[5. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Take Action on Awarding Bid# CB-2637 Workzone Project S10B to Bontke Brothers Construction Co., Inc. (Max Johnson)]

>> ALL YES AND MOTION CARRIES. >> COUNCILMEMBER PRICE YOU

PULLED THIS ITEM? >> YES, SIR.

THIS IS A STREET REPAIR PROJECT THAT IS BEEN APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE STREET MAINTENANCE ADVISORY BOARD COMING TO US FOR APPROVAL AND THERE'S BEEN SOME MEDIA STORIES RECENTLY ABOUT HOW WE ARE REDUCING OUR BUDGET, OUR BUDGET'S ONE QUOTE WAS, IT'S BEEN REDUCED FROM 9 MILLION TO 3 MILLION AND THE, THAT INFORMATION WAS PULLED FROM A MEETING WHERE ON THE SCREEN WAS A SLIDE THAT SHOWED THAT IN THIS YEAR, WE'RE SPENDING $13 MILLION OVER ON STREET REPAIRS FROM STREET MAINTENANCE FUND AND FOR NEXT YEAR, THAT SAME SLIDESHOWS WE'RE BUDGETING $156,000,000 FROM THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND SO WE'RE NOT REDUCING WHAT WE'RE SPENDING ON STREETS FROM 9 TO 3 MILLION. THE NUMBERS WERE THERE ON THE SCREEN. 13 MILLION AND 15 MILLION.

SOME OF THAT'S ALLOCATED TO COVER COSTS DUE TO INFLATION AND INFLATION IS A REALITY. WE SEE GAS PRICES GOING UP.

GROCERY STORE, THE PRICE OF EGGS AND BREAD AND EVERYTHING GOING UP AND LABOR IS GOING UP, MATERIALS ARE GOING UP AND SO IT JUST COSTS MORE TO DO PROJECTS AND THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME THINGS WE HAVE THAT THE CONCIL AGREED TO UNDER CHAPTER 8 AGREEMENTS. ONE EXAMPLE IS GRIFFITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO HELP SUPPORT THE ANTICIPATION OF MUCH MORE TRAFFIC RELATED TO THE BASS PRO SHOPS THAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE AT THE END OF GRIFFITH ROAD AND SO WE'RE, WE ARE STILL FUNDING PROJECTS FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE ADVISORY BOARD TO ALLOCATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US BUT ALSO MEETING THE NEEDS OF THAT WOULD BE A SOURCE OF GREAT COMPLAINT IF WE DIDN'T IMPROVE GRIFFITH ROAD AND TAKING CARE OF THOSE THINGS SO I WANTED TO CORRECT WHAT'S BEEN COMING OUT IN THE MEDIA.

IT'S NOT REDUCING FROM 9 TO 3 MILLION BUT 13 MILLION THIS YEAR AND 15 MILLION NEXT YEAR. AND THAT'S JUST STREET MAINTENANCE FUND. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE BOND THAT WE DID FOR CAITY APLE STREET AND OTHER FUNDING THAT COMES IN FROM TEXDOT DOING THE ROADS AND EVERYTHING.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> ANYONE ELSE? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM FIVE?

>> TAMMY VOGEL RESIDENT OF ABILENE.

THANK YOU FOR PULLING THIS ITEM COUNCILMEMBER PRICE.

I THINK ALL MY COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED AT YOU SO I RESPECT THE STAFF BECAUSE THEY DO WHAT THEIR TOLD, AND IF THEY ARE NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT HELPS CITIZENS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON I PUT THAT ON YOUR SHOULDERS FOR YOU TO REDUCE THE STREET REPAIR BUDGET FROM 7.5 MILLION TO 3 MILLION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING PROACTIVELY SHARED AND NOT PASSIVELY GIVEN OUT THROUGH A QUESTION PRESENTED AT THE MEETING.

IT WASN'T PRESENTED BUT JUST SOMEONE ASKED WHY AND IT WAS, WE WERE INFORMED THAT CAITY MAPLE STREET WENT OVER THE BOND SO WE NEEDED MORE MONEY, AND IF I'M CORRECT THAT WAS 23,000,000 IN 2021 AND THEN THE GRIFFITH PROJECT AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO LOOK IT UP BUT IT WAS A CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE AND I BELIEVE THAT CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE WHEN YOU MAKE CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENTS WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION SO SOMEWHERE YOU DECIDED IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO CREATE A LARGER ROAD FOR SOME GROWTH THAT WE HAD RATHER THAN CONTINUE ON THE PATH OF REPAIRING STREETS AND I THINK I HAVE A PROBLEM

[00:20:03]

WITH THAT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT ONE TO COME OUT OF THE EXCESS FUNDS WE HAVE TO DO ONE TIME PROJECTS AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING YOU AGREED TO BUT INSTEAD YOU RAIDED THE REPAIR FUND SO INSTEAD OF DOING THINGS LIKE MESQUITE FOREST. DRIVEN THROUGH THERE WHILE I WAS CAMPAIGNING AND WE'RE NOW IMPROVING IT DUE TO ECONOMIC GROWTH SO THIS IS SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE IS ACTUALLY THE FEE FUND, ALL THE FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES GO INTO A SLUSH FUND THAT CAN BE SPEND ON WHATEVER AND I'VE ASKED QUESTIONS TO FIND THAT OUT TO BE TRUE AND HAD YOU BEEN PROACTIVE AND SAID LISTEN, WE DECIDED IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO DO ECONOMIC GROWTH THAN REPAIR OUR STREETS THERE WOULD BE A LOT LESS MUMBLING. IT WASN'T A 9 MILLION REDUCTION BUT IT WAS A CUT IN HALF AND NOW WE'RE REPAIRING HALF THE ROADS.

I DID SOME QUICK MATH SINCE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT AND I COUNTED OUT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS ALONE ARE ABOUT 60 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS AND THEN THE LINEAR STREETS ARE ALMOST 50 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS AND AT 7.5 MILLION THAT WILL TAKEN THE YEARS WITH THE STREETS BEING DOWNGRADED EACH YEAR AND IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION TO DO TO STOP THE MUMBLING BECAUSE IT SEEMS WE'RE NOT BUDGETING ENOUGH FOR STREET BUT WE HAVE MONEY FOR BOAT GRANT RAMS. ONE MILLION TO FOUR MILLION ON BOAT RAMS AND ON BATHROOMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE STREETS NEEDED AND THAT SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY AND I HOPE YOU WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF ALLOCATING THOSE IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET OR THE TALKS BECAUSE OUR STREETS ARE IN BAD REPAIR AND WE'RE NOT SURE WHY THE DATA CENTER HAS NOT TAKEN UP THE SLACK OR WHY YOU DIDN'T REQUIRE THE DATA CENTER TO HELP FUND SOME OF THE REPAIRS.

THANK YOU. >> STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM FIVE. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO BUDGET CUTS AND ALSO, THIS BUDGET HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET SO ANY OF THESE, THESE ARE SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE STREET MAINTENANCE.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED YET IN OUR BUDGET.

>> I WOULD CLARIFY IT'S NOT A SLUSH FUND THAT CAN BE USED FOR ANYTHING. IT HAS TO BE USED FOR STREETS.

>> THAT IS NOT BEEN APPROVED IN OUR BUDGET THAT WAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL, IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PRICE AND SECOND BY CHAIRMAN BAILEY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YES, MOTION CARRIES.

[7. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Contract with Hazen and Sawyer for the HWTP Microfiltration Backwash Piping Improvements Project (Matthew Dane)]

>> NOW MOVE TO ITEM 7 AND COUNCILMEMBER CRAVER YOU ASKED

THIS ITEM BE PULLED? >> YES. I HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ITEM 7. JUST SEEING THE INITIAL COST OF IT FROM 40,000 RAISED TO 109900 FROM HAZEN AND SAWYER I HAD SOME A BASED ON THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE WERE GIVEN, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESIGN, WHAT SEEMED TO ME POSSIBLE DESIGN GAPS. AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF IT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE MAYBE HAVE BEEN UNAVOIDABLE OR WHAT WAS PREVENTIVE SO I JUST WANTED TO MORE SO THAN ANYTHING ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE WHAT WE WERE GIVEN IN THE

AGENDA ITEM. >> SURE.

>> MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF IT'S OKAY MR. DANE FOR YOU TO SHARE WHAT LED TO THE AMENDED PRICE ASK AND THEN I CAN ASK MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEEM REDUNDANT.

>> HOPEFULLY I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THOSE.

IT'S A GOOD THING TO WONDER ABOUT WITH THIS MUCH BY PERCENTAGE BASIS THIS MUCH OF A CONTRACT.

I'LL TAKE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS IN WHEN YOU DO A CONTRACT WITH A CONSULTANT TO DESIGN SOME PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SCOPE OUT IS HOW MUCH DATA COLLECTION AND SORT OF FRONT END DUE DILIGENCE IS REALLY NECESSARY SO A COMMON PLACE FOR US WOULD BE DEALING WITH UNDERGROUND UNVACCINATED AND YOU LAY NEW PIPE, THE QUESTION WOULD BE WE HAVE MAPS ONE LEVEL OF DATA AND WE CAN GO AND POTHOLE AND SEE WHAT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND GAS LINES AND THINGS ARE IN THAT AREA. THE MORE YOU KNOW THE BETTER QUALITY THE LESS SURPRISES YOU GET IN YOUR DESIGN BUT THEN YOU FIND THE BALANCE OF HOW MUCH YOU SPEND ON SOME OF THAT FRONT END INVESTIGATION SO THE REASON I SAY I SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS WE TRIED TO SHARE FREQUENTLY THE BATTLE FOR DOLLARS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE ARE HAVING.

[00:25:02]

THIS IS A BACK WASH SYSTEM AT OUR SOUTH SIDE PLANT.

WE'RE DEALING WITH KIND OF AN OVERHEAD PIPE SYSTEM FOR BACK WASHING THE MEMBRANE UNITS AT SOUTH SIDE SO I APPLIED SOME PRESSURE TO SAY I NEED TO WORK THIS IN AND THIS TIGHT BUDGET, WHAT DO WE THINK IS REASONABLE, AND IF WE CAME UP AGAINST SOME SORT OF CHANGES OR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT, IT'S EASY ENOUGH OF A CONTRACT TO BRING TO YA'LL AND SAY, HERE'S KIND OF WHAT CHANGED AND HERE'S WHAT'S DIFFERENT, SO IF YOU USE THAT SAME ANALOGY OF DOING POTHOLING ON THE FRONT END I FELT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IT WAS GOOD TO KEEP IT TIGHT TO HAVE FUNDS TO DO OTHER PROJECT BUT WE'RE HALF COMING ACROSS A FEW THINGS THAT

WE'RE HAVING TO GO BACK. >> I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HAZEN AND SAWYER PERSONALLY.

ARE THEY LOCAL? >> THEY ARE.

THEY HAVE ONE PERSON HERE LOCALLY.

AND THEN THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF STAFF USED THROUGH THE STATE AND THIS PROJECT, YOU HAVE GOT THREE FOLKS THAT ARE STATE OF TEXAS AND ONE GENTLEMEN HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR HAZEN AND SAWYER.

>> I CAN'T TALK TO HIM BUT I'M ASSUMING THIS IS ENGINEER LEVEL WORK, CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE ASSESSING, IS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AN ENGINEER, AS WELL?

>> I DON'T THINK SO. NOT A LICENSED ENGINEER

>> THE FIELD VERIFICATION, SO YOU ARE SAYING AND I'M MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND. WAS THERE ANYTHING PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE BUDGET TO BE, TO HAVE AS BEST ACCESSIBILITY OF WHAT THAT BUDGET WOULD POTENTIALLY BE.

WAS THERE SOMETHING PERFORMED PRIOR THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT COULD BE OR ARE YOU SAYING THERE WAS NOT TIME TO DO THAT PRIOR TO THE BUDGET?

>> IT WASN'T A TIME ISSUE BUT JUST LOOKING AND SAYING WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THE DATA WE HAVE NOW AND IN THIS CASE IT'S DO WE HAVE PLANS READY. CAN WE SEE THEM AND ARE THEY UP-TO-DATE OR DO YOU NEED TO GO AND MAKE MEASUREMENTS.

YOU THINK OF LIKE A HOUSE PROJECT SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK AT AND SEE WHAT'S THERE VERSES YOU HAVE TO GO AND CREATE A PLANET IS ITSELF AND THAT HAS A WHOLE COST ASSOCIATED WITH DRAWING UP THE PIPING AND CREATING A NEW SET AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING I THOUGHT WE COULD WORK AROUND

>> THEY WERE MORE SO HEAVILY RELYING ON RENDERINGS THAT WEREN'T ABLE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED PHYSICALLY BUT MORE SO THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE HISTORICALLY GIVEN TO THE

PROJECT? >> THAT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE IS SOMETIMES WE HAVE EITHER A MAP OR A DRAWING THAT IS FROM SOME POINT IN THE PAST AND THERE HAVE BEEN PROJECTS OR UPDATES SINCE THEN AND SOMETIMES YOU MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, WELL THE DATA YOU HAVE IS THE MOST ACCURATE AVAILABLE AND YOU GET INTO THE PROJECT AND YOU FIND THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE.

THAT WAS TRUE HERE. >> AND I GUESS, I'M JUST MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND WHO BEARS TE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DISCREPANCIES OF LIKE THE ABILITY-IN DOCUMENTATION VERSUS THE ACTUAL? IS IT JUST THE CITY? OR WOULD IT BE BOTH AND SINCE THERE WAS A CONTRACT?

>> IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S JUST THE CITY.

FREQUENTLY WE'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WHERE SURPRISES START TO SHOW UP AND THE QUESTION IS, WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT WHATEVER THE SURPRISE IS, RIGHT? AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS INTENTIONAL DECISION TO MINIMIZE THAT FRONT END SCOPE AND SAY THE PROJECT DRAWINGS FROM WHEN THE PLANT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT SHOULD BE SOME OF THE IRONY IS THE REASON THIS BACK WASH IS DEGRADEED IS THE WAY THE PIPES ARE SUPPORTED OVERHEAD THERE'S A HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEM SO THERE IS A LOT OF FLEXING AND MOVING AND THE SUPPORTS WERE NOT PROBABLY ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO HANDLE THAT FORCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PIPE.

THE COMBINATION OF THOSE THINGS AND HAVING UP-TO-DATE DRAWINGS WAS, I KNEW THEN WHAT I KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE SCOPED A BIGGER PIECE OF HAVING THEM GO OUT AND ACTUALLY DO SOME AS BUILT DRAWINGS SO THE COST YOU ARE SEEING NOW IS THE COST THAT WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WE WOULD HAVE SAID HERE'S WHAT IT COSTS TO DO THIS PROJECT.

AND I'M HAPPY, MARK CAN PROBABLY COME UP.

IF YOU HAVE PARTICULAR DETAILS YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT ON

THAT HEADER ITSELF. >> OKAY.

THAT HELPS ME. I HAVE A HARD TIME, I'LL BE HONEST AND I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN. I FEEL LIKE SOME OF IT WAS DISCOVER REASONABLE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMPANY HAD A LOCAL ENGINEER THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT ON THE FRONT END TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AWARENESS TO WHAT THAT

[00:30:03]

POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE BACK SEND SO THE CITY IS NOT BEARING THE BRUNT OF THAT. THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT WHEN I WAS READING IT I HAD A HARDER TIME UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE TO JUSTIFY IT, IN MY OPINION, BUT I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE WERE AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO WERE THERE NO AS-BUILT FROM THE TO ORIGINAL PLAN?

>> WE HAD ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS BUT NOT FOR THE FINAL THAT WENT IN AND NORMALLY YOU WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THAT FOR THE ORIGINAL INSTALL YOU WOULD HAVE AS BUILT IN THERE AND IN THIS CASE THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE'RE HOPING AT THE END OF THIS, WHETHER WITH SOME OF WHAT THEY DISCOVERED IN THEIR SCOPE OR HAVING OUR ENGINEERING TEAM COME IN AFTER THE FACT THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY CORRECT FOR THAT AND GET A CLEAN SET OF AS BUILT, SO WHATEVER DIRECTOR 30 YEARS FROM NOW IS DOING A PROJECT ON THIS HEADER HE'LL NOT BE IN THE SAME POSITION.

THAT'S THE GOAL, ANYWAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU MATTHEW. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 7 PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND IF NOT I'LL

ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND >> MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ESPINOZA.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BEARD AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ONE NO FROM COUNCILMEMBER

[10. Ordinance (First Reading) Z-2026-30: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Amend the Terms and Conditions of a Planned Development District (PDD-149). Specifically, to Allow Residential Medium Density (MD) and Patio Home (PH) Uses. Located at 3626 Vogel Avenue. (Tim Littlejohn)]

CRAVER AND THE REST ARE YES AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM TEN AND COUNCILMEMBER PRICE YOU

PULLED THIS ITEM? >> I PULLED THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE PACKET HAS TWO COPIES OF THE 2015 ORDINANCE WITH A RED LINE OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPONENT. THERE'S NOT A COPY IN THE CURRENT PACKET OF THE UPDATED ORDINANCE AS WE'RE CONSIDERING IT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM P&Z TO IF YOU READ THROUGH THE MEMORANDUM AND THE STAFF REPORT IT DOES EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES IN HOW IT WENT FROM WHAT'S IN THE PACKET TO WHAT'S RECOMMENDED BY P&Z AND WE'LL HAVE AT THE SECOND READING THE ORDINANCE AS P&Z RECOMMENDS IT SO FOR ANYONE READING THROUGH THE PACKET I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WILL BE THERE FOR THE SECOND READING AND ALL WE'RE DOING TODAY IS MOVING IT FORWARD

TO THE SECOND READING. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM TEN.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PRICE. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAVER.

DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE.

[13. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-29: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Change the Zoning of Approximately 0.48 Acres from Residential Medium Density (MD) to College University (CU) Zoning. Located at 1801 Lincoln Drive. (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YES, MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES AND NOW I MOVE TO ITEM 13. TIM LITTLEJOHN THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND SERVICE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM.

>> ZONING CASE 2026-29 AGENT IS AH T AND ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY IS THE OWNER. WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER IS THE CHANGE OF ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY HALF AN ACRE FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO COLLEGE UNIVERSITY.

LOCATED AT 1801 LINCOLN DRIVE. HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP.

HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE JUST TO THE NORTH THEY ARE BUILDING SOME NEW STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS THERE. THE REASON THEY WANT TO EXPAND ACROSS THE ALLEY WAY FOR THIS PROJECT.

HERE'S THE PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE ARE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES. HERE'S THE REQUESTED COLLEGE UNIVERSITY ZONING AND IT'S ALLOWABLE USES.

NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND 0 IN OPPOSITION. THIS MEETS THE APPROVAL AND P AND Z RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THIS MORNING AND I'D BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS?

>> JUST CURIOUS IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT ABANDONING THE ALLEY THAT CONNECTS THIS PROPERTY TO THE ONE AT THE

NORTH? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, NO SIR.

[00:35:01]

>> JUST CURIOUS. >> MAIN USE OF THIS PROPERTY ILY WILL BE PARKING FOR THE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT.

>> GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, TIM. >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 13. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAVER AND SECOND BY CHAIRMAN BAILEY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES AND MOTION CARRIES.

[14. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Amending Chapter 18, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Article XIII, "Schedules," Section 18-285, "Increased Speed Limits" of the Abilene Municipal Code (Max Johnson)]

>> ITEM 14. MAX JOHNSON DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

WORKS TO PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> GOOD MORNING MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. UP FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS MORNINGS AGO MODIFICATION FOR A SPEED LIMIT.

THIS IS OVER ON HARD WICK ROAD SOUTH OF TOWN BETWEEN 707 AND STAFF WENT OUT AND DID A SPEED STUDY ON THIS ROAD AND THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD IS TO MODIFY, AS WELL AS ADD ONE SECTION OF THE ROAD INTO THE CODE.

SO THERE ARE THREE SECTIONS OF THIS ROAD.

ONE IS FAIRWAY OAKS FROM THE ENERGY TRANCE GOING DOWN WHERE IT HITS HARD WICK THAT ONE IN THE CODE WAS NOT DOCUMENTED SO THIS WILL ALLOW THAT TO BE 35 MILES AN HOUR AND CONTINUING ON HARD WICK GOING SOUTH IS GOING TO BE 35 MILES AN HOUR AND THE SMALL LEG GOING UP TO ANOINT LEE WE ANTLY.

>> QUESTIONS OF MAX? THANK YOU MAX.

AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 14.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> I NOTICED THERE WAS MINIMAL FISCAL IMPACT WITH THE REPLACEMENT AND WHAT DEPARTMENT WAS PLAYING FOR THIS IN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET SO I THINK THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO SOME ADDITIONAL MINIMAL IMPACT SIGN REPLACEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A PLAN AND YOU ARE RIGHT.

IT IS A SLUSH FUND FOR THE STREET BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY TO PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ACTUALLY USE FOR REPAIRS AND REPAIRS ALONE SO THAT WAS MY POINT BUT THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME. IT WAS A SLUSH FUND FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE SO IF WE WANT TO WIDEN AND USE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREATED THROUGH THE UNELECTED BOARD.

THEY SEND YOU A CONTRACT AND THEN YOU DECIDE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAYOR YOU HAVE TOLD ME BEFORE LIKE WITH THE MASTER PLAN WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST A PLAN. I'VE LEARNED AS WITH THE TANKER, AIR, FIRE TANKER RAMP WE DID, THAT WITH WAS ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO TALKING ABOUT IT. ANYTHING TALKED ABOUT AT MEETING IS PLANS TO DO IT. IT'S VERY RARE THEY CHANGE SO TO SAY YOU ARE NOT REDUCING THE REPAIR PROJECT AMOUNT OR ALLOTMENT OF 7.5 MILLION TO 3 MILLION IS VERY DISHONEST TO SAY THAT'S NOT PLAN BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER STREET PROJECTS THEY ARE COMING UP WITH UNTIL OCTOBER I THINK AND THAT'S AFTER THE BUDGET APPROVED. I DON'T MIND YOU CORRECTING ME WHEN I LEAVE OUT A WORD BUT LET'S BE FAIR.

WE'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF REPAIRS ON STREETS THIS YEAR TO 3 MILLION OR 3.4 IF YOU APPROVE THAT OVER AND ALSO THE STREET SIGNS ARE TERRIBLE BUT THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITH MAINTENANCE AND SINCE WE HAVE NOT SET ASIDE MAINTENANCE ON THE STREETS EXCEPT FOR ROAD REPAIRS WE'RE NOT TACKLING THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO MANY CITIZENS AND I KNOW OTHER CITIES DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM BUT IT IS OUR PROBLEM AND WE DON'T LIVE IN OTHER CITIES. WE LIVE IN ABILENE SO LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR ALLOCATING MONEY FOR STREET REPAIRS AND ALSO, INCLUDING WHAT FUND THOSE STREET SITE SIGNS ARE COMING FROM. I'M SURE THEY ARE COMING OUT OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND. IT HAS FIVE DIFFERENT NAMES BUT IT'S NOT LISTED AND NONE OF YOU ASKED FOR IT OR ASKED FOR THE COST OR THE OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE NEED TO BE MORE CLEAR ON THESE MEMOS SO CITIZENS CAN CORRECTLY GIVE OUT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROCESS AND THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT OUR ROADS AND REPAIRS OF OUR ROADS, NOT JUST NEW ONES OR WELCOMING THE NEW COMERS BUT TAKING CARE OF THE CITIZENS WHO DON'T LIVE OR DON'T SUPPORT THESE PROJECTS WHO ACTUALLY SUPPORT JUST BEING ABLE TO DRIVE ON THEIR OWN STREETS TO THEIR HOUSES SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED.

>> STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 14.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME?

SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE. >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> IF I MAY THE STREET SIGNS COME OUT OF OUR SIGN - BUDGET.

[00:40:07]

>> SORRY. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL A STATE AGAIN THIS IS SUGGESTIONS BY STAFF. WE HAVE NOT APPROVED A BUDGET YET. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY CHAIRMAN BAILEY. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAVER. OTHER DISCUSSION?

WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES.

[15. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving an Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of City of Abilene, Texas, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026 (AMT); Establishing Procedures and Delegating Authority for the Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Providing an Effective Date; and Enacting Other Provisions Relating to the Subject (Marjorie Knight)]

MOTION CARRIES. >> NOW ITEM 15 AND I'LL ASK THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM.

>> MARJORIE KNIGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE APPROVAL OF THE ISSUING OF UP TO $15 MILLION OF VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION FOR PHASE ONE OF THE AIRPORT TERMINAL PROJECT.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO BOND ISSUING FOR THE AIRPORT WHICH THE VOTERS APPROVED BACK IN MAY OF 2025.

THE SCOPE OF PHASE ONE INCLUDES SOME RECONFIGURATION OF THE TERMINAL LAYOUT AND INCREASED SECURITY CHECK POINT SPACE.

WE'RE BRINGING THIS TO YOU NOW IN ORDER TO MEET OUR BUDGET AND PLANNING TIME-LINE SO WE CAN GET ANY TAX RATE IMPACT INCORPORATEED IN F.Y. 2027 BUDGET.

CONSTRUCTION BIDS ARE CURRENTLY BEING FINALIZED SO WE ARE BROUGHT TO YOU AND UP TO $15 MILLION.

WE WOULD ONLY ISSUE THE AMOUNT WE WOULD NEED FOR PHASE ONE THOUGH. SO TO DATE WE HAVE SECURED $10.7 MILLION IN FFA GRANTS TOWARDS THE PROJECT.

AT THE TIME THIS WAS PREPARED WE HAD AN ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF ALMOST $21,000,000 SO WE EXPECT WE DO BONDS FOR THAT DIFFERENTIAL. TO RECAP, I'D LIKE TO GO OVER SOME OF OUR FUNDING STRATEGY FOR PHASES TWO AND THREE ALSO.

SO THAT PART OF THE PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED WITH ANY REMAINING BOND AUTHORITY. WE ALSO HAVE FFA ENTITLEMENT GRANTS WHICH ARE GRANTS THAT ARE AWARDED TO US, WE'RE PRETTY CERTAIN THEY WILL BE A WARDED EVERY YEAR.

1.3 MILLION EACH YEAR. WE HAVE ALSO, WE WILL ALSO HAVE DISCRETIONARY GRANTS THAT YOU APPLY AND YOU ARE AWARDED BY THE FFA. YOU WILL TYPICALLY FIND OUT EACH YEAR AND WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED TO THE FFA FOR A SMALL AIRPORT LETTER OF INTENT FUNDING COMMITMENT.

THIS IS A COMMITMENT THAT PROVIDES CONFIRMATION OF ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY GRANT FUNDING OVER MULTIPLE YEARS INSTEAD OF APPLYING FOR A GRANT ONE YEAR AND FINDING OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE BEEN AWARDED AND THEN YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS OVER AND OVER AGAIN SO THIS PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY.

THE ABILITY TO KIND OF HERE TO A DEFINED PROJECT SCHEDULE.