City Council - Special Meeting

Mike, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear. Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Good morning everyone. I want to welcome everyone to this special called meeting of the Temple City Council It's currently about 1015 in the morning. We'll just hop right in with public comments citizens who Desire to address the council on any matter may do so as long as you've signed up prior to this meeting Public comments will be will be received during this portion of the meeting. Please limit those comments to Three minutes or so no final action or discussion will take place Please watch the timer. We're gonna have a timer this morning Please watch the timer on this on the screen and I've got a handy little bell up here when you get to about Two minutes and 45 seconds. I'll ring that kind of as a reminder. Okay, so first up we will have Mona Fuller and

Good morning, my name is Mona Fulmer, 1813 Stagecoach. I'm a 50 year resident of Temple, now retired and attending classes at Salmon Center. I'm here to request the $15 million bond package not be put on a ballot, but that the city conduct a search and do due diligence for repurposing an existing structure at a much lesser cost. A simple 10-minute search on LoopNet yesterday found four such possibilities, all of which have considerably more square footage than the current center at 7,249 square feet. The four commercial properties that came up as possibilities are, first, 300 North Fifth, which is the First Christian Church, a block behind the Central Fire Station, 30,185 square feet, listed for 895, with a full indoor gym, a commercial kitchen, multiple meeting spaces, offices and classrooms, parking and outdoor spaces. Then 2002 Scott Boulevard, price not published, 12,072 square feet, and that's in the shadows of Scott and White on Scott Boulevard. Then 2408 South 37th, also in the shadows of Scott and White, a former DHS building with 25,076 square feet listed for 2,650,000. And then last, 2828 Cottonwood, remodeled in 2025 with 11,000, 336 square feet, community rooms, commercial kitchen. It's now an assisted living center. And it is listed for 2,417,000. So in summary, asking the city as opposed to putting the $15 million bond package on a ballot to find an existing structure to remodel and save taxpayers some money.

Thank you, ma'am. Uh, is it Deborah Clark is Clark. Nobody. Todd Weber, Mark Goldman.

Mark Goldman, 3306 Meadow Creek Lane in Temple, since 1954, a member of this community. As a member of the City Salmon's focus group, I've been waiting for a follow-up meeting that was discussed with city staff and a volunteer. I think it was either the contractor or architect that was present at that meeting. Instead, I'm reading about a proposed $15 million bond project with no meaningful details, product description, floor plans, not even a conceptual drawing to show taxpayers what the facility might look like. I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's charge to the House of Representatives regarding Obamacare. You have to vote for it to find out what's in it. I realize that details are something that really no level of government likes to release because there's a accountability factor involved. Just for comparison, First Baptist Church of Temple is beginning a 13,038,000 square foot two-story facility for preschool children and youth programs. Project includes 13 classrooms, two worship gathering rooms, a game room slash kitchenette, special needs rooms, and restrooms at a cost of $342 per square foot. Church leaders have been transparent to provide members with floor plans and architectural renderings as you enter the building. I also understand but don't have details about Vista Community Church proposing a project costing $12 million for an education facilities. These projects demonstrate that organizations can provide clear information and major capital improvements before asking people to support them. Lastly, during our salmon's focus group discussions, participants emphasized the need for a practical, functional, same location building without spending millions of tax dollars on excessive landscaping, curb appeal, sculptures, similar to other features evident throughout the city that are completely unrelated to the facilities program. Therefore, the city should now demonstrate their transparency by providing taxpayers with a detailed scope of work, floor plans, conceptual renderings, with the level of competence to remove any temptation to issue numerous change orders. Taxpayers have every right to expect a salmon's facility that is at least practical, functional, and cost-effective as comparable privately funded projects. Thank you.

DAVID BURRAGE. Thank you, sir. Uh, Ken Alexa.

Good morning and thank you for letting me come and talk. I'll keep it real brief. I'm just here to ask a question. Why is the power still on at the Sammons Community Center? I golf three days a week. I walk by, the lights are on. There's furniture in there. There's stuff in there. The bathrooms are locked up. Nobody can use those. They have porta potties outside. But my question is, why are we paying for power for a condemned building? So thank you.

Thank you. And Nell Brindley.

Thanks. Nell Brintley, Temple, Texas forever. I do not agree with your increase in the tax ceiling, which was put into motion by Councilman Mike Emmons and seconded by Councilman Mike Pilkington and approved in lockstep by city council that we the people no longer trust. I do not agree with the bond to raise taxes and finance the Sammons Community Center. This should have been addressed two years ago. Listening to public comments, I see the city council lacks common sense. As much as I want Sammons rebuilt, I will not vote to raise taxes for my children and grandchildren, and neither should you. Once again, for the record, I publicly call for a Doge style audit of the city of Temple, beginning with the city manager's office. And just as a reminder, I also strongly urge this body to call a complete moratorium on all data center projects.

great thank you um just as a point of clarification explanation regarding some of the public comments the reason why the city of Temple is is considering voting to bring a bond forward to the public is this is the the time that we can do that state mandates certain certain time periods have to pass before we could put something on the ballot in November. So that's why we're doing it now. And Mr. Goldman, to your point regarding design and schematics and things like that, again, we are working to meet a deadline here. so we can get salmon's back open. And if the city of Temple decides to go through with the bond, and we're not even sure if we're gonna do that now, again, we have the option to pull a possible bond from the election in November, but this is the last time that we can call for one. So we're trying to leave our options open. any schematics, drawings, et cetera, all of that will be made public as they always are. So all of your concerns will be addressed properly. Again, we're just trying to meet a timeframe right now. So, make sense?

And I would add, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we called the bomb for the $14 million and later decided we only needed to issue two, three, six, eight, whatever, we wouldn't just arbitrarily issue the $14 million. I'm correct right now.

So the $15 would be a ceiling. Again, giving us a little room to be able to make decisions around design, et cetera.

okay and there were some other questions too about um using that money for another purpose it can only be used for salmon's community center not salmon's golf or any other city project it would be specific only to salmon's community for that building okay very good and while the power is still on i don't i don't i don't know that i don't know the answer to that i'm sure there's some sort of safety issue um

around all of that so I don't know I'm getting a nod that yes that's there's a reason right it's not just that no one thought to go hit the light switches okay all right very good then I'll close public comments and we'll move on to the next item I'll read these items in all together and then we'll vote on them one at a time. So item three, listed as budget items, is to discuss the proposed tax rate, which includes item A, consider adopting a resolution setting a proposed tax rate at 72 cents. Item B, is to consider adopting a resolution scheduling the public hearing on the proposed tax rates for 10 a.m. on August 27th, 2026. And item C is to consider adopting a resolution scheduling the adoption of the tax rate for 10 a.m. on August 27th, 2026. Ms. Bernard.

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council. What we're asking today is... We received our final tax rate calculations after your last council meeting, and when I get to those rates, here are those rates. The prior year tax rate was .699. No new revenue rate, which is the rate that if you tax the same properties this year as you did last year, what rate would it take to generate the same amount revenue and that rate is 0.7541 the voter approval rate without unused increment is 0.7561 and then the unused increment uh from prior years is 0.1007 so the new calculated voter approval rate with the unused increment is .8568. Again, at your last meeting, today we're asking you to set the ceiling, not the rate. The ceiling was set at .72 without knowledge of what the actual rate calculations would be. and we're asking today that you reconsider that and do you want to keep it at your .72 that you set before or do you want to consider raising the ceiling, not setting the tax rate?

fire for you you're acting like you're gonna say something were you gonna I just just to kind of hone in a little bit more just to remind council that this is a point in the process as Tracy said where you set the the ceiling for which you'll consider through the other parts of the process where you'll actually set the proposed tax rate so this is not setting This action is not setting the actual tax rate. It's just the ceiling in which you'll consider. Again, this is a repeating what you did last Thursday, because as we mentioned in your meeting, we did not have the information from the appraisal district to share with you that Tracy just went over with you. And that is very unusual. And so now that we have that information, we wanted you to be able to either confirm your decision or make any adjustments that you wanted to the ceiling with the benefit of the actual information. Um, since we didn't have that at the last time, but this is really just, um, repeating or doing over, um, that, um, action item from your last meeting, because at that, at the last meeting, we did not have the information. And now today we do.

So the piece of information that was missing was what's called the certified role, which basically that's the appraisal district putting their stamp of approval on the values of properties within the city limits of Temple. And we didn't have that number. So as a safety measure, last time we went from 69.99, which is the current rate where it says prior year rate. That's the rate that we're in right now. Of 69.99, we went up to 72 cents. I'm hoping to give ourselves a little bit of buffer, still waiting on the certified role from the appraisal district. Well, when the appraisal district certified role was received, it turned out that the overall value of properties within Bell County had actually dropped more significantly than was expected. And as we've talked about up here often, there's basically two factors that end up being your final tax that ends up being on your bill, and that is the tax rate multiplied by the value of your home. And the average home in Temple is now $190,512. Had we left the rate at 72 cents, which is what we discussed last week, would have been, actually, let me back up. The current rate at 69.99 would be an overall decrease in your, based upon the average home value, would be an overall decrease of about $17.5 a month. or about $210 per year. By moving from 69.99 up to 72 cents, that would be a monthly decrease of $14.34 or about 170 so dollars per year based upon the average value of 190,000. And then I asked that the finance department calculate a rate based upon a 75 cent tax. And that actually, again, based on the average home value of $190,000, is about almost $10 a month less expensive than it is right now at the $69.99. So as the values have gone down, to raise the same amount of revenue, then we would have to increase the tax rate. But overall, there'll still be, to the average home, excuse me, there'll still be an overall savings. One thing that is difficult in this climate with this as this body that sets the tax rate is that things are getting more expensive we all know that from our own homes our own grocery bills our own light bills the gas the tires for our cars etc everything is going up and the city is not immune to to the inflation. So if you're paying more for gas, so is the city. If you're paying more for tires, so is the city. And as we move along, as the mayor, it is our responsibility, and it's something that's very important to me, is that we as the city be able to continue to deliver the services that are required and frankly that are expected by the citizenry and um and so sometimes that that involves a tax rate increase and um so that's what we're talking about today is the 72 cents uh going up from 69.99 but remember even at the 72 cents which is the ceiling we set last week that's still almost a 15 per month savings in tax, ad valorem tax for the city of Temple for the folks with their tax bills. So again, an increase in the rate does not necessarily mean an increase in the dollars that are gonna show up on your tax statement. So it's very important to me that everyone understand sort of the machinations of the tax rate versus your appraised value versus your homestead exemption, et cetera. So Tracy and her team do a great job each year of calculating all that to be able to give the City of Temple City Council the information needed to set a tax rate at a level to continue to deliver the services that are expected. So just want everybody to be very clear, always talk about the the truth in taxation requirements etc and you would think that that would make something more easily followed and it is not the the calculations to come up with the final tax rate is is anything but easy so again thank you to Tracy and the accounting team for for doing all of that council anybody else have any comments can we just go ahead and move forward All right, so I read in the three budget items. So today, I'll ask the council to make a motion to consider adopting a resolution setting the proposed tax rate of 72 cents. If you're gonna make any adjustments to that, this is the time.

With this up here, do we need to do AD and C at the same time or separate? All three of them are up right now.

To make a motion?

Yeah, to make a motion, do we need to do three motions or one? Yeah. So we need three?

Do you need to poll the council on that? Does each one have its own motion language? OK, I'm with you now. OK, so first item, council, item A is to consider adopting a resolution stating the proposed tax rate. which is the not to exceed. You can't go over that amount in the future. Well, this year's budget.

In light of the information we just got, and knowing that this doesn't mean anything final, this gives us some time to look at it more, I move to approve setting the ceiling on the proposed tax rate of $0.75. I'll second.

We have a motion by council member Pilkington. We have a second by mayor approach him Walker council. Please cast your vote.

Aye.

Item 1A moves the ceiling from 72 cents to 75 cents. And again, based upon the information I gave you a minute ago, that's still an overall decrease on the average home in Temple. And that is approved, five votes to zero, moving from 72 to 75 cents. Item 1B was considered adopting a resolution scheduling the public hearing and proposed tax rate for 10 a.m. on August 27th. Council, I'll obtain a motion on that.

I move to approve. Second.

We have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Walker. We have a second by Council Member Grant. Council, please cast your vote.

Aye.

Item 1B passes five votes to zero. And item 1C was considered adopting resolution scheduling the adoption of the tax rate for 10 a.m. on August 27th. Council, I'll entertain a motion on item 1C.

Item C. Second.

We have a motion by Council Member Grant. We have a second by Council Member Pokington. Council, please cast your vote.

Aye.

Item 1C passes five votes to zero. Moving on to the next item, which is to consider adopting a resolution calling for a bond election for the November 3rd, 2026 election date, making provisions for the conduction of the election and resolving any other matters related to that election.

we have who's who's doing the presentation on that okay go ahead please hearing council as you know salmon's was closed after significant structural concerns were uncovered following the may 2024 tornado event while the storm prompted what we believe would be routine roof repairs that work led to the discovery of major underlying structural issues Although these deficiencies were not caused by the storm itself, the storm damage did expose longstanding weaknesses in the building's roof framing and structural systems, some of which date back decades as the facility was expanded over time. Since that discovery, the city has worked to determine whether there is a viable path to save the building because of its history, its beauty, the significant investments made in recent years, including expansion and improvements. And most importantly, because of what salmon's means to this community, especially our senior community, we pursued every reasonable option. We engaged national structural experts, architects, and engineers. We also consulted trusted local contractors, including cloud construction and right builders. Multiple independent assessments confirm that the building has significant structural deficiencies, including poorly engaged connections, overloaded roof areas, and aging infrastructure systems. After exhausting every feasible repair scenario, as you know, staff made the recommendation to you that there really wasn't a viable path to repair. So what that means for us is that under Texas law, the city may expend funds, bond funds to repair an existing building. However, rebuilding, purchasing or constructing a new facility would require voter approval through a general obligation bond election. Mayor, as you mentioned, state law also limits the dates when such elections can be held. The next available opportunity is November 2026, and today is the deadline for calling an election for that ballot if you choose to do so. I do have some slides that I'd like to go through with you with some basic project information. So just a little bit of perspective on what the center has been when it was up and running. Salmon's had a little over 700 members, 82 annual rentals of different events were held at the facility, 900 programs were held, and there were over 27,000 attendees at the facility in 2025. The services that are provided through this facility include recreation programs, especially senior programing, fitness activities, educational classes, classes, community events. It has the opportunity to or it had the opportunity for private rentals, large meeting and event space and special events. It was originally constructed in 1921 and has gone through multiple expansions since that time again in may 2024 the community experienced a tornado and that storm damaged the shingles of the roof but when we brought in a company to replace the roof that's when the major structural issues were found So again, while those issues weren't caused by the tornado themselves, they were identified after we began repair efforts for the damage to the roof that was caused by the tornadoes. Again, this if you look at some of the pictures which which I have here in just a second, the facility really has multiple different roof structures underneath the as the building was expanded over time. and added onto, um, the, the building, uh, that the, uh, various roofs were just kind of left in place there. Um, so we, as I, as I've already mentioned, we brought in, um, two independent engineering firms to help us determine if there was a. Safe way that we could reasonably renovate the facility and bring it back online. Here are some of the issues. Again, you can see roof structures under roof structures here, poorly engaged roof connections, and structural deficiencies in the original structure. Based on that work, the engineering professionals recommended that the facility could not be safely used until repair reconstruction was performed. non-structural issues that were also identified that also contributed to the cost or feasibility of repair. There is a collapsed clay tile wastewater line running under the building. The electrical system does not meet today's building code. And then there were integrated mechanical systems in the roof framing. So again, um, through the professional assessments by the multiple firms that we hired, as well as experienced local contractors, um, we, uh, have, uh, made a recommendation that replacement is the most responsible option and the most reasonable option. And again, um, state law then requires that that be done, um, through an election. Um, so this, the city council. does not have the option to, by its own motion, issue bonds for the replacement and reconstruction of salmons. That necessarily must go to the voters to decide. And so that's the action item that you have on your agenda tonight. Uh, today is to determine if, um, you want to send this project to the voters for consideration. So the proposed project, um, we did, um, begin developing the concept by, um, uh, engaging with the facility architect. And collected input from both patrons of the facility as well as city staff with some some early concepts to give you the information you need today to make the decision and Um, we met with, um, salmon's, um, staff members in the community, um, to, uh, determine what the needs were. Um, we met with program and structure instructors, um, recreation staff, active, uh, members of the salmon center. Um, and we held round table, uh, discussions with them. We talked about current, uh, programming, desired improvements, building functionality and future recreation uses. Some of the things that these groups suggested that we include, continue to prioritize a large event space like was in the current facility, have rooms for programming, make sure that the building is accessible to all abilities, have modern fitness space, indoor and outdoor gathering spaces, better parking and make sure that the facility of course is safe for the public to use. So this is the initial rendering that's come from the work that the facility team did. It continues to recommend a flexible event hall like the original building has, classrooms, fitness space, walking areas, outdoor gathering space, enhanced parking, and improved accessibility. This facility would support our existing programs and rentals, community events, senior activities, health and wellness activities, and multi-generational use. The estimated cost of the project is at $15 million. This includes $150,000 for demolition of the current facility, $1 million for design and bidding services, $12.2 million for construction, testing and services at $550,000, and furniture, fixtures, and equipment at $1 million for a total estimated cost of $15 million. As Council Member Pilkington pointed out, these are cost estimates. So while we've engaged an architect to help us with these very basic concepts, this facility has not been designed because in order to design it, we need approval from the voters. So, um, we wanna make sure that we had a budget, um, that we proposed to you for consideration that would, um, that would cover the cost of what, uh, we heard from our, uh, community participants. So as, uh, council member Pilkington mentioned, this is not necessarily the final cost. It's just the maximum cost of, of the facility. And then if this is approved by voters in November, we would go into actually designing the facility. And that's when you would determine exactly what the floor plan would be, what the layout would be, what the size would be. And so then you would determine your actual cost that you would move forward with. so again we do recommend that you that you consider a geo bond because that is the the only way that cities under current state law can issue bond funding for new recreational facilities We would, of course, if council called this bond election, we would have a full communications plan to help inform the community of what their decision in November will be. The bond election is calling again. That's what is on your that is what is under consideration for you today. Today is the deadline to call a bond election for the November 3rd election. So if you want this to be on the ballot today will be the day for you to decide that. October 5th is the last day to register to vote. Early voting would begin on October 19th. It would run on October 19th to 23rd from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On October 24th from 7 to 7. October 25th from 12 to 6 and then October 26 through 30th from 7 to 7 October 23rd would be the last day to apply for a ballot by mail October 30th would be the last day of early voting and then election day would be November 3rd and So what happens next? Council will consider the election. The bond election would be held in November. If that passes, then when we go into design, construction, and then facility opening. Mayor and Council, that's my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Council, anything for Ms. Myers? So as stated earlier, this is simply giving the city, the council the opportunity to call the election. It doesn't mean it has to take place.

The election?

Yes, for the bond election. We don't have to take it to, it doesn't have to be on the ballot. I'm sorry, I'm not saying that well.

If you call the election today, it would be on the ballot.

And if other means were found?

who don't have to, the successful bond election, if you had, if you called the election today and it was on the ballot on November 3rd and the voters approved the issuance of the bonds, then you that gives you the authority to issue the bonds but if you had other funding that became available then you you wouldn't be required to issue the bonds but it does give you the authority to issue the bonds if that's what you're asking but it will be on the ballot november 3rd if you call it today yes okay that's that's clarification i didn't i didn't realize that's good

chose not to issue the bonds for Salmon's. That's the only thing you could ever issue them for. So you'd have authorized unissued bonds.

And to buy and renovate an existing building would require cash on hand. That's not something that could be borrowed against.

You would also have to have a bond election to authorize purchasing

an existing facility if you were going to use bonds to fund that well miss the reason why i asked that question is miss fulmer talked about four or five other buildings that are in town and available for for sale

You cannot under current state law you could not issue debt to go purchase one of those existing buildings. You still have to go to the voters to ask them if they want to allow the building to be purchased. So whether you constructed a new facility or purchased a facility for the use of salmons, that still requires voter approval if you are going to use bond funds to do that.

Understood. Very good. Counsel, anything else? All right. If there's nothing else, then counsel, I'll entertain a motion on item number two.

Item two. Second it.

We have a motion by Council Member Grant. We have a second by Mayor Pro Tem Walker. Council, please cast your vote.

Aye.

Item two passes five votes to zero. Item three is consider adopting a resolution authorizing an election agreement and contract for services with Bell County Elections Administrator for the City of Temple Special Election to be held on the uniform election date of November 3rd, 2026. Do we have a presentation on this one? No? Okay. Council, I will entertain a motion to consider contracting with Bell County election administrator for the uniform election date of November 3rd.

I move to approve number three as written. I second it.

We have a motion by Councilmember Pilkington. We have a second by Mayor Pro Tem Walker. Council, please cast your vote.

Aye.

Item three passes five votes to zero. And that is the conclusion of our agenda. So it's currently about five minutes until 11. Thank you for everybody for attending and this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.