REGULAR AGENDA

[1. 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.]

YOU. MAYOR COUNCIL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FROM RS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO R H RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING, HIGHEST DENSITY OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 23 60 SOUTH MAJOR DRIVE. AND JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 26 2023 TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 52 TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST. THIS ITEM WAS HELD IN A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING AND THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS AND SOME , UH, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ETCETERA, SO THIS ITEM IS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION. AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ARGUMENT. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ADAM? NUMBER ONE MOVED TO DENIAL, ARM NUMBER ONE REQUEST FOR RESIGNING. IS THERE A SECOND? ALRIGHT, THAT FAILS TO GET A SECOND. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN GETS . SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD PUT STILL ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX ON MAJOR TRIBE. THERE WAS NEIGHBORS THAT APPEARED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, EXPRESSING THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT AND LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR THIS

[00:40:01]

APARTMENT PROJECT COMING INTO PLAY. ONE OF THE REASONS IS THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE WHERE PEOPLE FROM THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK RIGHT IN THE BACKYARDS OF SOME OF THESE RESIDENTIAL HOMES. WE'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN BEFORE ON OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND A MAJOR DRIVE AND, UM YOU KNOW WHEN YOU WHEN YOU START LOOK AT THAT WHAT THIS IS DOING TO MAJOR DRIVE WITH ALL THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AS OPPOSED TO DEVELOPING THEM IS RETAILER SINGLE FAMILY. UH IT'S UH, IT'S REALLY NOT A GOOD LOOK. WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE. I BELIEVE ARE GETTING MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THIS HOMES IN THIS TOWN. AH WE HAVE HOW MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES NOW BACK TO DR CHRIS. I WOULD ESTIMATE OVER A DOZEN. UM I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THOSE SINCE THE ITEM GOT HELD OVER. WE DID DO A LITTLE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH . UM, WE HAVE SEVEN NEW COMPLEXES THAT ARE EITHER HAVE RECENTLY RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED OR ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THAT IS GOING TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 1156 UNITS , UM TO THE MARKET. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE ALONG WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THE MAJOR STREET CORRIDOR FOLSOM AND ONE OF FIVE AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT AGAIN. COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACKS AND ADDITIONAL IN FROM RESEARCH. AND SO, UM HMM. BASICALLY THE RULE OF THUMB FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IS 6.5 ROUGHLY 6.5 DAILY TRIPS PER UNIT. SO THAT THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN A SINGLE UNIT COMING AND GOING, MAYBE TO SCHOOL TO WORK TO SHOP, ETCETERA, SO UM, JUST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 6.5 DAY DAILY TRIPS PER DWELLING UNIT.

SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC IN THE IN THAT CORRIDOR IF WE ADD ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX? WHAT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC FOR SURE HOW MANY PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST THIS? AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING? WE SENT OUT 19 NOTICES OR YOU RECEIVED THREE IN THREE AGAINST . OKAY UH, AND THOSE THAT WERE EXPRESSING, UH, THAT THEY DID NOT WANT IT. DID THEY GIVE REASONS? LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND ON THIS YEAR. UH UM, BASICALLY, THEY'RE OPPOSED NOT A FIT USE FOR THE PROPERTY. SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOMES SURROUND THE AREA. SO AGAIN, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RESIGN THIS FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING. AND THERE'S BEEN NOBODY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD . SPEAK UP IN FAVOR OF THIS.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL SPEAK AGAINST IT. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. I'M NOT GOING TO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNCILMAN DURIO UM CHRIS YOU SAID IN THE MAJOR DRIVE CORRIDOR . ARE THERE ANY OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES SOUTH OF COLLEGE STREET ON MAJOR DRIVE? LET ME SEE SOUTH OF COLLEGE STREET.

YEAH UM THERE'S A BETWEEN COLLEGE AND ACTING. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THERE IS A COMPLEX RIGHT AT COLLEGE AND MAJOR TRYING TO LOOK ON MY MAP HERE. BUT I DON'T SEE. THERE'S AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY DOWN THERE, BUT I DON'T SEE MULTI FAMILY SOUTH OF COLLEGE SO UH, THIS IS A CALM APARTMENT COMPLEX . IT'S 150 UNITS PROPOSED TO BE ON 150. YES, SIR. WOULD YOU SAY THERE IS A NEED FOR THOSE UNITS IN THE CITY? YES. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE DISCUSSION POINTS THAT CAME UP. LAST MEETING WAS OCCUPANCY RATES WE HAVE FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS BEEN IN WHAT'S CONSIDERED A DEMAND. UM POSITION OF OVER 90% OCCUPANCY. WE DID PULL SOME STATISTICS. UM AND FOR THE LAST YEAR UM, UP UNTIL THE LAST YEAR. WE'VE BEEN IN THAT ABOVE 90% RANGE, BUT FOR THE LAST YEAR WE'VE DROPPED BELOW THE 90% RANGE, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 87.7. OCCUPANCY. SO THAT DOES THAT MEAN THERE IS A NEED OR THERE ISN'T YOUR OPINION. UM 90% IS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO START ADDING UNITS, SO COUNCILMAN GETS. SO WHAT? I'M GATHERING FROM YOUR PREVIOUS REMARKS. MR BOONE IS THAT WITH ALL THESE ADDITIONS, NO APARTMENT COMPLEX. SCHEDULED TO COME ONLINE AND YOU'RE SEEING AN OCCUPANCY RATE DROP. YOU'RE

[00:45:08]

STARTING TO SEE OVERSATURATION IN THE MARKET WITH APARTMENT COMPLEXES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? I DON'T. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THERE'S AN OVERSATURATION BECAUSE THE ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS, AS YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE COMPLEXES THAT I'VE MENTIONED ARE UM, SUBSIDIZED AND SO. THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS. THEY LOOK AT THINGS NOT JUST MARKET RATE APARTMENTS, BUT ALSO THE DEMAND FOR APARTMENTS IN CERTAIN, UM RENT RANGES OR INCOME RANGES WHERE YOU'RE IF YOU MEET A CERTAIN INCOME RANGE, YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN SUBSIDIES, SUBSIDIZED UNITS, SO UM. WE KNOW THAT CONTRACTORS THAT ARE HERE TO WORK ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS FREQUENTLY UTILIZE OUR HOTELS FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING. DO THEY FREQUENTLY UTILIZED APARTMENTS. IN A SIMILAR FASHION. I THINK, DEPENDING UPON I MEAN SHORT ANSWER. YES I THINK YOU'LL HAVE SOME. DEPENDING UPON THEIR TENURE HERE. THEY MIGHT BE AN APARTMENT UNITS FOR SIX MONTHS A YEAR. UM WE HAVE, AS YOU'RE AWARE HAVE HAD SEVERAL NEW UM I GUESS RV PARKS FROM MOBILE HOME PARKS THAT HAVE REALLY MORE SO RV PARKS THAT HAVE COME ONLINE IN THE CITY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. I THINK THOSE ADDRESS THAT DEMAND TO SOME DEGREE BUT I WAS SUSPECT THAT SOME SOME WOULD BE IN THESE APARTMENTS. AND SO WHAT I'M URGING THIS COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IS THE LONG BEING THE LONG TERM EFFECTS BECAUSE THESE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE BUILT OUT ONE DAY. THEN THERE'S CONTRACTORS WILL PACK UP. GO HOME. UH TO WHEREVER HOME IS, THESE APARTMENTS WILL LAY FALLOW . UH, THEY'LL START FALLING INTO WASTE AND DISREPAIR. E U U CAN ONLY ABSORB SO MANY OUR POPULATION IS NOT GROWING. UH WE HOPE THAT IT WILL IN THE FUTURE, BUT WHO'S FILLING UP ALL THESE APARTMENTS THAT ARE COMING ONLINE. WERE THE RESIDENTS COMING FROM YEAH, AGAIN. THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THE GRANULAR INFORMATION THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF. IT WOULD JUST BE BASICALLY SUBJECTIVE COMMENT ON OUR PART.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THERE APPEARS TO BE A DEMAND . UH, BASED ON THE APPLICATIONS WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY AND AGAIN BEFORE US TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS REZONING IS APPROPRIATE. OKAY FOR THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN TURNER. CHRIS IS THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS OR WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IS IT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE? IT IS MARKET RATE. OKAY, SUBSIDIZED TO MY KNOWLEDGE. CHRIS? YES, SIR. SO THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES LIKE CONSUMMATE GUESTS JUST MENTIONED OR THEY, UH, THE MAJORITY USED BY CONTRACTORS OR THEY FEEL WITH TEMPORARY FOLKS OR OR DO PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE. STAY ON THOSE APARTMENTS. YEAH I DON'T. I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION. I MEAN, I CAN GIVE YOU MY SUBJECTIVE I WOULD SUSPECT THAT YOU KNOW MOST OF THE UNITS. WELL THAT WOULD JUST BE MINE. KYNASTON CONJECTURES. I'M NOT. AGAIN. I SUSPECT THAT SOME OF THE UNITS ARE FILLED BY CONTRACTORS, BUT PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OR NOT, BUT JUST MINE. MY GUESS IS PICTURE UP HERE. HOW MANY ACTUAL HOUSES BUT UP AGAINST WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE JUST THE ONE TO THE SOUTH TO THE SOUTH. AND THE NORTH. UM IS THAT BUILDING A HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S WAY BACK OFF THE STREET, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A STREET ACTUALLY GOING TO IT OR THAT SOME TYPE OF STORAGE BUILDING OR IS THERE THAT'S NOT DOLLAR GENERAL IS NO, THAT'S A LITTLE FURTHER UP. DO BELIEVE. YEAH I THINK TO THE NORTH, THERE'S A HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A WHITE THAT MAY BE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A HOUSE UP IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER. AND THEN CERTAINLY TO THE SOUTH. THERE IS A HOUSE I WAS JUST WONDERING IF HOW MANY STORIES IS THIS COMPLEX GONNA BE, TOO? I BELIEVE I WAS JUST WONDERING. ARE THERE ANY HOUSES WITH BACKYARDS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SEE INTO FROM THE SECOND FLOOR OF SOME OF THESE APARTMENTS? YES OR SO, TINA. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE SITE PLAN, IT SHOULD BE MAYBE JUST BEFORE THIS OKAY? SO. THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP ABOUT THE SITE PLAN, SO THE SITE PLAN IS NOT FIXED OR FINALIZED, SO I THINK THERE ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE.

BUT WHAT THEY PROPOSED IS ESSENTIALLY AH! THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THE

[00:50:03]

SIDE OF PROPERTY LINE, THERE WILL BE A ACCESS DRIVEWAY PROPOSED, UH, ROW OF PARKING STALLS AND THEN THE TWO STORY BUILDING, SO THE PARKING STALL DEPTH IS ROUGHLY 1920 FT. DEEP.

YOU'VE GOT A. THEY TRAVEL, I'LL SO YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO STORY BUILDING.

THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 40 FT. OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES COUNCILMAN SAMUEL.

OKAY LISTEN TO VARIOUS COMMENTS. THERE IS A DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN BOMBER. IS THAT CORRECT FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING? ALL WE CAN SAY IS THAT WE HAVE A YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 1000 NEW UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN COMING UP THAT HAVE COME ONLINE EITHER CURRENTLY ARE OR HAVE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT WITH THIS KIND OF APPLICATION, THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A MARKET. BUT OKAY, SO THERE IS A MARKET AND THERE'S A DEMAND. UM. THIS IS GOING TO PLANNING AND ZONING. UH, IT'S GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THAT MEET ALL THE CRITERIA THAT'S SET FORTH BY OUR RULES AND RANCH IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT. IS THAT CORRECT? IT HAS GONE TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THE REZONING FOR APPROVAL. OKAY, SO SIMPLY, UH NOW THIS IS IT APPEARS TO BE A QUESTION OF A SUBJECTIVE. QUESTION AND SUBJECTIVE REASONING WHY? IT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. UM IF WE DID THAT WITH ALL AREAS OF OUR CITY MAYBE IT WOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT CONDITION. HOWEVER THAT'S WHAT RULES ARE MADE FOR YOU MEET THE RULES. YOU MEET THE REGULATIONS AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FINE UNLESS YOU HAVE A SUBJECTIVE IDEA BY A PERSON OR A GROUP. TO BE FAIR, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA. THERE IS A DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN OUR CITY. ARE WE GOING TO BE SELECTIVE ABOUT WHAT GOES IN EVERY PART OF OUR CITY? THAT'S NOT. AN OUTCRY FROM THE CITIZENS SAYING THAT THAT'S UNREASONABLE . WE TALKED ABOUT LOOKING IN FOLKS' BACKYARDS INTO, UH, THEY'RE YOURS. THERE ARE THREE HOUSES THAT SHOWN HERE. THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH BEAUMONT IS GROWING. SO. I BELIEVE THEY MEET THE CRITERIA AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE APPROVED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN TURNER. CHRIS AND INSTANCES LIKE THIS AND WHAT YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THINGS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PLACE. THEY WHAT? WHAT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE WHEN YOU HAD ISSUES WITH BACKYARDS OR THIS IS JUST SOMETHING STANDARD THAT NORMALLY HAPPENS AND THERE'S EITHER YOU VOTED UP AND DOWN LIKE EITHER THE POSSIBLE MEDIUM IS SOLUTION.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW IT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE HAS THIS BEEN HANDLED IN THE PAST. WELL IT IS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST. AND SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY SHOULD BE AS IT IS NOW, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI FAMILY OR COMMERCIAL OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE, WHICH IS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT ZONING IS NOT CONDITIONAL AND SO. WHATEVER THEY BUILT OUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE ZONING WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILDING CODES, ETCETERA, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE SITE PLAN YOU'VE GOT BEFORE YOU SO AND I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE YOU ASK ABOUT THE SETBACKS. AND SO IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED , OR COUNSELORS DECIDING IS YOU KNOW THE ZONING. OKAY BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS USE? OKAY AND WHAT IS THE SITE PLAN? OKAY.

AND IS THIS BUILDING TOO TALL, TOO CLOSE? UM YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN WE TYPICALLY GET INTO THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION NOW. AS MENTIONED. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING DISCUSSING THE APARTMENT COMPLEX HAS PROPOSED, WHICH IS RELEVANT IN THAT YOU HAVE TO CONCEIVE WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD GO THERE AS WHETHER OR NOT THE REZONING IS APPROPRIATE, BUT YEAH. AGAIN WITH IT NOT BEING CONDITIONAL.

UM WHAT COULD GO THE THING TO KEEP IN MIND? IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE SOUND? BECAUSE WHAT CAN ULTIMATELY GO? THERE MIGHT BE VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO AGAIN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FEW HIGH TO CLOSE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT'S USUALLY DONE IN THE

[00:55:03]

CONTEXT OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. ALRIGHT COUNCILMAN GETS CHRIS RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. IS THAT CORRECT? THE ONLY THING THAT CAN GO THERE RIGHT NOW IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES . CORRECT WELL, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER USES, LIKE CHURCHES AND THINGS THAT REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. BUT IN GENERAL, THE THINGS YOU THINK ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHAT TYPICALLY GOES THERE. YES, SIR. AND WHEN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS. PURCHASE THEIR HOMES BUILT THEIR HOMES. THEY DID SO KNOWING THAT THEY WERE BUILDING AND PURCHASING THEIR HOMES AND A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO NOW, HERE COMES AN APARTMENT DEVELOPER SAYING OH, I KNOW RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T MEET YOUR CRITERIA. BUT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO CHANGE THAT CRITERIA FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO A MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT. SO NO RIGHT NOW. OBJECTIVELY. THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA. THEY WERE ONLY MEET THE CRITERIA TO BUILD THEIR APARTMENT COMPLEX. IF THIS COUNCIL SAYS OKAY, DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS WE'VE HAD FROM NEIGHBORS THERE, DESPITE THE PROBLEMS THAT CITIZENS ARE HAVING, DESPITE THAT IT MAY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VALUES OF THEIR PROPERTY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO LOOK DOWN AT THEIR BACKYARDS , DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC DESPITE ALL THAT. UH WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO CHANGE THE CRITERIA FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIPLE HOUSING, SO THIS APARTMENT DEVELOPER CAN GO FORWARD WITH HIS APARTMENTS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING ASKED TO DO TODAY, ISN'T IT? TO REASON. THE PROPERTY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO TO COUNCILMAN SAMUEL. THEN I'LL GO TO COUNCILMAN DURIO, AND I'M GONNA HAVE A SAY I NEED AN OPPORTUNITY AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A VOTE. OKAY UH, MAJOR DRIVE. IS THAT A MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET? YES SIR. IS THAT ONE OF THE HIGHEST DENSITY TRAVEL? CLASSIFICATIONS. THERE IS. IT IS ONE OF OUR HIGHER TRAFFIC. ARTERIALS WITHIN THE CITY. OKAY AND THAT. AS IT STANDS, THAT'S A GROWTH AREA. THAT PART OF MAJOR DRIVE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR . OKAY SO CAN YOU BUILD A GROCERY STORE? IN A RESIDENTIAL. WAS ON PROPERTY. NO, SIR, CAN YOU PUT A CONVENIENCE STORE AND A RESIDENTIAL? NO SIR. THOSE TYPE OF BUSINESSES ARE NORMALLY ALONG MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR. THIS IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET. CORRECT YES, SIR. SO IT'S SOME POINT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED. YES, SIR. AND TO IF I COULD TO THAT POINT, LET ME JUST LET ME JUST ADD ONE THING IS WE'RE LOOKING AT IS. PROBABLY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. WE PROBABLY NEED TO UPDATE OUR CONCERT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS STRETCH OF MAJOR, ACTUALLY, FROM REALLY TRAM ROAD ALL THE WAY TO, UM REALLY, 10 HAS HAS, AS UM YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS CORRIDOR . THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REZONING ALONG THIS CORRIDOR. SO I JUST BRING THAT UP. BECAUSE THIS IS PROBABLY, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE KEY AREAS TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF AT THE END OF THE DAY. WHAT IS THIS COUNCIL WANT MAJOR DRIVE TO LOOK LIKE? OKAY? SO. THE REQUEST IS FOR IT TO BECOME RESIDENTIAL, MULTI FAMILY DWELLING. CORRECT. YES, NOT COMMERCIAL. CORRECT OK, SO THAT'S RESTRICTED. THIS IS NOT THE MOST EXTENSIVE ZONING THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THEY'RE REQUESTING R. M H, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY HIGHEST DENSITY? UH, HIGHEST DENSITY. ZONING. SO I JUST HOPE WE HAVE AS MUCH, UH CONVERSATION AND CONCERNS WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A GAMING ROOM IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY EXPERIENCING THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES. I HOPE WE HAVE THE SAME CONCERN AS THAT WE'RE GIVING TO THIS PROJECT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE HIGHEST DENSITY. TRAVEL STREETS IN BEAUMONT. AND. THIS

[01:00:02]

IS NOT ASKING FOR THE MOST EXTENSIVE USE IN ZONING. SO ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN DURIO. HMM. SO THIS IS APPROVED FOR A REZONING WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT? NOT UNDER THIS ZONING FOR THIS PROPOSED USE. YES, SIR. ALSO IF AT A TIME, WHEN, UH UM THIS IF THIS PROJECT GOES THROUGH IF WE SEE A NEED FOR MORE TRAFFIC CONTROL AROUND THAT PROJECT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER DOING AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, STOPLIGHTS.

GOING IN AND OUT OF, UH, THE PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT . TEXT, STOCK CONTROL CORRIDOR.

BUT, BART, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? TEXT DIET RECENTLY DID A STUDY OF MAJOR DRIVE AS A WHOLE, UM AND INCORPORATED WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE THEM AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND SO, UM, THINGS THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IS LOWER SOME SPEED LIMITS ALONG THE WAY . THEY WORKED WITH THE CITY TO PUT A LIGHT IN THAT VILLAGE. WERE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THEM TO PUT A LIGHT IN AT NORTHWEST. UM PARKWAY THERE, SO THEY ARE REALIZING THE CHANGING TRAFFIC FLOWS ON MAJOR AS IT BECOMES BUSIER AND ARE LOOKING AT AT WHAT TO DO TO KEEP IT SAFE, SO AS AS IT BECOMES MORE DEVELOPED THAN THEY'RE RESPONDING, TEXTILE OKAY, ALSO, UM. THE DEVELOPER THAT'S DOING THESE APARTMENTS HAVE A HISTORY OF WORKING HERE IN BEAUMONT. I.

DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIS NAME, BUT I DON'T KNOW. WE CAN FIND OUT AND LET YOU KNOW. ONE LAST QUESTION. ON MAJOR DRIVE. YOU SPOKE ABOUT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS ON RACE DRIVE WOULDN'T HAVE YOU COULD YOU SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC ON MAJOR DRIVE WILL BE NORTH OF COLLEGE STREET? WELL, LET ME JUST. LET'S SEE. LET ME PULL SOME TEXT DOTS NUMBERS ROUGHLY IN THIS AREA.

AND SOME OF THESE ARE A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD. SOME OF THEM ARE MORE RECENT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 12,000 AVERAGE DAILY. IN THIS STRETCH OF MAJOR. IT LOOKS LIKE AS YOU GET NORTH OF FEELING AND STARTS TO BE MORE LIKE 19,000. AS YOU GET TOWARDS DELAWARE 25 OR EXCUSE ME, 45,000. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS DOWN HERE THAN WE THINK OF IN TERMS OF AROUND DELAWARE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHRIS. WELL I JUST LIKE TO ADD BEING IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BUSINESS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. OFTENTIMES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT APARTMENT COMPLEXES TO IT'S ABOUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF NEWER PROPERTIES BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE FAMILIES THAT ARE MOVING IN.

THAT PERHAPS AREN'T IN A POSITION TO BUY AND THEY'RE WANTING SOMETHING YOU DON'T BUY . YOU DON'T MOVE INTO APARTMENTS AND FIX THEM UP. THEY ARE IN THE CURRENT STATE. THEY'RE IN AND THEY'RE IN THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY'RE IN. SO THERE IS A LIFE CYCLE FOR HOMES FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING DEVELOPERS LOOK AT. AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE, UH, ME BEING NEWER, THE CITY COUNCIL AND I'VE BEEN LEARNING WE HAVE. WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND PLANNING AND ZONING AND MANY OF THE COUNCILMAN, WE HAD TO HAVE A QUORUM THERE TO HEAR THIS SO WE'RE NOT HEARING FOR IT THE FIRST TIME AND BUT THIS IS A CHANCE FOR US TO SPEAK ON IT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE PROCESSES WITH MANY DIFFERENT COMMITTEES THAT ARE MADE UP OF RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AS WELL.

AND SO THEY HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW SO I THINK, UH, WE CERTAINLY HAVE HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ON IT. SO AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THERE'S ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, I'D JUST LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER ONE. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH ANY OPPOSED OPPOSED. THE MOTION

[2. Council consider a resolution approving the proposal submitted by Preferred Facilities Group - USA to replace the roof membrane at the Beaumont Police Department located at 255 College Street.]

IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER. MAY WE HAVE THE READING ABOUT HIM? NUMBER TWO. YES MA'AM COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PREFERRED FACILITIES GROUP USA TO REPLACE THE ROOF MEMBRANE AT THE BEAUMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 2 55 COLLEGE STREET, THERE IS A NEED TO REPLACE THE ROOF MEMBRANE. IT WAS IT WAS DAMAGING, UH, HELLSTORM AND APRIL AND BASICALLY THIS IS SPRINGING. UH THIS TO YOU FOR IMMEDIATE NEED TO REPLACE THE

[01:05:03]

MEMBRANE AND APPROVAL. UH AND THEN TO AGREEMENT WITH PREFERRED FACILITIES GROUP TO DO SO.

ALRIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO? TO APPROVE SECOND. SPEND, MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER TO ANY DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN DURIO. UM SINCE THIS WAS DAMAGED DURING A HAILSTORM. WAS THERE NO INSURANCE TO COVER THIS. YES WE IT IS COVERED UNDER INSURANCE HAVE IN OUR LAB ADMINISTRATOR MISSED. ARSENAL'S COMING TO THE PODIUM. UM, AT THE TIME THAT THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED , WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING OUT FOR MORE INSURANCE, AND THERE WAS A FINANCIAL DECISION TO NOT ENCOURAGE AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT OUR BASICALLY CLAIM HISTORY TO APPEAR BAD AND THE COST. FOR WHAT WE WOULD HAVE PAID IN THE DEDUCTIBLE ON WHAT WE'RE PAYING OUT OF POCKET WAS SO MINIMAL THAT WE DECIDED TO JUST PAY YOU THE CLAIM, AND I'LL JUST LET MARISSA SPEAK TO THE REST OF IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER WHEN WE CAME WITH THE MOST RECENT INSURANCE PROPOSAL. UM, IT WASN'T THE FULL COVERAGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE HOPED TO OBTAIN. SO UM, WHEN THIS HAPPENED WHEN WE RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE POLICE BEING DAMAGED, IT WAS DURING THAT TIME WHERE WE WERE STILL TRYING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING INSURANCE. AFTER NOT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT INSURANCE. UH JUNE AND I STARTED WORKING ON GETTING INSURANCE THROUGH TML AND JOINING THE RISK FALL. AND SHOULD THAT NOT WORK, THEN WE WERE GOING TO GO OUT FOR BID AGAIN, UH, SOMETIME AROUND FEBRUARY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE IN MAY OF 2024 IN ORDER TO DO THAT AND GET BETTER NUMBERS AND BETTER COVERAGE THAN WHAT WE HAD THIS YEAR. OUR CLAIMS NEED TO BE DOWN. HOW MUCH OUR BROKER AND OUR CARRIERS PAID ALSO NEEDS TO BE DOWN. SO WITH US HAVING WANTED TO TAKE MORE RISK ON UM AND THAT RISK BEING SO CLOSE TO THIS NUMBER, WE DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST IN THE LONG RUN TO PAY FOR IT OUT OF POCKET VERSUS PUTTING PUTTING IT ON THE INSURANCE. I'M SORRY.

JUST FOR JUST FOR REFERENCE, UH , DEDUCTIBLE CAUSES AROUND $100,000. SO TO PAY $100,000 AND FOR THAT TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR CLAIM, HISTORY, THE RISK AND REWARD WAS JUST NOT THERE. AND WHAT'S THAT? UH, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO COST IS LIKE 370,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FOR US TO PAY FOR IT. I GUESS KEITH, THAT'S KEITH'S THING. NOW COME ON UP TO IT. EIGHT. 3 98, OKAY? YES, SIR. WE YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. YEAH THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS 398,004 16 88.

AND WE'RE BASICALLY GOING BACK. DOWN TO THE EXISTING ROOF SYSTEM . THAT'S THERE JUST LIKE WE DID PREVIOUSLY. SO WE ARE SAVING SOME COSTS BY DOING THAT. INSTEAD OF GOING BACK DOWN TO THE DECK. THE ROOF LEAKING? YES WE HAVE PLACED A TEMPORARY ICE AND WATER SHIELD MEMBRANE ON THERE TO BUY US TIME. WE MADE EXPENDITURES ON THAT. YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY PLANS TO REPLACE THIS BUILDING IN THE NEAR FUTURE I THINK WE'D LIKE TO, BUT THERE'S NOT ANY MEDIA PLANS.

ALRIGHT. COUNCILMAN TURNER. YES SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY INITIAL QUESTIONS. BUT CHRIS DIARIO, THANK YOU FOR ACCIDENT JUST IN THE FUTURE. WELL YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE IN THE FUTURE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE TYPES OF INVESTMENTS IF SIMILAR TO THE CIVIC CENTER WHEN MY OPINION PROUD OF ME BEING ON THE COUNCIL , THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SIDE. WHAT WATERWAY IS. YOU KNOW WHAT I ALWAYS THINK IT'S WAY MORE LOGICAL TO HAVE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND EVENTUALLY THINK LONG TERM TO OPEN UP THAT SIDE SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE RIVERFRONT AND WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE CIVIC CENTER LIKE WE KIND OF CONSIDERING NOW. I JUST WANT TO KEEP THOSE TYPE OF DECISIONS.

THE FUTURE IN MIND ALWAYS BEEN THIS TYPE OF MONEY SO WE CAN KIND OF LOOK AT. IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE'RE INTERESTED DOING THE FUTURE. I APPRECIATE IT, AND WE CERTAINLY ARE. COUNCIL MEMBER TURNER. AS WE DEVELOPED THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, WELL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

WE'RE CALLING IT NOW. WE ARE TAKING THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. IF YOU LOOK ON THE LONG TERM, GUESS WHAT IT'S A TERM FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. WE WERE HAVE THINGS LIKE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEGINNING TO HAVE A ISSUE WITH SPACE OVER THERE, AND

[01:10:07]

LIKEWISE WITH CONVENTION CENTER, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE FOR THINGS IN THE ON CRP FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. WE NEED. WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THOSE POLICEMEN ARE GETTING PRETTY JEALOUS OF ALL THESE NEW FIRE STATIONS AND DRUGS. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ADAM. NUMBER TWO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE AH! ANY OPPOSED MOTION PASSES OR IS CARRIED CITY MANAGER. CAN WE HAVE THE READING ABOUT THEM?

[3. Council consider a resolution to amend the Public Participation Plan for the CDBG/Housing Division.]

NUMBER THREE, PLEASE. COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE CDBG HOUSING. UH DIVISION HAS BASIC THEY AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN WITH THE U.

S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STAFFERS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. IS THERE. A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER THREE? GO TO APPROVE. SORRY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE. ANY DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN TURNER. I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT STAFF. UH, JUST SOME OF THESE THINGS I READ. A IS REALLY INTRIGUING IT WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS TO KIND OF GO INTO THE COMMUNITY AND ENGAGE MORE TO CITIZENS ON WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER. SO I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE TIME OUT TO COMPLEMENT THAT DEPARTMENT FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S A LOT OF EFFORT TO PHYSICALLY GOING TO COMMUNITY, EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ON SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO OFFER, AND I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. STAFF IS LISTENING AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE CAN'T COMMENT. THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER THREE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, ANY OPPOSED MOTION IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ OUT? UM, NUMBER FOUR? YES

[4. Conduct an election for Mayor Pro Tempore]

CONDUCT AN ELECTION FOR MAYOR. PRO TEMP, TIM. AH BASICALLY SHOULD SAY THE COUNCIL SHELLY LIKED. I MEAN, A PRO TEM FOR ONE YEAR TERM THAT ONE YEAR TERM IS ENDING IT AT THIS POINT, AND IT'S TIME FOR COUNSEL TO SELECT OUR VOTE AND OTHER VOTE A PERSON FROM THEIR PROTEIN.

IS THERE A MOTION? TO ELECT A NEW MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION WHERE WE NEED EMOTION. THAT'S THE MOTION. YOU'RE MAKING THE MOTION HOW THE FLOOR, UH, MOVED TO ELECT COUNCILMAN TURNER AS MAYOR PRO TEM SECOND, UH. OK, ANY DISCUSSION. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO ELECT COUNCILMAN TURNER IS MAYOR PRO TEM ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE AH, AND HE OPPOSED MOTION IS CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE SURE TO MOVE MY CAR. AH YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE 27. THE CITY MANAGER MAY ASK YOU TO PLEASE TAKE US INTO THE 1ST 1ST PUBLIC

[ Council conduct a public hearing and consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and execute a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation to receive Operating Assistance funds for the Zip bus system.]

HEARING. CONGRATULATIONS MAYOR. PROTEIN TURNER, UH, COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RECEIVE OPERATING ASSISTANCE FUNDS FOR THE ZIP BUT SYSTEM AND MAYOR. FEW OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE'LL BE THERE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. MAY WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? UH YES, SIR. SO THIS IS, UM EVERY YEAR TEXT DOT WILL ALLOCATE A GRANT FOR OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM AND THIS YEAR AND IT'S DONE THROUGH A FORMULA BASIS DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH FUNDING IS AVAILABLE AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND THEN IT'S RUN THROUGH A CALCULATOR IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH IS ALLOCATED. SO THIS IS, UM FUNDING FOR FY 2024 IN THE AMOUNT OF 496,904. THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. OKAY AT THIS

[01:15:01]

POINT WILL ALLOW TESTIMONY FROM ANY INTERESTED PARTIES. I DON'T HAVE ANY AT THIS TIME HERE. ALL

[ Council conduct a Public Hearing to consider amending Ordinance Number 03-048 to designate 3180 Park, a structure determined by Council to be unsafe and commercial on June 24, 2003, to now be designated as a residential structure and waive all demolition costs incurred by the City as well as interest charges or fees.]

RIGHT. THEN MAY WE PROCEED WITH THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING? YOU NEED TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT TO DO. CLOSING THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. COUNSEL COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-048 . TO THOSE DESIGNATE 31 80 PARK STRUCTURE DETERMINED BY COUNSEL TO BE UNSAFE AND COMMERCIAL ON JUNE 24 20 A MONTH JUNE 24TH 2003 TO NOW BE DESIGNATED AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND WAIVE ALL DEMOLITION COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY. AS WELL AS INTEREST CHARGES ARE FEES AND MAY EVERYWHERE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL PROCEED. YES THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR THE SECOND ITEM. AND CAN WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YES MAYOR. SO AS THE MANAGER MENTIONED, UM THIS ITEM GOES BACK TO, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND ENSUING ORDINANCE BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24 2003. UM AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS 31 80 PARK AND DURING THAT HEARING BACK IN 2003 THE STRUCTURE AT THAT LOCATION WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNSAFE AND ORDERED TO BE DEMOLISHED. UM AS YOU'LL RECALL, MAYBE FROM LAST WEEK, UH, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE ORDERED UNSAFE AND DEMOLISHED. WE THE CITY DO NOT CHARGE, UH, BEFORE THE DEMOLITION, AND WE DO NOT ATTACH ELAINE, WHEREAS COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES WE DO CHARGE FOR DEMOLITION. WE DO ATTACH, ELAINE , UM AND SO BACK IN AGAIN 2003 DURING THAT HEARING, THIS PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED AS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. AND. THE PROPERTY OF THE STRUCTURE, OF COURSE, WAS DEMOLISHED. UM EVENTUALLY A LIEN WAS ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY. IN THE ENSUING YEARS. UM MR DURDEN, WHO I BELIEVE IS HERE WHO IS AND WAS, THE OWNER HAS APPROACHED THE CITY OVER THE YEARS AND REQUESTED THAT THAT LEAN BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY. UM AND HIS ARGUMENT FOR HIS STATEMENT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NO LONGER BEING USED AS COMMERCIAL THAT WAS BEING OCCUPIED BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME AS RESIDENTIAL UM SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASICALLY NOT SUBJECT TO THAT.

ATTACHMENT OF THE LEAN IN CHARGES FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEMOLITION, SO UM AND AGAIN IN THE ENSUING YEARS, WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH MR DURDEN, AND WE'VE ASKED HIM IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTATION TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS WAS WAS OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL E. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I THINK HE TRIED TO FIND SOME SOME RECORDS, UM, AND WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE THEM AGAIN. IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, GOING ON 20 YEARS NOW, SO THAT'S CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDABLE. THE FLIP SIDE IS SOME OF OUR CITY RECORDS ARE NOT WE NO LONGER HAVE. SO WE HAVE MANY OF THEM. WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION. WE HAVE THE RECORDS THE MINUTES BUT WITH SOME OF OUR RECORDS, WE NO LONGER HAVE JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO LONG. SO AGAIN. MR MR DURDEN HAS AGAIN. ASKED IF HE COULD PLEAD TO THE MEGA PLEADED A COUNCIL TO PLEASE REMOVE, UM, TO REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL CHARGES AS THE PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL E BACK IN 2003, AND THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY'S HEARING. HERE OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY TESTIMONY FROM INTERESTED PARTIES? VERNON DURDEN.

THE COUNCIL MAYOR. I BROUGHT MY WIFE WITH ME TODAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN KIND OF TOUGH FOR ME.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA BE THAT TOUGH ON THE PRETTY LADY HERE TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT, TINA. BE NICE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR THIS HEARING. UM UR VERSE HAVE RECEIVED ACTUALLY, YOU SEE , THEY'RE TRYING TO SEND MOST OF YOU ALL THE EMAILS THAT I'VE BEEN SHARED WITH MR BOONE. I WANT TO FIRST UH, SAY THAT, UH, MR BOONE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AT RECEIVING MY EMAILS AND TRYING

[01:20:10]

TO ADDRESS IT BASED ON THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY. UM MR TURNER HAS SAID BEFORE AND ALSO MR BOOMED AT THESE ORDINANCES ARE EITHER OUTDATED OR DON'T ADDRESS EVERY PROBLEM. THE BUILDING WHEN I BOUGHT IT. IN 1992. I BOUGHT IT FROM REVEREND BR BROWN. HE ON THE CHURCH ON PINE STREET. HE WAS USING THE BUILDING AT THAT TIME. AS A RESIDENCE FOR A PARISHIONER. WHO WAS DOING WORK AT HIS CHURCH. AND HE WAS TRADING OFF THE SERVICES TO LIVE IN THAT BUILDING. TO DO THE JOHN TERRIER SERVICES AT HIS CHURCH AND ALSO REPAIRS. WHEN I BOUGHT IT. I USED HIM TO DO THE SAME THING IN THE BUILDING. IMAGINE. GETTING A CALL. OF A KID.

SOMEONE AT THE PARK. WITH A GUN. IMAGINE THE POLICEMAN ROLLING UP. SEEING A GUN. AND FIRING.

AND KILLING TAMIR RICE, A 12 YEAR OLD SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THAT THAT WAS A TOY GUN. THE BALL IS IN THE PARK. HE'S NO LONGER ALIVE. CALLED THE POLICEMAN AT THAT TIME DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER. ANOTHER PROJECT NOW CALLED PROJECT INNOCENCE. WHERE I D N A CAN BE CHECKED WITH PEOPLE TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY AT THE SITE OF THE CRIME. AND THE PEOPLE LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE D N A. WAS NOT THERE. TO THE PERSON CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY. THE DNA OF THIS BUILDING IS THAT THERE'S NO METAL. IT WAS BEING USED AS A RESIDENCE. THE MAN NAMED MR TOWN GOT MAIL THERE. HE HAD UTILITIES IN HIS NAME THERE. WHEN I BOUGHT IT. GOVERNMENT BROWNER ALREADY DISCONTINUED THE BUSINESS OF A PLATING SHOP. PART OF THE PROBLEM COULD BE THAT I BOUGHT ONE PART OF THE BUILDING. MR SPIKES BOUGHT ANOTHER PART THAT THEY DID USE OTHER CONSTRUCTION AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. THAT BUILDING STILL STANDS THIS METAL HAS PIPE. YES, TROLLEYS. AND THE BIG ELECTRICAL BOX THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE ONE I HAD WAS ALL WOOD. NO CONCRETE.

NO METAL. I DID HAVE SOME MEETINGS WITH MR BOOM. AND HE DID ASK ME ABOUT ANY DOCUMENTS, AND I SHARE IT WITH HIM. AND IN A DOCUMENT THAT I MAY HAVE HAD, WE'VE HAD THREE STORMS SINCE THEN. AND I DON'T. I TOLD HIM THE ONLY DOCUMENT I WOULD KEEP THIS PROBABLY STILL HAVE IN RESERVE IS MY MARRIAGE LICENSE. AND I'M MARRIED HER NOW BECAUSE I WANT TO LIVE WITH HER, BUT BECAUSE I COULDN'T LIVE WITHOUT HER. HER BIRTHDAY IS COMING UP ON THE 27TH. ONE OF THE ORDINANCES THAT YOU HAVE IS ALSO OUTDATED IS THE ONE ABOUT RESIDENCY. AND BEING ACKNOWLEDGED IN THIS CITY. YOU HAD A TIME HERE. WE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE PEOPLE BEEN MARRIED 50 YEARS. APPLIED FOR THAT. BUT WE WERE TURNED DOWN BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY TO BE RECOGNIZED. WE'VE BEEN MARRIED 53 YEARS. AUTUMN WOULD SAY. I SHOULD GET A MEDAL. FROM HER TO BEING MARRIED TO HER, BUT I DID GIVE HIM A MEDAL.

GOLD. SO ANYWAY. I, UH. HOLD THAT THE BUILDING WAS NEVER A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. I NEVER USED THAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE BUSINESS HAD ALREADY BEEN SHUT DOWN IN THE MID EIGHTIES.

THIS BUILDING WAS BOUGHT WHEN MIRROR EVELYN LORD WAS A MIRROR ABOUT SIX MURALS AGO. AND I'VE TALKED TO MR BOONE AND HE IS STRAPPED WITH AN OMINOUS AS OUTDATED. AND ANTIQUATED. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS EVERY SITUATION. IF THE ORDINANCE WILL HAVE SAID LAST USE OF PRIOR USE

[01:25:04]

OUR CURRENT USE OF THE BUILDING WE WOULD NOT BE STANDING HERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. I RECEIVED A LOT OF LETTERS FROM THE CITY SUMMER OPEN. UM, I DON'T I GOT THIS ONE SOMETIME LAST YEAR. AND UH, I HATE TO TELL YOU ALMOST OF MY THROW THEM AWAY. I DO OPEN THEM OCCASIONALLY TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THIS ONE CAME. JANUARY OF 23 OPENED THIS ONE SAW THAT THE LANGUAGE STILL THERE AND THIS ONE. CAME THE YEAR BEFORE. I DIDN'T EVEN OPEN IT. SO I DON'T PLAN ON OPEN IT. MM HMM. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY POSITION. IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT THE TIME. WHEN I BOUGHT IT AS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WHEN I HAD IT. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. NO, SIR. THAT'S IT. THERE COULD BE A CHECK IN THAT ENVELOPE. YEAH, IT IS. WHEN WE MET. MR CITY MANAGER . MAY WE HAVE THE READING? OH I GOTTA CLOSE THE PUBLIC. I WAS CHECKING IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD FORCED QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR QUESTIONS FOR INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE STATE OCCURRED DURING PUBLIC HEARING. THEY DIDN'T COVER THAT IN MY TRAINING LAST WEEK, SO THANK YOU. UH SO ARE IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AH, I'VE GOT COUNCILMAN GETS COUNCILMAN DURIO. COUNCILMAN GETS THE FIRST . UM MR BOONE, 31 80 PARK. WHEN IT WAS BEING USED AS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. WHAT WAS THIS BUILDING? IT WAS A PLATING COMPANY AT THE TIME. UH, WHAT I DIDN'T SHARE. MY WIFE TOLD ME DON'T BE UP THERE DOING A LOT OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT WAS, SHE SAID. JUST GET TO THE FACT, SHE SAID. PEOPLE GOT COMMENTS SINCE JUST GIVEN THE FACTS, THEY'LL WORK IT OUT. SO IT WAS A PLATING SHOP. REVEREND BROWN HAD A PLATING BUSINESS. HIS HEALTH BEGAN FAILING BUSINESS. WHAT IS THAT PLATING? CHROME YOU YOU PLAY DIFFERENT ITEMS. I HAD A MOTORCYCLE ROBIN BROWN. I LIVED IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD IN BLOSSOM AREA. HIS HEALTH BEGAN FAILING HIM, SO HE CLOSED THE BUSINESS AND THE AND, UH, THE BUILDINGS WERE SITTING THERE VACANT. SO HE PUT HIM UP TO SELL . HE CONTACTED ME ABOUT ONE BUILDING BECAUSE AT THE TIME I HAVE SOME ROOM PROPERTY VACANT LOT NOW IT'S A VACANT LOT. NOW IT IS, BUT THE OTHER BUILDING THAT SHARE THE SAME ADDRESS. 31 80 IS STILL STANDING. NO ONE'S WORKING THERE. THERE'S NOT A BUSINESS THERE, BUT IT'S STILL THERE WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS PUT ON THE DEMOLITION LIST. BACK IN 2003, AND WE'VE GOT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED COPIES OF THAT. UM. YOU OWN THE BUILDING AT THAT TIME. IS THAT RIGHT? I STILL OWN THE PROPERTY. NOW THE OKAY UH AND I SEE THAT IT WAS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL BACK THEN. WHY DIDN'T YOU APPEAR BEFORE COUNCIL AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE. THIS ISN'T A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, OR IT'S A BUILDING THAT'S BEING USED AS RESIDENTS BACK IN 2003 EXCELLENT QUESTION. ACTUALLY SAME QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME. HE TOLD ME WE FINALLY GOT A GOOD ADDRESS ON YOU. SO I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. IT COULD BE ALSO THAT THE OTHER PROPERTY IS ALSO DESIGNATED 3RD 1 80. I EVEN WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE UPSTAIRS AND TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT. AND THEY TOLD ME YOU DON'T EVEN OWN THAT PROPERTY, SO I LEFT. SO YOU ARE YOU SAYING YOU HAD NO NOTICE THAT THIS WAS BEING PUT ON THE DEMOLITION LIST INFORMATION THAT IT WAS DEMOLISHED WHEN A MAN CAME AND ASKED ME COULD HE RENT THE BUILDING TO STORE ITEMS IN IT? THAT WAS BEFORE IT'S DEMOLISHED. AFTER THE MOST AFTER BEFORE DO MARSHA'S. HOW DID THAT GO DOWN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID SOMEBODY CAME TO YOU TO ASK IF THEY COULD RENT SOME SPACE OUT OF THAT BUILDING TO STORE SOMETHING. WHAT? WHAT, THEN TRIGGERED YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS HONORED DEMOLITION LIST. UP RECEIVED A NOTICE IN THE MAIL.

OF THE DEMOLITION LEAN. ALREADY BEEN PUT ON THE BUILDING BECAUSE YEAH. HOW COULD IT BE PUT ON THE BUILDING IF IT WAS DEMOLISHED. SAY AGAIN. MAYBE I'M NOT. COMMUNICATING. ELAINE'S ONLY PUT

[01:30:04]

ON THE BUILDING AFTER IT'S DEMOLISHED. SOMEBODY CAME TO YOU BEFORE IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND ASK IF YOU COULD RENT SPACE IN THE BUILDING. YES. HMM SO THERE'S NO LEAD AT THAT TIME. NO. AND IN THAT PROCESS OF SOMEBODY COMING TO YOU AND ASKING YOU IF YOU COULD READ HIM SOME SPACE IN THAT BUILDING IS THAT WHEN YOU FOUND OUT THAT THIS BUILDING WAS SCHEDULED TO BE DEMOLISHED IT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, SO WHAT MY WIFE DID, UH, CONDITION I HAD TO DO WAS GO DIRTY IN THIS MEETING. I RECEIVED NOTHING ON THIS BUILDING FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. AND AFTER AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME I STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES ABOUT THIS LEAN. WHY IT CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW. WOW. BUT I'M GONNA GO HIGH. GO LOW HERE. AH! BUT. IT DISAPPEARED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT CAME BACK. NO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THERE IF YOU HAD NOTICE. FOR THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME IN 2003 DECIDED THAT YES, WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND ENTER IN ORDER TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. IF YOU HAD NOTICED THAT THE COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING DOING THAT. DID YOU HAVE NOTICED THAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING DOING THAT? YOU KNOW , YOU DID NOT KNOW. OKAY SO IF YOU HAD NO NOTICE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN TO COME TO COUNCIL DID NOT PUT THE BUILDING ON A, UH WE HAVE THESE PROGRAMS TO REPAIR BECAUSE, LIKE I MENTIONED , UH FEW HURRICANES CAME. IF YOU READ THE EMAILS ARE SENT THE PERSON LIVING THERE LEFT IN THE, UH, IN THE NIGHT. HE MOVED AWAY. I LEARNED THAT FROM A FELLOW GOLFER THAT HE MOVED AWAY. UM I HAVE A BEAUMONT. POST OFFICE THAT SAYS WEST FAIR, WROTE 7713, BEAUMONT, TEXAS, OR WHETHER YOU KNOW NOW I LIVE OUT IN THE CHINA AREA, WHICH IS ABOUT 30 MINUTES AWAY. SO I DIDN'T HAVE THE OCCASION TO BE AT THE BUILDING AT THAT SITE VERY OFTEN. OKAY SO THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FOR MISREAD OR MR BAIN. DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY RECORDS OF UH, SENDING. MR DARDEN AND NOTICE OUT OF HIS CHINA ADDRESS. SAYING THAT AND THIS IS WOULD BE BACK IN 2003. AH TRYING TO SAY THAT A YOUR PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE PUT ON A DEMOLITION LIST. AND THIS IS YOUR NOTICE TO COME AND SPEAK TO US AND ASKED FOR RELIEF. THE ONLY RECORDS WE HAVE ARE THE ORDINANCE. AND THE ONLY IN OTHER WORDS, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE SO THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THEIR ATTENTION SCHEDULE, BUT THERE WERE LAW WOULD REQUIRE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS THAT'S POSTED FOR THE PROPERTY ON JK. SO WHATEVER THE PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS LISTED AT THE TIME IN 2003 ON JAKE, IT IS WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE SENT THE NOTICE. SO THERE I WAS IN CHINA TO HIS P O BOX. AND MAYOR.

IF I COULD, I CAN AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF DETAILED TO THE TIMELINE SO AND THIS MAY HELP.

THE DEMOLITION CHARGE WAS ENTERED INTO THE FINANCE SYSTEM MAY 26TH 2004. IT WAS SENT TO COLLECTIONS. JULY 15TH 5. THE LIEN WAS FILED OCTOBER 11TH 2007. UM, EMAILED STATEMENTS.

EXCUSE ME. WE MAILED STATEMENTS . THIS WOULD BE THE CITY MAILED STATEMENTS TO P O BOX. 66 28 BEAUMONT, TEXAS. AND THEN SUPPRESS THE MAIL WHEN IT WAS RETURNED BY THE POST OFFICE, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHEN, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO NOTES IN THEIR SYSTEM. I'M READING AN EMAIL FROM ONE OF OUR STAFF. SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE TIMELINE IN TERMS OF THE BILLING VERSUS THE LIEN. BUT THAT'S AFTER THE DEMOLITION HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. SO YES, SIR. SO WHAT I'M GATHERING IS THAT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD AH! COUNTER MR DARDEN STATEMENT. THERE. I NEVER GOT A NOTICE THAT COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING DEMOLITION OF THIS PROPERTY AND YOU KNOW, IF I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. AH SPOKEN UP. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND OUR RECORDS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE. NO, SIR. OKAY? OH, MADAM

[01:35:05]

ATTORNEY. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ANY LEGAL REASONS WHY WE CAN OR CAN'T DO THIS APPROVED THIS? ACTUALLY, NO. OKAY IT'S WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION. COUNCIL MYSELF. MHM PEYTON. NATURALLY NOT YET. NOT YET NOT YET GOT A WEEK LEFT TO TWO THIRDS BAD COUNCILMAN. MY BAD, MADAM ATTORNEY. SO UH, I HAVE NO PROOF THAT THERE HAS BEEN NOTICED GIVEN ON THE DEMOLITION TO MR DERN, DO WE? THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND NEGATED. NO, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? PROTEIN PROTEIN. UH AND IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS JUST THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT JUST STANDARD. THAT IT WOULD TAKE THIS LONG FOR US TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND IT'S YES OR SO WE SENT A BILL IMMEDIATELY AND AGAIN THE CITY AS WE WENT THROUGH LAST WEEK. I GUESS THE CITY NEVER WANTS TO BE IN THE POSITION TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN AND BUILDING BECAUSE WE'RE USING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS WHETHER THEIR LOCAL OR FEDERAL TAX TAYLOR TAXPAYERS DOLLARS TO DO THE DEMOLITION WORK, RIGHT, AND THEN WE SEND THE BILL IMMEDIATELY AGAIN, TRYING TO RECAPTURE SOME OF THAT. HMM HMM. AND ONLY WHEN WE DON'T GET PAID . DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT FILING A LIEN FOR COMMERCIAL WITH THE HOPE THAT YOU KNOW, ONE DAY WE DO GET OUR MONEY BACK. UM AND IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED. IT'S IN THE SECOND PAGE OF THE, UH SECOND PAGE OF THE MEMO HERE, YOU KNOW THE ORIGINAL, I GUESS, KIND OF THE COST TO THE CITY FOR THE DEMOLITION WAS 9029. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE. YOU KNOW, THE INTEREST IS ACCRUED OVER TIME, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE AMOUNT OF IT IS NOW. 23 SO IT'S WELL OVER TWICE JUST BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST ACCRUED OVER TIME. MR DURDEN. WHEN DID YOU ACTUALLY FIND OUT THAT THE BOBCATS AND BACKHOES WERE THERE TO TEAR DOWN YOUR BUILDING WHERE I MEAN, WERE YOU THERE ON SCENE WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BEING TORN DOWN? NO. YOU FOUND OUT AFTER THE FACT THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A BEEN TORN DOWN? YES. THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO YOU THAT THAT HAD HAPPENED. SOMEWHERE. SOMEWHAT. THE BONE PROPERTY AND SOMEBODY TEARS IT DOWN. I'M GONNA HAVE A REACTION OF SOME KIND. DID YOU? I DID. WHAT DID YOU DO? I GOT ANGRY. OF COURSE. I MEAN, I GOTTA BUILDING TORN DOWN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME , YOU KNOW, UM THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MORE PRIORITY FOR ME. AH! MY PERSONAL LIFE. UH, FOR THAT PASSED AWAY. MY MOTHER IS LIVING HOME BY HERSELF. I RETIRED EARLY TO BE TO TAKE CARE OF MY MOM. SO HMM. THAT TOOK PRESIDENTS. AS IT SHOULD, UH, BUILDING AT THE TIME IT WAS TORN DOWN. WHAT WAS THE VALUE THAT HAVE? I DON'T KNOW. CHRISTINA SO LONG AGO. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REMEMBER. HI. LET ME SEE. YORK.

I DON'T. JAKE HAD HAS SOME APPRAISAL RECORDS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT GOES BACK THAT FAR. I JUST WANT TO KNOW I HAVE THE CAP ON THAT SAYS, UH, IT'S LIKE THESE GUYS THAT FLEW THE AIRPLANE. MHM, TUSKEGEE AIRMAN. THEY COULD ACTUALLY FLY. AND THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO FLY. IN WORLD WAR TWO BECAUSE SOMEONE FELT THAT THEY COULDN'T FLY THE AIRPLANE. ELEANOR ROOSEVELT WENT TO THAT. BASE IN FLUID AIRPLANE. IT TOOK AN EXECUTIVE ORDER. TO LET THE TUSKEGEE AIRMAN FLY. AN ESCORT BOMBERS. AND THEY DID NOT LOSE A ONE. I'M REQUESTING EXECUTIVE ORDER NOTHING ELSE TO

[01:40:08]

REMOVE THIS LEAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING? MAYOR.

JUST, UM. SORT OF ANSWER. COUNCILMAN GETS QUESTION THAT JAKE HAD RECORDS GO BACK TO 2005 , WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN, OF COURSE AFTER THE DEMOLITION, SO THE LAND MARKET THE VALUE OF THE LAND WAS $1850. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION. IF THERE.

OKAY I'VE GOTTA SAYING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS. LAST NOTICE WAS 1800. UM WELL, SO BACK TO I WAS TRYING TO LOOK BACK TO THE EARLIEST APPRAISAL THAT OR VALUE OF THE FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, BUT IT ONLY GOES BACK TO 2005. AND SO THE LAND MARKET GIVEN WAS 18 50.

JUST FOR THE LAND. 40 NOW. THE SAME. OUT OF THE DISCUSSION BY ANY INTERESTED PARTIES OR COUNCIL. THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. WILL YOU TAKE US? UH, PLEASE READ. READ THEM OUT. UM, NUMBER FIVE, OKAY? COUNCIL CONDUCTING CONSIDER RESOLUTION

[5. Council conduct a public hearing and consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and execute a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation to receive Operating Assistance funds for the Zip.]

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTED CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. TO RECEIVE OPERATING ASSISTANCE FUNDS FOR THE ZIP YOU HAVE HEARD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GOTTEN INPUT ON THIS AND. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE? MOVE TO A PROOF. SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ATOM NUMBER FIVE AND HE DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN DURIO. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, SPEAKING OF SPEAKING TO SOMEONE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOME OF THE HOURS FOR THE ZIP COULD BE EXTENDED. SOME FOLKS WORK NIGHTS, SOME PEOPLE WERE GRAVEYARDS ■OR SOME PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR THE JOB AND TRANSPORTATION IS KEEPING THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO GET ONE. SO I WOULD JUST ASK IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT TRANSFER FOLKS COULD LOOK INTO THE WAY I HAVE AN IDEA. FOLLOWING THE REQUEST MIDNIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THE X OKAY? MM HMM. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ADAM. NUMBER FIVE.

PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, OPPOSED. MOTION IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER CAN WE HAVE THE

[6. Council conduct a public hearing and consider amending Ordinance Number 03-048 to designate 3180 Park, a structure determined by Council to be unsafe and commercial on June 24, 2003, to now be designated as a residential structure and waive all demolition costs incurred by the City as well as interest charges or fees.]

READING OF ADAM? NUMBER SIX? YES COUNCIL CONSIDERED AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 0 3 DASH SERIAL 048 TO DESIGNATE 31 80 PARK STRUCTURED DETERMINED BY COUNSEL TO BE UNSAFE AND COMMERCIAL ON JUNE 24TH 2003 TO NOW BE DESIGNATED AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND WAIVE ALL DEMOLITION COSTS AND CARRIED BY THE CITY AS WELL AS INTEREST CHARGES OF PEACE. YOU'VE HEARD HEARD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW COUNSELORS. UH OH. ASKED TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ORDINANCE.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR AMENDING THE ORDINANCE FOR NUMBER SIX. SO MOVE. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL OF ADAM. NUMBER SIX. ANY DISCUSSION . ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER SIX. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, ANY OPPOSED MOTION IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER

[ Work Session to review and discuss the proposed Street Rehabilitation Citywide – Phase V project.]

. CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE US INTO THE WORK SESSION? YES MAYOR. WORK SESSION WORK SESSION TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE PROPOSED STREET. REBEL IRRITATION. CITYWIDE FACE FIVE PROJECT. THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK REPAIRING STREETS. AROUND TOWN AND WHERE WE ARE COMING TO YOU TODAY. PARTS COMING TO YOU TODAY FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT. MAYOR COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. PLUG THIS IN.

[01:45:29]

SO WE'RE APPROACHING THE END OF STREET REHABILITATION PHASE FOUR AND WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT OUT PHASE FIVE FORBID. UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PAYMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT THAT CAME AND, UH, SERVED THE CITY. WE'RE PUTTING $8 MILLION A YEAR IN THE STREET REHAB WITH THE GOAL TO GET UP TO A 69 AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD. HMM MAYBE IT HELPED TURN THAT ON. SO WE MAINTAIN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MAINTAIN 642 CENTERLINE MILES OF ROADWAY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION , AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PATCH ART. THE MAJORITY OF THESE STREETS ARE ASPHALT PAYMENT, 57.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS BUILDS AND MANAGES THE PROGRAM, AND IT DOESN'T JUST CONSIST OF THE MILLING AND OVERLAY FOR THE STREET REHAB THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR PAVEMENT MARKINGS. BRICK SIDEWALK REPAIR AND PAVEMENT PRESERVATION, WHICH WE HAD ADDED THIS YEAR IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL STREET REHAB THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. 8 MILLION A YEAR'S CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR THE PROGRAM, WITH THE MAJORITY OF THIS MONEY BEING SPENT ON ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECTS THE MAP ON YOUR DISPLAY RIGHT NOW ILLUSTRATES THE WORK THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED FOR STREET REHAB PHASE ONE THROUGH FOUR IN ADDITION TO THE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PHASE ONE WITH ALL OF THIS WORK BEING SPLIT ROUGHLY EVENLY. 25% BETWEEN WARDS ONE THROUGH FOUR. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORANGE AND THE GREEN AND THE RED? THE GREEN IS DONE. THE REDS TO BE DONE ORANGES UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND I'LL SHOW A LITTLE BIT LATER. I'LL GO TO OUR WEBSITE. I'LL SHOW WE DON'T HAVE THEM COMBINED ALL NECESSARILY ONE, BUT WE DO HAVE LIVE MAPS ON THE WEBSITE THAT SHOW THE CURRENT PHASES AND THE PAST PHASES OF WORK BEING DONE WITH THE COLOR CODE AND THE LEGEND ON THAT. THIS IS A LITTLE DENSE, BUT IT GETS ALL INFORMATION ON ONE PAGE, SO I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT. THE OVERALL SURVEYED PC. I BROUGHT PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX ASSESSED IN 2019 WAS A 67. UM I BELIEVE IN 2011. WHICH WAS THE FIRST TIME WE EVER DID IT. IT WAS A 63. SO WHEN WE FIRST ASSISTED IT WAS A 63 COUNCIL INVESTED MONEY AND IMPROVING THE ROADWAY SYSTEM AND 2019. WE HAD GOTTEN IT UP TO 67 WERE CONTINUING TO INVEST WITH THE GOAL TO GET IT UP TO 69 BY THE. 2025 IS THE END OF THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS PUTS A LOT OF INFORMATION ON ONE PAGE, BUT, UM, IN THE WARD BREAKDOWNS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE THE ONES THAT EXIST WITH THE NEWLY REDRAWN WARD LINES THAT THAT RECENTLY OCCURRED. SO 20% OF THE ROADWAY MILES WITHIN THE CITY OR IN WARD 1 19% OF THEM AND WORK TO AWARD THREE IS 33% OF THE LARGEST NUMBER AND WARD FOUR HAS 28% OF THE OVERALL ROAD MILES AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. UM WE HAVE THE BREAKDOWN, ASPHALT OR CONCRETE WITHIN EACH OF THE WARDS. AND THEN THE AVERAGE PC I AS A WHOLE WITHIN THE WARD, AND I HAVE THEM DOWN PER EITHER ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WHILE WE'VE SPLIT THE WARDS EVENLY BY POPULATION OR BY CITIZEN WERE NOT EVENLY SPLIT BY ROAD MILES WITHIN THE CITY. WE HAVE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF ROAD MILES, AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT WORDS, ONE AND TWO, WE HAVE HIGHER PC RATINGS OVERALL. I'D SAID OUR GOAL WAS TO GET UP TO A 69 OVERALL IN THE CITY BY 2025. YOU CAN SEE WHERE ABOVE THAT IN WARDS ONE AND TWO. CURRENTLY IN FACT, WAR TWO HAS A 78 PCT RATING. AWARDS THREE AND FOUR ARE TRAILING BEHIND THAT THE CONCRETE IS DOING REALLY WHAT? WELL WITHIN WARDS THREE AND FOUR. YOU CAN SEE THE PCR AND