[0:47] We have to get in here, but doesn't matter if we're not doing well. We can't do it. We can't do it, we can't

[1:00] do it.

[1:00] Okay, good afternoon.

[1:02] All right.

[1:03] So, it is now 431 and I'll call this meeting to order.

[1:08] Madam Secretary, can we have a call?

[1:10] Yes, we did. Okay.

[1:12] I'd like for everybody to stand please, and we'll say our questions.

[1:20] It's June 5th.

[1:21] I think you've got to say some America.

[1:23] and the two of the replied like for which is stands, one nation at Bungara, Hinduism, with leadership and justice.

[1:32] On the other hand, I'd like to say just to the therapist one state at Bungara, one Buddhist festival.

[1:51] That's the point, right?

[1:53] A huge success!

[1:54] You're a

[2:10] little bit scared.

[2:23] You're a little bit scared.

[2:24] You're a little bit scared.

[2:26] You're a little bit scared.

[2:27] Oh, okay.

[2:38] Okay.

[2:57] I'm not a 15 year after 30 days department.

[3:13] And we have Mr. Jesse Warren

[3:27] going right in the 10 years.

[3:28] You're just right.

[3:29] 20 years after 30 days department.

[3:31] It's just seem like it's time to come.

[3:39] Okay, we don't want it coming out of the bed, that's the next question.

[3:43] Thank you.

[3:45] Thank you very much.

[4:08] Okay, we'll close a three.

[4:10] We'll move to a four.

[4:13] Mayor, city commissioners, and city staff announcements per section of five

[4:19] I have one point zero four one five of the Texas government code.

[4:24] Commissioner Drots do you have anything?

[4:26] I do not.

[4:27] Thank you, Mr Beard.

[4:29] You know, rather than pull a consent agenda item, I'll make the announcement that our fire department

[4:36] was audited by the Texas Commission for Fire Protection and they had no violations.

[4:47] So I think that's important to know that another one of our senior departments that get

[4:54] tackle rates outside of third-party people, so thanks Chief.

[5:00] Okay, Mr. Goodman.

[5:03] Good afternoon.

[5:05] Mr. Go.

[5:07] Well, I have a big one.

[5:09] Our fire trucks came in today.

[5:13] Yay!

[5:15] We need them. Thank you.

[5:18] Okay, so we will close a four and go to a five.

[5:22] Public comments.

[5:24] Has anybody signed in?

[5:25] Okay. Then we'll close a five and go to a six.

[5:28] Public hearing to receive comments for or against text amendments to the unit, unified development.

[5:37] That includes certain changes to parking requirements, standards in the downtown district.

[5:43] The specific sections to be amended, including section four, point two, point zero, one, zero, three, alternative modifications to required parking.

[5:55] This guest down town in Old Town District

[6:04] received the only job we need to do anything

[6:07] right?

[6:07] Not at the same time.

[6:09] We'll move on to a,

[6:13] sorry, that's a foster one.

[6:16] A date on train report.

[6:29] Good evening, Mayor.

[6:31] Member of City Commissioners.

[6:34] We started a conversation.

[6:35] Obviously this morning.

[6:37] So I'm here to answer any questions.

[6:38] You might have related to the train report.

[6:41] It was the Executive Summary Trauma report that was submitted for your review.

[6:46] Okay, let's start with Commissioner Gal.

[6:49] What's the source of the numbers in terms of durations?

[6:55] That would come from known instance where we've been notified or we come across it.

[7:02] We've witnessed it or somebody has notified us that the train has stopped and the clock starts ticking

[7:09] And then we enter a call into the system, into our CAD system, and then if we're aware of the

[7:16] known time that it ceases to become a blocked crossing, we'll note that time in there

[7:20] as well.

[7:21] All the ones we submitted, all the ones on this report were known.

[7:27] If there are numbers, there are not sourced from the railroad.

[7:33] They're not sourced from the railroad, no.

[7:34] And if there are numbers, it's best we can get them.

[7:36] These are numbers that we, it became a familiar at whether that be Assistant Complaint Officer Initiates that another city department has notified that we were aware of.

[7:46] It's possible that a train could go on detected for a short period of time blocking a crossing.

[7:53] And we wouldn't know, because we weren't made aware of it or we didn't notice it.

[7:57] But these are what is known to us for the last six months.

[8:01] And I asked this morning, but I'd like to give you a chance to say, again, how would your reaction to the numbers that are in the report?

[8:11] That this particular six-month period of time, it wasn't a great deal of total numbers or times that it was blocked.

[8:18] It was one incident on January 22, where the train was blocked through four different times.

[8:25] it moved, but it may have moved to unblock one crossing, but it still remained block for

[8:33] several others. So you could classify that as one major incident, but since it moved,

[8:38] I added it all together. I could have gone it away. In the next particular instance, we were

[8:44] aware of our disposition because we sent our officer to go find a train in Rosenberg and they

[8:50] working on a part that needed to be replaced.

[8:53] So we were able, we did have some knowledge on that disposition.

[8:58] Oftentimes, we don't get a lot of disposition from the railroad.

[9:06] I think it's good that we're collecting the data.

[9:09] We ever do have a problem, at least we have a baseline that we

[9:12] refer back to.

[9:16] I don't think Mr. Beard.

[9:18] Is there any reason that we would imagine that they

[9:22] have blocked all the tracks since February. I know that we started ramping up our complaining

[9:28] about that. I certainly think that we've been very vocal about being displeased when they

[9:36] would do that. So I don't know if that had any indication that they then trickled it down

[9:40] to the engineers or the other personnel that worked the trains. Maybe they heard us. I'm not sure

[9:46] But I know that they have done a much better job of not blocking all, so they seem like they've been strategically stopping so that we had at least a few openings, either kind of like second streets open and in some of them.

[10:00] Court, crossings are closed, or vice versa. So for the most part, we haven't seen a complete log-age since

[10:06] our branding up. So how far is it for columns to second?

[10:14] I don't have that at all.

[10:15] I just have. So my point being, there are crossings unless it's watched all of the crossings,

[10:23] which that doesn't include the underpass, if that flooded, that would be a problem. But,

[10:31] It does block, as long as there is a crossing within a half a month, then we're not talking

[10:39] about time that we consider abnormal, you know, if you get blocked on Dary Ashford in

[10:50] in Sugarland, you're in trouble. There's no clear or ill-durch.

[11:00] So, you know, and I asked

[11:02] this morning, can we write an ordinance that would prevent them from blocking all of our

[11:10] cross? And Gary has an answer for that and he'll be concise. He can answer you because I think

[11:17] that it is worth us discussing whether or not you want to proceed with that, you can.

[11:23] Well, I always think about the staffer's copy that gave UP a ticket back in the day.

[11:30] And so if he did it, then...

[11:33] I don't want to create an issue, but we've got to keep crossings open.

[11:39] We can't allow them to block all of our crossings.

[11:46] Great. Gary, do you want to answer the question to say that we keep that?

[11:54] And so a couple of things were brought up this morning. One was best practices in a benchmark

[11:58] and we want to develop this report. It's going to be ever evolving. This was an attempt

[12:03] to provide you information, but I think we can make it even more robust. As we meet with

[12:07] a railroad, we've established a pretty regular meeting schedule that Commissioner

[12:13] and it's been very helpful for them to hear from us, and so I would share this with them so they know that we're tracking it and that we're not just asking them to be respectful of the tracks and of people that live on the north or south part of town, but there's a reason why we want to make sure that our crossings are clear at all times.

[12:36] There may be limitations to the effectiveness of an ordinance, but there is nothing that prohibits us from adopting the ordinance, whether or not it proves the ultimately effective, it's decision of how y'all decide to proceed should have become an issue.

[12:57] So yes, we can adopt an ordinance.

[12:59] That's it. All right. And if you could get, you have four of that is.

[13:07] Okay. The link.

[13:08] That's all.

[13:09] Thank you.

[13:10] Yes, sir. Who is your dad?

[13:13] My role questions, I guess, go to both the fire chief and police chief primarily.

[13:20] And that is the impact of these crossings. How many times have you tracked where

[13:28] You're heading to an emergency, you get a call, because I'm going to take it that y'all don't always know

[13:35] where what is blocked, and especially with the fire with the large apparatus, you can't just turn that around on her dime.

[13:44] And so, what are the impacts that you've been seeing at the start of the future?

[13:49] We're not limited in size, so we can take full advantage of the second street underpass if we need it.

[13:58] If all the crossings were blocked,

[14:03] we're prepared to continue to go all the way if they

[14:05] all of them were continuing to go all the way in the Rosenberg find a way to come back around

[14:09] and come back to the city if that is not happened.

[14:12] Now how many times have y'all potentially run into because we've designated it one way

[14:17] or you're trying to use it and you end up with another vehicle there?

[14:23] I have heard of incidents where that's occurred not so much where there's been a collision

[14:26] but that there has been somebody going the wrong way against the one way.

[14:31] So I do know that it has occurred.

[14:33] I've not witnessed it, but I don't believe we've ever had to lately,

[14:37] anyway, have had to take any type of collision as it was all of that.

[14:41] Most of the time, if that's blocked,

[14:43] most people from north, the south are taking full advantage of it.

[14:46] There's no real break to allow somebody to go the wrong way, but it's possible.

[14:51] As far as bigger apparatus, I suppose, I'll let the fire chief in and we could throw a couple of his people.

[15:05] Commissioner seems like when I first arrived here in 2011, there were more incidents of that, but we do also take advantage of the 200 pass, and we're able to get through there.

[15:19] Would we not?

[15:20] Yes, sir.

[15:21] As long as the river is not out.

[15:24] Oh, I don't, because it only that takes at least.

[15:27] I didn't think it would handle that.

[15:29] Yes, sir.

[15:31] When it was, I would tell you very carefully because it is not necessarily designed for

[15:38] that.

[15:40] But we have, we don't have any documented instances where it created an unusual delay.

[15:45] Sometimes it's slow us down a little bit, getting through there because we do put somebody

[15:49] out to watch traffic on the other side and get us through.

[15:52] The only times we really ever had to prepare for that was when we had floods and floods

[16:00] impeded the turnaround.

[16:03] So what we did in that instance is we staged apparatus on the north side.

[16:09] So we took that in consideration.

[16:11] But we don't have any documented sense.

[16:14] At least it's probably 2013 that created a life force.

[16:18] But we also, as the police chief said, if it looks like it's going to be a problem, we will

[16:24] go up to the pass over through the Rosenberg and come in through the black quizer.

[16:28] That way.

[16:29] Well, it's a long jump that we're, if it's for them, you know, minutes matter.

[16:35] So that's why that's what my concern with y'all comes in the most.

[16:39] Yes.

[16:40] Same as we're funny.

[16:41] We don't have any MSS as it then, the far apart.

[16:44] But for the Fort Bend county, the MS also.

[16:49] Yes, and it's not in the city limits, but to fly over at 359.

[16:54] Really remedy that for the 359 access.

[16:57] Because that's where we had most problems.

[16:59] Yes.

[17:00] Yes.

[17:01] Okay.

[17:02] That's really all that I have on it for now.

[17:05] Thank you.

[17:05] Can we start?

[17:06] Sure.

[17:07] I can tell you that at least over the last year,

[17:11] We've been pretty consistently vocal about our concern about trains being stopped on the tracks.

[17:18] And it's anecdotal because I haven't been tracking it myself.

[17:21] But my sense is that they've heard us and they've attempted to address it.

[17:25] And I think I've mentioned this in a previous meeting.

[17:28] The last meeting we had with the railroad, they've brought some folks down from,

[17:31] I guess, Nebraska or something.

[17:33] And we felt like we were being listened to.

[17:35] We felt like we were being heard.

[17:37] And we got a meeting with them next week.

[17:39] So it might make sense for us not only to bring this issue up a lot of

[17:44] other track in it, but to see what they're tracking right there and

[17:48] if they'd share it with us.

[17:51] And then there has been an issue with some aged censors.

[17:58] In other words, it got censors all along the track that are positioned at

[18:02] particular areas when they go off.

[18:04] They're supposed to go off to a word of an issue.

[18:07] And some of those, I think, are occasionally malfunctioned, so there's not an issue.

[18:13] But the train stopped until they can go reset it.

[18:17] And so at least that's some of the indication that we've gotten.

[18:21] So that's all I've got to add.

[18:23] Okay.

[18:23] Have a suggestion.

[18:26] Why can't we turn a camera over to the river of tracks and just let it just film

[18:32] and then we can have it in a minute?

[18:34] I think that's a great suggestion.

[18:35] One of the things that we're looking at is our is the ability to take full advantage of

[18:41] some grant funding that the railroad is asked us to take a look at specifically that could

[18:47] address some of that real-time situational awareness cameras and or sensor and sensors along

[18:54] the track.

[18:56] So, Robert Oliver, the Merchman Management Director and I are looking at that to try to take

[19:00] full advantage and see if there's something that we can apply for.

[19:03] That way we take that burden off of your officer's place, you know, and it's right there.

[19:08] She said, I'm not right here right here.

[19:11] Thank you, sir.

[19:13] Thank you.

[19:15] Thank you.

[19:16] We will now live to the extent of gender.

[19:22] I wish you a few years anything you want to call?

[19:24] No.

[19:25] Good, good.

[19:26] Thank you.

[19:28] Thank you.

[19:29] Thank you.

[19:30] Thank you.

[19:31] No, man.

[19:31] Thank you.

[19:32] Thank you.

[19:34] I do want to pull the police department,

[19:36] I'm sorry about that.

[19:44] Mayor, I'm moved that we approve the consent agenda

[19:46] with the exception of the police department.

[19:49] On the favor?

[19:51] Aye.

[19:53] Motion passes unanimously.

[19:57] This is the ordinance for the pharmacies.

[19:59] How's that work?

[20:01] I believe the ordinance are efforts to have an ordinance in place. I believe it's working. We also also, you know, I think I mentioned, or at least I notified the city manager that we also reached out to our partners at the county and who have a task force with the DEA, and we specifically asked them to take a look at the pharmacies at that location. They did, and they came back with some pretty good results.

[20:31] One pharmacy, operating outside the confines of the, I don't know what the federal regulations are,

[20:40] but there would have been a violation of ours as well.

[20:44] And they voluntarily surrendered their license right then in there.

[20:47] And there are two more that also were found to be in violation.

[20:52] And those, they're contesting it, but at same time.

[20:54] So I think three of those, one, this should be in final disposition and two are contested.

[21:02] So, as I recall, I don't have an infront of me, but as I recall, those violations would also be violations under our ordinance.

[21:10] Does it have like a stain?

[21:12] No?

[21:13] No.

[21:14] I guess you could call it that.

[21:17] We once, once as we continue to investigate the homicide,

[21:23] But once it became clear that their involvement could be done without interfering with that,

[21:30] they took it upon themselves to go ahead and do that and they did it.

[21:34] We're very grateful that they get their assistance and it worked out real well.

[21:38] It was very interesting.

[21:40] When was it?

[21:42] When did the last month?

[21:44] It was the same month.

[21:44] Yeah, it's within the last maybe two weeks.

[21:48] I kind of hear things from around the time that they came in.

[21:50] And I didn't read it in your report, he saw this question.

[21:53] You know, and I probably should have been, I should be at least

[21:55] in the other, and you guys know that that did occur, so.

[21:57] That's a big deal.

[21:58] Pretty significant.

[21:59] OK, thank you so much, Paul.

[22:01] That case, Mr. B.

[22:02] So, is this code enforcement?

[22:09] So, typically it would be building code fire marshal

[22:13] and police department.

[22:14] In this case, the police department reached out to friends

[22:17] and other agencies that support our efforts and said we have a location, you may want to

[22:23] look at it, so they did their own investigation and I'm paraphrasing my apologies, but

[22:28] so this was a different effort that wasn't really enforcing our ordinance, but we did do

[22:33] a baseline ordinance check to see all the pharmacies in our area besides Walgreens and

[22:40] CVS and the other one that's located close to the hospital, did they meet our requirements

[22:46] and we did a checklist of who was outside of the scope or outside of our allowances, what

[22:52] we required.

[22:52] And so we went through, we're doing a follow-up to make sure they've complied with what

[22:56] we have in place.

[22:58] I don't know that we've done the follow-up completed it, but we're still working on that.

[23:03] Well, according to COVID-19, COVID-19 has gone in.

[23:06] Yes, sir.

[23:06] Aside from any of this police activity, and we'll have to be an ongoing, and that's what's

[23:19] And we'll report back in the next, I'll say six months to a year to see if we need to modify it that we found that maybe we had two stringent language or we don't have strong enough language, but we'll report back to you.

[23:32] So we'll have a good indication that we feel like it's being our ordinance has enough language in it to do our jobs.

[23:40] And there's no problem with code enforcement, understanding what are.

[23:49] It's collaboration.

[23:51] Lots of departments working together, so we're not working with cyclists.

[23:59] When you say they, one of these outfits voluntarily surrendered their license.

[24:05] That they're a Texas license.

[24:07] A state license?

[24:09] My understanding is it may have been a state license, but my understanding is they have

[24:14] to operate with, they have a DEA basic blessing that they're going to do business in a certain

[24:20] way.

[24:21] They call it licensing.

[24:22] It may be similar to the state, and that they willingly gave that up, and I'm told

[24:26] that that's pretty significant, because they can't do business after that.

[24:30] The other two did not.

[24:31] So, and then that was sort of my point.

[24:35] It almost gives me more questions.

[24:37] Yeah, yeah.

[24:38] So, all right, thank you. That's all I had there.

[24:41] Okay. Nothing else?

[24:45] Is there a much tip for a different police department?

[24:48] Mayor, I'm moving.

[24:49] Mayor, I'm moving. We approve the police department report,

[24:50] and the Senate agenda.

[24:53] All in favor?

[24:54] Aye.

[24:55] Any opposed?

[24:56] Motion passes.

[24:57] I really close.

[25:01] If

[25:07] you consider taking action on a reclat and approximate 0.174th of the alphabet land, boards addition, law 9, partial reclat, number 1, block 1, one lot, zero reserves, being a portion of 9, section 1, boardless lots, and in the John T Edward survey, abstract number 23, city of Richmond, Fort McCannie, Texas.

[25:34] and a flat variance to deviate from the minimum required lot area 12,000 square feet.

[25:42] And minimum required 30 foot rear setback is provided in table 3.1.102A as a unified development code.

[25:52] The subject size is located at 1019 or 10th Street at the southwestern corner of 10th Street, north-to-th street and clay.

[26:05] Good evening, commissioners. This is a refat. The property owners proposing to repatt its property and they're also requesting a flat variance to reduce the minimum lock size from 12,000 square feet to 7,593.75 square feet. And they're also requesting to reduce the rear set back from 30 feet to 20 feet.

[26:28] They are proposing to construct a single-family B-touch dwelling on that property.

[26:35] Research shows that this subdivision was established in 1852.

[26:43] The original lot sizes for this area was from four acres to five acres.

[26:48] Since then, this subdivision has been re-subdivided through meets and bounds.

[26:53] And the lots in this area, as you will see in your packet, the existing area now consists from 5,662.8 square feet up to 186,436.8 square feet, which is almost a little over 4 acres.

[27:12] So, it ranges from less than an acre to a little over four acres and the proposed lot size is larger than 5,000.

[27:23] The smallest lot that is in that area.

[27:25] The planning and zoning commission board recommended approval with the following conditions.

[27:32] Number one, the variant shall be for the proposed single-family detached resident.

[27:37] Only if the single-family detached residents is demolished or removed, this variant shall become

[27:43] null and void, any replacement or maintenance to the single-family detached resident or new

[27:49] structures on the property must comply with the city's adopted required vomit standards.

[27:54] Number two, the applicant is required to obtain all required permits for the single-family detached

[27:59] residents and must comply with all of the city's adopted required vomit standards.

[28:03] And number three, all inspections saw be conducted to determine compliance with the building code.

[28:09] On the memo, we did list a few of the comprehensive plan goals that it does address.

[28:15] Would you like me to read them?

[28:19] And I'll stand for any questions.

[28:21] Mr. Jones.

[28:23] The only thing that I've been asked was the prohibition of rebuilding this one.

[28:32] that does go into the deed record.

[28:35] When they process the new plant, that'll be written

[28:38] into that plant, correct?

[28:43] And in the deed, what I'm trying to get at is to make sure

[28:47] that if it ever comes up again to use down the road

[28:51] where it is being rebuilt, how does the next planning

[28:54] pardon, know that we put that restriction on it?

[28:58] Sure. So we will require them to do a plat note saying that they have a variance. And I believe

[29:05] I don't know if we prepare resolutions in regards to the variance, but they will need, okay.

[29:10] If they don't reference it, then they will need a reference that the variance is to the set back only.

[29:15] And then they will need to list those conditions that we have.

[29:18] Right. The main thing is the conditions. And then the second part of that, because I don't know

[29:22] of always ask for the check for it when we go in and one of these shows up in our departments

[29:32] do they look at the pass-plat look for those type variations okay they'll check notes

[29:38] okay all the past one so that's that's it that's all I have

[29:45] I'm looking and I can't see where the paying P&Z board approved this, so I see where

[29:53] staff is recommended, but you're telling me get it.

[30:01] Okay. Another thing in our, and I'm not sure if this is valid, but can we know whether it's own or aren't you tired or not?

[30:16] I mean, do we have anything in our process that would flag and I don't know whether or not we're occupied.

[30:25] We have other applications that have that box to check, but I don't know that it's on this one.

[30:32] This particular one, or Jim.

[30:33] In general, I don't know if it's in this particular process.

[30:37] I know we have asked that in other applications, but I don't know that we have a check box for that.

[30:44] We do not.

[30:45] We can add it, we just currently aren't.

[30:47] Well, I mean, if it makes sense, and I think it would be helpful for us to know that it's.

[30:56] one person, but it would seem like it would be helpful to know whether or not it's all right, but I

[31:06] appreciate that.

[31:07] We'll look in the same direction.

[31:09] Okay.

[31:10] Commissioner Benin.

[31:11] Yeah, I was just adding that would be helpful information for me because at least on one level that would affect how I would view a variance for a question in the future.

[31:24] So,

[31:27] given the details of this particular request, we're addressing this more broadly and later in the agenda,

[31:35] so I don't have any concerns about this, but I would be interested in having that information for our future variants request.

[31:41] So I've got Mayor Thanks.

[31:42] Thank you very much for the bill.

[31:43] My understanding is that 7,500 square foot,

[31:48] lot size is consistent with other lots and houses in the

[31:54] immediate area and within that city block.

[31:57] Yes, sir.

[31:59] Don't stick out like a sore thumb.

[32:01] No, so on the staff report I provided a map of the

[32:06] Well, the remainder of the existing important sedition section one, and as you can see the largest,

[32:12] the largest lot there is a little over four acres, but all of the other ones have been subdivided to be smaller.

[32:23] I do know that it is going to be,

[32:28] thank you very much, is there a motion?

[32:34] Mayer, I move to approve the partial reply and important sedition is described in the package.

[32:42] Subject to the comments that are proposed by staff.

[32:47] Second.

[32:49] On the favor.

[32:51] Aye.

[32:52] Aye.

[32:52] Motion passes unanimously.

[32:54] I will now close a nine and open 810.

[33:01] The view of consider taking action on the ordinance number 2023-14

[33:05] adopting text amendments for the unified development code to influence certain changes

[33:10] to parking requirements and standards in the downtown district.

[33:14] specific sections to be amended, including section 4.2.1, we will have three turnitives of modifications to required parking.

[33:41] All right, good evening Mayor commission.

[33:44] So just a little bit of background, right?

[33:48] So we're talking about downtown areas.

[33:51] So this was on the 1920 map of Richmond.

[33:55] And so this has already been subdivided into blocks, block faces around 210 feet, 30 by 105.

[34:03] So when looking at these parking regulations, it is noted that the due to the age

[34:08] of this area, it isn't able to conform to all the parking regulations that were adopted

[34:14] within the unified development code.

[34:17] So certain structures and parcels may not be able to conform without the significant

[34:22] cost barriers and then this perform any parking reform within this

[34:26] this this district may reduce the barriers to and fill of vacant buildings and lots.

[34:32] So what staff is looking at doing staff is looking at making certain changes within section 4.2103

[34:40] and those changes include allowing for on-street parking within 60 600 feet of any

[34:47] frontage to count towards parking requirements at a rate of one space for every one on street parking space.

[34:56] When a shared parking reduction is to be applied to you.

[35:00] Uses on several lots under different ownership of non-residential development within the downtown district.

[35:06] The following shall be provided a plan showing the site is within 600 feet of that parking area.

[35:13] Public parking within downtown and any non-residential development within 600 feet of a public parking area may reduce the required vehicle parking and a rate of one space for every two public parking spaces.

[35:27] along with the bicycle parking carted within downtown,

[35:31] any non-residential development,

[35:35] all properly designed and located

[35:37] on-site bicycle parking may reduce

[35:40] the required vehicle parking at a rate of one space

[35:43] for every three bicycle parking spaces

[35:45] up to a maximum of 25 percent of the required vehicle parking.

[35:51] I can stand for any questions.

[35:53] What do you mean should be it?

[36:00] So

[36:03] this is our first bite if you have fixing this bottom.

[36:09] This is the first step of a multi-pronged approach, yes, correct.

[36:14] So, as we think about bicycle parking, what does that look like?

[36:19] Right, so staff is looking at what those type of requirements would be.

[36:24] correct drafts to address that, what kind of spacing, sizing, as you may or may not know,

[36:32] there's several different types of racks due to the district, you know, it's within the

[36:38] historic overlay district. We want something that will fit in with the architecture and

[36:44] everything within the downtown district. And not just typical steel use that you might see in front

[36:52] of a school or something like that.

[36:55] All right, and I got to say at this morning,

[36:59] we're asked to change anything, it's going to be painful.

[37:04] And there's going to be, we want to get the best we could

[37:07] possibly get and consider all the concerns, but at the end of the day,

[37:12] we're not going to be able to address all the concerns.

[37:15] So if we don't do something, if we don't address the problem,

[37:22] then we're frozen, we're stuck with what we got, we can't do anything more.

[37:32] So I appreciate this first effort and I think it's something that we'll need to discuss and work for you.

[37:39] But this is a good start, I think.

[37:42] Thank you.

[37:43] Thank you.

[37:44] Thank you.

[37:48] yeah yeah this gives us well as was noted it's it's a good start we've

[37:56] identified you know some private parking on here we did I know leave out I

[38:03] don't know if we've probably should have considered parking that's around mercy

[38:08] goods because we did include some other similar types so that is potential there

[38:14] also.

[38:17] Now I did want to mention on 21. I don't think that part in front is really set up

[38:24] as parking though. There's also grass section there. The part that's closest to Jackson.

[38:31] Oh, I don't think, you know, we showed it in dark orange or someone is parking. I don't

[38:36] think that's a couple of spots there. Yeah, just a couple right. There's also greenery. There's

[38:42] could green escalate there also. So I'm not sure that that's fully reflective, but just when

[38:49] we re-evaluate it, make sure that we did it by polyphysical measurement instead of just overhead

[38:55] measurements so that we get accurate pictures. And keep in mind too, we also have the proposed parking

[39:05] not have been of morten street, the overflow, as well as the additional lot.

[39:10] Oh yes, yes.

[39:11] And we've depicted some of that, but we do have more that we can in the future work in.

[39:18] And again, some of that private property like the old, with a Jim Keller's old property.

[39:25] I mean, that is closed off.

[39:27] That's not public parking in right now.

[39:29] No one could access it without permission.

[39:35] But yeah, I mean, right now we're trying to squeeze a dry rag to get parking and it's tough.

[39:48] I mean, I just see us having to do something much on a much larger scale to get this resolve.

[40:00] Because we've got a whole lot more structure and just we just don't have the space. And some of that space, we would like the public develop, so somewhere is along the line.

[40:12] Oh, that's all I have on it. But we just have to keep working at it, trying to figure out and keep, in a dog, don't put blinders on it. This is the path. Keep looking at those external factors of what else might work.

[40:27] signage, trying to move people to different parking lots with some kind of form of transportation

[40:31] possibly having valley services to different parking lots.

[40:35] Certainly know that there could be a proposed parking solution that county is working on

[40:40] with the city, have any interest in a partnership, I don't know, but will continue to explore

[40:46] and bring in additional information as they are flushed out.

[40:50] Well, I can, and I mentioned while back, if we did go, the parking garage route could still

[40:54] go and put it on the north side with a walk path over the rail that then it comes down

[41:02] on to this side, which allows parking there but people can free it move.

[41:08] I mean, you know, just staff is looking at other solutions to ID areas that are possible already.

[41:18] parking lots right right here north of Richmond or sorry north on 6th Street south of

[41:26] Preston right this is a parking lot while it's not exactly adjacent to downtown it is within

[41:33] proximity this possible food mark parking right so we've identified around 45 plus spaces in those two

[41:41] areas, so if you were pushed out of the exact downtown proximity, you would walk in additional

[41:50] two blocks.

[41:51] We're trying to ensure that we can provide as much information to those consumers or patrons

[41:56] as possible.

[42:00] Thank you.

[42:01] That's a lot of money.

[42:02] Thank you.

[42:03] Sure.

[42:03] Thank you, Mayor.

[42:04] I was brought up this morning.

[42:06] Perhaps silence for two-hour parking.

[42:09] I think that's a neat idea.

[42:11] As long as we're planning for throwing out ideas, brainstorming, I don't know if it makes sense from a cost perspective.

[42:20] But if you're going to get parking lots on the north side of the tracks,

[42:26] you end up with a shuttle system or a trolley or something that's, again, I have no idea what something like that would cost if it would be worth doing.

[42:35] but, and from a convenience factor, if people would be willing to do it, but if it was, you

[42:40] know, a neat looking trolley that becomes part of the charm of coming into the store

[42:44] downtown Richmond. With respect to the day, though, I think Commissioner Gaul is probably

[42:50] closer to this issue than I am. So I'm probably going to defer to him at least for today.

[42:58] That's all I've got, Mayor.

[43:00] Well, I agree. I think we don't have a problem. I think we have two problems.

[43:06] The one problem is we have a shortage of downtown parking.

[43:11] It had a recent study. It looked to find a man that indicated we had a modest problem.

[43:16] But then when I started digging a little bit of the study, I started finding some assumptions that just didn't make any sense at all.

[43:24] that which led me to believe, maybe if he fixed a few of the assumptions in the study,

[43:30] the problem right now would be more speared and it was indicated.

[43:34] I think it showed we were 12% short in the daytime, but on my guess is it's worse than

[43:45] that if you look, if you try to park there at noon on a Friday, I don't think you're going

[43:52] find that there is a surplus of parking.

[43:56] The other problem is that the requirement for a new commercial

[44:02] development to have its own parking or to demonstrate

[44:05] the parking is a deterrent.

[44:07] That is a problem.

[44:09] But I'm nervous about fixing the problem that leads to more

[44:15] demand for parking until we also fix the problem that leads

[44:19] to more supply of parking.

[44:21] And so I would propose that we table this for one meeting and review the study that's been done on supply and demand and make sure we're comfortable with those assumptions and if so, that we're comfortable with loosening things up, some more.

[44:39] I know we have to do something, I just don't, I just don't know that we want to do increase.

[44:45] Do something that increases demand before we do something that increases supply.

[44:50] I think they need to go hand in hand.

[44:53] I'll second that.

[44:56] But I'd like to add that perhaps we can get an update on.

[45:04] The efforts to add the parking on the other end of morning. I agree with Commissioner Gaul that I feel a whole lot better if we had a date certain on when that was going to happen. So we could say, well, we've got some help on the way.

[45:21] So we're in the process of imminent domain. We'll go into executive session for update.

[45:26] Thank you.

[45:27] in fear.

[45:28] If I may follow them, since this is a particular downtown problem.

[45:36] Is there downtown district, a tourist or some other vehicle whereby this can get paid

[45:45] for other than just as a general funds and be a little more creative as to how we approach

[45:51] the funding.

[45:52] I think it could be a great overlay district area.

[45:56] We haven't explored that in recent years.

[45:59] And we talked about it, but we could explore it to see if it makes sense for us to

[46:04] look at funding mechanisms that an overlay district would provide in downtown with the

[46:09] triggers or another creative mechanism.

[46:11] We'll get our finance director to kind of explore that and then we'll have a couple of prong

[46:16] approach, but we'll definitely bring that up for next meeting in conjunction with the

[46:21] additional parking information that you'll have requested.

[46:24] Yeah, one of the best you'll be.

[46:26] Hello.

[46:27] There's a motion on the floor to postpone until next month in the second.

[46:32] Is that all in favor?

[46:33] All right.

[46:34] Any opposed?

[46:36] That motion has to be here.

[46:40] Okay.

[46:41] We'll move to a 11 discussion of lots of reduction with the

[46:46] in general. Good evening.

[46:51] Good evening. Good evening. So we're talking about a reduction in the

[46:56] minimum lot sizes and then law with regards to old town will start there. So old town is part of

[47:04] the original map of Richmond. Typical lots of 30 by 105. Some of those have been combined,

[47:11] some have been subdivided, but that is the typical system that was that is plated.

[47:19] So with regards to that, our old-town district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square

[47:24] feet and 50 feet in width.

[47:28] So we do have a number of lots that do not meet those standards.

[47:33] So to allow for lots to be developed within this old-town district that do not meet those

[47:38] standards, staff is proposing a reduction based on general discussions in the past regarding

[47:46] the old town district.

[47:48] So as you noted earlier, we did have a variance to the requirements, but that was within

[47:54] the general residential district.

[47:57] So if you do not have a lot of record for the old town, so that lot of record means that

[48:03] a deed was recorded of the office of the county clerk for the county prior to July

[48:10] 1985. Then you will need to platt your law. So if you need to platt your law and you do not meet

[48:18] the minimum size requirements of 6,000 square feet, 50 feet and width and then the applicable

[48:23] set backs once your site plan is available. Well, we'll start with just the plotting platting

[48:29] the 6,000 square feet in the 50 feet width, you would not be able to

[48:32] apply without a variance. So staff is asking or discussing a reduction to

[48:41] 3,000 square feet and minimum width of 30 square feet would be more

[48:46] in line with the original map of Richmond. So for the general residential

[48:51] district, staff is taking some general sites within North

[48:56] Richmond, North of Calhoun, to understand how these sites align with our current standards.

[49:04] So if you are a single lot in a standard neighborhood, general lots need to be 12,000 square

[49:11] feet.

[49:11] So if you would like to have a smaller lot, 8,200 square feet, you need a minimum area

[49:17] of development of 15 total acres.

[49:20] If you'd like to have a lot smaller than that of 6,000 square feet, you need a minimum area

[49:25] development of 10 acres. So that's going to leave your single family home, your applicant

[49:33] who buys a single lot to develop a single home, unable unless they have 12,000 square feet

[49:38] to devote to plat and then develop a lot. So staff is proposing a new neighborhood type called

[49:47] standard neighborhood infill lots, the minimum lot size being 4,000 square feet.

[49:55] And so the infill lot would have include the definition in table 3.101.

[50:00] Residents of development standards, any vacant lotter parcel within developed areas of the city, where at least 70% of the land within 300 foot radius has been developed and where water sewer, streets, school, and fire protection have already been developed and are provided.

[50:15] area also must be plotted prior to 1985. So what that would allow for is for previously

[50:24] plotted areas that have been re-subdivided through meats and bounds or otherwise, to

[50:31] come into conformance if they meet these minimum standards and then get plotted to

[50:35] allow for development on these lots. So staff did a sample land area, took a sample land

[50:42] area between South of Clay Street, East of Collins Street, West of 10th Street, North of

[50:51] Preston.

[50:53] So out of the general residential area, number of parcels of 278, there was approximately

[51:02] 131 non-conforming parcels, whether that was lot area or minimum lot with.

[51:11] When staff looked at applying the 4,000 square foot minimum law area and 40 foot wide

[51:18] lots, approximately 81 of those non-conforming parcels would meet the proposed modified

[51:23] requirements.

[51:25] So staff chose to look at that as a possible reduction, and that's how staff came to

[51:31] those conclusions with regards to the in-fill lot size of 4,000 square feet and a minimum

[51:37] lot with the 40 feet.

[51:42] So, I can take any questions.

[51:44] Thank you, Benin.

[51:50] I think anything that is going to encourage

[51:54] development of vacant lots that are sitting there

[51:57] or something that we need to try to figure out how to handle.

[52:01] So, that's all I've got to add, Mayor.

[52:03] I was just point out that Commissioner Gaul had a good point

[52:06] to support it about the 15 foot set back on a corner lot.

[52:11] But I'll let him take that up.

[52:15] Yeah, follow up on that file, so I agree that we need to do something.

[52:21] We need to relax something so that we can make use of these infill lots and we need to

[52:29] do it in a way that's compatible with the surrounding areas.

[52:33] By concern in old town on these 30 foot lots is if setbacks are maintained, the maximum width on a 30 foot lot for the building would be 20 feet, which is pretty narrow, but on a corner lot with a 15 foot setback from the street and 5 to the other neighbor, you're left with a 10 foot wide slot.

[52:57] So I think we need to re-look at what we're going to, what we might end up with being proposed

[53:05] if we do it as currently written, and I thought Commissioner Drainman, a good point this

[53:13] morning, that if we change the UDC in this manner, and then somebody comes in with a proposal

[53:23] for a ten-foot-wide house because that's what it takes to meet the setbacks and we go,

[53:31] oh that doesn't make any sense at all, but we don't have a legal argument, all we have

[53:37] is kind of a bad taste in our mouth about it, I'm not sure we'd be under a strong ground

[53:43] to deny it, so I think if we're going to potentially create some ten or twenty-foot-wide

[53:53] Billings that at the end of the day, we're not going to be leased with, we need some kind

[53:59] of a hook in there that says that it must conform to the fabric of the neighborhooders.

[54:05] We have to ask to be something in there that allows us to say no and have a legal footing

[54:10] for saying no in an extreme case.

[54:13] We've had a ability of the neighborhood.

[54:16] That's what we say, compatibility of the neighborhood and define what that means.

[54:20] Yeah, and yes, I think that might address mission of gross concerns, but the

[54:31] the forwarding, the other, the GR, I don't have a problem with it, and in general, I think it's the right thing to do, but we just need to do it in a way that it doesn't get out of control.

[54:43] What's your vote?

[54:47] Adding on to that one of my concerns with these is under the new state where we use the International Code.

[55:00] You said 10 metal buildings, what do you want to call it? I can see where we could end up with the equivalent of sheds, large sheds that were turned, kind of like the bond to many of them concept, but they're taking metal sheds

[55:23] under our current code.

[55:24] I mean, technically, they could still do a lot of that, but I mean, if we have a whole

[55:32] bunch of these lined up, I mean, I don't know if we can put exclusions to get them built

[55:38] a little bit more in the line, because we talked about it.

[55:41] You mentioned about compatibility or so on, you know, with the surrounding area, but I don't

[55:46] know that we can enforce that based on the new guidance from the state on building materials.

[55:52] The lack of input on materials, however, I still think there's some building standards that we could rely on that would provide us a level of assurance that we wouldn't have the structures you're describing.

[56:05] But let's research it a little bit a little bit a little bit more to make sure that we actually have the information you're requesting.

[56:11] I do think there's something in the building code that allows for not some standard. You can't do lean tools, you have to make sure that it's something and there's a description.

[56:20] and I just don't know off the top of my head.

[56:22] And that is still enforceable.

[56:24] Right.

[56:25] Not the materials, but there is something within the standards of.

[56:29] Yes.

[56:30] So even in the barn dominions, they have to meet.

[56:34] That house living standards.

[56:35] They have to be hung in.

[56:37] All that stuff.

[56:40] But could we be opening it up for quick?

[56:43] Again, I, you know.

[56:45] I used the term, it may not be.

[56:48] mobile homes, but you may end up, we may end up with a lot of the equivalent.

[56:52] Just cheap housing that fits in.

[56:55] Somebody buys up the individual lot of sick and sell those cheap police and cheap.

[57:01] And we end up with a lot of that.

[57:02] So it doesn't really fit the neighborhood and it doesn't progress the neighborhood.

[57:07] We want them to build something nice, they'll still on it.

[57:11] It doesn't really be real nice, I'm not saying that.

[57:13] But it has to be something nice that people

[57:17] It's pleasant and to see you wouldn't improve the neighborhood. That's part of our goes that the people will use those lots

[57:26] But it's a pleasant neighborhood

[57:30] It creates abstain or abstain or abstain or yes

[57:36] So that is still one of my concerns with all this because I can see who can't have been the lots

[57:43] get bought up and they're set up as rentals more than housing and it's just quick lots

[57:50] to put people in and roll. Moneymaker,

[57:56] which I don't really want that, but that brings

[57:59] up another issue that came up from earlier on rent because I know we're all concerned

[58:04] at times about whether the home is being built for rent, rental property or for someone

[58:11] going to live in it. Under our current codes, I mean, anyone can buy a homeless, residential

[58:20] and rent it out. At what point is that should that become commercial? Or should we create

[58:29] a new type of code? And this is something you can have out there maybe leaves. But to where

[58:35] a home, a residential home, is converted to a lease home, a rental property, does it then

[58:42] do they have to get a temporary commercial? Because it's really, I mean it's really, it's

[58:47] being commercial, someone's living in it, but therefore it's residential, but just like with

[58:52] apartments, you know, there's a commercial aspect to it.

[58:58] Change of occupancy, when does it trigger, when some inspections would occur, and then we

[59:03] would make sure that we have our checklist out for whatever use they're using it or

[59:07] but there's also checklist between zoning if it's zone correctly it's properly able

[59:13] to be used for what they're trying to use it for.

[59:16] And so I think we have some things in place currently that allows for checklist making sure

[59:21] that other departments are talking whether it's the building or the planning or permits

[59:26] or whatever and maybe we want to make sure that everybody's on the same page.

[59:29] OK, so on May and afterwards, I may need to talk to you and Gary and whoever else that

[59:35] get more about it.

[59:36] But it's one of those elements where I want to make sure that we have residents, homesteads,

[59:43] so on and then rental is rental.

[59:47] We fill the place up with rental, the neck and the changes, yeah, it's fair too.

[59:54] And that was part of my concern with these two is that we may end up with a whole bunch

[1:00:01] Little houses that are more rental targeted at rental rather than residential, and sometimes folks will take care of it, sometimes folks don't do not take care of rental, I've lived in enough rental areas when I was in the military, you know, some people care less about the rental property there.

[1:00:24] So, leave that to all I have. That's just information more than anything else.

[1:00:31] All these concerns. Thank you.

[1:00:34] Michigan beer.

[1:00:36] I asked the question this morning. Can we go back home, require certain building size in this?

[1:00:52] So,

[1:00:55] if we kind of think through that in a holistic way, that broadens our opportunities,

[1:01:02] we're getting the house that we want, and we're getting these lots put back into commercial

[1:01:09] you are property tax and getting people to live in Richmond.

[1:01:19] So, same as like, so how

[1:01:22] did that? 278 lots of job surveyed in the 131 form. How many of those would have been addressed

[1:01:32] with this or right so 81 out of those and but this was in general residential

[1:01:39] correct so 81 out of those if you reduce it to 4,000 and 4,000 or there

[1:01:47] I would be addressed by this, which would open up a considerable amount of property to be developed.

[1:02:04] Right, so 81 would meet the standards, and then the balance 50 would not.

[1:02:12] Yeah, so it would be much more than 30 sorry my misunderstanding.

[1:02:17] Okay.

[1:02:21] Okay.

[1:02:21] There's no more discussion.

[1:02:23] I don't know.

[1:02:23] What's the time to follow up?

[1:02:25] Um, when we talked about mobile homes now, like, we have some mobile homes there.

[1:02:33] Manufactured homes.

[1:02:34] What do you want to call them?

[1:02:35] All these lots right now in some parts of Richmond.

[1:02:39] Our current code is those become dilapidated or burned down whatever.

[1:02:44] Can they be replaced with another one?

[1:02:47] One time they can be replaced if it's a new proposal has to be with an a main infection home part or mobile home part well, but if it's not I mean

[1:02:56] No, we have a lot that not a mobile home parts on those lots the law changed

[1:03:02] So keep in mind state law allows for one swap out if it's not an apart our current

[1:03:09] UDC

[1:03:10] It's not consistent with state law, which we need to provide for clarification. So that

[1:03:15] We are illustrating what the state law allows for.

[1:03:20] I think what we've said in the past is different from when the state law changed.

[1:03:24] But currently and we verified it because we've been getting lots of calls and requests on this.

[1:03:28] Can people move in a existing not in a trailer park or not in a manufacturer home park?

[1:03:35] Someone has an existing manufacturer home and they replace it in the answer as yes once.

[1:03:42] Now, how do we track that once?

[1:03:43] So, that's what we have for treatments, and we have other tracking mechanisms within our

[1:03:51] performance office and building, building officials office.

[1:03:54] Now, there's a whole state department that practices, or, I know they track the construction

[1:04:00] of their pair of and all that, do they also try the locations that were that might be a source?

[1:04:08] So, to answer your question, I'm not sure, but what I can tell you is we do require a

[1:04:13] Blackbird to be placed on these major fracture homes, it's very hard, it's very challenging

[1:04:18] to find these Blackbird manufacture homes anymore.

[1:04:22] I think they're becoming less and less available, so that may become a not an issue anymore

[1:04:28] because it's just hard to find.

[1:04:30] As far as tracking it from the state, we have been trying to track it on our own, we'll verify

[1:04:35] that that source could be something that would be helpful for our buildings, building

[1:04:39] department, but currently we track it, we try to track it on her house.

[1:04:43] And has anybody looked into whether the state fully differentiates between a travel

[1:04:51] trailer and a RV mobile home?

[1:04:54] Great question, and I'm going to get more technical and we probably get Scott to come up and

[1:04:59] click on it.

[1:05:00] I have had those, we do not have that current situation in the city to answer your question. I would need Scott to answer whether or not the RV is going to be different from the manufacturer, because we have specific law, or Pacific language in state law that defines what they both are. Scott, do you want to provide this information? Sorry to put you on the spot. If you need it back, if you have it right now, or I can get it later, but I'm going to get back to you too if he doesn't have it all the time.

[1:05:28] I'd probably be the best if I could get back, but I think there are some differences in both of them.

[1:05:33] However, they can receive home-state exemption for RVs if they are on a lot, which are UDC prohibits that.

[1:05:44] From being connected, but we probably need to research that a little more and provide more information to your question.

[1:05:56] If there's something that limits the height of a structure that can be built on one of these 30 or 40 foot lots, you can add a lift next to it.

[1:06:04] Has the opening on where you're located?

[1:06:07] So are you talking about in the general residential, old town, or in another location?

[1:06:12] Because we do have height restrictions within the district.

[1:06:14] Pacific to the 45-wide lots in in-field lots in GR and the 30 foot in-field lots.

[1:06:22] I can see it was incentive to build up since they have no room to build out.

[1:06:29] What will limit in our city? What will limit the height to which they can build that structure?

[1:06:35] The UDC does have maximum building high requirements for all those general residential and old town district

[1:06:41] answer bourbon residential that maximum heights going to be thirty five feet. Correct.

[1:06:52] Is that

[1:06:55] it? Thank you. We will now close a eleven and elephant.

[1:07:03] The view of considered taking action ordinance number two twenty three dash fifteen.

[1:07:07] Because fiscal fiscal year twenty twenty four taxes.

[1:07:13] All right. Good evening, Mayor commissioners. With the deadline for changes to exemptions,

[1:07:17] fast reporting on June 30th,

[1:07:19] after we're requesting your action to see being.

[1:07:23] The provide value in size for your decision-making process,

[1:07:25] app prepared a presentation that covers essential aspects.

[1:07:27] We'll begin with the concise recap of last month's presentation,

[1:07:31] which probably comes in and property tax.

[1:07:34] Followed by comparative analysis of neighboring city exemptions,

[1:07:37] additionally, as we delve into the topic of exemptions,

[1:07:39] it's crucial to address the plan for the fiscal year,

[1:07:41] 2024 property tax rate.

[1:07:44] And with that, there's a quick recap.

[1:07:49] We've discussed two local option exemptions, one being the homestead, which is 1.5%

[1:07:54] of the minimum of 5,000 and the other being over 65, which is right now is 6,000.

[1:08:00] Taxcoder requires that the commission improve this five before July 1st.

[1:08:03] And the tax office normally asks for this by April, but I did reach out to them, and

[1:08:08] we do have to June 30th to provide a decision.

[1:08:12] The over 65, again, it's currently 6,000 to men, men, men, men, men is 3,000.

[1:08:19] Local, the local option exemption is 1.5% or 5,000 to max is 20% or the men, men,

[1:08:26] over 5,000.

[1:08:29] Here in this table, the states are pure cities, optional exemption comparisons.

[1:08:34] As you can see, Richmond is at 1.5% or 5% which is greater, and then you see

[1:08:40] And it needville, Missouri City, Sugarland,

[1:08:42] Fulcher, Rosenberg, Metosplacing, Katie.

[1:08:45] And then the over 65, we're at 6,000 compared

[1:08:48] to the other piercities listed there.

[1:08:58] As you were, it's also important to remember that rich

[1:09:00] from being the county seat, exam property is key.

[1:09:04] So we're at 31% of our exam property

[1:09:07] compared to our piercities, the second highest

[1:09:10] closest being Katie, and the lowest being Metosplice.

[1:09:13] I see, is it? We slipped from 40% to 31.

[1:09:18] Yes, ma'am. We did. Yes, it did.

[1:09:19] We did. We've been sitting. So we've been saying 40, 41% that number now is around 31%.

[1:09:26] So some of our subdivisions coming into plays, some of the other annexations that we've done.

[1:09:32] Just know that number slightly different than what we've doubted in the past.

[1:09:35] Which is good. I mean, we're coming down. So hopefully next year it'll be 20%.

[1:09:44] And then on the next slide, it's a commercial value comparison bar graph.

[1:09:52] I can see Richmond is at the third lowest, and the total commercial value isn't blue with the total

[1:09:59] attack.

[1:10:00] Commissar Valu in orange. Again, illustrates how much the county takes over our land, for example, properties.

[1:10:09] Then, sure land, Missouri, city, and Rosenberg, really, they have an economies of scale, which allows them to put themselves into positions, where they can give additional homes to exemptions, or higher homes to over 65 exemption.

[1:10:23] So

[1:10:28] again, transitioning from exemptions to property tax, it's important to talk about it in the same breath.

[1:10:34] Senate bill to really caps the cities at the 30% of value revaluation growth.

[1:10:42] Meaning that no new revenue rate will always come down depending on the valuation.

[1:10:47] The assumption is that valuation will always go down.

[1:10:50] It's valid, I mean, up, as valuation goes up,

[1:10:53] you know, you know, know you revenue rate goes down.

[1:10:56] And then you're capped at 30,

[1:10:57] how per cent revenue growth asset that,

[1:10:58] which is the voter approval rate, or in our case,

[1:11:01] as well as the diminimous tax rate.

[1:11:04] And then, and as we talk about property tax rate,

[1:11:08] the bond rating agencies, it's important to talk about

[1:11:11] what they do on their analysis to give us

[1:11:15] or rating again, or is it double eight minus my standards

[1:11:18] and poor?

[1:11:18] So what they look at is our revenue, they do a forecast similar to our fiscal impact model.

[1:11:24] So if we begin to reduce our property tax rate and reduce our revenues, they'll also keep that into account when they do their analysis on their ratings.

[1:11:32] They also look at our expenditures at the same time.

[1:11:37] So the city mitigates risk in a couple of ways.

[1:11:40] We assume a collection rate is a conservative 98%.

[1:11:43] Again, that's due to timing 100% hopefully in the long run as some of the property valuation falls into the length.

[1:11:51] We make assumptions in our file budget based on historical trends in the actual, so right now we're developing that budget.

[1:11:57] We'll come to you and should lie with our proposed budget.

[1:12:00] And then you'll see our property tax revenue assumptions.

[1:12:03] And after we file the budget, we'll go through our workshops.

[1:12:07] In after July 25, the certified tax rate comes out.

[1:12:10] We do our truth and taxation calculation.

[1:12:12] And we get a true property tax rate number at that point.

[1:12:20] This table will illustrate what a change in our property tax rate would do.

[1:12:28] So going from 66 cents to a penny to 0.65 cents, it would be a $78,000, $270,000, $220,000,

[1:12:36] $220,000 financial impact to our general fund revenues.

[1:12:40] And then so on you can see as the increase goes more down,

[1:12:43] that the loss of revenue also comes higher.

[1:12:48] The city financial long term forecast, it's important to illustrate on the next slide that

[1:12:56] right now looking in the long term perspective, our new development for random city

[1:13:03] mandola brought to great point in our financials, so could you see the commission in the

[1:13:08] city manager for taking on that development, but our expenditures are increasing higher than

[1:13:15] revenues. So as you can see, in 24, our revenues over expenditure are at 800 and 1,000, but

[1:13:23] the increase or decrease starts to come down in the out years, ultimately net by 28. We

[1:13:30] would start drawing down on our fund balance at 300,000. So any changes to the tax rate or

[1:13:37] exemptions may move that number up closer.

[1:13:42] And the question brought this morning on the

[1:13:45] workshop was how would this look like if we added additional debt on top of this.

[1:13:52] And so if the unconstrained CFP was layered into this slide here, which we would see in

[1:14:02] FY24 is actually a drawdown of negative 1.5 million.

[1:14:07] So again, it's not accounting for needs of the city on the CFP side.

[1:14:15] It's just accounted for the existing debt that we are already obligated to.

[1:14:25] All right.

[1:14:27] And with that commission.

[1:14:28] So if the commission expresses desire to increase exemptions, staff recommends

[1:14:32] on increasing the over 65 exemption.

[1:14:35] For the more as a fiscal year,

[1:14:37] 2024 budget is developed, we propose maintaining the current property tax rate at 66 cents.

[1:14:43] This approach ensures the homeowners receive additional support,

[1:14:45] while providing stability and tax rates to facilitate the budget planning process.

[1:14:49] If that all will take any questions, comments or just repeat that, would it staff recommend?

[1:14:56] We're recommending if the Commission desires.

[1:15:00] First to give increased exemptions here to focus on the over 65 exemptions, at the same time,

[1:15:06] plain to maintain the tax rate of 66 cents to develop the budget.

[1:15:16] So, why does staff recommend over 65 exemptions rather than homestead exemptions?

[1:15:22] It's the least impact to the general fund, depending on the valuation.

[1:15:26] So, for example, Commissioner, once an increase in the property tax rate, just for one, looking at a single fiscal year, is 70,000 to $1,000 in revenue loss.

[1:15:40] A 5,000?

[1:15:42] A 1% decrease.

[1:15:44] 1%?

[1:15:44] Just a 1% property tax rate.

[1:15:46] So, going from 66 and 65,000?

[1:15:53] from 6,000 to 11,000 would be about 25,000 in revenue loss, and a 1% increase on homestead

[1:16:01] would be about 33,000.

[1:16:05] Okay, so I can tell you that what I look at this, I think, what do you want to encourage,

[1:16:11] and who do you want to reward?

[1:16:14] Because that's what you're doing is your tax policy, your fiscal policy is going to encourage

[1:16:21] certain behaviors and discourage others.

[1:16:23] And so when I look at this, I say, I want to encourage

[1:16:29] owner occupier.

[1:16:30] I want to encourage people who live in the community,

[1:16:32] I have a sense of ownership in the community.

[1:16:36] And so my inclination is to increase the homestead

[1:16:39] exemption.

[1:16:44] I'm open to the idea of increasing the over 65,

[1:16:47] just because many of those folks are on fixed incomes,

[1:16:50] but the truth of the matter is that many of the folks

[1:16:53] that are over 65,

[1:16:59] I don't have any data to back this up, but my sense is going to be that

[1:17:02] many of those folks are doing just fine or they're already hurting and a few dollars

[1:17:06] here, there's not going to make much of a difference.

[1:17:08] So I'm looking at it more.

[1:17:10] If you want to look at what a homestead exemption is in the Fort Bend County area, I would

[1:17:17] want to increase that so that Richmond is more competitive and encouraging people.

[1:17:21] When they're especially if we're looking at expanding the city limits and bringing in other neighborhoods or new development

[1:17:30] You know, I think that I think that adds to the attractiveness of people buying and becoming owner occupied

[1:17:39] I take I take city staff warning the heart when they talk about

[1:17:45] lowering the the property tax

[1:17:48] Because of

[1:17:51] the way Senate bill two plays on that, that makes me a little nervous.

[1:17:56] I don't want to get a Senate situation where our ability to react is constrained by Senate bill two,

[1:18:03] or we've got to go to the voters and say, you know, we've run the ship around and we need to increase the tax rate,

[1:18:12] Whereas if we did it with either a homestead or an over 65,

[1:18:18] we'd have the ability to tweak that on our own.

[1:18:22] And so for my two cents, I appreciate that you,

[1:18:29] by lowering the property tax rate, you're treating everybody equally.

[1:18:35] But if somebody's got a rental property,

[1:18:37] they can afford to pay the 66 cents in my book.

[1:18:40] We ought to be encouraging folks that are trying to get on the property ladder that want to make rich men their own and so

[1:18:48] My inclination is to increase the homestead exception perhaps more than and you guys would like but that's that's where my thoughts

[1:18:56] That's all I got there

[1:18:59] Okay, we should go

[1:19:01] Well, I agree with almost everything you said

[1:19:06] We have three levers to work with.

[1:19:10] If we increase exemptions, we decrease the city revenue.

[1:19:15] If we decrease the property rate, we decrease the city revenue.

[1:19:19] It's just how much can we stand.

[1:19:22] When I look at your forecast, it looks like for the next few years,

[1:19:27] we've got a pretty good surplus in the base case.

[1:19:32] But when you get four or five years down the road, maybe if all those assumptions are right, which we know they aren't, we don't know what they're going to be, but we have to make some assumptions.

[1:19:43] It says that a problem might occur a few years down the road.

[1:19:48] I guess the bottom line is, I agree with Commissioner Bement, that depending on which lever you turn, you favor some people at the expense of others.

[1:19:58] nice

[1:20:00] We're trying to attract commercial growth in our city, because they pay not only property tax, but they generate sales tax revenues for us.

[1:20:13] So, the only the over 65 exemption doesn't help them nor does the home state exemption. The only thing that helps them is reducing the property rate.

[1:20:24] If the tax rate is 66, enrichment and it's 43 and Rosenberg, they may go just to cross the, they would be encouraged to go across the line and to Rosenberg or in the sugarland or whatever, all things be equal.

[1:20:41] So, I agree that depending on which action we take, we fade with some people at the expense of others.

[1:20:47] So, I think the commercial property developers are the ones we want to attract because they generate double refining for sales tax and property tax.

[1:21:01] So, I've always been in front of my first priority has always been keeping them in a way that property tax steadily and we've done a great job over the last decade.

[1:21:11] I don't see why we don't continue that and if we can do that and

[1:21:21] the exemption up a bit.

[1:21:28] I'm for that too.

[1:21:29] I feel like we've been, I'm

[1:21:35] a conservative person.

[1:21:37] But I feel like in this case maybe we're being a little bit too conservative.

[1:21:41] if I think we're giving too much consideration to the out years, fiscal year 28, and beyond

[1:21:53] based on some assumptions, which we know are just, the best we can do, but there we

[1:21:58] know that we'll be making different assumptions next year and different assumptions again

[1:22:02] the year after that.

[1:22:07] I'd be a little bit more aggressive on either property tax, rate,

[1:22:13] reduction or exemption increase,

[1:22:17] if I were to give them to the former, if I have.

[1:22:21] Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Guns.

[1:22:25] I don't know if everyone on the Commission had a chance to see the additional charts

[1:22:30] that they said this, but I'm looking at the property tax reduction.

[1:22:34] My nature impact and it's not all inclusive, because I don't see the waterline project that was

[1:22:42] to go across the bridge of 90, and I'll forget what the cost was on it, but we actually

[1:22:52] are doing it through another source, because it's not considered end-to-end strain we

[1:22:58] have an additional resource in order to provide for funding.

[1:23:02] Okay, so that's why it's not here, but that explains it.

[1:23:06] Thank you.

[1:23:09] But if you look at these planned items, which I think everybody was in favor of and

[1:23:17] wants to get done, and some which we have today, there's quite a few million there.

[1:23:25] There's at least, you know, 29 out of rounded up to 30 million, just by the time some of

[1:23:30] ahead. The costs keep going up. We've got to keep the future development of our city in mind

[1:23:43] as we look at the budget. It's not about surviving. It's about growing as Richmond grows.

[1:23:52] And Richmond is growing right now, it's primarily, we've had more housing come in to Richmond on the property than we have commercial.

[1:24:03] I would like to see more commercialists sooner than later, but we've got to be prepared for that.

[1:24:13] And so, I mean, I caution all of us about tightening the range too much to where we don't.

[1:24:23] It is good to have money and all of us as we've gone through life have tried to put money away

[1:24:30] so that we can have something in the future.

[1:24:34] And a city's got to do the same thing.

[1:24:37] I mean, to build and grow.

[1:24:39] And if we just look at the here and now, what it's cost us to survive, provide the basic necessities to our citizens

[1:24:50] would not look and out for the city's future.

[1:24:55] So that's why I've been very cautionary with all of these cuts.

[1:25:00] That's cuts, because if you're not looking at the full picture, it will bite us. It'll bite the city in the

[1:25:09] tail. We may be long gone, but it'll, and enjoying some of the benefits we're creating now on

[1:25:16] the lower taxes. But right now, we just, we don't have the income from outside sources,

[1:25:26] like

[1:25:29] And unless we see it, which I don't, that it's going to be an immediate influx,

[1:25:38] then we have to be cautious.

[1:25:41] And that's why I'm not right now with conditions of everything going on with interest rates and all that.

[1:25:51] I am not for it, because we can cut rates here, and then we have to take out a bond at

[1:25:58] if it keeps going to path that's going at some crazy rate, which now we have more in debt

[1:26:04] versus income, so that's really all I have to say on this.

[1:26:12] I just caution all of us as a commission on trying to

[1:26:19] draw things continually.

[1:26:21] We need to sit back and look at what the future holds and make decisions on this.

[1:26:29] That's all I have there.

[1:26:30] Thank you.

[1:26:31] Mr. Bill.

[1:26:34] So how many households do we have?

[1:26:37] I

[1:26:40] don't need their commissioner.

[1:26:43] I think that's right.

[1:26:44] I think been there for 10 dollars a household.

[1:26:49] You were to lower it by 10, which doesn't mean much to them, but it means a lot to us.

[1:26:58] So, you know, I don't want $200,000 business.

[1:27:04] That's $200,000.

[1:27:07] You know, I don't know how we address that, but we've got to address something tonight.

[1:27:15] So I concur that we need to address commercial values somehow, whether that be through them.

[1:27:30] I just don't think we're ready to lower it right now until we start seeing what this next year will.

[1:27:38] There's going to be a lot to unfold out with a mass, a lot of opportunity, things that

[1:27:45] we're not even thinking about right now, and then we'll be able to see it a little further

[1:27:50] into the future I would think.

[1:27:52] So my sense is, I don't care whether we do a little exemption for 65

[1:28:06] and over or the other

[1:28:07] I can't remember about both of those.

[1:28:13] I would need to do something.

[1:28:15] I can't remember.

[1:28:16] I can't remember.

[1:28:17] It looks like we have 5,137 accounts on the roll.

[1:28:22] Well, 5,100.

[1:28:23] So

[1:28:25] it's 38.

[1:28:28] It's 50,000.

[1:28:31] It's 50,000.

[1:28:32] It's 50,000.

[1:28:33] It's 50,000.

[1:28:34] It's 50,000.

[1:28:35] It's 50,000.

[1:28:37] It's 50,000.

[1:28:39] Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor.

[1:28:45] So, and I think Commissioner Gaul has got a good point that attracting commercial enterprises

[1:28:53] will not only help with property tax but also at sales tax but it seems to me that we've

[1:29:04] able to find ways to attract business with development deals that we do where we do an

[1:29:12] end run around the property tax because to the extent that we're not as competitive on the

[1:29:21] property tax aspect of it as say a Rosenberg we've been we've been working deals out with

[1:29:27] there was the new quest there was tax but not property tax correct but but if I'm a business

[1:29:33] owner, I don't care. In other words, I want my cost to do a business. If you want to attract me

[1:29:38] and I want my cost to do a business to make financial sense, and if it's a dollar here

[1:29:45] or it's a dollar there, it's a dollar either way. And you can make an argument that, well,

[1:29:51] down the road, when that deal with the city runs out, it's not as attractive, but you're already there.

[1:29:59] Uh...

[1:30:00] And so, I mean, I think it's a great point, but I think that the city's got other tools in their toolbox to make that value proposition more attractive.

[1:30:13] And so, what I'd like perhaps to hear is like, you know,

[1:30:21] paint me the nightmare scenario if, if we, and what needs to happen for us to get ourselves

[1:30:31] in that death spiral where suddenly, you know,

[1:30:38] well, but we're just going to go down to

[1:30:42] But that's what we're going to do.

[1:30:45] And so what needs to happen, one of the different steps that need to happen that say,

[1:30:51] we'll pull a cow.

[1:30:52] We're going to, the city's going to have to tighten its bell.

[1:30:56] We're going to, we're going to be redlining.

[1:30:59] We're going to have to go back out to the voters and say, look,

[1:31:02] we need to do more than a 3.5% increase to write the ship.

[1:31:08] So what would that look like?

[1:31:09] The biggest, it's multiple components, but the biggest one being cell stacks.

[1:31:14] We highly, highly rely on cell stacks.

[1:31:18] And a lot of our cell stacks, what I see from the data is a lot of online cells are coming in.

[1:31:25] I can't tell you a definite, that belongs to the city of Richmond or not.

[1:31:29] We just had that scenario about a year ago where we collected cell stacks that didn't belong to us.

[1:31:34] And then we had to repay over time, which affected our fund balance and everything else.

[1:31:40] And also increasing expenditures, you can ask any of our department heads how much expenses

[1:31:47] have gone up the past year due to inflation.

[1:31:50] So again, if our expenditures continue to go this route where our governments just throw

[1:31:57] one money into the economy, and it's just pumping and pumping, we're going to have a problem

[1:32:01] on the expenditure.

[1:32:02] We'll see in our group.

[1:32:03] Exactly. So it's a combination of that expenditures. And again, I just want to reiterate it's very important.

[1:32:10] I think we have a now standing bond rating for our decides of our city at AA minus.

[1:32:16] I fear that if we start cutting down our revenues, our expenditures keep increasing.

[1:32:21] Perhaps we have a sales tax adjustment like we did last year, all that the bonding rate agencies look at and then they forecast out.

[1:32:29] And so that impacts our rating, and again, and that impacts our rating and the effect

[1:32:34] to downgrade it, the cost of debt for us for interest rates to go up, which ultimately

[1:32:40] hurt our residency even more because of the interest repaying on that debt.

[1:32:48] And so one last question would be if the current home state exemption is 1.5% or 5,000, whichever

[1:32:58] greater if we want to do increase that,

[1:33:06] would that be 2.5% or 10 grand, whichever is greater

[1:33:11] or what?

[1:33:12] You would increase the, it stays out of 5,000 minimum, Gary McC, correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:33:18] But the percentage increase in the homestead, you could increase, I believe, why half a

[1:33:24] percent.

[1:33:24] So if you went from 1.5 to 2.5%, estimating that would be a reduction of 33,000 going

[1:33:30] into the general fund in 24.

[1:33:33] OK, so you could actually do it.

[1:33:37] The three and a half percent and still be under the one percent impact

[1:33:43] on the pathway, one percent.

[1:33:46] The one percent.

[1:33:48] There you could go to two percent.

[1:33:53] Yes, sir.

[1:33:53] OK, OK.

[1:33:54] but two and a half, and it'd be about equivalent to a one cent action and property tax.

[1:34:02] Well, what I'm saying is you go from the 1.5% to 3.5% to 3.5% still be under your 1 cent tax

[1:34:10] rate reduction, what by 2.5%.

[1:34:13] Yes.

[1:34:13] I'm sure that I want to clarify.

[1:34:16] That is an estimate.

[1:34:17] As you know, the homestead was, I believe last year was the first time, so as more citizens

[1:34:23] has become aware of the home set, that number could go up as they apply for the home set

[1:34:28] exemption.

[1:34:29] So it's just an estimate.

[1:34:31] Sure.

[1:34:31] And if we get into budgeting next year, and we say, wait, that is taking a huge chunk out of

[1:34:39] what we need to operate and keep the city financially healthy, that's an easier car to pull

[1:34:44] back off the table than the property tax rate itself.

[1:34:50] Yes, because of Senate bill too, or Robbie tax all right. That's all I've got, Mayor. Thank you.

[1:34:55] I see. I see. I see.

[1:35:00] Comparisons, I guess I'm meeting you go and I don't see it in your presentation today. Didn't you have one and a half percent as an average for other city seats, cities? I know it wasn't apples and apples, but most of them had adopted a one and a half percent or five thousand, whichever it was greater.

[1:35:16] I'm sad that they had some fluctuation of their greater than 65. It looked like it ranged from seven to eight thousand, six thousand was the minimum, which is what we have. They had seven and eight. Is that correct?

[1:35:29] It's the comparison of the county seats for, of course, the Canada was an example.

[1:35:33] They weren't great cities that you compared to, but it was at least county seats,

[1:35:37] you can compare some of others.

[1:35:38] I tried to do Red Apple to green Apple comparison, right?

[1:35:41] And so we were the only city that did the one half percent, the only city that had a homestead.

[1:35:48] Everybody else had a higher over 65 exemption, but we were the only county seat in that graph

[1:35:53] That had a home set exemption.

[1:36:02] Any further discussion?

[1:36:05] I guess the decision we need to make tonight is what are we going to do with exemptions?

[1:36:12] We're not here to discuss property tax rate.

[1:36:15] That'll be a future meeting.

[1:36:16] Yes, sir.

[1:36:17] Another fun discussion.

[1:36:19] But the question tonight we have to answer is, do we increase or decrease or keep the same?

[1:36:26] Two exemptions.

[1:36:29] Yes, sir.

[1:36:29] And we're going to enter that into our ordinance that will then submit to the tax office.

[1:36:34] So we're commemorating it through an ordinance and I, in order for us to just hear which is the head.

[1:36:39] So we'll need to pull everybody to make sure we're in.

[1:36:43] So if I could suggest maybe as a first step, we find out where everybody is, do we want to increase exemptions or not?

[1:36:54] And that the majority is that they want to increase the exemptions, then we go on and find out where and how, how much.

[1:37:07] Is that, is that how it's?

[1:37:09] We need to take a motion, have a motion on what it is.

[1:37:12] Where I move that we increase the homestead exemption by an amount to be determined in this meeting.

[1:37:21] That's quite a point of order on this.

[1:37:23] So I can understand why this ordinance is drawn.

[1:37:27] And it has both the homestead and the over 65.

[1:37:34] And what you're telling us is your recommendation is over 65 and not to master the homestead.

[1:37:41] It's going to show.

[1:37:42] So how would we fix this if we were to follow the...

[1:37:54] I

[1:38:08] think I would have to re-teach them because you're on the 65 now because you have a home-state exception.

[1:38:15] I think we, we just never, we looked at that last time.

[1:38:26] I think we looked at that last year.

[1:38:30] Nobody could be on the, nobody on the commission could vote for all property owners.

[1:38:35] because it doesn't have a space, but it cancels together all.

[1:38:44] Point of order, motions on the table.

[1:38:48] Is there

[1:38:53] a second? Is

[1:38:57] there a second?

[1:38:58] Is there a second?

[1:39:04] I never got a question on answer.

[1:39:07] Okay. How do we fix this if we were to follow the city's recommendations?

[1:39:28] The

[1:39:33] care you could commemorate what they want to do with this, she just fill in what it is.

[1:39:39] So you could just commemorate with currently we have 6,000 and then we've got the 1.5% or 5,000.

[1:39:44] We would just restate what we have and submit this ordinance to them as our adopted ordinance

[1:39:50] with the exemptions attached.

[1:39:52] You wouldn't have to take action of what's changing.

[1:39:54] You would take action on this ordinance and fill it out with what your exemption should be.

[1:39:59] Boom.

[1:40:03] That's an okay solution correct.

[1:40:14] So I'll amend my motion to move that we pass the ordinance with a 2.5% homestead exemption and the over 65 stays the same.

[1:40:28] All in favour?

[1:40:31] Any opposed?

[1:40:35] I'm ready.

[1:40:37] Okay, so we had two nays.

[1:40:39] Mayer, at this point, we have a tie. How do you vote?

[1:40:43] I vote.

[1:40:45] To increase it.

[1:40:48] So you're in a,

[1:40:52] she's in.

[1:40:54] So three eyes and two nays.

[1:41:00] Motion passes any discussion.

[1:41:05] I move since we have an actor

[1:41:09] and increase in the homestead exemption that we hold the over 65 exemption to the current level.

[1:41:17] That was part of my motion, yeah. Was it? Yes, okay.

[1:41:23] Thanks for your time.

[1:41:24] All the favour?

[1:41:26] No, no, no, no, no.

[1:41:27] That's good.

[1:41:28] That's good. That's good.

[1:41:31] Motion passes on.

[1:41:33] Not the time.

[1:41:35] Motion passes.

[1:41:35] OK, we will close A12 and we'll go to A13.

[1:41:39] I mean, excuse me, attendance at regular city commission meeting, I believe that we have one.

[1:41:46] There's no quadruple on the floor.

[1:41:49] I may have been in the hospital today, or I was going, yeah, no, I wasn't.

[1:41:58] So, anyway, yeah, and not, but I should be back for the next meeting.

[1:42:06] You see, you're coming up.

[1:42:09] I would like to add your here.

[1:42:10] So, permission to submit.

[1:42:12] Can we excuse me?

[1:42:14] Yeah.

[1:42:14] I mean, I move that we accept Commissioner Beards

[1:42:19] Excuse from the last regularly scheduled meeting.

[1:42:23] All second.

[1:42:24] Yeah.

[1:42:24] All in favor?

[1:42:26] All right.

[1:42:26] Okay.

[1:42:28] Motion.

[1:42:28] I'm curious.

[1:42:30] I need to be excuse, too.

[1:42:33] Oh, you were as country, that's why, oh my gosh, I just couldn't tell us.

[1:42:40] I'll send him to the chair.

[1:42:41] Drone's was also not here. He was out of the country.

[1:42:45] Invitation.

[1:42:46] Invitation.

[1:42:47] Right, case.

[1:42:48] Although I'm jealous, Mary, I'm moved to the week seven.

[1:42:51] Can we just introduce?

[1:42:53] Excuse me from the last regularly.

[1:42:55] Excuse me.

[1:42:57] All in favor.

[1:42:59] Motion passes.

[1:43:04] I'm going to now close a 13-year-old of an A14, consider taking action or request for future agenda items, Mr.

[1:43:12] The Mint.

[1:43:13] I've got nothing at this time, ma'am.

[1:43:18] Mr. Jones.

[1:43:23] No. No.

[1:43:25] Mr. The Mint.

[1:43:27] Well, we're still going to be working on the

[1:43:34] UDC amendments.

[1:43:39] So I would suggest that we put those back on for the agenda.

[1:43:43] The next.

[1:43:46] Second.

[1:43:47] Okay.

[1:43:48] All in favor?

[1:43:49] All right.

[1:43:50] The opposed.

[1:43:51] Motion passes unanimously.

[1:43:54] And I don't have anything.

[1:43:55] So we will close a 14th of a 15th of a joint executive session.

[1:44:00] It is now six foot pain.

[1:44:05] And I'll close the opening and the turn to executive session is our graph by Texas Filament

[1:44:09] Code Section 551.071, consultation with attorneys, 6551.072, the liberation, the running real estate,

[1:44:21] 6551.087, the liberation.

[1:44:24] regarding economic development negotiations and section 551.074 personnel matters.

[3:11:54] we have to

[3:12:10] Was that just guidance?

[3:12:12] We have to take action.

[3:12:13] No.

[3:12:14] No.

[3:12:15] We haven't.

[3:12:15] So we just continue to solve.

[3:12:19] I was sure if we had to give them permission again.

[3:12:21] We need to go to see a team and it is adjournment.

[3:12:25] There we go.

[3:12:28] There we go.

[3:12:28] It's all good.

[3:12:29] It is.

[3:12:31] Thank you.

[3:12:31] It'll work out.

[3:12:32] It'll work out.

[3:12:33] It'll work out.

[3:12:34] It'll work out.

City Commission

Agenda

Transcript