parcels. So, I mean, that's millions of dollars at the very least. Um, I I don't to me that that's concerning. I I wouldn't advise council to to do that unless you to grant it unless you're confident that you have solid a solid legal basis to rely on like a majority of the voters or or a majority of the owners, the owners, a majority of the value. And what do these individuals have to do to that's what they want, which we're we're trying to give it to them. I I yeah, I think it's just math. I mean, if you bring more more if you get the signatures of more of the voters, I mean, I mean, if say there's 600 voters, well, if you came in with five signatures of 500 of them, that'd be pretty easy. That wouldn't be a very difficult call. Similarly, in terms of value, let let's just take a number. Let's say that the land's worth $25 million. Well, if the owners come in and it turns out the these this handful of owners own 20 million of it, will that be they are all petitioners. That'd be a fairly easy analysis. So something like that. I mean for the short term, I guess to to give you a broader answer, the applicants are free to continue to try. I mean, they can try to get more signatures.

Do any uh other members of council have any questions or I got a I got a comment. Uh how come we keep bringing this item if it's incomplete? Do who has to to I mean not to be disrespectful to to the persons bringing the item. I just don't want to be wasting nobody's time to get all of you guys here and then we can't pass it because it's it's not the right

um item. I'm I'm just giving a comment. Um is is there a way for for the city to if they bring it again look into it if it's gonna Yeah. If it's going to be able to to vote on it, we'll bring it to council. If not, let them know that it's not complete.

Yeah. The the answer is under current law, no. The way the statute's written, there there's no prohibition against them trying again. And the reason it's here is because they've submitted a another petition. Each time we brought it to council, they've submitted a petition and it's either an amended petition, a revised petition. They supplemented some part of it and every time they've done that, your staff has said, "Well, okay, that's new information. That's a new item. We'll process it. We'll do the analysis and we'll present it to council."

So, let's just say if they keep changing it a little bit at a time, they could they could potentially bring it 100 times till they get it correct. un under the current state of the law, I think that's true. As odd as it seems, what you would need to prevent that kind of thing from happening is a provision like I talked about before I referred to the zoning change ordinance where if you fail, if you don't, if the zoning change is denied, you've got to wait. There's a waiting period. You got one calendar year before you can ask again. That kind of limitation is not in the statute. Okay.

I I [clears throat] have a comment. Um, I'm assuming at this point that piece was not clear to the constituents and is why they're they keep trying. I'm I'm assuming and wondering if that's the reason, you know. I I don't know. Your staff was the one involved in the analysis. Okay. So, I believe that question is to the petitioner. Yes. Um, I just wanted to make a broad statement in for them to analyze the statement. So I believe we had a a speaker for we have two. Okay. Kyle Greenup.

Yes, you were aware. You get to speak again.

I pretty much uh finished my uh what I had to say. U one thing I can add is what we haven't been uh given or what uh hasn't been shared with us is what your council feels we failed at because we feel we met the state requirements. The state requirements are a minimum of 50% of the the voters. We feel we exceeded that. Actually I think we had over 600 So what what uh did we get 49% according to council? Did we get uh 30% what uh the the land value? I understand it's going to be very very difficult to do that because a lot of land owners are are out of town. So it's going to be very difficult. Uh especially the new commercial developments. it's going to be difficult to add them as far as signatures for land value. But for registered voters, uh there was a lot of confidence that that number had been exceeded. So I don't know if that can be shared by council or by whoever did the analysis or uh do we have to schedule a meeting? What do we have to do?

Mayor for Edwards for I can tell you I don't have that information. I didn't do that analysis. And the other thing was is

so. I have a question. So, who's who's who's helping you all with your application? Because I I feel like we're we're trying to do our best and and give you all the information that we're allowed to give you and have our attorneys work. They cannot cross a certain a certain line because they're they work for the city. Our attorneys, who's helping you all with your application,

you know, you know, it's helping us honestly. It's more which is that valuation. If that's the case, I'll value mine $20 million my property value his he'll value his and we'll get it we'll bump it up to to silly valuation. The law states 50% of the registered voters. We got our registered voters from the county. We got a log and we walk these streets just like any politician does. You get your logs and to go by property owners. I concentrated on property owners and our petition has a lot of property owners. I didn't ask any property owners or registered voters and believe it or not there's a lot of youth that were registered and there were there were weren't adults that were just property owners but I got them to sign too and and to go through this to me this this of the valuation. It goes beyond reasons go by the registered voters. We hump and we watch and the dogs chased us. I mean this is why just like when uh when we had that we paid for the for the 9 verified signatures out of 900. You guys never gave us what you guys verified. The county of El Paso said they're not going to verify it until there's a lawsuit. When there's a lawsuit, then they'll verify it because it's expensive. So that lead to believe

didn't verify these things. If they verify it, I want to see this proof. I want to I want to get the open records and see what the proof of the verified. But we went to our do this. To me, this is just a delayed tactic of these bunch of morons are going to go away. They'll run out of money eventually. But you're all you're doing is making a bunch of people angry. And just like he said earlier, went through this with El Paso and I think you guys would have some sympathy there. Say, "Hey, you know what? These guys, they want to preserve their lifestyle." Just like I was going to ask him to play the video of your home page. You guys have this very pretty thing. Horses running cotton fields. Guess what? They're gone. All these things are gone. And it's ironic. You don't put a warehouse in there.

And it's just like it's just like all these data centers coming into our areas where we don't have the water, but everybody sure wants them. And that's what we're trying to preserve our quality of life just like you guys. And if we have obstacles, then tell us the obstacles. Don't just say I refuse it because the land. So if your attorney is saying this, I just want to see where the paperwork instead of waiting two weeks to get it from has been awesome. And she gives me the stuff and then I go and we go back and we we pay for all this stuff. We get this done. So it's like you're you're you're just developing an academy as far as you guys dragging our feet and this thing about the u the valuation it's nonsense. I mean who would have thought that the farm Brown's farm would have sold for as much as it did but it did so it sold. So these valuations are just nothing and it's just we need to know because you guys keep moving the ball was very simple. You mean nothing about land valuation was on that on that law. So to us we had 900 and something [clears throat] registered voters. We got 519 verified by us. If you guys want to see that it's like I'm trying to be nice about this because I live I work in this community and heck you guys are a customer of mine and so I don't want to be that guy that does that. So, I mean, whatever it is you need to do, I want your attorney to be open about it because if he's kicking the can because it all seems like he's in the

pocket of the developers and it sounds bad, but why else would they restrict that? We just want a better life. So, we're trying to comply with you all and I I think Mr. Martinez had a statement that he wanted to give in in reference to your inquiry.

Yes, sir. To be clear, um I haven't kicked any cans today. Um the reference to the value of the land is not something I made up. It was written by the Texas legislature. I I'll read a short portion of the statute. A petition requesting release under this subchapter must be signed by more than 50% of the registered voters of the area described by the petition. as of the date of the preceding election or a majority in value of the holders of title of the land in the area described by the petition as indicated by the tax roles of the applicable central appraisal district. That's the law. So, and I can tell you one more thing.

The elections department is the our source of information, your staff source of information for the number of voters of the area. According to the county of El Paso's election department, there are 1,076 voters. And just one house with 12 registered voters list. Guess what? So, but who did you get the revised list from? We got it from the county.

Okay. That's a county. and we're getting our information from the county as well. So, we we have the same information that that you're asking for. The thing is is I don't think it's a question of the amount of voters that you guys got. I think it's a question of when when they registered to vote and and they were added to your your petition. We're not we're not I'm speaking with with all honesty and and and and just transparency. That's why we did it in open session. I didn't want to go kick everybody out and talk about this behind closed doors. I think it's it's fair. We are trying We're trying to help y'all as much as y'all can. That's why I asked who's who's helping y'all because I think you guys need either someone else to help you or maybe an attorney to help you all. Yeah.

Uh understand the the laws. I've had to understand this, too. I've had to do research on this. I I've never dealt with something like this. I I've had to read up a lot on this.

Yeah. We're not we're not asking for any concessions. We're not asking to uh do something that isn't defined by law by any means. We were just very confused why we felt we were so confident or why we were so confident in the number and it appears there's a different number out there. So what we'd really like is just some cooperation and that's why I said earlier how do we get this do we schedule a meeting everybody throws everything on the table and say look this is what we have what do you all have uh and uh if it's cooperative it's great we don't want it to be adversarial and you're making that point that you want it to be either. So, if we can somehow get together and start comparing our data and find out where the discrepancy is, we're willing to correct it.

Yeah. And I think that that that's where the confusion comes because understand that our our our staff and our attorneys can only do so much of the work. They they'll do the work that they have to, but they they can't they can't do the work for you. I know it sound I know it sounds ugly, but you guys are the applicant, right? It's like it's like any developer that comes in and they apply for a permit or something. we we're not going to do it for them because we don't know what they want to build. Um I think it's fair though that our our staff has has has always been um welcoming and open to sitting down with with the initial applicant or applicants. Um and they can actually sit down and and like tell you this is what y'all are lacking. Yeah.

Um and I know it's difficult to understand especially with all the legal terms that that they use in the legislature or the law. It's hard to understand sometimes some of these words. But uh also what is the magic number, right? What's the magic number that we need to hit? I think you guys got the numbers. The thing is is that your registered voters that you added to your list now, they were not registered at the deadline that they had to be registered at, right? They had to be registered in the in the previous um election, county election or

So there's there's certain factors, right? And we can definitely set up a meeting and and sit down and discuss. Right now, we're looking at a 44 45% of registered voters. So, you're just missing a maybe a 5%. I don't have that exact number in front of me, but what we do know is that you're not meeting that 50% based on our analysis, right? So, we can definitely sit down and and discuss that, but nobody has really ever wanted to schedule meeting

the petition it, you know, but we're always available to meet with the public and and make sure that we sit down and and discuss it. So, schedule a meeting with with um the applicant, our applicants, and then um if y'all need to walk a few more houses and get chased by a few more dogs, then so be it. Um there's home. We'll get there eventually. Um we're not trying to be difficult with you, but I I do know that um if if if this is something that we that we were to approve today, that that would be careless on our on our behalf. Honestly, we would that would be careless. We want to do it. We want to do it the right way.

And so do we. Um, we we we we'd be taking shortcuts and we wouldn't be doing y'all justice if we were to approve this and it's incorrect. We we don't want to do that. If that's fair to y'all. Yep. Okay. Thank you for understanding and for being cooperative. Um, you know, name calling and being aggressive and being is not going to get us anywhere. We're trying to be as transparent to support everybody. You know, this is this is what you want. We're trying to get it along with you. Um, but you know, we don't want to be enemies. We all live in Saporro. We all care for Saporro. And I truly appreciate that you were understanding and cooperative. Likewise. Thank you for

Thank you all. Thanks for the time. Thank you, sir. Miss, do we have any more public speakers on this? No, we have no more speakers. Motion. Um, we just need to amend the motion. No. So, we Yeah, we have to amend it. Amend it. Right. I'd like to amend the motion to deny uh motion to deny the petition. Second. Okay. So, there's been a motion and second to deny the petition at this time. Second. Uh Miss Roas, Mr. Garcia, motion. And so, all those in favor say I. Any oppose or abstain?

That motion carries. We're going to move on to agenda item number 12. This is a U public hearing of an ordinance number 635, amendment number four, amendment to decrease in the amount of $42,944 fiscal year 2024 2025. It's 652 p.m. and public hearing is now open. No speakers, mayor.

Thank you. As there are no speakers, we're going to go ahead and close it at 652 as well. And we move on to agenda item 13. This is the second reading and adoption of ordinance number 635, amendment number four, amendment to decrease in the amount of $42,944 fiscal year 2024 2025. Motion to approve. Second.

Good evening, mayor and council. Adriana Rodart, the city manager for the city of Sakuro. Tonight, I'm presenting the final budget amendment for the previous fiscal year. This amendment is necessary to ensure that our year-end financials securely um reflect actual expenditures and revenues. We are requesting approval to reduce the overall budget by $42,944. This adjustment is the result of a year-end reconciliation and reflects a true financial activity for this fiscal year. As included in your backup material, we have provided a detailed explanation of the fund codes being increased and decreased. These adjustments are routine housekeeping measures to allow us to align the budget with actual spending patterns. By doing so, we maintain accurate financial reporting and ensure compliance with auditing and accounting requirements. And I am happy to answer any questions.

Do any members of council have any questions or comments on this item? No. No. Uh there was a motion to approve. All those in favor say I. I. I. Thank you. Any oppos or abstain? That motion carries. Agenda item number 14. This is a public hearing of an ordinance for the proposed Alama Estates Replat D subdivision being a replat of lot 9 block 2 Alama State subdivision and located at 11033 Sunny Brook Lane Soto, Texas. It's 6:54 p.m. and public hearing is now open.

No speakers, ma'am. Okay. As there are no speakers, we'll go ahead and close public hearing at 6:54 p.m. as well. Agenda item number 15. This is the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the proposed Alama State's replat D subdivision being a replat of lot 9, block two, Alama State subdivision and located at 11033 Sunny Brook Lane, Sakoroto, Texas. Motion to approve.

Second. Good evening, mayor and council Lorine Kimo, city planner. The first item on the agenda from the planning and zoning department is item number 15. The property Aldama Estates subdivision replat B is located at at lot 9, block two, Aldama Estates. The property owner, Hosatina Contreras, and her representative, Maria uh Groles of GRB Integrated. Um [clears throat] uh Miss uh Robles is in the audience to answer any questions should council have any after the presentation. Uh the property is uh just under an acre in size. It is currently zoned R1 and the current land use is residential. The request is for approval of a reflat uh to divide the current lot into two. The staff recommends approval of the replat request. The zoning planning and zoning commission voted to approve the request 3 to zero at their November 4th meeting. The property is located uh on Sunny Brook Sunny Brook Lane. It is R1 surrounded by R1 zoning, single family residential zoning. These are photographs taken of the property from a Sunny Brook Lane. The aerial shows the single family home at the front of the property and uh the the uh area to the rear. And as previously stated, the purpose of the reflat is to divide the lot into two. uh one would be uh just under 17,000 square feet square feet and the

second one would be 23,232 square feet with access to the rear uh off of Sunnybrook. And in summary, the request is for approval of a replat for Aldama Estates replat D and staff can answer any questions and again the applicant's representative is also in attendance. Can you all bring up the uh the last slide before the questions? Next one.

So the um the image that we're seeing right here is is that that small long thin that narrow entrance is that the way into the property to the rear? Yes. To the rear. And and you can see it in the photograph. Okay. Will will will that be part of that rear property? Yes. And the reason I'm asking is because we we see this all over so the the our old uh parts of the community, right, where the properties get sold off and then the front neighbor seals off the entrance and they're landlocked now and there's there's no way to get utilities in. They don't let me drive through there no more and I don't have a way into my property. So that this takes care of this is a part of the second block.

Okay. takes care of it. Um, is Miss Contas in the in the crowd today, Miss Cortez? Uh, can can you come up to the mic? What um what are what are you all planning to build there? A few years ago, my husband passed away in 2020. Sorry to hear that.

And um the land he used to have a shop on the back. He used to build um reveal old with her father with his father and after him passing away I'm having a very hard time paying the taxes for the house is u and I have three daughters in college right now so right now at this point I'm trying to sell the back to my father-in-law because he has a sentimental value to him and because I wanted to sell the whole house because I couldn't afford it anymore to pay the taxes but he's willing to pay uh to buy the half the the back so he can keep it that way it will help me pay for the house taxes and he can take care of the back. That's why we want to do it like this so we can both benefit from it.

I don't think anybody here has problem with people making some extra income or helping you survive you and your family. So, uh there was a motion and second on the table for this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am. That motion carries and passes. [clears throat] Agenda item number 16. This is the public hearing of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sooto's master plan and reszoning a portion of track 28A22 block 9 Soto grant located at 10752 Mel Road Sooto Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a duplex. It's 700 p.m. Public hearing is now open.

No speakers mayor. As there are no speakers on this item for public hearing, we're going to go ahead and close it at 7 PM as well. Agenda item 17. This is the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and reszoning a portion of track 28A 22 block 9 Sooro grant located at 10752 Melward Road, Sakoro, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a duplex. Motion to approve. Second.

Uh thank you, mayor and councel. Uh the next agenda item is a resoning request. This property is located at tract 28A22 block 9, Sakoro Grant. The property owner is ME Land Holdings LLC. Their representative, Salvador Samura. The property is 8,192 square feet in size. Currently zoned R1. And currently uh the land use is a residential duplex. The request is for approval of the reszoning of the property from R1 to R2 to allow the existing duplex to remain on the property. Planning and zoning staff recommends approval of the request and the planning and zoning commission voted for approval uh unanimous unanimously with three members present at their December 2nd uh planning and zoning meeting. So the is located uh on Melward just uh uh east of the sorry west of the Mesa drain. It is zoned R1 as well as the property surrounding it. This is a view of Ly called this the subdivision map. This is part of uh Sakoro grant of block nine supplement and shows this uh area divided out into tracks and the roads uh are dedicated and there was no date but this dates back to to the the grant. Um and while there are 48 uh lots or tracks uh it was it's a a very it's a broad mix of different types of construction. There are two vacant lots in the in the in the subdivision.

The future land use map designates the area as a suburban residential and the aerial image shows the residential building on the property, a storage uh unit, a storage um unit in the back and the residential and vacant surrounding the property. The photograph on taken from Melward shows the existing uh duplex. Notifications were sent to property owners within 200 ft. And we did receive one letter in support of the request. a resident who uh stated that she's a has lived in the neighborhood for for 50ome years. Uh sees the the improvement that this uh investment in this property has done for the for the neighborhood and it's better than some of the other well-kept uh kept better kept better wellkept uh than other properties in the neighborhood. The next site should be the letter. There you go. And the site plan showing again the existing uh property, the storage space in the back and the the parking for the the two units. In summary, the request is for approval of a reasonzoning of a property from R1 to R2 to allow for an existing duplex on the property. Um, with that, staff can answer any questions.

Do any members of council have any questions or comments on this item? Okay, that was a motion and second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed or abstain? That motion carries. We're moving on to agenda item number 18. This is the public hearing of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sooto's master plan and reszoning of lot 4, block 19, Freiedman Estates unit 2 located at 400 Masher Way, Sakoro, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a duplex. And it's 7:05 p.m. Public hearings now open.

No speakers, mayor. As there are no speakers, we'll go ahead and close it at 7:05 p.m. as well. Agenda item number 19. This is the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and reszoning of lot 4, block 19, Freiedman Estates, unit 2 located at 400 Masher Way, Sakoro, Texas, from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a duplex. Motion to approve. Second.

Uh, thank you, mayor and councel. The Property 400 Mosher Way is located in the Freiedman Estates Unit 2 subdivision. It is lot four, lot four, lot 19. Ava Development LLC is the owner and their representative is Enrique Yala. The property is a little over 10,000 square feet in size and currently zoned R1. The property is vacant and the future land use map designates the area as suburban residential. In summary, the request is for approval of a reszoning of a property from R1 to R2 to allow for a a duplex and staff recommends approval of the zoning request. Planning and zoning voted for approval 3 to zero at their December 2nd planning and zoning meeting. Uh the property is located on uh Mosher Way. It is zoned R1 and surrounded by R1 residential property. Freiedman Estates unit 2 was uh recorded in 1987. It originally contained 297 residential lots. Of those uh 292 are R1 and there have been uh five resonings. At R2, there are four unit R2s and one uh R3 and there are 14 vacant lots in the subdivision. As previously stated, the future land use map designates the area as suburban residential and the aerial image shows the vacant lot with the uh surrounding residential land uses. These are photographs taken from Mosher Way.

Public notices were sent to property owners um within 200 f feet of the applicant property. No notices were uh received either in favor or against the request. And the site plan uh shows the single building with the two units and very much keeping in the uh feel of a single building [clears throat] as um it shows the uh entryway on on Mosher and the ponding area in the rear. In summary, the request is for approval of a resoning of a property from R1 to R2 to allow for a duplex. And with that, staff can answer any questions.

Do council have any questions or comments? Members of council. [clears throat] There was a motion and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I.

Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. The next item is agenda item number 20. This is the public hearing of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and resoning of lot 18 block 4 L park replat located at 366 Tanya Drive Sakoro Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46-259. the purpose to allow for an existing quadruplex on the property instead of the three maximum allowable units. It's 7:09 p.m. Public hearing is now open. No speakers, ma'am.

As there are no speakers, we'll go ahead and close the public uh hearing at 7:09 p.m. as well. Agenda item number 21.

21. This is a second second reading adoption of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sooto's master plan and reszoning of lot 18 block 4 L park ref located at 366 Tanya Drive Sakoro Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46-259 purpose to allow for an existing quadruplex on the property instead of the three maximum allowable units. Motion to approve. Second.

Uh thank you, mayor and councel. The 366 Tanya Drive uh reszoning request is from property owner and representing himself, Jonathan Viagran. The property is 8,59 square ft. It is currently zoned R1 and the current residential land use is a residential quadruplex. The future land use map designates the area as suburban residential and the request is for approval of a reszoning of a property from R1 to R2 to with a variance from section 46 to 59 to allow for the existing four units on the property instead of the allowable three. Uh staff recommends approval of the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval uh 30 to zero at their December 2nd planning and zoning meeting. The property is um on Tanya Road uh just near uh Horizon Boulevard. The zoning is R1 and it is surrounded by R1 zoning. The Lind Park subdivision was recorded in 1971 and it contained 15 53 lots. Originally there are 143 R1 lots, two R2s, two R3s and four C1 zoned lots and two C2 zoned lots. Those mostly on Horizon Boulevard and then 12 vacant lots. uh future land use map designates the area as suburban residential. The next slide should be uh the aerial photograph showing the existing building the residential

property surrounding the applicant property and the photographs show uh the property on Tanya Drive. This is a quadriplex and Mr. Vagaran uh inherited this from his father. Is unclear when they converted this single family home to a quadruplex, but as far as every anyone can remember, that's what it was. We did not find any legal non-conforming documentation to show that this was in existence before uh the city adopted zoning. Uh but there uh it did blends well with the neighborhood and uh we had speakers at the planning and zoning commission speak against the request. Uh there was the the young young lady that spoke earlier today as well as as well as a gentleman uh sorry this is not her item but um the gentleman that spoke against it talked about similar concerns with traffic but didn't even realize that that had been a quadriplex um for for a long Uh these are the residents that received notice of the public hearing. Oh, and these are two letters in support of the request. And there were two speakers that spoke against the request. Uh one was in person and one was via phone. also similar um concerns regarding traffic and uh the next slide is the site plan showing the existing building the parking for the the four units. Uh in summary, the request is for

approval of a reszoning of a property from R1 to R2 medium density residential with a variance request to allow for the existing quadruplex on the property instead of the three maximum allowable units. And with that, staff can answer any questions. And Mr. Vadran is also uh in attendance to answer any questions you may have as well. Do you all have any questions for uh Mino or the applicant? Is it clear that you mentioned that it's already a I'm sorry. Is it already a

a quadruplex? Yes. Yeah. And it's been that way since his father owned it. central appraisal records show it as being uh four units at just at some point probably before any of us were working here that change happened or and they're just trying to correct something and um comply with the city's ordinances. Okay. So, it's already uh said as that just hasn't been used as that, right? No, no, it's been used as that for families. So then I'm confused as to why the they are against it if it's already it's already there. They the gentleman who spoke didn't realize that that was what that was. Okay.

No one was against it until they were notified that there's a quadruplex in their neighborhood. They didn't speak after uh after speaking to the applicant and hearing the whole presentation. But they that all they did they did air their concern regarding the traffic. But this won't change anything. Oh, and yeah, this won't change anything since it's already been in its existence. I guess the only comment I have is is the language on the item here that's um to allow for an existing quadruplex uh instead of the three maximum allowable Yeah. units. What What was planning and zoning's vote on this? Did they vote on this?

They approved it. Three to zero. And those were the three me commissioners in attendance. And and that this uh unit has different gas meters, water meters for all four units. Mr. City. Um so the units, I'm sorry, I rent them as all-incclusive pretty much. So I pay the gas, electric, um all utilities as well. trash. They just give me a x amount of random months. You take care of all utilities.

Yes. They all have all four of them have ACs. They all have boilers. They all have their own furnace. So, everyone lives independently. And the reason you charge you pay for it is because it's only a single unit or each unit has its own. No, it's a single unit. And then on the car, my dad, my dad like you built the house. late 90s passed away in 2017. My mom kept up with the business. She retired. I took over this house in three years ago and finding out this year it was wrong. So,

how how did the uh the need for the application come? Is this something like code compliance? Well, it came on on your own trying to make things right and be in compliance. It's that's very honorable. Thank you. Um, yeah. Any other questions from council? I believe there was a motion and second on the table. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, the next agenda item on the table here is the agenda item number 22. This is the introduction and first reading and calling for a public hearing of an ordinance for the proposed amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and reszoning of tract 10 G block 3 Soro grant located at 10946 Bert Road Sakoro, Texas from R1 single family residential to A1 agricultural and a variance request from section 46-293 area requirement subsection one to allow for a 0.383 acre property instead of the 1 acre minimum lot requirement to allow for an existing storage container. It's 7:18 p.m. and well, public hearing is now open.

No speakers.

As there are no speakers, we'll go ahead and close the public uh hearing at 7:18 p.m. Mr. Re, can you leave that door open for us, please? That that one is fine. That's final. We'll be here. Agenda item number 23 is the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the proposed amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and reszoning of track 10G block 3 SKO grant located at 10946 Bert Road SKO Texas from R1 single family residential to A1 agricultural and a variance request from section 46-293 error requirements subsection one to allow a 0.383 acre property instead of the 1acre minimum lot requirements to allow for an existing storage container. Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you, mayor and councel. The reasonzoning request for Bert Road is uh presented by um the owner representing himself, Mr. Alejandro uh Danielle Abila. The property is 383 acres in size and currently zoned R1. The current land use is residential and the future land use map designates the area as rural residential. The request is for a reasonzoning of a property from R1 to A1 and a variance from the section 46293 area requirements to allow for a A1 zone property less than 1 acre. and the purpose is to uh allow a storage container. The staff recommended approval of the reszoning and the various variance request and the planning and zoning commission voted for approval 3 to zero at their November 2nd meeting. The property is located off of B on B road off of Horizon Horizon Boulevard. It is zoned R1 around the U property is R2 zoning and C1 zoning across the street from B on B [clears throat] and the property is located within a section uh section of excuse me uh block nine block three of the Saporro grant And the Sakoro grant had uh 36 tracks and as what you see now is the development that has occurred on B road. There are three new subdivisions that are in the process

of approval or uh final or have been fin have approved have been approved by city council. Those being Cottonwood Cove unit 2, Horizon Parks unit 3 and four. And in the center there The yellow is the applicant's property. The aerial image shows the uh trailer that is currently the mobile home that is on the property. And toward the rear, farthest away from Bert is the storage uh a a a semi trailer uh semi-truck trailer that he's current he is currently using as storage. So he did receive a notice of violation. He has gone to court uh to and has been instructed to remove the trailer. And this zoning change would allow him remove the trailer and replace it with a storage container. So, this semi trailer is not designed for storage and would not be allowed in R1, would not be allowed in A1, but you would need to remove the trailer in order to place the allowable storage container. Uh, these are photographs of the property. The top is from Bert Road and the bottom photograph is taken from the rear of the property. Public notices were sent out to property owners within 200 ft. No notice no notices either in support or opposition were received uh by staff. No one spoke either in favor or or against the item at the planning and zoning commission meeting. Uh this is a site that was provided to staff

showing the location of the mobile home. Uh the storage container which uh the applicant stated is being used to store material for the home that he hopes to build on the property. In summary, the request is for approval of a reszoning of a property from R1 to A1 and a variance from section 46 293 area requirement subsection 1 to allow a 383 acre property instead of the 1acre minimum lot requirement to place a storage container. With that, staff can answer any questions and the applicant is uh in attendance today to answer any questions that you might have as well. Any questions from council?

Mr. I have a question. Um I I know that the storage container that they want to use is to store materials for for future home build. Once the home is built, I mean, does it go back to residential? Do they have to reszone it again or No, he can continue to occupy the lot with his in his new home. we would have to remove the mobile home that he's currently living in because he would only be allowed one um single family home on the property, but the storage container would be allowed to stay if he gets resone to A1. Um there's no conditional use permits for storage containers on residential properties right now. No.

Okay. And and there's no agricultural uh activities being done on the property. It's just the zoning for in order to place a storage. Uh we have had a case uh for this property in the past. He has a horse. So that's rule but no farming agriculture that I'm aware of. But that might be a question for the applicant. I I like the storage container look better than the semi-tra looks better. Um any any uh questions on this item here? Uh there was a motion and second. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries.

The next item is agenda item 24. This is a public hearing of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sakoto's master plan and resoning of lot one block 12 Alama Estates replat subdivision located at 10371 Mansana drive so Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a triplex. It's 7:26 p.m. and the public hearing is now open. No speakers. As there are no speakers, we have one speaker.

We have one speaker. Good evening, mayor and council. Juan Bakera, resilient management team. Um, I'm the representative here. Um, it's for a triplex. I have a presentation if if we can give it. Okay. Um, then we can wait. If you have any questions, I'll be here. Okay. Well, uh, we'll allow you to, uh, present the item when it gets presented and there's discussion. Um, so, no, no speakers. No speakers, m. Okay. Uh, agenda item number 25. This is the second reading. Close the

I'm sorry. We're going to close the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Agenda item number 25, the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and resoning of lot 1, block 12, Alama State's Replat subdivision located at 10371, Mansana Drive, Sakoro, Texas, from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a triplex. Um, I would like to make a motion to postpone this item to our first meeting of January due to the um the resident who came and couldn't speak on this item. But that's my motion.

A second. Okay. So, uh, there's a table. I just just mind you, uh, we we did host a public hearing today and there's already uh planning and zoning meeting that took place on this item. There has been a motion by Mr. Garcia and a second by Miss Rojas to postpone this item to the next meeting and um our January 1 meeting is canceled. Right. Correct. So the our first meeting in January the 15th 15th.

So there's there's been a motion and a second on the table to postpone the item unless there's another motion and you all want to discuss this item today. to make a motion to approve. So then there's another motion to uh approve the discussion on this item. Is there a second? Second. Okay, Jim. In these instances, I have the first motion. Does that trump the second? Yes, it received a second. Correct. Yeah. So, there was a a motion by Mr. Garcia and a second by Miss Roas to postpone the item. Yeah. Once you have that, once you have a motion and a second, there's no further deliberation you need to vote on.

Okay. So, we're going to take the vote on the first uh motion and second uh to postpone the item. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? Nay. There's uh one nay on the table and everyone else uh approved it. Okay. So, it's uh it's been approved and this item will be postponed to the first meeting in January.

Do you know if the resident that came to speak on this item will be here at that meeting? I'm not sure. Will you contact her?

Yeah, I'll I'll try to get her information. I just want to make sure that everybody who needs to speak on this item and she had to leave for her second job uh has the opportunity to during public forum. Okay. And we're going to move on then to agenda item 26. This is the public hearing of an ordinance for the conditional use permit to allow for a mechanic shop in a C2 general commercial zoning district on track 5K5 Lake Survey 293 located at 1110 Visa Road, Sakoro, Texas. It's 7:30 p.m. Public hearing is now open. No speakers, mayor.

As there are no speakers, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Agenda item 27. This is the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the conditional use permit to allow for a mechanic shop in a C2 general commercial zoning district on track 5, K5, Lake Clark survey 293 located at 1110 Visa Road, Sooto, Texas. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second.

Thank you, mayor and council. Item 27 is a conditional use permit. the uh owner and uh representative Coronado Beno is requesting the conditional use permit to allow for a mechanic shop in a C2 general commercial zoning district. The property is 20,223 ft in size and its current land use is commercial. Staff recommends approval of the request and the planning and zoning commission voted for approval 3 to zero at their December 2nd meeting. The property is uh off of Nancy on Visa uh Road just at the edge of the city limits. It is a C2 surrounded by uh M1 industrial light industrial. The future land use map designates the area as regional commercial. The aerial image shows the property with the existing building and parking for the trucks uh to the rear and automobiles up front. These are side photographs of the property showing the existing building and the parking. Public notices were sent out to property owners within 200 ft. No notices were received either in favor or against the request and no one spoke at the planning and zoning meeting.

This is a site plan that was submitted again depicting the existing building, the truck parking. And in summary, the request is for approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a mechanic shop in a C2 uh general commercial zoning district. Uh with that, staff can answer any questions and Mr. Beno might be on the phone. No. Do any members of council have any questions on this item? Are this the one is this the property behind uh McDonald's and Horizon?

If you have to go further down. So uh that side street is Nancy. So on the side of McDonald as Nancy. And if you go all the way down before you get to the county, the city limits, you turn left to go up to the freeway, it's on that road, besides um Yeah. So, the the the general commercial zoning on this right here, was was this a uh code violation that they now had to request the use?

Yes. code went out and there was no business registration and they followed uh up with that. They registered the business and then um met with staff to uh understand what their zoning options were and they decided to go ahead and request the conditional use permit. Um after these permits are um are approved, is there follow up by code compliance to make sure because yeah they may have been operating as a mechanic shop and whatnot, but is there any followup to make sure that the disposal of certain fluids, chemicals, uh oils are being disposed of correctly and all that? Is is that something that we that we do on

our code code officers are uh you know responsible for maintaining the integrity of our community, right? The three code enforcement officers do their best to try to try to address all of the code infractions that exist. So, what I'm getting at is is if if it was operating without the the proper permits, um they may have to outfit their their facility now with new equipment that requires by law mechanic shops to have

Yeah, that would be probably more in the role of the building official, right? Because code enforcement catches things that they can see from the street. But we can investigate that further as long as as long as we follow up and make sure that they're they're in compliance. Okay. Any questions or comments on this one here? Okay, that was a a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. Thank you, Miss Kamito. We're moving on to uh our human resources department. Can we can we uh turn down the

please? Thank you. My nose is freezing. [laughter]

Agenda item 28. This is the discussion and action to approve the revision of C10 dress and personal appearance standards policy addressed in the employee handbook dated August 18, 2025. Motion to approve. Second.

Good evening, mayor and council. Carolia here, HR director. So, this discussion and actions to approve the revision of this C10 dress policy that was originally um updated in our August 18th employee handbook. Um and the reason for the determination to uh redo this policy was because we felt it was overly restrictive. So while maintaining the professional image remains important, the city recognizes the needs to be flexible and to better accommodate some of the employees in their roles and comfort and practical workplace needs uh without compromising professionalism and um service um to service the quality of our our business. The the revision was discussed with the human resources director, myself, of course, I talked to myself and the city manager [laughter] and the right and the civil service commission did approve the revised policy on our meeting on November 24th of 2025. I'm here to answer any questions if you'd like.

Any questions or comments for Carol? [laughter] What what were some of the the major revisions that that you uh off the top of your head? Um off the top of the head, uh shoe restrictions. Um we took away some of the shoe attire. Um felt it was a little bit restrictive. Um we also changed a little bit of some dress attires that was we felt a little bit restrictive. We did invoke of course our uh Friday casual day. Um also those that wear ties quite often, they're not they don't have to wear ties on Fridays, especially during the summer time. So some of those were some of the revisions picture [laughter] was removed. Exactly.

And now it's added. It's added. Correct. Well, it was it was added as a restriction. Um and of course with a number of comments we took it off. So they are now allowed to wear cowboy boots um and open toe shoes especially for the women. So yeah, I was going to say u I would have felt bad walking in here and [laughter] our staff wouldn't be allowed wearing go with me. So yes, it's it's the only time I get to wear my boots, right? And chief wears them all the time, so we had to make some exceptions. Chief wears boots, too. Yes. Yeah. It wouldn't sit. Well, Carol, you be sitting in the back of that patrol unit. Yes.

Okay. Well, um I had a lengthy conversation with myself in the mirror. Yeah. Uh there's uh there was a motion and second for uh the approval and the resisions revisions of our dress code uh and the personal appearance standards policy. All those in favor uh say I I any opposer abstain? That motion carries. Um, agenda item 29 is also the discussion and action to approve the revision of C uh.07 personal relationship in the workplace addressed in the employee handbook dated August 18, 2025. Motion to approve. Second.

Good evening again, mayor and counselor Carol Gandia, HR director. Um, so this discussion and action was to approve the revision of this personal relationship in the workplace policy. Um with this the city had updated the policy to establish a stricter guidelines. The policy prevented uh is preventing personal relationship in the workplace to protect the professionalism and integrity of our organization. The previous policy focused mainly on supervisors and subordinate in relationships. But the revised policy now addresses all romantic dating and close personal relationships between employees, vendors, and any of the conducting business with the city. These changes were necessary to maintain a professional, respectful, and unbiased work environment. Personal relationships at work can create issues involving fairness, safety, uh, confidentiality, favoritism, harassment concerns, and overall the operation of the integrity of the city of Sakoro. By strengthening this policy, the city is reinforcing its commitment in its fairness, transparency, and the workplace where all employees can perform their duties without distinction or with conflict of interest. This discussion was also discussed with the HR director, the city manager, and it was approved in our civil service meeting that was held on November 24th in 2025.

Any questions or comments on this policy? Does our K9 have to adhere to the same policies? Absolutely. Okay. Just want to make sure in case we get another K9. Um, there was a a motion and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain. That motion carries. Agenda item 30. This is the discussion and action to approve the revision of C uh.01 time and attendance policy addressed in the employee handbook dated August 18, 2025. Motion to approve. Second.

Thank you. Uh Mayor and Counselor Carol Gandelia once again here for the human resources department. The revision of the CO1 time and attendance policy integrated um is to address the new integration with our new uh payroll software um reinforcing the city's commitment to high quality of service and workforce reliability and fairness across the department. The updates ensures accuracy and timekeeping, consistency and operation and clear expectation for each of the employees. These changes are shown in the draft in our policy which are highlighted in yellow. With this change in policy, a couple of things have happened. Um, it is now going to allow employees who are issued a city cell phone the ability to punch in and punch out on their city cell phone as long as they're in a facility within the city of Sakoro that they're allowed to go ahead and punch in. Because of the number of personnel that we have in the police department, our public works, sometimes the crowdedness of the punch clock is over cumbersome. So, it allows them the ability to do that as long as they are supervised with their uh and approval with their supervisor, but it also requires them to be engaged and ready and willing to be able to work, not to come in and punch in and then get ready for work. They have to already be prepared. In addition to this, because of our on call status, we have quite a number of employees who end up getting called into service or called at home uh for comments or etc. So this also allows them the ability to calculate their times efficiently and thus preventing the supervisor from having to do manual adjustments on their time tickets um at the end of the day. So it also uh reduces the number of of personnel in terms of having to do a lot of manual adjustments uh prevents our payrolling department to have to do that as well as our finance department. With that, um, the revisions were discussed with, uh, myself, of course, and with the city manager and civil service did approve the change in this policy in their last

meeting on November 24th. I'm I'm glad you all finally uh decided to go digital. Correct me if I'm wrong. Upon receiving a phone call, any department when you're already home, as as soon as you get called in, your time starts. That is absolutely correct, sir. especially for those individuals that are on call. So, they're on call, they're waiting to be called in, and if they get called at home, their ability to be able to clock their time immediately at that point, it just it saves so much time. They can they can respond to whatever they have to do instead of having to drive all the way to the office, punch in, and then go take care of business. They come back and punch out. They're able to do it uh from their cell phone or their uh city laptop.

Absolutely. It it does give the employee a lot of self-control and their own attendance, verifying their punches, approving their time and they also have a visual of their time their time check uh rather their paycheck on what they're going to receive from that pay period. So if there's an error they'll know they're short so they'll jump on it immediately. Great. Thank you. Uh there was a motion and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain. Okay that motion carries. We're moving on to Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

We're moving on to the grants department. This is the discussion and action to approve work authorization number six in the amount of 1.7 million to well 1,728,939.74 cents under contract 22-07-01 with the Kamacho Hernandez and Associates for design phase services for the Moon Road complete streets planning project and authorized the city manager to sign the agreement. This work is 100% grantf funed. Motion to approve. Second.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Alejandra Lad, city development director. We are requesting your approval uh for a work authorization with Kamacho Ernnandez and Associates for the Moon Road Complete Streets Planning Project. As you um may know, recently the US Department of Transportation awarded the city of Sakoro a 1.7 million dollar grant in order to complete a complete streets planning project along a 2.17 mile corridor on Moon Road extending from Sakura Road all the way up to Grihalva. Um and this is to enhance uh all the safety infrastructure for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for wheelchair users. Uh the planning project will also look at transit potential transit stops. It'll look at improving safety on the railroad crossings. It'll also look at improving safety across the moon bridge uh for some of those pedestrians given that we don't currently have any pedestrian crosswalks through moon for especially for kids that go to Sakor High School and have to cross that alongside um the motorized vehicles. Um the project will include environmental analysis, community engagement, engineering and design, and ultimately a benefit cost analysis. Uh giving us a shovel ready planning project that we can then apply for construction dollars from the Federal Highway Administration. Um and and the work is uh grant funded.

Any members of council have any questions? Just a comment. I'm super excited to hear that. I remember myself walking home from the high school and I live by my mom did where I grew up. So I'm happy to hear that there's going to be an area for people to walk students to walk safely. Um the distance for uh design phase is going to cover from from word to where exactly

uh it's going to come from Grihalva road which is above uh north loop all the way down moon road um cross the railroad cross the moon bridge on Alameda and then take take you all the way down to Sor Road uh there are some limitations in terms of rideaway in some sections so some areas are going to include bicyclist um shared use paths where there's enough right away. But um some on those limited areas, it will at least have ADA accessibility and sidewalks so that people are able to cross through um all the way through the corridor.

Do we do we have a a timeline of So we are currently waiting on the final contract from FHWA. As you know, there were some federal shutdowns recently, so it's delayed a little bit. Um, as soon as we get word from the FHWA, we will then have a project kickoff meeting and then the planning phase is expected to be between 12 to 16 months and then after that uh we'll go out for construction dollars and and continue the project onward. I wish it was faster. Um, but that's just the way that the the projects develop.

Yeah, there there's there's levels of government that we we really no say in how they operate, right? The federal government, the certain departments, they we have our hands tight and they shut down. Um, okay. There was a uh motion and and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, agenda item number 32. This is the discussion and action to approve an amended development agreement between the city of Sakoro and AVA Developments LLC to remove the construction of some improvements on Coupec Road.

Motion to approve. Second.

Uh thank you, mayor and council. This is an amendment to a development agreement that council previously approved. The applicant requested to take out the construction of the sidewalks on the opposite side of their development and the city uh recommends approving the amendment. There has been a wonderful development. The grant for the PDN map trail would allow us to construct a a larger project, a shared juice path along that sidewalk that's being taken out of the development agreement. And we will get a um a little more than just sidewalk by being able to use these funds from the PDN um trail project. Mr. Portillo, the developer uh is on the line if you have any questions for him.

Miss Kito, in the amended uh agreement uh were there changes to the finan was there a financial impact of sort of some sort? No. Uh, it ends up being that we scope of work changed and that was it. Say that. Say it again. The scope of work changed. Yes. We just took out the them constructing the sidewalk. Okay. Okay. Understood. Okay. Uh, there was a motion and second on this item. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. Thank you, M.

Thank you. Number 33, agenda item uh is the discussion and action regarding the petition to release the following real property from the city of Sooto's uh ETJ. Uh El Paso Central appraisal district property ID numbers. Tax parcels are 7 73197 739202 739198 73919 739200 282676 739205 739209 739206 739210 267-580 739211 and 739212

Motion to approve. Second, mayor, have you?

Um, so I think council, I've told this to council before in other matters. I represent a number of Tropicana. I have represented a number of Tropicana properties over the years. Typically, I'm able to come to council and disclose that to council and tell them, but I don't represent them on whatever particular item is before council. On this item, I've actually represented the applicant, the very company Clint Holdings that is is the applicant in connection with this property. So, in light of that, I am recusing myself from this issue. I'm leaving you without an attorney for this issue. You can always postpone it if you need legal counsel. We'll find someone for you, but I think your staff is going to address this.

So, thank you, Mr. Martinez, for bringing that to our attention. So, at this time, council, um, we have no attorney on this item. So, should you wish to ask any um technical questions or consult with our attorney. We have no attorney at this time. Uh just to make you all aware of this is an item that you all wish to postpone and we can have our city staff and give them a directive to seek other legal counsels for this particular item. Uh you may wish to do so. I just wanted to make that clear to you all here today. We have no attorney on this item right now.

Uh staff, what do you recommend for this item? So good evening mayor and council Adriana Rodarta city manager. This petitioner owns all of the land property which is compromised of seven tracks with a total area of 264.52 acres. Therefore in accordance with the Texas government code section 42.104. The petition is signed by the holder of a majority in value of the property which meets the requirement. So staff does recommend approval. Yeah, there was a motion second already. Um, just just for clarification purposes, very very similar to the uh applicants that were here earlier in our meeting also filing a petition to exit the ETJ. This one uh I think this one was much cleaner and simpler just because of the fact that the person filing the application owned all of the parcels and and all of the property ID numbers that have been identified in um in the agenda item today rather than multiple property owners that we saw earlier in our meeting. Uh this is an easy approval. uh staff was able to identify and provide all information and receive all information from the CAT as well and they are in accordance with state um legislative laws.

That is correct. Require the release of ETJ properties. Okay. Yes. So they meet that requirement. Correct. Okay. There was a motion and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any uh oppos or abstain? No. That motion carries. Mr. Martinez, you can return back to your seat. We now have an attorney uh representing [snorts] the city. Now, agenda item 34. This is the discussion and action to approve uh mayor and any other council members who'd like to attend the 94th winter meeting January 28th through the 30th and uh 2026 in Washington DC for the US Conference of Mayor. Second. Second.

Discussion. So, good evening mayor and council. This uh meeting serves as a critical platform for municipal leaders from across the country to engage directly with federal partners including the White House, members of Congress and key agencies. The primary objective and benefits to attending these type of conferences is advocacy, networking, promotion of the city and sharing best practices. Participation in this conference helps ensure that our city remains informed, visible, and engaged at the federal level. It can also support future grant opportunities, legislative partnerships, and policy initiatives. And I am happy to answer any questions. Do any members of council have any questions?

No. Um, there was a motion and second on on this item. Uh, does staff need names now to of attendance or No, Miss Escobar will reach out to you via email so you can respond to hers. There was a motion and second on this item. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain. That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh we've already gone through agenda item 35 and so we'll go down to agenda item 36. This is the discussion and action directing city staff to research and prepare an ordinance for the council's consideration restricting the development of warehouse facilities within 1.5 miles north and south of Sakoro Road within the city limits preserving the historical and cultural character of the mission trail and protecting the health, safety and welfare of nearby residents. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion to approve. Second. There's been a motion and second. Mr. This is your item. Take it away.

Um, we decided to bring this item because there's been a lot of talk about the warehouses being developed here in Sakoro. Uh, unfortunately or fortunately, most of the time we don't choose who comes to Sakoro. Um, my dad has a saying that says We I think we made it clear that we want to see more more stores, more restaurants, but unfortunately we're getting a lot more warehouses than we might like. Uh the item is just to protect Sakora Road. I know it's getting more and more traffic by by the date. And the item was for for 1.5 miles north side of Sakuro Road. If anybody has um if they want to do more more than the 1.5 miles, it's it's an item. It's open. I just wanted to protect our or Sakoro road

in as much as we can in our city. I know that outside the city they're they're building left and right warehouses in road and they're making a little bit more difficult for for everybody to to travel on a day-to-day basis.

Yeah, this is this is I I like this item. Um there's there's a a logistics center being built on the mission trail right now. I I went uh this was two years ago. I went to speak in opposition in opposition of it. Uh, unfortunately the council for the city of Apaso, they they they they passed it. It passed. So then you see the logistic center going up already. But that's something I don't think I'd like to see on our mission trail. At least protect the uh the nine miles that we have in our city. If this is something that we can do, then then uh I think this is a good item. I agree. Is there any other discussion by members of council on this item? No. There was a motion and second. All those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose or abstain? Speaker. Yes, sir. Mrs. Do we have we got to cancel the vote or do we have to amend the uh suspend the rule? Suspend the rule. Does anyone want to make a motion to suspend the rules for Mr. Hendricks to speak? Make a motion to allow him to speak. Second. There's a motion and second to suspend the rules for Mr. Hendricks. All those in favor say I. I.

Okay. So, real quick, and I appreciate the exception and the the moments that you've given me. So, as I read this amendment or or whatever we're calling this item 36 on the agenda, I I noticed that it says a mile and a half north south of Sooto Road, but Sooto Road already runs northwest by southsoutheast. So, a mile and a half north south of Soo Road isn't very clear. So, I don't know if you can redefine the language to say maybe east and west a mile and a half just just a a point of clarification, but the other question I have is where did the and I heard you say the mile and a half is up for debate or whatever, you know, but where' the mile and a half come from? Because as I get on Google Earth and I draw a mile and a half off school road, it only covers Alama. It doesn't go anywhere near North Loop, which again draws me back to all of us on North Loop are getting covered in warehouses and the arterial one and and back to where I'm, you know, back to where we're spinning in circles, back to where my problem is. And so I I like that we're trying to protect Alamita and Squoral and historical area. Look out, if you read that bottom line, look out for the welfare of the residents and and it's got safety in there and all those nice bullet points. But what about us on Northoo? We're creating this stupid arterial one that I know is going to go to the border highway. We'll talk about it later. And I know it's going to connect to I 10. And now you're going to have warehouses up there, too, that you're not covering with your amendment. You're just covering us in tractor trailers and taking all our farmland. Guys, I've got horses and a farm and and animals and a life. I want to live out there and you're forcing me to try and find another place to live. And I know I'm very off the topic, but my question is change the langu language to east west. I think it's a little more clearer and maybe adjust it to I don't know, two and a half miles to where you cover North Loop. That would make me happy. But I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Henders. Um, there was a motion and second on this item. Did we already take the vote on this item? Yes, we did. Did we? Yes. Are you sure? For the record. Yes. Well, I want to make sure. Item 36. There's a motion and second. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose or abstain? That motion carries. Do we have any items uh for discussion on 37, 38, or 39? Motion to delete item 38 37 38 and 39. Second. There's been a motion and second to delete items 37 38 and 39. All those in favor say I. I.

Any oppose or abstain. That motion carries. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Um there has been a motion and second to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Thank you.