Killeen City Council Special Meeting - July 14, 2026

The Killeen City Council held a special meeting on July 14, 2026, at 5:00 PM in City Hall. All council members were present. The agenda included discussion of charter amendments related to citizen comments, additional charter amendments, and the animal adoption facility. An executive session was held to discuss the interim city manager appointment, with no action taken. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:12 PM.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was approved unanimously (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• First speaker (unidentified) criticized the council for limiting non-agenda citizen comments, urging them to allow residents to speak and to show compassion and leadership.
• Michael Fornino (identified as City Attorney but speaking as a resident) accused the council of restricting transparency and accountability, noting he is still suing the city. He urged the council to be firm with the next interim city manager and to enforce the employer-employee relationship.
• Speaker on animal adoption facility (unidentified, likely a resident) stated that the public was not informed about mold at the Rancier facility until after a news story. She argued the building is unsuitable for an animal shelter and recommended a long-term solution designed by an architect specializing in animal shelters.
• Jamie Carroll expressed concern about accountability for the mold issue, noting that euthanasia costs and capacity problems worsen. She called for a transparent foster program and a trap-neuter-release program to reduce shelter population.
• Dr. Sue Nicy Croft urged the council not to lock procedural mechanics (e.g., requiring comments to be addressed only to the council as a whole) into the city charter, as that would create rigidity and could cause operational chaos. She recommended keeping broad principles in the charter and operational details in ordinances or governing standards.
• Leo Gukizen criticized the council for rejecting seven of ten charter review committee recommendations, stating that the council's actions show arrogance and prevent voters from deciding on their own charter. He said the three approved recommendations only benefit the council, not the citizens.

Discussion Items

• DS-26-060: Charter Amendments Related to Citizen Comment Period

  • Staff (Mr. Wallander) presented the Charter Review Committee's recommendation to add a citizen comment period on non-agenda items into the city charter. He noted that no comparable cities have such a charter provision; most have rules set by council ordinance. The proposal would add language to Section 36 of the charter.
  • Councilmember Brown moved to accept the recommendation. No second was made; the motion failed.
  • Councilmember Bass moved to reject the charter amendment and instead place citizen comments on non-agenda items into the governing standards (which are adjustable), arguing the charter is too rigid and could allow personal attacks. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Kendricks.
  • Debate included concerns about meeting logistics and the desire to keep the charter flexible. Some council members supported putting it in the charter to prevent future councils from removing the right, while others preferred the governing standards for easier adjustments.
  • The motion to reject the charter amendment passed 6-1 (Councilmember Kimball opposed). A subsequent vote on the proposal to reject (i.e., to not include in the charter) passed 5-2 (Brown and Kimball opposed). The item will be addressed in the governing standards rather than the charter.

• DS-26-061: Additional Proposed Charter Amendments

  • Councilmember Brown proposed an amendment making staff in executive/management positions who resign or retire ineligible to hold that position for three years (whether permanent or temporary). No second was offered; the motion failed.
  • Councilmember Kendricks proposed an amendment requiring that only a registered voter residing in a district may initiate a recall petition against that district's council member. Currently, any city elector can initiate. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Brown opposed). This amendment will be included in the ballot language.
  • Councilmember Nash-King raised a concern about recall grounds, but staff noted that the council had already approved moving forward with specific grounds (malfeasance, incompetence) in a prior meeting.

• DS-26-059: Discuss Animal Adoption Facility

  • Mrs. Wilson (staff) presented an update on the animal adoption facility at 2600 Rancier Avenue (formerly East Lake Veterinary Clinic), purchased for $1.77 million in 2023. The facility closed in March 2026 after mold was discovered. Remediation cost $44,000. A CIP request for $1.67 million was submitted to correct drainage and add kennel space.
  • Staff is engaging an architect to assess the building and provide options for renovation, expansion, or potential new construction. A portable building is being rented ($1,800/month) to continue veterinary services.
  • Council members expressed concerns about the total investment (current + planned = ~$3.45 million) and whether renovating is more cost-effective than building new. Councilmember Brown suggested selling the building and building a new shelter; others wanted to see architect assessments first.
  • Staff committed to bringing back options with costs, timelines, and long-term maintenance plans before any further spending. Council will have oversight.

Key Outcomes

• Citizen comment period on non-agenda items: The proposal to add this to the city charter was rejected (5-2). The council will instead consider placing it in the governing standards for future adjustment.
• Recall petition initiation: An amendment requiring recall petitions against district council members to be initiated only by registered voters within that district was approved (6-1). This will be placed on the ballot.
• Staff resignation/retirement restriction: A motion to make staff ineligible for three years after resignation/retirement failed for lack of a second.
• Animal adoption facility: No decision was made. Staff will return with architect assessments and cost comparisons before any further funding is approved. The council emphasized oversight and the need to evaluate all options (renovation vs. new build).
• Executive session: The council met in closed session from 6:43 PM to 7:12 PM to discuss the interim city manager appointment. No action was taken.