[00:00:04]
>> NOW, FROM MCALLEN CITY HALL, A MEETING OF THE MCALLEN CITY COMMISSION.
[MUSIC] GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
WE'RE GOING TO START THIS MEETING, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND THEN, OF COURSE, PROCLAMATIONS BY COMMISSIONER QUINTANILLA.LET'S PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER GREAT DAY.
WE THANK YOU THAT YOU'VE BEEN WITH US, WITH STAFF, WITH OUR RESIDENTS, WITH OUR BUSINESS OWNERS.
WE THANK YOU THAT YOU'VE BLESSED OUR CITY.
LORD, WE PRAY NOW THAT YOU WOULD BE WITH US AS WE CONDUCT THIS MEETING.
LORD, I PRAY YOU'D GIVE US WISDOM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION TO BENEFIT ALL THOSE THAT COME IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY.
NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH.
WHO HAS THAT? COMMISSIONER AGUIRRE.
[PROCLAMATION]
[National Parks and Recreation Month]
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM PARKS RECREATION? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] I GUESS I CAN GO DOWN.THERE WE GO. WE'RE HERE. THIS IS CITY OF MCALLEN PROCLAMATION.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE COUNTY OF HIDALGO, AND CITY OF MCALLEN.
WHEREAS SINCE 1985, AMERICA HAS CELEBRATED JULY AS THE NATION'S OFFICIAL PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH.
WHEREAS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUABLE BENEFITS OF LOCAL PARKS AND RECREATION.
WHEREAS LOCAL PARKS AND RECREATION WILL CELEBRATE ALL THE WAYS THEY HELP MAKE THEIR COMMUNITIES GREAT THROUGHOUT, THROUGH CONVERSATION, HEALTH AND WELLNESS, AND SOCIAL EQUITY.
THEY NOT ONLY BEAUTIFY NEIGHBORHOODS BUT ALSO PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR A HEALTHIER, SMARTER, MORE EFFICIENT, MORE RESILIENT PEOPLE.
WHEREAS THE CITY OF MCALLEN AND THE CITY COMMISSION ENCOURAGES CITIZENS TO VISIT ALL 89 MCALLEN PARKS AND ANY OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES, POOLS, CENTERS, AND SPORTS FIELDS.
NOW, THEREFORE, I ANTONIO AGUIRRE JR., CITY COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF MCALLEN, BY VIRTUE OF THIS AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME AND ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE MONTH OF JULY 2021 AS NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH.
[APPLAUSE] THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS FOR PROCLAIMING JULY AS NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH.
EVERY PARK HAS A HISTORY MADE UP OF STORIES THAT HELPED TO DEFINE IT.
PARKS ARE THE CENTER OF SO MANY EXPERIENCES AND MEMORIES, MOMENTS THAT PARK AND RECREATION PROFESSIONALS HELP MAKE HAPPEN.
OUR LOCAL PARKS ARE OFTEN OUR FIRST EXPERIENCES WITH NATURE OR OUR INTRODUCTION TO A FAVORITE HOBBY.
THEY ARE PLACES TO GATHER WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY, PLACES TO CELEBRATE LIFE SPECIAL MOMENTS, SPOTS OF RESPITE AND HEALING AND SO MUCH MORE.
LOCAL PARKS HAVE BEEN ESSENTIAL THROUGHOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, WITH MANY OF US FINDING A NEW APPRECIATION FOR THESE SPACES.
THIS YEAR, OUR COMMUNITY IS STRONGER, MORE VIBRANT, AND MORE RESILIENT BECAUSE OF PARKS AND RECREATION.
IT IS AN HONOR TO STAND ALONGSIDE THE TEAM OF YOUR MCALLEN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT HERE TODAY.
WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE CELEBRATE PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH AND LOOK FORWARD TO
[00:05:03]
CONTINUING TO PROVIDE THE HIGH-QUALITY OR PROGRAMS AND PARKS YOU HAVE COME TO KNOW.[APPLAUSE] LET'S TAKE BIG [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC, AARON WILL OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING.
[AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC COMMENT (Individuals wishing to speak regarding an agenda item on today's agenda, please contact City Secretary before 5:00pm)]
[1. PUBLIC HEARING]
[A) ROUTINE ITEMS]
ROUTINE ITEMS. MAYOR COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.TONIGHT WE HAVE ONE REZONING AND THREE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS LISTED UNDER ROUTINE.
AS ALWAYS, THEY COME WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLAN REZONING AND CAN BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION, OR THEY CAN BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY.
THEY ARE A REZONING FROM C-3 TO R-38 AT 4200 NORTH, WHERE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIFE IN THE US FOR A BARBER SCHOOL AT 5000 NORTH 23RD, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ONE YEAR FOR A BAR FAST DADDY'S AT 400 [INAUDIBLE], AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMOKE SHOP AT 3200 NORTH MCCALL SWEET 110.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC? MOVE TO APPROVE? TAKEN.
THERE'S THE FIRST OF THE SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR.
ALL AGAINST. MOTION CARRIES. REZONINGS.
SIR, SO THIS IS AN INITIAL ZONING TO R-1 AT A PARCEL
[3. Request of Robert Wilson, for a Conditional Use Permit, for one year, for a Bar at Lot A-1, Nolana Tower Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 400 Nolana Avenue, Suite G.]
[B) REZONINGS]
MEASURING 21.288 ACRES AT 10,300, NORTH SHARYLAND.THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHARY, APPROXIMATELY 8000 FEET SOUTH OF MILE 7.
THE TRACK IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS BUT UNDERGOING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AS WELL AS A SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
IT IS CROSSED FROM SHARYLAND PIONEER HIGH SCHOOL AND THERE ARE OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AROUND.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING R-1 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION CALLED THE RAVENNA AND THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN OUR ET J SINCE 1981.
THE ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE JUNE 16TH PLAN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
ANYBODY HERE? [NOISE] MOVE APPROVAL.
ITEM C, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
[C) Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of McAllen.]
SECOND.AGAINST. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM D.
YES, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
[D) Public hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 21.288 acres out of Lots 475 and 465, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 10300 North Shary Road.]
THE 21 ACRES THAT RESULTS ARE ONE.AGAIN, IT IS THE RAVENNA SUBDIVISION AND MEASURES 2.1288 ACRES AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION.
ANYBODY HERE AGAINST? MOVE TO APPROVE.
AGAINST? MOTION PASSES, AND THAT'S THE END OF PUBLIC HEARING.
[END OF PUBLIC HEARING]
DOES ANYBODY NEED TO PULL ANYTHING?[2. CONSENT AGENDA]
A AND D.E. ANYTHING ELSE? NOW, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS A, B, C, AND F? TO APPROVE.
ON A JUST A CORRECTION ON THE MINUTES TO THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 28TH.
ITEM 1-F SHOWS THAT I VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
I WAS ABSENT. ITEM 7-G, SAME THING.
IF THOSE CORRECTIONS CAN BE MADE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A.
AGAINST? MOTION PASSES. ITEM D.
YEAH. ITEM D, I'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT
[D) Ordinance providing for the abandonment of a 4.264-acre tract of land being a 40 ft. Mile 9 North ROW out of Section 227 and 230, Texas-Mexican Railway Company Survey, Hidalgo County, Texas; 13500 Block of Mile 9 North.]
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE RUSSELL ROAD PROPOSED FUTURE ROADWAY, AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE DO THAT? IF WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST IN THAT AREA, WHAT'S THE PLAN GOING FORWARD? THIS IS PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE] MASTER PLAN.9 MILE DOES RUN THROUGH OR WELL-RUN RATHER FOR A FEW MORE TRACKS OF FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS IN TRES LAGOS.
WHAT IT DOES RIGHT NOW IS IT GOES UP ON SHARY, TURNS INTO TRES LAGOS BOULEVARD, AND THEN CONNECTS BACK DOWN ON 9 MILE WEST OF STUART.
AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN, AND IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
THOSE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS ALSO AT TRES LAGOS?
[00:10:02]
YES, AND WEST AS WELL.YES. IT'S ALL THAT ROAD'S DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH SOUTH, BUT MOST OF IT IS WEST, AND THAT'S WHAT FOLLOWS ALONG 9 MILE.
OKAY. ABANDONING THAT ROADWAY IS NOT GOING TO HURT US GOING EAST AND WEST THERE IN THAT AREA? AGAIN, THEY'RE REROUTING TRAFFIC UP THROUGH TRES LAGOS BOULEVARD, AND THAT IS THEIR INTENTION.
THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY DID THE MASTER PLAN.
WE'RE OKAY IF THE STAFF'S OKAY WITH IT, I GUESS.
>> AGAINST? MOTION PASSES. ITEM E.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS.
[E) Ordinance providing for ratification of June 28, 2021 amendment to food truck ordinance updating the minimum distance from a fixed-location restaurant.]
THIS IS THE CHANGE THAT Y'ALL MADE, I BELIEVE LAST MONTH, CHANGING THE DISTANCE FROM FOOD TRUCK TO A FIXED RESTAURANT FROM A HUNDRED FEET TO 150 FEET.A FOOD TRUCK CANNOT BE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE OF ANOTHER RESTAURANT.
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I PULLED IT OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME, WE BASED THE DECISION IN A VERY SUBJECTIVE MANNER BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT I WAS DISCUSSING WAS THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FOOD TRUCKS, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A NEW INDUSTRY BOTH HERE IN THE CITY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THAT WE REACHED THIS DECISION TO CHANGE IT FROM 100-150 WAS PURELY JUST BASED ON ONE ISOLATED INCIDENT.
AFTER THAT WHOLE SITUATION, EVEN BEFORE, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY OTHER COMPLAINTS FROM ANY OTHER RESTAURANTS, SO MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WHEN IT COMES TO ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DO BUSINESS IN MCALLEN.
DOING BUSINESS, IT'S COMPETITIVE, THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS, AND I BELIEVE I USED THE EXAMPLE WITH MY OFFICE.
MY OFFICE, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, THERE'S ANOTHER ATTORNEY.
RIGHT NEXT TO IT, IN THE SAME PLAZA, THERE WERE THREE ATTORNEYS.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE THAT WE DID, WELL, I VOTED AGAINST IT FROM THE GET-GO, AND I REALLY THINK THAT EITHER WE SHOULD TABLE IT OR DENY IT BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE IS VERY SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THIS WAS DONE WAS JUST FOR, AND I WENT AROUND AND ASKED OTHER RESTAURANTS AND FOOD TRUCKS, I TOOK A DRIVE AROUND NOLANA, AND THERE ARE SO MANY FOOD TRUCKS THAT HAVE TABLES AND CHAIRS, SO MANY OF THEM.
MY WHOLE ISSUE IS, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS, THEN ARE WE GOING TO APPLY THIS ACROSS THE BOARD, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO DO THIS WHOLE SUBJECTIVE THING THAT CAME UP, IT WAS LAST MEETING, ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T A MONTH AGO, IT WAS LAST MEETING.
MY ONLY ISSUE WITH IT IS THAT I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE CHANGING RULES JUST LIKE THAT THAN BE SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE IF WE'RE REALLY GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE WITH THE FOOD TRUCK INDUSTRY, THEN WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALL THE RULES, NOT JUST ONE TO BENEFIT ONE PERSON IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR.
>> THIS CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING.
DID IT COME UP? BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT INITIALLY, RIGHT?
>> NO. [OVERLAPPING] IT DEVELOPED INTO PEOPLE USING THE CITY RULES FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE INITIALLY TALKING ABOUT LENGTH BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> [OVERLAPPING] CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING, [NOISE] I GUESS, ABOUT WHAT YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHEN YOU CAN HAVE TABLES, AND WHEN YOU CANNOT.
>> BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK IT WAS TWO FEET, AND THIS IS WHY, GUYS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT IN A MORE OBJECTIVE, NOT THIS SUBJECTIVE THING THAT WE DID.
WELL, THAT YOU ALL DID, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.
FIRST OF ALL, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE CHANGED IT, AND JUST FOR A LITTLE HISTORY, WAS BECAUSE THE 300 PEOPLE.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT'S THE FOOD TRUCK AND THEN THERE'S A HUGE PLAZA, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PLAZA IN NOLANA.
THERE'S THE FOOD TRUCK, THE BIG PLAZA, AND THEN THERE'S HOMES BEHIND THEM.
THERE'S ONLY TWO OR THREE, THE 300 FEET, THAT WENT INTO TWO FEET OF THE BACKYARD OF A HOME.
[00:15:03]
THIS IS NOLANA, IT'S THE LARGEST COMMERCIAL STREET IN OUR CITY. I'M LIKE, "OKAY." I SUGGEST THAT WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THIS BECAUSE THAT WAS ONLY 2, 3 FEET, AND FOR 2, 3 FEET WE'RE ALREADY SHUTTING DOWN TABLES AND CHAIRS OR SHUTTING DOWN A FULL FOOD TRUCK.THAT WAS ONE ISSUE. THEN WE COME BACK AGAIN, THE SAME SITUATION, SAME PARTY, SAME EVERYTHING, [NOISE] AND WE COME BACK, AND WE'RE LIKE, "OKAY, FINE.
JUST WITHIN FROM 100-150," AND STOPPED THE ISSUE.
>> YEAH. IT DOES SOUND LIKE WE'RE PROBABLY BEING A LITTLE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON THIS ITEM. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY IT.
>> IF THEY WANTED TO TABLE IT AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION AND ANALYZE IT A LITTLE BIT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO DISCUSS.
>> IT'S TABLE AND DON'T APPLY BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE.
>> Y'ALL CAN DO WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO, BUT I THINK WE STILL ALSO NEED TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE OF SOLICITATION IN CASE YOU HAVE THAT AND THEN THE ISSUE OF, OH, MY GOD, I SHOULD'VE WRITTEN IT, SOLICITING.
>> SOLICITING OTHER PERSON'S BUSINESS, AND I AGREE WITH YOU.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL PUT THAT IN THERE.
>> THEN THE OTHER ISSUE FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, NOT TO THE BACK, MAKE SURE THAT WE DO PERMITS THAT THEY'RE NOT IN A PLACE WHERE THE DEEDS RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THESE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENTS.
>> WE MAY MAKE THAT AS FOR THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE'LL RUN INTO ISSUES.
>> THAT'S UP TO YOU EITHER COUNCIL.
>> BUT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY.
>> WE WOULD BASICALLY KEEP IT AT A HUNDRED INSTEAD OF MOVING IT TO 150.
>> YES. THE WAY THAT THEY WERE WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, WE DIDN'T.
>> INSTEAD OF DENYING, WHY NOT, COMMISSIONER QUINTANILLA, JUST TALK ABOUT IT AND TABLE IT AND CHECK WHAT OTHER AVENUES WE HAVE ANOTHER OPTIONS, AND THEN WE DECIDE?
>> WELL, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE 150 MAKES IT MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IF WE'RE AT A HUNDRED, WHY ARE WE MAKING IT CONTINUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, IT'S LIKE, "OKAY, EVERY TIME, WE'LL JUST COME TO THE COMMISSION AND COMPLAIN," AND THEN GUESS WHAT? WE'LL JUST CHANGE IT REAL QUICK JUST TO FIT YOUR PARTICULARLY NEED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IF WE GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS DIFFERENT AVENUES AND DIFFERENT THINGS, THEN WE CAN MAKE A BETTER DECISION ON WHAT FITS IT BETTER.
THAT'S ONLY MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT'S UP, OF COURSE, TO YOU GUYS.
LET'S JUST SEE WHAT IS GOING TO BENEFIT EVERYBODY AND WHAT IS GOING TO ACCOMMODATE MOST [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ONLY THING A LARGE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I TOOK A MEASURING TAPE, AND I MEASURED A LOT OF THEM THAT WERE EVEN WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF A RESTAURANT.
>> THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS THAT YOU'VE GOT ESTABLISHMENTS AT THE PLAZA THAT ARE AGAINST THE FOOD TRUCK BEING THERE, AND THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THAT FOOD TRUCK IS IMPACTING THEIR BUSINESS.
THESE ARE BUSINESSES THAT INVESTED THEIR MONEY ON A BRICK AND MORTAR BUILDING THAT PAY PROPERTY TAXES, THAT IS PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED WITH COVENANTS THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THAT FOOD TRUCK THERE, BY THE WAY.
THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD TWO WEEKS AGO WAS, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO BALANCE THE FREEDOM THAT THE FOOD TRUCKS HAVE.
WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF FOOD TRUCKS, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF THEM, BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COUNTERBALANCE THAT AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY IN THEIR PROPERTY.
>> FIRST OF ALL, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH A DEED, THAT'S FINE, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE USING THE CITY AS A WAY TO GET.
IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR DEED AND THEIR COVENANT, GO HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND THEY CAN REPRESENT THEM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY BEING INVOLVED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE USED FOR THAT.
THERE'RE ATTORNEYS, THERE'RE CIVIL ATTORNEYS, WHATEVER, THEY CAN GO AND HIRE THEIR ATTORNEY AND APPLY WHATEVER THEY NEED TO APPLY, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE USING THE CITY.
>> DO WE KNOW HOW MANY FOOD TRUCKS THIS WOULD AFFECT?
>> WE PLOTTED THEM ALL, AND WE HAVE THAT ON THE DIAGRAM.
I DON'T HAVE THEM OFF THE TOP MY HEAD.
>> WOULD IT BE, I DON'T KNOW, 10, 15, 20?
[00:20:01]
BASICALLY, WE'LL BE MAKING THEM MOVE, RIGHT?>> ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN TOTAL.
>> I THINK LIKE MANY OF OUR ORDINANCES, COMMISSIONER QUINTANILLA, ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE COMPLAINT-DRIVEN.
>> NO. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW USING OUR RULES TO BE SUBJECTIVE.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER HADDAD IS CORRECT.
IT'S LIKE HAVING FIVE FEET OF WEEDS.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE, BUT IT'S COMPLAINT-DRIVEN.
>> YEAH, WE NEED TO BE ENFORCING ALL OF THOSE ISSUES.
>> YEAH, OF COURSE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE RULES.
>> CODE ENFORCEMENT DRIVES BY AND SEES A CARPORT.
DON'T GET ME GOING WITH CARPORTS.
>> DON'T GET ME GOING WITH WEEDY LOTS BECAUSE I JUST DID A LITTLE DRIVE TO GO AROUND.
LIKE THE OTHER DAY, I WAS ON 7TH STREET, JUST ON THE LEFT, THERE'S ALL THESE TIRES THERE.
YOU CAN'T TELL ME CODE ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T SEE THAT.
>> YEAH, I KNOW. THERE'S A FIRST OR SECOND RULE EITHER TO DENY IT OR NOT.
IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
>> WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT LATER, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THEM.
>> BUT WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN A LOOK AT IT.
>> I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO DENY.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AND PASS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS RULE.
>> OKAY. [NOISE] YEAH, I'LL ACCEPT HER WITHDRAWAL.
>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] I NEED A SECOND.
>> THAT WAS A MOTION TO TABLE?
>> I WITHDREW THE MOTION TO DENY AND AGREED, SO NOW I'M MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE AND PASS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS RULE UNTIL WE CAN REVISIT IT.
>> I'LL SECOND IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION.
>> WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> TAKE THE REST OF THE ISSUE, SOLICITATION, DEEDS, BUT DEEDS FROM THIS POINT ON, NOT FOR THE PAST.
>> DEED RESTRICTIONS. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AGAINST? MOTION PASSES. [NOISE].
>> 3A IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR [NOISE] RODRIGUEZ SNACK BAR AT THE DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE FOOD COURT.
[A) Consideration and Approval of a Lease Agreement for Rodriguez Snack Bar at the Downtown Parking Garage Food Court.]
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR CITY COMMISSION, DOWNTOWN SERVICES IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITH RODRIGUEZ SNACK BAR FOR A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 469 SQUARE FEET IN THE FOOD COURT OF DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE.
RODRIGUEZ SNACK BAR IS A REPUTABLE FOOD BUSINESS THAT HAS MAINTAINED THE OPERATIONS AND ACCOUNTANTS SINCE 2017.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL AND WE'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
>> DO I HEAR MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> AGAINST? MOTION PASSES. ITEM B.
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER TENANT IN THE PARKING GARAGE.
[B) Consideration and Approval of a Lease Agreement for Kairos Coffee at the Downtown Parking Garage Food Court.]
THIS ONE IS 297 SQUARE FEET.IT'S CAIRO'S COFFEE. IT'S A COFFEE SHOP.
>> DO I HEAR MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM C [OVERLAPPING]
>> C IS CONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 FOR VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY WITH THE ANZALDUAS INTERNATIONAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND FULL COMMERCIAL PROJECT.
[C) Consideration and Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 for Value Engineering (VE) Study for the Anzalduas International NB-SB Full Commercial Project.]
>> MR. MAYOR COMMISSION, THIS VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY WAS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS PART OF THE ANZALDUAS PROJECT.
THEY ADVISE THE STAFF THAT BECAUSE THE FACILITY IS ADJACENT TO A ROAD THAT'S ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM, A VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY IS REQUIRED.
>> IS REQUIRED, IT'S NOT AN OPTION.
THEY CLEARLY INDICATED TO US THAT IT WAS REQUIRED.
IN MEETING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE SET FORTH BY TXDOT, WE COORDINATED WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER, SMB INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THEY SUBMITTED THESE ADDITIONAL SERVICES [BACKGROUND] TO COMPLETE THIS VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,355.96, WHICH WOULD REVISE YOUR CONTRACT AMOUNT TO $3,940,772.74 AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> THAT'S THE ONE THAT I WAS ASKING A QUESTION ON.
>> IS IT TYPICAL FOR THIS TYPE OF ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT EVEN IF THE COST IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROJECT? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, USUALLY WE PAY THE ARCHITECT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BASED ON ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST.
NOW THAT WE'RE HAVING TO DO VALUE ENGINEERING, WOULDN'T IT FALL UNDER THE SAME TOTAL PROJECT COSTS? I GUESS IT'S THE PROJECT COST IS GOING TO BE COMING DOWN WHY DO WE HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THEIR ENGINEERING SERVICES?
>> THESE ARE SPECIAL SERVICES THAT WERE REQUIRED BY TXDOT AND THEY WERE NOT OUTLINED AS PART OF THE SERVICES THAT THEY ORIGINALLY HAD WITH THE CITY.
[00:25:02]
THEY ARE HAVING TO CONTRACT WITH AN OUTSIDE [NOISE] COMPANY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES.THEN THEY'RE USING SOME OF THEIR STAFF AS WELL AND SOME OF OUR STAFF AS WELL.
THERE'S VARIOUS ENTITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH IT.
THAT SHOULD RECOMMEND COST SAVINGS FOR THE PROJECT AS WELL.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AT LEAST THAT'S OUR HOPE.
BUT AS I MENTIONED, IT IS A REQUIREMENT.
IT'S NOT GIVEN TO US AS AN OPTION.
>> BUT IT'S MANDATED NO MATTER WHAT.
>> I'M SORRY. TXDOT ADDED THIS SERVICES?
>> TO THE SCOPE OF WORK SO THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED, PRETTY MUCH TO GET THEM FROM WHATEVER FIRM IS DOING THE THING?
>> IT'S NOT EXPECTED TO CAUSE ANY DELAYS, RIGHT?
>> SHOULD IT RECOMMEND COST-SAVINGS, CAN TXDOT REQUIRE WE DO THOSE, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF IT'S GOING TO, I GUESS MAYBE SOMETIMES SAVINGS ARE REALLY JUST CUT IN YOUR PROJECT ASPECT.
IF IT RECOMMENDS CERTAIN, LET'S SAY VALUE ENGINEERING, COST SAVINGS, WHAT WE SEE IT MORE AS A CUT TO THE FACILITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
COULD WE DECIDE NOT TO PURSUE IT?
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT CUTS AND I THINK THEY HAD AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT AT DOING IT.
THE AREAS THAT HAVE A HIGH COST BUT A LOW PROJECT VALUE IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONCENTRATING ON.
THEY'RE NOT ELIMINATING PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AND ITEMS LIKE THAT, THEY'RE LOOKING AT AN ITEM THAT MAYBE PERHAPS COULD BE DONE AT A SAVINGS WITHOUT MODIFYING THAT SCOPE OF THE WORK WE ALREADY HAVE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
>> YES. THERE'S MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> AGAINST? MOTION CARRIES. ROY, D.
>> D IS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF
[D) Consideration and possible Approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association.]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH MCALLEN PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION.MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE TEAM ON THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
THE POLICE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE'VE HAD POLICE CHIEF VICTOR RODRIGUEZ OF THE THREE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, MYSELF, ISAAC, AND AUSTIN STEVENSON.
AS I REPORTED OVER THE WEEKEND, THE [NOISE] MEMBERS VOTED.
THIS WEEKEND, COMPLETED THE VOTING.
THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WAS APPROVED BY AN 88 PERCENT MARGIN.
I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A VERY [LAUGHTER] INTENSE PROCESS, BUT I ENJOYED IT IN THAT WE TREATED EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT.
WE DID WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS EQUITABLE AND RIGHT FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS.
I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE IDEAS THAT CAME FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE NEGOTIATION.
WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT.
>> MOVE AND THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK.
>> NEXT LOT. ROY TEAM CONGRATULATIONS.
I THINK YOU ALL KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ALL DO.
WE KNOW YOU HAVE OUR BACKS ALL THE TIME. WE JUST HAD TO.
UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T HERE YESTERDAY FOR THE CEREMONY.
WE REALLY DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL AGAINST? MOTION PASSES.
>> 4A IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE
[4. ORDINANCES]
AUTHORIZING TEXAS GAS SERVICE COST OF SERVICE ADJUSTMENT.[A) Consideration and Approval of an ordinance authorizing Texas Gas Service's Cost of Service Adjustment tariff.]
>> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> ALL AGAINST? MOTION PASSES. ITEM 4B. [OVERLAPPING]
>> B IS FOR PROVIDING FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PURCHASE OF CROCKETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS AT THE LAST MEETING, WE DISCUSSED THIS ITEM.
IT WAS A REAL ESTATE PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND SO WE DISCUSSED IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE DID COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE AND VOTED TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE CROCKETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
THEREFORE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A [BACKGROUND] BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE MONEY TO COME FROM FUND BALANCE FOR THAT PURCHASE.
>> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> 5A IS CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST AND NOT REQUIRE THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS OF THE
[A) Consideration of a variance request to not require the subdivision process at the 0.6-acre tract of land out of Lot 11, Block 4, M. and M. Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 3217 Valcosta Sr.]
0.6 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AT 3217 VALCOSTA SR.>> YES, SIR. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VALCOSTA SR, WHICH STANDS FOR SERVICE ROAD.
IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET WEST [BACKGROUND] OF NORTH 29TH.
THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN CITY LIMITS AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED R1,
[00:30:02]
WITH ADJACENT ZONING TO THE WEST AND SOUTH AND NORTH OF R1 TO THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE IN THE ETJ.THERE ARE 15 CURRENTLY [NOISE] EXISTING TRACKS ALONG [NOISE] VALCOSTA SR, WITH EIGHT OF THEM HAVING HOMES AND SEVEN ARE VACANT.
THERE IS A 10 FOOT WIDE PAVED ROAD THAT EXTENDS ABOUT 1300 FEET FROM 29TH WEST.
THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT FRONT A PAVED SECTION IS THERE'S ABOUT A 300 FOOT GAP.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, MARLENE LONGORIA, BOUGHT THE TRACK IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR AND IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOME WITHOUT SUBDIVIDING.
THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST, ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS FINANCIAL, SPECIFICALLY THE COST OF AN ENGINEER.
THERE ARE FIVE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING OPTION 5, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODES REQUIRING PROPERTIES TO UNDERGO SUBDIVISION.
ALSO, I WILL STATE THAT OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SAYS THAT "FINANCIAL REASONS OR LOAN OR NOT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, HOWEVER, SHOULD YOU APPROVE THEM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT THAT'S BEEN SET IN VALCOSTA, WHICH IS TO GET RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION, HARMLESS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS."
>> COULD THAT THE OPTION 2? CORRECT?
>> THAT WOULD [NOISE] BE OPTION 3, ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE DIFFERENCE THERE'S A PARK FEE PAYMENT THAT USUALLY DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE IN ETJ. BUT THIS IS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ON THE OTHERS.
>> WE WOULD BE DOING THAT ONE.
THE ONLY REASON THE PARK FEE HASN'T COME UP IS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE ETJ, SO WE DON'T CHARGE PARK FEES $700.
>> OTHER NEIGHBORS GOT NUMBER 2 RIGHT THERE, RIGHT AWAY? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN THE ETJ? YES, MA'AM. BECAUSE WE DON'T ASSESS PARK FEES IN THE ETJ.
>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE OPTION 2.
>> 3 IS WHAT STAFF WILL RECOMMEND WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THAT PARK FEE.
>> OH, YOU'RE SAYING 2 BECAUSE IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY IN THE SUBDIVISION DIDN'T PAY THE PARK FEES, RIGHT? WELL, THE NEIGHBORS.
>> BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE ETJ. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE IN ETJ. [INAUDIBLE] CITY LIMITS.
>> YES. I'VE MOVED TO APPROVE OPTION 2.
>> IS THERE A SECOND [BACKGROUND].
THERE BEING NO SECOND MOTION DIES.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION NUMBER 3.
>> ALL AGAINST? MOTION PASSES.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY. [INAUDIBLE]
[A) Advisory Board Appointments.]
>> YES. MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF APPOINTMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CAMPANIA HAS NOMINATED [INAUDIBLE] TO THE LIBRARY BOARD.
COMMISSIONER RAMIRES EDUARDO SALDANA TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS BOARD, AND COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] HAS NOMINATED CAROLINA [INAUDIBLE] TO CDBG AND EMILIA SANTOS TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO REPLACE HIM. ALL ON BOARD?
>> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE?
[B) Immigration and Respite Center Report.]
>> HONORABLE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, IN TERMS OF AN UPDATE FROM JULY 1ST THROUGH THE 7TH, WE SAW ABOUT A 15 PERCENT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DROPPED OFF BY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION HERE IN MCALLEN.
THAT NUMBER WAS ABOUT 5,263, THIS IS A REDUCTION FROM 6,238 THAT WE HAD THE WEEK BEFORE.
THE AVERAGE DAILY COVID POSITIVE RATE WENT UP FROM 7.1 PERCENT THE PREVIOUS WEEK, TO ABOUT 8.1 PERCENT, AND OBVIOUSLY WE CONTINUE TO KEEP A VERY CLOSE EYE ON THAT.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES CURRENTLY HAS OVER 1,100 INDIVIDUALS IN QUARANTINE THROUGHOUT THE AREA, THAT IS AN INCREASE.
BUT THAT COMES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NOT EVERYONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IS COVID POSITIVE, AND AS AN EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A FAMILY GROUP OF THREE, AND ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS TEST POSITIVE, ALL THREE WILL BE PLACED IN QUARANTINE.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN OUR NUMBERS OVER THE LAST FOUR-FIVE DAYS, WITH AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 834 PER DAY, SO WE'RE ON TRACK FOR ABOUT 5,500 OR SO THIS WEEK.
[NOISE] WE ARE ALSO SEEING AN INCREASE IN THE COVID POSITIVITY NUMBERS.
IT IS VERY CLOSE TO 10 PERCENT RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON THAT AS IS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
CVP IS ALSO WAITING FOR NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL ON TITLE 42.
WHAT THAT COULD MEAN FOR LOCAL NUMBERS IN THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS, WE WILL SEE AN END TO TITLE 42 EXPULSIONS,
[00:35:03]
AND THAT WILL LIKELY RESULT TO MUCH LARGER NUMBERS HERE IN THE LOCAL AREA.WE CONTINUE TO WORK BOTH WITH CATHOLIC CHARITIES AND CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ON OPPORTUNITIES AND CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR THAT.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES CONTINUES TO DO THEIR AMAZING JOB OF WORKING WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS TO GET THEM ON THEIR WAY TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION ONCE THEY'VE BEEN RELEASED FROM FEDERAL CUSTODY.
THEN I WOULD ALSO ESPECIALLY LIKE TO THANK SALVATION ARMY, AS WELL AS OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CHURCH AND MISSION FOR THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT IN THIS PROCESS.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> NOW, THERE WAS JUST AN ARTICLE TODAY OR YESTERDAY IN THE NEWSPAPER REGARDING THE ISSUE ONCE TITLE 42 IS LIFTED.
I KNOW WE WANT TO BE POSITIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. HOPEFULLY OUR PUBLIC OR RESIDENTS REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO KEEP EVERYBODY SAFE BUT IT'S NOT OUR ISSUE.
IT'S A FEDERAL ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO TAKE CARE OF.
>> I ONLY HAD ONE COMMENT JUST ON THE ALLEY.
I MEAN, IT IS WHAT IT IS, RIGHT? HOWEVER, THEY NEED TO KEEP UP THAT ALLEY, IT'S A LITTLE CONCERN.
>> WE JUST DISCUSSED THAT TODAY AND WE WILL BE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON IT.
>> YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M SORRY. NEXT ITEM IS THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, MAYOR.
>> WE'VE GOT QUITE A BIT ON THIS LIST, SO WE'VE DISCUSSED SOME WITH STAFF AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET
[C) Future Agenda Items.]
SOME OF THESE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA SO THAT WE TRY TO GET THROUGH THEM.WE ARE WORKING ON THAT FIRST ONE, THE TOWN HALL MEETING.
MICHELLE HAS ADVISED ON THE PLAN FOR THAT, AND SHE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
THE RETREAT, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE WORKING ON DAYS.
WE'RE GOING TO DO A RETREAT AND FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE STIMULUS MONEY.
THEN THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
NO, I GUESS THAT'S IT. THEN THE REST WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BRING BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> IS THE RETREAT GOING TO BE BEFORE THE START OF THE BUDGET?
>> YEAH, THAT IS OUR HOPE SO THAT WE GET SOME INPUT FROM YOU BEFORE BUDGET. YES, SIR.
>> LATER TONIGHT. THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY IN JULY [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH. I KNOW, NOT A PROBLEM.
>> WE HAVE THE RENAMING OF THE PARK BUT IF WE CAN DO THE GOLF COURSE, JUST BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT, THAT ENTRANCE IS REALLY BAD.
I REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GOLF COURSE [NOISE] AND THE LAYOUT.
>> OKAY, TABLE ITEMS. DOES THIS STAY ON THE TABLE? [BACKGROUND] OKAY, THAT REMAINS ON THE TABLE.
THEREFORE, ON 7B, AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MCALLEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
[B) Award of Contract for McAllen Comprehensive Plan Update.]
WE RECOMMEND A MOTION TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.>> MOTION PASSED. IT'S OFF THE TABLE.
>> YES, SIR. AT THE LAST MEETING, THIS ITEM WAS TABLED SO THAT WE COULD FIND SOME FUNDS TO FULLY FUND THE CONTRACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF 517.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUND THOSE FUNDS.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE FULL CONTRACT.
>> CAN I STEP BACK A BIT AND ASK WHY WE'RE LOOKING TO DO A REWRITE INSTEAD OF AN UPDATE? I THINK THE IDEA HAD BEEN TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS FORESIGHT MCALLEN, AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE, A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AT THAT, RIGHT? BUT A REWRITE SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT NECESSARY BASED ON THE HISTORY THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CURRENT PLAN.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE PLAN IS MY POINT HERE, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY A REWRITE IS EVEN NECESSARY.
I THINK THAT INITIALLY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DO AN UPDATE.
OBVIOUSLY I WASN'T IN ON THE DISCUSSIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING, BUT WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?
>> YOU'RE CORRECT. WE HAD RECOMMENDED THE UPDATE AND THE COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING ASKED US TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE REWRITE.
>> WERE THERE PARTICULAR REASONS WHY? [LAUGHTER]
>> NO. IF IT CAN BE UPDATED WITH-
>> ONE, I JUST GOT IN A MONTH AGO.
OKAY? WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE, HOW IT WAS DONE BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW.
[00:40:05]
THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT TO DO A FULL PLAN IS TO ME A GOOD INVESTMENT.>> WE HAVE A PLAN, AND SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS AN UPDATE TO THE PLAN AND NOT MOVE THE PLAN ASIDE AND DO A WHOLE NEW PLAN.
>> BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE ALREADY.
THEY'RE BASICALLY GOING TO JUST UPDATE IT.
WE'RE PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO UPDATE ANYWAY, I WOULD THINK.
>> WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS OUR LAST COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE WAS IN 2007.
NOW, THE CODE PORTION OF THAT WAS NOT ADOPTED BY COMMISSION.
WE'RE WORKING WITH TWO SEPARATE ANIMALS THAT SOMETIMES TALK TO EACH OTHER, SOMETIMES DON'T.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE, YOU SEE SOME ZONES OR SOME NOMENCLATURE THAT DOESN'T MATCH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW, AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE ZONING PART WAS NOT ADOPTED BACK IN 2007 FOR VARIOUS ISSUES.
WHAT THIS DOES, YES, WE ARE GOING TO UPDATE OUR PLAN, BUT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO REWRITE OUR CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT JIBES TOGETHER HENCE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS WHERE THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER.
>> BUT WOULDN'T IT OFF ON THE UPDATE AND NOT A REWRITE?
>> NO, SIR. THE UPDATE WOULD JUST BE FOR OUR FUTURE POINT OF VIEW OF MOVING FORWARD MCALLEN 20 YEARS, RIGHT? THE SECOND PART, WHICH IS THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WILL ACTUALLY ADDRESS ALL THE ZONING AND THE ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT WE NEED.
THE OTHER THING WOULD BE JUST APPROVE THE UPDATE AND THEN HAVE STAFF TRY TO MOVE.
CORRECT. WE CAN DO THAT, IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IN 2007, THE CODE WAS NOT APPROVED, RIGHT?
WE'D BEEN WORKING FOR A [INAUDIBLE] CODE.
>> AGAINST? THE MOTION PASSES.
ITEM EIGHT, EXECUTIVE SESSION. COUNSELOR.
>> MAYOR, ITEMS 8A THROUGH D, IN MY OPINION,
[8. EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY), SECTION 551.072 (DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY), SECTION 551.074 (PERSONNEL MATTERS) AND SECTION 551.087 (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT).]
QUALIFY FOR DISCUSSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 072071087, AND ADDITIONALLY, PURSUANT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, I RECOMMEND YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.>> ALL AGAINST? MOTION CARRIES.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED A MOTION TO RECESS, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
[01:20:04]
WE'RE BACK IN SESSION, COUNSELOR.[01:20:07]
[01:20:10]
I RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION CONSIDER A MOTION AUTHORIZING[A) Discussion and Possible Lease, Sale or Purchase of Real Property; Tract 1 and Tract 2. (Section 551.072, T.G.C.)]
[01:20:15]
THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED AS DESCRIBED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.[01:20:20]
[01:20:21]
[01:20:22]
[01:20:23]
>> ALL AGAINST? THE MOTION PASSES.
>> MAYOR, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM A2, I ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION CONSIDER A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED AS DESCRIBED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> AGAINST? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM C.
>> MAYOR, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM C, I RECOMMEND THE CITY COMMISSION CONSIDER A MOTION
[C) Consideration of Economic Development Matters. (Section 551.087, T.G.C.)]
AUTHORIZING EXTENDING THE DATE TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY THE 380 AGREEMENT TO MARCH 2022.>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THAT AN EXTENSION TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OR THAT AN EXTENSION TO ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT?
>> TO START CONSTRUCTION SOON.
>> CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE IT IS.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE OF AN EXECUTED CONTRACT, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO MOVE THE DATE FOR THAT CONTRACT TO START ONE YEAR BASICALLY.
THAT WOULD EXTEND THE INCENTIVES AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION TIME.
>> WHICH ONE, THERE WAS ALREADY, ISN'T IT?
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>>> MAYOR, WITH RESPECT WITH RESPECT TO ITEM D.
>> I DO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED AS DESCRIBED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> ALL AGAINST? MOTION PASSES.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.