[00:00:01] COUNCILMEMBER BEARD TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION. >> FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU WITH GRATEFUL HEARTS. LORD, WE ASK FOR YOU TO INHABIT EACH OF OUR DECISIONS TODAY, DECISIONS THAT WE HOPE WILL GLORIFY YOU, MAKE OUR WONDERFUL CITY BETTER AND WE ASK, LORD, THAT YOU PROTECT THOSE THAT ARE SERVING US IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS ACROSS OUR CITY AND ABROAD WE PROVIDE TODAY THAT WE'LL HAVE FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS, PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS THAT HONOR OUR CITIZENS AND HELP DIRECT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY, IN JESUS' NAME. >> WELL, THIS MORNING I HAVE FROM AUSTIN ELEMENTARY A COUPLE OF 5TH GRADER. I HAVE NOELLA, RAISE YOUR HAND, AND JULIA, RAISE YOUR HAND TO HELP US HEED OUR PLEDGES AND THEIR MOTHER LAUREN AND DAD EVAN ARE HERE IN THE BACK, GOOD TO SEE YOU SO THEY'RE GOING TO LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. I LOVE IT WHEN THEY HAVE ENTHUSIASM. >> HEY, LAUREN, IF YOU CAN COME UP HERE TO GET A PICTURE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK WHOEVER BLESSED ME WITH THE GREEN DUCK TODAY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE QUEND [ CONSENT AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS] AGENDA. THESE ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED WITH ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION UNLESS A COUNCILMEMBER REQUESTS SEPARATE DISCUSSION. DOES ANY MEMBER ON COUNCIL WISH TO CONSIDER ANY ITEM INDIVIDUALLY? WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO VOTES TAKEN ON SUBJECTS PRESENTED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO PRESENT IDEAS AND INFORMATION TO CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND THE CITY YOU RESIDE IN FOR THE RECORD. THERE. BE A 3 MINUTE LIMIT AND WE'LL START THE CARD. >> TWO CARDS, MAYOR, SPENCER BUTCHER. >> GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. I'M SPENCER BUTCHER OF ABILENE. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS MORNING. I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEPLOYMENT OF FLOCK LICENSE PLATE READERS WITHIN THE CITY, NOT BECAUSE I'M OPPOSED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PUBLIC SAFETY. I BELIEVE BOTH PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY MUST EXIST TOGETHER. THE 4TH AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER WE'RE IN HERE OR OUTSIDE. THOSE WORDS WERE WRITTEN CENTURIES AGO, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE RELEVANT HERE TODAY. OUR FOUNDERS LIVED UNDER A FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAD THE ABILITY TO SEARCH AND MONITOR THEM AT WILL. THEY UNDERSTOOD THE TECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT POWER WOULD BECOME DANGEROUS WHEN THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT LIMITS ON HOW THAT POWER WAS USED. JAMES MADISON WROTE "WHEREVER THERE IS INTEREST AND POWER TO DO WRONG, WRONG WILL GENERALLY BE DONE". THAT'S NOT AN INDICTMENT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT'S A STATEMENT OF HUMAN NATURE. ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION PLACES LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER. TODAY, TECHNOLOGY GIVES GOVERNMENT CAPABILITIES THE FOUNDERS COULD HAVE NEVER IMAGINED. A POLICE OFFICER DISCOVERING -- OBSERVING A VEHICLE GOING DOWN THE STREET IS ONE THING, CREATING A PERMANENT ELECTRONIC RECORD OF THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES TRAVELING THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY IS SOMETHING CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT. THE SUPREME COURT IN [INDISCERNIBLE] VERSUS UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED THAT COMPREHENSIVE RECORDS OF A PERSON'S PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS CAN REVEAL INTIMATE PICTURE OF SOMEONE'S LIFE. INCLUDING THEIR ASSOCIATION, THEIR ACTIVITIES AND THEIR WHEREABOUTS. THE COURT EMPHASIZES A PERSON DOES NOT SURRENDER THEIR 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION SIMPLY BY ENTERING THE PUBLIC SPACE. THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS I BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE ASKING. AT WHAT POINT DOES WATCHING [00:05:02] BECOME TRACKING? AND AT WHAT POINT DOES TRACKING BECOME SURVEILLANCE? I'M NOT ASKING THAT THIS COUNCIL CHOOSE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND PRIVACY, I'M ASKING YOU TO PROTECT BOTH. THAT MEANS TECHNOLOGY SHOULD NEVER DENY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. JOHN ADAMS WRITES "A CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT ONCE CHANGED FROM FREEDOM CAN NEVER BE RESTORED". LIBERTY ONCE LOST IS LOST FOREVER. TOMORROW WE'LL REMEMBER THE ATTACKS THAT OCCURRED AND LIVES THAT WERE LOST 25 YEARS AGO ON NINE LESS 9/11. MANY OF TODAY'S PUBLIC SECURITY ISSUES AND PRECAUTIONS AND PRACTICES ARE BUILT UPON THAT EVENT. LET'S HONOR THE INNOCENT LIVES LOST BY PROTECTING THE VERY THING THAT WAS VIOLATED, PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY MATTER, YES. BUT SO DOES LIBERTY. FOR THOSE, THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. I BELIEVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS BODY IS TO PROTECT BOTH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. BUTCHER. >> SUSAN PERRY? >> YOU DID SAY SUSAN PERRY? >> YES, MA'AM. >> HI, GOOD MORNING. SUSAN PERRY, ABILENE. JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF REMINDERS AND NOT NECESSARILY SUGGESTIONS BUT THINGS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. I URGE YOU TO TREAT YOUR VOTERS, THE ABILENE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS, WITH RESPECT. AND WE ARE A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, AND DON'T FORGET, WE STAND ABOVE YOU. YOU ARE OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, OUR ELECTED SERVANTS. PLEASE USE ALL OF OUR MONEY SPARINGLY AND WISELY FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND THAT SERVE ALL THE CITIZENS. LIKE STREET REPAIRS AND TAKING CARE OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS. I URGE YOU, NO TAX INCREASES, NO MATTER HOW YOU SPIN IT. HOW ABOUT SAVING SOME FOR A FUTURE EMERGENCIES? PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS, THEY'RE YOUR VOTERS. DON'T ABUSE US, DON'T INSULT US OR TAKE US FOR GRANTED. ABOUT THE PRIVACY INVADING SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, EITHER FLOCK OR AXON OR WHATEVER COMPANY. CANCEL CONTRACTS, HIRE MORE POLICE OFFICERS WITH THAT MONEY INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT FURTHER. SOME PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR A LIMITED SUPPOSED SAFETY AND SECURITY BUT WE KNOW THAT NEVER ENDS WELL, AS WAS JUST MENTIONED. IT'S EASILY ABUSED AND IT HAS BEEN. ABILENE IS A SMALL MEDIUM-SIZED TEXAS TOWN. WE LIKE IT THAT WAY, THAT'S WHY WE'RE LIVING HERE, THAT'S WHY PEOPLE MOVE HERE. OUR POLICE DO A GOOD JOB AND WE DON'T NEED ALL THOSE GADGETS FOR THEM TO DO THEIR JOBS. CERTAINLY WE DON'T NEED OR WANT INVASIVE DRONES WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FUTURE, I UNDERSTAND. WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE T.V. SHOW OR MOVIE. WE DON'T NEED ALL THAT STUFF. GOVERNOR ABBOTT RECENTLY ORDERED ALL TEXAS AGENCIES TO HALT FLOCK FUNDING BUT THAT MAY NOT APPLY HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS USED. YOU USED OUR MONEY MONEY AGAINST US, I HOPE THAT'S NOT TRUE THOUGH, I HOPE IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. DO WHAT A NUMBER OF TEXAS CITIES HAVE DONE, THEY'VE DOWN TAKEN DOWN THE CAMERAS, THEY'VE CANCELED THE CONTRACTS. THEY'VE FINALLY SHEEN SOME STRONG LEADERSHIP. SO FINALLY PLEASE COMMUNICATE WITH US. GET CREATIVE, USE AI, GET THE WORD OUT. NOT JUST ON -- AND THE WEBSITE, THE CITY WEBSITE IS HARD TO NAVIGATE. IT WOULD BE -- IT'S HARD TO FIND INFORMATION THERE. WE ALL PAY TAXES SO WE ALL NEED TO HEAR ABOUT HOW YOU'RE SPENDING IT AND IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. YOUR TRACK RECORD HAS SOME POTHOLES IN IT. AND -- BUT YOU CAN REPAIR IT, WE'RE CONFIDENT OF THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MORE CARDS? >> NO MORE CARDS. >> STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION CONSISTING OF ITEMS 2 THROUGH 14. >> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PATTERSON. FURTHER DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE? >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 15 WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED TODAY. [16. Ordinance (Final Reading) HOZ-2026-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Apply Historic Overlay Zoning To Approximately 0.139 Acres Zoned General Commercial (GC). Located at 1902 North 1st Street. (Tim Littlejohn)] WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 16 AND I'LL ASK TIM LITTLEJOHN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING IS HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONING 2026-02. [00:10:07] CRISP. THE REQUEST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ADD HISTORIC OVERHEY TO A PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY 1902 NORTH 1ST STREET. PHILPOTT FLORIST WAS ORIGINALLY OPENED IN 1920 AT 241 SALES BY MR. AND MRS. WA PHIL POT. THEY OPERATED THE BUSINESS UP UNTIL 1923, THEN SOLD TO THEIR DAUGHTER RUTH AND HER HUSBAND WHO OPERATED THE BUSINESS FOR 22 YEARS. IN 1945, THE BUSINESS WAS SOLD TO RUTH'S COUSIN HARIETTE LOVELADY. MS. LOVELADY HIRED JIMMY TITTLE WHO IS A LOCAL ARCHITECT FOR ABILENE TO DESIGN THE BUILDING CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 1902 NORTH 1ST STREET. IN 1955, PHIL ACCOUNTS POT FLORIST RELOCATED FROM ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION ON SELLS TO ITS NEW HOME AT 1902 NORTH 1ST STREET. RAY MADDOX PURCHASED THE BUSINESS FROM MS. LOVELADY IN 1973 WHO SENTENCE SOLD IT IN 2022. IN 2025 MR. CRISP BECAME THE OWNER AND HE CONTINUES TO BE -- AND CONTINUES THE PROPER TRADITION OF THE TALENTED FLORIST WHO IS HAVE SERVED ABILENE COMMUNITY FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HERE ARE SOME HISTORIC PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY. THIS CASE WAS HEARD IN AUGUST. APPROVAL WAS RECOMMENDED. I WOULD BE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, TIM. AT THIS TIME I'LL 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. JOURNAL HI, MY NAME IS JONATHAN CRISP. I'M THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS ZONING. MY PERSONAL PLANS WITH THE PROJECT IS A RESTORATION PROJECT TO BRING THE PROPERTY BACK TO AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL 1955 PRESENTATION AS I CAN. SO THAT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF THE PAINT AND THEN I WENT INTO MORE DETAILS WITH THE HISTORIC COMMISSION TO DO THAT. AFTER POTENTIALLY RECEIVING THIS I'LL GO TO THE STATE AND ATTEMPT STATE DESIGNATION AS WELL WHICH WILL ALLOW ME ACCESS TO SOME PROGRAMS THAT WILL GIVE ME SOME CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THAT PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON A HISTORIC BUILDING. >> YES, SIR. >> STILL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 16, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PATTERSON, A SECOND BY ABOUT COUNCILMAN BAILEY. >> IT WAS BY ME. >> COUNCILMAN CRAVER. FURTHER DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE? >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. >> WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 17 AND [17. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-43: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Change the Zoning of Approximately 0.8 Acres from Heavy Commercial (HC) to a Planned Development District (PDD-202). Located at 803, 825, and 833 Pine Street. (Tim Littlejohn)] TILL LITTLEJOHN WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING IS ZONING CASE 2026-43. THE OWNER IS ABILENE IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION. THE REQUEST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS A CHANGE OF ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY .8 ACRES FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY PD202 LOCATED AT 803, 825 AND 833 PINE. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. HERE IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WILL GO ALONG WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED BASE ZONING WILL BE TOWNHOME WITH A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 18 FEET, MINIMUM SIDE STREET SET BACK OF 10. INTERIOR SIDE YARD SET BACK OF 5. REAR YARD 20 AND MINIMUM FRONT SET BACK OF 20 FEET. HERE IS THE PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE IS THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES ON THAT LOT. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE DID RECEIVE TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THIS MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PNZ DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL THIS MORNING WITH CONDITIONS. NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF OF NORTH 8TH OR PINE STREET. AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL EQUAL TO 15% OF THE SITE. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> >> HEY, TIM, WHAT'S THE RATIONALE BETWEEN NO ACCESS OFF [00:15:01] OF 8TH STREET? >> OFF OF 8TH STREET? THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY AND IMPROVE THAT SO NO ADDITIONAL DRIVES ARE NEEDED. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO USE THAT EXISTING ALLEYWAY AND IMPROVE IT IT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, TIM. AT THIS TIME I'LL 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. >> GOOD MORNING [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS ZONING REQUEST IS TO SUPPORT 12 TOWNHOME UNITS ON THIS TRACT OF LAND. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A PD WAS PURSUED WITH A BASE ZONING OF TOWNHOME, SO THAT WE COULD PUT IN PLACE SOME REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD THAT REALLY ALLOW THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT TO FIT WELL ALONG PINE STREET. SO AS STAFF TALKED THROUGH, NO ACCESS ALONG PINE, NO ACCESS ALONG NORTH 8TH. ALL OF THE ACCESS WILL BE FROM THE EAST IN THE ALLEY. THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, OF COURSE SETBACKS, THE STAFF COVERED IN THE PD AS WELL. ALL OF THESE THINGS WE BELIEVE ALLOW THIS TO FIT WELL. OBVIOUSLY, PINE STREET IS A SIGNIFICANT CORRIDOR IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND AGAIN, WE BELIEVE, LIKE PNZ AND STAFF THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION. WOULD BE HAPPY -- WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF I CAN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 17, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A JEEKD. >> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PATTERSON. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CRAVER. FURTHER DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE? >> ALL YESES. [18. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-45: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Change the Zoning of Approximately 166.9 Acres from Agricultural Open (AO) to Patio Home (PH), Multi-Family (MF), and General Retail (GR). Located at 6002 Texas Avenue. (Tim Littlejohn)] MOTION CARRIES. >> WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 18 AND TIM LITTLE JOHN WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> THE REQUEST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS CHANGE IN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 166.9 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO MULTI-FAMILY AND GENERAL RETAIL LOCATED AT 6002 TEXAS AVENUE. HERE IS THE LOCATES MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THE AREA. HERE ARE SOME PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING VIEWS. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND THREE IN OPPOSITION, RESULTING IN A 2.78% IN OPPOSITION. HERE ARE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES. HERE ARE THE REQUESTED USES IN PATIO HOMES. MULTI-FAMILY. AND GENERAL RETAIL ZONING. HERE IS THE PROPOSED ZONING, THE WAY IT WILL LAY OUT ON THE PARCEL, THE WAY EACH DISTRICT WOULD LAY OUT. THIS MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THEY DO RECOMMEND TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY IS FLOODWAY, FLOOD ZONE. I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO BE CREATIVE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS OR -- >> THEY WILL WORK ALL THAT THROUGH THE ENGINEERING WITH JACOB AND MORTON. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF TIM? 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. >> GOOD MORNING, TAL FILLINGGAM, AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS ZONING REQUEST IS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT THIS 166-CRE TRACT. WHILE WE ARE REQUESTING THREE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, GR, MULTI-FAMILY AND PATIO HOME, THIS IS NOT REALLY A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPROPRIATE USE ALONG DUB RIGHT IS A COMBINATION OF GR AND MULTI-FAMILIAR WITH THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY BEING SINGLE FAMILY. TO YOUR POINT, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY ACROSS THE PROPERTY. THOSE CREEKS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE FLOODWAY FALL IN A WAY THAT THEY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BUFFERS BETWEEN THESE ZONING TYPES, AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS WELL. AGAIN, LIKE STAFF AND PNZ, WE ALSO BELIEVE THIS TO BE APPROPRIATE AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF I CAN. >> QUESTIONS OF TAL? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> STILL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 18, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NOARNTION I'LL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND [00:20:03] A SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY -- >> TECHNICALLY IT SAYS BRIAN GATES. I BELIEVE THAT IS YOU, SIR. >> YOU GOT IT, BRIAN. >> HE MIGHT -- PULL HIS FACE. >> DO I SMELL LIKE OLD SPICE? >> THE SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BAILEY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. [19. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-46: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to Change the Zoning of Approximately 2.0 Acres from Agricultural Open (AO) to Residential Single-Family (RS-6). Located at 3234 Beltway S. (Tim Littlejohn)] >> MOTION CARRIES. I'LL MOVE TO ITEM 19. >> I'M SORRY. IT DOES SAY BRIAN GATES ON MY THING. >> AND IT HASN'T BEFORE, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- BUT I'LL FIX IT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS ZONING CASE 2026-46. THE OWNER IS MIKE PAPUS, AGENT IS THOMAS BURNS. THE REQUEST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS THE CHANGE OF ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2352 BELT WAY SOUTH. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. AS YOU CAN SEE THE RF6 IS TO THE NORTH AND EAST. HERE ARE THE PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE ARE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES WITH THE AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. THE ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION, RESULTING IN A 1.73% IN OPPOSITION. THIS MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PNZ DID HEAR THIS CASE, THEY DO RECOMMEND TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS OF TIM? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 19, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. TOM BURNS, AGENT FOR MIKE PAPPAS. THIS IS KIND OF A NO BRAINER. MY CLIENT WANTS TO PARTITION SOME OF THE LAND TO ADD ON TO THE SUBDIVISION AND FOR SOME REASON IT'S JUST ZONED INCORRECTLY AND WE'RE RIGHT TO GET THAT RESOLVED SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT. >> APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. STILL ON ITEM 19, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN ESPINOZA. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. [20. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-47: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, Take Action on a Request from the Owner to amend the terms of a Planned Development District (PDD-76). Specifically, to allow town homes and Patio Homes within Tract 3. Located at 5534 Health Way Dr. (Tim Littlejohn)] MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. NOW MOVE TO ITEM 20 AND TILL LITTLEJOHN WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> FOR CONSIDERATION IS ZONING CASE 2026-47. THE OWNER IS WEST TEXAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC, AGENT IS EHD ENGINEERING. THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MUCH PLAN DEVELOPMENT 76 TO ALLOW PATIO HOMES AND OTHER USES WITHIN TRACT 3. THIS IS LOAKDZ AT 5534 HEALTH WAY DRIVE. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHOWING WHERE THEY'RE WANTING TO ADD THE PATIO HOME AND TOWNHOME USES WITHIN TRACT 3. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED, RESULTING IN .7% OPPOSITION. THIS MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PNZ DID HEAR THIS CASE AND THEY DO RECOMMEND TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> TIM, DID THE VA RESPOND TO THIS AT ALL? >> NO. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF TIM? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL 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. >> GOOD MORNING. BJ PRITCHARD, AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER. THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU GUYS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. IT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED, THE PD, TO DO A BUNCH OF MEDICAL RELATED RETAIL-COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. THOSE NEVER AMOUNTED TO MUCH OF ANYTHING. A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WE KIND OF AMENDED THIS PD TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TO GO IN. MAINLY SINGLE FAMILY, PATIO HOMES AT THE TIME ALONG WITH SOME DUPLEXES AND MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING. THE APPLICANT HAS RECENTLY WANTED TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING SOME [00:25:01] TOWNHOMES IN PARTS OF THAT TRACT AS WELL, JUST TO KIND OF VARY THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE IN THERE. A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO BE PACED ON JUST KIND OF HOW THINGS SELL AND THE DEMANDS THAT ARE BEING PUT OUT THERE. IT'S KIND OF A HIGHLY POPULAR AREA RIGHT NOW, NEW [INDISCERNIBLE] COMING OUT AND A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN IS CREATING THE NEED FOR QUITE A BIT OF HOUSING OUT THAT WAY. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO -- >> THANKS, BJ. THANK YOU. STILL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 20, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN PATTERSON. FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. [21. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2026-48: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner to change the zoning of approximately 30.08 acres from Agricultural Open (AO) to Residential Single Family (RS-6). Located at 6648 Butterfield Trail. (Tim Littlejohn)] >> I'LL MOVE TO ITEM 21 AND TIM LITTLEJOHN WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL. THE LAST ONE, ISN'T IT? >> I BELIEVE SO UP FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS ZONING CASE 2026-48. THE AGENT IS EHT. THE OWNER IS WESLEY HAWKS. THE REQUEST FOR YOU IS CHANGE OF ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 30.08 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SPECIFICALLY RS6 LOCATED AT 6648 BUTTER FIELD TRAIL. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING. HERE ARE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE ARE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. AND HERE IS THE REQUESTED USES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION, RESULTING IN A .52% IN OPPOSITION. THIS MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PNZ DID HEAR THIS CASE, THEY DO RECOMMEND TO YOU APPROVAL THIS MORNING. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS OF TIM? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 21, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> BJ PRITCHARD, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT. THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUEST. WE ARE TAKING THE LAST REMAINING 30-ACRE TRACT RIGHT THERE TO RS6. THIS LAND IS ACTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 30 ACRES TO THE EAST OF IT AS KIND OF ONE COHESIVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT. WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, BJ. STILL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 21, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CRAVER. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY -- >> Y'ALL ARE JUST GETTING ME TODAY, MAN. >> IT'S NOT BRIAN, Y'ALL QUIT PICKING ON HIM. ANY FURTHER -- WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. [22. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving the Revised 2025-2026 Budget] >> NOW MOVE TO ITEM 22 AND I'LL ASK MARJORIE KNIGHT FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL. MARJORIE KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON AUGUSD ON FIRST READING THE FY2026 ALL FUNDS REVISED BUDGET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $421 MILLION. TODAY IS THE SECOND READING AND FINAL VOTE. AS A QUICK RECAP, EXPENDITURES INCREASED APPROXIMATELY 49.5 MILLION OVER THE ORIGINAL BUDGET. ABOUT HALF OF THAT INCREASE IS THE GENERAL FUND. PRIMARILY REFLECTS THE USE OF SURPLUS SALES TAX REVENUE FOR ONE TIME NEEDS. THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT INCREASES INCLUDE WATER AND SEWER RESOURCES TRANSFERRED FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. OVERALL, EXPENDITURES EXCEED REVENUES BY ABOUT $15 MILLION. REFLECTING THE PLANNED USE OF FUND BALANCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS OF MARJORIE? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME -- AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 22? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. IF NO ONE I'LL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PATTERSON. [00:30:02] >> DID YOU GET IT? >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BAILEY. >> WE NEED TO WRITE THESE DOWN. I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MINE. >> MINE IS NOT GOING. BUT I GOT IT -- >> WE'VE GOT SOME GLITCHES GOING ON AT THE MOMENT. >> READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. >> WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE VOTING [23. Ordinance (FinalReading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving the Proposed 2026-2027 Budget] TERMINALS. I'LL MOVE TO ITEM 23. MARJORIE KNIGHT WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> OKAY, OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE SECOND READING AND FINAL VOTE ON THE FY2027 BUDGET. COUNCIL APPROVED ON FIRST READING, ALL FUNDS OPERATING BUDGET TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $414.6 MILLION. THE PRIMARY CHANGE SINCE FIRST READING RELATES TO FIRE CIVIL SERVICE PAY. COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO INCREASE THE ADJUSTMENT FROM THE PEER CITY AVERAGE PLUS 3% TO PEER CITY AVERAGE PLUS 4%. THAT INCREASED THE TOTAL COSTS BY APPROXIMATELY $269,000. COUNCIL ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN TODAY WITH FUNDING OPTIONS SO TOTAL EXPENDITURES REMAIN AT THE 414,000 -- 414,607,000-DOLLAR LEVEL. STAFF PROVIDED FOUR OPTIONS. THESE OPTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE AGENDA PACKET BUT TO GO OVER EACH OF THEM... OPTION 1 IS A ONE-TIME REDUCTION TO THE FIRE APPARATUS FUND TRANSFER. SO BASED ON OUR CURRENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE, WE DO NOT FORESEE THIS ONE-TIME REDUCTION 0 WOULD IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE ANY PLANNED APPARATUS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR OR FUTURE APPARATUS REPLACEMENTS AS PLANNED. WE HAVE OPTION 2, WHICH REDUCES THE INCREASED GENERAL FUND SUPPORT TO THE HEALTH SERVICES FUND. AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IS SUFFICIENT TO ABSORB THAT SHORTFALL, BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT INCREASED LOCAL SUPPORT IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY BALANCED FUND. SO WE SEE THIS AS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION AND WE WOULD NEED NO RE-EVALUATE INCREASING FUNDING IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IF WE CHOOSE THAT OPTION. OPTION 3 REDUCES THE ONE-TIME PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER TO MIP, DOINGS NOT AFFECT RECURRING OPERATIONS BUT IT WOULD REDUCE FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE CAPITAL AND ONE TIME NEEDS. AND LASTLY, WE HAVE OPTION 4 TO REDUCE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND. WHILE STAFF IS WORKING ON COST CONTAINMENT STRATEGIES, THE TIMING AND AMOUNT OF ANY OF THOSE SAVINGS IS A LITTLE UNCERTAIN. SO IF WE CHOOSE THIS OPTION AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS NEEDED, COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER AN MIP RESOURCES IF NEEDED. SO IS FOR A QUICK RECAP, FY2027 TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE $414,607,651. EXPENDITURES EXCEED REVENUES APPROXIMATELY 8.3 MILLION. AGAIN, THIS IS A PLANNED USE OF FUND BALANCE. IT'S ACCUMULATED RESOURCES THAT WILL BE USED FOR CAPITAL AND OTHER IDENTIFIED PURPOSES. THIS ITEM DOES REQUIRE TWO SEPARATE VOTES. THE FIRST VOTE IS TO ADOPT THE FY2027 BUDGET AND THE SECOND VOTE IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND RATIFY THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE WITHIN IT. SO THIS BUDGET DOES RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES OF 18.3 MILLION. OF THAT AMOUNT, 16.8 IS NEW PROPERTY TAX. NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL. SO BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST COUNCIL DIRECTION ON WHICH OF THE FOUR OFFSET OPTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL BUDGET. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. >> OF THE FOUR OPTIONS, MARJORIE, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSING -- MISINTERPRETING SOMETHING, BUT NUMBER 1, WE'RE TAKING FUNDS OUT OF THE FIRE APPARATUS FUND, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS A GOOD IDEA. NUMBER 3, WE'RE REDUCING TRANSFERS TO THE MIP, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO USE SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. I DON'T AGREE WITH REDUCING ANYTHING GOING INTO THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND. THE HEALTH SERVICES FUND -- AND ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S A FUND BALANCE TO SUPPORT THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK WE CAN CATCH BACK UP NEXT YEAR, WE'RE NOT LOSING ANY SERVICES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE JUST FUND IT OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE FOR ONE YEAR -- THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE. IT'S THE LEAST IMPACTFUL TO THE BUDGET. IN MY OPINION. >> I WOULD -- AS I LOOK BACK AT THE PRESENTATION AND THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS THAT WE'RE ADDING, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING THE LIBRARY AND THE ZOO AND PARKS AND REC, NEW POLICE OFFICERS, WE HAD [00:35:06] INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POSITION AS AN EXPANSION OF THE CITY SECRETARY RESPONSIBILITY AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE COULD STILL HANDLE ALL THE REQUESTS COMING IN. AT THAT MEETING, WE MOVED THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES OUT OF THAT OFFICE AND INTO JUST COMMUNICATION. AND FOR ME, THAT'S 121,000 LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION, IT WAS 121,000 THAT I WOULD RATHER WE PULL PART OF THIS DIFFERENCE FROM THAT POSITION AND THEN WE CAN PULL THE REST FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ALLOW COMMUNICATIONS TO WORK ON WHAT THEY CAN FROM THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE. MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE ENVISIONED, BUT I WOULD RATHER SEE US CONTEMPLATE THAT AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. >> MY OPINION IS IF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SEES SOMETHING ON THE HORIZON THAT THEY SEE AN INFUSION, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY HONOR THAT AND IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THEN REFILL WITH THE MIP LATER, WE MIGHT AS WELL DO IT NOW. AND SO I'M FOR OPTION 3, REDUCING THE PROPERTY TAX TRANSFERS TO THE MIP. >> I DON'T THINK WE'RE REFILLING FROM THE MIP LATER. I THINK WE CATCH UP -- IT WOULD BECOME JUST PART OF THE STANDARD BUDGET NEXT YEAR. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COME -- >> IT WOULD BECOME A RECURRING SUBSIDY INCREASE, YES. >> THOUGHTS, COUNCIL? >> I'LL DEFINITELY PROBABLY LEANING TOWARDS 2 IN TERMS OF THE LEAST DISRUPTION. I HAVE -- I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT ANGLE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, SHANE, TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, SO I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT -- I THINK IT'S A POSSIBLY GREAT IDEA, I JUST HAVEN'T HAD MUCH TIME TO MULL OVER IT. BUT IF I'M GOING OFF OF WHAT I THINK IS THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE THAT ALLOWS US TO STILL HAVE THE SAME STANDARD OF THE SERVICES THAT WE'RE DELIVERING, I'M LEANING TOWARDS OPTION NUMBER 2. >> YEAH, I -- I AGREE. I'M LEANING TOWARDS 2 AS WELL. AND HONESTLY, I -- I SUPPORT CUTTING THAT POSITION, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE GO. HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT BUT -- I DO THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING -- SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE WOULDN'T CONCERN IT WOULD DECREASE THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE TAKING FROM THE HEALTH, CORRECT, IF WE -- >> WE WOULD STILL REDUCE SOME FROM EITHER THE MIP OR HEALTH, DEPENDING ON 2 OR 3. BUT IT WOULD BE -- >>JUST LESS. >> IT WOULD BE LESS THAT WE'RE REDUCING THERE, BECAUSE WE WOULD REMOVE THE 121,000 FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POSITION AND SUPPORT RELATED TO THAT. >> I'M STILL -- KIND OF THE SAME SENTIMENTS THAT I HAD LAST MEETING ABOUT THIS. I STILL THINK WE SHOULD WAIT WITH THAT PAY STUDY AND SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT. I'M STILL -- I WOULD LIKE US TO SEE A 3% WITH OPTION NUMBER 2, EVEN IF WE DID GO THAT ROUTE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT UP IN THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, SO THAT'S STILL GOING TO BE A COST FOR US. AND I KNOW IT'S LEAST DISRUPTIVE THIS YEAR BUT IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTIVE NEXT YEAR. I WOULD JUST CAUTION AGAINST THAT OPTION, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT STATE IT WILL BE IN A YEAR FROM NOW AND ARE BUDGET WISE, I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD JUST CAUTION MAKING THAT DECISION ON THAT OPTION. FOR OPTION 2. >> IS THAT CLEAR, MARJORIE? >> MAYOR, IF I CAN GET SOME CLARITY OR MAYBE PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 120,000ISH, I BELIEVE ABOUT 75 OF THAT IS PAY AND BENEFITS FOR THE ONE NEW POSITION. AND THE OTHER JUAN WAS GOING TOE USED FOR PROGRAMATIC ENHANCEMENTS SO I THINK NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE ASKING US TO NOT FUND THE ADDITIONAL POSITION OR NOT FUND THE PROGRAMATIC ENHANCEMENTS OR BOTH. >> HOW MUCH OF WHAT WAS ENVISIONED PROGRAMMATICALLY CAN BE DONE WITH THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE, WITHOUT THE POSITION? >> WITHOUT THE POSITION? >> IF WE DON'T FUND THE NEW POSITION, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE PROGRAM ASPECT OF IT. HOW MUCH OF THAT FUNDING WOULD BE USABLE BY EXISTING STAFF OR -- IF WE DON'T HAVE THE POSITION, WE REALLY CAN'T PURSUE THOSE THINGS, SO IT'S ALL OR NOTHING KIND OF THING? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING. I THINK THAT WE WOULD UTILIZE [00:40:02] WHATEVER RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US, WHICH YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE POSITION, THEN CERTAINLY IT MAY CREATE LACK OF THE EXPENSE THAT WE WERE PLANNING ON. I THINK IF YOU GIVE US THE POSITION AND NO PROGRAMS, THEN WE WILL DO THINGS THAT DON'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF MANPOWER. IF YOU GIVE US THE PROGRAMATIC DOLLARS WITHOUT THE POSITION, THEN WE'LL USE OUR EXISTING STAFF. SO WE WILL ABSOLUTELY USE WHATEVER YOU GIVE US. I DO THINK THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, AND SO THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THAT. SO IF WE DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH TO SPEND IN THAT, THEN JUST KNOW OUR PROGRESS MAY BE NOT QUITE AS MUCH AS WE HAD ANTICIPATED. >> AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE IN COMMUNICATIONS? >> I BELIEVE IT'S 5. WHERE IS OUR -- >> SIX. >> AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE -- >> FIVE -- THERE'S SIX -- IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- >> >> INCLUDING THE PIOS FOR POLICE AND FIRE -- >> THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE OUR PIOS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS. >> I'M PERSONALLY NOT -- I WOULD LIKE US TO KEEP THAT POSITION. I THINK THAT IS A COUNCIL PRIORITY. FOR US TO BE CUTTING I THINK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ESPECIALLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND THE CITY LANDSCAPE, MAKING SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHY WE'RE DOING IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT POSITION STAY FUNDED, AND THE PROGRAMING. >> I THINK SIX IS A LOT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED A SEVENTH. >> I -- I AGREE. I THINK SIX IS A LOT ALREADY AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB, IS COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AND SO AT LEAST A DOLLAR'S WORTH OF IT. SO I'M FOR CUTTING THAT POSITION. >> FOR YOU OR BRIAN, WHOEVER GETS PAID -- >> I'M TALKING TO BRIAN RIGHT NOW. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> I DON'T -- FULL DISCLOSURE, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION JUST HEARING ANOTHER OPTION RIGHT NOW. IT'S KINDS OF HARD FOR ME TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. I THINK THE HARD PART IS WE'RE ASKING NOT JUST YOU, MARJORIE, BUT WE'VE OUTLINED PRIORITIES FOR US. IT MAKES ME A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE TO ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY LET'S JUST TAKE THAT POSITION AWAY. WITHOUT -- AND EXPECT THE SAME DELIVERABLES THAT WE WERE ASKING PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP. SO IMMEDIATE THOUGHT: I THINK I LIKE THE IDEA OF STILL KEEPING THE PROGRAMATIC PIECES IN PLACE, IF WE ARE TO BE NIMBLE, I STILL THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO FIGURE OUT THE FINANCES THERE TO CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE. WE'VE HEARD OFTEN THIS MORNING ALREADY A DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO BE COMMUNICATED WITH. I'M POSSIBLY FLEXIBLE ON THE SALARY PIECE AND MAYBE UTILIZING THE EXISTING STAFF OF SIX IN SOME CAPACITY. BUT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF JUST ELIMINATING THAT COMPLETELY, PERSONALLY. >> WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, MAYOR? >> I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S DISCUSSION. I THINK I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMAN CRAVER. THE FUNDING -- THE OTHER USES -- THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LEAN TO. >> REMOVE THE POSITION, KEEP THE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMING? >> KEEP THE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMING. >> SO THEN THE BALANCE FOR THE 269, IF WE CUT THE POSITION, WHICH I THINK MARJORIE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 75 WITH THE PLAY ROLL PLUS BENEFITS IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. >> IT SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT. >> SO WE HAVE THE NEED FOR 269 IF WE CUT THE POSITION AND IF THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 75,000, THEN THE BALANCE THEN -- THE OPTIONS HERE OR ADDITIONAL OPTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR US TO MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL CUT. [00:45:03] >> OPTION 2. THE BALANCE? >> AND WHY NOT THE MIP? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE SUBSIDY TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IS THAT PROVIDING PROGRAMING THIS YEAR OR IS THAT TO HAVE A BALANCE IN THAT THE FUND SO THAT IF WE LOSE FUNDING IN THE FUTURE, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO TOUCH ON? BECAUSE THAT MAY BE ON A DIFFERENT CALENDAR, THE PHYSICAL SUPPORT AND DECISIONS. >> YES. IT'S THE LATTER. SO IT WOULD -- SO CURRENTLY, WITHOUT IT, THEY WOULD HAVE MORE EXPENSES THAN THEY HAVE REVENUES, SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, IS THAT WE MAKE THOSE -- THAT'S THL BUDGET IS REVENUES VERSUS EXPENDITURES. >> SO IT USES SOME OF THE FUND BALANCE THIS YEAR, WHICH MAKES IT MORE CRITICAL THAT WE GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT UP NEXT YEAR. IT'S KINDS OF A LIKE WE CAN DO THIS ONE TIME BUT IT IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD -- WE CAN DO ONGOING. THERE IS TRULY A NEED TO PLUG THAT HOLE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND ONGOING SO -- BUT IT DOES NOT IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE PROGRAMS OR SERVICES IN THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR SO -- >> TO MIGUEL'S CONCERN, WE'RE IN A TIME PERIOD WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR OF 14 MILLION OF OUR PROPERTY INCREASE WAS NEW GROWTH, RIGHT. AND SO YOU KNOW, COMING UP WITH THIS NEXT YEAR TO FUND IT I DON'T THINK IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER. I THINK IT WILL BE JUST FINE. >> SAME. >> AND WE CAN KEEP THE SERVICE DELIVERY WHERE WE NEED TO.. >> THANK YOU Y'ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE'RE STILL ON ITEM 23 IN THIS DISCUSSION. SOMETIMES YOU JUST GOT TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK AND LET YOUR BRAIN GET THE FOG OUT. I'M GOING TO GIVE MY OPINION ON THIS. OUR NUMBER 1 PRIORITY IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SO IF WE ELIMINATE THIS POSITION, WE CAN'T UTILIZE THAT. WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE PRIORITY IN HIRING AND THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE POSITIONS PROBABLY FILLED BEFORE THAT, BUT ONCE WE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET WE COULD FILL IT. IF WE DECIDE THROUGH OUR PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THESE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT, WE CAN ALWAYS FIX THAT IN OUR REVISED BUDGET. I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CUTTING THE POSITION NOW. WE'VE SENT OUR THOUGHTS TO STAFF, THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS PRIORITY. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. BUT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CUTTING THAT POSITION AT THIS TIME. COUNCIL? >> I AGREE. I AGREE WITH YOU. >> I WOULD STILL LIKE TO -- STILL THINK SIX IS ENOUGH. FOR THE COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY OF YOU ARE PROBABLY LEANING TOWARDS THE HEALTH SERVICES FUND TO DECREASE THE BALANCE THERE. YOU KNOW, I JUST WROTE DOWN SOME THOUGHTS. I'M ON THE BOARD AND THAT DOES AN AMAZING JOB. WE ARE SET TO LOSE SOME POTENTIAL FUNDING IN THIS NEXT -- WE ARE SET TO LOSE FUNDING IN THIS NEXT YEAR COMING UP. AND FOR MANY OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW, I JUST WROTE DOWN SOME THOUGHT OF WHAT THE HEALTH SERVICES DOES. IT'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF HUMAN FLOURISHING, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. A LOT OF THE ROLE IS TO PREVENT SUFFERING, EXTEND LIFE, PROTECT COMMUNITIES FROM CASCADING CRISES. AND SO THEY ADDRESS THE PHYSICAL, THE MENTAL, THE SOCIAL. THEY REDUCE LONG-TERM COSTS, SUSTAIN ECONOMIC POSITIVITY AND UPHOLD DIGNITY. IN ESSENCE IT'S AN ACCESSIBLE HIGH QUALITY HEALTH CARE, NOT ONLY A MORAL IMPERATIVE BUT A FOUNDATIONAL INVESTMENT INTO STABILITY, EQUITY AND THE CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES LIKE ABILENE FOR US TO THRIVE. AND SO ALL THAT TO SAY I KNOW THAT WE ARE ENTERTAINING FUNDING FROM THAT GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY -- AND I THINK THAT'S THE SENTIMENT OF THIS COUNCIL -- IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THAT FUNDING BE RETURNED, BECAUSE OF THE IMPERATIVE NATURE OF SOME OF THE POSITIONS, THE IMPERATIVE NATURE AND THE MARKETING, THE COMMUNICATION, THE DIFFERENT INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE FROM A CITY WIDE PERSPECTIVE. [00:50:01] AND SO AS LONG AS THAT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH PRIORITY FOR US MOVING FORWARD SO THAT ANNETTE'S TEAM DOESN'T HAVE TO PATCHWORK THINGS, THEN I'M ALL FOR THAT MOVING FORWARD. >> TO YOUR POINT, I SEE THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT GETTING FUNDING FROM GRANTS THAT ARE ON DIFFERENT CALENDARS. >> SURE. >> AND I'M RELUCTANT TO TAKE FROM THERE, BECAUSE THAT FUNDING REDUCTION MAY HAPPEN MID-YEAR, WHEN WE CAN'T MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT, TO JAY'S POINT, PULLING FROM MIP OR SOMEWHERE ELSE TO PROVIDE THAT SUPPLEMENT. AND SO I THINK FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD RATHER -- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A COMBINATION OF REDUCE -- NOT ADDING THE NEW POSITION FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, THE POSITION ITSELF, PROVIDING THE FUNDING FOR THE SERVICES AND THE PROGRAMS SO THAT THE SIX THAT WE HAVE CAN EXPAND IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AND TAKING THE DIFFERENCE THAT'S LEFT FROM THE MIP TRANSFER. >> IS THAT KIND ALONG THE LINES YOU WERE, COUNCILMAN CRAVER? >> YES, SIR. >> MAYOR HURT, IF PERMISSIBLE, CAN CHIEF LAURA SPEAK TO THE FIRE APPARATUS OPTION? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL. I HATE THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO START TALKING ABOUT FUNDING ITEMS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECT ANOTHER DEPARTMENT. LOOKING AT OUR APPARATUS FUND, THAT IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR US, BUT THOSE PURCHASES ARE MAPPED OUT TO 20 YEARS, AND SO I DO KNOW WHAT A REDUCTION WOULD DO TO US, AND A FULL REDUCTION WOULD IMPACT IT. BUT I CAN PROPOSE TAKING HALF OF THAT AMOUNT FROM THE APPARATUS FUND, IF THAT COULD HELP MAINTAIN THE POSITION THAT'S -- THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. >> QUESTIONS OF THE CHIEF? CHIEF, I APPRECIATE THE OFFER, BUT I TOO WOULD RATHER TAKE IT FROM THE MIP. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> YOU'RE LISTED FIRST BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY NUMBER 4. >> COUNCIL? >> I CAN GO WITH SHANE'S PROPOSAL. I'M OKAY WITH COMING OUT OF THE MIP. IS THERE NOT A WAY TO DIVIDE 269 BY FOUR, TAKE IT OUT OF ALL FOUR? >> YES, SIR. THE 269, THESE ARE PLACES WHERE YOU COULD TAKE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO MAKE IT CLEAN AND EASY, IF YOU WILL. BUT IT'S JUST AS FEASIBLE FOR US TO DIVIDE IT UP INTO ANY PERCENTAGE. >> WELL, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I DON'T SUPPORT ANY REDUCTION TO THE FIRE APPARATUS FUND OR THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND. >> AGREED. >> WE HAVE -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE MONEY IN MIP, OR WE REDUCE -- WE TAKE THAT FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WHICH GETS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY THE FUND BALANCE, SO THERE'S NOT A REAL REDUCTION IN DOLLARS. WE JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT NEXT YEAR. TO ME, THOSE ARE THE TWO MOST VIABLE SOLUTIONS AND OF THOSE TWO, I'M OKAY WITH THE MIP IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE GO. >> I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE POSITION BUT I CAN'T COMPROMISE [INDISCERNIBLE] AS LONG AS WE LEAVE THE FUNDS IN THERE FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND TAKE IT OUT OF MIP. I CAN LEAN TOWARD THAT ON A COMPROMISE. >> OKAY. I CAN DO THAT. >> YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> SO DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION WORDING THAT'S IN THE -- >> CAN YOU RESTATE FOR CLARITY SO I'M FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PROPOSED MOTION IS. >> REMOVING THE POSITION BUT RETAINING THE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMING RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AND THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT WOULD COME FROM THE -- >> THE MIP TRANSFER. >> THE MIP TRANSFER. >> I WOULD SUGGEST -- >> MAYOR, IS THAT WHAT YOU -- >> YES. >> I WOULD SUGGEST THIS: THAT THE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE SPELLED OUT ARE STATUTORY, SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REALLY BE MODIFYING THOSE. IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION, BUT IF Y'ALL WANTED TO DO A FIRST MOTION AS TO WHICH OPTION AND HOW Y'ALL ARE DOING THAT, YOU COULD DO THAT AS WELL. [00:55:04] >> I THINK THE STAFF DIRECTION, Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION? WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT? >> SO WE'RE KEEPING THE PROGRAMING DOLLARS, ELIMINATING THE POSITION AND TAKING THE BALANCE FROM THE MIP. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> THAT'S A COMPROMISE. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MARJORIE? I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 23, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON COUNCIL? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET OF $414,607,651 FOR ALL OPERATING FUNDS. >> A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. THE SECOND MOTION. >> ONE VOTE FROM COUNCILMAN ESPINOZA, THE REST ARE YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> I MOVE THIS BUDGET WILL RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BY $18,327,030 OR 24.4% AND OF THAT AMOUNT, $16,818,062 IS TAX REVENUE TO BE RAISED FROM NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL THIS YEAR. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. [24. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Setting the Tax Levy] WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 24. AND MARJORIE WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> OUR NEXT ITEM IS OUR PROPOSED FY2027 TAX RATE. COUNCIL APPROVED ON FIRST READING A TOTAL TAX RATE OF .7495 PER $100 OF TAXABLE VALUE. SO TAXABLE VALUE INCREASED APPROXIMATELY 22% OR 2.4 BILLION. THAT GROWTH WAS DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY THE DATA CENTER PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED RATE IS SLIGHTLY BELOW THE CURRENT RATE OF .7506. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING A RELATIVELY FLAT RATE WHILE WE EVALUATE THE DURABILITY OF THE SIGNIFICANT AND CONCENTRATED GROWTH FOR THE DATA CENTERS. ALSO, WE'RE NOT BUILDING ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND THE ONGOING OPERATIONS. WE ARE USING A PORTION FOR ONE-TIME CAPITAL NEEDS, INCLUDING $5 MILLION FOR STREETS AND $2.6 MILLION FOR A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY CAT RMS SYSTEM. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE COMPOSITION OF THE TAX RATE, OUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS RATE INCREASED. WHILE OUR INTEREST FOR DEB SERVICE INCREASED. OVERALL THE TOTAL TAX RATE REMAINS RELATIVELY FLAT. ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL TAX RATE DECREASES SLIGHTLY, INCREASED TAXABLE VALUES DO MEAN THAT THE AVERAGE EXISTING PROPERTY WILL STILL SEE AN INCREASE IN ITS TAX BILL, THAT EFFECTIVE INCREASE IS APPROXIMATELY 4%. SO THIS SLIDE PRESENTS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TAXPAYER IMPACT, SO FOR A MEDIAN VALUED HOMESTEAD SHOWN HERE, THE ESTIMATED CITY TAX INCREASE IS APPROXIMATELY $61 PER YEAR OR ABOUT 5%. FOR COMPARISON, AT THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, IF THE CITY WERE ADOPT THAT, THE SAME PROPERTY WOULD STILL SEE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT $9. THIS IS BECAUSE THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE MEDIAN VALUED HOMESTEAD INCREASED MORE THAN PROPERTY ON AVERAGE ACROSS THE CITY. INDIVIDUAL IMPACTS WILL VARY BASED ON A TAXPAYER'S CHANGE IN THEIR TAXABLE VALUES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AT THE TAX RATE OF .7495. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL VOTE. THERE IS SPECIFIC MOTION LANGUAGE TO APPROVE THE TAX RATE THAT'S PROVIDED ON THE SLIDE ABOVE. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS OF MARJORIE 1234 THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 24? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL ACCEPT THIS SPECIFIC MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.7495 [01:00:05] PER $100, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 4.2% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. THE MOTION CARRIES. [25. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Adopting Fees and Charges for FY 2026-2027] >> MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 25 AND ONCE AGAIN MARJORIE WILL PRESENT THIS. >> OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE FINAL READING OF THE 2027 FEE SCHEDULE. SO MOST OF THE CHANGES WITHIN THIS FEE SCHEDULE WILL BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST OR WITH THE FIRST OCTOBER BILLING CYCLE. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A FEW TIMING DIFFERENCES THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY. SO ON THIS SLIDE ARE SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL FEE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. THERE IS A 6% INCREASE TO WATER AND SEWER. THAT DOES APPLY TO OCTOBER USAGE AND WILL FIRST APPEAR ON BILLS RECEIVED IN NOVEMBER. SO HE FOR WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS, THE INCREASE WILL APPLY TO DECEMBER USAGE AND BILLS RECEIVED BEGINNING IN JANUARY DUE TO THERE BEING A 60 DAY REQUIRED NOTICE FOR THE FEE INCREASES FOR THOSE. SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER INCREASES WILL APPEAR ON BILLS RECEIVED IN OCTOBER. ADDITIONALLY WE DO HAVE A 2-DOLLAR ADMISSION INCREASE FOR THE ZOO. THOSE INCREASES WILL TAKE EFFECT WHEN THE NEW EXHIBITS OPEN, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED FOR SUMMER 2027. SO THIS IS THE ESTIMATED IMPACT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE HOUSEHOLD, ALSO USES THE MEDIAN VALUED HOMESTEAD, SO IT DOES ALSO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY TAX CHANGE. SO THE COMBINED TAX AND FEE IMPACT IS ESTIMATED AT $9.81 PER MONTH OR ABOUT 32 CENTS PER DAY. SO THAT DOES INCLUDE WATER AND SEWER, SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER FEE CHANGES. FOR QUALIFYING TAX HOME SEDS STEDZ THEY WILL NOT BE HOMESTEA, THEIR ESTIMATED FEE IMPACT IS $4.76 PER MONTH OR $57.12 PER YEAR. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE FEE SCHEDULE SINCE THE FIRST READING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> QUESTIONS OF MARJORIE? ARE YOU FEELING BETTER, MARJORIE? >> I'M STARTING TO. >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 25, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL? IF NOT, I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMAND BEARD. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL "YES"ES. MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES. [26. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Establishing Base Salary and Step Pay Qualifications, Specialized Functions, Certifications, Assignments, and Additional Pay for Abilene Fire Fighters Employed by the City of Abilene for the Fiscal Year October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027] NOW MOVE TO ITEM 26. MARJORIE WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >> MAYOR, IF I MAY MAKE A FEW OPENING COMMENTS BEFORE MARJORIE GOES INTO DETAIL. >> YOU SURE CAN. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, I AM REMEMBERING THAT THE FIRE PENSION FUND WAS AN ITEM THAT I HAD HEARD ABOUT IN THE CITY OF ABILENE BEFORE COMING HERE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A COUNCIL PRIORITY. IN FACT WHEN WE HAD OUR STRATEGIC WORKSHOP, THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED, WHAT KEEPS YOU UP AT NIGHT. AND THE FIRE PENSION FUND MADE THAT LIST FROM A FEW OF YOU. SO I THINK THAT TODAY IS A SIGNIFICANT DAY FOR THE CITY, FOR THE PENSION FUND. I JUST WANT TO PERSONALLY THANK THE COMMITTEE THAT JOINED TOGETHER TO WORK ON THIS. WE HAD COUNCILMAN ESPINOZA, FORMER COUNCILMAN YATES AND THIS TIME I REALLY MEAN IT, YATES -- BAKER BRYANT WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FIRE PENSION BOARD. FIREFIGHTER WILL MCBRIDE. CHIEF FLORES. MARJORIE KNIGHT, MYSELF. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD ADVISORS WITH RODNEY GOODMAN WHO IS HERE TODAY, AS WELL AS KNOW HE WILL BURNAL AND OUR ACTUARIALS AND OUR BOND COUNSEL SO THIS WAS A HEAVY LIFT FOR US. WE SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS LOOKING AT IT. I AM PROUD OF THE WORK WE DID. I BELIEVE WE'RE SUCCESSFUL FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, WE HAD A CLEAR GOAL. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE AFTER AND WE WORKED TOGETHER TO GET IT. AND SECOND WE HAVE THE REVENUES BY WHICH TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE $13.5 MILLION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INFUSING INTO THE FUND IS A DIRECT RESULT OF ADDITIONAL SALES TAX FROM THE DATA CENTER PROJECT. SO IF PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE MONEY GOING TOWARD, A LARGE PORTION OF THIS ADDITIONAL REVENUE IS GOING TO STABILIZE AND PROVIDE A SOLID FUTURE FOR THE PENSION FUND. THE ONLY OTHER OPTION THE CITY [01:05:02] HAD WAS A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON TO OUR TAXPAYERS. SO THIS IS A WIN FOR THE CITY, FOR THE TAXPAYERS, FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS, AND I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU, EMILY, WOULD YOU JUST KIND OF EDUCATE EVERYBODY ON HOW FUNDS MANAGE, WHO MAKES UP THE BOARD, YOU KNOW -- KIND OF A GENERAL -- >> DO WE WANT TO GET NUMBER 26 DONE FIRST BEFORE -- >> OH, YES, OF COURSE. WE CAN DO IT ON THE NEXT ONE. >> LET'S GET 26 DONE. >> SURE. >> I'M SORRY, I JUMPED AHEAD, MAYOR. >> THAT'S OKAY. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT I WOULD HAVE -- >> SUPER EXCITED. >> I DON'T BLAME YOU. >> SO THIS ACTUALLY WRAPS UP OUR LAST OF ALL OF OUR BUDGET ORDINANCES THIS YEAR. THIS IS OUR FIRE PAY ORDINANCE. THIS WILL ESTABLISH FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. SO AS PART OF THIS, WE HAVE INCLUDED A PAY INCREASE TO THE PEER CITY AVERAGE PLUS 4%, WITH A MINIMUM 2% INCREASE IN BASE SALARY. THIS DID END UP BEING ABOUT AN AVERAGE PAY INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.4%. INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS WILL VARY BASED ON THEIR POSITION WITHIN THEIR CURRENT PAY PLAN STRUCTURE. THESE PAY INCREASES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE 2027 BUDGET. HERE WE HAVE JUST THE VARIOUS PAY ITEMS THAT ARE BEING ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE. IT MAINTAINS PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED SPECIALTY PAY AND IT ALSO ADDS A NEW ASSISTANT CHIEF, ASSIGNMENT PAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS OF MARJORIE? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 26, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL? IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. NO DISCUSSION, READY TO VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER BEARD? >> OH, SORRY. ONE NO FROM COUNCILMEMBER ESPINOZA. THE REST ARE "YES"ES. [27. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Supporting the Recommendations of the Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Joint Review Committee; Authorizing a $13,500,000 Contribution to the Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund, and Providing for Related Matters (Marjorie Knight) ] MOTION CARRIES. >> NOW MOVE TO ITEM 27, MARJORIE BEFORE YOU START, COUNCILMAN BEARD, YOU WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER? >> YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF -- AND I'M REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN A BLAME GAME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW THE FUND IS GOVERNED, WHY WE'RE DOING THIS, WHO MAKES UP THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE ROD THINK WANTS TO SPEAK TO SOME OF IT. I THINK JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EDUCATION -- THIS IS A REALLY OLD -- LIKE, ESTABLISHED BYLAW I THINK IN THE '40S, THE FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND -- THIS IS AN OLD SYSTEM. IT'S A GOOD ONE. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME EDUCATING PEOPLE ON WHY WE NEED TO INFUSE THE CASH. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE BOARD IS GOVERNED, HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE, HOW WE GOT THERE. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT AND MAYBE RODNEY TOO. >> I WILL CERTAINLY DEFER TO RODNEY AND MARJORIE AS WELL BUT FOR SOME GENERAL CONTEXT, ALL OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES HAVE A RETIREMENT FUND FOR THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT, TMRS. SO THE FIREFIGHTERS FUND IS A SEPARATE FUND. IT IS REGULATED BY THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD SO THERE ARE REGULATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS IN PLACE ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUND. THAT INCLUDES THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDING AND THE ACTUARIAL STATE OF THE FUND, WHICH WE HAVE TO ACHIEVE. THE LOCAL PENSION FUND WAS -- WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT WITHOUT SOMETHING SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING, WE WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE FUND REQUIREMENTS. IT IS A BOARD THAT IS INDEPENDENT. IT DOES OPERATE THE FUND EXCLUSIVELY BUT WE DO HAVE MARJORIE AS A FIDUCIARY WITH THE CITY THAT SITS ON THAT BOARD AS WELL AS A COUNCILMEMBER. WE ALSO HAVE ACTING FIREFIGHTERS ON THAT BOARD AS WELL AS CITIZEN MEMBERS WHICH AT THIS TIME ARE RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS. AND I CAN PASS IT OFF TO MARJORIE AS OUR FIDUCIARY OR RODNEY IN REGARDS TO HOW WE GOT HERE, I THINK THEY HAVE A BETTER CONTEXT, SINCE I HAVE NOT LIVED THROUGH THIS FUND FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. >> RODNEY, WE ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT COULD YOU COME UP FOR QUESTIONS ONLY. QUESTIONS ONLY, COME ON UP. >> RODNEY GOODMAN, I'M THE CURRENT FUND ADMINISTRATOR AND A [01:10:03] PAST TRUSTEE OF THE FUND. >> OKAY SO -- >> HOW WE GOT HERE. >> THE FUND STARTED IN 1942 BEFORE TMRS STARTED SO I THINK THAT'S ONE REASON WE'RE SEPARATE. AND THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD IS THE MAYOR, HIS DESIGNEE, THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR. THERE'S THREE ELECTED FIREFIGHTERS, ACTIVE FIREFIGHTERS THAT MAKE IT UP. AND THEN TWO CITIZEN MEMBERS THAT ARE ELECTED BY THE REST OF THE BOARD. AND CURRENTLY, ONE OF THOSE IS A RETIRED FIREFIGHTER. THERE'S BEEN A PUSH STATEWIDE TO HAVE RETIREES REPRESENTED ON THE BOARD AND THAT'S HOW WE DO IT, IS JUST AS A CITIZEN MEMBER. AND THE OTHER CITIZEN MEMBER IS IS -- IT WAS JACK RICH WITH ACU INVESTMENT COMPANY. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FROM THEIR COMPANY WHO IS A CFA INVESTMENT GURU WITH THEM, SO THAT'S THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD. AND I WILL SAY IN THE PAST, WE HAVE GONE UP ON OUR CONTRIBUTION RATE, THE FIREFIGHTER SIDE. THE CITY HAS GONE UP A COUPLE BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH THAT MS. CRAWFORD HAS INITIATED WITH THAT COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE WE'RE FUNDED SOUNDLY AND MEET THE PRB GUIDELINES. SO THIS IS A GOOD STEP AND I APPRECIATE HER TAKING THAT STEP. AND INSTEAD OF WE'RE JUST THROWING MONEY AT IT, SO THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO DO IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR RODNEY? THANK YOU, RODNEY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MARJORIE, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> OKAY, GREAT. >> OKAY, SO THIS ITEM REPRESENTS WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER YEARS OF WORK TO GET HERE. SO WE BEGAN TAKING STEPS SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL STRENGTH OF THE FUND, SO SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE PAST YEARS INCLUDE INCREASING CITY AND FIREFIGHTER CONTRIBUTIONS. WE REDUCE THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN. AND WE ESTABLISH THE BENEFIT STRUCTURE, THAT WAS ALL DESIGNED TO BETTER VALUE THE LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENEFITS AND ALSO THE TIER 2 BENEFIT STRUCTURE WAS INTRODUCED TO LOWER THE LONG-TERM COST OF THE PLAN. SO IN 2023, THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD DID AN INTENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR PLAN, AND THEY IDENTIFIED SEVERAL AREAS WARRANTING ATTENTION. SO WHAT THIS REVIEW ENDED UP DOING WAS IT CREATED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PRO-ACTIVELY MAKE CHANGES ON OUR TIME LINE AND ON OUR TERMS. THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS WHEN A FUND GETS TO -- THE CURREN CRITERIA IS IF IT'S BELOW A 65% FUNDED STATUS AND HAS AN AMMORTIZATION OF 30 YEARS IT, GETS TO THAT THRESHOLD WHERE THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD HAS TO INTERVENE. THERE'S A TIME LINE ON DEVELOPING A PLAN ON HOW TO CORRECT IT. SO WE WERE NOT THERE YET. SO REALLY THIS WAS A PROACTIVE APPROACH THAT WE WERE TAKING. SO IN NOVEMBER, WE ESTABLISHED A JOINT REVIEW COMMITTEE. WE EVALUATED MULTIPLE ASPECTS TO THE FUND, FUNDING, BENEFITS, SOME OF OUR ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND EVEN JUST ONGOING FINANCIAL MONITORING TO ENSURE ENGAGEMENT AND PROACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE FUND. SO THIS IS A PACKAGE RECOMMENDATION. SO WITHIN THIS, IT INCLUDES A 13.5 MILLION ONE-TIME CITY CONTRIBUTION. WE HAVE TARGETED BENEFIT CHANGES, A REDUCTION IN THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN FROM 7.5% TO 7. A 20-YEAR FUNDING TARGET AND ONGOING MONITORING AND REPORTING REPORTING. SO THE OBJECTIVE WAS FOR US TO IMPROVE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE FUND WITH TARGETED BENEFIT CHANGES AND MAKING MORE CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS. SO THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT PIECES TO UNDERSTAND WITH THESE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. SO THE BENEFIT CHANGES DO INCREASE THE PROJECTED LIABILITIES. SECOND, THAT REDUCING THE ASSUMED INVESTMENT RETURN FROM 7.5 TO 7% GIVES US A MORE CONSERVATIVE PICTURE OF THE FUND. [01:15:05] SO TO KIND OF PUT THIS A LITTLE MORE SIMPLY, WE'RE ASSUMING WHAT THE FUND WILL EARN IS -- THE FUND WILL EARN LESS IN INVESTMENTS IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT INCREASES THE AMOUNT IS THAT WE ESTIMATE IS NEEDED TODAY TO FULLY FUND THE PLAN BUT IT REDUCES THE RISK OF UNDERSTANDING THE FUND'S LONG-TERM FUNDING NEEDS SO IT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO WHERE YOU SEE YOU'RE GOING TO PAY YOUR FUND OFF WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD AND YOU SEEM TO NOT EVER BE TRULY MAKING THAT PROGRESS. ASK REDUCING THAT INVESTMENT RATE OF RETURN TO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE CONSERVATIVE ENDS UP ENABLING US TO BETTER PROJECT -- BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR LIABILITY, BETTER RESPOND TO THE ENVIRONMENT WHENEVER WE NEED TO, WHETHER OR NOT FUNDING CHANGES ARE NEEDED. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT THE PACKAGE IS PROJECTED TO DO OVER TIME. IT COMPARES THE ASSETS WITH THE PENSION BENEFITS THAT IS EARNED AND IS EXPECTED TO PRAY. TO THE FUNDED RATIO IMPROVES IMMEDIATELY FROM APPROXIMATELY 45% TO 52%. AND THEN ONGOING THE IMPROVEMENT IS GRADUAL SO THE FUND IS PROJECTED TO REACH APPROXIMATELY 65% IN FUNDED STATUS BY 2033. 80% BY 2041. AND FULL FUNDING BY 2048. THESE ARE BASED ON ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS. THESE ARE NOT GUARANTEES SO ACTUAL INVESTMENT RETURNS AND EXPERIENCE WILL AFFECT THE RESULTS OVER TIME. SO THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM THIS IS WE'RE MAKING A SIGNIFICANT IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT WHILE PUTTING THE FUND ON A LONG-TERM LONG-TERM -- LONG-TERM PATH. SO THIS RECOMMENDATION DOES REPRESENT YEARS OF WORK THAT WERE PUT INTO ADDRESSING LONG-TERM FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE PENSION FUND AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN THAT THE CITY HAS DONE IN YEARS PAST, WHICH WE'VE BEEN PROACTIVE ABOUT TRYING TO IMPROVE THE FUND BUT OFTENTIMES IT WAS WITH LIKE -- WE'LL CHANGE THE CONTRIBUTION RATES AND THEN WE'LL JUST KIND OF CROSS OUR FINGERS AND HOPE THAT THAT'S WHAT DOES IT. BUT THIS ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES LIKE A FRAMEWORK WITH THE REPORTING MEASURES, CREATES TARGETS AND BENCHMARKS FOR WHAT IS -- WHAT WE'RE EXPECTED TO SEE IN THE PLAN, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ACTUALLY MEASURE THAT IMPROVEMENT, WHICH ARE ALL REALLY IMPORTANT ASPECTS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE A PENSION FUND, WHERE THERE'S ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS, WHERE THERE'S VERY CHALLENGING -- CHALLENGING TO UNDERSTAND TAKES TIME AND AS YOU HAVE A BOARD THAT TURNS OVER, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REEDUCATE AND EVERYBODY HAS TO LEARN AGAIN. SO THOSE ARE -- SO THIS IS JUST A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. SO IT ALSO REFLECTS WHAT I BELIEVE IS A STRONG COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, THE BOARD, THE FIREFIGHTERS, STAFF AND ADVISORS. SO IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY A $13.5 MILLION CONTRIBUTION. THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDE AN ONGOING FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT, REGULAR REVIEW AND COORDINATED CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE ACTIONS. SO TODAY'S ACTIONS FOR COUNCIL IS TO SUPPORT THE JOINT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE $13.5 MILLION CITY CONTRIBUTION. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPLEMENT ANY PLANNED CHANGES. PLANNED CHANGES ARE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FIRE PENSION FUND'S BOARD, ALSO SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE FIREFIGHTERS. SO THIS -- AND ALSO THIS ITEM AUTHORIZES THE $13.5 MILLION CITY CONTRIBUTION. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS% >> QUESTIONS FOR MARJORIE? >> NOT A QUESTION PER SE BUT JUST CAN YOU TOUCH ON IN THE SPRING, WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS AS A '27 BUDGET ITEM AND IN AUGUST IT WAS CHANGED TO WHERE WE'RE DOING IT IN THIS YEAR'S REVISED BUDGET INSTEAD OF NEXT YEAR. CAN YOU KIND OF TOUCH ON WHY WE MADE THAT CHANGE. >> YES, SO YOU DO -- WE HAVE ACTUARIAL EVALUATIONS THAT ARE PREPARED EVERY TWO YEARS, SO CURRENTLY WE WERE ON SCHEDULE TO PREPARE -- IT WOULD BE AS OF OCTOBER 1ST, 2026, SO ESSENTIALLY REPRESENT THE PLAN'S FINANCIALS AS OF THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS GET THIS CONTRIBUTION [01:20:02] WITHIN THE FUND AND DEPOSITED SO WHEN THEY DO THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION, WELL HAVE THE 13.5 MILLION WITHIN THE FUND, ALLOWING US TO SEE THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON WHAT THAT CONTRIBUTION REALLY MADE TO THE FUND. IT PROVIDES US A VERY VALUABLE METRIC AND WILL REALLY BE ABLE TO SEE HOW THAT IMPACTS THE FUND INSTEAD OF WAITING ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS OUT TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS AND ALSO ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT WE'RE MAKING THE CONTRIBUTION THIS YEAR, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF TIME LINE, PLAN CHANGES WOULDN'T BE MADE UNTIL THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WHICH ALSO INTRODUCES A VERY INTERESTING ELEMENT ON BEING ABLE TO SEE WHAT IT DOES TO THE PLAN BEFORE YOU MAKE THE PLAN CHANGES SO -- YES. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MARJORIE. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 27, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. IF NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL? >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. > I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. >> SECOND. >> A SECOND BY SOMEONE. >> CRAVER. >> COUNCILMAN PATTERSON. >> I ALREADY BEAT YOU. >> WHO'S GOT THE 2 ON THEIR THING? >> I'VE GOT THE 2. >> I STOPPED DOING IT. >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY WELL DONE, EVERYBODY. >> GOOD JOB, EVERYBODY. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. [ EXECUTIVE SESSION] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> IT IS NOW 9:59 A.M. WE RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, SECTION 551.072, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT REAL PROPERTY, SECTION 551.076, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SECURITY DEVICES, SECTION 551.087, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT BUSINESS PROSPECTS AND ECONOMIC [ RECONVENE] IT IS NOW 12:03 P.M. AND WE'VE RECONVENED OUR OPEN SESSION. NO VOTES OR ACTIONS WERE TAKEN DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. [29. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Appointing Members to Various Boards and Commissions per the City Charter (Shawna Atkinson) Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Board] WELL MOVE TO ITEM 29 WHICH IS THE APPOINTMENT OR REAPPOINTMENT TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AT THIS TIME IT IS A FIREARM'S RELIEF CHARITY BOARD FUND. I THINK I ALREADY ASKED MIGUEL ESPINOSA, THE MAYOR APPOINTEE TO THAT. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 29, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME TO THE RECORD. >>> SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION IN A SECOND. >> SO MOVED. >> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CRABBER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN PATERSON. >>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. >> WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF THE NEXT ITEM? >> 30. >> WHICH IS IT? [30. Oral Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving the Annual Evaluation of the City Manager] >> MANAGER, HUGO. >> OKAY, NOW MOVE TO ITEM 30 WHICH IS PROVING THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER EMILY CRAWFORD. SHE WAS EVALUATED, DOES ANY COUNCILMAN HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >>> AT THIS POINT I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM, ITEM 30, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >>> SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION IN A SECOND. >> SO MOVED. >> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BAILEY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CRABBIER. >>> OUR DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. [31. Oral Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving the Annual Evaluation of the City Secretary] >> WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 31, APPROVING THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF THE CITY SECRETARY, SHE WAS EVALUATED. DOES IT -- COUNCIL HAVE ANY COMMENTS? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>> IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 31, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >>> SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION IN A SECOND. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN PAT PATERSON, IS THAT RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> NO DISCUSSION. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. [01:25:02] >> ALL YESES, MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CA * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.