Mar 03, 2026 City Council Meeting

SO YOU WERE WANTING TO PULL DOWN ITEM C? NO, WE'RE NOT WANTING TO PULL IT DOWN.

WE'RE JUST EXCLUDING IT.

IT'S NOT OKAY.

YEAH, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH.

I WANNA LOOK AT SOMETHING.

I WANNA LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AT THE PARKS.

GIMME JUST A SECOND HERE.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT FI WAS LOOKING AT F AND THEN I SAW THAT ONE OF OUR MEMBERS FROM THE IMAGE COMMITTEE'S REQUESTING TO BE, UH, OFF OF THE COMMITTEE.

I THINK SHE HAD TROUBLE ATTENDING.

AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WISH TO HEAR ABOUT THE FILM CORRIDOR PROPOSAL OR WE CAN JUST APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN HERE.

I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE.

WELL, I MEANT FOR THE PUBLIC.

DID WE PUBLICLY TALK ABOUT IT? I DON'T THINK WE PUBLICLY TALKED ABOUT IT, DID WE? I'M GONNA MENTION IT.

[00:10:01]

WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

JUST A SECOND.

LEMME

[H. Consideration of and action on Resolution No. R-4031, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosenberg, Texas, in support of a proposal by the Texas Film Corridor. (Mary Culver, Director of Economic Development) ]

TALK ABOUT ITEM H.

SO MARY, YOU COULD COME AND I THINK YOU ENLIGHTENED US ON A ITEM H WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT, TAKE A MOMENT OR TWO AND TELL, UH, WHAT THE RESOLUTION IS AND WHAT THE HOPE IS FOR THAT SITU FOR THAT ITEM THERE.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

UH, YES.

THIS RESOLUTION IS A, UM, UH, FORMAL SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT THAT THE TEXAS FILM CORRIDOR HAS PROPOSED.

UH, THEY ARE SEEKING, UH, TO ESTABLISH A NEW INDUSTRY IN THE CITY, UH, SPECIFICALLY IN FILM.

UH, THEY'RE SEEKING A PARTNERSHIP OF SORTS WITH THE TEXAS STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE.

SO THIS LETTER IS MAINLY EXPRESSING OUR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS.

UM, IT DOESN'T COMMIT US TO ANYTHING NECESSARILY, BUT, UH, THE TEXAS FILM COURT, WELL, JUST THE FILM INDUSTRY IN GENERAL IS A, UH, HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER INDUSTRY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOB CREATION AND WHAT IT CAN PRODUCE, UM, FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IN TERMS OF INCREASING THE WEALTH.

UH, SO WE ARE, OUR HOPES IS THAT BY PASSING THIS RESOLUTION, UH, IT WILL HELP THEM TO, UM, MOVE FORWARD ON A PROJECT IN ROSENBERG.

DID, WERE THERE, UM, PRIOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT INCREASED REVENUE SIGNIFICANTLY FOR CERTAIN COMMUNITIES? YES.

FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, UH, THEY HAVE, UH, A ROBUST FILM COMMUNITY THERE.

UH, MOST PEOPLE THINK OF CALIFORNIA.

UH, GEORGIA PUT A LOT OF INCENTIVES IN PLACE TO, TO ATTRACT THE FILM INDUSTRY AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF THE DATA BEHIND THAT.

UH, FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPILL SPENT ON FILM IN GEORGIA, ABOUT $6 IN GDP IS CREATED, WHICH IS GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT.

THAT MEANS FOR EVERY DOLLAR THEY SPEND ON FILM, ANOTHER $6 IS PUT INTO THE COMMUNITY, UH, IN TERMS OF THEY'RE GOING OUT TO EAT, THEY'RE SPENDING TIME IN YOUR HOTELS, SHOPPING, UM, JUST GENERAL, UH, WEALTH CREATION IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO, AND I THINK THAT, UM, THERE HAD BEEN SOME MENTION OF THIS LASTING EVEN WELL BEYOND AFTER A FILM'S PRODUCTION IN TERMS OF TOURISM TO VISIT SPOTS THAT WERE ONCE FILMED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

UM, THE FILM INDUSTRY IS, UH, VERY WELL KNOWN FOR FILM TOURISM.

UM, AS A, A GREAT EXAMPLE OF, IF YOU THINK OF THE MOVIE HOPE FLOATS, UH, WAS FILMED IN SMITHVILLE, TEXAS, UM, PAST THAT, UH, CITY RECENTLY AND GOT TO SEE THEIR BILLBOARDS JUST SEWING HOME OF, OF HOPE FLOATS.

AND PEOPLE WILL GO AND, AND VISIT THE TOWN, SPEND MONEY THERE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE SET.

SO JUST SPEAK, WALK THE STREETS THAT SANDRA BULLOCK DID.

AND THEY MADE A FEW MOVIES AROUND HERE THROUGH TIME.

WE DO HAVE, YOU'RE PROBABLY TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER , THEY MADE THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS MM-HMM .

IN RICHMOND.

AND WE ALSO ARE A TEXAS FILM FRIENDLY CITY.

SO WE HAVE THINGS IN PLACE ALREADY FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO COME FILM, FOR INSTANCE, IN DOWNTOWN ROSENBERG.

WE HAVE PERMITTING IN PLACE SO THAT THEY HAVE A VERY CLEAR PATH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THIS WOULD BE A DIFFERENT KIND OF PROJECT.

IT WOULD BE A PROTOTYPE SOUNDSTAGE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO CREATE HERE.

WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE.

SO, UH, THE, UH, FILM INDUSTRY HERE, FILM INDUSTRY JOBS, I SHOULD SAY.

UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, STEVE, YOU WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION NOW? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO UM, PROVE THE CONSENT.

THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF H.

IS IT H, C, C, C SECTION AND C.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM TWO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PUSH OR SAY GREEN? YES.

IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, SAYING OR PUSH RED.

[2. Consideration of and action on Resolution No. R-4023, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosenberg, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute, for and on behalf of the City, an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services, by and between the City and BGE, Inc., for the Brazos Town Center Connector Road under I-69 Project, in the total amount of $236,390.00. (Rigo Calzoncin, Assistant City Manager) ]

IN THIS BINDER I'LL READ THE ITEM CONSIDERATION OF AN ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 4 0 2 3.

A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSENBERG CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSENBERG, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES.

THEY GOTTA BE PROFESSIONAL BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND BGE IN INCORPORATE INCORPORATED FOR TOWN CENTER CONNECTOR ROAD UNDER NOT OVER UNDER I 69 PROJECT.

THIS IS LIKE AN UNDERNEATH U U-TURN IN A WAY,

[00:15:01]

KIND OF RIGHT IN, IN THE AMOUNT OF, UM, $236,390.

NOW THAT'S JUST FOR ENGINEER.

TELL US ALL, TELL US THE REST OF IT.

SURE.

ON, UM, ON JANUARY 6TH, 2026, UH, CITY OF ROSENBERG APPROVED THE INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BRAZOS TOWN CENTER CONNECTOR ROAD, UH, PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BY RESOLUTION NUMBER 40 15.

THE PROJECT WILL, EXCUSE ME, THIS PROJECT WILL BE A CITY MANAGED PROJECT WITH FORT BEND COUNTY MOBILITY FUNDS CONTRIBUTING 462,000 OF ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST AND THE ROSENBERG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CONTRIBUTING 925,000.

THE RDC PORTION HAS BEEN BUDGETED.

BGE IS AN ESTABLISHED ENGINEERING FIRM UTILIZED BY NEWQUEST PROPERTIES.

THE DEVELOPER FOR BRA TOWN CENTER BGE IS FAMILIARITY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE AREA OF BUSINESSES MAKE THEM MOST SUITED FOR THIS PROJECT.

BGE SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $236,390.

THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE A ROADWAY THAT WILL CONNECT BRA TOWN CENTER PHASE ONE TO BRA TOWN CENTER, PHASE TWO.

THE ROADWAY WOULD BE A TWO LANE CONCRETE STRUCTURE STREET, UH, UNDER I 69, UM, A LITTLE BIT, UH, SOUTH OF BNSF 7 62, UH, OVERPASS TO IMPROVE, UH, THE MOBILITY AND TRAFFIC FOR PATRONS SHOPPING ON BOTH SIDES OF DEVELOPMENT AND EAST TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON FM 7 62 AND READING ROAD.

THIS PROJECT IS INCLUDED IN THE 2023 FOR BEND COUNTY MORBIDITY BOND ISSUED, AND, UH, FISCAL YEAR 2024.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER R 40 23 AS PRESENTED AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THOSE.

ALRIGHT, LET'S START WITH FELIX.

UH, FELIX, YOU SEE ON THE MAP WHERE THIS IS? YES SIR.

IT'S CLOSE TO THE TRAIN TRACKS AT TOWN CENTER TRACKS OR THE CITY LIMIT.

UM, MY RIGO MY, MY QUESTION WAS, UM, IF IT DOES GET APPROVED, DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMELINE WHEN IT WILL BE DONE? IT, IT, IT'LL BE A LITTLE WHILE.

UH, I BELIEVE JUST, UH, JUST RIGHT NOW FOR THE DESIGN, IT'S GONNA END UP TAKING US, I WOULD IMAGINE AT LEAST ABOUT NINE MONTHS JUST TO GET THROUGH ALL THE DESIGNS AND NOT ONLY THAT, TO MAKE SURE WE GET EVERYTHING APPROVED THROUGH .

SO IT'S A LOT OF COORDINATING WITH DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT AGENCIES.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

MAYOR.

STEVE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, WE'RE IT TERMINATES INTO COMMERCE COMMERCIAL AND, UH, BRAS IS JUST GONNA BE STOP SIGNS THERE.

IT'S GONNA BE JUST STOP SIGNS JUST ON WHERE IT BUTTS UP TO BRAS.

AND, AND COMMERCIALS.

NO, NO LIGHTS OR NOTHING? NO, NO LIGHTS.

THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO NOT, UH, NOT COMMERCE WILL HAVE A STOP SIGN.

JUST THE, THE NEW ROAD GOING INTO COMMERCE C CORRECT? YEAH, THE, THE, THE STOP SIGN WILL BE ON THE NEW ROAD ITSELF.

WE DON'T WANNA BACK UP COMMERCE 'CAUSE IT'S GOT A TRAIN TRACK RIGHT THERE BEHIND HIM, SO.

JESSICA, UM, SO THIS IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 2023 FORT BEND COUNTY MOBILITY BOND.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.

AND SO THAT'S A BOND THAT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTY, NOT JUST THE CITY OF ROSENBERG, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.

UM, SO THIS ISN'T GONNA ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR CURRENT OBLIGATION IN TERMS OF TAXES, IS IT? I'M NOT SURE IF I'M, HOW I WOULD ANSWER THAT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALWAYS A QUESTION WE ASK, IS THIS GONNA COST US MONEY? IT'S, IT'S ALREADY APPROVED.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED.

IT'S BOND, IT'S ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON.

APPROVED.

THEY WERE, THEY WERE, UH, COUNTY ACTUALLY AS A COUNTY WE VOTED ON A LIST.

APPARENTLY THIS WAS ON THE LIST AT THE TIME.

I WASN'T ON THE COUNCIL.

SO THIS IS BEING PAID FOR, IT'S ALREADY APPROVED IN A PRIOR YEAR AND IT'S BEING PAID FOR BY ALL THE CITIZENS IN FORT BEND, NOT JUST ROSENBERG RESIDENTS.

A PORTION OF IT.

IT'S, IT'S, UH, FORT BEND COUNTY IS PAYING A PORTION OF IT AND WE'RE PAYING A PORTION OF IT.

AND THE REST CAME FROM RDC FUNDING.

BUT THIS BENEFITS DIRECTLY, NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN ROSENBERG, BUT ANYBODY WHO SHOPS AT BRAZOS TOWN CENTER.

IS THAT RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.

ECONOMIC GROWTH.

AND THAT ALWAYS SUPPORTS OUR SALES TAX REVENUE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.

SO OVERALL, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC AND A SHOPPING CENTER.

THAT'S PROBABLY A VERY BIG SOURCE OF SALES TAX FOR US.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS, RICHARD? NO QUESTIONS, GEORGE, ANY QUESTIONS? UM, YEAH, IF YOU, IF YOU DRIVE OUT THERE, UH, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THAT LITTLE ROAD OR YOU HAVE TO GO

[00:20:01]

UP TO THE INTERSECTION.

IF THERE'S A TRAIN, YOU GOTTA STOP.

IF YOU DON'T, YOU GOTTA GO TO THE RED LIGHT, THEN YOU GOTTA GO TO ANOTHER RED LIGHT, THEN YOU GO ONTO THE FREEWAY AND YOU GO TO ANOTHER RED LIGHT.

WHEN YOU GET TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, BY THAT TIME THERE'S ANOTHER TRAIN THERE.

SO YOU GOTTA WAIT FOR THE TRAIN TO PASS.

THEN YOU GO OVER THAT AND THEN YOU'RE FREE.

BUT THIS AVOIDS THE TRAIN, RIGHT? YES.

IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE BYPASS FROM THE WEST MM-HMM .

IT'LL AVOID THE TRAIN.

IT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE TRAIN, CORRECT? MM-HMM .

YEAH, IT'S A, IT'D BE A NEAT LITTLE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T PUT IT IN WHEN THEY BUILT THE FREEWAY, BUT I GUESS WE'LL PUT IT IN NOW.

SO WE NEED A MOTION TO CALL.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

SECOND.

ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY PUSHING US OR SAYING GREEN? YES.

IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, THEN PUSH RED.

NO, THANK YOU MR. .

SIX TO ONE ABSENT, BUT I BET IF HECTOR WERE HERE, HE WOULD'VE VOTED FOR IT TOO.

RIGHT? OKAY.

WE'LL GO TO WHAT NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM THREE.

JESSICA, WOULD YOU MIND READING THE ITEM? I DO NOT.

I WILL TAKE A BREAK.

NUMBER THREE, CONSIDERATION OF AN ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 4 0 24.

SO THIS IS ITEM

[3. Consideration of and action on Resolution No. R-4024, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosenberg, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute, for and on behalf of the City, an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services, by and between the City and Kaluza, Inc., for the Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 Collection System Line Rehabilitation Project, in the total amount of $125,700.00. (Rigo Calzoncin, Assistant City Manager) ]

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ROSENBERG, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

IN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND CALUSA INC.

FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

NUMBER TWO, COLLECTION SYSTEM LINE REHABILITATION PROJECT, AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $125,700.

UH, RICO, THANK YOU.

ON OCTOBER, UH, 22ND, 2025, THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OF AND ENGINEERING PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE MET TO REVIEW AND, AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF 18 UH, FIRMS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY'S THREE YEAR PRE-QUALIFIED POOL OF EXPERIENCE IN QUALIFIED ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS. THE RECOMMENDED LIST WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025 BY RESOLUTION NUMBER R 39 74.

ADDITIONALLY, AT THE NOV AT THE OCTOBER 22ND, UH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CALUSA INC.

FOR THE PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

NUMBER TWO, COLLECTION SYSTEM LINE REHABILITATION PROJECT.

CALUSA HAS A KNOWLEDGE AND BACKGROUND TO PERFORM THE SERVICES BASED UPON THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS.

KALUZA SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 125,700 FOR THIS PRO.

THIS PROJECT WILL CONTINUE TO REPLACE THE AGING SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM IN THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NUMBER TWO SERVICE AREA.

THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE SYSTEM REBO RELIABILITY AND MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REGULATIONS.

THIS PROJECT IS INCLUDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2026, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND FISCAL YEAR 2026.

BUDGET STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 40 24 AS PRESENTED.

AND YOU CAN SEE THIS MAP, THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT WE SELECTED TO REPLACE SOME OF THESE SEWER LINES.

ARE THEY GOING TO RELEVE THEM LIKE THEY'VE DONE ON SOME OF THOSE LOCATIONS? UH, WHERE YOU SEE PARROT, UH, MASON THERE IN CAMBRIDGE VILLAGE? YES.

WE'RE GONNA PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT, UH, PIPE PERSON, THOSE LOCATIONS.

SOME OF THE LOCATIONS, UM, WEST OF 36, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA END UP OPEN CUTTING SOME OF THAT.

ALRIGHT, WELL, LET'S SEE.

SO WEST OF 36, STEVE, THAT'S DISTRICT TWO.

EAST WOULD BE DISTRICT THREE.

HECTOR'S NOT HERE, BUT, UM, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? WE'LL JUST DO IT THAT WAY INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE LINE.

I DON'T, NOPE.

GEORGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU KNOW, NOT THEY'RE DOING THOSE SEWER LINES.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA JAM PIPES THROUGH 'EM AND REDO 'EM THAT WAY FOR THE MOST PART, EXCEPT ON THE WEST SIDE.

RIGHT? SO YOU HEAR THAT BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

IT'S NOT AN EARTHQUAKE, IT'S WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SLEEP IT, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

DOES IT REDUCE THE DIAMETER MUCH? IT IT, IT, IT'S USUALLY LIKE FOR LIKE, OR A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.

THEY'RE WHAT, FOUR INCH PIPE? SIX INCH? NO, THIS WILL END UP BEING, UH, 6, 8, 10.

THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT SIZES.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FELIX? NO, SIR.

ALRIGHT, WELL IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

[00:25:02]

IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, PUSH OR SAY GREEN.

WE'RE GONNA DO A, UH, VOICE VOTE IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

SAY YES.

NO, IT'S, UM, THERE IT GOES.

ALRIGHT, MOTION PASSES.

WHAT'S NEXT? FOUR, RIGHT ITEM

[4. Consideration of and action on Resolution No. R-4029, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosenberg, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute, for and on behalf of the City, a Proposal for Professional Engineering Services, by and between the City and Quiddity Engineering, LLC, for the 2026 Groundwater Reduction Plan Project, in the total amount of $89,000. (Charles Kalkomey, City Engineer) ]

FOUR.

CONSIDERATION OF AN ACTION ON, UH, RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 4 0 2 9.

A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSENBERG CITY COUNCIL.

CITY OF ROSENBERG, TEXAS AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BEHALF OF THE CITY, A PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BUY IN BETWEEN THE CITY.

OH, LAWRENCE.

I DIDN'T SEE, HOW DID WE MISS YOU? L I'VE LOST SO MUCH WEIGHT.

I SEE THAT DON'T SEE.

HEY MARY, WE'LL SEE YOU.

THANKS FOR COMING.

OF THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM.

YOU TOO.

WHERE WAS I? IT'S ALWAYS, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO SEE LN.

THAT IS FOR SURE.

ALRIGHT, FOUR.

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, A PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BUYING BETWEEN THE CITY AND LIQUIDITY ENGINEERING LLC FOR 2026.

UH, GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,000.

AND IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THING, $89,000 IS A LOT CHEAPER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER NUMBERS WE SEE AROUND HERE.

BUT MR. ALCHEMY, HOW ARE YOU? THE SEAT? I'M FINE.

MAYOR AND YOURSELF? OH, GOOD.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.

CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS? SURE WILL.

IT WAS IN 2010 WHEN QUINTY ENGINEERING NORMALLY KNOWN AS JONES AND CARTER AT THAT TIME PREPARED A GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN REPORT FOR THE CITY.

AND THIS GRP WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NUMBER R 1157 ON AUGUST 3RD, 2010, AND WAS SUB SUB SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT.

SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT RECENTLY ADOPTED WHAT THEY'RE CALLING THE 2025 DISTRICT PLAN.

CURRENTLY THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO LIMIT GROUNDWATER USE TO NO MORE THAN 70% OF THEIR TOTAL WATER USAGE.

UNDER THE RULES OF THE NEW PLAN, THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO LIMIT GROUNDWATER USE TO NO MORE THAN 40% OF TOTAL WATER USAGE BY THE YEAR 2030.

PRIOR TO THE SCIENCE CHANGE IN THEIR RULES RULES, WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL PROJECTS IN ANTICIPATION OF THESE CHANGES.

THESE PROJECTS INCLUDE WATER WELL NUMBER 11, A SECOND, 3 MILLION GALLON STORAGE TANK AT PLANT EIGHT, WATER WELL NUMBER 12, AND A 1 MILLION GALLON STORAGE TANK AT PLANT NUMBER NINE, EXTENSION OF A 16 INCH WATERLINE ALONG RICE FIELD ROAD, BENTON ROAD AND COPELAND ROAD.

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MUD 1 62, 2 32, AND 2 37.

THE CITY IS FURTHER EXTENDING A 16 INCH WATERLINE ALONG COPELAND FROM 2218 TO 36 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MUD 1 47.

WE'VE ALSO BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH BRAZOSPORT WATER AUTHORITY REGARDING THE TIMING OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL 2.7 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF SURFACE WATER.

AS PER OUR AGREEMENT, WE'RE ALSO EXPLORING THE OPPORTUNITY OF OBTAINING ADDITIONAL WATER, SURFACE WATER FROM BWA ALONG WITH MAYBE UTILIZING THE CITY'S EXISTING WATER RIGHTS FROM THE BRA RIVER AUTHORITY.

THE CITY CONTINUES TO RECEIVE INQUIRIES FROM POTENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ON A REGULAR BASIS, PRIMARILY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY.

WITH EACH OF THESE INQUIRIES, THE CITY IS BEING ASKED IF THERE'S ENOUGH WATER TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE IN THE SUBSIDES DISTRICT RENEW RULES WILL REQUIRE THE CITY TO PROVIDE THE STATUS OF OUR GRP MILESTONES RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WATER SUPPLIES, AND WATER DEMANDS ANNUALLY.

AS PART OF THE YEAR'S PERMIT AND RENEWAL, THE CITY MUST ACCURATELY REFLECT SUPPLIES, DEMANDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AS THE CONDITION OF THE PERMIT RENEWAL.

AS WE SAID, LIQUIDITY PREPARED THE PREVIOUS REPORT IN 2010.

DURING THE LAST 16 YEARS, LIQUIDITY HAS KEPT THE WATER SYSTEM MODELS UPDATED IF ALSO DOCUMENTED AND PROJECTED WATER USAGE, AND HAVE RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE WATER SYSTEM PURSUANT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIQUIDITY.

UNDER RESOLUTION R 33 30, THIS PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2026 GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN PROJECT IS BEING PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

THE CITY HAS REQUESTED LIQUIDITY BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF AND EXPERIENCE

[00:30:01]

UPDATE THE EXISTING GRP TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, ALONG WITH ASSISTING THE CITY AND HOW THE FUTURE WATER DEMANDS MIGHT BE MET.

LIQUIDITY IS INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S THREE YEAR PRE-QUALIFIED POOL OF EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NUMBER R 39 74 ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025.

PROPOSAL IS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $89,000 AND IS ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO THIS RESOLUTION.

40 29.

THE ITEM IS PARTIALLY FUNDED AND SUBSIDENCE FUND FY 26 BUDGET, BUT A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WILL BE INCLUDED ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE REMAINING BALANCE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION R 40 29 AS PRESENTED.

TELL US BRIEFLY, WHAT WOULD THE $89,000 THIS IS LIQUIDITY WOULD COMPLETE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES DEFINED HERE AND ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR? WAYS TO REDUCE OR TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT? UM, WELL, ALL OF THAT.

THERE'S THEIR FIRST GOING LOOK AT DEMANDS AND PROJECT DEMANDS IN THE FUTURE, AND THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHAT OUR SUPPLIES AVAILABLE ARE AND HOW WE'RE GONNA USE THOSE.

THEY WILL LOOK AT CONSERVATION METHODS THAT WE MIGHT EMPLOY.

THEY WILL LOOK AT REUSE, EXPANSION, THE REUSE SYSTEM TO SEE HOW THAT WILL HELP.

UH, THEY'LL LOOK AT, UM, OUR CREDIT.

YOU KNOW, WE, WE EARN CREDITS EVERY MONTH IN WHAT OUR USAGE IS.

SO WE'LL LOOK AT USING THE CREDITS IF WE NEED TO, AND THEN THEY'LL OUTLINE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MEET THOSE OBLIGATIONS FOR THE SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT.

THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE A, A, UH, LIKE A, NOT A DETENTION, BUT A RESERVOIR.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH TO COVER A POSSIBILITY OF, UM, THE STUDY FOR A NEED OF A RESERVOIR.

NO, IT WON'T INCLUDE A, A STUDY THAT WOULD BE A BIGGER, THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE THAN 89,000 PROBABLY, WOULDN'T IT? RIGHT.

IT WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT A SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOMEWHERE ON THE BRAZOS RIVER.

SO IT'LL, IT'LL LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW PRACTICAL THAT MIGHT BE.

BUT I THINK THE, SOME OF THE CONCERN ALSO, AND I'M OKAY WITH THE, UH, WITH THE RESOLUTION IS WILL THE RIVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH WATER IN THE FUTURE? WELL, THAT'S WHY WE WOULD, WE'VE GOT WATER WELLS IF THAT, IF THAT HAPPENS.

WE HAVE WATER WELLS TO SUPPLY THE CITY WATER.

WE HAVE GROUNDWATER CREDITS THAT ARE BEING ACCUMULATED WE CAN USE IF WE HAVE TO AND WE CAN'T GET SURFACE WATER.

YEAH, I WOULD THINK MAYBE SOMETIME A, UH, SOME SORT OF RESERVOIR.

WELL, THE PER PERMANENT STORAGE OF, OF WATER IN ON GROUND LEVEL.

WELL BELOW GROUND LEVEL, BUT NOT, NOT JUST FOR DETENTION.

MS. ALLEN? RICHARD, JESSICA? NO.

BUT FOR BUT FOR SURFACE STORAGE.

I DON'T KNOW.

I WAS THINKING THE, THE RICE FIELD DETENTION BASIN, BUT I KNOW THAT'S FOR DRAINAGE, RIGHT.

OR OR FOR OVERFLOW.

ANYWAY, WE'LL SEE WHAT THE, SEE IF THE COUNCIL HERE IS, WE DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR OFF IN THE WEEDS.

UH, DOES ANYBODY HERE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? WATER IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE, BUT THE FUTURE OF IT AND THE FUTURE OF HOW, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE ENOUGH OF IT.

'CAUSE WE, WE HAVE BEEN DRY THESE LAST FEW MONTHS.

SOMETIMES WE DON'T, THESE ARE NOT ISSUES.

AND THEN SOMETIMES LIKE NOW THEY ARE.

BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GEOR YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT STUFF LIKE THIS? I CURIOUS ABOUT IT.

STEVE, FELIX, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

UH, WHAT KIND OF IMPACTS WILL, UM, THE RESIDENTS HAVE, YOU KNOW, TRANSITIONING FROM, UH, GROUNDWATER TO SURFACE WATER? AS FAR AS RATES GO? AS FAR AS RATES GO? YES, SIR.

UM, WE, WE LOOK AT THE RATES WITH RESPECT TO OUR GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN NEEDS AND WATER RATES ON A REGULAR BASIS.

AND SO, WE'LL, WE'LL AGAIN, LOOK AT RATES AS WE GO THROUGH THIS TO SEE IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE INCREASED.

WE START DRAWING MORE WATER FROM BWA, WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE AN INCREASE IN RATES BECAUSE WE'LL BE PAYING BWA MORE WATER, MORE MONEY.

FELIX? WE, WE TRY TO RESIST, WELL, ANY RATE INCREASES, BUT WATER RATE INCREASES.

SO THIS IS WHY IT'S ALWAYS BEST TO WATCH THE DOLLARS.

WATCH THE DOLLARS.

OH YEAH.

WATCH THE DOLLAR DOLLARS SO THAT THE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO THE COUNCIL EVERY SIX MONTHS AND SAY, WE GOTTA RAISE THIS RATE OR WE HAVE TO RAISE THAT RATE.

UM, AND, UH, I'M NOT, I'M SURE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY LIKE TO DO.

AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE

[00:35:01]

DON'T WANT TO DO.

UM, SO THIS IS THE WHOLE IDEA ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE HERE TO WATCH THESE DOLLARS, WATCH THESE DOLLARS.

SO, BUT YEAH, THE RATES HAVE, HAVE HAD TO GO UP.

UM, AND THEN ALSO MY OTHER SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE, ARE WE CONFIDENT THAT BRAZOSPORT WATER AUTHORITY CAN PROVIDE THAT KIND OF WATER IN THE FUTURE? THEY, UM, THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF, OF RERATING THEIR PLANT TO PROVIDE MORE CAPACITY ON PAPER.

AT LEAST THERE'S, THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING A THIRD RESERVOIR IN THEIR AREA TO STORE WATER OUT OF THE RIVER.

THEY HAVE TWO RIGHT NOW THEY DRAW OUT OF IT'S CONSTRUCTING A THIRD ONE.

THEY ADD TO THAT THEY HAVE SEVERAL WATER WELLS THEY'VE DRILLED THAT ARE BRACKISH IN NATURE.

AND SO THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A DESALINATION TESTING PROCESS GOOD TO GET, UH, WATER FROM THOSE WELLS.

AND THAT WOULD PRODUCE ABOUT 12 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.

SO, UH, THEY'RE MAKING PLANS TO MAKE, TO HAVE PLENTY OF WATER FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

WELL, IF THEY CAN, OF COURSE THE ARABS HAVE MORE OIL THAN THEY HAVE WATER AND MORE MONEY TOO.

BUT IF THEY CAN DO IT IN THE MIDDLE EAST, SUPPOSEDLY WE HAD A, UM, AT ONE OF THE MAYOR COUNCIL DINNERS, WE HAD A ENGINEERING FIRM AND SOME OTHER FIRM THAT SAID THAT, UM, AND THIS HAS BEEN FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO THAT, UH, DESALINATION IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE.

SO THAT MAY BE THE FUTURE.

IT MAY BE IT'S STILL PRETTY EXPENSIVE TODAY.

ALRIGHT, SO, UM, WE NEED A, WE NEED A MOTION TO, IF Y'ALL WANT TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION, SOMEBODY CAN MAKE THE MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

I GUESS I'LL SECOND TO APPROVE IT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PUSH OR SAY GREEN.

IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, PUSH OR SAY RED.

NO, IT LOOKS LIKE THE GREEN YES.

HAS BEEN THE, UH, BEEN THE ANSWER FOR THE EVENING.

THANK YOU CHARLIE.

YOU, YOU ARE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON I KNOW ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

MANY OTHER ISSUES.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDERATION OF AN ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM OUR COZA STABILIZED AND RECYCLING TO AMEND THE CITY CITY'S MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, KNOWN AS MTP BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FUTURE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR STREET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 90 BEING SOUTHERLY, EXTENSION OF, UH, CECIL RABINOWITZ ROAD.

[5. Consideration of and action on a request from Arcosa Stabilized & Recycling to amend the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) by removing the requirement for a future Collector Street south of US Highway 90A, being a southerly extension of Cecil Robinowitz Road. (Mohamed Bireima, Director of Planning) ]

WHAT IS GOING ON MOHAMMED? THANK YOU MAYOR.

UH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

GOOD EVENING.

A PETITION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY OUR COSA STABILIZED AND RECYCLING PETITIONER FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY.

MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR PLAN MTP TO REMOVE THE FUTURE COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION THAT RUNS THROUGH, UH, SEVERAL PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF US HIGHWAY 90 A BETWEEN SCOTT ROAD AND PATTON ROAD SLASH SPUR 10.

UH, THE PETITIONER OWNS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ONE ACRE TRACK LOCATED SOUTH OF US HIGHWAY 90 A BETWEEN SCOTT AND PATTON ROAD.

AND DESIRES TO REMOVE THIS, UM, COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION, UH, TO PLOT THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A PROPOSED SAND PIT DEVELOPMENT.

ON THE TRACK.

UH, ON THE, ON THE SCREEN, THAT COLLECTOR THAT I'M REFERRING TO IS THE GREEN ONE THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF 90 A UH, THE FUTURE COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION, AS I SAID, UH, RUNS THROUGH THE COOSA PROPERTY AND VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF MU MU, UH, MUEY ROAD.

THE INTENT OF THIS FUTURE COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION IS TO EXTEND THE SEAL ROBIN WI ROAD SOUTH OF US HIGHWAY 98.

HOWEVER, UNION PACIFIC HAS INFORMED THE CITY OF ITS DESIRE TO ABANDON CECILE ROBIN WI ROAD AND HAS REQUESTED ITS REMOVAL AND FROM THE MTP AND TO ACCOMMODATE A LARGE SCALE MANUFACTURING, LOGISTICS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH BOTH RAIL SERVED AND NON RAILER FACILITIES ON ITS 2100 ACRES TRACK ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THIS FUTURE COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION.

UH, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT IT CONNECTS TO ANY OTHER ROAD SOUTH OF MU GI ROAD WHERE THE ROSENBERG 2035 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UM, ADOPTED IN 2015.

ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN RESULTING IN THE MAP REALIGNMENT

[00:40:01]

OF AN EXTERIOR OR COLLECTOR STREET MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING AND A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSED THIS SUBJECT PETITION AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026.

AFTER THE HEARING AND THE DISCUSSION, THE COMMISSION VOTED FOR THE ZERO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MTP AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

UH, BY REMOVING THIS COLLECTOR ROAD DESIGNATION, UH, AS PRESENTED, SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO PROVE THE MTP AMENDMENT, THE STAFF WILL BRING FORWARD A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST MAP WE SAW? YES.

ALRIGHT, SO THIS GROUP THAT'S REQUESTED, IT OWNS SEVEN SOMETHING ACRES.

SO THEY OWN THIS 7 70, 71 ACRE TRACK.

OH, 71 ACRES.

SO THAT IS 71 ACRES, THAT'S 71 ACRE.

AND THAT GREEN COLLECTOR DESIGNATION, UHHUH RUNS THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY.

IT WOULD'VE RAN RIGHT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY.

AND THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT, UM, UH, WELL, THEY WANNA REMOVE IT.

THEY WANNA REMOVE IT BECAUSE THEY GOT A DIFFERENT USE FOR THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN HAVING A ROAD RIGHT THROUGH IT.

THAT'S PRETTY RARE BECAUSE MOST LANDOWNERS WANT ROADS RIGHT.

THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY SO THEY CAN SELL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO, UM, ARE THOSE FOLKS HERE TONIGHT? THEY ARE.

ARE THEY? YES.

WELL, I THINK ALL THE DEER I'VE BEEN HERE, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE'S ASKED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ROAD.

UH, I THINK THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF REASON THAT THEY STATED IT BECAUSE THEY, UM, ONE OF THEM IS TO DEVELOP THE GRAVEL PIT OR SO IT CA IT'S KIND OF HARD TO DO IF THERE'S A ROAD RUNNING RIGHT THROUGH IT.

AND, UH, OKAY.

SO THE NEXT OR NORTH SOUTH ARTERY IS SCOTT'S SCOTT ROAD, WHICH ISN'T VERY FAR FROM THIS PROPOSED ROAD.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO THAT WOULDN'T REALLY SCREW UP LIKE GETTING THROUGH THERE.

AND IF IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY ANYWAY, YOU'RE NOT HAVING THROUGH TRAFFIC.

'CAUSE IT'S GRAVEL ROAD.

UNLESS YOU DRIVE DOWN INTO THE, IN THE GRAVEL PIT.

CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC, SIR? SO, OKAY.

I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WANT.

IT MAKES YOU HAPPY.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE.

ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S LEMME START WITH JESSICA AND SEE, SEE THIS MAP HERE AND, UH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE IT.

AND, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT'S WHAT THEY RECOMMEND.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION? WELL, I MEAN, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS IT, I MEAN THAT'S WHY WE APPOINTED THEM IS TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

SO I WON'T GO AGAINST THEM WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE.

AND MOHAMMAD, YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT? I THINK I'M GOOD WITH IT BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT, UM, UNION PACIFIC HAS DIFFERENT PLANS FOR THAT TRACK ON THE NORTH SIDE, UHHUH, , SO THAT THAT'S SEAL ROBIN WOODS.

I THINK THAT'S THEIR DESIRE TO BASICALLY ELIMINATE THAT ROAD BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE A RAIL SERVE DEVELOPMENT ON IT RUNNING THROUGH AND WITHOUT ROAD BEING THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE WAY.

SO THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT IN THE FUTURE.

THEY HAVEN'T FORMALLY SUBMITTED IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THEIR PLAN.

AND THIS ONE SOUTH OF 98, IT DOESN'T CONNECT TO ANYWHERE.

AND SO I'M, I THINK, I THINK YOU CAN MAKE A CASE THAT YOU, YOU COULD, COULD ELIMINATE IT WITHOUT ANY, WITHOUT HURTING US WHO WANTED TO PUT A ROAD THERE.

UM, THE DEVELOPERS, FUTURE DEVELOPERS, SO IT'S NOT THE CITY, SO IT'S JUST A DESIGNATION RIGHT NOW, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DEVELOP IT, THEY, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PUT THE ROAD.

WELL, AND, AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN A DEVELOPER.

THEY, IT'S, THEY'RE JUST PROPOSED LINES ON MAPS AND, AND IT WAS JUST A, IT'S JUST, IT WAS JUST A GUIDE.

YOU KNOW? IT'S A GUIDE.

IT WAS JUST PROFUSE THE ROAD.

UM, YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE IT INTENDED USE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE THOROUGHFARE.

BUT, BUT THEY'RE TWEAKABLE WITH, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL APPROVAL AND THE ONES OUT IN THE COUNTY, THE, THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO APPROVE THEM.

BUT IT, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A, UH, A FLOWING, UM, CHART, UH, IF YOU WILL, A FLOWING MAP, UH, WHEN, WHEN OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH YOU WANT TO TRY TO RESPECT AND REGARD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

'CAUSE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE A PROPERTY RIGHTS STATE AND WE DON'T WANT TO INFRINGE UNNECESSARILY, CERTAINLY ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW BASIC STANDARDS.

AND THIS IS THE, UM, YOU'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF WHO OSA YEAH.

SO,

[00:45:01]

IT'S, IT'S JUST GONNA BE A SAND PIT.

SO YOU THINK THAT OVITZ ROAD EVENTUALLY THE IS GONNA GO AWAY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE REDEVELOPED RIGHT? IN PACIFIC? I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY STATED.

THAT'S, IT'S GONNA GO PROBABLY AS GOOD AS ANY IS, UH, IS EVER TO, UH, RICHARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ARE YOU ALL RIGHT WITH QUESTIONS? WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.

A FUTURE FUTURE NICE FISHING SPOT.

20 YEARS FROM NOW.

GEORGE.

I'M KIND OF CURIOUS MYSELF, BUT I'LL, I'LL, UH, I'LL, I'LL DRIVE WITH IT.

UH, STEVE, ACTUALLY THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT STEVE OR IN DISTRICT TWO.

OKAY, FELIX.

UM, NO QUESTIONS.

UM, I GUESS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS OKAY WITH IT, I'M OKAY WITH IT.

LET ME MAKE THE MOTION THEN I'LL, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.

AND I KNOW THAT GRAVEL PITS AREN'T NECESSARILY THE FANCIEST THING, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE NEEDED.

'CAUSE WE NEED SAND AND GRAVEL, DON'T WE? WE DO.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO, UH, I'LL SECOND.

OKAY, SO STEVE AND FELIX, I NEED TO VOTE FOR MY OWN MOTION.

IF THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE APPROVE THINGS AND THEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF PLANS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

SOMEBODY CAN'T GET THE FINANCING.

THE, THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL WOULD BE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.

DIFFERENT COMES UP, YOU KNOW.

JUST HAVE TO SHOW YOUR PLAN TO YEAH.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

I APPRECIATE.

SO YEAH, IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, TRY SOMETHING ELSE.

YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

GOOD LUCK ON, ON YOUR DEAL.

WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.

ALRIGHT, WE

[6. Consideration of and action on a variance request by Naomi Strauss, Fulcrum Land Surveying, for reducing the parking and paving setback for a proposed commercial use located at 4122 Minonite Road (FM 2977) (Sec. 1-416 (D)(1) and Sec. 4-61 (C)(2)(vii)). (Mohamed Bireima, Director of Planning) ]

CONSIDERATION OF AN ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST BY NAOMI STRAUSS.

FALCON LAND SURVEYING FOR REDUCING THE PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, NOW COMMERCIAL USE USE LOCATED AT 2122 MENNONITE ROAD.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MAYOR.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO SECTION ONE DASH FOUR 16 D ONE AND SECTION FOUR DASH 61 C TWO SEVEN OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MENNONITE ROAD AND SOUTH OF COLUM ROAD AT UH, 41 22 MENNONITE ROAD.

UH, WITHIN THE CITY'S X-RAY TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS THE MAP IS THE LOCATION OF THE, UH, PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT PARKING SETBACK FOR THE, FROM THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO MENNONITE ROAD IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

THE 15 FOOT PARKING AND PAVING SETBACKS TYPICALLY RESERVED FOR ACCOMMODATING TREES AND LANDSCAPING ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO STREETS.

SUBJECT PROPERTIES IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND RECENTLY RECEIVED COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A FINAL PLAT, UH, CALLED FM 29 77 77 BUSINESS PARK.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF FOUR BANK COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 1 62.

THE DISTRICT IS PARTICIPANT IN THE CITY'S GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN AND THE CITY WILL BE SUPPLYING WATER TO THE DISTRICT UPON AN INSTALLATION OF FIVE MASTER METERS.

THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO WATER PLANT NUMBER EIGHT AND THE COMPLETION OF A 16 INCH WATER LINE FROM RICE FIELD ROAD TO THE INTERSECTION OF GOLIN ROAD AND WILLOW CANYON LANE IN FORT BEND COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 2 32.

ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT VARIANCE.

AND AFTER THE DISCUSSION, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH A VOTE OF 40 ZERO.

SO THE, UH, PETITIONER IS APPLYING THE, THE LAW PROVIDES THAT THEY CAN APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL.

THEY'RE APPEALING TO COUNSEL.

ALRIGHT, SO LET ME GO OVER THIS.

UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG OR FEEL FREE TO STEP IN THERE.

THE ETJ, IT'S NOT IN THE CITY.

SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED.

THIS WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS IN

[00:50:01]

HE'S, HE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK.

WHAT'S THAT? PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK.

PARKING AND, AND PAVING SETBACK.

UH, IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HE MADE HIS, I'M ASSUMING HE MADE HIS ARGUMENT AND MADE HIS COMMENTS AND THEY WENT THROUGH.

AND HOW, HOW LONG DID THEY MEET? DID THEY GIVE HIM, YOU KNOW, DUE PROCESS AND AN ADEQUATE HEARING? ABSOLUTELY.

THEY GIVE THEM TIME TO REBUT AND THEY DIDN'T RUSH THROUGH 10, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE MINUTE YES.

AT LEAST 30, 45 MINUTES, MAYBE AN HOUR.

AND HE COULDN'T CONVINCE ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, VETTED THIS AND, AND ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY HEARD ALL THE COMMENTS, BOTH SIDES, THEY VOTED FOUR TO ZERO TO UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIM.

DENY THE VARIANCE.

I'M GONNA LOOK AT THE MAP HERE.

ANOTHER MAP, A SKETCH I GUESS, OF THE, UH, PROPOSED.

IS THERE A SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT HERE? OH, I THINK I SAW ANOTHER ONE.

HOW MUCH, HOW BIG IS THE PROPERTY SQUARE FOOTAGE IN GENERAL THAT LOOKS LIKE, I'M GUESSING THREE ACRES.

ONES HERE IF YOU WANNA OKAY.

WELL I KNOW, BUT RIGHT NOW AND, AND YEAH, I GOT YOU.

WE, WE MAY GET, SIR, YOU CAN COME, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE PROBABLY ARE GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION, BUT I DON'T WANNA REHASH EVERYTHING THEY REHASHED AT THE PLANNING .

NO, NO, THAT'S FINE.

BUT, UM, ABOUT HOW BIG IS THIS PROPERTY? IT'S, IT'S 10 ACRES.

10 ACRES.

SO THAT'S A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND WHAT ARE YOU WANTING TO PUT ON IT? SO IT'D BE A COMMERCIAL FRONT COMMERCIAL ON THE, ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

AND THEN IT'LL BE A STORAGE JUST KIND OF ON THE NORTH SIDE AND IN THE WEST PART OF THE TRACK.

SO WHY, AND PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY.

IF IT'S 10 ACRES, WHICH IS A LOT OF SPACE THERE MM-HMM .

YOU, WHY DO YOU NEED A VARIANCE TO GET IN A FEW EXTRA PARKING PLACES? SO IT'S ALMOST APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 40 PARKING SPACES ALONG THE FRONT THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IF, IF THE VARIANCE DOESN'T PASS.

UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ALL PRETTY, THE FORT BEND, FORT BEND COUNTY HAD APPROVED THE DESIGN NOT KNOWING THAT THE CITY, UH, CITY OF ROSENBERG HAD THAT, THAT 15 FOOT SETBACK.

UH, WE DID FIND A PLAT NORTH OF US, 1200 FEET THAT WAS APPROVED WITH A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT.

UH, WHICH WE FOLLOWED PRETTY MUCH THAT, THAT SAME REQUIREMENT.

UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF ROSENBERG.

SO APPROVE THAT PLAT YOU WOULD TAKE OUT PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, SOME OF IT.

THE JUST ON MENNONITE.

ON MENNONITE, CORRECT.

ON MENNONITE.

AND THAT'S ALREADY DEDICATING 30 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO OCK.

SO OUT OF THE 10 ACRES WE'RE DEDICATING 30 FEET.

SO HOW FAR WOULD THAT MAKE YOUR PROPERTY LINE TO, UM, TO THE BUILDING? TO THE CLOSEST BUILDING? UH, LET'S SAY THE EDGE OF THE EDGE OF MENNONITE.

AND THEN YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, SPACE MM-HMM .

UH, YOU KNOW, THE 30 FEET, YOU KNOW, THE END OF THE 30 FEET THAT YOU'RE GONNA GIVE TO TXDOT.

HOW FAR FROM THERE TO THE FIRST STRUCTURE? SO WE HAVE 65 FEET.

FIVE.

SO WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE FIRST STRUCTURE.

FROM THE FIRST FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT.

FROM FROM THE EDGE OF MENNONITE, CORRECT.

TO, TO, TO THE AND AND THEN IN BETWEEN.

SO YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT THIS ROW OF PAR.

AND WHAT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN THERE ABOUT, SO IN BETWEEN YOU WOULD HAVE, YOU WOULD HAVE PARKING, HAVE A SITE PLAN.

HERE I, I DO SEE A SKETCH DEAL.

I MEAN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE BUILDING HERE, HERE'S THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT'S THE 30 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S BEING DEDICATED.

UHHUH, , UH, OKAY.

WHAT DO YOU S YOU WOULD HAVE, YOU WOULD'VE PARKING, YOU WOULD'VE THAT 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE MICRO COMPANY? YEAH.

IT'S NOT BEING RECORDED.

OH, I'M SORRY.

THEN YOU HAVE THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN FROM THERE IT'S ALL RIGHT AWAY.

[00:55:02]

I SEE THAT ONE ROW.

SO IF, IF RIGHT, IF THE VARIANCE DOESN'T GET APPROVED, THEN THAT ENTIRE ROW OF PARKING WOULD BE, UH, WOULD BE, UH, PRETTY MUCH REMOVED FROM THE, FROM THE SIDE PLAN.

I'M NOT SEEING A HUNDRED FEET.

I SEE A ROW THAT SAYS 24 FEET.

SO BASICALLY WHAT THEY HAVE IS YOU GOT THE ROAD, THEN YOU HAVE THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND THEN AFTER IT THEY HAVE FOUR ROWS OF PARKING, UH, WHICH WOULD HAVE TWO DRIVING AISLES IN BETWEEN THOSE ROWS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE BUILDING.

SO THAT'S KIND OF IN SUCCESSION.

SO YOU HAVE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEN ONE ROOF PARKING, AND THEN A DRIVING AISLE AND ROWS OF PARKING AND THEN ANOTHER DRIVING AISLE.

AND THEN THE BUILDING.

SO THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO, UNTIL YOU GET TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE.

SO IN, IN THAT SPACE, I THINK THEY CAN MANIPULATE AND MAKE SOME CHANGES THE WAY THEY CAN PROVIDE THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

'CAUSE THE COUNTY ITSELF, WHERE THEY GO GET PERMITTING FROM, DOES REQUIRE LANDSCAPING.

AND SO IF THEY SHRINK THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM 15 TO 10, THEN THAT IS REDUCED THE AREA WHERE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE TO PUT A SLID ON THERE.

THE COUNTY HAS A, THE COUNTY HAS A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT.

SO THAT'LL MEET THAT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT.

BUT OUR REQUIREMENT IS 15.

WHAT'S OUR, WHAT IS OUR, OUR REQUIREMENT IS 15.

OUR IS WHAT? 15? 15 FEET? 15.

AND THE COUNTY REQUIRES 10.

THE COUNTY REQUIRES 10.

THIS IS, THIS IS NOT IN THE CITY, CORRECT? THIS IS NOT IN THE CITY.

AND AND THIS, UH, UNFORTUNATELY GENERATES NO REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

NOT IN THE CITY.

WELL, UH, NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE IN MUD 1 62 AND WE HAVE A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THEM, WE CAN ANNEX THEM FOR LIMITED PURPOSES AND WE CAN TAKE TAX GEN, UH, TAX REVENUE FROM THEM.

I SEE.

SO AT THAT TIME, WHEN WE DO THAT THERE, WE WILL ANNEX A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

WE WON'T ANNEX THE PROPERTY ITSELF, BUT WE WILL ANNEX IT JUST FOR LIMITED PURPOSES.

JUST FOR, FOR SALES TAX.

SO IF IT'S IMPROVED, WE DON'T GENERATE ANY ADD VELO REVENUE IN THE FUTURE IF WE ANNEX IT, IF WE ANNEX THE MUD IN THE DISTANT FUTURE.

'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA ANNEX THEM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF DEBT.

RIGHT? YEAH.

SO, BUT IN THE SHORT TERM, WE CAN ANNEX THEM FOR LIMITED PURPOSES, WHICH IS JUST FOR TAX, UH, SALES TAX.

WHAT TYPE OF BUILDING? YOU SAID A COMMERCIAL BUILDING YOU'RE GONNA PUT IN IT WOULD BE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NOT RESIDENTIAL.

JOHN THOMPSON, HE'S THE ENGINEER FOR NOT RESIDENTIAL, NOT AN APARTMENT BUILDING OR NO, NO.

LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING OR NO, THERE, THERE'S UM, THERE'S THREE STORAGE BUILDINGS IN THE BUILDING CLOSEST TO MCKNIGHT ROAD HAS, UM, A SMALL OFFICE FRONTAGE.

I I WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR 'CAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS, YOU MISSPOKE ON THIS.

UM, GOING, CAN YOU, UH, DO YOUR MIC UP A LITTLE BIT CLOSER? YEAH.

TO FM 29, 77 OR MIDNIGHT ROAD, UM, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE'VE DEDICATED 30 FEET, UM, TO TXDOT.

WE'VE, ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, I CAME IN AND PUT A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT PER YOUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.

FORT BEND COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.

ON FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE PROPERTY LINE, WE DO A 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.

AND WE ACTUALLY ARE SLIGHTLY BEYOND THE 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.

AND ON THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S 30 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACKS, UM, ALONG THE, THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE, OUR BUILDINGS EXCEED THOSE SETBACKS AS WELL.

SO WE'RE COMING IN AT THE END AND JUST ASKING TO REDUCE THE PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK FROM 15 TO 10.

IT'S GETTING A LITTLE TIGHT FOR US WITH THE OFFICE AND THE, AND THE STORAGE.

AND WE WANTED TO COME TO YOU GUYS AND SEE IF YOU COULD REQUEST OR REQUEST THAT VARIANCE.

SO IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT WOULD IT BE? FROM THE END OF THE 30 FEET OR 30 FOOT DEDICATED TO TXDOT TO THE BUILDING, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 30, ANOTHER 30 FEET.

28 TO 30 FEET.

28 FEET COULD BE, WELL TYPICALLY WITH THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY SECTIONS, THERE'S GONNA BE A, A, A GREEN SPACE FROM THE, THE ACTUAL HIGHWAY ROAD.

THAT, SO IF YOU'RE DRIVING BY IN THE FUTURE AND YOU WANTED TO REACH OUT AND TOUCH, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A 28 FOOT ARM.

THAT'S RIGHT.

NOT A HUNDRED FOOT ARM.

THAT'S RIGHT.

NO, NO.

LIKE HE SAID, AND HE SAID, BUT I WAS RIGHT.

I WAS DOING THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT, NOT THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

WELL, NO, I MEAN, THEY COULD PAVE UP THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SURE.

SO THAT COULD BE THE CURB.

SO FROM CURB, POTENTIAL CURB TO BUILDING

[01:00:01]

THERE'LL BE A ROADSIDE DITCH AS WELL.

OR A, OR A YEAH.

BUT STORM MAY COVER THAT ONE.

THEY'RE GONNA EVENTUALLY, I GUESS, I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S 2037 IS WHEN TXDOT, UH, PLANTED.

2037.

WAIT, SO I TRIED, TRIED TO DO MY HOMEWORK .

I GOTCHA.

WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT IT THAT CLOSE TO THE ROAD, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.

SO LETS SEE WHAT CHARLES IS WHAT SAYING HERE.

SO IT'S ONLY A FIVE FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE.

FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE.

YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR FIVE FEET HERE.

CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.

BUT YOU, YOU ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY SAID NO.

THEY SAID, WELL, IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MOHAMMED, AND, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT FORT BEND COUNTY PUTTING A SIDEWALK INSIDE THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AT YOUR MEETING.

CORRECT? WAS THAT I THINK SOMEBODY BROUGHT THAT UP.

UH, BUT I, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

AND THE, AND THE DISCUSSION WAS YOU COULDN'T DO LANDSCAPING WITH A SIDEWALK WITHIN THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPING EASEMENT.

IS IT? I THINK WHAT WE SAID IS YOU COULD PLACE IT WITHIN, IT'S A ONLY FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK WITHIN A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

BUT THE THING IS, YOU ONLY LEFT FIVE LEFT WITH FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE.

AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR TREES TO BE PLANTED.

'CAUSE THE COUNTY REQUIRES YOU TO PLANT TREES.

I I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS.

AGAIN.

IT'S CHAPTER SEVEN WHERE YOUR LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND EASEMENTS OR THERE, ACCORDING TO THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT, YOU CAN'T PUT STRUCTURES OR SIDEWALKS WITHIN A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT.

SO THAT THAT POINT IS VALID.

SO THAT NO, IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT, IT'S JUST A SETBACK.

WE DON'T CALL IT AN EASEMENT, IT'S A SETBACK.

IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT IN THAT 10 FOOT SPOT BEHIND THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AM I CONFUSING THIS WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY OR IS THIS THE ONE THAT HAD LIKE A WATER, LIKE A DITCH FOR LIKE WATER DRAINAGE WITH IT? I, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

IT, IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM RANDALL MIDDLE SCHOOL.

IT'S, OH, IT'S THE, THE MIDDLE SCHOOL NEXT TO RANDALL, UM, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

JUNIOR HIGH OR WHATEVER.

IT'S THE UP THERE BY SUNRISE MEADOWS.

SO NO, I'M, I'M THINKING I'M CONFUSING IT WITH LIKE A, SOME, A ONE THAT HAD LIKE WATER, LIKE SOME DRAINAGE THING.

MM-HMM.

I HATE TO CONTRADICT, NOT CONTRADICT, BUT IT'S ALL FINE.

NOT ACCEPT THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADVICE.

THAT'S MY STRUGGLE HERE.

BUT A COUPLE THINGS.

IT'S NOT IN THE CITY, IT'S ONLY FIVE FEET.

I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY'S GONNA PUT NO SIDEWALK THAT FAR DOWN MENNONITE.

AND IF THEY DO, IT'LL BE A LONG TIME AFTER WE'RE GONE.

SO AGREE.

IT, IT'S IN THE, IF IT'S NOT IN THE CITY, IT'S CONSIDERED WHAT ETJ, IT'S IN THE E TJ.

SO WE'RE NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT ORDINANCES THAT WELL, I MEAN, KIND OF ALL THE, THE STATE IS DEREGULATED A LOT OF WHAT MUNICIPALITIES CAN EVEN DO.

AND I'M FRANKLY, I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT WE EVEN HAVE ANY JURISDICTION HERE.

WERE YOU SAYING THERE WAS A COUNTY RULE OR A COUNTY? YES.

THE COUNTY HAS A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

WE DO HAVE 15.

THE ONLY FACTOR THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IS THAT IT'S IN MUD 1 62, WHICH WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH, AS I STATED IN THE, IN THE WRITEUP, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH, AND WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ANNEX THIS DEVELOPMENT IN DISTANT FUTURE.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN, BUT WE COULD BE ANNEXED BY THE CITY.

THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO ANNEX IT.

SO IS THAT WHAT GIVES US AUTHORITY? BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MUD? NO, MAYOR, IT'S, WE CAN EXTEND OUR PLATING AND SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS TO THE ETJ WITH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS.

YOU CAN'T REGULATE PLOTS CAN'T REGULATE LOT SIZE, UH, USE OR BUILDING SIZE.

THERE'S, THERE'S A LIST OF ABOUT FIVE THINGS THAT, THAT ARE, BUT SETBACK IS ONE OF THEM.

WE CAN SETBACKS.

YOU CAN, AND THERE IS A PLAT THAT JUST GOT RECORDED LAST YEAR THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THAT THEY GOT APPROVED WITH A TEMPLE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT.

I THINK YOU COULD MAKE IT WORK.

AND I MAY VOTE FOR THE VARIANCE, BUT WITH 10 ACRES, I MEAN, I THINK YOU COULD MAKE IT WORK WITH THAT, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.

YEAH, IT'S, I MEAN IT'S WHAT I THINK I, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, UM, LET'S SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO SAY OTHER THAN OTHER THAN US.

CAN I SAY ONE MORE? SURE, PLEASE.

AND, AND YOU HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT, THAT THE FORT BEND COUNTY, UM, REGULATIONS WERE TO BE FOLLOWED.

WHERE IT GETS TRICKY ON THIS, UM, AGAIN, BEFORE I BEGAN THE DESIGN, I COORDINATED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AS WELL, AND THERE'S FIRE LANES THAT GO AROUND THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS FIRE CONNECTIONS TO THE BUILDING.

AND, UM, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FIRE LANE WAS ADEQUATE IN FRONT OF THE, THE OFFICE SPACE ALONG WITH THE TURNING RADIUSES.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THAT AREA WHERE THAT FIVE FOOT IS A LITTLE CRITICAL TO US.

SO IF IT'S TAKEN AWAY FROM US, WE HAVE TO PUSH EVERYTHING INTO THE BUILDINGS IN THE OFFICE AND BACK INTO THE PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, UM, WHEN I, WHEN I BEGAN THIS PROCESS AND MY DUE DILIGENCE, I ACTUALLY CHECKED IN WITH, UH, MR. ALCHEMY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER MY CALL, UM, LAST SEPTEMBER, UM, WE CHECKED IN

[01:05:01]

SO I PULLED OUT THE REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS AND I FOLLOWED IT TO A T UM, WHEN THE PLA CAME BACK IN.

UM, AND I, I UNDERSTAND WITH THE, UM, THE CITY OF ROSENBERG, THE 30 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACKS ON THE BACK BECAUSE WE ARE AROUND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT AND WE EXCEED IT.

UM, BUT ON THE FRONTAGE, UM, WE GET A LITTLE CRUNCHED BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE GIVING 30 FEET TO TXDOT.

UM, AND AGAIN, I FOLLOWED THE CHAPTER SEVEN REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, AND THAT'S WHERE THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT WAS DEFINED.

AND I FOLLOWED IT WEST.

BE SINCERE TOO BECAUSE TDOT IS PUBLIC.

DID YOU GIVE THEM THAT LAND OR ARE THEY SELLING YOU THE LAND? I MEAN, ARE YOU SELLING THEM THE LAND? IT'S A CONDITION OF IT WAS DEDICATED.

IT WAS DEDICATED.

IT'S A CONDITION OF A PLA.

SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE DEDICATING IT.

YES SIR.

NO, NO EXCHANGE.

NO SIR.

ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S, UH, LET'S SEE WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS.

SO HANG ON TO YOUR, NOT YOUR SEAT, BUT YOUR PLACE.

ALRIGHT, FELIX.

I AGREE WITH THEM THERE.

THIS IS THE, UH, THE TOUGH DECISIONS.

UM, YOU GOT A COUPLE OF, I MEAN THIS IS, YEAH.

UM, NOT EASY.

I'M OKAY WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK IT HURTS THE CITY.

ANYTHING.

WHAT? THAT I'M OKAY WITH IT.

WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

WITH REQUEST THE VARIANCE FOR THEM? YEAH.

TO, TO SET IT BACK TO 10 FEET.

GIVE THEM, LET 'EM ALL FIVE FEET.

YES, SIR.

WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, YOU'RE SAYING FIVE FEET NEVER KILLED ANYBODY.

JUST DON'T JUMP OFF A LADDER.

FIVE FEET.

BUT, UH, STEVE, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHAT WAS THE REASON THEY GAVE YOU THE, TO, TO, TO NOT GIVE IT TO YOU? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT REASON THE SIDEWALK.

SIDEWALK.

JUST THE SIDEWALK.

THE SIDEWALK WAS BROUGHT UP AND THEN AFTER THAT IT JUST WENT, I HATE TO GO INTO PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IF I, ALRIGHT, LET'S HEAR FROM OUR COUNSEL MEMBER.

THAT'S ALSO AN ATTORNEY.

SO SHE'S A STICKLER FOR LAWS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STUFF LIKE THIS.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM HER, JESSICA.

BUT WHAT, WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR IS THAT IT'S IN THE ETJ AND THAT EJ AND OUR ORDINANCES DON'T REALLY, WELL THAT ONE DOES GO, I'M GONNA TURN THE AIR DOWN WHILE YOU, I I THINK WE, WE APPLY OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN THE ETJ, THE STATE STATE ALLOWS US TO DO THAT.

SO WHAT'S THE HARM IN ALLOWING THE VARIANCE? UM, NO HARM.

SO IF THEY REDUCE, I, I THINK WE JUST, WE TRY TO APPLY OUR STANDARD UNIFORMLY.

INSTEAD OF A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT.

JUST EVERY PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, THE SAME STANDARD.

IF THEY DO SHOW A HARDSHIP, A REASON FOR IT, THEN IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO, TO DECIDE THAT, WHETHER THAT IS APPROPRIATE, IF IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT.

AND WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP? JUST LIKE IN A NUTSHELL? OR WHAT'S THE HARDSHIP OR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER ON THE FRONT, HE'S LOSING PARKING SPACES.

HE'S TRYING TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY.

AGAIN, THERE'S AGAIN, THERE'S PARKING, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, UM, ON THAT ONE, AND AGAIN, WITH ME, UM, OR, OR MY DESIGN FOR THE STORAGE, IT'S THE FIRE LANE.

UM, I'M, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE STORAGE.

AND IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY AND AN ACCESS OR A, AND A FIRE TRUCK HAS TO ACCESS OR AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE HAS TO ACCESS THE SITE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THEY HAVE WIDE LANES TO TURN AROUND THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, I HAVE, I HAVE WIDER LANES THAN WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE REQUIRED AND, UM, AND TURNING RADIUSES THAT ALLOW THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO, TO OPERATE THROUGH THE SITE.

DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH OUR ORDINANCE WHEREIN WE REQUIRED WIDER STREETS? NO, THIS IS COMMERCIAL.

JUST COMMERCIAL STUFF.

THEY HAVE, UH, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS ON COMMERCIAL 'CAUSE UH, THESE BIG FIRE TRUCKS AND STUFF.

SO THIS IS LIKE MINI WAREHOUSE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU PAY, YOU STORE YOUR STUFF, YOU KNOW, MONTHLY FEE OR WHATEVER.

ALSO TOO, I JUST, JUST TO MAKE IT TO CLEAR AS WELL, UM, IN REGARDS TO ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES, UM, THEY'VE, THEY'VE REVIEWED MY PLANS AND VETTED 'EM AND I, I MADE A LITTLE STATEMENT ABOUT THAT WITH TEXDOT, THE FORT BEND MUD ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS LOOKED AT IT.

UM, MY LAST STOP IS, IS FOR COUNTY HERE? NO, WELL IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS CORRECTLY AND UM, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING AND REQUESTING FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE, THE PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK AND I WANNA DO IT CORRECT AND MAKE THE FINAL SUBMITTAL CORRECTLY.

SO IF THAT'S I'M, IF FEE JUST FINE.

IF WE, IF WE APPROVE IT, IS IT STILL PENDING APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY? THEY'RE THE LAST STOP, BUT THEY, THEY REVIEWED IT AND, AND THE PLAT NEEDS TO, TO BE CORRECT WHEN IT GOES IN AND I NEED TO ILLUSTRATE THE, IT'LL BE A 10 FOOT PARKING AND PAVING SETBACK

[01:10:01]

UM, SO SO YOU THINK THAT IF WE APPROVE IT, THAT THE COUNTY WILL LIKELY APPROVE IT? YES.

EVERYBODY IS DONE.

I JUST HAVE TO, TO SUBMIT MY FINAL PLANS TO FORT BEND COUNTY.

RICHARD? UM, IF THIS WERE IN THE CITY, I WOULD BE AGAINST IT.

BUT IT'S NOT IN, THEY'RE BASICALLY ASKING TO, THEY WANT TO COMPLY WITH COUNTY, COUNTY RULES.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM.

I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.

AND IT'S, IT'S ALSO THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR APARTMENTS OR MULTI-FAMILY.

THIS IS TO ADD COMMERCIAL VALUE.

THIS WOULD ADD COMMERCIAL VALUE TO THE ETJ.

TO THE ETJ AND MAYBE ONE DAY INTO THE CITY.

AND, AND KEEP IN MIND, PRIOR TO, TO, UM, THE DEVELOPER COMING IN, THERE WAS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX PLANNED FOR THAT 10 ACRES AND YEAH, WELL WE DON'T, WE, YEAH, THIS IS, WE'RE NOT REALLY TOO AGREEABLE ON THOSE.

BUT ANYWAY, UM, LET'S ASK UH, GEORGE.

GEORGE.

SO THEY'RE ASKING TO, FROM A UM, 15 TO A 10, UH, SETBACK FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THE CITY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? YOU WANNA GIVE HIM THE SETBACK? I MEAN, GIVE HIM EDITOR RUMBLE.

WHAT'S THAT? .

I COULDN'T HEAR.

WHAT DID HE SAY? WHAT DID YOU SAY? I SAID LET'S GIVE EDITOR THE RUMBLE.

I GUESS I GOT NOTHING THERE.

BUT ANYWAY.

UM, ALRIGHT, SO WE NEED A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I MEAN, I'M, I I, GENERALLY SPEAKING I DON'T CARE FOR VARIANCES, BUT IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WHY IT'S ONLY FIVE FOOT AND IT'S NOT IN THE CITY AND IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOT APARTMENTS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OR TOWN HOMES OR CONDOS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE CHANGE.

YEAH, I MEAN, SO IF Y'ALL, WE WANNA BE DONE .

IF Y'ALL, IF Y'ALL CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS PLAN, THEN THIS IS NOT GONNA APPLY TO, TO, TO A DIFFERENT BUSINESS PLAN.

NO, WE'RE READY TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION.

ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE OPPOSED SAY NO.

ALL THE A'S HAVE IT SIX TO ONE ABSENT.

CONGRATULATIONS.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING.

SEAT COUNCIL APARTMENTS.

OKAY, TAKE CARE.

AS A DEVELOPER, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

HEY, YOU KNOW, WE WISH ALL THE BEST OF LUCK.

UH, WE HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WORKS OUT AND IT LOOKS, YOU KNOW, NICE.

I KNOW IT MAY NOT LOOK LIKE IT FROM THERE, BUT THIS MADE A MA A REAL BIG DIFFERENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

ALRIGHT MAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THAT WAS KIND OF A TOUGH DECISION GUYS AND GALS AND I HOPE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T TOO OFFENDED.

ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO, TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? WE DO.

HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.07, THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AND TO DELIBERATE THE POTENTIAL PURCHASE EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.07 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

YOU SURE? ALRIGHT, WELL LET ME READ IT.

NUMBER SEVEN,

[7. Hold Executive Session for economic development negotiations pursuant to Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code; and, to deliberate the potential purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property pursuant to Section 551.072 of the Texas Government Code. ]

SO WE NEED A MOTION, IF Y'ALL WANNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PUSH OR SAY GREEN? YES.

AND IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, PUSH OR SAY RED.

NO.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? NOBODY OPPOSED.

WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE 10.

SECOND DELAY.

MOTION PASSES.

WORK TO THE RESTROOM PROBABLY.

OKAY, WE'RE GONNA, UH, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UH,

[8. Adjourn Executive Session, reconvene Regular Session, and take action as necessary as a result of Executive Session. ]

RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AND TAKE ACTION AS NECESSARY.

IS THERE ANY ACTION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE? I THINK THERE WAS, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES AT 9 0 1 FIFTH STREET AND 9 0 5 FIFTH STREET AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION.

AND I KNOW YOU HAD A REAL LONG DISSERTATION ABOUT YOU WERE GONNA TELL US ALL ABOUT WOULD YOU LIKE ME OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO HOME? NO.

WE'LL, WE'LL WE WILL EXPLAIN IT TO THE PUBLIC AND APPRO.

I'LL SECOND IT UPON REQUEST.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING YES OR AYE.

OR PUSH.

PUSH GREEN.

IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, PUSH RED.

NO.

[01:15:01]

THE AYES HAVE IT.

OUR LAST ITEM IS ADJOURNMENT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

ALRIGHT, I'LL SECOND THAT.

IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNING, PUSH OR SAY GREEN.