Jul 08, 2024 Historic Landmark Commission on 2024-07-08 5:30 PM

All right I call the meeting to order we have a quorum present so we will start the meeting today if you would guys join me for a Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible. Thank you guys. We will. First to see everyone here. So the second order of business do we have anyone from the public? If this is the time we'll take any speakers from the public? Okay. There are none we will note that. Okay moving us to item three for consideration item 3A number HLC 24-028 on our agendas considered the approval of the June 10th minutes and we do need to make a correction on those. The correction when we did not have the absence I think that was sent to us we need to add that Heather was absent for that meeting. So if we could get a motion for approval with that correction in a second. I so move. Thank you Commissioner McAdams and Commissioner Treat. All right all in favor please raise your hand and say aye. Okay unanimous thank you for that. Moving on to item 3B number HLC 24-025 and our agenda is to receive a report hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the current historic tax exemption program and potential program changes to better encourage the designation and or preservation of historic properties. Thank you Chair. So as stated this is regarding some of our historic tax exemption action steps. Just to kind of give you all an overview. I'm going to cover first the why you know always that educational component. Then I'm going to cover the 2019 debt and historic preservation plan goal number two. From there we're going to just do a brief overview of our current program again just to continue to familiarize you all with it. Then we'll jump into questions and discussion and the next steps. So the why. As you all know since May we have been covering and discussing these different topics surrounding our current designated historic size tax exemption program and then talking about any additional incentives that maybe need to be established. As we know review it is to review and discuss current goals and consider developing our new goals that are preserve, adapt, and reuse our debt and historic resources. So that's our kind of number one goal that we're working with. So as part I'm moving this back because I got two screens on the other side. So as part of that goal number two just want to kind of overview that. So as part of the goal number two is to promote the preservation and adaptive use of historic resources. So it's really looking at commercial districts or neighborhoods everything that debt encompasses. As part of that we have our policy 2.1 and within that we have two different recommendations. We have recommendation 2.1 and recommendation 2.2. So recommendation 2.1 talks about broadening the tax exemption eligibility criteria. What is meant by eligibility eligibility criteria is not criteria that makes it eligible for creating or being part of that tax exemption. So it's not like a historic roof or anything like that what we usually see the wordings a little off. It means what are some of other properties that we should include that would be able to be eligible for getting this tax exemption. So the wording is a little off in the plan but just wanted to explain that to you all. Then when we look at recommendation 2.2 that recommendation is also talking about allowing for partial or full property tax exemption from the City of Denton and other applicable taxing authorities. So those are things that we've been talking about what we've seen from other city examples all that kind of stuff. So just to kind of run through the brief review of current program. We have that designated historic sites of tax exemption which talks about that's designated towards individually designated properties. That is that 50 percent of city property tax that lasts for 10 years which you can reapply every 10 years. Then we have our historically significant sites tax exemption. We haven't really covered that because it's more towards commercial sites only. It must be located within the downtown commercial district, the historic or conservation districts, deemed historic by yourselves or myself, or a need of preservation by city council. So the one example that is currently utilizing this is the Fairhaven Retirement Health. This is the only current property that is utilizing this tax exemption. So that's why we haven't really covered it. It's very rare that you see this come up. And then of course we have what that you know is it goes towards that abatement of any increase in that assessed value prior to the renovation taking place and then it'll last that 10 years. So what tonight's discussion is regarding is obviously we've been talking about different cities, their tax incentives, what they're doing. But in addition to kind of that recommendation 2.2 which we're going to get to, we also have this recommendation 2.1. What are other properties that we could include within our current tax exemption as it exists today? So the question I posed is how should the city expand the tax exemption eligibility criteria for the present designated historic sites tax exemption to cover additional historic resources? So these examples, they come straight from the plan. The plan in the 2019 Historic Preservation Plan specifically states that two types of properties that you could include are contributing buildings in local historic districts and then contributing buildings in a National Register Historic District. So I'm going to pause here and we can start to kind of have a discussion on how you all feel about these examples, if you feel like they should be eligible for the tax exemption, if you don't think this is something we should consider. But like I wanted, as I stated, this is a recommendation of the 2019 Den Historic Preservation Plan. These examples were provided to us so we can either utilize these, not utilize these, add to these, but I would like for us to have a discussion regarding this recommendation. And this recommendation is only for tax exemptions? Yes, specifically just for broadening our current tax exemption, which is our designated historic sites tax exemption and looking at what other buildings could utilize this tax exemption that we would like to see utilized as tax exemption. Commissioner, any questions? I have a concern. Okay. If we, the exemption is based on spending an amount of money per year. Correct. During that period of time. I look at what has happened to our school districts and that they have lost significant funding since the reduction in property taxes went down. And I'm concerned that if we increase the tax exemption eligibility, that only wealthy people who are able to keep up their homes, their historic homes, will be getting the tax abatements and that our incomes will be going down by taking them essentially off the rolls for a certain amount of money. And then we will be then operating on the backs of poorer people and that that will affect our revenue and what would you do as a city? My question to you would be, would it be helpful if staff pulled the numbers like say back if we came back in August, pulled the numbers as if we were to take every contributing property from local historic districts, every contributing property of our two national registered historic districts pulled those numbers at that 50% of the city property tax. Would that be helpful? So you could see that number and what that actually looked like in terms of pulling city property taxes away. Well, certainly wouldn't hurt. I'm not sure that I would that that would allay my fears about what we're talking about doing here. I think the question I would pose is we are trying to broaden the, we are trying to have people become interested in preserving their properties. And if we are not going to incentivize them, they will not preserve their properties. So if we're concerned about adding these additional examples that are technically already historic, whether it's at the local level or not, that is just another added layer of creating a larger pool of properties that we're preserving. So there would have to be, I'm sure, some type of changes to the tax exemption criteria in terms of, you know, we would maybe need to add some code enforcement, just different levels within the code. But I just want to remind you all that what we're trying to do is preserve our historic resources and get more people interested in preservation. But to do that, we do have to look at it and incentivizing. So I think it's a start to broaden. I'm with Commissioner McAdams on some of those concerns. I do think we have to have some incentives there. We have to bring the value to those communities to, of what, becoming a historic district on protection they can get for filters coming in, those types of things, I think we have to let that be known. I think the most important is that this commission has not had a good reputation, and it's been looked at as if we put our neighborhood as a historic district, they're going to tell us what we can and cannot do. And we have to look at it and come back with value for doing that. I think this commission has come a long way, and that it's really that we're here to help and not to hinder. And I think that that's a big shift that we have to get out there. My only thought to this example of including contributing buildings in a local historic district. I think that there are other structures around that are not just in a local historic district that could really benefit. So I don't know if those parameters around it has to be in a local historic district, or it has to be in a national register historic district. If just a property can be. I don't know if that's does that make sense. I think this gives us just, I think, I think this gives us already backing saying it's historic versus us versus us having to go through the process of proving that it's historic, because it'd be essentially the same as doing it. It's just a historic site like an individual landmark property. So I think that's why in the plan it's specifically called out historic districts because we've already established that maybe not all the properties are historic but at least there's those contributing properties that are historic. So I think that's why, like, that's the only thing that makes sense to me. But I understand you and Commissioner McAdams concerns. I'll be interested to see what Commissioner Treat and Temperman say. I agree with Ms. Linning, in terms of, because I'm thinking too about ways to be more inclusive in terms of like, a number that would make it something that would be a motivator for someone who's, even if they can't do 10,000 maybe. I'm thinking like micro variants or something like that. I don't know. But yeah, definitely like the idea to broaden it because the examples they're included, as you mentioned, very good reasons. That gives us the historic backing, right, to say, okay, that makes it an easy yes. But maybe also include some language to broaden, I don't know, possibility of incentivizing participation in other ways that we've seen in other cities. That's just my hit check reaction. Yes, Commissioner McAdams is spot on. You know, you have a lot of, you know, take the wealthier element out through the historic designation, right, and what does that have as a consequence to schools? I think that would be good information to have to go to. Yeah, that's what I got. Well, I just am really concerned that if people with money and know how and the ability to hire attorneys to look at things that may advantage them and can hire real estate agents, all these people who can tell them how to look at a code and get the best for their money, that they will find ways to take advantage of this, not so much because they're interested in being historical, a historical district or a part of, but because they want to save money. And the city will lose income that it badly needs, and yet, at the same time, we'll have poor people in obviously historic buildings, but they can't afford to make the necessary, put the necessary money into that building on an ongoing basis to get a rebate. So, they'll be paying the taxes for the rest of the people. And you're having to make repairs on your home. It doesn't have to be the one repair or the one maintenance issue. It could be several in that year that add up to that amount of money. And if they're doing that, it can really incentivize, I'm going to call it the less economic people there. We can really help them. I could see an advantage there. And some people, I'm not saying keeping it 10,000. If you're saying that maybe we should look at that, I think that's a different discussion on once we broaden it to look at if we want to change that. And I'm for, and I would be in agreement for that. Isn't it up to that amount in one year. It's not just in one. It's leading up to usually look at two years prior, so we'll, we'll, so like say if you did $11,000 of work, we would look at the two years prior and accept invoices from the two years prior. You see, I was really know a lot of poor people who are having trouble just paying, just keeping the absolutely necessary repairs done to their homes and paying their taxes. It's a tough call, especially for people who are retirement age. Yeah, well I mean I'm always sensitive to how much repair costs are and what I'm talking about here. I mean, how much I could cost, but on the other hand, if you live in a historic house, it's going to be more stuff. It's about $10,000 to $10,000 to talk about. I'm just like, I mean just crazy thought of, I mean if there would be some kind of people live in a historic house instead of maybe there's a, I mean again this is just, I never kind of just throw this out here right now. Like, if somebody's under a certain means, could there be a program where instead of getting tax, you know, tax breaks, tax exemptions, some amount of money will be contributed to help fix the house. You know, because it's still preserving historic asset in the city. And again, that's just kind of off the cuff thought. But again, then it gets into like, all right, well what means tests, where's the money going to come from, right? So, you know, who determines, what's the criteria, who determines the means testing and how somebody meets that because I mean I think ultimately the goal is to preserve historic properties. So if people can't afford to make repairs to their homes that are historic. But again, I mean, there's money. So I just want to interject real quick because, so that's the exploration of 2.2. So, so we're touching both recommendations. So the first one is truly just broadening what properties would be eligible for a tax exemption. And then, as we talked about in May, in June, looking at what are those steps that we would like that the commission would like to take or those action steps that the commission would like to take, so that they, you all can encourage historic property owners to designate and or preserve their properties. So that's what Lacey just passed out to you all is that kind of comparison chart that we had gone over back in June, just for that part of the discussion. So I just wanted to let you all know that we are, so we can have a larger discussion at this point, but I just wanted to. So we say broadly, forgive me if it's something that's already been addressed, but I'm just very simple minded. What are we having a lower threshold for repairs that need to be done? So specifically in recommendation 2.1, it's specifically talking about properties that would be eligible for the tax exemption. It has nothing to do with money. Nothing to do with money. Recommendation 2.2 is the money aspect. Yeah, so we're just looking for two different, I guess, staff is looking for two types of direction. So I'm looking for a direction for recommendation 2.1 and then direction from recommendation 2.2. But there are two different items of which would require the tax exemption to probably be updated or a new one to be created. And I would just add to that that there are many seniors living in older homes whose total income is not $2,000 a month. It's less than that. And they can't afford the expenditure necessary to be qualified as a historic residence. They just don't have money. They can't spend that much on repairs on their house because they do not have that kind of income. So would your direction or your personal direction, Commissioner McAdams, would your direction then be to remove that minimum $10,000 requirement or lessen it or whatever it may be? Because that's an opportunity. Well, I just think whatever program we develop, I can't right now visualize what would make it something that would be fair, more fair to poor people who can't afford those expenditures. But I think we have to do that. It has to be something that just because you're poor in a historical house and you can't afford to spend that much money shouldn't mean that you get left out. But if I have a million dollars or more and I can afford to spend $10,000 on my property and I can get it, get my taxes forgiven. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that. And that's what it is. Thanks for hanging this out to refresh. Remember, because I know that the two that kind of caught my eye, and I feel like Kenneth directly gets at this, is Grapevine and McKinney, where they had, I remember the McKinney one specifically because they had the levels, right, to have these different tiers, which I think is the tier tax exemption for recommendation 2.2. And, you know, that would get us into the weeds, but this at least to help refresh. Yeah, looking at how some of the other Texas cities implement this, I think might provide us with. I'm not bringing that wheel here, but we can see this working somewhere else. And yeah, that threshold that for rental residential, I think we get at the groups that when he's talking about, and, yeah, and just think about what that would look like dollar wise, but broaden it, you know, the one point, you know, 2.1. Yes, I mean, broadening it fantastic. And then, you know, 2.2, you know, how to then flex it, how to then, you know, work on your program. Yeah, I didn't want to just bring this up for next steps. The plan is to contact the cities of which I've shared those programs and confirm, you know, get more detailed information. Are they successful or are they not? Are they in the midst of changing their programs? What does that look like if they are? But the plan is to discuss and vote on options for potential changes in August. So, what staff is looking for tonight is true direction of some of the options that you all are interested in. In staff pursuing, whether that's reducing, you know, the cost of what is required. You know, I've jotted that down, looking further at Grapevine and McKinney, but just want to share those next steps with you all. Can I ask a question? Because I'm just trying to brainstorm here. Okay. So, looking at Grapevine, it's a 10,000 match with a 5,000 match. Okay. And I'm thinking of what Mr. McAdams shared. And I'm thinking, replacing a roof today, I think would fit more than likely. We are not even specifying where the funds come from to pay for that roof. It's just that amount was spent on that roof, on that house. What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter if it came from an insurance company, correct? Correct. So, I'm thinking of those types of things. So, if you get hail damage one year in the insurance companies, listen. If it's a roof on, and you submit it, and it fits the criteria, you get the tax exempt. Along with that, it could be, you know, something else that went along with it. So, I'm sensitive to that, and I see that point, but I also think that there's a lot that could take advantage, that every income family could take advantage of at some point. And the way we have it now, it lasts for 10 years. I mean, we can change that. That's a huge incentive to me. That's where my brain was going. It is if you have some money and can make the repairs. Your insurance could pay it as well. If you have insurance. That's right. If you're making, if your total income is, that's right, $2,400 a year, you may not have insurance. True. I'm concerned if we develop programs to make cities better and neighborhoods better. But we often do things well-meaning, I will grant you, thinking in terms of a city as a whole. And we do things that people with money can't afford. And we leave out the very poor because they can't afford to take advantage of these programs. And then after a while, their area gets so run down and their property so run down because they have a hard time keeping them up. And then we go in and we buy up their neighborhood and revitalize it. And now it becomes regentrified and they have to move out someplace else. And we're effectively displacing people while we're making the city nicer for us to look at and for us to have. And for people who have money to live in. Sharon, may I take a brief pause for the cause? I'm sitting as y'all's parliamentarian today. And that just means I'm here to help y'all observe Texas Open Community Act and one of those things is respecting what is and isn't closer for discussion. And so I just want to caution us to talk over the air conditioner a little bit. Sorry about that. I just want to caution us that while we are touching on some very important topics that do play into the kinds of recommendations y'all are fixing to make, that it is important to try and stay focused on the goal of increasing historic preservation and how we want to go about doing that. I do agree that considering possible unintended consequences is relevant, but we do want to stay on those. All right, does anyone have direction they would like to give staff? I would say if it's easier to do it by recommendation, I'm happy to take down notes for each recommendation. I mean, I'm good with recommendation 2.1 from tax exemption eligibility criteria. I think that's an easy guess. Specifically these examples? Specifically the examples listed here. Okay. All right, anyone else with any thoughts on 2.1? Do we need to vote or just? Yes. All right, do we have a second? Commissioner Street, please. I'll get that right. For his recommendation on accepting recommendation 2.1 as it's presented. I need a second for that. Okay, thank you. All in favor, raise your hand and say yes. Okay, any noes? Abstain. Okay, Mr. McAdams, abstain. If we could figure out some kind of way to make it fairer. Historic events is wonderful, but I want it to be fairer to the poor people. Ordinary taxes and all of ours also will go up as a result of this because municipal taxes incoming will be less. I think we can address that on the next one. That might be something you can address here. So these are two separate items. This is just truly just right. So, but that has nothing to do with money. This would be something that deals with money where I think that can be addressed where we actually look at the fairness and we look at the equity perspective of it. That would be an exploration, which I'm in complete agreement with Commissioner McAdams because yeah, these examples given here, and then, you know, looking at some of these other Texas cities, I look forward to hearing them talk a little bit about what that actually looks like on the ground for them. Because I bet they're having the same conversation. I hope so. Yeah. Is it possible with this recommendation to to to possibly have a great program for to address those concerns that Commissioner McAdams has for some of those and have any of these cities ever I would like to explore if they've ever done like a grant program. As I say, stop and look and to see if there's any programs that exist for with the grant B for maintenance purposes only. I think in preservation, right preservation maintenance. Yes, absolutely. What would you guys think of that? Yeah, that would be the dream. But again, you know, that gives us an idea where what kind of money sources and things like that, that would come into play, because on one hand, some people might feel in public like always like now we're having grants to fix your kitchen and your bath with things like that, right? So we need to have some kind of control. But I may have asked this last time. It's like so great fun with the $5,000 match. Is that tax exemption match or is that actually cash? It's cash. So do we there? It's a separate from it was a board or is a grant program that was implemented as part of implemented by city council. It is under operation by the city, but it's essentially like a bit. It's like our chambers. It'd be like a chambers. Yeah, so it's it's a city entity, but it's also not. I want to call out that I really like also that example of the tiered tax exemption, depending on the level of work that I feel like that can also address some of those concerns. You know, even if I have, it doesn't have to be a huge amount. I like that. So McKinney and Plano were those two examples. Any other questions? No. Yeah, I also like the great find the rental residential. McKinney points out, I mean, some people may not even own the place, right? Maybe renting, but still, can they benefit from it? Just throw that in the mix. I'm primarily concerned about property owners, property owners, buying sales on fixed incomes, and I don't think any of us in this room know how to live on $2,400 a year. And that's generous. There are people that get a lot less. All right. Do we have a recommendation for staff on the recommendation 2.2? So, I do a little need a little bit more specific in regards to the items discussed today. So an example would be the grant for preservation maintenance or preservation maintenance, micro grants, main fund of some main fund. So I think it'd be a grant. Sorry, I had to like read through my notes. So examples given plus grant for preservation maintenance and seeing if other cities have that. Correct. I think that grant was the thing that was kind of added to these examples listed here. And I'm, I'm not altogether comfortable with 100% tax exemption. We're talking about people, for the most part, people with money. None of these people are at the poverty level that are going to have these houses. I don't know. And I'm not particularly comfortable with it's one thing to help. It's something else to simply take over and excuse them from property taxes. I'm going to look at another side and I don't think it's always people just with money. I think it's people that are struggling to keep their properties up. I think it's a great incentive for those, and that maybe it's the only way they could, but I see that there's all different levels and I think we can't just hone in on what I think we have to be sensitive to all. And I think we have to do what we can for all. We have to continue to move forward and then keep that also very mindful, very sensitive for that. But I do think we have to move forward with that and be sensitive, see what we can do along with it and bring it up and maybe it's not just this, but maybe it's an additional program that we bring in. That's always an opportunity that we can research and I definitely would be for that. But I think to move this forward, this has been going on for a long time on this commission. We've talked about revamping, relooking at things, and so I would be for that too. So do we have a, did you, do we have a second? Sorry, I just want to jump in real quick. I am bringing back a number of options. So it's not that I'm only going to bring back 100% in 75. I'm bringing back 75, 100 at DISD being added, county being added, the tiered exemptions, plus getting feedback from the other cities because some of the cities say it is not working. We don't want to use that program whatsoever. Like if Grapevine truly isn't working, we don't want to use Grapevine as an example. And this is just giving staff direction. We are not voting to do that. Correct. The next time I come in August, that's when the hope is to start voting on options that, hey, we like these three options out of seven. Let's see what we can do with that. So this is more just giving me direction as staff so I know what next steps to take for you all. Got you. Anything you want to amend on your motion? Um, I don't think so. Okay, which is as recommendation 2.2 with adding a possible grant, researching that. Yes, and, you know, and of course, hearing from other cities. Other cities, right. And pursuing this. Yes, indeed. Okay, do we have a second? Okay, McAdams second. All in favor, raise your right hand, say yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Unanimous. Thank you, Cameron, for that. Okay, moving on to item 3C number HLC 24-0023 on our agenda is to receive a report and hold the discussion, give staff direction regarding three historic properties located on the Texas Women's University campus. I'm so excited about this. Yes, and so I realize it'd be helpful so that you have those kind of examples at the bottom there. I believe Lenny has a printout of the examples of actions that you can take. Sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah, just those are some examples. Okay, so I did just want to remind you all as admission, even though you all are quasi-judicial, we do not, or staff and yourselves do not have the power to make the Texas Women's University designate their property. Right. We do not have that power. So I just wanted to throw that out there before we begin this discussion. But, Chair, if you want to read those examples just to kind of get the discussion rolling. Okay, so the, we can, sending a letter to the university expressing HLC's interest in the preservation of three buildings. Can you name the three buildings? Sure. Okay, so the three buildings are TWA, the greenhouse, support annex building, and the patio building. And so what we can do is send a letter to the university expressing the HLC's interest in preserving the preservation of the three buildings and invite the member of the facilities management and construction to come and speak to the commission about the university's plan for the three historic properties. There are, there's other structures. I don't know if TWA owns those. I've got to figure out the street, but I would love to incorporate it because it is a house and in the masonry on the top, it has TWA. It looks like it was maybe an original, maybe president's house there, and it's on the side. It is just that fascinating structure, but it's a smaller home there. Again, I don't know if they, but if so, I would love to add that one just because of what it has there. And there's some other structures on that street. I took this to be, we could do one or the other, not necessarily in this order. So those were just examples. So we can add additional ideas or if we want to do both of those, we can do both of those. Those were just examples that staff wanted to provide you all just to kind of get the conversation going. But like I said, I just wanted to reiterate to you all that we do, the commission does not have the power to designate those properties or force TWA to designate those properties. And do we think that facilities management and construction has some information that they can provide to us already? Yes, I believe so. So, because it would seem to me that that's the preferable first step is to get whatever information they already have to us. And invite them to a meeting or? Okay, perfect. Okay. I feel like those three buildings, I feel like there's more, but I'd like to hear from them. One of them is, you know, the Gertrude Gibson House, which is already in the Bell Avenue, the Bell Avenue Historic District, but I think there's other structures like that around TWA that that might fall in. I would love to have that discussion. So I guess then would the direction be to invite facilities and management come discuss their historic properties in general, kind of their plans for the historic properties, like their maintenance plans, all that, and the larger plans for the campus. Would that be kind of the direction that the commission is looking at or? Just want to make sure that I would send a letter appropriately. We're trying to gather some information. That's our first, you know, before we start telling people what to do, what we'd like to have them do, we need to know what's the basic information first. We'd like to know what we're talking about before we start talking. I mean, I think if we need to start with those three properties, I'm fine with that. I would just like to open the discussion that it could possibly be more. Yeah, I would say that when we invited them, these three might be our focus, what we know about, but any other properties that might be historical and appropriate would be on the table to hear from. I definitely think sending the letter. Okay. So, so would the letter to invite facilities come first and then upon, I guess, them hopefully accepting the invite, we could then give our letter of interest for designating in some way or bringing attention to those three properties and then we could go from there. Is that what that's what I would think because that way it's we express our intent to find that gather information before we leave in the say, make any kind of suggestion as to what they should do. We first want to. We understand our position is limited, but we'd like to know what are the plans or whatever first we ask questions and then we make suggestions. Would that mean just thinking out loud. That mean, I was someone who say knowledgeable about the structures there but also maybe somebody from the administrative side of it so maybe they could learn as well. So, for example, inviting, I think this letter. Okay. So, I, I will be quite honest I'm not sure we'll be able to get a meeting with the president. Sure. So that's why the example was facilities management. First, just seeing if we can get a meeting with them. And then go from there. But you know, I don't think that's off the table, but I definitely think facilities management would be easier since they're the ones who have control over those structures and are dealing with the maintenance of those structures, and then going from there. All right, we need a motion to give staff direction. And I will make a motion that we, excuse me. I will make a motion that staff invite facilities management and construction to come and speak to us, as they are outlined here. About these three properties, and any other historical properties they might have. Second. All right, all in favor raise your hand say yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, we're now into our work session item for a HLC two four dash zero to nine on our agenda is to receive a report and hold a discussion regarding section two dot eight three C of the C code, which governs boards commissions and committees specifically related to the attendance policy. Sorry, somebody knew. Okay, so today we're having an attendance policy discussion. So, this is originally adopted in 1966 has been modified a few times since. I don't know if you're aware we have a new city secretary in office and this is one of the things that we were asked as staff liaisons to discuss and focus on. So that's why we're bringing the discussion up today. So, every board member shall attend all regular scheduled meetings. If you are unable to attend you were asked to let us know beforehand, we do have a list of excused absences reasons, and that was modified in 2020. I'm sorry, in 2000 to add all these so these are also in your backup they're also on the form. So the thing with the policy it does say there is a cause for removal, cause for removal would be if you miss, and you have an unexcused absence, three or more times, or 50% of the regularly scheduled meetings, so if you miss and it is for one of these reasons it does not count against that because it would be excused. So, unexcused absences for procedure. You have 10 days following the missed meeting to turn in your form. If you do not turn in your form within those 10 days, it is automatically considered unexcused. If you were to fill out your form and turn it in within those 10 days, and it does not follow the criteria of those seven that were originally listed right here. Or you can put other, and you can explain your reason. And if you feel like you should be excused from that meeting, but it's not one of those originally listed. It would be taken to counsel and they would vote on if you are going to consider it excused or unexcused. So, once you miss the meeting, what will happen is myself or city secretary will notify you, sending you an email with the form, saying please fill this out within 10 days, send it back to us. And then depending on which way you marked, if you do not want it to go to counsel, there is also a spot for that. You can just say, this is unexcused. I know it's unexcused and move forward. But after you send in the form, we'll handle the rest. We are required to notify city secretary of your absences and city secretary will take it to city council quarterly, just for us to keep track of it. You have any questions? I don't think anything has changed. It's mostly a reminder. Nothing has changed. It is just going to be enforced more directly. Any questions for the commission? Well, well, well, you mean pertaining to this. All right. Moving on item HLC 24-024 on our agenda to receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on the historic landmarks commission request for local historic designation of eligible historic properties. Anyone have one that they would like to submit? You do not? Commissioner McAdams? And then for this next meeting, I can provide a quick update. I'll let you all know in regards to this item that we covered last month. I did. We did send Mr. Frosty letter. We have not received a response back, but it has been set on your behalf. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on. HLC 24-030 on our agenda is to hold a discussion regarding the historic landmark commission project matrix. Yes. So just to give you all an update. Obviously, we've covered this Texas Women's University properties, so that will be removed, but then we will work on doing the invite to facilities, management and construction. We are continuing that discussion of the historic tax exemption. We had that today and then obviously into August. The template and agenda would be utilized by HLC members. That is something that I'm now working on with marketing. I was working on it individually and then decided it was probably better to work with the marketing on that. They can do all the fun glam and everything to it. So that's going to be something that's presented in early fall. And then we do have our presentation of preliminary guidelines. That's still on hold. A focus group with our historic property owners. That's something that I figured once we have some options in place, once we kind of get some better examples, that would be a good time to have that focus group. And then as well is just general training relevant or topic training. We have the attendance haven't really been covering that just because we're kind of diving deep into tax exemptions, but those will be coming back as well. And then we have our, you know, HLC outreach and then some annual updates. But is there anything that anyone wants to add to the matrix? Where do we think that we are set for now? Anyone have anything? All right. We are just moving on along. All right. Anyone on the commission have any other business to discuss? I would just like to ask, COAs, have you been seeing a few? It's just been a while since we've had anything brought to us to approve from residents. Have you not even had COAs or anything? I'm just wondering if it's not being done or is it just not getting COAs? The only reason I ask is because I know that there's a lot that are staff approval, which I really, really appreciate. So that's why I just wondered. Just city-based COAs that are administrative, more just for like paint or something like that. Yeah, but no owner-occupied residents or rentals or anything. How are things coming on Marriera? What does that look like now? On 3/14? Yes. Yes. I took Lacey and Sean today, or Sean, he went away. I took Lacey and Sean today. Sorry. 40 ladies there. Just did a drive-by and kind of explained and went through that. It looks great. It did definitely turn into more of a restoration, more than a, a restoration, more than a rehabilitation project just due to how much the material was disintegrating. But it looks good. They've been following the, I've checked the plans. They're following the plans. I see the faux garages there, but it's coming together. It looks really nice. I've sent him to hide some landscaping. I'm excited to see the final product. I think you guys will be very excited to see the final product. And how will the neighbors feel though? They're the ones that have complained. I've received some comments. It was more due to the fact that it wasn't, didn't end up being a rehabilitation and it was more of a restoration was most of the complaints that I received from the existing neighbors in the historic district. So we kind of talked through that. And I said, that's a lesson learned from the COA process in terms of an inspector going through all that kind of stuff prior to a project. So those are some just processy things that we might want to have to discuss later on. But those concerns seem to have stopped. All right. All right. Well, if there's no, yes. Can we have a small discussion about next meeting? If we, do we have an idea on who will be attending and who won't? Is that okay for concluding this? Absolutely. Next meeting is August 12. Is there anybody who will not be able to attend? As we will have items to bring to y'all. I'll be here. Well, plan on being here. Same, cautious answer. All right. So everyone, no one's planning to not be here. We have two people checking their schedules it looks like. Okay. I know. I know. I don't think we'll go through. We will have applicants next week. So that's why Lacey's asking. We'll have project applications. Unless work helps me away. Perfect. Thank you. Thanks for checking. All right. If there's no further business, I will conclude the meeting at 628 PM. And here in the Navy.