15. Ordinance (Final Reading) CUP-2024-09: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Apply a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Antenna Tower – Commercial at 2588 East Lake Road (Tim Littlejohn)

[15. Ordinance (Final Reading) CUP-2024-09: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Apply a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Antenna Tower – Commercial at 2588 East Lake Road (Tim Littlejohn)]

PUBLIC. SO, IT WILL BE THE FIRST ITEM IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE ITEM 22. SO, JUST WANT TO PUT A DISCREPANCY. WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO GET THERE. ARE GOING TO PUT THAT AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE NOW MOVED ITEM 15. I WILL ASK TIM LITTLEJOHN TO PRESENT THIS

ITEM. >> MORNING MAYOR, COUNCIL, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2024-09. THE AGENT IS CRAFT AND COMMUNICATIONS. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR Y'ALL TO CONSIDER IS THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 150 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER ARE LOCATED AT 2588 EAST LAKE ROAD. HERE'S A LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING. HERE'S A CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING OF THE PROPERTY THERE.

HERE'S THE PROPERTY VIEWS. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY IN FAVOR OR ANY AGAINST. THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LDC.

THEY ARE RECOMMENDING TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING . I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? THE EXISTING PROPERTIES THERE, WILL THIS CONSTRUCTION DISRUPT THEM OR WILL THEY BE USING THEIR

PROPERTIES? >> THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP

IT ALL ON THE A SIDE. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC PERIOD. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M BRIAN SULLIVAN. I'M WITH CRAFT AND COMMUNICATIONS. I REPRESENT AMERICAN TOWER. WE ARE ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN TOWER AND MR. KYLE JOHNSON WAS ALSO HERE WITH US. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ON SOME NORTHEAST SIDE OF ABILENE AND ATC , IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEM, THEY'RE THE LARGEST TOWER OWNER AND THEY OWN THOUSANDS OF TOWERS IN TEXAS. AMERICAN TOWERS IS PROPOSING TO BUILD HUNDRED AND 50 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER. THIS WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN A 50 FOOT BY 35 FOOT SECURED COMPOUND. IT IS A MODEL -- MONOPOLE TOWER. IT'S JUST A SINGLE POLE. ALL OF THE FACILITY WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT FENCED COMPOUND.

THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE MINIMAL. THIS IS AN UNMANNED FACILITY. NOBODY'S GOING TO BE COMING THERE TO REPORT TO WORK ON A DAILY BASIS. THEY WOULD VISIT THE SITE ONCE A MONTH OR ONCE A QUARTER, SOMETHING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. ANSWER THE EARLY QUESTION, ALL THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD TAKE PLACE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS IN THE FAR NORTHEASTERN END OF THE CITY. NORTH OF I-20. SOUTH OF 351, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. IT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY BETTY ROSE'S LITTLE RESTAURANT ON THE FRONT AND IT'S UNDEVELOPED ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST ARE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES AND THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. CURRENTLY, WHY WE NEED THIS, AMERICAN TOWER OPERATES ANOTHER TOWER 370 YARDS WEST OF THIS PROPOSED LOCATION . THAT LEASE HAS EXPIRED. OR IS EXPIRING.

SO, WE NEED A NEW HOME FOR AMERICAN TOWERS TENANTS. SO, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE FROM THAT EXISTING SITE OVER TO THIS NEW SITE. THE OLD TOWER WILL BE REMOVED WHEN THE NEW TOWER IS BUILT. THE INDUSTRY IS LOCATED -- IF WE DON'T GET THIS SITE, WE DON'T HAVE A NEW HOME FOR THE TENANTS, THE INDUSTRIES AROUND THERE, THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, THERE WILL BE A LACK IN THE COVERAGE FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS. WE ARE TRYING TO REPLACE THAT SERVICE AREA. WE WOULD START BUILDING THIS IN EARLY 2025. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT IT.

>> IT'S TURNING COOL. MAKE SURE JOHNSON GIVES YOU CHICKEN AND DUMPLINGS FROM HIS RESTAURANTS. IT'S TURNING COOL AGAIN, RIGHT? OKAY.

[00:30:13]

PERIOD. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 15? PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. IVA MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. SECOND. WHO DID IT? TECHNOLOGY. READY TO

VOTE. >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES.

[16. Ordinance (Final Reading) TC-2024-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the City of Abilene to Abandon Certain Portions of Right-of-Way (ROW) along Oldham Lane. Specifically, 10 Feet of ROW Adjacent to the Following Lots: Lots 1-4, Block A, Oldham Farms Addition, Section 1; Lot 1, Block A, Oldham Farms Addition, Section 2; Lots 203, 2, and 101, Oldham Farms Addition, Section 3; Lot 1, Block A, Don Fite Addition; Lots 201 and 202, Block A, Oldham Lane Church of Christ Addition and; Lot 35, Block A, Bunny Run Addition, Section 2, Abilene, Taylor County, Texas (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 16 AND TIM TO PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL, FOR YOUR SICK -- CONSIDERATION, THOROUGHFARE CLOSURE 2024-02. APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF ABILENE. ABANDON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON OLDHAM LANE . HERE'S AN EXHIBIT OF THE LOCATION.

HERE'S THE SECOND EXHIBIT. HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING MAP.

HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE ARE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF OLDHAM LANE WHERE WE ARE REQUESTING TO REMOVE , TO ABANDON OUR RIGHTS-OF-WAY SO TXDOT CAN OBTAIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WITHIN THAT AREA FOR PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED WITHIN THE NEXT -- WITHIN EARLY OF NEXT YEAR. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THAT ON THE PROPERTY BY RIGHT AND FOR THEM TO OWN IT OUTRIGHT WE HAVE TO -- OUR PORTION. SO HERE'S BASICALLY WHAT I JUST SAID. PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ABANDON RIGHTS-OF-WAY SO TXDOT CAN BEGIN TO PURCHASE RIGHTS-OF-WAY . THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AND HAD NO COMMENTS. PNC DID HEAR THIS CASE AND THERE RECOMMENDING TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> TIM, THIS IS ALREADY A RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT'S JUST OURS.

IT'S FOR THE WIDENING OF THE 17 50 DO OR TO THE HIGHER TRAFFIC FLOW. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY ISSUES MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE STATE OF TEXAS AS OPPOSE TO

THE RESIDENCE AND US. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, TIM. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 16. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCALISTER. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN YATES. FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

[17. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-27: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, Represented by Law Firm of Chaile Allen, PLLC, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 0.49 Acres from Central Business to Planned Development District 189 to Allow the Outdoor Storage of Freight Containers, Located At 633 and 641 Pecan Street, Abilene, Texas (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 17. TIM LITTLEJOHN, YOU'RE UP AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ZONING CASE 2024-27. THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER IS THE CHANGE OF ZONING OF 0.49 ACRES FOR DISTRICT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 189. THIS IS LOCATED AT 633 OR 641 PECAN STREET. HERE'S A LOCATION MAP. FOR CLARIFICATION, THESE ARE PRETTY MUCH THE LAST TWO WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT . FROM THAT POINT SOUTH IS ALL STRAIGHT ZONED PROPERTIES. HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING MAP.

HERE IS VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. HERE'S A CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSED FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE TO KEEP THE BASE ZONING AND CENTRAL BUSINESS BUT JUST ALLOW THE USE OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE ON THESE TWO LOTS. HERE IS THE CURRENT USES. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY IN FAVOR OR ANY OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST.

THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. DID YOU HEAR THIS CASE? THERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SHOULD BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN , BEING SCREENED ON ALL SIDES INCLUDING THE ALLEY BY AN OPAQUE FENCE THAT HAS A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVEN

[00:35:09]

FEET. FREIGHT CONTAINER SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBERS AND LOCATION SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE FRIGHT CONTAINERS SHALL BE SET TO GRADE AND MAY NOT BE ELEVATED ABOVE GRADE.

FREIGHT CONTAINERS MAY NOT BE STACKED ARE USED TO STACKED -- STACK ANY ITEMS OR MATERIALS. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR TIM? THANK YOU, TIM. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 17. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED. >> IS THAT WITH THE

RECOMMENDATIONS? >> WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN PRICE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION. READY TO VOTE.

[18. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-28: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 0.30 Acres from Residential Single-Family (RS-6) to Heavy Commercial (HC), Located at 602 & 610 N 16th Street (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> WE NOW MOVE TO ITEM 18. TIM LITTLEJOHN, PLEASE PRESENT THIS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL. SONY CASE 2024-28. AGENT IS MR. SANTOS. A CHANGING OF ZONING OF 0.3 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL FAMILY TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 602 AND 610 NORTH 16TH STREET. HERE'S A LOCATION MAP. HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. SUBJECT PROPERTY. IN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. HERE'S THE CURRENT USES ON THESE TWO LOTS. HERE'S THE PROPOSED USES. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN OPPOSITION WHICH RESULTED IN A 1.3% OPPOSITION RATE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A SHIPPING CONTAINER THAT'S TRIGGERED THIS REQUEST AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE BOOTS IN FRONT OF THESE PROPERTIES IS BEEN USING THESE TWO LOTS FOR STORAGE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THERE'S A COUPLE THAT DETERIORATED ANY REPLACE ONE WITH A SHIPPING CONTAINER WHICH TRIGGERED THIS REQUEST TO CLEAN IT UP. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING USED . THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED THIS WAY FOR MY RESEARCH SINCE 2003. PNC DID HEAR THIS CASE AND THERE RECOMMENDING TO YOU APPROVAL AT THIS POINT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LITTLEJOHN? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 18. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION

IN A SECOND. >> SO MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCALISTER. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. FURTHER DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE.

[19. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-29: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 4.78 Acres from Multi-Family (MF) to a Planned Development District (PDD-188) that Proposes Townhomes with a Maximum of Two Dwelling Units, and Duplexes. Located at 898-991 Minda Street (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. I MOVED TO

ITEM 19. TIM LITTLEJOHN. >> UP-AND-DOWN UP-AND-DOWN

UP-AND-DOWN. >> THANK YOU MAYOR, COUNCIL. OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, ZONING 2024-29. THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER RE-ZONE 4.78 ACRES FOR MULTIFAMILY TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH THE BASE ZONING OF TOWNHOME. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOWNHOMES WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS AND DUPLEXES.

LOCATION IS 898 THROUGH 991 MINDA STREET. HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING. HERE'S THE PROPERTY VIEWS. AS YOU CAN SEE, CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED.

SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS. CURRENT USES WITHIN MULTIFAMILY. RELIABLE USES WITHIN TOWNHOME ZONING.

NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE DID RECEIVE TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION RESULTING IN A 2.88% IN OPPOSITION. THIS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LDC, WE DID HEAR THIS CASE IN A RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THIS MORNING. I'D BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THIS PROVIDES LESS INK -- IMPACT. IT'S MULTIFAMILY DOWN. ANYONE ELSE FOR TIM? I OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 19? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME

[00:40:02]

FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING. AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE ZONING REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY . IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED MULTIFAMILY NOW. IT'S FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES. WHILE THAT IS ALLOWED AND MULTIFAMILY , UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SALE , INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO BE SOLD FOR EACH OF THESE UNITS. THIS PD WOULD ALLOW THAT. IT GIVES THE DEVELOPERS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THE ZONING. WE BELIEVE IT'S AN APPROPRIATE LAND-USE AT THIS LOCATION AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

>> THANK YOU, TIM. STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 19? PLEASE INFORM.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL EXCEPT A MOTION IN A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. COUNCIL REAGAN. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DON'T LIKE THAT. I DON'T LIKE IT.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

[20. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, Public Hearing and Take Action on Temporarily Suspending the Fluoridation of the City of Abilene's Water Supply, and Discussion Only regarding a Permanent Termination of Fluoridation of the City's Water Supply (Robert Hanna)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> WE NOW MOVE TO ITEM 20. AND GUESS WHO'S UP? TIM LITTLEJOHN?

>> NO, SIR. SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU.

>> GET ROBERT, PLEASE. >> HE WAS DOING SO GOOD.

>> ROBERT LITTLEJOHN. ROBERT HANNA. CITY MANAGER PRESENTS

THIS ITEM. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, BEFORE YOU IS THE FINAL READING OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY'S WATER SUPPLY IN RESPONSE TO OF COURTS RULING. A JUDGE FOUND THROUGH A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION REPRESENTS AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF INJURY TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND ORDERED THE EPA TO TAKE REGULATORY ACTION IN RESPONSE. OUR HISTORY WITH FLUORIDE IN WATER HAS GONE BACK AND FORTH. IN 1964 THE CITY PASSED AN ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 127 THAT PROHIBITED FLUORIDE IN THE CITY'S WATER SUPPLY AND THEN IN 2000 AT THE REQUEST OF SOME VOTERS THE CITY COUNCIL PUT THIS ON A BALLOT MEASURE AND THE VOTERS APPROVED ABOUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND WAS A SMALL MARTIAN AUTHORIZE THE DIRECT TREATMENT OF FLUORIDE TO ALL WATER SUPPLIES WITHIN THE CITY'S DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. WE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY HERE THAT'S HAPPENED RECENTLY. THE MAYOR AND I WERE SPEAKING ONCE I BECAME AWARE OF THE JUDGE'S RULING AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO PUT A TEMPORARY STAY, IF YOU WOULD, ON FLOOR DATING OR WATER SUPPLY UNTIL THE EPA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RULE ON THIS. THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE TODAY, IF COUNCIL DOES ADOPT THIS, IT WOULD FORMALIZE THAT ON MY PART. I WOULD ALSO ASK THE COUNCIL IF IT WAS CONVENIENT AND THEY FOUND FITTING, TO GIVE ME FORMAL DIRECTION ON WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD BRING AN ORDINANCE PERMANENTLY STOPPING FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY'S WATER SUPPLY. WE HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION ON IT. I'VE CONTINUED TO HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM MEMBERS ON COUNCIL AND I THINK IT COULD BE HELPFUL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IF THE TIMING WAS RIGHT TO BRING THE ORDINANCE AND THE ORDINANCE CAN BE DEBATED AND COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO DO IT OR THEY COULD DECIDE NOT TO DO IT AND PUT IT ON A BALLOT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO OR THEY CAN LEAVE THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AS THE LAW FOR NOW. THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY SIR.

>> THANK YOU, ROBERT. TODAY, JUST CLARIFYING THAT THIS IS THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. I KNOW THAT, PERSONALLY, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE DEALING WITH THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTIONS AND AN ORDINANCE ON HOW TO PERMANENTLY REMOVE THE ADDED FLUORIDE FROM OUR WATER SYSTEM.

THAT'S MY POSITION . >> I WILL SAY THIS, WITH THE ELECTION THAT WE HAD THIS WEEK , I'M JUST SPEAKING OUT LOUD, IF THE DIRECTION I HAVE READ THAT THE COUNTRY IS GOING FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WITH, PERHAPS, KENNEDY BEING THE HEALTH AND HUMANS WHATEVER DIRECTOR, HE IS A VERY BIG PROPONENT OF BANNING FLUORIDE PERIOD. THIS MAY BECOME A NEW

[00:45:02]

POINT FOR US IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO ANYWAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE SOME DIRECTION FROM WASHINGTON AND ON THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE WAITING FOR FROM THE EPA AS WELL. I HAVE NO PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY, CONTINUING WITH THE TEMPORARY BAND BUT I THINK THIS IS GOING TO PLAY ITSELF OUT FROM A FEDERAL LEVEL, PROBABLY SOONER THAN LATER.

>> ANY MORE COMMENTS? >> MY PERSONAL OPINION, I'M IN FAVOR OF A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION SOME OPTIONS FOR THE PERMIT END OF IT. JUST ASK FOR SOME RESEARCH TO BE DONE GIVEN THE FACT THAT HAVE THAT CONFLICTING WITH THE CHARTER WHAT THE LEGAL AND COMMON SENSE PATH FORWARD IS. GET SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS TOGETHER. HOW DO WE DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY?

>> ALSO SUPPORT THE CURRENT TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. I APPRECIATE THAT WE LANDED ON A TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME SO THAT WE COULD NOT BRING THIS UP EVERY THREE MONTHS OR SO. AT THE SAME TIME, I AM IN FAVOR OF A PERMANENT SUSPENSION AND IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MY OPINION OF HOW THE COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER, I WOULD SUPPORTS BRINGING AN IMMEDIATE ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION TO PERMANENTLY BAN THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO OUR WATER. SO, NOT IMMEDIATE LIKE IT IS GOT TO BE TOMORROW, BUT WITHIN THE NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE TIME FRAMES THAT IT TAKES TO DO THAT BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO WAIT. I'M CONVINCED THE POTENTIAL RISK OUTWEIGHS THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS IN THIS CASE AND WE GET TO PASS ORDINANCES ALL THE TIME AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AND THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERWHELMING RESPONSE SUPPORTING THE PERMANENT CESSATION . MY INPUT TO THE CITY MANAGER IS BRING US THE PERMANENT ORDINANCE AT THE

FIRST OPPORTUNITY. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH LENNON AND BRIAN IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY THAT WE HAD DRAFTED UP NOW AND I AGREE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A RUSH. I THINK THE FEDS WILL PROBABLY ANSWER THIS OFFER EVERYONE HERE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH A PERMANENT BAN . LET IT BE TOMORROW LIKE BRIAN SAID. I DON'T SEE A REASON IN WAITING.

>> I CONCUR. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO FOLLOW THE STEPS PROPERLY. THIS ONE IS BEEN ON BEFORE THE COUNCIL IN 2000. BY VOTER REQUEST, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO, WE FOLLOW THE STEPS LEGALLY THAT WE NEED TO DO. I'M IN SUPPORT FOR CONSIDERING THE PERMANENT AS WELL. THE PERMANENT DISCUSSION WOULD BE HAD. JUST WITH REGARD TO HAVING STAFF. MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT ANY ISSUE WITH US TAKING ACTION SINCE THE TWO TIMES BEFORE WERE BOTH --

>> I WILL GO THE SAME THING SO I DON'T BELABOR IT BUT MOVING TOWARDS THE LAST SOLUTION FOR SURE IS SOMETHING I WOULD

RECOMMEND. >> WHAT I TAKE FROM COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, WHAT I'M HEARING IS SOME OF THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO BRING AN OPTION FORWARD AND IF IT'S NOT THE OPTION COUNCIL WANTS TO DO WE DENIED . IT'S OFTEN CLEANER THAT WAY.

WHAT I WILL DO THEN IS BRING AN ORDINANCE . A DRAFT ORDINANCE THE COUNCIL CAN ADOPT . PART OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS WILL BE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF WHETHER IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS OR NOT. PART OF THE DISCUSSION WILL BE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STOPPING FLUORIDE. THERE ARE STATE PROCEDURES WE HAVE TO FOLLOW AND WE WILL OUTLINE ALL OF THAT PROCESS FOR THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC. COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION AT THEIR PLEASURE AND IT WON'T BE TOMORROW AND IT WON'T BE THE NEXT WEEKEND BUT WE WILL WORK TOGETHER ON PUTTING SOMETHING FOR THIS COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

THANK YOU FOR THE DIRECTION. >> REAL QUICK. WHAT'S THE DEADLINE IF VOTERS WANTED TO PUT THIS ON THE MAIN BALLOT?

WHAT'S THE DEADLINE? >> I WOULD HAVE TO DO A PETITION. FEBRUARY? THERE IS A WHOLE PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE

[00:50:04]

TO BE DONE. IT'S A PRETTY TIGHT TIMELINE. THEORETICALLY, I GUESS IT COULD BE DONE. BUT, YOU KNOW.

>> THANK YOU. >> YEP.

>> THANK YOU, ROBERT. >> SO, WE ARE STILL DISCUSSING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AND AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 20. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME

FOR THE RECORD. >> JENNIFER BELL.

>> JENNIFER. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> HEY, JENNIFER. >> JENNIFER BELL. LONGTIME RESIDENT. YOU GUYS ALL KNOW I AM IN FAVOR OF PERFECTLY -- PERMANENTLY ENDING FLUORIDATION. I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND WHILE THAT'S AMAZING I THINK WE DON'T NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE US GUIDANCE. LET'S SHOW THE CITIZENS OF ABILENE THE ABILENE WILL TAKE CARE OF ABILENE. WE DON'T NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING US WHAT TO DO. LET'S JUMP IN AND TAKE CARE OF IT OURSELVES. IN REGARDS TO SENDING IT TO THE VOTERS, IT'S AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THOSE OF US WHO DON'T WANT IN OUR WATER. IT WOULD TAKE UNNECESSARY TIME AND RESOURCES FOR US TO TRY TO CREATE A CAMPAIGN AND EDUCATE THE VOTER ON THIS. WE HAVE SHOWN IT IS HARMFUL AND I WANT TO ECHO WHAT YOU SAID LAST TIME, WE SHOWN IT IS HARMFUL. WHY DO WE NEED TO ASK THE VOTERS TO REMOVE IT? IT'S HARMFUL. LET'S TAKE IT OUT. LET'S BE DONE WITH IT. I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AS AN ACTIONABLE AGENDA ITEM WHICH I'M HEARING THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPEN.

I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. I DON'T WANTED TO GO TO THE BALLOT BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF EXTRA WORK. SO, THANK YOU,

GUYS. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT WITHOUT THE PETITION.

>> I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. I REALIZE THAT NOW.

FEBRUARY WOULD BE THE DEADLINE FOR COUNCIL. YEP.

>> WE ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. ANYONE ELSE

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 20? >> TAMMY VOGEL. ALSO LONGTIME RESIDENT OF ABILENE. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN IN AN INTERESING POSITION BECAUSE I'M 100% AGAINST FLUORIDE BUT FREEDOM IS AN UNDUE BURDEN THAT WE MUST WORK FOR AND IT IS NOT EASY AND IT TAKES TIME. SO, TO JUST WRITE AN ORDINANCE TO OVERRIDE A BALLOT INITIATIVE IS VERY CONFUSING TO ME. AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH JENNIFER, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANY PEOPLE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE AN INTERESTING SITUATION HERE. WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT REMOVING A TOXIC SUBSTANCE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNDOING THE VOTERS BECAUSE YOU LEGALLY CAN AND THAT HAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT A CONCERN OF MINE WITH THE CHARTER. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE IF Y'ALL CAN TURN AROUND AND UNDO IT. WHY SHOULD WE SHOW UP TO VOTE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU'RE GOING TO FIX IT. I'M NOT SAYING YOU AS A COUNCIL, I'M SAYING LEGALLY YOU COULD AMEND THE SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE WHICH WE WERE TOLD WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SO IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED. THAT WAS A CITIZEN INITIATIVE PROCESS THAT WE THOUGHT -- IT WASN'T APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THIS, WHY DON'T AGREE WITH THE DECISION IN 2000, I THINK IT IS A BURDEN TO MAKE SURE WE WORK THROUGH THE STEPS OF FREEDOM SO THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE , THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD, THE RIGHT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS SO THAT THE CITY WORKS AS IT SHOULD BE, AS IT WAS INTENDED, NOT AS A RUSHED JOB BECAUSE THE POISON, WE HAVE KNOWN THE POISON WAS THERE FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S TAKEN A LONG TIME FOR THE EPA AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO CATCH UP AND START LISTENING TO THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT AND THE TOXICITY OF IT. THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS I'M SO EXCITED FOR THE FUTURE OF WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON TUESDAY AND THAT ROBERT F KENNEDY IS GOING TO START CHANGING SOME OF THE NORMS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE OKAY AND THEY ARE NOT. AND ONE OF THOSE IS FLUORIDE. EVEN ROBERT KENNEDY IS NOT GOING TO MANDATE THAT THE WATER BE ON FLOOR DATED. HE IS NOT GOING TO FORCE ANYONE TO DO IT. HE IS GOING TO LET EACH MUNICIPALITY, EACH STATE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW. WILL I SUPPORT AND AM SHOCKED BECAUSE WHEN I SPOKE WITH JENNIFER AND MEI ABOUT THIS I WAS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE BALLOT. HOW DO WE GET ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE IF Y'ALL DON'T APPROVE IT ON THE BALLOT WE HAVE TO DO A CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT'S AWESOME. THE CITIZENS SAID WITH MISINFORMATION THEY WANTED FLUORIDE. NOW THE CITIZENS HAVE TO SAY WE MADE A MISTAKE.

LET'S TAKE IT OUT. IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO TELL US WHAT WE VOTED FOR OR HOW TO FIX IT. EVEN THOUGH YOU LEGALLY CAN. I BELIEVE IN THE LAW. I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION AND I BELIEVE IN OUR CHARTER AND I WE NEED TO FIX THE CHARTER SO THAT Y'ALL CANNOT UNDO, THE CITY COUNCIL, WHOEVER IS SITTING CANNOT UNDO WHAT THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED ON BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF PEOPLE GETTING TO VOTE ON THINGS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN OPTION TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE COUNCILS DIRECTION AND IF YOU DO THIS WITH THE FLUORIDE, THEN YOU HAVE BASICALLY SAID WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO AND YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE IDEA OF THE CITIZENS ACTUALLY HAVING AN OPTION IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT OUR REPRESENTATIVES ARE DOING.

[00:55:01]

ANYWAY, WE CAN RE-ELECT YOU BUT IN MAY THAT'S HARD TO DO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE NOT RE-ELECT YOU.

>> STILL ON ITEM 20. PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE ELSE TO

SPEAK AT THIS TIME? >> GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL.

I'M ALSO ABILENE RESIDENT IN VOTER. UNDERSTANDING THE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S NOT GOOD TO BE IN THE WATER, I ALSO ECHO THE CONCERN THAT A CITY COUNCIL COULD UNDO WHAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY VOTING CITIZENS . I UNDERSTAND THE POISON AND WE NEED TO GET THAT OUT. TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT PUT IT IN AND FOR A CITY COUNCIL TO STEP IN AND SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW I THINK WE LOSE THE FREEDOM THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THE CITY TO SAY, HERE IS MY CHOICE. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. AND I KNOW IT TAKES SOME TIME AND ALL OF THOSE STEPS HAVE TO BE DONE BUT LET'S DO THEM. LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING AND LET'S DO IT IN THE RIGHT ORDER. GET THE INFORMATION OUT TO THE PEOPLE. THE CITY IS PUTTING IT IN. TELL THEM WHAT IT IS ABOUT. LET THEM KNOW. FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, HERE IS WHAT IT DOES. HERE IS WHAT THE SCIENCE HAS FOUND AND THEN GIVE THE OPTION OF CHOOSING FOR IT OR CHOOSING AGAINST IT. GIVE US THAT OPPORTUNITY. GIVE US THE FACTS.

LET US DO SOME RESEARCH. AND THEN GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY NO MORE. OR, YES, WE WILL KEEP IT IN. I THINK AN UNINFORMED ELECTORATE IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THAT OPTION OF SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WANT FOR OUR CITY. I LIVE HERE. I VOTE HERE. DON'T TAKE AWAY AN OPTION. AND, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS POISON IN OUR WATER. I GET IT.

BUT GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME ON ITEM 20? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION IN A SECOND.

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCALISTER. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CRAVER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. IT IS NOW 9:27 A.M. WE WILL RECESS INTO CAN -- EXECUTIVE SESSION. ITEM 14 WILL BE THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE ADDRESS AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. CONSULTATION WITH THIS TOURNEY, DELIBERATION ABOUT REAL PROPERTY, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT GIFTS AND DONATIONS, PERSONNEL MATTERS, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SECURITY DEVICES, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT

[RECONVENE]

>> IT IS NOW 10:21 A.M. AND NO VOTES OR ACTIONS WERE TAKEN

[14. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving a Contract with Abilene Environmental Landfill, Inc. for Solid Waste Disposal Services (Michael Rice)]

DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL NOW GO TO ITEM 14. I WILL ASK MICHAEL RICE TO PRESENT. HIS BACK UP FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A CONTRACT WITH ABILENE ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES. THEY CAN -- COME AND VISIT US REGULARLY TO CHECK ON US AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS. THEY HAD OFFERED TO PROVIDE US WITH DISPOSAL SERVICES. AT THE PROPOSAL IS A 10 YEAR TERM WITH THE AGREEMENT INCLUDING COMPETITIVE AND ATTRACTIVE DISPOSAL OF WASTE FOR ABILENE.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVE THAT COULD TITLE -- AS MUCH AS $25,000 PER YEAR. THE AGREEMENT IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT. IT MEANS WE HAVE OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO DISPOSAL SERVICES. THE TENURE CONTRACT AS STATED BEGINS JANUARY 1 OF 2025 AND WOULD EXTEND THROUGH 2034. THERE IS A

[01:00:03]

CONTRACT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL IF THE CITY AND AE L AGREE.

BEGINNING JANUARY 1 THE PRICE THAT THEY ARE OFFERING IS $20.25 AND THAT DOES STAY CONSISTENT FOR YEAR ONE AND YEAR TWO THEN A MODERATE INCREASE THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT. WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS?

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS MIKE PEREZ AND I AM WITH ABILENE ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

>> I AM CORY MATTHEWS, THE GENERAL MANAGER FOR A LOOK SERVICES IN ABILENE AND I WANT TO THANK THE CITY FOR 40 YEARS OF CONTINUED SOLID WASTE PARTNERSHIP WITH REPUBLIC SERVICES AND WE WOULD LIKE A CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP IN THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE OUR STANCE ON THIS MATTER IS MADE KNOWN AND

THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> MR. HANNA, WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OR THE IMPACT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF ABILENE ? WHAT WOULD THIS

ENTAIL? >> THE TONNAGE RATES THAT WE COULD AVAIL OURSELVES OF ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. WE HAVE A NONEXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC LANDFILL SO THE SAVINGS TO THE RATEPAYER IS GOING TO BE ANYWHERE FROM $1 MILLION UP TO $1.2 MILLION YEAR ONE AND THAT IS YEAR OVER YEAR. AT THE END OF THE AGREEMENT THE RATE WE ARE PAYING IS LOWER THAN THE RATE THAT WE PAID TODAY. SO, IN SOME WAYS I THINK WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO PURSUE THIS. THE SAVING TO THE RATE PAYER ARE TREMENDOUS. WE DID SOME BACK OF THE NAPKIN MATH.

TWO TRUCKS THAT WE COME BY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO CHARGE ADDITIONAL REVENUE. IT ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE TO GROW -- WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND IT OPENS UP A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES. COUNSEL MIGHT CONSIDER SENDING SOME OF THOSE TO THE RATEPAYER AND IT JUST

OPENS UP AN OPPORTUNITY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? I WILL ACCEPT

A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> SO MOVED .

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> I THINK THE MOTION NEEDS TO

INCLUDE THE -- LANGUAGE. >> I RECOMMEND THAT THE EQUIPMENT MAY NOT BE ENFORCED BY A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY

INTENDED OR UNINTENDED. >> WE HAVE THAT MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REGAN AND A SECOND BY BEARD. ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. >> ALL YESES. THE MOTION

[22. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Adopting a Chapter 380 Agreement with Chick-Fil-A, Inc. for Construction of Public Improvements (Robert Hanna)]

CARRIES. >> I WILL NOW ASK CITY MANAGER ROBERT HANNA TO PRESENT ITEM 22.

>> CHICK-FIL-A INC. HAS LEASED PROPERTY FROM THE CITY. IT IS A PUBLIC PARK AND A FORMER RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY AND THAT HAS NOW MOVED TO THE WALMART PARKING LOT. WE APPRECIATE THE CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP THERE. THE INTENT

[01:05:06]

OF THIS IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE SOME EXTRAORDINARY SIDE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND THERE ARE STORM WATER -- AND THE COST OF THIS IS ABOUT $1.2 MILLION-$1.3 MILLION.

CHICK-FIL-A HAS ASKED THAT THE CITY CONSIDER ASSISTANCE IN THAT BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HAVING TO BE REPLACED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT WE HAVE NEGOTIATED AND STRUCTURED IS A $600,000 PAYMENT SO ABOUT HALF OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT. OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD THAT WOULD BE SOURCED FROM SALES TAX. JAIL REVENUE BUT TAX DOLLARS AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PAYMENT THAT WE WOULD MAKE WOULD COME FROM THE INCREASED VOLUME AND SALES ACTIVITY AT THE NEW LOCATION. THE REAL COST TO THE CITY OF ABILENE WOULD BE MINIMAL AND COULD BE ZERO DEPENDING ON HOW CHICK-FIL-A PERFORMS AT THE NEW LOCATION. WE STILL GET THE ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENTS AND EVEN IF THE CITY DID HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE CURRENT REVENUES TO MEET THIS OBLIGATION THE ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENT THAT THE CITY WOULD RECEIVE WOULD MORE THAN COVER THE COST OF THAT SO I THINK WE HAVE NEGOTIATED A DEAL THAT IS RESPONSIBLE AND STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE MENTION THE SAFETY FACTOR?

>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE INTO YOUR OWN HANDS AT THAT INTERSECTION AND THERE IS AN ALLURE WITH THAT CHICKEN SANDWICH. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS WHEN CHICK-FIL-A CAME TO US IS BECAUSE WE ARE SOLVING A REAL PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT. THIS IS A WIN-WIN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND GOOD FOR THE CITY COFFER AND FOR THE

CITIZENS. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WE WILL BE CONDUCTING IMPROVEMENT -- IF WE WERE TO DO

IT. >> JUST TO CLARIFY THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF CHICK-FIL-A WERE NOT MOVING THERE AT THIS TIME?

>> RIGHT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 22? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.