[1. Council consider a Resolution supporting Lance Equity Partners, LLC, a proposed Housing Tax Credit (HTC) project located at 980 Broadway, acknowledging that Beaumont has more than twice the state average of units per capita supported by Tax Credits, and offering expressed support for the proposed project and a commitment of funding in the form of a fee waiver not to exceed $500.00.]

SIR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LANCE EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, A PROPOSED HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT LOCATED AT 980 BROADWAY.

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT BEAUMONT HAS MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE OF UNITS PER CAPITA, SUPPORTED BY TAX CREDITS AND OFFERING EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND A COMMITMENT OF FUNDING IN THE FORM OF A FEE WAIVER NOT TO EXCEED $500.

LANCE EQUITY PARTNERS OF HOUSTON IS PROPOSING TO APPLY FOR THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 4% TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TO DEVELOP THE CATHEDRAL ON BROADWAY. THE PROPOSED $60 MILLION MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 980 BROADWAY WOULD FEATURE 220 ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, RETAIL SPACE TO SUPPORT LOCAL DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES, INCLUDING A PLAYGROUND, COURTYARD AND SWIMMING POOL. UNDER THE CITY'S SCORING CRITERIA, THE CATHEDRAL ON BROADWAY RECEIVED 24 POINTS FOR PROXIMITY TO AMENITIES.

AS MENTIONED, CURRENTLY, BEAUMONT HAS MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE OF HOUSING UNITS SUPPORTED BY TAX CREDITS OR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS PER CAPITA.

AS SUCH, ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIZED UNITS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS UNLESS THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT BEAUMONT HAS MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE OF UNITS SUPPORTED BY TAX CREDITS.

IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERED RATHER.

THE CITY WOULD ALSO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROJECT IS IN A CENSUS TRACT THAT HAS MORE THAN 20% HOUSING TAX CREDITS PER TOTAL HOUSEHOLD.

IN ADDITION, APPLICATIONS THAT RECEIVE COMMITTED COMMITMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 IN THE FORM OF A FEE WAIVER WOULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

AND WITH THAT, THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION, AS IS TYPICAL WITH HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECTS.

BUT THAT IS WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER ONE.

MAKE A MOTION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

SECOND. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR.

I'M ASSUMING THAT'S APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE.

AND NOW WE'LL MOVE INTO DISCUSSIONS AND. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS HERE ON THE SHEET, IT CALLS IT ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING.

AND EARLIER WHEN THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE, HE CALLED IT LUXURY APARTMENTS.

SO WHICH IS IT. AND, AND OUR OUR ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, TYPICALLY LUXURY UNITS OR CAN CAN SOMEBODY. SO WE'LL INVITE THE DEVELOPER UP TO ANSWER A QUESTION.

I WILL SAY IN YOUR PACKET IS A IS THE AN OVERVIEW OF OF THE PROPOSAL.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE TABLE THAT THERE'S A MIX OF INCOME AT BOTH THE 50%, 60% AND 70% AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

AND THAT TRANSLATES TO A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL BASED ON THE NUMBER OF FOLKS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

BUT WE'LL INVITE THE, THE APPLICANT TO TO ADD ON TO THAT. SURE.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS IT IS LUXURY.

[01:15:03]

IT'S STILL IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY BUILD WITH MARKET RATE APARTMENTS.

SO WHEN I SAY LUXURY, I, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY THE AMENITIES THAT ARE PROVIDED.

AND WHAT WE PLAN TO BRING THERE, BECAUSE THERE WILL ALSO BE A FIRST FLOOR MIXED USE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO LEASE OUT THAT SPACE AS WELL. SO THAT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN 6000 TO 8000FT² OF RETAIL SPACE THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE.

TO IN OUR VISION, WE SEE A SMOOTHIE, A SMOOTHIE KING, A ICE CREAM SHOP, A NAIL SALON, MAYBE A BURGER RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. YES.

COUNCILMAN. SO ARE YOU COMPETING WITH HOTELS OR ARE YOU COMPETING WITH APARTMENT COMPLEXES? NO, THIS IS STRICTLY APARTMENT COMPLEXES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND SLIDE THAT I PROVIDED YOU WITH IT SHOWS YOU WHERE THE INCOME LIMITS WHERE, WHEN WE APPLY FOR THE 4% TAX CREDIT WHAT WE ARE BOUND TO, IT ALSO SHOWS YOU THE, THE RENT LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL LOOK TO LIVE IN THESE UNITS.

AND THEN THE THIRD GRAPH, I KIND OF SHARE THE COMPARISON BETWEEN MARKET RATE AND THE RATE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE BASED OFF OF THAT.

HOW DO YOU RECONCILE MR. WILLIAMS QUESTION ABOUT LUXURY THAT YOU USE THE WORD EARLIER? AND I DON'T SEE LUXURY IN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO US.

WHAT? WHAT MADE YOU CALL IT LUXURY EARLIER? IF YOUR PRESENTATION TO US DOESN'T USE LUXURY.

RIGHT. SO WHAT? WHEN I SAY LUXURY, I'M SPEAKING TO THE AMENITIES THAT ARE INSIDE YOUR UNIT.

SO WE'RE IN, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I PROVIDED THAT ON THAT.

IS THAT THE POOL? NOT ONLY THE POOL, THE DOG PARK, THE COMMUNITY CENTER, THE BUSINESS CENTER WITHIN THE UNITS, WITHIN THE COMPLEX, ALSO THE SELF-CONTAINED PARKING THAT'S ON SITE, THE INSIDE THE UNITS, YOU WILL HAVE WASHERS AND DRYERS. YOU WILL HAVE LUXURY VINYL FLOORING, NO CARPET.

SO IT'S MORE LIKE AN OPEN SPACE CITY LIVING THAT YOU'LL SEE IN MOST HIGH IN MOST DOWNTOWN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND YOUR PROPOSAL IS TO TEAR DOWN THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH.

THIS WOULD REPLACE THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. AND BROADWAY AROUND THAT AREA MAY BE IN ONE CONDITION, BUT BROADWAY, A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD IS A PRETTY ROUGH ROAD.

IT'S HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT AND WOULD YOU CONSIDER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THE BROADWAY AREA IN ORDER TO, TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK? SO WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE SITE IN WHICH WE'RE DEALING WITH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE, FROM THE TAX CREDIT PERSPECTIVE.

BUT IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE, WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS COULD BE.

WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE YOU DONE AN ACTUAL PROJECT AS YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE? SO THIS WILL BE THE FIRST CITY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THIS WITH.

HOWEVER, OUR COUNTERPART, MOST OF MY PARTNERS THAT I PLAN TO HIRE WITHIN THIS WITH WITH FOR THIS PROJECT, THEY HAVE OVER 30 YEARS IN 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN BRINGING THESE DEVELOPMENTS FORWARD.

WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE YOU DONE THAT MAYBE NOT BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS, BUT ARE IN ANY WAY SIMILAR? SO OUTSIDE OF MY MY CURRENT EXPERIENCE AS FAR AS A RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDER I DO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITHIN CONSULTING FIRMS, WHICH I'VE WORKED FOR IN THE, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AFTER GRADUATING FROM BUSINESS SCHOOL AND PROVIDING THE CONSULTING BEHIND A LOT OF THOSE BIGGER DEVELOPMENTS. WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THIS IS YOUR FIRST PROJECT OF THIS TYPE? THIS WOULD BE MY PARTICULAR FIRST PROJECT. HOWEVER, MY, MY EVERYONE THAT I'LL BE PUTTING IN PLACE THAT'S A PART OF MY TEAM.

THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE. AND HAVE YOU PITCHED THIS TO ANY OTHER CITIES OR WHERE YOU'RE GETTING.

SO WHAT BROUGHT ME TO BEAUMONT IS I'M, I'M A GRADUATE OF LAMAR UNIVERSITY.

SO YOU KNOW, AT MY TIME HERE, I EXPERIENCED A LOT.

I SAW A LOT. THIS WAS THE PLACE THAT GAVE ME MY FIRST OPPORTUNITY IN, IN LIFE.

RIGHT. AND SO FOR ME TO COME BACK HERE AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE, THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, I WAS ABLE, I WAS ENAMORED BY THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOMETHING THAT'S GREAT FOR THE CITY.

[01:20:02]

SO YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I'VE MET ALONG MY JOURNEY THROUGH LIFE.

AND FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I GRADUATED COLLEGE, THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT STAYED BEHIND THAT WERE ABLE TO HAVE EMPLOYMENT HERE IN THE CITY, AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO STAY AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ATTAINABLE HOUSING COMMUNITIES LIKE THIS.

AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD AFFORD THAT WASN'T GOING TO BREAK THEIR POCKETBOOK, BUT IT GAVE THEM A LEG UP IN TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD IN THEIR CAREER.

COUNCILMAN COUNCIL, COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD AND COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS GO AHEAD WITH MY ASSEMBLY.

SO IN THIS CURRENT PHASE, STAFF CAN JUMP IN IF MAYBE THE QUESTION ISN'T ATTAINABLE TO HIM IN THE CURRENT PHASE, IF HE DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

YEAH, WE CAN PROBABLY APPROVE IT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE PROJECT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORK? HOW DOES THIS WORK FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING IT MAYBE DON'T UNDERSTAND? YES I CAN. LET ME JUST ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WE LOOK AT HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECTS IN FEBRUARY OF EACH YEAR, AND WE USUALLY MIGHT HAVE MULTIPLE APPLICANTS.

THEY COME FORWARD AND COUNCIL CONSIDERS THEM AND DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TO SUPPORT ONE, SOME OR NONE OF THEM.

THOSE ARE 9% CREDITS. AND SO THEY'RE MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE.

THIS IS A 4% CREDIT, BUT IT'S. THIS PROGRAM IS ALL MANAGED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO TO GET THIS FUNDING.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE BEAUMONT HAS MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE PER CAPITA OF THESE UNITS, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY THE DEVELOPMENT GETS A BLESSING AND OR A NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND SO THIS IS NOT A CITY PROJECT. IT IS SIMPLY REQUIRED THAT THE CITY ALLOW THE APPLICATION TO GO FORWARD TO THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND I WANT THAT POINT OF CLARIFICATION. EARLIER, STAFF MADE A PRESENTATION AT A BUDGET WORKSHOP THAT OUR MEDIAN EMPLOYMENT INCOME SALARY WAS $46,000 BECAUSE SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, THE MEDIAN CITY EMPLOYEE INCOME.

RIGHT. CITY EMPLOYEES. YES, SIR. SO I JUST WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW WE MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT CERTAIN INCOME LEVELS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MEDIAN INCOME OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FINANCES AND HOW MUCH CERTAIN PROJECTS ACTUALLY COST.

MY. YEAH. AND LOW INCOME, BECAUSE THAT'S OUR MEDIAN PAY THAT WE ACTUALLY APPROVED AS A COUNCIL TO PAY OUR OWN EMPLOYEES.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT OUT OF TOUCH WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE AND WHAT PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE.

IT'S IMPORTANT WE AS A COUNCIL, ARE COGNIZANT OF WHEN WE SAY THESE TYPE OF THINGS, WHEN THAT'S OUR MEDIAN EMPLOYEE INCOME, RIGHT? COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD AND COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. SO IF SOMEBODY COULD SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE THROUGHOUT OUR CITY CURRENTLY IS, ARE THEY, ARE THEY CONSOLIDATED TO CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN OR IS THIS ALL OVER THE CITY AND WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? CAN WE GIVE LOCATIONS OR PLACES THAT WE KNOW OF THAT FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY? I NEED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION. SO WE AGAIN, WE DO WE CONSIDER THESE USUALLY EVERY FEBRUARY.

THAT'S THE 9%. SO WHEN WHEN YOU TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF YOU THINK ABOUT PLACE OF GRACE, ABIDING GRACE. AND JESS PRINCE IS OUR, IS OUR, IS OUR, SHE'S GOT THE WHOLE LIST, BUT OKAY.

BUT, BUT, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT MANY, MANY OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS IN BEAUMONT, I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THEM OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

SOME ARE THROUGH DISASTER FUNDING, BUT MAJORITY ARE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

OKAY. AND SO THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION AND KIND OF TALKING TO COUNCILMAN TURNER'S POINT, PEOPLE ARE CALLING ME CONCERNED THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE PROJECTS.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO BREAK THAT DOWN OR IF EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT PROJECTS MEAN, BUT THIS IS NOT A PLACE WHERE NOW THAT I'M HEARING A PLACE OF GRACE OR ABIDING GRACE, THESE ARE NOT PROJECTS.

THESE ARE APARTMENT HOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH A MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR AVERAGE CITY INCOME.

NOT NECESSARILY A PLACE FOR LOW INCOME, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER CURRENT WAGES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.

[01:25:09]

LOW INCOME. I MEAN, UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO IT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USE WHEN WE'RE CONDUCTING THESE CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE WE'RE SPEAKING AT AND TO AND ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE OUR COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS OUR PEOPLE, RIGHT? SO THAT WORRIES ME. AND I WANT TO SAY KUDOS TO YOU BECAUSE TO COME BACK AND, AND, AND, AND WANT TO DO SOMETHING IN A PLACE.

LAMAR GRADUATE. I LOVE THAT L YOU. BUT SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS HAVE HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS BEEN CONSIDERED OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN MAYBE OR WAS THIS, WAS THIS JUST A LOCATION? HOW DID YOU COME TO THIS LOCATION? I'M THINKING MORE THE LAMAR AREA OR, OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS INSIDE OF BEAUMONT BEEN CONSIDERED OR IS THIS YOUR ONLY.

WELL, THIS, THIS ACTUAL PROPERTY WAS REFERRED TO ME MANY YEARS AGO.

I JUST NOW HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE LAND BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND HE HAD HIS OWN DEALINGS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SAFE AND KEEP VAGRANTS FROM, FROM INSIDE THE PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, TO CREATE MORE OF A HAZARD FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND SO THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT CAME TO ME IN PARTICULAR.

AND IT ALSO WORKED THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE, WITH THIS SIDE OF TOWN BEING THE GRADUATE.

OKAY. AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, CAN ANYBODY TELL ME HOW LONG THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT OR YOU KNOW, BEEN DOING NOTHING. 15 YEARS. CLOSE TO TEN YEARS AT LEAST.

OKAY. SO THERE'S BEEN NO ACTIVITY, NO MOTION TO BUY.

NO MOTION TO DEVELOP, NOTHING IN THE LAST TEN YEARS AT THIS LOCATION.

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. OKAY. THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION.

WILL THE PROPERTY BUILDERS BE THE PROPERTY MANAGERS? NO. NO. WE WILL HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY COME IN.

NOW, WITH THAT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THEY IT'S PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED AND IT WILL BE ONE THAT'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS STYLE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU KNOW, THAT NEEDS TO THAT UNDERSTANDS THE INCOME LIMITS AND THE REQUIREMENTS.

SO I WILL WE WILL BE OVERSEERS OF THAT OF THAT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRM.

HOWEVER, WE WE WILL LEAVE THAT THE DAY TO DAY RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT FIRM IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BRINGING ANYWHERE BETWEEN 4 TO 6 JOBS LOCALLY FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, CAN YOU SPEAK TO. YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DEDICATED PARKING THAT I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT ON THIS RENDERING.

BUT IS THE IS THERE DEDICATED PARKING FOR THESE 200 AND RIGHT.

SO WITHIN THE, THE, THE, THE APPLICATION PACKET, YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE SITE PLAN.

AND WITHIN THAT SITE PLAN THERE ARE 369 PARKING SPACES ALLOCATED AS WE SPEAK JUST FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

BUT THEN WE ALSO WILL CONTROL THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.

OKAY. AND SO BASED OFF, SO I KNOW THESE ARE JUST POTENTIAL RENDERINGS OR WHATEVER, BUT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT WILL POTENTIALLY LOOK CLOSE TO THESE RENDERINGS BECAUSE WE GET THINGS AND YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE DON'T WANT APARTMENT STYLE HOMES OR WE WANT COTTAGE STYLE HOMES OR WE WANT TOWNHOUSE STYLE HOMES OR WHATEVER.

I GUESS WE'RE PRETTY EARLY IN THE RIGHT. WE'RE EARLY IN THE RENDERINGS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT FOR ME TO STAY WITHIN THIS PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT THAT THAT HAS TO BE INVESTED, WE'RE LOOKING TO STAY HERE LONG TERM, 30 YEARS PLUS.

AND SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR FACADE IS A BRICK, BRICK FACING HIGH END.

SO THEN THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURES LATER.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, YOUR TURN REAL QUICK.

I DID WANT TO ADD TO COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD'S QUESTION REGARDING WHERE CERTAIN APARTMENTS ARE LOCATED AROUND TOWN.

SOME OF THE RECENT ONES, ABIDING GRACE. A ZERO POINT CYPRESS PLACE APARTMENTS, PLACE OF GRACE PROVIDENCE ON MAJOR REGENT STONEHURST APARTMENTS. THERE'S QUITE A FEW, AND THEY'RE PRETTY SPREAD OUT ACROSS TOWN.

YOU HAVE A PROPOSED $60 MILLION COST ON THE DEVELOPMENT FOR 220 UNITS, AND THAT'S ROUGHLY 270 GRAND PER UNIT. THAT SEEMS HIGH. I MEAN, THAT SO SEEMS VERY HIGH.

SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU TAKE THE 4% TAX CREDIT IT'S NOT LIKE THE 9%, THE 9%

[01:30:10]

COVERS MAJORITY OF THE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, WITH THE 4% AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO SELL THE TAXES AND BONDS, THERE'S ADDITIONAL COST IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

OKAY. YES. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW THEN. COUNCILMAN COUNCILWOMAN.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SHERWOOD, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PARKING I KNOW WHERE THE CHURCH IS.

AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH IS THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE.

BEHIND THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IS A VERY LARGE PARKING AREA.

AND THEN THERE'S THE BUILDING THAT USED TO HOUSE THAT'S OWNED BY THE AUSTIN FAMILY, I BELIEVE, THAT USED TO HOUSE SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES. IS YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IF THIS WAS TO BE APPROVED, INCLUDE THAT PARKING AREA THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S BETWEEN THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE AND THE BUILDING THAT'S OWNED BY THE AUSTIN FAMILY.

I DON'T BELIEVE I NEED TO LAY OUT TO SEE, BUT MY PURCHASE IS FOR THE 3.06 ACRES OF THE CURRENT SITE. AND THEN THERE'S THE PARKING SPACE THAT'S ACROSS THE, THE BACKSIDE OF, OF THIS BUILDING.

SO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE VISITOR'S BUREAU. THAT PARKING SPACE THERE.

OKAY. AND WHO OWNS THAT? THE SAME OWNER OF THE SAME OWNER.

YES. SO WAS THAT PREVIOUSLY THE SAME PARKING FOR THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH? I'M ASSUMING SO. OKAY. RIGHT. OKAY. I'M ASSUMING SO, BECAUSE HE OWNED THE THE NEXT BUILDING NEXT DOOR, WHICH ONCE WAS A GYM FOR THE CHURCH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SO THAT WHOLE CORNER WHICH WAS THERE. OKAY. AND SO YOUR PURCHASE OF THAT THREE SQUARE MILES, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID IT WAS THREE. YEAH. THREE ACRES.

YEAH. THREE ACRES. THREE ACRES DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PURCHASING OF THE 300 UNIT CAR PARKING AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES. IT WILL IT WILL INCLUDE.

YES. SO IT'S NOT JUST THAT THREE ACRES. IT'S THE PARKING AREA, PARKING ADJACENT GOING TOWARDS THE VISITOR'S BUREAU.

CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HE DID PROVIDE A SITE PLAN THAT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF THE PACKET.

IN THE COUNCIL PACKET. YEAH. AND THEN PREVIOUSLY, WHEN A DEVELOPER CAME TO US THEY WERE GOING TO PUT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY AT PHELAN AND MAJOR. AND IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THAT LOCATION WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS NEAR A GROCERY STORE.

AND THAT WAS A BIG DEAL TO THEM. AND IT HELPED GET APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT BY THE STATE.

THE FACT THAT ITS PROXIMITY THERE WAS TO A GROCERY STORE I ULTIMATELY VOTED AGAINST THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD CREATE AN EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TRAFFIC AREA. THERE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC DOWNTOWN.

BUT I'M CURIOUS WHY WHY YOU DIDN'T. AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO HAVE THINGS BROUGHT TO DOWNTOWN, BUT IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO GROCERY STORE ANYWHERE NEAR THIS FACTOR THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR YOU? NO, NO, IT DEFINITELY IS IN CONSIDERATION, BUT MOST LIKELY IN THAT DEVELOPER'S CASE, HE WAS BRINGING FORTH A 9% TAX CREDIT, WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE. THIS IS A 4% TAX CREDIT.

GOOD INFORMATION. RIGHT. AND SO YOU GET A LOWER PERCENTAGE AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE AMOUNT OF PROXIMITY TO SERVICES AS, AS YOU WILL THIS.

AND JUST AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPER PURSUIT ENDED UP MAKING APPLICATION WITH THE STATE FOR THE PROPERTY THAT YOU MENTIONED. OH, SO WELL, JUST IT GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

BUT I COUNCILMAN DID YOU HAVE I GOING TO GET TO YOU? OH, IT WAS ME. IT WAS YOU. I CAN WAIT. SO MY, I THINK Y'ALL DISCUSSED IT, BUT I WAS CONCERNED.

DID YOU HAVE A PRICE PER DOOR FOR THESE TWO? BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING THE.

BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THESE NUMBERS WHICH WHICH NUMBERS? THE. I MEAN, BASICALLY LIKE A PER SQUARE FOOT, I GUESS MAYBE I'M NOT LOOKING.

SO PER SQUARE FOOT, IT MAY BE AROUND. WELL PER DOOR ACTUALLY.

YEAH. PER ABOUT 275,000 PER DOOR. OKAY. YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. RIGHT. AND THE REASON THEY'RE DOING THIS FOR IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO SELL THOSE WHICH WILL BE ABLE

[01:35:03]

TO OFFSET THAT COST. YES. COUNCILMAN TURNER SO I GOT SOME QUESTIONS, BUT EVEN IF IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE, IT'S BEST TO ASK TO PUT IT ALL OUT THERE. CURRENTLY FOR STAFF, IS THIS BUILDING RED TAG? IT'S NOT RED TAGGED. IT'S ORANGE TAGGED RIGHT NOW.

SO BASICALLY, WHAT DOES ORANGE TAG MEAN? EXPLAIN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE.

WHEN IT'S RED TAGGED IT MEANS THAT IT'S UNSAFE FOR WELL, THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DEMOLITION.

AND THEN THAT'S WHEN IT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL IS WHEN IT'S RED TAG.

BUT ORANGE TAG. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE OWNER TO RESTORE THE BUILDING TO THE MINIMUM CODE STANDARDS OF THE IPMC.

SO BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT IN THE MINIMUM CODE STANDARDS CURRENTLY.

NO. OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE IF IT GOT TO A RED TAG STANDARD, SINCE IT'S CURRENTLY NOT IN CODE TO STANDARD, ROUGHLY HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST THE CITY TO KNOCK IT DOWN? WE RECEIVED A QUOTE FOR BACK IN THE DAY. THE ONLY COMPARABLE THAT I HAVE IS A THE GILBERT, WHICH WAS ABOUT $400,000. SO THAT WAS ABOUT TWO TWO YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT.

SO MAYBE ADD SOME INFLATION TO THAT. AND ALSO MORE BUILDING TO KNOCK DOWN MUCH BIGGER BUILDING AND JUST, JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE BECAUSE THOSE ARE FACTS THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.

MY SECOND THING IS JUST TO PUT IT TO BED, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL DANCING AROUND THIS INCOME THING AT THIS PROPERTY.

WOULD YOU BE SHIFTING HOUSING VOUCHERS? NO, NO, THIS IS NOT A VOUCHER PROGRAM.

THIS IS IN YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WITH THE WITH THE VOUCHER PROGRAM, INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN A CERTAIN ALLOCATION TO WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD AND TAKE THAT AND, AND RENT OUT A PLACE, AN APARTMENT. AND LET'S JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY RECEIVED A VOUCHER FOR $1,200 AND THEY FOUND AN APARTMENT THAT WAS 1300, THEN THEIR THEIR, THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THAT UNIT WOULD ONLY BE $100.

RIGHT. IN THIS SITUATION THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE THE AVERAGE INCOME OF A CITY EMPLOYEE AND THEY ARE YOU KNOW, BRINGING ANYWHERE FROM $950 PER MONTH FOR ONE BEDROOM ALL THE WAY TO YOU KNOW, MAYBE ABOUT $1,400, 1470 FOR FOUR BEDROOM AND, AND, AND FOR STAFF.

LET ME KNOW IF I'M GOING TOO FAR. IS THAT A STIPULATION YOU CAN PUT IN IF IT IS AGREED UPON TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION WHICH WHICH STIPULATION? THE STIPULATION HE JUST STATED. WELL ABOUT THE RENT.

NO. YEAH. AND AND FOR A LOT THERE'S SOME MISINFORMATION.

IN GENERAL THE CITY DOES NOT EVER APPROVE VOUCHERS.

THAT IS DONE. CITY HAS NO SAY IN WHETHER PEOPLE CAN USE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS.

WELL, THE REASON I ASKED, I JUST GOT A MESSAGE ABOUT IT AND I.

AND I DID IT. THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THIS ISN'T CITY FUNDS BEING SPENT ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO RESTORE IT.

IT'S A HISTORIC BUILDING. THE CURRENT OWNER, THAT WOULD BE FOR THEM TO DECIDE.

THE CITY HAS NO INTENTIONS OF PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY.

SO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS SOMEBODY THAT IS LOOKING TO BRING DOWNTOWN LIVING, WHICH WOULD BE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHICH WOULD ALSO BE ON THE TAX ROLLS.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE, WHICH COULD ALLOW FOR SEVEN YEARS OF, YOU KNOW, ABATEMENTS THAT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COUNCIL AT SOME LATER TIME.

BUT OTHERWISE IT'S ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLLS AND SAY IT'S AT 40 MILLION.

Y'ALL CAN DO THE MATH REAL QUICK THERE. THAT'S PAYING EMPLOYEES.

IT'S REAL MONEY TO THE CITY. AND IT DOES DO SOMETHING FOR DOWNTOWN.

SO SOMETIMES I GET CONFUSED WHEN WE'RE SAYING NO TO TO EXPANSION.

AND I REALIZE WHEN WE LOOK HISTORICALLY, BEAUMONT'S GOT SOME PROBLEMS AND BEAUMONT CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS IF WE DON'T GROW.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS DOES ALLOW FOR THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY GUARANTEES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF IT LOOKS LIKE A IT LOOKS LIKE AN AWFUL ATTRACTIVE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD HAVE EMPLOYEES, YOU HAVE CITY EMPLOYEES, I THINK IT WOULD BRING DOWN SOME YOU KNOW, SOME HOPEFULLY CVS OR OTHER TYPE OF RETAIL DOWNTOWN TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THIS. BUT YOU KNOW, IT, THIS DOESN'T COST THE CITY MONEY.

THIS WOULD ACTUALLY GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

[01:40:03]

AND IF WE DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD, WE MIGHT BE DEALING WITH.

I WOULD BET $1 MILLION OR MORE IN COST TO TEARING DOWN A BUILDING.

SO THAT'S ALL JUST FOR THOUGHT. YES. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW.

AND ON THAT MR. MAYOR AND IT WAS ALSO THIS POINT WAS BROUGHT UP WITH COUNCILMAN TURNER.

HAS AND THIS IS MAINLY MAYBE MORE OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHAT WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT? I COULD SEE WHERE THIS COULD BE GREAT FOR DOWNTOWN.

SO THAT MAKES ME TEND TO, TO WANT TO SUPPORT IT.

I ALSO THINK ABOUT ALL THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET ABOUT DOWNTOWN NOT HAVING A POLICE PRESENCE AND THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH ALL THE BUILDINGS AROUND HERE IS BECAUSE THOSE BUILDING OWNERS SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BEAUMONT POLICE ISN'T ACTIVELY PATROLLING DOWNTOWN, AND I'M NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT PATROLLING DOWNTOWN.

BUT THAT IS A VERY, VERY, VERY COMMON COMPLAINT.

AND WE HEARD IT FROM US IN THE COUNCIL IN THE COMMENTS EARLIER.

BUT IF WE DID THIS, OH, IF WE DO THIS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD A NEW PATROL DIVISION FOR DOWNTOWN? AND SO HAS STAFF LOOKED INTO PROS AND CONS OF THE ECONOMICS OF THIS PROJECT.

YES. SO WE HAVEN'T DONE A FULL ECONOMIC IMPACT.

WE HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY LOOK AT SOME OTHER MULTIFAMILY DOWNTOWN AND THEIR CALLS FOR SERVICE.

THERE'S, I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL STAFFING FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THE FLIP SIDE IS THE REVENUE ECONOMIC IMPACT.

YOU KNOW, IF IT IS A $60 MILLION PROJECT, WE CAN DO THE MATH ON PROPERTY TAXES.

THERE'S WATER SALES. THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR IF THE CITY WERE TO HAVE TO DEMOLISH THIS PROPERTY WHENEVER THAT. WE BASICALLY WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE EXPENDING THAT AMOUNT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF FULL ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE.

AND THEY'RE NOT TYPICALLY DONE FOR THESE TYPES OF CONSIDERATION, BUT JUST OFF THE AT A HIGH LEVEL, YOU KNOW, THOSE WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL PROS AND CONS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR A COMPLETE IN-DEPTH ECONOMIC STUDY.

I'M JUST KIND OF HOPING FOR MAYBE SOME BALLPARK FIGURES HERE WITH, LIKE YOU SAID, Y'ALL HAD LOOKED AT SIMILAR PROJECTS IN OTHER DOWNTOWNS.

I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? JUST IN TAX REVENUE A YEAR, 60 MILLION TIMES.

THE $0.65, OR 471,000 414,000 AT $0.69 A YEAR.

YEAH. PLUS WATER REVENUE. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S JUST ON PROPERTY TAX, RIGHT? AND THEN HAVE WE LOOKED AT WHETHER OUR INFRASTRUCTURE DOWNTOWN COULD IMMEDIATELY HANDLE THIS? OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO LIKE THE PROJECT WE'RE JUST APPROVED OVER OFF OF NORTHWEST PARKWAY WHERE IT NEEDS 12 MILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO GET REIMBURSED AFTER HE SPENDS THE MONEY, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANY? SO ALL YEAH, ALL THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PERMITTING.

SO EVEN IF WE COUNCIL BLESSES IT TODAY, EVEN IF HE GETS GRANTED THE APPROVAL AT THE STATE LEVEL, IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MOLLY AND HER FOLKS, DEMI AND HER FOLKS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, WORKING WITH THEIR ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS TO MAKE SURE THERE IS CAPACITY, WATER, SEWER, YOU NAME IT, SO THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT.

WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SAY IN THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING WE DID HAVE WITH US, MOST OF EVERYONE WITHIN THE CITY. WE DID SPEAK ABOUT WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND WHAT'S THERE WHERE, WHERE IT SITS RIGHT NOW. AND AS IT SITS, IT'S FINE WHERE EVERYTHING IS LOCATED.

SO AS FAR AS SEWER AND WATER IT'S THERE AND IT'S READILY AVAILABLE.

AND THE, THERE'S CURRENTLY A, A FACILITY, A GROUP OF CONDOMINIUMS OR TOWNHOMES, RIGHT BY THE CHURCH.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS POWER ISSUES.

THEY'VE HAD SEVERAL POWER OUTAGES THAT HAVE LASTED SEVERAL DAYS.

AND I CAN RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH ENERGY.

HAVE YOU LOOKED AT POWER PROBLEMS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND, AND SO WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT

[01:45:05]

FAR WITHIN IT. YOU KNOW, FOR TODAY, IT WAS ABOUT RECEIVING, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL'S BLESSING TO MOVE FORWARD TO, TO, TO FLESH OUT THE FULL PROJECT. OKAY. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN HILLIARD COUNCILMAN. YEAH. SO YOU HAVE TO KEEP THESE FOR 10 OR 15 YEARS BASED ON THE TAX.

IS IT 10 OR 15? SO THE TAXES FOR TEN. BUT THERE'S A A MANAGEMENT PERIOD OF 15 YEARS.

HOWEVER, USUALLY WITHIN YOUR CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH WITH OUR INVESTORS, USUALLY IF TO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF THE INVESTOR IS A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

THEN USUALLY THEY REQUIRE A 30 YEAR STAY. SO IT'LL BE ANOTHER RENEWAL FOR ANOTHER 15 YEARS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WILL KEEP US INSIDE THE PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS AND COUNCILMAN DARIO, I JUST WANT TO CIRCLE BACK.

EXCUSE ME. TO THE PER DOOR COST. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 4% TAX CREDIT IS WHAT ALLOWS THIS TO BE A, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT THAT CASH FLOWS? I JUST IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EXCUSE ME TO LOOK AT THE RENTS AND THE AMOUNT OF UNITS AND WHAT YOU'RE CLAIMING YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND AND SEE WHERE THE WHERE THIS MATH DOESN'T MATH FOR ME, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S. OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S FOR THE VALUE OF THE TAX RATE, RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. IT'S THE FOR THE 4% IS JUST THE NAME.

IT'S THE NAME THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDES TO US TO CALL THAT IT REPRESENTS 40, ALMOST 40% OF THE TOTAL VALUE, WHICH WILL OFFSET THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

OKAY. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. AND THESE WERE FUNDED.

THESE FUNDS WERE INCREASED THROUGH THE BIG BEAUTIFUL ACT LAST YEAR AND THROUGH THE RECENT THE RECENT.

PASSING OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT. SO SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE THESE MONIES COME TO YOU AS A AS A DEVELOPER, WHENEVER YOU ARE DOING A PROJECT LIKE THIS. AND THEN I READ, YOU KNOW, BEAUMONT HAS MORE THAN TWICE THE STATE AVERAGE OF HOUSING UNITS SUPPORTED BY TAX CREDITS. WHAT MAKES BEAUMONT ATTRACTIVE TO SOMEONE LIKE YOU? WHENEVER WE ALREADY HAVE TWICE THE AMOUNT OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES AND THEN ALSO TO US AS A CITY, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I, I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF, OF CONTINUING TO ADD KIND OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY TAX CREDITS.

SO AGAIN, WE NORMALLY GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE IN FEBRUARY AND WE, WE TYPICALLY WILL ASK FOR A MARKET ANALYSIS.

AND THE NUMBER WE REALLY TRY TO GET TO IS WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE VACANCY RATE OR THE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS.

AND I KNOW THE DEVELOPER MAY BE ABLE TO CHIME IN HERE IN TERMS OF MORE RECENT, I KNOW THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT IT, IT WAS IN THE 90S. AND ANYTIME IT'S OVER 90% OCCUPANCY, THAT SHOWS THERE'S A DEMAND.

WE ALSO WILL REACH OUT TO THE BEAUMONT HOUSING AUTHORITY.

AND AGAIN, I KNOW THESE ARE NOT APPLES AND ORANGES, BUT JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT IS THEIR DEMAND LIST.

AND SO USUALLY THAT CONVERSATION IS HAD IN FEBRUARY.

AND USUALLY THE INFORMATION WE GET BACK IS THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THESE UNITS.

AND WE JUST HAD A MEETING WHERE THERE IS A HOUSING DEMAND.

I, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS, BUT WE DID HAVE A MEETING WHERE THE RIGHT I'M GOING TO GIVE COUNCILMAN DARIO HIS CHANCE NOW.

YOU ALWAYS GOT TO GO LAST. THIS PROCESS HERE.

IF FOR SOME REASON WE WAS TO VOTE AGAINST IT, YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO PROCEED.

YOU WOULDN'T AT ALL WITHOUT WITHOUT THAT TAX CREDIT, WITHOUT WELL, WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT.

OKAY. RIGHT. I NEED YOUR SUPPORT THEN TO GO TO THE STATE OF TEXAS TO SAY THE CITY OF BEAUMONT NEEDS 220 UNITS OF THESE. SO WOULD YOU BE. I THINK WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.

AND YOU COMPETITION, NOT JUST BEAUMONT, BUT IT'S A CERTAIN AREA.

SO SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO FOR IN PARTICULAR, THIS IS THE 4% TAX AT 9% AND THAT'S THE 9% TAX.

SO THE 9% IS WHEN THE REASON WHY YOU USUALLY HAVE THESE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY ARE BECAUSE THERE'S A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD THAT ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS NEED TO BE IN, RIGHT? WITH THE 4% TAX IS NOT COMPETITIVE PER SE, BUT BY BEING NONCOMPETITIVE, YOU ACTUALLY END

[01:50:08]

UP ONLY DOING ABLE TO DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNITS.

OKAY. WITH THE 4% WE HAVE TO MIRROR, WE HAVE TO MARRY THE 4%.

SO WE HAVE TO MARRY THE 40% CREDITS THAT WE WILL RECEIVE WITH OTHER OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CASH FLOW. SO THERE'S A LOT OF HOOPS IN GAP FUNDING THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO BRING THIS, TO BRING THIS FORWARD AND BRING IT INTO A FULL PROJECT.

OKAY. WELL I'VE HEARD IT MORE THAN ONE TIME. IF YOU BRING PEOPLE TO DOWNTOWN, THEN THE BUSINESSES WILL FOLLOW.

AND IT SEEMED LIKE THIS. THIS MIGHT BE A HELP.

DO THAT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW.

BACK TO THAT PARKING LOT THAT YOU SAID WITH THE 300 WILL THAT YOU MENTIONED THE GYM DOES.

IS YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS ALSO INCLUDE THE BUILDING THAT'S THAT GYM? NO, NO, NOT AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. THAT OWNER STILL HAS HIS PARKING LOT AND THE GYM, AND WE DON'T CROSS AT ALL IN BETWEEN THAT PARKING LOT.

SO THOSE 369 UNITS ARE ALL ENCOMPASSED ON JUST THIS THREE ACRES.

THE THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET IS SOMETHING TOTALLY SEPARATE THAT OUR ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT PARKING SPACES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED AS WELL.

OKAY. BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO OWN THAT PARKING LOT. YOU WOULD JUST MAKE AN AGREEMENT TO USE IT.

I'LL OWN IT. WELL, THE PROJECT WILL OWN IT. OKAY.

AND WE'LL OWN THE PARKING LOT ACROSS ACROSS THE STREET.

RIGHT. OKAY. BUT IS THAT IN THAT'S NOT IN THIS RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO SAY, WELL, THERE'S A STREET THERE AND IT'S NOT ON. RIGHT? SO THE 369 UNITS, I MEAN, PARKING SPACES, YOU SEE THERE ARE ENOUGH.

OR IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S 15% OVER THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

THERE AREN'T 300 SPACES ON THIS, ARE THERE? AND SO IN ADDITION TO THE 300 SPACES HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY OWN. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO, WE WILL OWN IT.

YOU'RE GOING TO OWN THAT AS WELL. YES. AND HOW MANY ADDITIONAL SPACES IS THAT OTHER THAN THE 369? I DID NOT DO THE MATH ON THAT JUST YET. REQUIRED IS 330 SPACES FOR APARTMENTS.

HOWEVER, IT'S WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SO TECHNICALLY PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED, BUT THEY ARE PLANNING TO PROVIDE 369 PARKING SPACES. IT LOOKS LIKE ON THAT SITE PLAN ON THE LEFT SIDE MORE.

SO THE TOP SAYS THAT PARKING SPACES FOR A GARAGE ARE 315 SPACES, AND THEN PARKING SPACES ON THE GROUND ARE 54 SPACES.

SO YOU PLAN TO DO A PARKING GARAGE, CORRECT.

LASTLY, I I WAS ORIGINALLY PROBABLY GOING TO BE AGAINST THIS, BUT YOU'RE AN IMPRESSIVE GENTLEMAN.

I REALLY DO LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU WENT TO LAMAR AND YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO DO THIS.

I'M A LITTLE UNEASY ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S YOUR FIRST PROJECT, BUT, HEY, WE ALL HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. AND BUT ANYWAY, YOU'RE AN IMPRESSIVE GUY. I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS AND TRYING TO MAKE OUR DOWNTOWN AREA BETTER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

DID A GOOD JOB. APPRECIATE IT. GO, CARDINALS.

I LOVE TO SEE OUR ALUMNI DO WELL. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOW TAKING A VOTE ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

WE'RE SETTING A RECORD HERE AT 325. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER TWO?

[2. Council consider a resolution approving the repair of a pump for the Royal Street Underpass Pump Station.]

YES, SIR. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPAIR OF A PUMP FOR THE ROYAL STREET UNDERPASS PUMP STATION.

THE ROYAL STREET UNDERPASS PUMP STATION PUMPS STORMWATER FROM MLK PARKWAY IN THE SECTIONS BETWEEN FRANKLIN STREET AND COLLEGE STREET.

THE STATION OPERATES FOUR SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS. DUE TO THE AGE OF THE PUMPS AND THE ABRASIVE NATURE OF THE STORMWATER, THE PUMPS BEGAN TO FAIL AND NEED SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS TO CONTINUE TO FUNCTION UNTIL NEW PUMPS CAN BE ACQUIRED.

THE TOTAL COST FOR THE FABRICATION OF THE THREE SPARE IMPELLERS, AS WELL AS THE REFURBISHMENT OF PUMP NUMBER FOUR, IS $119,119.94. PRICING WAS OBTAINED FROM TRIANGLE ROTATING EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC.

OF ORANGE, TEXAS. DUE TO THE AGE OF THE EQUIPMENT, SEVERAL COMPONENTS REQUIRE CUSTOM MACHINING AND FABRICATION BECAUSE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER

[01:55:03]

PARTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN FROM CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, AND THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO? SO MOVED. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN TURNER. SO UNDER THE UNDERPASS IS THIS GOING TO ALLEVIATE THE WATER WITH THE HEAVY FLOODING IN THE RAIN OR CARS GET STUCK SOMETIMES.

DEFER TO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. IT WILL HELP MAINTAIN THE RELIABILITY OF THAT PUMP STATION.

WE HAVE THREE PUMPS IN SERVICE AT THE AT THIS MOMENT, SO THIS WILL PUT THE FOURTH PUMP BACK IN SERVICE.

AND THEN IF WE HAVE FUTURE ISSUES WITH THESE PUMP STATIONS, WITH THE IMPELLERS, WE HAVE SPARES NOW THAT WE CAN PUT IN.

AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT MANY, MANY MONTHS AND RENT BYPASS PUMPS WHILE WE WAIT FOR NEW PARTS TO BE MADE FOR THESE PUMPS.

OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION IS CARRIED. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER THREE?

[3. Council consider a resolution authorizing the purchase of three (3) intelligent flushing stations for use in the water distribution system.]

YES. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE INTELLIGENT FLUSHING STATIONS FOR USE IN THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

WATER UTILITIES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING WATER QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY'S WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

AREAS WITH DEAD END WATER LINES OR LOW WATER DEMAND CAN EXPERIENCE REDUCED CIRCULATION, WHICH MAY RESULT IN DIMINISHED DISINFECTANT RESIDUALS AND INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR WATER QUALITY CONCERNS. CURRENTLY, THESE CONDITIONS ARE ADDRESSED THROUGH ROUTINE MANUAL FLUSHING OF FIRE HYDRANTS.

THE PROPOSED MONITORING AND FLUSHING STATIONS WOULD AUTOMATE THIS PROCESS BY REMOTELY MONITORING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS AND INITIATING FLUSHING BASED ON PRE-ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS. THIS APPROACH SUPPORTS WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT WHILE REDUCING WATER LOSS COMPARED TO MANUAL FLUSHING OPERATIONS.

THE FLUSHING STATIONS WILL BE PURCHASED THROUGH THE H, G, A C PURCHASING COOPERATIVE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS. THE COST, INCLUDING AN EXPEDITING FEE TO REDUCE THE ESTIMATED DELIVERY TIME FROM MORE THAN TEN WEEKS TO APPROXIMATELY SIX WEEKS, IS $75,207.48. PRICING WAS OBTAINED FROM CORE AND MAIN AT BEAUMONT, TEXAS.

THE VENDOR QUOTE AND EXPEDITING LETTER ARE ATTACHED FOR REVIEW.

FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT FROM WATER REVENUE BONDS, AND THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE? MOVE TO APPROVE. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER THREE PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR?

[4. Council consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 3, accept maintenance, and authorize final payment to SETEX Construction Corp, of Beaumont, for the 23rd Street Sanitary Sewer Trunkline Rehabilitation Phase I Project.]

YES. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER THREE, ACCEPT MAINTENANCE AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO CTEX CONSTRUCTION CORP OF BEAUMONT FOR THE 23RD STREET SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE REHABILITATION PHASE ONE PROJECT ON APRIL 15TH, 2025, CITY COUNCIL AWARDED CONTRACT TO CTEX CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 23RD STREET SANITARY SEWER TRUNKLINE REHAB PHASE ONE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,908.46.

PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS ONE THROUGH TWO IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,044.06 ARE ATTACHED FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER NUMBER THREE WOULD DECREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $37,086.28, AND IS REQUIRED TO ADJUST THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES IN THE CONTRACT TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL QUANTITIES USED TO COMPLETE PHASE ONE OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS ADD CALENDAR DAYS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL DAYS USED.

IF APPROVED, THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT WOULD BE $269,866.24.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY WATER UTILITY STAFF AND FOUND TO BE COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS AND TERMS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT.

ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE. ORDER NUMBER THREE MAINTENANCE AND FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,354.36 IS RECOMMENDED.

FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE WATER REVENUE, BONDS AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER FOUR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE?

[5. Council consider a request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a food truck park within a GC-MD-2 (General Commercial-Multiple Family Dwelling-2) zoning district for property located at 5980 Concord Road.]

[02:00:06]

YES. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS TO CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FOOD TRUCK PARK WITHIN A G, C, M, D TWO. GENERAL COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY DWELLING.

TWO ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5980 CONCORD ROAD.

AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 20TH, 2026, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 8 TO 0 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FOOD TRUCK PARK WITHIN THIS ZONE WITH THE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS BY WATER UTILITIES FOR ANY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S BACKFLOW, PRETREATMENT AND OR FOG PROGRAM.

NUMBER TWO CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. NUMBER SIX DRAINAGE CRITERIA.

NUMBER THREE, ALL LIGHTING INSTALLED SHALL BE DIRECTIONALLY SHIELDED AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH.

AND NUMBER FOUR, THE BUSINESS PREMISES OPERATIONS AND ANY CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS, STATE LAWS AND APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT.

THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS.

SECOND, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. OR PASSES. ITEM NUMBER SIX.

[6. Council consider a request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a water treatment product manufacturing facility within an LI (Light Industrial) zoning district for property located at 4775 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway.]

ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW WATER TREATMENT PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY WITHIN AN LEE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4775 SOUTH MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR PARKWAY.

AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 20TH, 2026, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 8 TO 0 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE WATER TREATMENT PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT THIS LOCATION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS BY WATER UTILITIES FOR ANY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S BACKFLOW PRETREATMENT AND OR FOG PROGRAM.

NUMBER TWO, WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS THROUGH THE WATER UTILITIES SHALL BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PERMITS.

NUMBER THREE, THE BUSINESS PREMISES OPERATIONS AND ANY CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS, STATE LAWS AND APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT.

AND NUMBER FOUR, ANY PROPOSED MODIFICATION OR ADDITIONS OF DRIVEWAYS WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF TXDOT, AND AN APPROVED TXDOT PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED WITH SUBMITTAL FOR CITY PERMITS.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX SIX.

AND THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SIX PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ITEM NUMBER SEVEN?

[7. Council consider a request for a Rezoning from R-S (Residential- Single Family Dwelling) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District for property located at 1800 Tulane Street and 1800 & 1900 Pope Street.]

YES, SIR. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FROM RS.

RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1800 TULANE STREET AND 1819 HUNDRED POPE STREET. THIS REQUEST WAS TABLED FOR THREE MONTHS AT THE APRIL 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING THE REQUEST. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO PLANNING STAFF AND THE REQUEST REMAINS AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.

CASA ALVAREZ REALTY LLC IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES TO NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FROM RS.

RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY OR A MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE REZONING IS TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE OCCUPANCY, SUCH AS CHURCHES, FAITH BASED COMMUNITY CENTERS, WOMEN AND CHILDREN'S SUPPORT FACILITIES, AS WELL AS DAYCARES AND EARLY LEARNING CENTERS.

CENTERS. AT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 20TH, 2026, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 6 TO 2 TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING AT THIS LOCATION.

THE ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL AS WELL.

IS THERE A SECOND? THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ITEM NUMBER SEVEN FOR DENIAL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, COUNCILMAN. JUST FOR THE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC AT THAT MEETING, THERE WAS HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR PLAN AS TO WHAT HE WANTED TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY.

[02:05:01]

AND IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT HE WANTS TO BASICALLY DO THE SAME THING WITH THE PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY BEING DONE WHEN IT WAS OPERATED AS A SCHOOL BY MAKING IT INTO A DAYCARE OR WHATEVER, BUT THE SCHOOL PREVIOUSLY WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE ZONING LAWS OR THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, IF I'M CORRECT. BUT THEN HE WAITED TOO LONG TO LOSE THAT GRANDFATHERED PROTECTION.

AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE HE MADE QUITE AN INVESTMENT AND SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT PROPERTY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT AFTER LISTENING TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HE'S HAD WITH IT HE, HE REALLY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE SPENT SOME MONEY WITH A LAWYER AND GETTING SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON ALL OF THAT BECAUSE JUST, IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK THE WAY THAT HE'S TRYING TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.

SO I AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE DENIED, BUT IT IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE HE DID BUY THAT AS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY WITH INTENTIONS OF, YOU KNOW, DOING POSITIVE THINGS WITH IT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, HE JUST WAS BAD WITH THE PAPERWORK.

I DO WANT TO ADD REAL QUICK THAT IF HE DID WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LIKE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SECONDARY SCHOOL SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE HE COULD APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, JUST HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

BUT A DAYCARE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THERE. DEPENDS ON WHEN THAT DAYCARE CLOSED, BUT A DAYCARE IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

SO COULD HE SELL IT TO LIKE A HARMONY TYPE ENTITY THAT COULD GET A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND RESTART THE SCHOOL? YES, SIR. SO THERE ARE OPTIONS. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

WITH THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENYING ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS DENIED. WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE US INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING?

[ Council to conduct a Public Hearing finding and ratifying the determination of the Public Health Director that public health nuisances exist on the property owned by Chester Mercier at 3495 Quinn, with a legal description of DRAKE L-1 BLK-2 and order the owner to abate public health nuisances within 10 days. If the property owner fails to comply within 10 days, staff is requesting City Council authorization to abate said property without further notification to the property owner of City Council action.]

YES, SIR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO CONDUCT.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO FIND AND RATIFY THE DETERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR THAT PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES EXIST ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY CHESTER MERCIER AT 3495. QUINN, WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DRAKE LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO AND ORDER THE OWNER TO ABATE PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES WITHIN TEN DAYS. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO COMPLY WITHIN TEN DAYS.

STAFF IS REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO ABATE, SAID PROPERTY WITHOUT FURTHER NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

AND WE DO HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR, MR. KENNETH COLEMAN, WHO WILL PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

MR. COLEMAN. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

AS CITY MANAGER READ. I'M JUST GOING TO SHOW YOU.

YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. PLEASE. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN DEALING WITH THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2023.

DURING THE COURT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ORANGE TAGGED AT THE MOMENT.

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND SO WE GOT CALLED IN BECAUSE OF THE RODENT HEARTBURN CONDITIONS AND FAILURE TO RETRIEVE THE LITTER.

AND THOSE ARE THE TWO APPLICABLE CODES THAT'S BEEN CURRENTLY VIOLATED.

NEXT SLIDE. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME PICTURES OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THAT'S IT. QUESTIONS. WE HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. MR. CITY MANAGER, MAY WE HAVE READING OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT?

[8. Council to consider an ordinance finding and ratifying the determination of the Public Health Director that public health nuisances exist on the property owned by Chester Mercier at 3495 Quinn, with a legal description of DRAKE L-1 BLK-2 and order the owner to abate public health nuisances within 10 days. If the property owner fails to comply within 10 days, staff is requesting City Council authorization to abate said property without further notification to the property owner of City Council action.]

YES, SIR. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FINDING AND RATIFYING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR THAT PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES EXIST ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY CHESTER MERCER AT 3495. QUINN, WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DRAKE LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO AND ORDER THE OWNER TO ABATE PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES WITHIN TEN DAYS.

IF THE PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO COMPLY WITHIN TEN DAYS, STAFF IS REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO ABATE, SAID PROPERTY. WITHOUT FURTHER NOTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY.

OWNER OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION, THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? SECOND.

THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER EIGHT PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[02:10:03]

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. WOULD YOU TAKE US INTO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, MR.

[ Council to conduct a Public Hearing to receive comments regarding cost-free rides to support the Zip Youth Mobility Program]

CITY MANAGER? YES, SIR. THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ZIP YOUTH MOBILITY PROGRAM. AND PRESENTING IS DEMI ENGMAN, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS WAS BROUGHT UP WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ZIP SUMMER ZIP YOUTH MOBILITY PROGRAM.

THERE WAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN WANTING TO EXPAND THIS YEAR ROUND VERSUS JUST OVER THE SUMMER.

LOOKING INTO FORECASTING ON REVENUES AND WHATNOT.

CURRENTLY WITH YOUTH PASSES IN 2025 WE BROUGHT IN APPROXIMATELY 11,000.

SO YOU CAN ANTICIPATE, IF APPROVED, THAT WE WOULD NOT REALIZE THOSE REVENUES IN THE COMING FISCAL YEAR, BUT DID WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING INITIATIVE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT OUR YOUTH TO EDUCATION, JOB OPPORTUNITIES EVEN JUST OPPORTUNITIES AT CHURCHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

OUTSIDE OF, OF JUST THE SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL YEAR FRESH FOOD ACCESS, ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

SO EXCITED THAT Y'ALL WERE ON BOARD TO CONSIDER IT.

AND HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. CAN WE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER NINE? I THINK YOU HAD A HAND IN THE AUDIENCE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE KNEW THE SIGN. OH, IS THAT THE SAME THING ABOUT THE BUS THAT I ASKED Y'ALL ABOUT? NO, MA'AM. THIS IS FOR STUDENTS. STUDENTS? YES, MA'AM.

SORRY I MISSED THE HAND. ALL RIGHT, TAKE US INTO THE READING OF NUMBER NINE, PLEASE.

[9. Council to consider an ordinance supporting the Zip Youth Mobility Program to provide cost-free rides on Zip’s bus system to kindergarten through twelfth grade students.]

YES, SIR. MAYOR, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE SUPPORTING THE ZIP YOUTH MOBILITY PROGRAM TO PROVIDE COST FREE RIDES ON ZIP'S BUS SYSTEM TO KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 12TH GRADE STUDENTS. AND AS PRESENTED BY MISS ENGMAN THIS IS TO ADVANCE ZIP'S MISSION OF INCREASING RIDERSHIP, STRENGTHENING LONG TERM TRANSIT PARTICIPATION, AND PROMOTING EQUITY ACROSS BEAUMONT.

AND THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER NINE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER NINE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. MR. BOONE, WOULD YOU TAKE US INTO THE WORK SESSION?

[ Council to review and discuss proposed Water/Sewer Rates]

THE FIRST WORK SESSION? YES, SIR. THIS WORK SESSION IS TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATES.

AND PRESENTING WILL BE MR. GRADY REED OF HDR.

AND THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF OUR RECENT DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED WATER RATES.

JUST CURIOUS, DID THE 11TH STREET CRUISE THING ON THE AGENDA GET PULLED? YES. SO THE THE APPLICANT REQUESTED REMOVAL. GOOD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU FOR FOR HAVING ME BACK.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH AND PRESENT THREE ADDITIONAL RATE SCENARIOS.