WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.560 All right I call the meeting to order we have a quorum present so we will start 00:00:10.560 --> 00:00:15.500 the meeting today if you would guys join me for a Pledge of Allegiance. 00:00:15.500 --> 00:00:27.760 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation 00:00:27.760 --> 00:00:33.260 under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:33.260 --> 00:00:43.000 Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible. 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:45.000 Thank you guys. 00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:47.000 We will. 00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:49.000 First to see everyone here. 00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:54.000 So the second order of business do we have anyone from the public? 00:00:54.000 --> 00:00:59.000 If this is the time we'll take any speakers from the public? 00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:01.000 Okay. 00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:05.000 There are none we will note that. 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:29.000 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. 00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:38.000 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. 00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:43.000 So if we could get a motion for approval with that correction in a second. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:45.000 I so move. 00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:48.000 Thank you Commissioner McAdams and Commissioner Treat. 00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:51.000 All right all in favor please raise your hand and say aye. 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:55.000 Okay unanimous thank you for that. 00:01:55.000 --> 00:02:18.000 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. 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:20.000 Thank you Chair. 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:26.000 So as stated this is regarding some of our historic tax exemption action steps. 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:28.000 Just to kind of give you all an overview. 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:33.000 I'm going to cover first the why you know always that educational component. 00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:39.000 Then I'm going to cover the 2019 debt and historic preservation plan goal number two. 00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:46.000 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. 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:50.000 Then we'll jump into questions and discussion and the next steps. 00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:51.000 So the why. 00:02:51.000 --> 00:03:07.000 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. 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:19.000 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. 00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:23.000 So that's our kind of number one goal that we're working with. 00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:28.000 So as part I'm moving this back because I got two screens on the other side. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:40.000 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. 00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:46.000 So it's really looking at commercial districts or neighborhoods everything that debt encompasses. 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:51.000 As part of that we have our policy 2.1 and within that we have two different recommendations. 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:55.000 We have recommendation 2.1 and recommendation 2.2. 00:03:55.000 --> 00:04:01.000 So recommendation 2.1 talks about broadening the tax exemption eligibility criteria. 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:12.000 What is meant by eligibility eligibility criteria is not criteria that makes it eligible for creating or being part of that tax exemption. 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:20.000 So it's not like a historic roof or anything like that what we usually see the wordings a little off. 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:31.000 It means what are some of other properties that we should include that would be able to be eligible for getting this tax exemption. 00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:37.000 So the wording is a little off in the plan but just wanted to explain that to you all. 00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:49.000 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. 00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:57.000 So those are things that we've been talking about what we've seen from other city examples all that kind of stuff. 00:04:57.000 --> 00:05:02.000 So just to kind of run through the brief review of current program. 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:10.000 We have that designated historic sites of tax exemption which talks about that's designated towards individually designated properties. 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:18.000 That is that 50 percent of city property tax that lasts for 10 years which you can reapply every 10 years. 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:21.000 Then we have our historically significant sites tax exemption. 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:27.000 We haven't really covered that because it's more towards commercial sites only. 00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:40.000 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. 00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:45.000 So the one example that is currently utilizing this is the Fairhaven Retirement Health. 00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:49.000 This is the only current property that is utilizing this tax exemption. 00:05:49.000 --> 00:05:51.000 So that's why we haven't really covered it. 00:05:51.000 --> 00:05:54.000 It's very rare that you see this come up. 00:05:54.000 --> 00:06:10.000 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. 00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:21.000 So what tonight's discussion is regarding is obviously we've been talking about different cities, their tax incentives, what they're doing. 00:06:21.000 --> 00:06:28.000 But in addition to kind of that recommendation 2.2 which we're going to get to, we also have this recommendation 2.1. 00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:35.000 What are other properties that we could include within our current tax exemption as it exists today? 00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:47.000 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? 00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:51.000 So these examples, they come straight from the plan. 00:06:51.000 --> 00:07:09.000 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. 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:25.000 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. 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:45.000 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. 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:48.000 And this recommendation is only for tax exemptions? 00:07:48.000 --> 00:08:04.000 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. 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:24.000 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. 00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:35.000 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. 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:55.000 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, 00:08:55.000 --> 00:09:10.000 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. 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:25.000 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? 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:48.000 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. 00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:55.000 Would that be helpful? So you could see that number and what that actually looked like in terms of pulling city property taxes away. 00:09:55.000 --> 00:10:08.000 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. 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:21.000 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. 00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:27.000 And if we are not going to incentivize them, they will not preserve their properties. 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:47.000 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. 00:10:47.000 --> 00:11:03.000 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. 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:18.000 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. 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:21.000 So I think it's a start to broaden. 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:49.000 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. 00:11:49.000 --> 00:12:08.000 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. 00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:21.000 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. 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:26.000 And I think that that's a big shift that we have to get out there. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:42.000 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. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:56.000 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. 00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:12.000 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. 00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:27.000 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 00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:42.000 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. 00:13:42.000 --> 00:13:51.000 I'll be interested to see what Commissioner Treat and Temperman say. 00:13:51.000 --> 00:14:15.000 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. 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:27.000 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. 00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:49.000 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. 00:14:49.000 --> 00:15:05.000 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? 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:12.000 I think that would be good information to have to go to. Yeah, that's what I got. 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:37.000 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, 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:56.000 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. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:23.000 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 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:27.000 to get a rebate. 00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:54.000 So, they'll be paying the taxes for the rest of the people. 00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:17.000 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. 00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:27.000 We can really help them. I could see an advantage there. 00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:53.000 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. 00:17:53.000 --> 00:18:01.000 Isn't it up to that amount in one year. It's not just in one. 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:18.000 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. 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:34.000 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. 00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:44.000 It's a tough call, especially for people who are retirement age. 00:18:44.000 --> 00:19:06.000 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. 00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:14.000 It's about $10,000 to $10,000 to talk about. 00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:20.000 I'm just like, 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:33.000 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. 00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:52.000 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. 00:19:52.000 --> 00:20:07.000 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? 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:19.000 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. 00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:25.000 So if people can't afford to make repairs to their homes that are historic. 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:29.000 But again, I mean, there's money. 00:20:29.000 --> 00:20:35.000 So I just want to interject real quick because, so that's the exploration of 2.2. 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:44.000 So, so we're touching both recommendations. So the first one is truly just broadening what properties would be eligible for a tax exemption. 00:20:44.000 --> 00:21:02.000 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. 00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:18.000 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. 00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:32.000 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? 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:41.000 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. 00:21:41.000 --> 00:22:02.000 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. 00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:11.000 But there are two different items of which would require the tax exemption to probably be updated or a new one to be created. 00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:40.000 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. 00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:47.000 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. 00:22:47.000 --> 00:23:10.000 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. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:27.000 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. 00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:41.000 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. 00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:57.000 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. 00:23:57.000 --> 00:24:17.000 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. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:33.000 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. 00:24:33.000 --> 00:24:57.000 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. 00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:17.000 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. 00:25:17.000 --> 00:25:31.000 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? 00:25:31.000 --> 00:25:45.000 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. 00:25:45.000 --> 00:26:00.000 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. 00:26:00.000 --> 00:26:26.000 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. 00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:39.000 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? 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:41.000 Correct. 00:26:41.000 --> 00:26:44.000 So, I'm thinking of those types of things. 00:26:44.000 --> 00:27:00.000 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. 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:18.000 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. 00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:32.000 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. 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:36.000 That's where my brain was going. 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:41.000 It is if you have some money and can make the repairs. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:45.000 Your insurance could pay it as well. 00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:48.000 If you have insurance. 00:27:48.000 --> 00:28:00.000 That's right. If you're making, if your total income is, that's right, $2,400 a year, you may not have insurance. 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:15.000 True. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:24.000 I'm concerned if we develop programs to make cities better and neighborhoods better. 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:35.000 But we often do things well-meaning, I will grant you, thinking in terms of a city as a whole. 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:40.000 And we do things that people with money can't afford. 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:46.000 And we leave out the very poor because they can't afford to take advantage of these programs. 00:28:46.000 --> 00:28:57.000 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. 00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:03.000 And then we go in and we buy up their neighborhood and revitalize it. 00:29:03.000 --> 00:29:21.000 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. 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:29.000 And for people who have money to live in. 00:29:29.000 --> 00:29:35.000 Sharon, may I take a brief pause for the cause? I'm sitting as y'all's parliamentarian today. 00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:44.000 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. 00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:50.000 And so I just want to caution us to talk over the air conditioner a little bit. Sorry about that. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:57.000 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, 00:29:57.000 --> 00:30:07.000 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. 00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:18.000 I do agree that considering possible unintended consequences is relevant, but we do want to stay on those. 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:34.000 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. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:50.000 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. 00:30:50.000 --> 00:31:13.000 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? 00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:28.000 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. 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:46.000 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. 00:31:46.000 --> 00:32:07.000 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. 00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:20.000 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. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:28.000 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. 00:32:28.000 --> 00:32:50.000 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. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:59.000 Because I bet they're having the same conversation. I hope so. Yeah. 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:19.000 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. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:31.000 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. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:36.000 I think in preservation, right preservation maintenance. Yes, absolutely. 00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:39.000 What would you guys think of that? 00:33:39.000 --> 00:33:57.000 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 00:33:57.000 --> 00:34:10.000 and your bath with things like that, right? So we need to have some kind of control. 00:34:10.000 --> 00:34:19.000 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? 00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:32.000 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. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:48.000 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. 00:34:48.000 --> 00:35:02.000 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. 00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:06.000 You know, even if I have, it doesn't have to be a huge amount. 00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:09.000 I like that. 00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:29.000 So McKinney and Plano were those two examples. 00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:39.000 Any other questions? No. Yeah, I also like the great find the rental residential. 00:35:39.000 --> 00:36:04.000 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. 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:11.000 And that's generous. There are people that get a lot less. 00:36:11.000 --> 00:36:39.000 All right. Do we have a recommendation for staff on the recommendation 2.2? 00:36:39.000 --> 00:37:04.000 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. 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:14.000 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. 00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:21.000 Correct. I think that grant was the thing that was kind of added to these examples listed here. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:34.000 And I'm, I'm not altogether comfortable with 100% tax exemption. 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:39.000 We're talking about people, for the most part, people with money. 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:44.000 None of these people are at the poverty level that are going to have these houses. 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:58.000 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. 00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:07.000 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. 00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:20.000 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. 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:25.000 And I think we have to do what we can for all. 00:38:25.000 --> 00:38:47.000 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. 00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:59.000 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. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:08.000 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? 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:29.000 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. 00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:36.000 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. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:40.000 And this is just giving staff direction. We are not voting to do that. 00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:56.000 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. 00:39:56.000 --> 00:40:07.000 Got you. Anything you want to amend on your motion? 00:40:07.000 --> 00:40:27.000 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? 00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:41.000 Okay, McAdams second. All in favor, raise your right hand, say yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Unanimous. Thank you, Cameron, for that. 00:40:41.000 --> 00:41:00.000 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. 00:41:00.000 --> 00:41:29.000 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. 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:38.000 Right. We do not have that power. So I just wanted to throw that out there before we begin this discussion. 00:41:38.000 --> 00:42:02.000 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. 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:21.000 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. 00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:46.000 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. 00:42:46.000 --> 00:43:03.000 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. 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:07.000 And there's some other structures on that street. 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:18.000 I took this to be, we could do one or the other, not necessarily in this order. 00:43:18.000 --> 00:43:31.000 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. 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:41.000 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. 00:43:41.000 --> 00:43:50.000 And do we think that facilities management and construction has some information that they can provide to us already? 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:52.000 Yes, I believe so. 00:43:52.000 --> 00:44:02.000 So, because it would seem to me that that's the preferable first step is to get whatever information they already have to us. 00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:05.000 And invite them to a meeting or? 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:06.000 Okay, perfect. 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:09.000 Okay. 00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:15.000 I feel like those three buildings, I feel like there's more, but I'd like to hear from them. 00:44:15.000 --> 00:44:30.000 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. 00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:32.000 I would love to have that discussion. 00:44:32.000 --> 00:44:51.000 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. 00:44:51.000 --> 00:44:58.000 Would that be kind of the direction that the commission is looking at or? 00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:02.000 Just want to make sure that I would send a letter appropriately. 00:45:02.000 --> 00:45:04.000 We're trying to gather some information. 00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:14.000 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. 00:45:14.000 --> 00:45:18.000 We'd like to know what we're talking about before we start talking. 00:45:18.000 --> 00:45:23.000 I mean, I think if we need to start with those three properties, I'm fine with that. 00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:27.000 I would just like to open the discussion that it could possibly be more. 00:45:27.000 --> 00:45:42.000 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. 00:45:42.000 --> 00:45:44.000 I definitely think sending the letter. 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:45.000 Okay. 00:45:45.000 --> 00:46:07.000 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. 00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:20.000 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. 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:22.000 We first want to. 00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:36.000 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. 00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:39.000 Would that mean just thinking out loud. 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:51.000 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. 00:46:51.000 --> 00:46:58.000 So, for example, inviting, I think this letter. 00:46:58.000 --> 00:47:00.000 Okay. 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:07.000 So, I, I will be quite honest I'm not sure we'll be able to get a meeting with the president. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:08.000 Sure. 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:13.000 So that's why the example was facilities management. 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:17.000 First, just seeing if we can get a meeting with them. 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:20.000 And then go from there. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:38.000 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. 00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:43.000 All right, we need a motion to give staff direction. 00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:54.000 And I will make a motion that we, excuse me. 00:47:54.000 --> 00:48:07.000 I will make a motion that staff invite facilities management and construction to come and speak to us, as they are outlined here. 00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:15.000 About these three properties, and any other historical properties they might have. 00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:17.000 Second. 00:48:17.000 --> 00:48:22.000 All right, all in favor raise your hand say yes. 00:48:22.000 --> 00:48:25.000 Motion passes unanimously. 00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:42.000 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 00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:50.000 specifically related to the attendance policy. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:56.000 Sorry, somebody knew. 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:01.000 Okay, so today we're having an attendance policy discussion. 00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:08.000 So, this is originally adopted in 1966 has been modified a few times since. 00:49:08.000 --> 00:49:20.000 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. 00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:39.000 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. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:50.000 I'm sorry, in 2000 to add all these so these are also in your backup they're also on the form. 00:49:50.000 --> 00:50:10.000 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 00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:14.000 it does not count against that because it would be excused. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:20.000 So, unexcused absences for procedure. 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:25.000 You have 10 days following the missed meeting to turn in your form. 00:50:25.000 --> 00:50:32.000 If you do not turn in your form within those 10 days, it is automatically considered unexcused. 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:41.000 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. 00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:51.000 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. 00:50:51.000 --> 00:50:58.000 It would be taken to counsel and they would vote on if you are going to consider it excused or unexcused. 00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:13.000 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. 00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:20.000 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. 00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:28.000 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. 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:40.000 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. 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:45.000 You have any questions? 00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:51.000 I don't think anything has changed. It's mostly a reminder. 00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:59.000 Nothing has changed. It is just going to be enforced more directly. 00:51:59.000 --> 00:52:03.000 Any questions for the commission? 00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:20.000 Well, well, well, you mean pertaining to this. 00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:40.000 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. 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:47.000 Anyone have one that they would like to submit? 00:52:47.000 --> 00:52:54.000 You do not? Commissioner McAdams? 00:52:54.000 --> 00:53:02.000 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. 00:53:02.000 --> 00:53:10.000 I did. We did send Mr. Frosty letter. We have not received a response back, but it has been set on your behalf. 00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:16.000 Thank you very much. 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:29.000 All right. Moving on. HLC 24-030 on our agenda is to hold a discussion regarding the historic landmark commission project matrix. 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:34.000 Yes. So just to give you all an update. 00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:45.000 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. 00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:53.000 We are continuing that discussion of the historic tax exemption. We had that today and then obviously into August. 00:53:53.000 --> 00:53:59.000 The template and agenda would be utilized by HLC members. That is something that I'm now working on with marketing. 00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:07.000 I was working on it individually and then decided it was probably better to work with the marketing on that. 00:54:07.000 --> 00:54:13.000 They can do all the fun glam and everything to it. So that's going to be something that's presented in early fall. 00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:22.000 And then we do have our presentation of preliminary guidelines. That's still on hold. A focus group with our historic property owners. 00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:30.000 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. 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:45.000 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. 00:54:45.000 --> 00:55:05.000 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? 00:55:05.000 --> 00:55:17.000 Anyone have anything? All right. We are just moving on along. All right. Anyone on the commission have any other business to discuss? 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:40.000 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? 00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:55.000 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. 00:55:55.000 --> 00:56:00.000 Just city-based COAs that are administrative, more just for like paint or something like that. 00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:10.000 Yeah, but no owner-occupied residents or rentals or anything. How are things coming on Marriera? What does that look like now? 00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:29.000 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. 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:42.000 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. 00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:53.000 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. 00:56:53.000 --> 00:57:03.000 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? 00:57:03.000 --> 00:57:10.000 They're the ones that have complained. I've received some comments. 00:57:10.000 --> 00:57:23.000 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. 00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:35.000 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. 00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:42.000 But those concerns seem to have stopped. 00:57:42.000 --> 00:57:54.000 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? 00:57:54.000 --> 00:57:57.000 Absolutely. 00:57:57.000 --> 00:58:00.000 Next meeting is August 12. 00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:07.000 Is there anybody who will not be able to attend? As we will have items to bring to y'all. 00:58:07.000 --> 00:58:10.000 I'll be here. 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:13.000 Well, plan on being here. 00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:17.000 Same, cautious answer. 00:58:17.000 --> 00:58:25.000 All right. So everyone, no one's planning to not be here. We have two people checking their schedules it looks like. 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:30.000 Okay. 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:39.000 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. 00:58:39.000 --> 00:58:43.000 Unless work helps me away. 00:58:43.000 --> 00:58:52.000 Perfect. Thank you. Thanks for checking. All right. If there's no further business, I will conclude the meeting at 628 PM. 00:58:52.000 --> 00:58:53.600 And here in the Navy.