C. Council consider a resolution accepting payment in the amount of $540.00 for the principal of a litter lien and the lien assessment fee for lien filed on August 10, 2020 on property legally described as Forrest L39 B8 (3494 Magnolia Ave.), waiving interest in the amount of $141.09.

[C. Council consider a resolution accepting payment in the amount of $540.00 for the principal of a litter lien and the lien assessment fee for lien filed on August 10, 2020 on property legally described as Forrest L39 B8 (3494 Magnolia Ave.), waiving interest in the amount of $141.09.]

[01:10:06]

UH, DISCUSS ITEM NUMBER C. ADAM SEE HIS COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PAYMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF $540 FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF A LITTER LAYING IN THE LANE ASSESSMENT FEE FOR LIEN FILED ON AUGUST 10TH 2020 ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FAR AS L 39 B 8 34 94 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, WAVING INTEREST IN THE AMOUNT OF 1 41 09. WE HAD THIS ITEM ON HERE, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT THAT'S YOU HEARD EARLIER IN PUBLIC COMMENT . THERE WAS ALSO SOME OTHER INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY AND THE WAVE AND IF SOME OTHER, UH LEANS ON THAT PROPERTY, SO WE FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE ALONG WITH THIS AND DECIDING WHAT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. OKAY VERY WELL, BUT THE DISCUSSION BEGINS. WE HAVE. I BELIEVE MAYBE OUR CFO AS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY, JUST OFFER A RECOMMENDATION. SO APPARENTLY WHAT? UM THIS THIS PROPERTY WAS SET TO SAIL AT A TITLE COMPANY. AND WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE AND CHAMBERS, WE HAD JUST RECEIVED WORD THAT THE SALE HAD BEEN THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN RESCINDED. AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THESE WE FEES SO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE GENTLEMAN TALKED EARLIER AND HE DOES WANT TO STILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. I WOULD RECOMMEND MAYBE WE PASS A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD WAIVE THE LEAN AND THE FEES IN THE AMOUNT. EQUAL TO THE IN THE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE PROCEEDS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, RIGHT NOW, UM WHAT'S OWED TO THE CITY'S $8514.84. IF THE OFFER ON THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 5000, AND THAT LEAVES $3514.84 OWED TO THE CITY , SO IN THAT CASE, I WOULD SUGGEST JUST WAVING THE 3514 THAT EXCEEDS THE OFFER. THAT WAY THE TRANSACTION CAN GO THROUGH IN THE PROPERTY WOULD BE MAINTAINED PROPERLY GOING FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD WORD THAT IN A RESOLUTION SINCE WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC DOLLARS. BUT IF WE COULD MAYBE WAVE THE LEAN AND FEES AND THE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE PROCEEDS THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? COUNCILMAN GETS AT HIS HAND UP.

WELL I GUESS WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION BEFORE WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS. SO UH SO MOVE, SEND MOVED, AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SAMUEL AND COUNCILMAN TURNER. COUNCILMAN GETS MY QUESTION WAS IS ALL OF THIS LANE. PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, OR IS IT IS IT? HOW IS THAT DIVIDED IT SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS ON THE ON THE ON THE LEANS. WE START CHARGING INTEREST THERE WAS THERE WAS NO LEANS ATTACHED TO THE WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES. SO THERE'S NO INTEREST ON THERE. SO THAT WOULD BE ALL THAT'S ALL CHARGES, OKAY? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. YES. IS THERE A IS THERE A BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY? NO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO COME IN, AND OFFERED TO BUY THIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO WITH AN, UH RESOLUTION. THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE EARLIER SAID THAT HE WANTED TO EITHER PURPOSES FOR A CHURCH OR FOR OUR LOW INCOME HOUSING THEY HAVE SINCE LEFT, BUT THAT WAS WHEN HE SPOKE. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID HE WANTS TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR AND WHEN YOU SAID THIS WHEN HE SAID THAT UH, HE SAID IT WOULD GET BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS. BUT IT WAS CHURCH IS TAX EXEMPT. HOW WOULD I GET BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS DECIDES? HE SAID. HE EITHER WANTED TO USE THE PROPERTY. HE HAS THE CHURCH AND HE WANTED TO BE THERE ACQUIRED FOR CHURCH OR FURTHER THINGS, SO I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT HIS USE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE. FOR THE REASON I'M ASKING, BECAUSE I'VE HAD A FEW PEOPLE APPROACH. ABOUT RE ATTACK HOUSES AND WANTING TO BUY THEM BEFORE THEY'RE TORN DOWN, AND IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS WILL MAKE THEM GO. TO THE MAGISTRATE AND GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THERE ARE THEY ABLE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND ACCESS TO PUT A HOLE ON THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUY IT, TECH PROPERTIES DO GO BEFORE COUNCIL . UM YOU HEAR THEM BEFORE WHEN THEY COME TO GET PUT IN THE WORK PROGRAM, BUT YOU HEAR FROM THE OWNERS, AND SO SOMETIMES THOSE PROPERTIES ARE NOT YOU KNOW THE OWNERS IN HERE OR THEY DON'T COME BEFORE A COUNCIL. AND SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUY A RAGTAG PROPERTY, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WORK, UH, ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY FROM THE OWNER. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY CAN DO. UM BUT WHEN THERE'S NO ONE WHO COMES FORWARD TO TALK ON THE PROPERTY TO ENTER THE PROPERTY IN TOW WORK PROGRAM, WE DO, YOU KNOW, TEAR DOWN THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE STRUCTURE. SOME OF THEM COME AND APPROACH ME ABOUT BUYING IT. WE CAN'T SELL

[01:15:05]

PROPERTY NOT FROM US, BUYING IT FROM THE OWNER. BUT THEY SAID EVEN I'VE BEEN TOLD EVEN IF SOMEBODY BUYS IT FROM THE OWNER , THIS CITY IS STILL GOING TO DEMOLISH IT. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE PURCHASE RED TECH PROPERTIES IN ANOTHER WORK PROGRAM. WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD PEOPLE COME UP AND SAY, HEY, THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO SELL THIS PROPERTY AND COUNCIL OF GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE NEW OWNER, AND THEN THAT NEW OWNER CAN INTO THE WORK PROGRAM THAT'S HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT RECENTLY. I THINK SOME OF THE ONES WE'RE SEEING IS THEY HAVE GONE TO CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL HAS EITHER ALLOWED A WORK PROGRAM IN AN EXPIRED. UM AND THEN. STAFF IS UNDER A COUNCIL ORDER TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND SO WHAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY AND WE'VE SEEN IT. YOU KNOW, OVER TIME IS SOMEONE WILL COME IN AFTER THAT WORK PROGRAM HAS EXPIRED. AND SAID, LOOK, I'M GOING TO BUY THIS. CAN I GET MORE TIME? WE'LL ISSUE A STAFF AS WE YOU KNOW YOU YOU YOUR PAST THE DEADLINE FROM THE COUNCIL ORDER, SO THAT'S THAT'S SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY. BUT AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING . CAN THEY COME IF THEY BUY THEIR PROPERTY, AND IT'S NOT DEMOLISHED YET, BUT IT IS RED TAG. CAN THEY COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND LET US EXTENDED? THEY'RE GOING TO BUY THE PROPERTY. AND THEY'RE GONNA REFURBISH IT OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH IT INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW IF THEY ARE ABLE TO FIX IT INSTEAD OF US GOING THROUGH WITH THE DUMB DEMOLITION, CAN THEY COME BACK BEFORE US INSTEAD OF SENDING THEM TO COURT TO GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND I'M SORRY, MAYOR PROTEIN, BUT WE'RE KIND OF OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POST THAT ITEM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, UM, OUTSIDE, BUT MAYOR FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. IF COUNSEL IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO I KNOW THAT THE CFO HAD A QUESTION IS HOW WE WERE AWARE THAT IN A RESOLUTION, IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS COUNCIL IS SERIOUS. CONSIDERING UM, THE WAVING OF THE LIEN. WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE CELL IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THE OWNER WANTS TO HIT BACK IN HIS OFFER, AND WE HAVE A TANGIBLE OFFER. WE CAN MOVE THIS ITEM BACK. FOR NEXT TUESDAY WITH THAT UPDATED LANGUAGE. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER, HMM. THAT'D BE GOOD, BUT WE'VE GOT COUNCILMAN SAMUEL CLARITY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CORRECT. THIS PROPERTY HAS NO STRUCTURE ON IT. CORRECT OK, SO THAT MAKES THIS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM, UH , PROPERTY THAT'S RED TAGGED WITH A STRUCTURE ON IT. NOW THIS IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S REQUESTING THE RELEASE OF THE LIEN IS IT? HE'S A BUYER, THE OWNER DID SUBMIT A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE LIEN HE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO COME SPEAK TODAY. BUT SINCE THE OFFER GOT RESCINDED BECAUSE OF THE WEED CHARGES HE DIDN'T SHOW UP, BUT THE OTHER GENTLEMAN BUYER DID SHOW UP. THE BUYERS USUALLY DON'T REQUEST UM, WAIVERS OF LEANS BECAUSE THAT IS CHARGED AGAINST THE SELLER. I'M SORRY THAT THE YEAH, THE SELLER. OKAY SO THE SELLER WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE LIEN PRIOR TO SELLING THE PROPERTY RIGHT. THOSE LEANS COME UP DURING TITLE SEARCHES AT THE TITLE COMPANY OVER AT THIS TIME, THERE'S A REQUEST BY THE BUYER THAN. THEIR LIEN BE RELEASED AND ALLOW HIM TO BUY THE PROPERTY AT THE PRICE THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED, UH AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOMEONE TAKE CARE, TAKE THE PROPERTY INVEST IN THE PROPERTY IF WE GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, OR WE CAN SAY NO. AND THE PROPERTY CONTINUES TO SIT THERE. CORRECT AND WE CONTINUE TO PUT MONEY INTO IT AND HAVE NOTHING ON THE TAX ROLL AND NO POSSIBILITY OF IT BEING ON THE TAX ROLL. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT? OKAY? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A QUESTION JUST TO GET SOME CLARITY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. AND UH, BUT I'M HEARING SOME SUGGESTION BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE PERHAPS TABLE THIS SO THAT WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE CORRECT MOTION FOR THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF MONEY SO THAT WE CAN EXECUTE THIS CORRECTLY.

OKAY, TYPICALLY, WAIVER OF BARBIES IS BASED ON A CONTINGENT OF THE SALES. I BELIEVE THAT THE BUYER IS STILL INTERESTED. BUT THERE WAS A NEED FROM COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD REMOVE. THAT THAT LEAN, SO THAT'S THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL. THEN WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE SELLER OR THERE OR THE BUYER AND LET ME KNOW THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS AND WOULD BE PLACED ON OUR NEXT AGENDA. SO MAYOR WITH THAT I REMOVED MY MOTION, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION THAT THIS BE TABLED AND ALLOWS STAFF TO FACILITATE WORKING ON A RESOLUTION TO THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. QUESTION SECOND. FOR THE FOR THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND

[01:20:06]

SECONDED. NOW ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING, UH, STAFF? GETTING THAT INFORMATION TO BRING IT BACK TO US NEXT WEEK. I JUST HAD A QUESTION. IT WAS SAID THAT THIS IS NOT ALL THE TAX ROLL.

WHY ISN'T IT ON THE TAX? ROLL IT? IT'S ON THE TAX ROLE IN THEIR CURRENT ON THEIR TAXES.

OKAY SO ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN NEIL YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO RELEASE THE LIEN UNLESS IT'S GOING TO THE NEW INDIVIDUAL, THOUGH YOU WOULDN'T WANNA RELEASE THE LIEN IF THE CURRENT OWNER IS GOING TO KEEP IT RIGHT . WHICH IS WHY IT MADE THIS SUGGESTION. I DID MHM. OKAY, THERE'S A EMOTION IN A SECOND TO TABLE THIS AND BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. YEAH HE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. NOW, MAYBE WE HAVE THE READING

[1. Council consider a request for an abandonment of portions of South, Archie, and Holmes Streets]

OF ADAM NUMBER ONE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL CONSIDERED A REQUEST FOR AN AN ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF SOUTH ARCHIE AND HOME STREETS WITH THE RETENTION OF GENERAL UTILITY EASEMENT. WE ARE REQUESTING TO ABANDON THE RIGHT TO WAIT FOR THE PORK, THE PORTIONS OF THE STREETS AND WANT TO ABANDON EXCHANGE. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ARRANGED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE EVENT CENTER. AND LIKE SIDE CENTER AT A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON JUNE 26 2023, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 70 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO ABANDON PORTIONS OF SOUTH TORTURE AND HOME STREET WITH THE RETENTION. ABOUT YOUR ON YOUR TABLE UTILITY EASEMENT AND, UH, STAFFS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. ALRIGHT IS THERE A MOTION FOR ADAM, NUMBER ONE FOR APPROVED, MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ADAM. NUMBER ONE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AH , HE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. MAY

[2. Council consider a request for a Rezoning from RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) to RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling-Highest Density) or a more restrictive district for property located north of 2360 S. Major Drive.]

WE HAVE THE READING OF AUTUMN NUMBER TWO. COUNCIL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FROM RS READING. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO R. M H RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING, HIGHEST DENSITY OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 23 60 SOUTH MAJOR DRIVE, AND AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 26 2023, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 5 TO 2. TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY HEIST ENTITY OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 67 MAJOR DRIVING STUFF THAT'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ADAM, NUMBER TWO. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO? EXACTLY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO AND HE DISCUSSION VERY YES, SIR. THANK YOU. SO THIS AREA IS, UM CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. CORRECT? YES, SIR. STRUGGLE WITH TAKING AN AREA THAT IS RESIDENTIAL AND THEN CHANGING IT, ADDING APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THAT ARE TIED INTO THE BACK OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. UM I JUST THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. FRIEND STRUGGLE WITH IT. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL THEN COUNCILMAN GETS. THIS DID GO BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING CORRECT. IT DID PASS FIVE.

CORRECT PAST 5 TO 2, OKAY? I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN, UH, KNEELED ON THIS, UH THIS IS I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND. YEAH PUTTING UP APARTMENTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF A BUNCH OF HOUSES IN THEIR BACKYARDS WHERE YOU HAVE THEY CAN LOOK OVER THE FENCES INTO THE BACKYARDS. WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THIS. HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES ALONG MAJOR DRIVE MAJOR DRIVE HAS SO MANY APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT NOW, MR BYRNE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES ALREADY EXIST ALONG MAJOR DRIVE? HMM. UM I WOULD ESTIMATE. PROBABLY 10 TO 12. HMM HMM. REALLY HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER ONE, ESPECIALLY BACKING UP WHERE HMM. THESE ARE MULTI STORY APARTMENTS BEING PROPOSED. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND SO

[01:25:06]

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO JUST LOOK INTO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS. UH I DON'T I DON'T LIKE IT, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. COUNCILMAN TURNER MR BOONE HOW MANY NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT TO NATIVE NEIGHBORS? AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THE RESPONSES FROM THE NOTICES MAILED OUT? SO WE SENT OUT 19 NOTICES. WE RECEIVE ZERO IN FAVOR. WE DID SEE, UH, RECEIVED THREE AGAINST AND THEY WERE.

ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND THEY WERE AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. MR BOONE ALSO CURRENTLY DO YOU KNOW OUR OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE NUMBER CURRENTLY FOR BEAUMONT. IN TERMS OF MULTI FAMILY THE ONLY STATISTICS WE WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF ESTIMATING HOUSING SHORTAGE IS WE DO GET MARKET STUDIES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. UH USUALLY WE GET THOSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THOSE ARE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE STUDIES. BUT THEY DO THE LAST WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THE STUDIES WE'VE SEEN IS THE DEMAND FOR MULTI FAMILY HOUSING IS STILL HIGH. IT'S STILL IN THE 90% RANGE. OKAY, SO THERE IS A DEMAND. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL THEN COUNCILMAN PHIL SHAW. OKAY I WAS SIMPLY ASKED THAT IF THIS COUNCIL HAS THAT CONCERN, AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE WITH CHANGING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND BECAUSE IF WE THINK ABOUT WHERE THE GROWTH AREAS OF OUR CITY LIE THAT MEANS, IF THAT HAPPENS IF THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN THAT AREA OF THE CITY, LET'S MAKE SURE WE REMEMBER THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OLDER AREAS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE CITY, AND ITS IMPACT ON THOSE CITIZENS ALSO. COUNCILMAN PHIL SHAW. CHRIS. I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY THAT RIGHT NOW, THE STUDY SHOWS THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS TYPE OF A FACILITY MULTIPLE FAMILY IN TERMS OF DEMAND FOR MULTI FAMILY. THAT'S WHAT THE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN US. THERE'S RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST 67 MONTHS. SO I'M ASSUMING THEN THAT THE OTHER COMPLEXES ARE FULL. THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT WELL , ANYTHING 90% OR HIGHER IS THAT SHOWS A DEMAND FOR SURE. COUNCILMAN GETS. IN MY MIND, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEMAND AND A SHORTAGE. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE STATS THAT SHOW THAT WE HAVE A SHORTAGE? YES, THERE'S A DEMAND, BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO MEET THAT DEMAND. ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF. THIS IS NOT A MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. THIS IS MARKET RIGHT HOUSING, RIGHT? UNDERSTANDING YES. SO IS THE DEMAND. DIFFERENT BETWEEN A LOT OF MODERATE INCOME HOUSING VERSUS MARKET RIGHT HOUSING. IS THERE A SHORTAGE OF MARKET RATE HOUSING? THE STATISTICS THAT WE GET. THE 90% INCLUDE BOTH SO THE STATS WE HAVE DON'T NECESSARILY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MARKET RATE VERSUS THAT THE WE'LL CALL . SUBSIDIZED. HOUSING. BUT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE A HUGE DEMAND FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. AND NOT MUCH DEMAND AT ALL FOR MARKET RIGHT FAMILY HOUSING MARKET RIGHT FAMILY HOUSING MARKET ALSO INCLUDE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BUY A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO YOU KNOW? I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A YOU MAY OR MAY BE YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS KIND OF IN YOUR BUSINESS, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE DEMAND LIKE FOR MARKET, RIGHT FAMILY HOUSES AND WHAT IS THE SUPPLY SIDE OF THAT AVAILABLE? WELL WITHOUT MIGHT SUGGEST WE CONSIDER AS A COUNCIL RIGHT NOW, SINCE PLANNING AND ZONING HAD APPROVED. THIS IS THAT WE ALLOW PLANNING AND ZONING A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO STAFF TO REVIEW THIS AND BRING US WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS IF WE RATHER THAN DO NOT TODAY ARE APPROVED IT GET MORE CLARITY. AND, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH WE COULD TABLE THIS , MR BOONE, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO RESEARCH THIS FURTHER? DO YOU THINK YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO NECESSARILY GET ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE LATEST MARKET STUDIES THAT WE HAVE. YOU KNOW, WITHIN A WEEK. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WELL,

[01:30:04]

TWO WEEKS, TWO WEEKS, AND ONE THING ALSO WE CAN PROVIDE IS. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE AS WE ALL KNOW, MULTIPLE COMPLEXES THAT ARE EITHER HAVE JUST BEEN CONSTRUCTED ALONG MAJOR DRIVE OR LET'S SAY FALSE EMERALD DOWN AND THERE'S STILL SOME THAT ARE COMING ONLINE SO I CAN ALSO GET YOU THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT YET OPEN, SO OKAY. THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMAN SAMUEL SO WITH THAT INFORMATION , COULD YOU ALSO GET, UH, GET US AN IDEA OF THE, UH, PERCENTAGE OR THE NUMBER OF NEW CONSTRUCT MULTI FAMILY? UH PROJECTS ARE BEING, UM THAT'S OUT THERE. AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. BY AH AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. YES, SIR. HERE YES, COUNCILMAN DURIO THAN COUNCILMAN GETS LINE AROUND. IT'S JUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS PROPERTY. YES, SIR. BECAUSE THEY HAD COUNCILMAN GETS SAID ABOUT PEOPLE LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS. I DON'T SEE MANY HOUSES. THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S. ONE I KNOW. I SEE ONE. I DON'T SEE NOTHING BACK. THERE'S IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ONE TO THE SOUTH AND MAYBE ONE TO THE NORTH. BUT THEY THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT BUTTING UP AGAINST NEIGHBORHOODS LOOK LIKE LARGE LOTS. DO YOU WELCOME? AH MR BOONE. WHEN YOU SEND OUT NOTICES TO, UH NEIGHBORS, 19 3 WAS THAT JUST THOSE WITHIN 200? FT? YES, SIR. YOU KNOW IF YOU EXPANDED THAT TO, UH, THAT ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU PROBABLY GET MORE RESPONSES OUT BACK. YES, SIR. GOOD COULD YOU DO THAT? WELL THAT'S OUR STANDARD 200 FT , AND SO, UM, WE, THROUGH ORDINANCE COULD CERTAINLY ADJUST THAT, BUT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE FOR WHAT IT ALRIGHT. I WOULD BE HESITANT TO SAY THAT I MEAN THERE. THAT'S THE POLICY. THAT'S THE RULE ANYONE WITHIN. UH THAT SET PERIMETER OR GIVEN NOTICE. IF WE CHANGED THEN THAT MEANS SOMEBODY CAN GO OUT AND SOLICIT. UH, BLOCKS AROUND. THAT CREATES A PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE POLICIES THAT SET STONE SPECIFIC INFORMATION. IT'S NOT JUST SUBJECTED TO OURSELVES. IS THERE ANY DESIRE TO TABLE THIS SO THAT WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? IF THERE IS, LET'S DO THAT, BECAUSE HE'LL BE BRINGING BACK INFORMATION. IF THERE IS NO DESIRE TO TABLE IT, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE. 25TH WOULD BE THE TWO WEEK DEADLINE REQUESTED BY STAFF. OKAY, SO WE HAVE. MOTION TO TABLE IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECONDED. UH I'M SORRY. I MISSED TWO SECOND. I'M EMOTIONAL TABLE, COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN TURNER. THANK YOU. AND IT IS A TWO WEEK IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK IN TWO WEEKS. JULY 25TH THERE IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COUNCILOR TURNER MAN. I JUST WANTED CLARITY ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION MR BOONE WOULD COME BACK WITH. I JUST READ AND DON'T WANT TO GO TWO WEEKS AND I DON'T GET THE INFORMATION I'M LOOKING FOR. SO ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE ACTUAL SHORTAGE NUMBER. I READ IN THE STUDY WAS AROUND. 7000 SHORTAGE FOR HOMES IN BEAUMONT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACCURATE, SO I LIKE THOSE NUMBERS TO COME BACK HOME, THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND MULTI FAMILY AND SECONDLY, IT'S NO SECRET. WE'RE GROWING TREMENDOUSLY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN, AND THAT'S THE WEST END. SO I ALSO WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE NOTED. WHAT AREAS ARE WE REALLY GROWING IN BEAUMONT AND I WANTED TO BE MINDFUL OF OR WE'RE LOOKING AT GROWING OUR POPULATION. YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT, WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE PLACES THAT THEY STAY AND IF WE WANT THEM TO DO MORE SINGLE FAMILIES, MAYBE AS A COUNCIL, WE MIGHT TEXT STAFF LIT INCENTIVIZING. SINGLE FAMILY, HOME BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VERSUS YOU KNOW, SAYING WE WANTED AND NOT INCENTIVIZE THEM TO ACTUALLY DO IT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SINCE I SEE. WE KEEP SAYING SINGLE FAMILIES, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT A WAY AS A COUNCIL TO DO A WORKSHOP AND INCENTIVIZED DEVELOPERS WHO DEVELOP HOMES TO DO MORE SINGLE FAMILY PROJECTS. COUNCILMAN DURIO. I DON'T HAVE ANY THINGS. OKAY YES, COUNCILMAN

[01:35:05]

FELL. SHAW CHRIS. I'M SURE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK IT. I'M ASSUMING THIS TWO WEEK DELAY WOULD NOT PLACE ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER THAT YOU KNOW OF. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER TWO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, HE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. WE HAVE

[3. Council consider a request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a gaming facility in the GC-MD (General Commercial-Multiple Family Dwelling) District for property located at 39 N. 11th Street, Suite B.]

THE READING OF ADAM NUMBER THREE. YES MAYOR COUNCIL. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMANENT TO ALLOW GAMING FACILITY AND THE GCM D GENERAL COMMERCIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 NORTH 11TH STREET, SUITE B. AND AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 26 2023, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 7 TO 0.

TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE HISTORY P TO ALLOW GAMING FACILITY ON THE PROPERTY AND RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFFORD'S TWO NOW OF THE ORDINANCE. YOU'VE HEARD THE READING. IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND? MOVE TO APPROVE THE, UH THE DENIAL? YES MOVED AND SECONDED AND HE DISCUSSION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, ABOUT THE DENIAL OF ADAM, NUMBER THREE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT

[4. Council consider a request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a duplex in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District for property located at 10720 Sherwood Drive.]

TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AND RS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IT 107 TO 0 SHERWOOD DRIVE. AND AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 26 2023, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 5 TO 2 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR US SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. TO ALLOW DUPLEX ON THIS PROPERTY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THE LOT SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN TOWARDS THE STREET AND I DONT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THAT CONDITION. IS THERE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR MOTION TO DENY SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO DENY IT'S BEEN MOVED BY. COUNCILMAN NEIL SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GET IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN DURIO, UM . IS THIS? THIS IS GOING TO BE A NEW STRUCTURE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY I WAS SO QUICK TO DENY IT. MY THOUGHT IS AFTER TALKING TO SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONCE AGAIN IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD NOW PUTTING A DUPLEX IN THERE AND THE CITIZENS JUST ARE NOT HAPPY, AND I AGREE THAT IT'S NOT I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO IT. BUT IT'S BASICALLY IT'S JUST A HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO FAMILIES IN IT. THAT'S WHAT DUPLEXES CORRECT. SO BUILDINGS LIKE THIS, CHRIS AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER DOES THIS UM YOU BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY TEND TO LOWER THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE. I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, UM I CAN CERTAINLY DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT. I CAN'T SAY AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THESE OVER THE PAST, I WOULD SAY YEAR AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS JUST A CASE BY CASE BASIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED YOU USE IN THIS CASE OF DUPLEXES APPROPRIATE AND IN THE INDIVIDUAL LOCATION, AND SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DUPLEX AS YOU MENTIONED IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF ONE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN GETS, UM, MR BERNARD PLANNING AND ZONING. DID WE HAVE NEIGHBORS? UH SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS? WE SENT OUT 19 NOTICES. WE HAD ONE IN FAVOR THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE RECEIVED ZERO AND RESPONSE AGAINST BUT THERE WERE THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR. I KNOW THAT SPOKE AGAINST IT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY COUNCILMAN TURNER. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE A IF WE'RE GONNA DENY THE MULTI FAMILY LIKE WE'RE DOING, WE AND WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE SINGLE FAMILIES AS A COUNCIL. MAYBE WE NEED WE NEED TO WORKSHOP TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO INCENTIVIZED DEVELOPERS DO MORE SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO KEEP HAPPENING. WE'RE GONNA JUST IT'S

[01:40:02]

GONNA KEEP HAPPENING. IT'S BEEN HAPPENING SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL WE DENIED. WE PUSHED TO THE LAST SUMMER. THE MULTI FAMILIES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE THEM AND GET STAFF TO CHECK YOUR REQUEST FOR WORKSHOP. WHAT. WE CERTAINLY WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THAT'S BEEN SECONDED FOR THIS PROPERTY. UH, FOR ADAM, NUMBER FOUR. COUNCILMAN FELL. SHAW, I'M SORRY, MAYOR. I. COUNCILMAN NEIL YOU. YOU YOU DID TALK TO NEIGHBORS. AND YOU YOU HAD MULTIPLE CONCERNS. CORRECT. CORRECT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING OUT, UM, NUMBER FOUR. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AH, ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES ON THE DENIAL.

[5. Council consider a request for a Rezoning from GC-MD (General Commercial-Multiple Family Dwelling) to C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) or a more restrictive district for property located at 5190 Forsythe Street.]

ADAM, NUMBER FIVE. COUNCIL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL , MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING TO COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 94 SITE STREET. AND THAT A JOINT PUBLIC HERE IN HELL DON'T JUNE 26 2023 TO PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 70 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT NO VEHICLES TO BE STORED OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE. AND, UH, IT'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THAT CONDITION. OUR CITY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT THAT PERHAPS EVERYBODY DIDN'T VOTE AND SHE WASN'T SURE HOW THE VOTE WENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND VOTE ON ADAM, NUMBER FOUR ABOUT THE DENIAL. SO UH SO ALL THOSE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT NO CURSING VOTE. DID YOU VOTE? ALL DONE. I MEAN, I DIDN'T OBJECT. I DIDN'T DENY YEAH, FOR AGAINST VOTED FAR OKAY, SO I DIDN'T SEE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IF YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY AFFORD VOTE. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING TO SILENCE IS AN IS AN AFFIRMATIVE? NO IT'S NOT. THAT'S THE QUESTION. I'M NOT. NO, IT'S NOT. NO SILENCE IS NOT NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE. YOU CANNOT. YOU CAN VOTE OR ABSTAIN . YOU CAN VOTE. YOU KNOW, ARAB STAYING? THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY. I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL GOT THAT FROM YOUR MAKEUP STUFF MAKES SENSE TO ME IF YOU DON'T GET IN THE CITY COUNCIL HANDBOOK. YEAH YEAH, BUT BUT HERE WHEN IT'S WHEN IT'S LIKE THIS, AND IT'S CONTINGENT WHEN IT'S LIKE WHEN PEOPLE ARE OPPOSING, YOU REALLY DO NEED TO VOICE YOUR VOTE SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IT TAKES FOUR OF Y'ALL TO AGREES OF. ONLY THREE OF Y'ALL SAY SOMETHING THE REST OF Y'ALL ARE QUIET FOR EITHER. FOR OR AGAINST. IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING. OKAY IT'S JUST THAT WE CAN HAVE AN ACCURATE RECORD. GIVE US SOME DIRECTION TO VOTE AGAIN. I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE SAYING YOUR VOTE WAS FOUR, THEN WE CAN JUST RECORD THAT IN THE RECORD, AND THEN IT PASSES. OKAY? ALRIGHT NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ADAM, NUMBER FIVE. OKAY? OH, YES, SIR. SORRY. I WAS IN DISCUSSION. IT'S NOT CLEAR. THERE. UH, I READ IT AGAIN, MAYOR. THANK YOU. I AM FAMILIAR. I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS DIALOGUE. SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR AUTUMN NUMBER FIVE TO APPROVE WITH ONE CONDITION? SECOND MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AH ANY OPPOSED ASSES? WE

[6. Council consider a resolution approving a contract to Vortex Companies for the repair of the 5-ft by 7-ft oval-shape storm line on Long Avenue.]

HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER SIX COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION IMPROVING THE CONTRACT VORTEX COMPANIES FOR THE REPAIR OF THE 5. FT BY 7 FT . OVER SHAPE STORM LINE ON LONG AVENUE. THIS IS PROJECTS FOUND STEP IN THE REHAB OF THE STORM LINE, LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE ROAD FROM PAST ST MARTIN LUTHER KING, WHICH ITS MAJOR AND DRAINING THAT, UH, AREA OF TOWN.

AH AND BECAUSE OF THEIR NEW C, UH, FUND BALANCE WILL BE USED TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS OF THIS, UH, PROJECT. AND WHAT? THEY, UM. WHAT THE RESOLUTION REFUNDING RESOLUTION LATER TO REFUND THE CITY. UH FOR THE PAYMENT OF THIS THESE DOLLARS OUT OF THE GYM FUN. BY THE ISSUE INTO BONDS.

[01:45:09]

OKAY IS THERE A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER SIX? SO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED. ADAM NUMBER SIX. IS THERE A 2ND 2ND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER SIX.

YES, COUNCILMAN MILTON. WE'RE DOING. THIS IS THE EMERGENCY ORDER AND NO OTHER PRICES WERE NECESSARY. THIS IS THREE H G A. C BY COOPERATIVE, SO IT'S UH, RENEGOTIATED PRICING THROUGH THAT SATISFIES BID REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, ANY OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. YOU HAVE

[7. Approval of the purchase and installation of Playground equipment for Babe Zaharias Park from Kraftman Commerical Playgrounds & Water Parks of Spring, TX and the purchase and installation of Playground equipment for Combest Park from GameTime c/o Cunningham Recreation of Charlotte, NC.]

THE READING OF ADAM NUMBER SEVEN'S APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR THE FOR BABES. HARRY IS PART FROM CRAFTSMAN COMMERCIAL PLAYGROUNDS AND WATER SPRINGS OF SPRING ON WATER PARKS OF SPRING. TEXAN TEXAS. EXCUSE ME AND THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR COMPASS PART FROM GAME TIME. AND CURVE. CUNNINGHAM RECREATION OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, AND THESE TWO WERE, UH , TABLE AND BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THIS TIME AND THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN TO THE PARKS BOARD. A COUPLE OF TIMES PART CAME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR PROJECTS. AND UH, INFRASTRUCTURE PENDING APPROVAL.

IS THERE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SO MOVED TO APPROVE.

SECOND SPEND, MOVED AND SECONDED FOR ADAM. NUMBER SEVEN FOR APPROVAL. ANY DISCUSSION MAYOR GETS MOVED TO AMEND THIS MOTION TO TAKE THE. TAKE THESE TWO ITEMS SEPARATELY, STARTING WITH COM. BEST PART. I DO NOT ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. SO WE CAN DO IT ON MY MOTION. WE WOULD NEED TO BE A SECOND CORRECT. SURE SECOND PRAYER RULES AND THE AGENDA FOR THE AGENDA FOR THE AMENDMENT. SO JUST HAVE A WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER TO AMEND IT. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I WAS GETTING CONFUSED MOTION ON THE FLOOR, BUT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE AMENDED MOTION TO AMEND BEFORE YOU TAKE THE MOTION THE PRIMARY , LET'S HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION IN A SECOND, BUT THERE'S ALSO BEEN A MOTION TERM MEANT AND SO IF YOU WE HAVEN'T ADOPTED ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER FACIALLY, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER. BUT WHEN OUR RULES ARE SILENT AS TO HOW THINGS NEED TO BE HANDLED, THEN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER CONTROL SO AS IT RELATES TO AN AMENDED MOTION WHEN YOU HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR, YOU EITHER BOAT ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT IF THAT BUILDING BOARD IN YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION IS BACK ON THE FLOOR. AND, UH, MADAM ATTORNEY TO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PERSON THAT MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION AGREED ACCEPTED AMENDMENT OR SO IF THE AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTED BY THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAN THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS AMENDED. IF THERE'S NO ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, YOU HAVE TO VOTE HIS CEPT URGING THE AMENDMENT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THAT WE ABOUT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THESE ITEMS SEPARATELY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF ONE THAT ARE NOT BAVER OF THE OTHER. YES AND COUNCILMAN NEIL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE VOTE ON? UH THE AMENDED MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN GETS TO DIVIDE TO SEPARATE THESE JUST LIKE TO SEE A COUPLE OF OUR RULES BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE ON THIS. WHENEVER AN AMENDMENT IS MADE TO EMOTION. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND AND OUR RULES STATED THAT NEW MOTION SHOULD BE VOTED ON FIRST. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE A CUP OF THE RULES TO CLARIFY THAT. CORRECT AND I'M ILL PREPARED MANAGER. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR OLDER? I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THEM NOW. YEAH. SO. HMM I WILL SUGGEST THAT WE

[01:50:03]

THAT'S JUST NOT THAT THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE GOOD SENSE. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE IS THE MATTER. ABOUT THE FACT THAT ROGERS PARK WHICH IS. CLEARLY ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE PARKS IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT. DOES NOT HAVE A COVERED SHELTER. COVERED SHELTER. AT SPROUT PARK WAS APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR. WE APPROVED IT FOR 150,000. BUT NOW I'M TOLD IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSED, COSTING CLOSER TO 200,000. THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT OF THE PARK SIRAGUSA ADVISORY BOARD MEETING TODAY. AND YET, AND I VOTED FOR THAT. I SUPPORT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT ROGERS PARK NEEDS A SHELTER. ALL IT HAS NOW IS A PAVILION. FAIRLY BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE ONE PICNIC TABLE.

SO. YOU KNOW THIS COUNCIL I CAN SEE THE WAY THAT THE WINDS ARE BLOWING. YOU KNOW, AND THERE IS

[01:55:08]

A DESIRE TO PUT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OUT THERE BY BY THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL, IF NOT ALL THE REST OF COUNCIL I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT TWO WEEKS AGO, OUR PARKS DIRECTOR SAID THAT HE HE DOESN'T THINK THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OUT THERE OTHER THAN SWINGS, HE WOULD NOT PUT A FULL PLAYGROUND OUT THERE. AH, SO YOU KNOW, YOU GOT YOUR PARKS DIRECTOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE REASONS THAT I JUST SAID RIGHT AND I'LL LET IT STOP THERE . ALRIGHT COUNCILMAN, UH, SAW AM ME. GODWIN, FANEUIL COUNCILMAN TURNER COUNCILMAN NEIL, THEN I'LL THAT COUNCILMAN FELL. SHAW SPEAKING. COUNCILMAN DURIO, THE MANAGER HAS ANY WORDS WE CAN HEAR FROM HIM, AND NOW I'LL FINISH UP, OKAY? OKAY COUNSELOR . I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW. WE VERY WELL COULD HAVE. WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS VERY EASILY. UM IT'S NOT. WE DON'T HAVE TO PICK BE PITTED AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. YEAH. I RESPECT STAFF. I RESPECT THE COMMITTEE COMMITTEES THAT WE APPOINT TO DEAL WITH THESE MATTERS. IT'S GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS. OKAY? WITH THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO INTO OUR BUDGET YEAR. THERE'S NO REASON FOR ROGERS PARK TO BE PITTED AGAINST ANY OTHER PARK OR ANY OTHER FACTION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S NOT NEEDED. THERE IS A NEED FOR A PAVILION AT ROGERS PARK. I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. AND IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY JUST TO SAY OKAY, LET'S WORK ON THE PAVILION AT ROGERS PARK, AND I WOULD HAVE VOTED. I SUPPORT THAT. NOW. TWO YEARS AGO. I WOULD NOW HAVE. A PROBLEM WITH GETTING A PAVILION, POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU TRIED TO DO IT. I WOULD. YOU KNOW ROGER ACID. LET'S DO THE DOG PARK BEEN . I FOUGHT IT FOR THE LOANS, AND I WILL ADMIT THERE WERE TIMES I FOUGHT IT BECAUSE IT WAS YOU IN THE WAY THAT YOU DID IT, BUT I'M JUST SINGING, BUT WE'RE BEYOND THAT NOW. I THINK WE WORK TOGETHER NOW, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONTINUE TO DO. I CAN SUPPORT THAT. BUT THINK ABOUT IT MIGHT ITS OWN I T N WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE USING IT. AT CERTAIN TIMES. THERE'S A NEED FOR SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE.

BIG BROTHER CAN GO WITH THE LITTLE LITTLE BROTHER OVER TO THE PLAYGROUND, WHILE MOM AND DAD ARE WATCHING THE SOCCER I MEAN, THAT'S GOING THROUGH A PROCESS IT'S GOING THROUGH THE COMMITTEE IS GOING THROUGH STAFF. SO I'M JUST SAYING. BUT. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

OKAY, THEN COUNCILMAN. TURNER. THEN COUNCILMAN NIL. WELL, MY MIND'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT, MISTER MANAGER. I KNOW IT'S BEEN SOME EMAIL EXCHANGE THAT I'VE BEEN INCLUDED IN. WE'RE COUNCIL MEMBER GAMES WAS ASKING FOR THE WORK ORDERS FOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. AH COME BEST PART AND I ACTUALLY HAVE A HUGE ISSUE AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET THOSE WORK ORDERS THAT WE WERE TOLD. WE WERE BEING PUT IN TO REMOVE THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. SO I THINK THAT'S A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE REMOVING SOMETHING, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF OF THE REASON IT WAS MOVED. SO I'M I HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THAT AS WELL. I WANT TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM. AND MY SECOND THING IS ORIGINALLY I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT BABES AND HARRY'S, BUT IT WASN'T BECAUSE IT WAS BABES OF HARRY'S BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS. ORIGINALLY THIS COUNCIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR WEST WE KIND OF GAVE INSTRUCTIONS HOW WE WANT TO SEE THE PARKS AND RECS COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER THIS LIST. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THE WAY WE INSTRUCTED IT. TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST. WE HAVE PARKS AND RECS COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE IN THE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT CAN ATTEST TO THAT. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS MOVING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH THE FIGHT TODAY BUT MOVING FORWARD IF THE COUNCIL MOVES AS A WHOLE FOR THINGS TO BE DONE A CERTAIN WAY. THAT'S THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE. I DON'T

[02:00:04]

THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE ANY OTHER WAY. IF WE AGREE IN UNISON THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE. SO MY PROBLEM IS MORE THE PROCESS OF WHAT WE GOT. HOW WE GOT TO IT NOT ACTUALLY PROJECT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. SO ORIGINALLY, I HAD A HUGE PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT RIGHT NOW FOR THE UNIT UNITS AND SAY, AND WHAT EVERYONE HAS WENT THROUGH TO GET THERE I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT. BUT ORIGINALLY IS, MIKE SAID I WASN'T BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS OF HOW WE GOT THERE. SO I ASKED YOU AND YOUR NEW TO THIS YOU WOULDN'T ABOUT YOU DIDN'T INSTRUCT THIS PROCESS. BUT IF THIS COUNCIL OR YOU'RE NOT NEW TO THIS, THIS COUNCIL IS SAYING THAT WE WANT IT DONE A CERTAIN WAY. WE'RE SAYING IN THE UNISON I WOULD ACCESS STAFF DOES IT THAT WAY. I UNDERSTAND, AND I WAS HOPING I DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. THAT WAS A PROCESS COUNCIL MEMBER, AND MUCH OF IT WAS FOLLOWED. YOU KNOW, IT DID GO TO THE PARK SPORT TWICE, MAYBE THREE TIMES. QUITE FRANKLY , AND I WANT TIME THEY ACTUALLY SCORED AND RANKED THESE PROJECTS AND THEY CAME BACK WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF HOW THEY WERE RANKED AND COMPASS PARK, WHICH RANKED AS THE THIRD PROJECT ON THEIR LIST AND BABIES. HEROD WAS RANKED ON THE 10TH PROJECT A LITTLE LIST OUT OF 18 PROJECTS THAT THEY CAME BACK WITH, AND THAT WAS THEIR FEEDBACK AND COMING BACK WITH THAT, OF COURSE , STAFF HAD INPUT. UH TO STEPH RANKED THESE PROJECTS AND EVEN INCLUDED SOME PROJECTS DIDN'T RANK IT AS HIGH BUT I WAS LOOKING AT THE CITY GEOGRAPHICALLY AND DEMOGRAPHICALLY. AND TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A PROGRAM OR PROJECTS THAT BENEFITED THE ENTIRE CITY AND LOOKING AT IT, SO THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND THEN THIS COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION. THAT APPROVED THESE LISTS OF PROJECTS ONCE BEFORE, UH, BY THIS BODY WAS APPROVED THIS THESE PROJECTS WITHIN THAT PRIOR RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, SO IT WAS A FAIRLY VETTED PROCESS IN THE KIND OF BEEN SOME THINGS YOU DISAGREE WITH, BUT, UH, IT WENT BACK AND FORTH FOR A LONG TIME. MM. AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND WITH STAFF GOING BACK LOOKING AT IT AND RESHUFFLING THE DECK AND COMING BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT THE PARKS BOARD APPROVED IT AND RANKED IT THIS COUNCIL APPROVED THAT THE RANKED IT AND THEN YOU TABLED IT LAST TIME IT WANTED TO BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION. RIGHT JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT. SO WE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. I AGREE. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 33 PARKS IN BEAUMONT. AND WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT 18 OF THEM. THIS COUNCIL INSTRUCTED AND AGAIN IT WAS PRIOR TO YOU, AND I THINK IT WAS DURING MR BOONE'S INTERIM STAGE , INSTRUCTED OUR BOARD TO GO AROUND TO THE 33 DIFFERENT PARTS AND GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO RIDE TOGETHER. THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'M SAYING. IT NEVER HAPPENED, OKAY, AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. WE SAID IT IS THE COUNCIL. THAT'S THE POINT THAT SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED. OKAY I'VE GOT COUNCILMAN NEIL. THANK YOU VERY KIND OF PIGGYBACK OFF OF SOMETHING COUNCILMAN SAMUEL BROUGHT UP ABOUT ACTUALLY, UM, FUNDING AND PUTTING A SHELTER OVER AT ROGERS PARK. WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO AMEND THE NEXT YEAR'S CAPITAL PLAN TO ADD THAT IN THERE IS A FUN TO LEARN OF THEM WOULDN'T BE COMPLICATED AT ALL. COUNCIL MEMBER NEIL BASICALLY A STAFF LOOKING AT COMING UP WITH THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND THEN PLUG IT IN. AND FOR WHATEVER YEAR YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT BUILT. IF IT'S 24 25, WE CAN PUT IT IN THERE AND IDENTIFY POSSIBLE FUNDING OR WELL, I GUESS IT'S 23 24. WHATEVER SO IT'S NOT A COMPLICATED PROCESS IT THOUGH. DO WE NEED SOMEBODY ELSE ON COUNCIL TO SECOND THAT REQUEST TO GET THAT BROUGHT BACK TO US? EXCUSE EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMAN NEIL, CAN WE UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION THIS IS GOING, BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE EMOTION IN A SECOND AND WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE FOR COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS AT THE END, AND I THINK AT THAT POINT WOULD BE BETTER TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AT THAT POINT, AND SO I'M GOING TO ASK THAT. AH WE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE ON THE INITIAL THING. I JUST WANTED TO ADD IF THAT'S OKAY. I APPRECIATE COUNCILS APPARENT WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER A PAVILION AT ROGERS PARK, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS. ALRIGHT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK. PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. THERE'S 13 POSITIONS ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. TODAY FOR MOST OF THE MEETINGS, ONLY THREE MEMBERS WERE THERE AND ONE CAME IN LATE AT THE END, SO WE HAD FOUR AT THE MEETING WHERE THESE WERE RANKED WE HAD. I THINK FIVE MEMBERS OF THE 13 THERE. SO IN A

[02:05:06]

PART OF THE PROCESS, OF COURSE, IS OUR VOTE TODAY. THAT'S THAT'S THE LAST STAGE OF THE PROCESS, SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. ANOTHER THING IN THE PROCESS THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT EVERYBODY BE GIVEN GOOD INFORMATION. GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE HAD IN THIS MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN. HEY WE WANT YOU TO CONSIDER PUTTING A PLAYGROUND AND THE HAIRIEST PARK BUT BY THE WAY THERE IS A PARK WITH A PLAYGROUND TWO BLOCKS AWAY. THAT INFORMATION WASN'T PROVIDED. IT WAS NOT THE COUNCIL BUT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD. SO ALL OF THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS, AND I'M JUST GONNA SUM IT UP BY SAYING YES, I AGREE. THE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT. OKAY SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ADAM NUMBER SEVEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. AH ANY OPPOSED MOTION PASSES, SO WE'RE GONNA IF WE WILL HAVE THE READING OF ADAM

[8. Council consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Garfield Public/Private LLC to conduct a market study, perform planning and design services, determine estimated costs and develop a business and financing plan related to the possible development of a hotel on property owned by the City.]

NUMBER EIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED IN THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER AND TO AN AGREEMENT WITH GARFIELD PUBLIC PRIVATE L. L C TO CONDUCT A MARKET STUDY.

PERFORM PLANNING AND DESIGN SERVICES DETERMINED ESTIMATED COST AND DEVELOP A BUSINESS AND FINANCING PLAN RELATED TO THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL ROOM PROPERTY. OWNED BY THE CITY , YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS OF CITY HISTORY, INVESTORS IN THE VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN AND, UH, SPEND A CONTINUOUS FOCUSED OVER THE LAST PERIOD OF TIME. ESPECIALLY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT STRATEGIC PLANS AND DOWNTOWN PLANS. ECONOMIC THEIR FELLOW MY PLANS, ETCETERA. SO THIS PROJECT IS WOULD BE LIKE FACE TO, UH, PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND DESIGN FROM WHICH WHICH YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. THIS WILL GIVE YOU SOME IDEAS OF, UH , WERE IN THE RANGE AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THIS GROUP. UH IT'LL BE VISITS FROM THE GROUP AND ALSO INCLUDE SOME PUBLIC INPUT PROCESSES. SO BASICALLY THIS WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION. YOU WILL NEED TO TAKE THIS PROJECT TO AND THIRD PHASE IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO, BUT THIS IS JUST A NATURAL PROGRESSION OF LOOKING AT THE, UH, POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A DOWNTOWN HOTEL. AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. OKAY SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. SECOND. MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION . IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMAN GETS SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SAMUEL ANY DISCUSSION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNAL THE FIRE BY. SAYING AH, ANY OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. NOW IS THE TIME. UH FOR ANY CITIZEN WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS IF YOU HAVEN'T MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING, WE ASK THAT YOU COMPLETE A GREEN SHEET BECAUSE THE CHAOS ISN'T WORKING. AND, UH , IN NEW WILL, THE CITY CLERK WILL CALL YOUR NAME WILL APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES, AND AT THAT TIME YOUR MIKE WILL BE MUTED, BUT SOMEONE FROM THE CITY WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO FINISH YOUR STATEMENT, OR IF YOU ARE SO AT THIS POINT I