[{"_1":2,"_114":-5,"_115":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84,94,104],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6218802,"mediaKeyId","3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa","parentId",3625098,"title","Council approves Twin Liquors special‑use permit at H‑E‑B shopping center","audioSeconds",269,"startMs",5323000,"endMs",5592000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa&start=5323&end=5592","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6218802/Belton/Bell-County/Texas/Council-approves-Twin-Liquors-specialuse-permit-at-HEB-shopping-center","mediaUrl","author","Belton City","date","2025-05-27T00:00:00Z","article","The City Council unanimously approved a specific‑use permit to allow Twin Liquors to open a package‑store location in Suite 112 at the H‑E‑B shopping center, 2511 North Main Street.

Planning staff told the council the proposed 1,700‑square‑foot liquor store meets separation requirements from churches and schools and is compatible with the surrounding retail zoning. The Planning & Zoning Commission had forwarded a favorable recommendation to the council.

Ron Thrower, who represented Twin Liquors and the shopping center, described Twin Liquors as a Texas family‑owned business with a long local history and said the company planned to be a philanthropic neighbor. He was the only speaker signed up for the item; staff reported one letter of support from an adjacent resident.

Council voted to approve the permit by voice vote; staff will finalize permit paperwork and the store may proceed through building‑permit and licensing steps that include Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission approvals before opening.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Belton City Audio City Council Meeting May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council approved a specific‑use permit allowing Twin Liquors to occupy Suite 112 at the H‑E‑B shopping center on North Main Street; planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval and the council voted unanimously.","taxTitle","Belton, Bell County, Texas","taxId",69404,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6218807,"Belton residents urge council to revisit new water and sewer billing structure after large rate jump",195,185000,380000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa&start=185&end=380","/articles/6218807/Belton/Bell-County/Texas/Belton-residents-urge-council-to-revisit-new-water-and-sewer-billing-structure-after-large-rate-jump","Two Belton residents told the city council during public comment that changes in how the city calculates sewer charges and treats irrigation meters have produced sudden, large utility bills for their household.

Rosemary Sims, speaking for herself and her husband, said their combined utility bills for March and April jumped to about $472.47 per month after historically averaging roughly $132.90 for those months over the previous four years. Sims said that increase represents about a 356% change compared with the historical average at their address. She told the council the family believes two elements in the new structure are unfair: a steeper volumetric rate for water passing through larger meters and the apparent disappearance of a prior distinction between irrigation (sprinkler) meters and domestic water when calculating sewer charges.

Sims said they believe their meter is a 1‑inch meter installed before 1988 and that the sample rate sheet published in November 2024 shows markedly higher per‑thousand‑gallon charges for 1‑inch meters than for standard 5/8‑inch meters. “This change in our view is outrageous,” she said, adding that when they installed a separate irrigation meter a decade ago they were told by contractors and city staff that water metered only for sprinkling would not be assessed for sewer because it does not enter the sewer system.

The council did not take immediate action during public comment. Mayor David Lee and staff explained that the matters raised would be sent to city staff for review; staff said they would examine bills and return to council or the residents with an explanation or recommended corrections where merited. The council requested staff follow up and report back on the complaints and any required technical or billing fixes.

No formal resolution or ordinance change was proposed on the spot; the comments were entered into the public record and routed to utility staff for investigation.","Two longtime Belton residents told council their March–April bills rose sharply after the city implemented a new sewer‑billing method and changed irrigation meter handling; they asked council to reevaluate and correct what they described as unfair charges.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6218812,"Belton staff previews lean FY2026 budget; possible tax‑rate uplift eyed to maintain reserves",3796,5814000,9610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa&start=5814&end=9610","/articles/6218812/Belton/Bell-County/Texas/Belton-staff-previews-lean-FY2026-budget-possible-taxrate-uplift-eyed-to-maintain-reserves","City finance staff presented a preliminary budget preview for fiscal year 2026 that keeps a tight spending posture, holds new general‑fund positions out of the baseline budget and limits merit increases while warning the council it may need a tax‑rate adjustment to maintain the city’s 30% reserve policy.

Finance staff said the city began fiscal 2025 with about $8.94 million in unassigned general‑fund reserves and expects to end the year with roughly $8.46 million (about 34% of budgeted expenditures). The draft FY2026 numbers shown to the council project revenues of roughly $25.43 million and expenditures near $25.53 million; under those assumptions the city would still finish FY2026 above the 30% reserve policy at an estimated $8.30 million (about 32.7%).

Presenting the plan, Mike (city finance staff) described the proposal as “a very lean budget for fiscal 2026” and said it currently includes no new general‑fund positions and a capped merit pool of about 3% (less than a full‑merit cycle). He told council members the city’s policy objective is to maintain at least 30% of fund balance to protect bond ratings and cash flow.

Staff ran illustrative tax‑rate calculations from the appraisal district’s preliminary certified valuation: the no‑new‑revenue tax‑rate estimate shown in the presentation was $51.25, the voter‑approval rate was $54.22 and the so‑called de minimis rate was $54.33. Staff emphasized those are preliminary figures and that the certified roll, due in late July, will produce final numbers. Mike said every penny of tax‑rate change in Belton yields roughly $210,000 to the general fund.

Council members pressed staff on assumptions used for sales tax growth, collection rates and capital transfers. Finance staff noted one‑time audit adjustments and large deliveries can produce spikes in sales tax receipts; staff’s working projection for sales tax in FY2026 ranged roughly from a conservative 1.6% to a more optimistic 4% depending on how one treats one‑time receipts. Staff also identified a list of supplemental budget requests — about $548,000 in items including position reclassifications, a potential human‑resources generalist and fire department reclassifications — that are not included in the baseline numbers presented.

Staff outlined the timeline ahead: the appraisal district’s certified roll is expected the week of July 25; staff will return with a proposed tax rate and a formal proposed budget in July. If the council decides to maintain the current tax rate, staff said it would need to identify corresponding expenditure reductions to balance the budget. Council members asked for follow‑up information on overtime trends, the compensation study results (expected in June), and department‑level breakdowns of supplemental requests.

No budget votes were taken; staff will return in subsequent meetings with the water and sewer funds, internal service funds, the capital improvements plan and a proposed tax rate after the certified roll is available.","City finance staff presented a conservative FY2026 draft that holds new positions out of the general fund, limits pay increases and projects a small use of reserves unless the council adopts a higher tax rate; staff warned the certified tax roll in late July will determine final rates.",{"_33":95,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":96,"_41":97,"_43":98,"_45":99,"_47":100,"_49":50,"_51":101,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":102,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":103,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6218817,"Council denies zoning change for Love’s travel center near Toll Bridge Road; developer, neighbors clash",2330,2529000,4859000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa&start=2529&end=4859","/articles/6218817/Belton/Bell-County/Texas/Council-denies-zoning-change-for-Loves-travel-center-near-Toll-Bridge-Road-developer-neighbors-clash","The Belton City Council denied a rezoning request that would have allowed a Love’s travel center and truck stop on roughly 18 acres near 5890 Toll Bridge Road, voting to disapprove the application with prejudice for six months.

Planning staff presented the proposal as a planned‑development commercial highway zone for a travel center that would include an approximately 11,000‑square‑foot convenience/retail building, a restaurant, truck and RV parking and fueling. Bob, a city planning staff member, said the site plan included about 60–70 retail parking spaces and about 88 truck parking stalls, and that the developer had requested waivers for parking‑island requirements and taller signage. He also said the plan preserves roughly half the trees on site and proposes Trex‑type screening along Toll Bridge Road.

Speakers at the public hearing were sharply divided. Joey Najera, a representative of Hunt Communities (developer of the River Farm master plan across the street), said River Farm will include about 1,775 homes and an elementary school and argued the truck stop would be “not appropriate in my opinion across the street from River Farm,” citing noise, light and air quality concerns. Tess Dula, also speaking for Hunt Communities, warned of “multiple compatibility issues” including proximity to a planned school and residential lots and expressed concern about diesel exhaust and pollutants near children.

Love’s representatives said the company follows strict operational and safety standards and offered mitigation measures. Barbara Peck, speaking for Love’s, said the company “over comply with all regulations” on lighting, pollution control and security and invited council members to visit an existing Love’s site in Troy, Texas, as an example. Brad Peck told the council Love’s anticipated local benefits including job creation and an estimated $500,000 per year in sales tax revenue; he said the company would be willing to work with the city and school district on mitigations such as a bus stop at the facility.

Engineers for the Love’s site described drainage and groundwater protections and said the property already includes an easement that could extend water and sewer lines to adjacent parcels. Sarah Ilesoy, the project engineer, said most site runoff flows north and that tanks or diesel pumps would not be sited in the small southern drainage area adjacent to residential property.

Several nearby residents expressed opposition on quality‑of‑life grounds. Kenneth Stone, who lives next to the site, said he runs youth baseball practices and worried about 24‑hour noise, trash and safety; he said, “I pay $20,000 a year in taxes not to live next to a Love truck stop.” Others, including Love’s witnesses, argued the travel center belongs on a commercial highway corridor and pointed to commercial zoning nearby.

After deliberations about compatibility, overnight RV parking and the site’s proximity to a planned school, the council voted to deny the rezoning request with prejudice for six months, 5–2. Council members voting to deny said the proposed scale of truck and overnight parking, and the potential impacts on a new master‑planned community and elementary school across the street, made the site unsuitable in its current form; several asked staff and the developer to return with a revised proposal that reduces visible truck parking near Toll Bridge Road and addresses screening, parking counts and lighting.

The denial means the applicant could not bring the same PD proposal back to council at that location for six months; staff said they would work with the applicant and adjacent developers on options and that the future land‑use map and Imagine Belton plan remain relevant to the site’s long‑term zoning.","After a lengthy public hearing with dozens of speakers from the developer, Love’s representatives and nearby River Farm proponents, the City Council denied a request to rezone roughly 18 acres for a Love’s travel center (truck stop) adjacent to a planned River Farm master‑planned community. The denial was with prejudice for six months.",{"_33":105,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":106,"_41":107,"_43":108,"_45":109,"_47":110,"_49":50,"_51":111,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":112,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":113,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6218822,"Belton council approves short‑term rental appeal for duplex at 212½ North Sparks",957,1541000,2498000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3625098-31ef395afb9d85924edc50b9a262fffa&start=1541&end=2498","/articles/6218822/Belton/Bell-County/Texas/Belton-council-approves-shortterm-rental-appeal-for-duplex-at-212-North-Sparks","The Belton City Council voted to approve an appeal that allows a unit of the duplex at 212½ North Sparks to be used as a non‑owner‑occupied short‑term rental despite the city’s 500‑foot spacing rule.

The decision removes the immediate enforcement barrier for the property owner, Mitchell Lemons, whose request hinged on how the ordinance measures separation when two dwelling units sit on the same lot. Staff described the situation as a “challenging interpretation issue” because the ordinance defines a short‑term rental by dwelling unit and there is no property line separating the two units at 212½ North Sparks.

The council majority framed the vote as a narrow, one‑off ruling. Planning staff told the council that the short‑term rental ordinance was intended to space separate single‑family dwelling units across a neighborhood. Bob, a city planning staff member, said, “with a duplex, we have 2 self contained units on the same lot…so it’s very difficult to separate the two.” Several councilmembers said the duplex configuration was not anticipated when the separation rule was adopted and that denying the appeal could create an unintended zoning result on a single building.

Residents and council members raised neighborhood‑quality concerns during the discussion, including potential parking and noise impacts when multiple short‑term rentals cluster on one block. Dominica Garza, who had asked the council earlier to uphold the 500‑foot separation during public comment, said maintaining spacing “will protect our neighborhoods, promote safety, and preserve housing.” The council majority, however, concluded this particular property did not match the ordinance’s spirit as originally intended and approved the appeal by a majority vote.

Council members asked staff to return with clearer language that distinguishes dwelling units (single‑family houses, duplexes, apartments, ADUs, room rentals) and how the 500‑foot measurement should be applied in cases with multiple units on one lot. The motion approved a variance for this specific property; the council did not amend the ordinance on the spot.

The appeal outcome was recorded on the council floor as an approval; the minutes and a formal roll call will clarify the exact vote tally and any motion language to be included in the administrative record. Staff said they will return with recommended clarifications to the short‑term rental ordinance to avoid similar interpretation issues in future appeals.","The City Council granted an appeal allowing one unit of a duplex at 212½ North Sparks to operate as a non‑owner‑occupied short‑term rental despite the city’s 500‑foot separation rule; councilmembers said the case presented an unanticipated interpretation issue for duplexes and asked staff to clarify the ordinance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves Twin Liquors special‑use permit at H‑E‑B shopping center

Belton residents urge council to revisit new water and sewer billing structure after large rate jump

Belton staff previews lean FY2026 budget; possible tax‑rate uplift eyed to maintain reserves

Council denies zoning change for Love’s travel center near Toll Bridge Road; developer, neighbors clash

Belton council approves short‑term rental appeal for duplex at 212½ North Sparks