[00:00:02]
          I'M CALLING THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER AT 1 P.M.. 
          [I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
ROBIN, PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE IN ATTENDANCE SO I CAN GET
MY MESSAGE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO ONE CONSULTATION WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING ALL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY 
          [II. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
CLIENT ADVICE AS NEEDED PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 AND TWO. 
          DISCUSSION REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER,
GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.074. 
          AND AT 1:00 WE CONVENE. WE ARE RECONVENING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE REGULAR SESSION
AT 
          [III. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS]
03:01 P.M.. I'M SORRY TO ACT AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION REGARDING
NUMBER ONE CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING ALL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS OCCURRING. 
          CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE AS NEEDED. 
          PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 ANY. 
          ACTION. NO. ACTION AND TWO. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER. 
          GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 ANY. ACTION. NO. 
          ACTION. GREAT. THANK YOU. BRAD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE SESSION? REVEAL WHAT YOU CAN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. SO WITH REGARD TO THERE WERE THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS THERE,
THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BEING REMOVED. SO THOSE WILL BE REMOVED AND DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE REGULAR
AGENDA. 
          WITH REGARD TO WORK SESSION ITEMS. THERE WERE A VARIETY OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO SHORT TERM
RENTAL STR. 
          PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT'S ON YOUR WORK SESSION TONIGHT. 
          AND I GAVE AN UPDATE ON KIND OF WHERE THE STATUS OF THE LAW IS AND IS NOT ON THOSE. 
          WHILE WE WERE BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION CHARLES HAD SHARED WITH ME AND I SHARED WITH YOU
ALL A RECENT 2024 Q&A FROM TML ON THE STATUS OF STRS. SO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT IN YOUR EMAIL. IT'S ALSO ONLINE FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO READ
IT. 
          TML IS THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE. AND SO IF YOU JUST GOOGLE THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
AND SHORT TERM RENTAL QUESTIONS AND THEN THAT SHOULD POP UP ON, ON GOOGLE FOR YOU. AND SO IT DISCUSSES KIND OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE
IN THE CURRENT CASE LAW. 
          I'LL DO A LITTLE BIT OF REVIEW AND SEE THIS WAS PREPARED IN 2024. 
          SO I'LL LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING MORE RECENT. IN THE LAST YEAR THAT'S COME UP,
I THINK I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE WORK SESSION. 
          LET'S SEE. THEN THERE WERE. THERE WERE LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO,
EXCUSE ME, THE AGENDA DISCUSSION OR I MEAN, SORRY, SORRY, THE AGENDA LANGUAGE RATHER FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE
EDC. 
          WE IF YOU'VE IF YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PACKET, YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALL OF THE CREATION
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE THERE FOR LAGO VISTA EDC. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T CATCH THE AGENDA LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ACTION TO APPROVE BYLAWS. 
          SO YOU'RE YOU WOULD BE APPROVING MORE THAN BYLAWS. SO HAVE THE FULL DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          TALK ABOUT ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. AND THEN MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO WE'LL GET THE AGENDA
LANGUAGE RIGHT FOR NEXT TIME. 
          PUT IT ON CONSENT AGENDA. THAT WAY YOU JUST TAKE THE VOTE ON IT TO APPROVE THAT. 
          THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE THERE ARE AN ORDINANCE CREATING IT AND INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS FOR IT, JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE SALES TAX IS NOT BEING
DEVOTED TO A NEED TO FUND THE EDC. THAT'S THE ONLY INSTANCE IN WHICH THE EDC NEEDS A VOTE. 
          YOU HAVE TO PUT IT TO THE TO THE VOTERS, WHETHER OR NOT TO APPORTION A PORTION OF YOUR
SALES TAX TOWARDS THE EDC, SINCE YOU ALL DON'T HAVE SALES TAX ROOM TO DO THAT. 
          ALL THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW IS AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE EDC,
SINCE IT'S NOT BEING FUNDED THAT WAY. 
          SO WE DISCUSSED THAT A LITTLE BIT. THERE WE ALSO DISCUSSED ITEM NUMBER FOUR THAT RELATES
TO DEDICATION OF PUBLIC PARKLAND, MAYOR. AS YOU KNOW, YOU AND I BOTH RECEIVED EMAILS FROM THE HINES LAWYER
WHO ASKED THIS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT ITEM. THEY HAVE SOME ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE TO RESOLVE ON THEIR
END WITH REGARD TO, I THINK, SOME LIENS OR SOMETHING. I UNDERSTAND MR. KLIEMAN WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ONLINE TO MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL TO EXPLAIN
THE NEED FOR PUTTING IT OFF. 
          SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO HIM. BUT WE HAD TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. 
          [00:05:02]
AND THEN THERE WERE SOME AND THEN THE REST OF IT,
I THINK, WAS WERE QUESTIONS RELATED TO CITY MANAGER REVIEW. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU. SIR. YES, SIR. AND I'LL MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. 
          NUMBER ONE, PEOPLE TEND TO GET ANTSY WHEN WE HAVE EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER ON THERE. 
          I JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW IT'S LOGISTICAL ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH. 
          WE'RE TARGETING HAVING MR. WEST REVIEW DONE BY THE NOVEMBER 6TH MEETING,
AND I'M GOING TO IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NEXT COUPLE MEETINGS BEFORE THAT SO THAT WE CAN DO THE LOGISTICAL DISCUSSIONS AS WE NEED TO,
TO GET THAT READY. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING UNTOWARD WITH REGARD TO THAT ITEM. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON HERE THAT ARE
GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT OR PRESENTATIONS. 
          I'M GOING TO TRY AND MOVE THOSE UP SO WE GET THOSE TAKEN CARE OF. 
          SO YOU ALL DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE UNTIL 9:00 AT NIGHT IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO. 
          WITH THAT, LET'S. IF YOU WOULD JOIN ME. WE'RE GOING TO STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGES AND THE
INVOCATION. 
          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. 
          AND TEXAS FLAG. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. 
          TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          AND THEN EXCUSE ME. MR. MCDERMOTT HAS THE INVOCATION FOR TONIGHT. 
          DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, YOUR CHILDREN COME BEFORE YOU SEEKING WISDOM. 
          MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT YOU PUT BEFORE US. 
          YOUR STRENGTH AND YOUR POWER WITH GRACE AND HUMILITY,
AND SOLELY FOR YOU. 
          LORD, MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM TO DISCERN BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL AND ALL THAT IS AROUND US
AND ALL THAT IS WITHIN US, AND TO KNOW ONLY THAT WHICH IS HOLY. MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM TO LOVE OTHERS AS YOU DO,
TO UNDERSTAND THEIR VALUE FULLY, TO ACCEPT THEM UNCONDITIONALLY, AND GIVE OF OURSELVES WHOLLY. 
          MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM TO TREASURE YOUR MANY BLESSINGS,
AND THAT YOU HAVE ALL THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN US, ALL THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN US. AND IN GRATITUDE. 
          LIFE. LIVE. EXCUSE ME. LIVE OUR LIVES PURELY. 
          MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM THAT COMES ONLY FROM ABOVE. 
          WITH WISDOM SO DIVINE, YET WISDOM THAT IS OURS. 
          AND AND IT'S STRONGEST WHEN MEEK AND LOWLY. AMEN. 
          AMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. CITIZEN COMMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT,
COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM ACTING OR DISCUSSING OTHER THAN FACTUAL RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. 
          ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. I DO HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK,
BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL ON AGENDA ITEMS. IF I'VE GOT THAT WRONG, RAISE YOUR HAND AND LET ME KNOW. 
          BUT OTHERWISE I WILL CALL ON YOU WHEN WE GET TO THAT AGENDA ITEM. 
          OKAY. VERY GOOD. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON. ITEMS 
          [VII. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0415,
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REPORT ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. A EXPRESSIONS OF THANKS, GRATITUDE, AND CONDOLENCES. 
          B INFORMATION REGARDING HOLIDAY SCHEDULES. C RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUALS A PROCLAMATIONS D
REMINDERS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL EVENTS, E REMINDERS REGARDING COMMUNITY EVENTS, AND F HEALTH AND SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          AND I'VE GOT FOUR ITEMS TO READ OUT. NUMBER ONE GREEN CENTER HOURS WITH THE COOLER
WEATHER, THE GREEN CENTER HAS RETURNED TO ITS NORMAL OPERATING HOURS. 
          THE CENTER WILL BE OPEN TODAY UNTIL 4:00 PM AND AGAIN ON SATURDAY,
OCTOBER 4TH FROM 10 A.M. 
          TO 4 P.M.. IT IS LOCATED AT 21155 FM 1431, JUST WEST OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. 
          RESIDENTS MUST PRESENT A CITY OF LAGO VISTA UTILITY BILL AND PHOTO ID FOR VERIFICATION. 
          FOR MORE DETAILS, PLEASE VISIT THE CITY'S WEBSITE. 
          AT NUMBER TWO NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, JOIN THE LAGO VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT NEXT TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 7TH, FROM 530 TO 730 IN THE CITY HALL PARKING LOT FOR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. 
          THIS ANNUAL EVENT BRINGS RESIDENTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TOGETHER TO STRENGTHEN PARTNERSHIPS
AND NEIGHBORHOOD CAMARADERIE. 
          THE EVENING WILL FEATURE LOCAL FOOD VENDORS,
MUSIC, FACE PAINTING, INFLATABLES, AND MORE. 
          CHIEF, YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? OH,
WILL WE BE ABLE TO DUNK YOU AFTER I READ THE KIDS? FIRST WITH THE ASSISTANT CHIEF? SOUNDS GOOD. AND IF YOU. 
          IF YOU NEED ME, I'LL. I'LL BE HAPPY TO JUMP IN THERE AS WELL. 
          I THINK I'M GOING TO BE COOKING HOT DOGS WITH THE LIONS THAT NIGHT,
SO I'LL BE THERE. NUMBER THREE FALL CLEANUP DAYS. 
          THE CITY WILL HOST ITS ANNUAL FALL CLEANUP DAYS ON WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 15TH, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH, AND SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18TH AT 5901 MUNICIPAL COMPLEX WAY NEXT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          [00:10:02]
THIS EVENT PROVIDES RESIDENTS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF APPROVED ITEMS. A VALID FORM OF ID IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY RESIDENCY. 
          A FULL LIST OF ACCEPTED AND NON ACCEPTED ITEMS IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. 
          AND FINALLY, NUMBER FOUR MOVIE ON THE GREEN. THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA WILL KICK OFF ITS
MOVIES ON THE GREEN SERIES ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24TH AT THE LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE. GATES OPEN AT 6:30 P.M.,
AND THE MOVIE WILL BEGIN AT 7 P.M. 
          WITH A SHOWING OF HOCUS POCUS. BRING YOUR GOLF CART,
LAWN CHAIRS OR BLANKETS AND ENJOY A MAGICAL NIGHT UNDER THE STARS. 
          ADMISSION IS FREE AND COSTUMES ARE WELCOME. WITH THAT,
I'LL TURN THIS DIRECTION. 
          IS ANYBODY DOWN HERE? HAVE ANY COMMUNITY EVENTS? NO. NO. ANYTHING HERE? YES. MR. ROBERTS. SAINT MARY. 
          SAINT MARY'S, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WE'VE GOT THE FALL FESTIVAL COMING UP. 
          THEY NEED MORE VOLUNTEERS. I NEED A TOTAL OF TWO,
THREE FOUR, FIVE SEVEN VOLUNTEERS NEEDED. 
          TWO ARE NEEDED FROM 9 A.M. TO 11 A.M.. THREE ARE NEEDED FROM 11 TO 1 P.M.,
AND TWO ARE NEEDED FROM 1 TO 3 P.M.. 
          AND YEAH. THANK YOU. PLEASE CONSIDER. IT'S A IT'S A LOT OF FUN. 
          IT'S PROBABLY IT'S. IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN, YOU SHOULD GO. 
          IT'S LIKE THE WHOLE COMMUNITY COMES OUT FOR IT. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FOOD THERE AND
AND STUFF FOR THE KIDS. AND OF COURSE, DUNKING AS THE TWO OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE SPEAKING TO OTHER ITEM IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
NORTH LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE TRAVIS COUNTY ESD ONE,
STARTING OCTOBER 1ST, IS DOING FIRE INSPECTIONS FOR FREE. 
          FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS WILL COST YOU 45 BUCKS. 
          IN THE PAST, IT'S COST MONEY. IT'S FREE RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU'RE A MEMBER,
YOU NEED IT. 
          GET IT DONE. THANKS, MR. PRINCE. OCTOBER IS PUMPKIN MONTH,
AND ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH, AS WE'VE DONE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WILL BE BE SELLING PUMPKINS. 
          SO, FIRST OFF, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE 3:00 THIS SATURDAY TO COME UNLOAD SEVERAL THOUSAND
PUMPKINS FROM THE TRUCK. 
          YOUR HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT THROUGH THE MONTH OF OCTOBER,
SALES OF PUMPKINS WILL BE HELD DAILY WEEKDAYS FROM 3 P.M. TO SEVEN AND AND SATURDAY AND SUNDAY IN THE AFTERNOONS. 
          THANK YOU SIR. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON. 
          THE VERY FIRST ITEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT IS ITEM NUMBER 11.4. 
          [XI.4. Discussion, Consideration and Possible action regarding Resolution No. 25-2152 dedicating required public parkland in the Tessera on Lake Travis subdivision by Hines Lake Travis Land II Limited Partnership to the City, including a correction deed concerning a prior dedication for the purpose of correcting scrivener’s errors regarding the pool property dedication.]
AND THAT IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 25
2152 DEDICATING REQUIRED PUBLIC PARKLAND IN THE AREA ON LAKE TRAVIS SUBDIVISION BY LAKE TRAVIS LAND TO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO THE CITY,
INCLUDING A CORRECTED CORRECTION DEED CONCERNING A PRIOR DEDICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS REGARDING THE POOL PROPERTY DEDICATION. 
          AND MR. CLEMENT, ARE YOU ONLINE? THERE WE GO. 
          I AM THIS ITEM AS YOU REQUESTED. WE ARE. THE INTENT IS TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE 16TH. 
          BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GIVING US A LITTLE BIT OF A DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE THAT IS
CAUSING US TO WAIT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YES. SO OTHER ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR HINES ON ON A TRANSACTION WERE
RUNNING TITLE COMMITMENTS, AND A OLD MADAM LEON SHOWED UP AND APPEARED THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE. 
          AND SO THAT KIND OF CAUSED A RIPPLE EFFECT WITHIN HINES. 
          I CONSULTED WITH MY CLIENT AN HOUR AGO TO SEE WHETHER THE 16TH I ASKED WAS TWO WEEKS
ENOUGH? TIME? HE SAID NO, BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR HAS GONE OUT OF BUSINESS,
BUT THE LIEN IS STILL THERE. 
          SO I'VE BEEN DIRECTED TO ASK FOR FOUR WEEK POSTPONEMENT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T WANT TO COME
BACK UNLESS WE'VE GOT IT FIXED. 
          SO IT'S A CLEAN ACTION. OKAY, THEN I CAN CONVEY A CLEAN TITLE TO THE CITY. 
          SO THEN, MAYOR MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO SIMPLY TAKE NO ACTION ON IT. 
          AND THEN, ROBERT, IF YOU WOULD READ THIS, BRAD BULLOCK,
IF YOU'D REACH BACK OUT TO ME JUST WHEN YOU HAVE IT RESOLVED, AND THEN I CAN ALERT THE MAYOR TO PUT IT ON THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE NEXT AGENDA, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE FOR WEEKS IF, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW HOW THESE THINGS GO, RIGHT? YEAH. WHEN YOU ARE READY TO GO, PLEASE JUST REACH OUT AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET IT ON THE
AGENDA. 
          YEAH. I'LL BE IN CONTACT. BRAD. THANK YOU ROBERT,
THANK YOU FOR THE FOR THE RECORD, THIS HAPPENS TO BE A MONTH WITH AN EXTRA THURSDAY, SO IF NOT IN TWO WEEKS IT WOULD BE FIVE WEEKS WOULD BE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING. 
          VERY GOOD. OKAY. DID YOU GET THAT, MR. CLEMENT? YES, YES I DID. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. NOW, MR. DONNELLY, I HAVE YOU DOWN HERE AS WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          YES, SIR. COME ON. FORWARD. I THINK. SO. I JUST HAD THREE QUESTIONS. 
          [00:15:01]
THE FIRST ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CORRECTION DEED. IF YOU COULD LOOK AT PAGE 240 IN
YOUR PACKET, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT, THAT I'M, I NORMALLY DON'T SEE IN A,
IN A WARRANTY DEED, BUT THIS ONE STATES THAT GRANTOR DOES GRANT SELL AND CONVEY UNTO GRANTEE IS DEDICATED PUBLIC PARKLAND. AND FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES FOR WHICH A PUBLIC
PARKLAND IS COMMONLY USED, INCLUDING INSTALLING, REPAIRING, MAINTAINING,
ALTERING, REPLACING, RELOCATING AND OPERATING FACILITIES IN INTO A POND, OVER, ACROSS AND UNDER ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE. 
          SO MY QUESTION ON THAT IS, IS THAT INTENDED TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE CITY TO RELIEVE THE
HOA OF THE EXPENSE OF OPERATING PUBLIC FACILITIES? WE CAN'T WE CAN'T PROVIDE THOSE KINDS OF ANSWERS RIGHT IN THIS FORUM. 
          OKAY. NEXT QUESTION, THE ADA RAMP, PAGE 255 IN YOUR PACKET. 
          THAT PARCEL IS ALMOST AN ACRE. THERE'S ONLY A SURVEY RENDITION OF THE PARCEL OUTLINE THAT
APPEARS TO BE CARVED OUT OF LOT R1 X, WHICH IS THE LARGE PARCEL THAT SURROUNDS THE POOL LOT. 
          DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY KNOW WHERE THIS IS ON THE MAP? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT QUESTION? I MEAN, LOOK AT PAGE 255 AND YOU'RE SEEING A SURVEYOR'S
OUTLINE OF THE PARCEL. 
          YEP. GEOGRAPHICALLY, WHERE IS THAT LOCATED? WHERE ANTISERA IS THAT LOCATED? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A CARVE OUT OF OF LOT R1,
WHICH IS THE BIG WHAT, FIVE ACRES THAT SURROUNDS THE POOL LOT? RIGHT. BUT IT'S IT'S HARD TO TELL WHERE THAT ACTUALLY IS AND WHY AN ADA RAMP REQUIRES AN
ACRE. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT PART, BUT I CAN ANSWER THE FACT THAT THAT IS THE
PARCEL IN QUESTION, THAT IT IS THE RAMP RIGHT BELOW THE POOL. OKAY. 
          SO IT'S LIKE AN ACRE SURROUNDING THE RAMP BETWEEN THE POOL AND THE CLIFF. 
          CORRECT? YES. OKAY. THAT'S TRUE. YEAH. IT'S ON THE KIND OF THE SOUTHERN. 
          WELL, I SAY SOUTHERN, BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE CAR,
THE KIND OF THE DONUT HOLE THAT REPRESENTS THE POOL, RIGHT. IT'S BELOW THAT AND IT'S LITERALLY THIS. 
          THIS PARCEL ENCOMPASSES KIND OF A SWITCHBACK RAMP. 
          OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY IT THAT'S WHY IT'S KIND OF SHAPED THE WAY THAT IT IS,
BECAUSE THE RAMP ITSELF IS LIKE A SWITCHBACK BECAUSE IT'S ADA COMPLIANT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. LAST QUESTION. ALMOST FIVE ACRES OF PUBLIC TRAILS IN YOUR
PACKET IS PAGES 267 TO 277. 
          I'M CURIOUS HOW THE CITY PLANS ON PHYSICALLY IDENTIFYING AND DISTINGUISHING THE PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE PORTIONS OF THESE TRAILS. 
          LIKE SIGNAGE? YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO STEP OVER A LINE SOMEWHERE AND
YOU'VE GONE FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE OR VICE VERSA. 
          AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT'D BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY AND THE HOA WOULD NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER ON. AND JUST REMEMBER, IT'S WE'RE NOT BEING GRANTED THE LAND ITSELF. 
          IT'S JUST PURELY AN EASEMENT. THAT'S AN EASEMENT ON THOSE. 
          YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. AND I'LL KEEP YOUR CARD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TALK ON
TEN FOUR AS WELL. 
          RIGHT. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD ANYBODY ELSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          AND AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION. AND WE WAIT FOR THE LEAN STUFF TO BE FIGURED
OUT, AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK AS APPROPRIATE. OKAY. 
          BACK UP NOW. MAYOR. YES, SIR. I JUST GOT A MESSAGE FROM A CITIZEN. 
          THEY SAID THAT WE WERE MUTED. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ON THE GO TO OR SWAGIT. 
          ERIC, CAN YOU TELL ON. OKAY. WAS IT MAYBE WAS THAT MICROPHONE WORKING? OKAY. IF YOU CLARIFY WHETHER THEY'RE ON GO TO OR SWAGIT SWAGIT THEN. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. BUT I AM GOING TO RETURN BACK TO NUMBER EIGHT PRESENTATIONS,
DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION ON WATER, 
          [VIII.1. Discussion and presentation on Water public-private partnerships with Accenture.]
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS WITH ACCENTURE. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS MR. SOLMS ITEM. I'LL LET YOU INTRODUCE US. THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR. AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE WATER PROJECTS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND
THEM I WANTED TO BRING ACCENTURE HERE TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC AND MAYBE OURSELVES DON'T HAVE A
THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF IT. 
          AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO COME HERE AND GIVE US A BRIEFING ON IT. I DID ALSO HAVE A REALLY
GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, WHO HAS DONE DOZENS AND DOZENS AND DOZENS OF P3'S. 
          [00:20:02]
AND THEY'RE VERY SATISFIED WITH THEM. SO THEY SAID,
YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING UP ON THIS PRESENTATION, SOMETHING THAT WE STILL WANT TO EXPLORE THEY'RE ALSO OPEN TO MEETING AND TALKING TO US. 
          SO WITH THAT, I'LL LET ACCENTURE TAKE IT OVER. 
          AND Y'ALL UNDERSTOOD THE DIRECTIONS TO YOUR ON THE GO TO MEETING,
AND WE ARE ON THE GO TO MEETING. 
          AND THEN, ERIC, ARE WE ABLE TO. YEAH. SHARE. THEY'RE GOING TO SHARE IT FROM THERE. SHE'S ON THE GO, TOO. YEAH. LANITA. MCCAULEY. 
          BATES. AND I'M ASSUMING THIS IS CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. 
          APOLOGIES FOR DELAY. SHOWING UP. IT'S VERY SMALL. 
          THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ALSO RATEPAYERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, P3 STRATEGY AND DELIVERY METHODS. I AM LANITA MCCAULEY BATES AGAIN. 
          I AM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. 
          I DEAL WITH WATER, WASTEWATER, ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION. 
          I ALSO HAVE ONLINE ROBERT SHEETS. HE'S THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AT ACCENTURE. 
          HE HAS FORMED REGIONALIZATION PROJECTS AND HAVE BEEN VERY CRUCIAL IN DEVELOPING SENATE
BILL 1169 WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL REGIONALIZATION FOR WATER PROJECTS. I ALSO HAVE ON BOARD TOM NESS. 
          HE'S OUR EXPERT IN P3, AND ALSO MY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TAMMY PETERS IS ON THE LINE AS
WELL. 
          LEADING US IS ALEX MACLEAN. HE'S NOT HERE TODAY. 
          HOWEVER, HE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER AT ACCENTURE. 
          I AM GOING TO BE CONCISE TODAY. I WANT TO JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT
P3S IN MY REVIEW OF LAGO VISTA. I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY P THREES THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED HERE,
THAT MANY OF YOUR PROJECTS HAVE BEEN DONE BY DB, DB DESIGN, BID BUILD. SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE FLAVOR OF WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO
THE TABLE UTILIZING THE P THREE STRUCTURE AND 2269 UNDER THE TEXAS CODE. SO WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY? WE'RE HERE TODAY TO ALIGN ON P THREE AND WHAT IT IS IN TEXAS. 
          AND WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE WANT TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST VARIOUS WAYS TO DELIVER
PROJECTS. 
          SORRY DB SEEMA. AND THAT'S CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK DB AND THAT'S OUR P THREE
STRUCTURE UNDER 2267. 
          AGAIN, WHAT I'VE READ IS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE EXECUTED UNDER MOSTLY AND THAT'S UNDER 22,
69. 
          WE WANT TO OUTLINE GOVERNANCE, RISK TRANSFERS,
HOW IT CAN BE HELPFUL FOR YOU, THE PITFALLS AND THE PROS OF P3. 
          ASSIST LAGO VISTA ON EVALUATING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE IN
THE PIPELINE RIGHT NOW, AND AGREE ON NEXT STEPS. AND A PRECURSOR BEFORE ANYTHING OCCURS IN REGARDS TO P3 IS
ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES FOR THE SYSTEM. THE P3 VALUE PROPOSITION. THE GOOD THING ABOUT P3 IS,
IS THERE'S SOMETHING IN IT FOR AND THIS IS ANY DELIVERY METHOD. BUT ESPECIALLY WITH P3 THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE FOR YOUR PRIVATE
PARTNER THE PUBLIC PARTNER AND ALSO THE RATEPAYERS. 
          THERE'S A RISK TRANSFER THAT OCCURS HERE. SO WITH THE PRIVATE PARTNER WOULD THEY LIKE
ABOUT P3 IS THAT THEY HAVE A STABLE, CONSISTENT INVESTMENT. THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE ASSISTING AN ENTITY THAT NEEDS ASSISTANCE. 
          AND WHO DOESN'T LOVE WATER, RIGHT. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION AND EXPANDING THEIR MARKET
FOOTPRINT IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR. 
          IT'S IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO PRIVATE FUNDING. AND SOMETIMES,
AS WE KNOW, WITH ALL THE WATER PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONIES TO GO AROUND. SO P3 IS HELP YOU FIND THAT MONEY AND FIND THAT
MONEY QUICKLY AND ALSO ACCEPTANCE OF PERFORMANCE MECHANISMS. IN MY PRIOR LIFE, I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN KPIS,
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MAKING SURE THAT YOU MEET WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO. 
          SO THAT'S THE KEY THING WITH P3 IS BEING ABLE TO PASS ON THAT AND SAY YOU'RE GOING TO MEET
IT, 
          [00:25:06]
AND IF YOU DON'T, WHAT HAPPENS. YOU GET A DEDUCTION ON YOUR FEE. 
          SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO THAT'S THE RISK TRANSFER. 
          THERE'S A WHOLE LIFE COST DISCIPLINE THAT OCCURS WITH P3'S RISK TRANSFER SCHEDULE. 
          IF YOU HAVE AN INTENSE SCHEDULE AND YOU NEED TO PUT PRESSURE,
AND IF YOU DON'T GET THAT SCHEDULE DELIVERED ON TIME. 
          HAVE THOSE MECHANISMS TO DEDUCT P3'S ARE GOOD FINANCIAL PREDICTABILITY AND OUTCOMES FOCUS
AGAIN MY LOVE OF KPIS. 
          SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR YOU? WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR LAGO VISTA? WHO CARES ABOUT IT FOR OTHER PLACES? THE IMPORTANT PART IS WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU AND THE
RATEPAYERS. 
          WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU? WOULD BE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO. 
          WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR YOU IS IF YOU CAN BUNDLE A LOT OF PROJECTS,
BECAUSE IN REVIEWING THE PROJECT LIST YOU HAVE, IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO BUNDLE THE PROJECTS INSTEAD OF HAVING A SINGLE PROJECT. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND BEING ABLE TO GET THE RIGHT ENTITY COMPETITION
TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU THE MONEYS THAT YOU NEED FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS, CLEAR MEASURABLE OUTPUTS, SERVICE OUTPUTS, THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO DO CERTAIN
THINGS, THAT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THAT ONTO ANOTHER ENTITY. 
          THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR YOU. MATERIAL LIFECYCLE AND O&M RISK. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE RISKS THAT YOU WANT TO PASS ON TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR? THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND ALSO STABLE REVENUE SCHEDULE PRESSURE,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE ONE THING YOU ALWAYS SAY IS ON TIME, ON BUDGET, RIGHT? IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WITH THESE WATER PROJECTS TO BE ON TIME AND ON
BUDGET SPECIFICALLY ON TIME WITH THE WATER ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING CURRENTLY. SO APPLICABLE SITUATIONS,
CONSENT DECREE, FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS, UNDERINVESTMENT OF SYSTEMS, NEW TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED SCHEDULE. 
          SO THE DELIVERY OPTIONS DVB VERSUS CMAA VERSUS DBFO. 
          SO YOU'RE VERY WELL VERSED IN DB RIGHT. IT'S THE LOWEST COST THAT YOU HAVE. 
          IT'S THE LOWEST COST FOR CAPITAL. IT'S A IT'S A GOOD WAY OF DOING THINGS,
BUT IT'S VERY LINEAR. 
          AND THE CITY REMAINS ALL THE RETAINS ALL THE RISK AND CHANGE ORDER ISSUES. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE CONS. SEEMA. I'LL GO MORE INTO SEEMA UNDER 22,
69. 
          THE PROS OF IT IS THAT YOU GET THE BEST VALUE AWARD. 
          YOU CAN OVERLAP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. BECAUSE YOU'RE WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND IMPROVE CONSTRUCTABILITY RISK SHARING RISK PRICING. BUT STILL, THE O&M RISK IS WITH THE CITY THAT STAYS AND MORE OWNER COORDINATE
COORDINATION. 
          DBFO MP3. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT MOSTLY TODAY UNDER 2267 THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THAT SINGLE
POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THE ONE NEXT TO CHOKE. BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF MECHANISM. 
          YOU HAVE THAT ONE ENTITY THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH LIFE CYCLE PERFORMANCE,
THE KPIS, THE PRESSURE ON THIS ENTITY IS REAL. 
          BUT THE BAD THING IS THE HIGHER COST OF CAPITAL IT REQUIRES ALSO P THREE GUIDELINES. 
          EVEN THOUGH THE TEXAS ALLOWS THESE, YOU HAVE TO PASS YOUR OWN GUIDELINES BEFORE YOU START
A PROCUREMENT PROCESS. 
          DBFO REQUIRES IT TO BE BANKABLE, RIGHT? THERE HAS TO BE BANKABLE VALUE VALUE LEVERS,
OUTPUT SPECS, ENFORCEABLE KPIS, LIFE CYCLE SCOPE, PREDICTABLE PAYMENT MECHANISMS. THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT. I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU YOUR SYSTEM. 
          I'M SURE YOU KNOW YOUR SYSTEM. WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW YOUR SYSTEM MORE,
BUT THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ASSERTED THAT IT MAY BE MORE IN LINE WITH YOUR GOALS IF YOU
DID AP3 P3 TO BUNDLE PROJECTS TO MAKE IT MORE OF A PROGRAM AND THEN BE ABLE TO EXECUTE ON A P3. 
          AGAIN, A P3 CAN BE FROM. JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU ALL IT CAN BE FROM,
OR IT COULD BE A PORTION OF SUCH, IT COULD BE A SERVICE A SERVICE ORIENTED WHERE YOU DON'T GET THE FINANCING. 
          IT COULD JUST BE FINANCING. IT COULD BE A MIX OF THINGS. 
          SO AS I STATED, I WAS GOING TO BE CONCISE AND NOT BORE YOU WITH TOO MANY DETAILS,
BUT THERE ARE NEXT STEPS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS FURTHER. 
          AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING WITH SAN ANTONIO AS WELL TO GET SOME MORE DETAILS
ON THEIR WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND HOW THEY'VE EXECUTED. 
          BUT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE A PROGRAM VALIDATION. 
          LOOK AT ALL THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU HAVE IN THE PIPELINE FOR THE NEXT FIVE,
TEN, 15 YEARS, EVEN TO SEE WHERE A P3 WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR YOU. 
          [00:30:02]
CONFIRM THE SCOPES THE DRIVERS CONSTRAINTS ALIGN WITH SUCCESS METRICS. 
          AND THEN WE SUGGEST A PROGRAM BRIEF BE PROVIDED IN THAT REGARD. 
          AND THEN A DELIVERY SCREEN. I DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER A BIT,
BUT IT IS MAKING SURE THAT YOU DO A VALUE FOR THE MONEY. 
          SO THAT'S MAKING SURE THAT YOU DON'T EXECUTE ON A P3. 
          THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THE COST IS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE MONEY. 
          AND YOU COULD DO A DB, OR YOU COULD DO A CMR. SO MAKING SURE IT MAKES SENSE FOR LAGO VISTA GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES,
THESE THREE THROUGH THREE AND FOUR ARE REALLY NEXT STEPS AFTER YOU KIND OF DETERMINE WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR YOU. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE GOVERNANCE AND GUIDELINES IF
YOU DECIDED TO DO A P3 OR IF YOU JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS OUT THERE. 
          SO IT MAY NOT BE TODAY, IT MAY NOT BE TOMORROW,
BUT YOU HAVE YOUR GUIDELINES READY TO BE ABLE TO DO IN YOUR GOVERNANCE, READY TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE ON A P3 THREE AND FUNDING AND PROCUREMENT. 
          WHAT WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON IS THAT WE TRY TO ASSIST VARIOUS ENTITIES ON FINDING FUNDS,
FINDING MONEY, AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S WE LOOK AT GRANTS,
WHATEVER THAT'S OFFERED. 
          NOW, I PROVIDED ALSO A CENTRAL CONTACTS. THESE ARE ALL THE FOLKS THAT I MENTIONED. 
          I BELIEVE CARLOS RUBENSTEIN, I MAY HAVE LEFT OUT FOR A SECOND. 
          HE COULDN'T JOIN US TODAY, BUT HE'S OUR WATER POLICY ADVISOR. 
          HE IS VERY WELL KNOWN IN THE STATE OF TEXAS,
AND HE USED TO BE THE CHAIR OF THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. 
          AND HE'S AT OUR DISPOSAL, DISPOSAL, AND WE WORK WITH HIM ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS BELOW, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
I WOULD GLADLY ACCEPT ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I THINK WE'VE LOST OVER THE WHAT A P3 IS AND ISN'T SLIDE. 
          IF YOU WANTED TO GO BACK ON THAT, BECAUSE WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE,
THEY GENERALLY THINK THAT THERE'S ONLY A P3 MEANS ONE THING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          THEY THINK IT JUST MEANS THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES,
WHICH IS NOT TRUE. 
          THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU CAN STRUCTURE P3'S THAT DON'T INVOLVE THE
PRIVATIZATION OF IT. 
          SO IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT AND MAYBE GIVE IN LAYMAN'S TERMS,
SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF HOW A POSSIBLE WATER P3 WOULD LOOK. 
          ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. AND I MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. 
          BUT LET'S SEE HERE. SO WHAT IS A P3 ISN'T. SO AGAIN,
IT'S GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS CODE 2267. 
          SO WHAT I'VE OUTLINED HERE DESIGN, BUILD, FINANCE,
OPERATE, MAINTAIN. 
          BUT IT CAN BE ANY KIND OF PORTIONS OF THOSE. WHEN YOU GET A PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVED I.E. 
          THERE'S COMPANIES SUCH AS VEOLIA AND US WATER THAT DOES SERVICE ORIENTED AND THEY MAY JUST
DO THE OPERATIONS OF IT, BUT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A P3. AND THEN YOU MAY HAVE AN ENTITY THAT MAY DESIGN,
BUILD, FINANCE. 
          HOWEVER, THE THE CITY DECIDES TO TAKE IT OVER AND DO IT THEMSELVES. 
          IT IS NOT FUNDING ALONE. OKAY, YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK. 
          AND IT COULD BE NO FUNDING. OKAY. IT COULD BE SERVICE BASED. 
          IT'S NOT PRIVATIZATION. AND THIS IS, I BELIEVE,
WHAT YOU WERE GETTING TO COUNCIL. 
          SHANE. IN REGARDS TO. IT'S NOT PRIVATIZATION. 
          PRIVATIZATION. IT IS CITY MAINTAINS ASSET OWNERSHIP AND OVERSIGHT,
AND THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WELL. 
          THERE WAS A BIG CONCESSION THAT HAPPENED IN RIALTO,
CALIFORNIA, WHERE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FUNDING. IT'S FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITY AND THERE'S FUNDING
MECHANISMS THAT WERE THERE. 
          AND THE OVERSIGHT BY THE CITY WAS INTENSE. IT WAS DISCUSSED PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME THERE
WAS A COUNCIL MEETING. 
          NOTHING WENT UN, UN, UN LOOKED AT. THEY ALSO HAD THEIR OWN ENGINEERING FIRM INVOLVED AS
WELL. 
          SO IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND,
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DIG INTO IT WITH THEIR ENGINEERING FIRM. AGAIN A BUSINESS CASE IS REQUIRED. SO THE VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MAKES
SENSE. 
          YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. 
          YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING AT THE RIGHT MONEY. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO ADOPT THE GUIDELINES. THOSE GUIDELINES ARE THEY STRICT AND DICTATED
BY STATE STATUTE OR ARE THERE CAN WE MODIFY THOSE? IT'S PRETTY MUCH YOU CAN MODIFY THEM,
BUT YOU HAVE TO GO INTO THE STATUTE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE RIGHT PROJECT. 
          SO IT CAN'T BE JUST ANY PROJECT. YOU CAN'T DO A $500,000 PROJECT THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE TO DO. 
          IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER THE STATUTE,
UNDER 22, 67. 
          BUT UPON MEETING THOSE THRESHOLDS, THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN GUIDELINES. 
          ARE THERE PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTES OF A PROJECT THAT MAKE IT BETTER FOR P3 THAN NOT? AND IF YOU IF THERE ARE, CAN YOU. YES UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT. 
          YES. MANY P3 ARE LONG TERM. SO SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT THE BIGGER DOLLAR THE BETTER. 
          SO LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT'S GOING TO TAKE 15 TO MAYBE 30 YEARS TO PAY BACK. 
          [00:35:03]
THOSE THAT ARE REQUIRE COMPLEX ISSUES OR AND AS ACCENTURE IS VERY INTO TECHNOLOGY SO THERE
MAY BE VARIOUS TECHNOLOGY THAT NEEDS TO BE DEPLOYED AS WELL,
THAT IT'S BETTER TO UTILIZE IT'S PRIVATE SECTOR TO MANAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY. 
          AND I GUESS, CAN YOU HELP DEFINE LARGE PROJECTS? I MEAN, WHAT'S LARGE FOR US ISN'T LARGE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN? ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. IN LOOKING AT YOURS,
IT COULD BE THE $18 MILLION PROJECT. 
          ASSUME. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, HOWEVER, IS TAKING AND BUNDLING THOSE PROJECTS. 
          SOME PEOPLE SAY 50 MILLION IS A SWEET SPOT, YOU KNOW. 
          SO A BUNDLING OF PROJECTS WOULD MEET THE THRESHOLD. 
          OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS DOWN HERE? THERE'S MORE OF A EXPLANATION. 
          WHEN I TALK TO SAN ANTONIO, ONE OF THEIR MAJOR PROJECTS WAS DELIVERING WATER FROM ANOTHER
AQUIFER. 
          THAT WAS A LONG WAYS AWAY. THEY DID A BIG P3 TO PUT THE LINE OUT THERE. 
          IT WAS A 30 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH 30 YEAR AGREEMENT ON THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTAINING IT, AND THEN ANOTHER 40 YEARS AFTER THAT JUST TO MAINTAIN IT. 
          AND SO SAN ANTONIO TALKED ABOUT THEIR GUIDELINES ARE REALLY THOUGHTFULLY SPELLED OUT,
SO MUCH SO THAT EVERY YEAR THEY HAVE A FINANCE COMMITTEE BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND THE AND THE SAWS, AND THEY GO THROUGH ALL THE FINANCIALS,
THEY GO THROUGH EVERY SPEND THAT THERE WAS, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO PICK OUT WHAT DIDN'T QUALIFY AND WHAT DIDN'T QUALIFY. 
          AND THEY GET TO SCRUTINIZE CERTAIN THINGS. AND THEN THEY ALSO CREATED AN OMBUDSMAN LIKE A
4 OR 5, A FIVE MEMBER OMBUDSMAN OFFICE, WHERE IF THERE ARE DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES, IT GOES TO THE OMBUDSMAN AND THEY WORK OUT ISSUES. 
          AND SAN ANTONIO SAYS THEY'VE REPLICATED THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS,
AND THAT WHAT IT'S ALLOWED THEM TO DO IS NOT RELY SOLELY ON BONDS OR TRYING TO SELF-FUND, AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO PAY IT OFF LONG TERM. 
          THEY'VE ADDED A COUPLE DOLLARS TO PEOPLE'S UTILITY BILLS OR WATER BILLS,
AND BEEN ABLE TO PAY THESE BIGGER PROJECTS IN DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          VERY GOOD POINT. YEAH, YOUR GUIDELINES SHOULD BE SPECIFIC. 
          YOU DO NEED A LIKE A COORDINATION COMMITTEE OR SOME SORT OF COMMITTEE THAT HELPS MANAGE
THAT PROCESS. 
          AND YOU HAVE TO KNOW AS WELL THAT YOU'RE NOT STUCK FOR 30 YEARS. 
          IF IT'S NOT WORKING OUT, YOU CAN GET RID OF THEM. 
          I USED TO BE AN ATTORNEY ONE DAY IN A PREVIOUS LIFE AS WELL,
SO YOU CAN'T GET RID OF THEM. 
          AND THEY COULD HAVE TO PAY. SO GENERALLY PEOPLE FALL IN LINE WITH THE P3'S AND THAT THEY
WILL BE EFFECTIVE FOR YOU IF IT WORKS OUT. 
          AND THE OTHER PART SAN ANTONIO SAID THEY BENEFITED FROM IT,
AND THEY OBVIOUSLY WENT OUT TO A BID PROCESS OR A BUNCH OF REALLY BIG COMPANIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT BID ON IT. THEY CHOSE THE ONE THEY THOUGHT DID THE BEST. 
          BUT OVER THE YEARS, THEY'VE SEEN THAT REALLY PAY OFF BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE STAYING
ON TOP OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND NEW THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND THEY'RE GETTING THIS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THAT THEY WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE GETTING FROM
INTERNAL CITY STAFF. 
          AND SO THEY'VE GOT THIS CONDUIT TO AN OUTSIDE ENTITY THAT'S WORKING NATIONALLY AND
INTERNATIONALLY, THAT'S LEARNING NEW THINGS AND APPLYING THOSE TO THE CITY. AND THEY'VE FOUND IT INVALUABLE. AND ACTUALLY, THEY SAID AT TIMES THEY'VE SOME OF THE FORMER EMPLOYEES
FROM THAT COMPANY HAVE COME OVER AND BECOME SAN ANTONIO EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE SYSTEM SO WELL. AND YOU JUST HAVE AN ACCESS TO A MORE RESOURCES THAN YOU EVER WOULD ON
YOUR OWN. 
          ABSOLUTELY. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU, SO BECAUSE OF THE EXPERTISE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, I'VE BECOME AWARE THAT THERE ARE OTHER NEWER TECHNOLOGIES,
I THINK, THAN WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNING THROUGH OUR DB PROCESS. IS THERE A COMMUNITY THAT IS OR THAT YOU'VE SEEN AS DEFINED,
A COMMITTEE THAT HAS VETTED SOME OF THESE THINGS AND COMPARED IT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE 22, 67 AND OF COURSE,
THE GUIDELINES. 
          TO PIVOT IT MAYBE IS A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT IN TERMS OF THEIR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, WE HAVE DEFINITELY MANY EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ABOVE THE CURVE. 
          YOU KNOW, DC WATER IS ONE OF THEM THAT'S QUITE ABOVE THE CURVE. 
          AND AND THEN SAN ANTONIO IS DOING SOME FANTASTIC THINGS IN TEXAS. 
          BUT WHAT I WOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE IS THAT EVERY ENTITY IS DIFFERENT,
RIGHT. 
          SO THERE'S LOTS OF TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE. BUT WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY? BRINGING THAT EXPERTISE OUT AND APPLYING IT TO YOUR COMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT. 
          AND LOOKING AROUND AT OTHERS AS A GUIDE GUIDE IN WHAT COULD BE EFFECTIVE HERE. 
          AND THEN THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS THAT TECHNOLOGY LOOKS FANCY AND BEAUTIFUL AT TIMES. 
          SOMETIMES THE COST IS NOT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. 
          [00:40:02]
SO IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS,
IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE ROBERT SHEETS ON AS WELL. 
          ROBERT, ARE YOU STILL THERE? OH, YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          ROBERT. YES. I'M HERE. YES. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THE QUESTION IN
REGARDS TO EXAMPLES AND EXPERTISE THAT WE CAN DEPLOY AS WELL. HERE. WELL,
P3 IS ONE OF THOSE TOPICS THAT IF YOU PUT TEN PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, YOU'D GET TEN DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF P3, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANY OF THEM ARE
WRONG. 
          IT JUST MEANS THAT THE P3 PARTNERSHIP HAS TO FIT THE NEEDS AND THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS
A PARTNERSHIP. 
          YOU DECIDED TO TAKE A NONTRADITIONAL APPROACH TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE,
NOT JUST TO DEVELOP IT, TO DEVELOP IT, FUND IT AND MAINTAIN IT AND MANAGE IT. 
          THINGS HAVE CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY. WHAT ANITA WAS SAYING WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. 
          BUT WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BEFORE THE P3 PARTNERS WOULDN'T TALK TO YOU IF THE PROJECT
WASN'T 100 $200 MILLION. 
          WELL, THAT'S CHANGED FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. 
          ONE IS THERE'S JUST SO MUCH CAPITAL THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT THEY'VE GOT MORE CAPITAL THAN
THEY'VE GOT DEALS TO PUT IN IT. 
          SO THEY HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE IN LOWERING THEIR THRESHOLDS FOR PROJECTS BELOW $50
MILLION. 
          BUT SO THE THE ATTRACTIVENESS AND ATTENTION INTENTION IS IS TRUE. 
          THE OTHER PART IS THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH MONEY. 
          OUT OF ALL THE MONEY THE STATE SET ASIDE FOR THIS YEAR'S ROUND OF SRF MONIES. 
          I THINK THE APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE DOLLARS WERE THREE TIMES MORE THAN THE DOLLARS ARE
AVAILABLE. 
          SO YOU'VE GOT THAT ISSUE. ALSO, SECONDLY, THERE'S JUST A REAL SHORTAGE OF SKILLS AND
RESOURCES. 
          I MEAN, NOBODY'S GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL NOW SAYING I WANT TO GO AND LEARN HOW TO BE A
SEWER PLANT OPERATOR. 
          I WISH THEY WERE BECAUSE THE PAYS REALLY WELL AND THE JOBS ARE ABOUT AS RECESSION PROOF AS
YOU CAN. 
          BUT DEALING WITH A P3 PARTNER REQUIRES YOU TO BE ON YOUR TOES AND SMART BECAUSE YOU ARE
GETTING INTO A MARRIAGE FOR, LET'S JUST SAY FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, 30 YEARS. 
          BUT WE KNOW FIRMS LIKE IED CENTRAL STATES ALL THESE FIRMS,
MANY OF THEM INTERNATIONAL FIRMS, WANT TO PLANT A FLAG AND WANT TO PUT CAPITAL TO IT. 
          THEY HAVE TO PUT CAPITAL TO WORK. IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT PROVIDE THEM WITH
THAT CAPITAL. 
          YOUR CHALLENGE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYBODY ELSE'S,
AND YOU'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF THE DEAL. 
          A P3 PARTNERSHIP CAN ALLOW YOU, AS YOU'VE ALREADY SAID,
ACCESS TO CAPITAL AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY. 
          IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD FOR YOU TO PURSUE ON YOUR OWN. 
          AND WE KNOW THESE PEOPLE. WE KNOW THE ACTS. WE KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY. 
          IN ADDITION, ONCE YOU'VE ENTERED THIS PARTNERSHIP,
YOU CAN DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THE RISK YOU YOU PUT. 
          I CAN USE EXAMPLES WHERE WE'VE TAKEN ON PROJECTS WHERE THE FIRST THING THE CONTRACTOR DOES
IS PUT IN THE WRONG MEMBRANE, AND YOU CAN SPEND $1 MILLION REPLACING IT. AND NORMALLY THAT WOULD GO ON THE RATEPAYERS
BACK. 
          BUT WE MADE SURE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A 50 YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
TO RUN AND OPERATE ASSETS ON THEIR BEHALF. 
          WE'VE MADE SURE OUR CONTRACTORS ARE OUR PERFORMANCE PARTNERS. 
          KNOW THAT IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE LIKE THAT, THEY PAY FOR THAT MISTAKE,
NOT THE RATEPAYERS. 
          SO ALL OF THESE SAFEGUARDS CAN BE PUT IN, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
YOU'RE NOT SIMPLY TURNING IT OVER TO SOMEBODY AND WALKING AWAY. 
          YOU HAVE TO STAY ENGAGED. YOU HAVE TO STAY INVOLVED. 
          YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HOW TO MEASURE NOT JUST HOW THEY'RE PERFORMING,
BUT HOW THEIR CAPITAL IS BEING USED. 
          SO, I MEAN, I WOULD I COULD TALK ABOUT THIS ALL DAY. 
          THERE ARE AS MANY HORROR STORIES AS THERE ARE SUCCESSES OUT THERE. 
          WE'RE NOT JUST IN P3. YOU GET INTO THE WATER INDUSTRY. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN FUNDED THROUGH TRADITIONAL WAY THAT WEREN'T ON
TIME, WERE OVER BUDGET. AS YOU DO ANY OTHER, AS YOU DO ANY OTHER FUNDING OR STRUCTURE SOURCE. 
          SO THE KEY HERE IS MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. 
          HAVE THE EXPERTISE YOU NEED TO ASK THE RIGHT THINGS AND TO MAKE SURE YOUR PARTNER. 
          WELL, YOUR PARTNER IS MONITORED, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. TO ME,
ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS OF A P3 PARTNERSHIP, IF IT'S WORKING, IS DOWN THE ROAD. IF YOU NEED X,
IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL CAPITAL, THEY'RE THE FIRST ONES YOU GO TO. 
          BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE THE COST OF CAPITAL MAY BE DIFFERENT,
KEEP IN MIND, PLEASE, THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING YOU IS EQUITY NOT DEBT. 
          [00:45:08]
SO IN A NORMAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS WHERE YOU'RE HAVING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR COVERAGE
REQUIREMENTS ARE, DEBT SERVICE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS ARE UNDER TRADITIONAL BOND FINANCING. 
          THOSE ARE NOT FACTORS. THOSE DO NOT ADD TO THE COST OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT
DEBT, IT'S EQUITY. SO THERE IS NOT A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE REQUIREMENT OR COVERAGE REQUIREMENT. 
          SO YOU'VE REALLY SHRUNK THAT GAP. THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CAPITAL AND THE COST
OF EQUITY. 
          AND I'LL STOP TALKING AND SEE IF YOU GOT ANY MORE QUESTIONS. 
          WHERE'D YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON HERE? WELL, I YOU KNOW, I'M I'M JUST KIND OF COMING AT IT FROM A SIMPLE PERSPECTIVE. 
          AND AT ONE LEVEL YOU COULD SAY WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF YOU WANT TO SPEND MORE,
THEN P3 IS THE WAY TO GO. 
          RIGHT. AND WHAT WE GET OUT OF P3 IS SOME RISK REDUCTION,
WHICH IS REALLY HARD TO MEASURE. 
          AND SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THINKING ABOUT IT WRONG,
BUT IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE IT'S LIKE BUYING INSURANCE AGAINST SOMETHING BAD HAPPENING. 
          AND THEN TO, TO YOUR, YOUR COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS THERE THAT YOU CAN FIND EXAMPLES WHERE
PEOPLE ARE REALLY HAPPY THEY DID IT AND OTHERS WHERE THEY DIDN'T. 
          IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT? THAT REALLY IT'S ALL ABOUT IT'S IT'S ALMOST AN
INSURANCE STRATEGY TO HEDGE AGAINST SOMETHING BAD. 
          THAT IS THAT IS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. BUT IT'S MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY,
MANY TRADITIONAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE GONE ASTRAY OVERENGINEERED, POORLY MANAGED, POOR CONTRACTORS. 
          AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT'S A P3,
THE THE BENEFIT OF P3. 
          YOU'RE YOU'RE BRINGING IN THE TOP EXPERTS IN THE WORLD IN THIS TECHNOLOGY. 
          SO IT MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY COST YOU MORE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE NOT DEALING WITH COST
OVERRUNS, BUDGET DELAYS ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS, REGULATORY ISSUES. 
          IT'S A IN ONE WAY, IT IS AN INSURANCE PRODUCT,
BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE THAT'S GOING TO COST YOU MORE. 
          IN FACT, IT MAY SAVE YOU MONEY DOWN THE ROAD IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THAT PRODUCT IS
GOING TO BE DELIVERED BASED ON THE COMMITMENTS AND PROMISES MADE. 
          DAY ONE. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. THE VALUE FOR MONEY PROPOSITION. 
          RIGHT. THAT'S WHY PART OF THIS IS STEP TWO. THE DELIVERY SCREEN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
WORTH IT. 
          YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER WE DON'T WANT TO PROPOSE A PROJECT FOR YOU. 
          AND IT'S NOT WORTH IT VALUE WISE. SO YOU LOOK AT THE RISK. 
          YOU LOOK AT THE COST OF THE MONEY. YOU LOOK AT THE AVAILABILITY OF MONEY. 
          YOU LOOK AT THE RISK OF SCHEDULE OVERRUNS, THINGS OF THAT MATTER. 
          I HAVE MANY EXAMPLES, TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF COST OVERRUNS THAT HAVE OCCURRED WITH PROJECTS. 
          IN ALL CASES THINGS THAT HAVE JUST HAPPENED THAT ARE JUST NOT GOOD FOR THE RATEPAYERS AND
NOT GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 
          SO AGAIN, AS ROBERT STATED MANY TIMES, P3 CAN BE THE BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY. 
          I KIND OF LOOK AT IT TODAY. WE WE ARE ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN PHASE OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT, WHERE IT JUST CREEPED FROM 1.8 MILLION TO OVER 4 MILLION. 
          HAD WE BEEN IN A P3 WHERE WE NEGOTIATE AND WORK THIS ALL OUT,
WE MAY NOT BE TALKING ABOUT THAT. 
          AND IN MY TWO YEARS ON COUNCIL, I HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE PROJECT REALLY,
THAT HASN'T COME BACK AT SOME POINT WITH A CHANGE ORDER AND CONTINUE TO CONTINUOUSLY INCREASE THE COST OF IT. SO EVEN AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH TODAY'S DISCUSSION ON THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS THE AMOUNT TODAY, I HAVE LITTLE FAITH THAT AT SOME POINT IT'S NOT
GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO UP, AND AT SOME POINT YOU MAYBE NEED TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE OF HOW CAN WE STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING? AND MAYBE THIS IS A ROUTE TO DO THAT. 
          WELL, YOU CAN LOOK AT CORPUS CHRISTI NO FURTHER. 
          THEY DID NOT DO A P3. IN FACT, THEY INTENTIONALLY STAYED AWAY FROM P3 ON THEIR DESAL
PROJECT WITH THE INITIAL ENGINEERING ESTIMATES OF AROUND $400 MILLION. SO THEY BROUGHT IN, THEY DID A PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD,
THEY BROUGHT IN A CONTRACTOR WITH THEIR ENGINEER, AND THEY FINALLY GOT A THEIR FIRST NICE FROM THE TEAM LAST MONTH AND IT WAS $1.2 BILLION. THAT WAS A THAT WAS A HARD MEETING TO BE PRESENT IN AND WATCH THE EXPLANATION
BEING. 
          WELL, IT WAS INFLATION. YEAH I BET SO. BUT BUT SHANE WHAT'S DRIVING IT ON. 
          THIS IS THE NEED TO REPLACE THE THAT CLARIFIER. 
          IF WE ENTERED INTO A P3 AND DIDN'T DEFINE THAT UP FRONT,
YOU'D STILL HAVE THAT PROBLEM. 
          YOU'RE NOT GOING TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FORCED TO GO DO THAT CHANGE WITHOUT
RESTRUCTURING THE CONTRACT. 
          YEAH. AND SO IT'S REALLY AN ISSUE OF NOT RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO REPLACE THAT CLARIFIER
UPFRONT THAT IS CAUSING THE ISSUE. 
          [00:50:06]
I'M GUESSING ON THE FRONT END OF A P3 THOUGH,
THEY WOULD HAVE CAME OUT ON SITE AND DONE THOSE ANALYZES BEFORE, WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN ON THIS ONE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION LATER AS TO HOW WE DISCOVERED THAT
LATER ON. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS CITY STAFF REPORTING BACK TO THEM,
AS OPPOSED TO THEM COMING OUT AND SEEING IT, BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT YET. YEAH. I'M SORRY. 
          WELL, I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW ON BECAUSE I THINK YOU RAISE A REALLY GOOD POINT. AND OUR,
OUR DB, I GUESS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE. EVERYTHING THE WE BASICALLY BREAK THAT DOWN. 
          WE'RE, YOU KNOW, SMALL STAFF HERE IN SMALL TOWN. 
          AND SO WE OUTSOURCE THE ENGINEERING, WE OUTSOURCE THE BUILD. 
          RIGHT. AND SO FOR US, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A HIRE,
AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO COME UP WITH A PLAN AND ESTIMATE WHAT THE COST SHOULD BE. 
          AND THEN WE GO OUT FOR BIDS AND HOPEFULLY THEIR ESTIMATES ARE ABOUT RIGHT. 
          AND A P3 STRUCTURE, DOES IT FOLLOW A SIMILAR FLOW WHERE THERE'S THERE'S A SORT OF
ENGINEERING FRONT END AND THE ANALYSIS AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE SCOPE COMES OUT OF THAT. 
          BUT MAYBE THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THAT FRONT END OF THE P3,
THEN YOU'RE LOCKED IN AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR COST IS GOING TO BE. 
          I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, WE WE REALLY HAVE TWO PHASES OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE CITY,
THE ENGINEERING PHASE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. AND THEY SAID,
OH, WELL, WE WE FORGOT TO EVEN PLAN FOR A FEATURE, AND THEREFORE WE'RE HAVING TO REVISIT THE WHOLE ENGINEERING PHASE. 
          AND THEN AFTER THE ENGINEERING PHASE, THEN THERE'S THE ACTUAL PROJECT ITSELF,
WHICH WE TAKE OUT FOR BID, THAT HOW SHOULD I THINK ABOUT THE FLOW OF ONE OF THESE BIG PROJECTS UNDER A P3 UMBRELLA? MORE SKIN IN THE GAME IS THE WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY. 
          SO THERE'S MORE SKIN IN THE GAME. THERE'S GOING TO BE A FINANCE PORTION OF IT. 
          SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE CAREFUL IN ESTIMATING THERE ARE SOME CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES
AND ENGINEERING COMPANIES THAT KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO CHANGE ORDERS. 
          I DON'T WANT YOU AND THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO CHANGE ORDERS. 
          THERE'S NO SKIN IN THE GAME. SO THEY'RE JUST LIKE,
YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO PRICE IT LOW. 
          WE'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE THE BEST LOWEST,
MOST RESPONSIBLE OFFER. 
          BUT WHEN WE GET IN THERE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE HECK OUT OF THIS PROJECT. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A DBFO, THERE'S MORE OF A RISK FOR THAT FINANCE PORTION AND HAVE THAT
HAPPEN. 
          SO THERE'S MORE FOOTHOLD ON THE CHANGES. AND WITH SEEMA A BIT AS WELL WITH THE GUARANTEED
MAXIMUM PRICE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I THINK AN EVALUATION OF FITS,
WHAT FITS YOU GUYS IS A NECESSARY NEXT STEP. 
          ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS COMMENTS? THEN I'LL THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU MICHAEL. 
          MY QUESTION I GUESS IT'S THE COUNCIL OR CHARLES,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN OPTION THAT WE WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS THAT YOU ALL WANT TO SEE OR ANYTHING THAT WE COULD PROVIDE TO
STAFF TO HELP. 
          OR IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ACCENTURE OR SORES. 
          I THINK I'D LIKE TO VISIT WITH MY PUBLIC WORKS FIRST AND DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE,
DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON IT. 
          YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD ASK REAL QUICK. I ASSUME GARVER IS HERE. 
          DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THREES THAT YOU'D HAVE ANY COMMENTARY TO ADD? I DON'T PERSONALLY, BUT. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MAYOR. 
          I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THREES,
BUT AS A FIRM WE DO. 
          WE DO A LOT OF WORK WITH SAWS MAINLY ON THEIR DB SIDE OF THINGS. 
          AND SAWS STRAYS AWAY FROM SEYMOUR. BUT WE DO HAVE EXPERIENCE,
I GUESS, HELPING THEM AND TALKING TO THEM ON THE P3 FRONT. 
          BUT I'D HAVE TO GET MY COUNTERPART DOWN IN SAN ANTONIO TO SPEAK MORE OF THAT,
SO I CAN'T PERSONALLY SPEAK TO THE P3 EXPERIENCE. 
          IT'D BE HELPFUL BECAUSE WE HAVE A HISTORY OF WORKING WITH Y'ALL. 
          IF YOU GUYS HAVE P3 EXPERIENCE, ANYONE IN YOUR OFFICE AND THEY COULD COME TALK TO CHARLES
AND THE STAFF, THAT'D BE HELPFUL. YEAH, I'LL MAKE NOTE OF IT. AND NEXT TIME WE GET WITH CHARLES AND
STAFF, WE'LL MAKE THAT A TALKING POINT. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          EXCELLENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [IX. CONSENT AGENDA]
I'M ONLY GOING TO DO THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT BEING PULLED FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ROUTINE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL, AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL NOT BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 
          AND AS OF THIS TIME, I'VE GOT ITEM NUMBER TWO,
NUMBER THREE, NUMBER SEVEN, AND NUMBER EIGHT THAT WILL BE PULLED. 
          AS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO ME, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES THAT,
SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE, THEN I WILL READ IN ITEMS THAT ARE REMAINING. 
          SO IT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER ONE. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 5-2154A
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, DECLARING VARIOUS PROPERTY AND OR EQUIPMENT TO BE SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN A MANNER WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY 
          [00:55:03]
OF LAGO VISTA. NUMBER FOUR REFERRAL OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 14,
SECTION 1320 E3B, I, II, I, II. ZONING PROTEST PROCEDURES TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          NUMBER FIVE. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25. 
          DASH 2157. A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ASSOCIATE JUDGE GUNNAR SEAQUIST. 
          NUMBER SIX. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 4TH,
2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 
          MINUTES. NUMBER NINE DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF
RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 2156 TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA,
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO REQUEST FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION OF THE AWS THREE AND NUMBER TEN DISCUSSION
CONSIDERATION. 
          POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 2153. 
          NOMINATING PAUL ROBERTS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE TRAVIS CENTRAL. 
          APPRAISAL. DISTRICT. AND I'M GOING TO STOP FOR JUST A MINUTE,
MISS AIRD. 
          I THINK YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          IS THAT ON ONE OF THE ITEMS I READ IN? YES, SIR. 
          THEN PLEASE COME ON. FORWARD! EVERYONE. 
          AND BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, ERIC, IF YOU'LL GET THE TIMER GOING FOR THREE MINUTES,
ACTUALLY SET IT TO SIX MINUTES. 
          YOU'VE HAD TIME DEDICATED TO YOU BY MR. STEWART,
CORRECT? OKAY. AND AS USUAL, I'M GOING TO TALK FAST. OKAY. 
          OKAY. SO A BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS ITEM NUMBER FIVE. 
          FROM MAY 20TH 8TH TO JUNE 20TH OF 2024, THE ESD FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE INVESTIGATED
PROPERTY IN LAGO VISTA, ABOUT 40 TO 70 ACRES, DEPENDING ON WHO YOU SPEAK TO. 
          IN RESPONSE TO A COMPLAINT OF LARGE PILES OF ACCUMULATED CLEARED TREES,
SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN BURNED WITHOUT THE OWNER FIRST ACQUIRING BURN PERMITS, A SITUATION THAT HAD BEEN ONGOING BETWEEN NOVEMBER 23RD UNTIL THE END OF MARCH 2024. 
          THE BURNING WAS STOPPED WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL. 
          THE ISD WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY, SAW THE LARGE PITS WITH UNATTENDED SMOKING EMBERS,
IMMEDIATELY CALLED OUT HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND FILLED IN THE PITS. 
          THE ISD DID NOT LEAVE THE SITE THAT DAY UNTIL ALL OF THE SMOKING PITS HAD BEEN FILLED IN. 
          THE CITY NOT HAVING A FIRE MARSHAL ON STAFF,
HAD NOT INVESTIGATED THE BURN SITES DURING THOSE MONTHS AND FOLLOWING THE ESD'S MARCH 23RD, 2024 EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALL, THE CITY MANAGER ENTERED INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE ESD, WHICH PERMITTED THAT AGENCY TO PERFORM FIRE MARSHAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. 
          THE FIRE MARSHAL SUBSEQUENTLY CONDUCTED THE 24 DAY INVESTIGATION,
ISSUED 23 CITATIONS, AND A 131 PAGE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT. I MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS TO COUNCIL IN OCTOBER 2024. 
          ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY UNDER CONTRACT WITH
LAGO VISTA. 
          THAT IS, THE SERVICES ARE PAID FOR BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF LAGO VISTA. 
          DISMISSED. ALL 23 COUNTS OF VIOLATIONS CHARGED AGAINST FIREFLY COVE FOR VIOLATING TERMS
AND OR PROVISIONS OF THE FIREFLY ORDINANCES. THE REASON FOR DISMISSAL WAS NOT ONE OF THE LISTED
LISTED ONES ON THE ON THE FORM, BUT IT WAS OTHER CANNOT PROSECUTE AS CHARGED NOT BECAUSE OF MERIT,
BUT BECAUSE CANNOT PROSECUTE AS CHARGED. 
          THOSE CHARGES STEMMED FROM ISD ONE FIRE MARSHALS. 
          2323 DAY INVESTIGATION FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE IMPENDING FIRE HAZARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE BURN PILES AND ACCUMULATIONS OF CLEARED TREES. THE INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT,
QUOTE, THE SHEER VOLUME OF PERMITTED ORGANIC WASTE MATERIALS BUILT UP ON THE PROPERTY. 
          UNDOUBTEDLY CONSTITUTED A GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND IMMINENT FIRE DANGER FUSS,
RENDERING A VIABLE THREAT TO LIFE, HEALTH, SAFETY AND PROPERTY OF LAGO VISTA. 
          CLOSE QUOTE. THE CHARGES RESULTING FROM THAT FINDING WERE DISMISSED BY THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH, PRIOR TO THE CHARGES BEING DISMISSED. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE,
CHARACTERIZED AS A BRIEFING TO THE COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND FOLLOWING THAT CLOSED MEETING, IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN MEETING THAT THE COUNCIL
WOULD BE STANDING BACK AND STANDING DOWN AND THE COUNCIL HAD TAKEN NO ACTION. THEN A FEW DAYS LATER, ON THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY,
ALL OF THE CHARGES THAT I MENTIONED WERE DISMISSED. 
          I WROTE TO THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ON OCTOBER 9TH,
2020 FOR PROSECUTOR, SINCE THE COURT BELIEVED THE CHARGES COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED AS 
          [01:00:06]
CHARGED. AND ACCORDING TO MAYOR SULLIVAN, WHO IS BRIEFED WITH CITY COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE
SESSION, CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED. BUT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. 
          THAT IS, THESE CHARGES ARE WINDING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. 
          WHEN WILL THE NEXT STEP TO PROSECUTE, WHICH IS MY NOVICE INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF
SOMETHING HAPPENING? WHEN WILL THE WHEN WILL THE NEXT STEP TO PROSECUTE OCCUR? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OBLIGATION TO MOVE AHEAD ON THIS ISSUE,
ONE OF CRITICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. 
          THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED OVER TWO WEEKS AGO SINCE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED AUGUST 13TH,
AND THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED SEPTEMBER 24TH. 
          WHEN WILL THE STATE FILE CHARGES THEY ARE CONFIDENT CAN BE,
AND THE RESIDENTS CAN BE CONFIDENT WILL BE PROSECUTED. 
          PROSECUTING ATTORNEY DID NOT RESPOND TO MY EMAIL. 
          THE COUNCIL STATED THEY WANTED TO STAND BACK,
BUT NOTE THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA THROUGH THEIR CITY COUNCIL. I ASK RESPECTFULLY AT THE TIME THAT THE COUNCIL,
INSTEAD OF STANDING BACK, THAT YOU CHOOSE TO STAND UP FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. 
          THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WHO DROPPED THE CHARGES WAS GUNNAR SEAQUIST. 
          PLEASE REMOVE HIS APPOINTMENT TO BECOME AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF OUR MUNICIPAL COURT FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA AND GIVE HIS APPOINTMENT, SERIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND INDIVIDUAL VOTES. 
          THANK YOU MA'AM. MR. MAYOR. YES, SIR. DO I NEED TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE AGENDA IN ORDER TO
ASK A QUESTION? YES YOU DO. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. VERY GOOD. ITEM NUMBER FIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          AND THEN JUST SPEAK TO IT. BRAD. THE PROSECUTION OPTED TO DROP THE CHARGES. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THIS THAT PREDATED MY
WORK FOR THE CITY, SO I CAN'T ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY, OKAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU. THAT WAS IT. 
          OKAY. SO THAT ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED AND IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR UNDERNEATH THE
CONSENT AGENDA MOTION. 
          AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT LATER AND TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THAT ONE. SO RIGHT NOW I WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT DID REMAIN ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE ITEMS NUMBER ONE, NUMBER FOUR,
NUMBER SIX, NUMBER NINE, AND NUMBER TEN. 
          MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE,
FOUR, SIX, NINE AND TEN. 
          SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTSON, A SECOND BY MR. DURBIN. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT ITEM LATER. AT THIS TIME,
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11.6. 
          AND THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH GARVER
ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION TO 1.5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, MGD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,864,090,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. GARVER ENGINEERING WILL PRESENT AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL ON
THE PROJECT, AND I WILL INVITE YOU TO COME FORWARD AND. GIVE THE SLIDES. 
          AND NEED TO BE ON GO TOO. IS ANYBODY ON GO TO. 
          HANG ON. 
          OKAY. OH, YEAH. SORRY. 
          AND THEN? AND THEN CAN YOU MAKE ME. NEED MY MICROPHONE THERE. 
          [01:05:12]
AND YOUR SLIDES WERE IN THE PACKET. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. PAGE 283 I THINK IS. 
          THANK YOU. YEP I'M THERE. TOO. 
          YEAH I THINK I'M SHARING THAT. OH. 
          THERE WE GO. OKAY. SO YOU'LL BE, I GUESS YOU TELL ME NOW. 
          OKAY, SO GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JEFF MEADOWS. 
          [XI.6. Discussion and possible action on an amendment to the contract with Garver Engineering for the design of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion to 1.5 MGD, in an amount not to exceed $1,864,090.00 and authorizing the City Manager to approve amendment. Garver Engineering will present an update to the Council on the project.]
I'M WITH GARVER. I'M OUR CENTRAL TEXAS FACILITY LEAD. 
          I OVERSEE ALL OF OUR MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANT PROJECTS IN THE REGION. 
          SO TODAY I'M GOING TO GO OVER THIS AMENDMENT WITH YOU GUYS KIND OF COVER THE HISTORY OF
IT, HOW IT CAME TO BE, WHY WE'RE HERE, AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT THIS AMENDMENT COVERS. 
          SO STARTING OUT WITH AN AGENDA. SO WE'LL START WITH THE PROJECT OVERVIEW A LITTLE BIT OF
THE HISTORY. 
          WE'LL THEN DO A SCOPE AMENDMENT REVIEW AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT SCHEDULE AND COST
UPDATES. 
          SO STARTING WITH PROJECT OVERVIEW. IF YOU CAN GO ONE MORE. 
          SO GARVER WAS SELECTED THROUGH AN RFQ PROCESS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND
THE LAGO VISTA WASTEWATER PLANT FROM ONE MGD TO 1.5 MGD. WE WERE SELECTED IN 2023 OR SORRY, IN 2024. 
          AND THEN OUR CONTRACT WENT TO COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF 25. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE OUR ORIGINAL SCHEDULE THAT WE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL
AT THAT MEETING. 
          SO WE KICKED OFF IN JANUARY OF 25 WITH AN ORIGINAL PLAN TO COMPLETE DESIGN AND PERMITTING
BY AUGUST 26TH. 
          SO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, NOT ONLY LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE WASTEWATER PLANT FROM 1 TO
1.5 MGD, BUT THE EXISTING PERMIT WAS ONLY UP TO ONE MGD. 
          AND YOU GUYS HAVE A HAVE A TLAP PERMIT WHICH WE HAD TO GO THROUGH A MAJOR AMENDMENT
PROCESS FOR TO EXPAND YOUR PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR DISCHARGE UP TO 1.5 MGD. AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING, WE DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT FOR GARVER. 
          IT WAS GOING TO INCLUDE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT WHERE WE PRETTY MUCH SAT DOWN
WITH STAFF AND OUTLINED WHAT THE EXPANSION WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT OUR PLANS WERE FOR BUILD OUT. WE WERE ALSO GOING TO COVER THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. 
          WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT WANTED TO HOW WE WANTED TO STRUCTURE
IT, WHETHER WE WOULD JUST WANT TO GO TO 1.5 OR TAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE BUILD OUT OF 2.7. 
          WE ALSO HAD DESIGN PACKAGES ALL THE WAY TO 100% TC PERMITTING AND THEN CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. 
          SO IT WAS ALL COMPREHENSIVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE T LAP IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND SO WE HAD PRESENTED THIS SCHEDULE TO COUNCIL IN JANUARY. 
          AND THE ONE THING WE NOTED IS, HEY, WE DO HAVE TO COME BACK AND COVER T LAP AT ONE POINT. 
          WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PRICING IT TODAY IN JANUARY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF T
LAP IMPROVEMENTS YOU GUYS WANT. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSES FOR ADDITIONAL T LAP. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO DO ADDITIONAL LAND AT CEDAR BREAKS. WE DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT
TO DO A HALF MGD, MORE OF T LAP, OR JUST PLAN IT OUT FOR THE FULL 2.7. 
          SO WE SAID WE WANT TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE KNOW MORE. SO WE GO THROUGH THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT
PROCESS WITH TC, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ON T LAP IMPROVEMENTS. 
          SO THE PLAN WAS ALWAYS TO DO IT IN TWO STEPS. 
          WE CERTAINLY WEREN'T ANTICIPATING TO COME BACK. AND AND HAVE ADDITIONAL DESIGN ITEMS. BUT THERE WERE SOME ITEMS THAT THAT HAPPENED DURING THE PROJECT THAT THAT LED US TO WHERE
WE ARE TODAY. 
          SO GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE DELIVERED THE PR IN APRIL OF 25,
AFTER HAVING A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT WE WANTED THIS PLANT TO LOOK LIKE, WE LAID OUT PLANS FOR AN EXPANSION THAT WOULD MINIMIZE PROJECT COSTS BY REUSING THE
EXISTING PROCESS BASINS. 
          SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO WHAT I'LL CALL PROCESS BASINS WITH A COMMON WALL. 
          ONE IS THE AERATION BASIN, ONE IS THE SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN. 
          WE WANTED TO TURN THAT SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN INTO A SECOND AERATION BASIN. 
          SECOND PROCESS BASIN? YOU ALREADY HAVE TWO CLARIFIERS. 
          WE DIDN'T NEED TO ADD CLARIFIERS. THAT'S GREAT. 
          ALL WE HAVE TO DO BUILD A NEW SLUDGE STORAGE BASIN. 
          AND THEN WHEN WE DID GO OUT AND ASSESS THE SITE YOU KNOW,
WE NOTICED THAT THE DEWATERING BUILDING NEEDED TO BE OVERHAULED. 
          THE HEADWORKS BUILDING STRUCTURE WAS SHOWING VISUAL SIGNS OF CRACKING AND CONCRETE
FATIGUE. 
          SO WE WERE GOING TO OVERHAUL THAT FACILITY. AND THEN THE CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED
FACILITY WAS UNDERSIZED FOR THE EXPANSION. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING A NEW CHLORINE AND STORAGE FACILITY. 
          BUT BY AND LARGE, THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF WE,
WE THOUGHT WE COULD REUSE AT THE TIME. 
          [01:10:01]
THE PROCESS BASINS FROM OUR OUR VISUAL INTERPRETATION WHEN WALKING AROUND THERE WITH OUR
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, DIDN'T SHOW ANY MAJOR SIGNS OF CRACKING OR STRESS. 
          REALLY, THE ONLY AREAS WE SAW MAJOR CRACKING AND STRESS WAS AT THE HEADWORKS BUILDING. 
          SO THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS THESE THESE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR 15 YEARS. 
          WE EXPECT ON CONCRETE ABOUT 40 TO 50 YEAR LIFESPAN. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND REUSE THESE. SO THAT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WE WERE MOVING
FORWARD WITH. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. YOU KNOW, WE ALSO WANTED TO BE COGNIZANT OF FUTURE GROWTH,
RIGHT. 
          SO THE MASTER PLAN COMPLETED BY FREEZING NICKELS IN 2024 YOU KNOW,
SAID THAT ONCE YOU GUYS GOT TO 1.5 MGD. 
          YOU WEREN'T GOING TO STOP. YOU'RE GOING TO END UP AT 2.7. SO THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO
IS, IS BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT LOCKS YOU IN FOR 1.5. 
          WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT 2.7. RIGHT. SO WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE WERE GOING TO BUILD A DE-WATERING BUILDING LARGE ENOUGH SO THAT WE COULD ADD ADDITIONAL
DEWATERING EQUIPMENT LATER. WE WOULD ONLY PUT IN, FOR INSTANCE, ONE VOLUME PRESS TODAY. 
          WE WOULD ADD ADDITIONAL DEWATERING EQUIPMENT IN THE FUTURE. WE WERE GOING TO TRY AND
OPTIMIZE THE USE OF THE EXISTING BASINS FURTHER BY INTENSIFYING, GOING THROUGH AN INTENSIFICATION PROCESS. SO TURNING YOUR CLARIFIERS INTO MEMBRANE
BIOREACTOR BASINS, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO BRING UP YOUR MIXED LIQUOR CONCENTRATIONS AND AND ULTIMATELY PUSH MORE
LOADING THROUGH THE PLANT. 
          AND IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE PROCESS VOLUME AS WELL. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE WE'RE ALSO WITH THAT, WE WERE PLANNING TO MOVE THE DISINFECTION
CHANNEL, WHICH IS THAT GREEN BOX, INTO A NEW STRUCTURE,
BUT REALLY WE'RE TRYING TO LAY OUT THE SITE IN A WAY THAT IT IT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND A KEY COMPONENT OF THAT EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHERE THE TWO PROCESS SPACES THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT HERE SHORTLY. 
          SO GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE DESIGN WAS PROGRESSING. 
          REVISED PR SO I THINK YOU HAD JUMPED ON ME. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. 
          AND WHAT I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE START PAGE AGAIN? YOU WANT 292 9290 THERE. SORRY. IS THAT THE. OKAY,
SO WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO TURNING IN THE 30% BASED ON THE PR. JULY 25TH, WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE CONDITION
OF THE EXISTING PROCESS BASINS. 
          IN SUMMARY, WE GOT SOME NOTES AND IT SAID, HEY DURING CONSTRUCTION THESE THESE BASINS WERE
ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO BE PARTIALLY SUBMERGED. 
          THEY RAN INTO SOME CARS FEATURES. ULTIMATELY,
THEY FILLED THOSE FEATURES WITH FLOWABLE FILL. 
          THEY ELEVATED THEM. AND A LOT OF STUFF WAS DONE RETROACTIVELY. 
          AND IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AGAIN. SO WE SAID,
OKAY WE'LL HAVE OUR STRUCTURAL TEAM LOOK AT IT. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, WE WENT BACK TO THOSE RECORD DRAWINGS WHICH WHICH ORIGINALLY,
YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T PLANNING TO DO AS AS PART OF OUR SCOPE. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T PLANNING TO TO GO AND RERUN CALCS ON THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS FROM,
FROM 20 YEARS AGO, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR VISUAL OBSERVATION DIDN'T SHOW. 
          WE DIDN'T FIND ANY MAJOR DEFICIENCIES WHEN WALKING WITH OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 
          WHAT WE FOUND WHEN REVIEWING THOSE RECORD DRAWINGS IS THAT THE STRUCTURES AS BUILT LIKELY
REQUIRE OR ARE LIKELY BELOW THE REQUIRED SAFETY FACTORS FOR ACI 318. SO THAT'S THE CONCRETE CODE THAT MOST BUILDINGS USE TO PROTECT AGAINST ULTIMATE
FAILURE. 
          AND THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE REQUIRED SAFETY FACTOR FOR ACI 350. 
          THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE USED FOR WATER BEARING STRUCTURES WHICH HELPS PROTECT THE
CONCRETE AGAINST PRETTY MUCH LONG TERM DURABILITY. 
          SO HOW DID WE KNOW THIS FOR ACI 350? TYPICALLY LOOKING AT A 4500 PSI CY MIXED WITH A
SPECIFIED WATER CEMENT RATIO. 
          YOU WANT A LOWER WATER CEMENT RATIO SO THAT YOU HAVE A MORE DURABLE,
LESS POROUS CONCRETE. 
          THEY SPECIFIED A 4000 PSI MIX WITH NO MENTION OF WATER CEMENT RATIO REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND TYPICALLY WHEN THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER ARE
GOING TO MINIMIZE CEMENT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN TO DRIVE DOWN COSTS, GET A MORE FLOWABLE MATERIAL, EASIER TO BUILD. 
          SO THAT WAS THE FIRST FLAG. WE DID RUN SOME PRELIMINARY LOADING CALCS. 
          WE DIDN'T WE'RE NOT AT A POINT WHERE WE'D BE WILLING TO,
I GUESS SEAL A REPORT. 
          BUT WE DID. WE DID A LOT MORE THAN JUST BACK OF THE NAPKIN MATH AND WHAT WE FOUND THAT
REBAR SIZING, REBAR SPACING, WALL THICKNESS ALL WAS A CONCERN FOR THE THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE
AMOUNT OF IT THAT'S ABOVE GRADE. 
          SO WE ISSUED A MEMO TO THE CITY. WE SAT DOWN WITH STAFF AND WE SAID,
HEY, SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FROM HERE. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, VISUALLY, THEY LOOK OKAY. 
          THEY'VE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW,
YOU GUYS TOLD US THAT SOME MODIFICATIONS WERE DONE AFTER THE FACT. 
          WE CAN'T TELL EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE. I KNOW THERE'S SOME WRITE UPS,
BUT THERE'S THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO VISUALLY ASSESS IT WHILE THEY'RE FULL. 
          SO IN LOOKING AT THE RECORD DRAWINGS, WE DON'T THINK IT'S SAFE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE
BASINS. 
          BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY'RE STILL STANDING. 
          [01:15:01]
THEY'VE BEEN IN OPERATION. THERE'S NO LEAKS,
YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS LATER. SO WE CAN CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH WE'RE ON WHICH WHICH DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING WITH OUR OUR SCOPE AND FEE AND DO MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THESE BASINS AND
REUSE THEM AND THEN ADDRESS IT AT A LATER DATE. 
          OR WE CAN JUST SOLVE IT. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE TEAR THEM DOWN,
WE REBUILD, WE DO IT, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT WAY. BUT WITH THAT, IT'S GOING TO COME A LOT OF ADDED EXTRA COSTS. 
          AND SO THE DIRECTION WE GOT WAS LET'S DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. 
          LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT COST. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THESE COSTS AND THIS
AMENDMENT COMES FROM TODAY AND AND WHY I'M HERE PRESENTING IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          SO FOLLOWING FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF,
IT WAS DECIDED TO PAUSE THE ONGOING WORK IN JULY 25TH AND DEVELOP THIS ADDITIONAL SCOPE TO COVER THE REBUILD. SO NOW LOOKING AT THIS ADDITIONAL SCOPE. 
          AND YOU'RE SAYING BOTH OF THEM BOTH PROCESS BASIN. 
          SO THE EURASIAN BASIN, THE AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING TANK AND CLARIFIER ONE ARE ALL
STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT. 
          YOUR NEWEST CLARIFIER IS IN GOOD SHAPE. OKAY. 
          WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT ONE. OKAY. SO WHAT? CHANGES IN DESIGN? DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLARIFIER ONE. YOUR AERATION BASIN AND YOUR AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING
TANK. 
          DESIGN A NEW CLARIFIER. DESIGN TWO NEW AERATION BASINS. 
          WE ALWAYS NEED TWO AERATION BASINS FOR THE EXPANSION. 
          INSTEAD OF HAVING WHEN WE WERE JUST GOING TO RETROFIT,
WE WERE GOING TO USE THE EXISTING AERATION BASIN RETROFIT. 
          THE OTHER ONE. NOW WE'RE BUILDING TWO NEW ONES. 
          AND WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING BECAUSE WE'RE BUILDING A NEW AIR RAID
SLUDGE TANK THAT'S FARTHER AWAY FROM THE AERATION BASINS. 
          NEW DEDICATED RACEWAYS. PUMP STATION. RIGHT NOW,
YOU CURRENTLY USE AIRLIFT PUMPS, WHICH WORKS BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S KIND OF IN A COMMON WALL SPACE. BUT NOW THAT WE'RE MOVING OUR AIR RAID SLUDGE TANK FARTHER AWAY WE RECOMMEND
BUILDING NEW, PRETTY MUCH NEW PUMP STATION TO PUMP YOUR RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE FROM THE CLARIFIER BACK
TO THE AERATION BASINS AND THEN YOUR WASTE INTO THE SLUDGE HOLDING TANK, AND ULTIMATELY, IT'LL GO TO DEWATERING BUILDING. SO THAT WAS DESIGNED COST AT ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN COSTS TO COVER INCREASE IN SUBMITTALS AND RFIS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE NEW PROCESSES, ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS AROUND THE AREAS WHERE WE WOULD
BE DEMOING AND THEN CONSTRUCTING THESE NEW PROCESS BASINS. 
          AND THEN OUR ORIGINAL SCOPE THAT GOT APPROVED IN JANUARY. 
          AT THE TIME, WE WERE ANTICIPATING A TWO YEAR CONSTRUCTION TIME PERIOD,
HAVING ONE FULL, FULL TIME INSPECTOR 40 HOURS A WEEK ON SITE TO OVERSEE CONSTRUCTION. 
          WE BELIEVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEMOING PROCESS BASINS AND THEN BUILDING IN PLACE,
IT ADDS ANOTHER 12 MONTHS TO YOUR SCHEDULE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO THERE'S SO MUCH CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING THERE THAT THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE LIMITED IN WHAT YOU CAN DO. IT'S NOT
LIKE A GREENFIELD SITE WHERE YOU CAN JUST BUILD EVERYTHING UP AND SEED THE PLANT. SO WE CHANGED THAT TO TO 36 MONTHS. AND FOR FOR REFERENCE,
WE HAVE A JOB IN RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THAT JOB, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. 
          IT'S A SIX MGD PLANT, ABOUT $180 MILLION IN CONSTRUCTION,
AND WE HAVE A TWO AND A HALF FULL TIME INSPECTORS. 
          SO WE BELIEVE ONE FULL TIME INSPECTOR, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING KIND OF
MAKES SENSE FOR THIS JOB. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY, I MEAN, IF THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE JANUARY AND YOU GUYS HAVE THE ABILITY
TO HAVE STAFF OUT THERE OVERSEEING IT, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WE CAN PULL BACK. AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
STAFF ABOUT THAT, TOO. AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT CHANGES THE AMENDMENT HERE IN A BIT. SO THOSE ARE THE DESIGN CHANGES. 
          THE SECOND PART OF THE AMENDMENT IS THE THING. 
          WE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS AND TALK ABOUT,
WHICH WAS THE LAP IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS. 
          SO AS I MENTIONED, THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL SCOPE DUE TO UNKNOWNS
AT PROJECT KICKOFF ABOUT WHAT THAT MODIFIED TEE LAP AREA WOULD LOOK LIKE. AFTER WE SUBMITTED THE MAJOR AMENDMENT, WE NOW KNOW WHAT IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE. 
          SO WE'RE JUST DOING THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO 1.5. 
          WE WANTED TO DO IT TO 2.7, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU GUYS PURCHASING A LOT MORE LAND,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE AT 2.7 ANYTIME SOON. 
          GETTING TO 1.5, I THINK GETS YOU OUT BEYOND 2035. 
          SO WE JUST DECIDED TO TO TACKLE THAT. AND YOU ALREADY OWN THE ADDITIONAL LAND AT CEDAR
BREAKS. 
          SO THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES DOING THE SURVEY FOR THOSE 110 ACRES AT CEDAR BREAKS THAT WILL
BE UTILIZED FOR ADDITIONAL T LAP AREA DESIGN OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO TO HAVE THE ABOVE GROUND IRRIGATION FOR THOSE CEDAR TREES OUT THERE,
A NEW IRRIGATION PUMP HOUSE AND SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 
          AND THEN THIS LAST ITEM IS A DESIGN OF A NEW 40 ACRE FOOT POND AT CEDAR BREAKS,
IF REQUIRED BY TCU. 
          AND YOU GUYS MAY SAY, WELL, HEY, DIDN'T YOU JUST SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF
REQUIRED BY TCU? YOU GUYS, AFTER YOUR PONDS ARE ALL GOING TO BE YOUR REHAB THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW WITH
YOUR PONDS ARE COMPLETE, YOU'LL BE AT 131 ACRE FEET OF TOTAL POND STORAGE. 
          YOUR CURRENT PERMIT FOR ONE MGD REQUIRES YOU AT ONE MGD TO HAVE 170 ACRE FEET. 
          SO CURRENTLY YOU GUYS ARE BELOW 0.75 MGD, WHICH AT THAT RATE,
I BELIEVE THE PERMIT SAYS YOU NEED 110. 
          [01:20:02]
BUT ONCE YOU GET UP TO ONE MGD, YOU GUYS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE FOR YOUR CURRENT
PERMIT. 
          WHEN WE TALK TO TC, OUR DIRECTION FROM STAFF AND THIS WAS THIS WAS PREVIOUS STAFF BEFORE
THE THE NEW NEWER STAFF MEMBERS GOT HERE WAS I THINK THIS THIS YOU KNOW, THEY SAID, HEY, I THINK THIS POND REQUIREMENT IS IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 130 ACRE FEET. WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF STORAGE. WHAT CAN WE DO? TO TO TO TRY AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF POND STORAGE REQUIRED. 
          SO WE MET WITH THE TC PERMIT WRITERS AND WE SAID,
HEY, LAGO VISTA ALREADY HAS A TON OF POND STORAGE. 
          THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEND WATER TO HIGHLAND LAKES. 
          AND WE GOT THAT IN WRITING FROM THE OWNER OF THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE AS AS KIND OF
LIKE A RELIEF VALVE. 
          WOULD YOU CONSIDER LOWERING THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME REQUIREMENT? AND THEY SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK,
YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THE THE REQUEST. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY SAID, BUT AT A MINIMUM, WE MAY WANT TO KEEP YOU GUYS AT THE 170 ACRE FEET. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE ALREADY REQUIRED TO HAVE AT ONE MGD,
BUT GRANT THAT TO YOU FOR 1.5. 
          BUT THEY SAID, GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT YOUR REQUEST AND WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN DO IT FOR 130,
WHICH IS WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TODAY. 
          SO WE SUBMITTED THAT REQUEST. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY,
I WISH I COULD COULD TELL YOU WE KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK AND GRANT OUR REQUEST OR NOT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IT AS IF REQUIRED. 
          AND I DO HAVE THAT COST BROKEN OUT SEPARATELY,
AND I'VE SHARED THAT WITH STAFF. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY IF THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE IT, WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT SHOW THAT ON OUR INVOICE. 
          AND WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT INVOICE THE CITY FOR THAT. 
          AND WE CAN DO IT TWO WAYS, RIGHT? WE CAN APPROVE AND THEN POTENTIALLY NOT INVOICE TODAY AT
COUNCIL JUST SO IT'S APPROVED. 
          OR OF COURSE, WE CAN WE CAN, YOU KNOW, COME BACK. 
          SHOULD TC SAY, OH, YOU ACTUALLY NEED THE 40 ACRE FEET POND OUT THERE. 
          AND THEN WE CAN ADD IT TO THE SCOPE LATER ON. BUT,
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THERE'S KIND OF THE, THE QUESTION MARK AROUND THERE IS IT'S THE UNKNOWNS WITH THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN WE'LL HEAR BACK FROM TC
PROBABLY IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. 
          IT'S ABOUT A 12 MONTH PROCESS AND I BELIEVE WE GOT EVERYTHING SUBMITTED TO THEM. 
          APRIL OR MAY TIME FRAME. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          NEXT PAGE. OKAY. SO NEXT PAGE SCHEDULE AND COST UPDATES. 
          THE ORIGINAL PROJECT SCHEDULE. THIS IS KIND OF THE SLIDE WE SHOWED EARLIER. 
          AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE UPDATED PROJECT SCHEDULE. 
          THIS IS HOW THINGS CHANGE. THE RED SQUARE THERE IS IS THE TODAY'S COUNCIL MEETING. 
          WE WOULD REVISE THE PR THAT WE HAD DELIVERED BACK IN APRIL TO INCLUDE THE REBUILDING OF
THOSE PROCESS BASINS AND ALSO TOUCHING ON THE NEW RAS AND PUMP SYSTEM. 
          WE WOULD THEN MOVE INTO KIND OF AN ACCELERATED 30,
60, 90 DESIGN. 
          WE'RE LOOKING AT SUBMITTING TO TC MID 26 FOR THEIR PLAN AND SPEC REVIEW BIDDING THE JOB
ENDED 26. 
          AND THEN NOW ANTICIPATING A THREE YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD INSTEAD OF TWO. 
          AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM YOU CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT THE LAB WORK STARTING YOU KNOW,
STARTING DESIGN FOLLOWING THIS COUNCIL MEETING, YOU KNOW, SHOULD IT GET APPROVED NOW THAT WE KNOW AT LEAST HOW MUCH IRRIGATION IS GOING TO
BE REQUIRED, WE STILL HAVE AN UNKNOWN ON THE POND. BUT WE DO,
AND WE ARE WORKING WITH THE SUBCONSULTANT CONSULTANT ON THE POD DESIGN. 
          WE DO HAVE THEIR PROPOSAL TO PERFORM THAT WORK,
SHOULD IT BE NEEDED. 
          OKAY. SO COST WE KNOW THAT THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE EXPENSIVE. 
          ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE HALF MGD EXPANSION WITH CONTINGENCIES,
MOBILIZATION, CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT AT THE 30% STAGE AND ESCALATION,
WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $29 MILLION. 
          IF YOU SAY THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT FOR HALF MGD EXPANSION,
IT IS, I WOULD SAY THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT THAT DRIVE THAT IS, IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL HALF MGD EXPANSION. YOU'RE LOOKING AT REBUILDING YOUR HEADWORKS
COMPLETELY. 
          YOU'RE LOOKING AT REBUILDING YOUR DEWATERING BUILDING COMPLETELY,
AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT REBUILDING YOUR CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY COMPLETELY. 
          THIS WAS ORIGINALLY THE ORIGINAL PLAN. AND THEN ALSO ALL NEW AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING TANK. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER EXPANSIONS WE WORKED ON WHERE IT'S LIKE,
OH, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS NICE BIG BUILDING, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO DROP IN ANOTHER PIECE OF DEWATERING EQUIPMENT. THE DIRECTION WE GOT WAS WE NEED TO SCRAP THIS BELT PRESS. 
          IT'S 40 YEARS OLD. WE NEED TO REBUILD, YOU KNOW,
AN ALL NEW DE-WATERING BUILDING. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT ELEVATED COSTS THERE. AND THEN,
YOU KNOW, IF WE IF WE GO THE ROUTE OF REBUILDING THE PROCESS BASINS, THE THREE PROCESS BASINS, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSER TO ABOUT 47 MILLION. 
          SO IT BECOMES A VERY EXPENSIVE PROJECT. AND IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND LOOK AT WHAT
WASTEWATER PLANTS COST REGIONALLY, I'VE GOT SOME. IT'S PRETTY SMALL THERE. SOME EXAMPLES AND I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE IT FOR YOU. 
          BUT A CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT THESE DAYS IS GOING FOR AROUND $40 A GALLON. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, A ONE MGD PLANT, AROUND 40 MILLION. 
          YOU MAY SAY, WELL, I'M GOING FROM 1 TO 1.5. WHY IS THAT COSTING ME 40 MILLION AND CHANGE? 
          [01:25:03]
AND FOR THAT SECOND OPTION, I WOULD WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS YOU'RE REALLY YOU'RE ALMOST
DOING A GREENFIELD PLANT. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE STILL ABLE TO REUSE SOME EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE,
BUT YOU'RE BUILDING REBUILDING BOTH AERATION BASINS, ONE OF YOUR TWO CLARIFIERS ALL NEW CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED DEWATERING,
BUILDING NEW HEADWORKS SO IT'S MORE OF BETWEEN A NEW 1.5 MGD PLANT AND A HALF MGD PLANT. SO IF YOU'RE AT A 1.5 AT 45 MILLION,
YOU KNOW YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE, YOU KNOW, $30 A GALLON. AND THEN IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT OBVIOUSLY AT JUST A HALF MGD
EXPANSION, YOU MAY SAY, WOW, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO COST ME 90 PLUS BUCKS A GALLON. 
          BUT BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT THAN THAT. AND WE DID WANT TO GIVE THIS,
I GUESS, AS A REFERENCE. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL THE SLIDES I HAVE BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          YES, SIR. BACK TO THE BASINS. YOU SAID WE HAVE A DECISION THAT WE COULD JUST CONTINUE AS
IS RIGHT NOW. 
          I MEAN, WE BASICALLY HAVE GOTTEN ONLY HALF THE LIFE THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET OUT OF
THEM. 
          AND THAT WAS THE ONE OPTION YOU GAVE OR TO GO THIS ROUTE. 
          WHAT ABOUT REHABBING? I MEAN, CAN YOU THICKEN THE WALLS? I MEAN, HOW FAR BELOW THE 350 THRESHOLD IS EACH BASE? ARE THEY EQUALLY BELOW, OR IS ONE WORSE THAN THE OTHER? COULD ONE BE REHABBED AND ONE BE DEMOLISHED? IN TERMS OF REHAB,
BECAUSE THEY USED A DIFFERENT CONCRETE THAN WHAT WE WOULD TO MEET THE ACI 350 REQUIREMENTS, I MEAN, YOU'D ALMOST BE BUILDING,
YOU KNOW, LET'S CALL IT A TWO FOOT THICK WALL BEHIND THE EXISTING 18 INCH WALL. 
          AND AT THAT POINT, I MEAN, WE WOULD REALLY JUST RECOMMEND,
WELL, WHY NOT JUST TEAR IT DOWN AND DO THE TWO FOOT THICK WALL. YOU JUST HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONCRETE WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF DURABILITY AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF
POROSITY, DIFFERENT WATER CEMENT RATIOS. YEAH. WE WOULDN'T BE COMING IN AND DOING A JUST LIKE A THIN
REINFORCEMENT. 
          WE WOULD BE DOING A PRETTY BEEFY STRUCTURE BEHIND IT. 
          YOU COULDN'T DO LIKE, STEEL PLATES OR ANY OTHER. 
          I TALKED TO MY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE VERY,
VERY WARY OF DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          THEY SAID FOR EVERYTHING THEY'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER CEMENT RATIO, THE THE PSI MIX. AND THEN ALSO JUST THE REBAR SPACING ITSELF AND REBAR SIZES IN THE WALL
THAT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO TOUCH IT AND PUT THEIR SEAL ON ANYTHING FOR FOR A REINFORCEMENT ON THOSE BASINS. IF WE WERE FINDING A WAY TO KEEP LESS LIQUID INSIDE
EACH OF THOSE BASINS, DOES THAT HELP WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS? YEAH,
SURE. 
          I MEAN, IT CERTAINLY REDUCES, YOU KNOW, YOUR TOTAL FORCE ON THE BASIN IF YOU IF YOU CAN
GET YOUR SIDE WATER DEPTH DOWN. 
          I MEAN, THESE ARE YOU DO NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LIQUID BECAUSE THE PROCESS BASINS,
THEY FLOW BY GRAVITY TO YOUR SECONDARY CLARIFIERS. 
          SO THERE IS A FIXED WEIR. AND ALSO THE LOWER YOUR LIQUID LEVEL,
THE LESS ORGANICS YOU CAN TAKE. 
          SO TYPICALLY YOUR BASINS CAN ONLY TAKE, YOU KNOW,
SO MANY POUNDS OF BODY PER DAY. 
          AND IT'S USUALLY POUNDS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF,
OF WATER VOLUME. 
          SO IF YOU START REDUCING YOUR BASIN VOLUME, EVEN IF YOU LOWER THOSE WEIR HEIGHTS AND YOU
HAD THE ADDITIONAL FREEBOARD AVAILABLE IN THE CLARIFIER YOU'D KIND OF BE DE-RATING YOUR PLANT A LITTLE BIT. SO HAVE YOU EXPLORED THAT? I MEAN, THEY'RE SO FAR BELOW THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOWER OUR VOLUME
SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          OR, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO HOW FAR BELOW THE 350 REQUIREMENTS IS EACH BASE. 
          I MEAN, HOW FAR BELOW? I MEAN, THEY THEY DON'T THEY DON'T MEET IT. 
          THEY JUST OKAY. YEAH. THEY SIMPLY DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND THEN IF WE GO THE ROUTE OF DEMOLISHING AND REBUILDING,
HOW DOES THE PLAN OPERATE DURING THAT TIME? YEAH. SO IF WE GO BACK TO MAYBE ONE OF THE EARLIER SLIDES OF WHERE WE HAVE THE SITE
LAYOUT, THE FIRST SITE LAYOUT, I CAN KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH AT LEAST WHAT OUR THOUGHT WAS SO,
SO YOUR, YOUR CLARIFIER ON THE RIGHT IS FINE. CAN YOU GO UP ONE MORE SLIDE? I THINK THIS WAS THE MBR CONVERSION. SO IT'S GOT SOME STUFF ON THERE THAT WE DON'T NEED. 
          SO YEAH WE WOULD, WE WOULD PRETTY MUCH BUILD THE AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING TANK WHICH IS THAT
CIRCLE UP IN THE LEFT. 
          WE BUILD THAT FIRST AND THEN WE WOULD DECOMMISSION YOUR EXISTING AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING
TANK. 
          PUMP ALL YOUR SLUDGE OVER TO THE NEW TANK AND WE BUILD UP A NEW AERATION BASIN. 
          SO NOW YOU HAVE ONE PROCESS BASIN, JUST LIKE YOU DID BEFORE,
AND AN AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING TANK LIKE YOU DID BEFORE. THEN WE TAKE DOWN THE EXISTING AERATION BASIN AND BUILD THAT ONE UP, AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN MANAGE WITH ONE CLARIFIER
DURING CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO WE WOULD WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE DOWN YOUR EXISTING CLARIFIER AND BUILD UP BECAUSE WE
STILL HAVE A CLARIFIER. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL 12 MONTHS IS YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS IN A,
IN A SEQUENCE WHERE YOU CAN'T JUST BUILD OFF TO THE SIDE AND THEN SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN. 
          YOU'RE KIND OF BUILDING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. 
          IS THERE ANY RISK DURING THAT TIME, LIKE SAY WE GET ANOTHER JULY 4TH FLOOD EVENT LIKE WE
DID WHEN WE SAW A REAL INCREASE IN WHAT WE WERE PROCESSING? I MEAN, ARE YOU IS THERE A HIGH RISK DURING THAT PERIOD? WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS PROBABLY PUTTING AN ALLOWANCE IN THE BID TAB FOR THE CONTRACTOR
TO MOBILIZE A PACKAGE UNIT SHOULD YOU NEED THE EXTRA 
          [01:30:04]
CAPACITY, BECAUSE WE KNOW WILL BE BOTTLENECKED AT CERTAIN POINTS. 
          WE'LL ALSO TRY AND MAKE THE SCHEDULE SUCH THAT WE'RE WE'RE KEEPING MOST OF OUR PROCESSES
ONLINE DURING PEAK MONTHS. 
          BUT YEAH, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WOULD,
WE WOULD LOOK AT AS WE GET CLOSER, AS YOU KNOW, HOW HAVE YOUR FLOWS GROWN? WHAT WHAT'S YOUR LOADING LOOK LIKE CURRENTLY. AND YOU KNOW,
THIS IS A THREE YEAR PROCESS, RIGHT. 
          IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WE DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE SEWER OVERFLOWS OR NOT BE ABLE TO MEET
YOUR DISCHARGE PERMIT. 
          AND THEN ON THE T SIDE OF THINGS, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT YOUR OVERALL BUDGET BREAKOUT,
YOU KNOW, WHERE IN THAT IS THE POTENTIAL NEW POND AND THE. 
          YEAH, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING IT SEPARATE OUT IN THE PACKET. 
          I DO HAVE SOME SOME BREAKOUTS HERE. PASS THESE AROUND TO YOU GUYS. 
          SURE. SO YOU JUST PASS THESE DOWN. SO IN TALKING WITH STAFF BEFORE THIS MEETING, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN TWO THINGS. SO YOU'LL SEE TWO THINGS ON
HERE. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS TODAY IS THE 1.8 MILLION. 
          FIRST ITEM WAS WHAT IF WE TOOK THE POND OUT AND JUST ADDED IT LATER IF WE NEEDED IT? SO THAT'S THE 102,000 IN THE FIRST COLUMN. THEN THE SECOND ITEM THAT THAT WE GOT ASKED
WAS, WELL, YOU'VE GOT AN INSPECTOR OUT THERE FULL TIME FOR FOR THREE YEARS. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT IF WHAT IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HELP STAFF THAT? WHAT IF YOU GUYS JUST CAME OUT ONCE A WEEK AND AND,
YOU KNOW, EIGHT HOURS A WEEK AND HELP LOOKED AT SOME OF THE CRITICAL ITEMS. I SAID, OKAY, WELL, THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT HAD US FOR TWO YEARS. 
          SO REALLY THAT WOULD TURN INTO A CREDIT ON THIS AMENDMENT. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, A TOTAL DEDUCT OF 913 AND THEN A CREDIT ON THE AMENDMENT OF
INSTEAD OF THE 486, IT TURNS INTO -427. AND THEN THE REVISED AMENDMENT TWO TOTALS,
YOU KNOW, DROPPED BY ABOUT A MILLION BUCKS. 
          YEAH. AND I DID SEE WHEN YOU ON THE THE GRAPH THERE,
YOU'RE SHOWING ALSO POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION WHEN WE GO TO 2.7. 
          AND IN THE CURRENT ONE YOU'RE TALKING TYPE TWO. BUT I SAW IN THE PARENTHESES POSSIBLE MOVE
THE TYPE ONE. 
          RIGHT. ON OUR CURRENT T LAP CONCERNS. COULD WE CONSIDER A MOVE TO TYPE ONE TO HELP US WITH
THAT? AND COULD WE DO IT WITHOUT CHANGING THE CURRENT DESIGN AND JUST ADDING A POLISHER AND A
DISINFECTANT UNIT ON THE SIDE OF WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING? AND THEN YOU'RE JUST TAKING WHAT, THE TYPE TWO WE ALREADY HAVE,
TURNING SOME OF IT INTO TYPE ONE PURPLE, PIPING IT TO SUNSET PARK PO PARK GOLF COURSE. 
          AND COULD THAT HELP US NOT HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUILD ANOTHER CEDAR BREAKS POND? AND IF YOU GO TO TYPE ONE, I GUESS A COUPLE OF THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN. 
          FIRST, YOU NEED TO FIND THE CUSTOMERS THAT WILL TAKE THE TYPE ONE. YOU NEED TO PROVE TO
YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUTTING 1.5 MGD ON YOUR EXISTING LAP AREA. 
          AND AS THE REGS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THEY WANT TO SEE THREE YEARS OF HISTORY WITH THAT
CUSTOMER. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY TRIED TO USE WE'RE LIKE, WELL THIS IS THIS IS GREAT. WHEN WE WERE FIRST
LOOKING AT IT, WE'LL USE HIGHLAND LAKES AS, AS THAT CUSTOMER TO OFFSET OUR SOME OF OUR T LAB USAGE. 
          AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO SEE I BELIEVE IT'S THE LOWEST THREE MONTHS OF
USAGE OVER THREE YEARS. 
          THEY'RE VERY RISK AVERSE. AND THEY WERE, I THINK,
PERIODS OF TIME WHERE YOU HAD 6 OR 8 MONTHS OF NO, NO FLOW GOING TO HIGHLAND LAKE. SO PRETTY MUCH THAT WHOLE HIGHLAND LAKES AREA,
I THINK IT'S ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, 100 ACRES OR SO JUST CROSSED OFF THE LIST IF WE CAN'T EVEN GET CREDIT FOR IT. SO IF YOU GUYS FIND CUSTOMERS,
THAT'S GREAT. 
          BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE WE DO NEED THE HISTORY. AND SO WHEN WE WERE TALKING WITH STAFF
ORIGINALLY ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT YOU KNOW, WE WERE GAME PLANNING GOING OUT TO 2.7 AND WE SAID,
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LAND TO GET TO 2.7. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S ABOUT 100 ACRES PER HALF MGD AT A HIGH HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE. 
          YOU KNOW, WHICH AT CEDAR BREAKS, YOU'VE GOT ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE STATE. I THINK IT'S
LIKE 6.3 INCHES PER ACRE PER YEAR. 
          OR I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND WHAT WE HAD TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT IS SO IF YOU NEED ANOTHER HUNDRED ACRES PER HALF. 
          THAT MEANS WHEN YOU GO TO 2.7, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED ANOTHER 300 ACRES. 
          AND LAND OUT HERE IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE. SO WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS GO TO THE 1.5 TODAY
AND THEN START TRYING TO FIND THOSE TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO CUSTOMERS EVEN SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT HISTORY. THE NEXT TIME YOU EXPAND THE PLANT,
YOU CAN SAY, WELL, WE ACTUALLY CAN OFFSET SOME OF THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT HISTORY, SO WE CAN'T DO IT TODAY. BUT THAT WAS KIND OF PART OF THE GAME PLAN FOR GOING TO 2.7. 
          SO I MEAN, THIS DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO PLAN TO GO TO TYPE ONE. 
          AND THEN BECAUSE YOU'RE AT TYPE ONE NOW YOU'LL HAVE NEW CUSTOMERS. 
          YEAH. THEY WANT TO SEE THE HISTORY. AND I MEAN YOU COULD YOU CAN SELL YOUR TYPE TWO WATER
RIGHT NOW. 
          YOU DO YOU KNOW, YOU USE IT FOR YOUR GOLF COURSE. AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU GO TO TYPE ONE
YOU CAN USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION, RIGHT? DEVELOPER COMES IN. YOU CAN PURPLE PIPE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW,
THAT MAY GIVE YOU A PRETTY GOOD REDUCTION. 
          [01:35:05]
BUT AS THE REGS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THEY THEY WANT TO SEE A HISTORY AND THEY WANT TO
SEE THEY WANT YOU TO TO PROVE TO THEM THAT YOU'VE BEEN USING THAT. 
          YEAH. I MEAN I'D ALWAYS HOPED THAT WE COULD GO TO SUNSET PARK AND WORK WITH THE POA AND DO
IT THEIR PARKS, BUT THEY CAN'T USE TYPE TWO BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE POTENTIAL CONTACT WITH PEOPLE. YEAH. 
          DOES TK WANT TWO YEARS WORTH OF EXPERIENCE? THREE YEARS,
WHATEVER IT WAS WITH SELLING TYPE ONE EFFLUENT. 
          OR CAN YOU BE SELLING TWO WHATEVER. YEAH, EITHER EITHER OR. 
          THEY JUST WANT TO SEE THAT YOU'RE CONSISTENTLY PUTTING IT SOMEWHERE THAT AREN'T YOUR T LAB
FIELDS. 
          OKAY. CAN WE JUST SOMEHOW KEEP SENDING IT TO HIGHLAND LAKES AND AT LEAST HAVE THEM START
BUILDING BACK TOWARDS THE THREE YEARS? I MEAN, I THINK THEIR SYSTEM IS PRETTY BROKEN,
BUT I THINK WE PASSED A FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE TO CHARGE FOR IT. 
          AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO JUST SEND THEM
WATER. 
          SEND AN EFFLUENT? YEAH. I CAN'T THINK OF THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT WE COULD. 
          OTHER AREAS THAT WE'RE IRRIGATING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO,
THAT WE'RE NOT DOING PARK ACTIVITIES LIKE MEETING LIKE DON DRIVE. 
          THAT'S NOT PARK AREA. WE IRRIGATE THAT, I BELIEVE. 
          I MEAN, IT WOULD TAKE SUCH A LITTLE AMOUNT TO. 
          YOU REALLY NEED A BIG. YEAH. SOMETHING LIKE SUNSET PARK OR WHATEVER. EVEN PARKS. 
          YOU NEED SOME BIG. WELL, I STILL KIND OF. IT WOULDN'T HELP OUR TLAP ISSUES,
BUT WOULD THEY ALLOW US TO STILL HAVE CREATE SOME TYPE ONE AND START USING IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT HELPING LOWER OUR TLAP
ISSUES AT ALL? IF IF YOU PUT IN TERTIARY FILTERS AND START MAKING TYPE ONE. 
          YEAH. ALL YOU NEED IS THE 210 PERMIT AND THAT'S TYPICALLY THREE MONTHS TO GET. 
          AND THEN YOU COULD USE IT FOR WHATEVER TYPE ONE USE YOU WANT IS ADDING THE ADDING THE
POLISHER AND THEN THE DISINFECTANT ISN'T AS EXPENSIVE AS DOING THE ENTIRE PLANT. 
          MAYBE WE COULD LOOK INTO DOING THAT, AND THEN WE'LL START CREATING OUR THREE YEAR HISTORY
BY USING THE TYPE ONE UP AT SUNSET, USING THE TYPE ONE AT POSSIBLY THE GOLF COURSE OR THE POA. 
          AND THEN WE'D BE BUILDING TOWARDS GETTING THE FULL TCDC APPROVAL. 
          RIGHT. AND THAT WAS SO WE HAD GONE BACK AND FORTH ORIGINALLY BEFORE THE I GUESS THE
PROCESS PACING ISSUE CAME TO LIGHT OF, DO WE WANT TO ADD THE FILTERS TODAY OR NOT? WE HAD IT AS AN ADULT,
AND THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS I THINK THE OPK ON IT WAS LIKE FOR $4 MILLION SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE. WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO DESIGN THE FILTER BASIN. 
          AND THEN WE JUST WHAT WE TOLD STAFF IS WE'LL DO IT AS AN ADDITIVE ALTERNATE,
AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN WAIT UNTIL BID DAY. 
          WE CAN SEE WHAT THAT PRICE COMES IN AS YOU CAN PULL THE TRIGGER. 
          THEN WE WANT TO DO IT OR NOPE, WE'RE GOING TO CROSS IT OUT. YOU KNOW THAT'S STILL A
POSSIBILITY. 
          OBVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW, IF WE END UP GOING THE ROUTE OF REBUILDING THE PROCESS BASINS. WE MAY
WANT TO, I DON'T KNOW, JUST VOID THAT TODAY ENTIRELY. BUT AT A MINIMUM,
WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A SYSTEM SUCH THAT YOU HAVE THE HYDRAULIC HEAD SPACE AVAILABLE TO PUT IN FILTERS AND ROOM ON THE SITE TO PUT IN FILTERS. 
          SO IT'S NOT A BIG HEADACHE IN THE FUTURE. BUT YEAH,
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TYPE ONE BECAUSE WE KNOW IT IS A LOT EASIER TO SELL TYPE ONE YOU KNOW, REUSE THAN IT IS TYPE TWO. 
          AND GOING THE WAY THAT I WAS DISCUSSING. I MEAN,
HOW WHAT IS THE POSSIBLE ESTIMATE OF WHAT THAT WOULD COST? BECAUSE THAT'S A SMALLER PROJECT IF YOU'RE JUST ADDING ON INSTEAD OF REBUILDING EVERYTHING
AT THE PLANT, IF YOU JUST ADD TYPE ONE REUSE. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID,
THAT'S YOU KNOW, $5 MILLION FOR $5 MILLION CONSTRUCTION, BUT YOU'RE STILL AT A ONE MGD PLAN. YEAH, BUT YOU'RE HELPING BUILD TOWARDS THE FUTURE OF
EVENTUALLY TRYING TO LOWER THE. 
          BECAUSE I ALWAYS HEARD THAT TO BUILD THE POND UP BY THE CEDAR BREAKS,
WE HADN'T FIGURED OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT. WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW CRAZY EXPENSIVE IT COULD BE UP THERE. 
          AND SO TO ME, IT WOULD SOUND LIKE WE ARE BUILDING TOWARDS TRYING TO LESSEN THAT LOAD LATER
ON. 
          RIGHT. AND WE'RE ALREADY INVESTING A LOT OF MONEY RIGHT NOW. BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 4
OR 5 MILLION EXTRA TO START BUILDING THAT THREE YEAR HISTORY, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU GUYS COULD PUT SOMETHING IN THAT,
YOU KNOW, A MEMO TOGETHER ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THAT WOULD TAKE TO ADD ON TO WHAT
WE'RE ALREADY DISCUSSING HERE. OKAY. 
          SURE. AND I WOULD JUST ADD THE MORE ACCURATE YOU CAN BE,
THE BETTER, BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD ESTIMATES OF ANYWHERE FROM 600,000 TO 20 MILLION. 
          YEAH, WE I MEAN, WE PRICED IT AT A 30% LEVEL,
WHICH IS A CLASS FOR LRPC. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE THE FULL IPCC IN FRONT OF ME,
BUT IT WAS IN THE 4 TO 5 MILLION RANGE. 
          WE FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WE'VE BUILT TERTIARY FILTER BASINS ACROSS A NUMBER
OF WASTEWATER PLANTS IN CENTRAL TEXAS, SO IT WON'T BE 600,000 AND CERTAINLY WON'T BE 20 MILLION. 
          SO WE ARE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT 4 OR $5 MILLION RANGE,
AS OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE PLANT, YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE JUST ADDING ANOTHER FILTER AND THEN YOU'RE ADDING A DISINFECTANT. SO YOU'RE JUST DOING UV AND CHLORINE. 
          [01:40:03]
MY UNDERSTANDING AND THEN RIGHT. AND THEN THAT GETS YOU FROM TYPE TWO TO TYPE ONE. 
          BUT YOU'RE STILL AT A ONE MGD WASTEWATER PLANT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP EXPAND THAT. 
          RIGHT. THE 4 TO 5 MILLION WOULD GIVE YOU A SYSTEM THAT WOULD PROCESS UP TO A MILLION
GALLONS A DAY. 
          WE WOULD MAKE IT SUCH THAT ITS SIZE FOR A 1.5. 
          I MEAN, WE WOULD IF THAT'S THE ROUTE, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE GOING WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE JUST GOING TO WAIT ON THE WHOLE PLANT. WE JUST WANT TO DO TERTIARY FILTERS TODAY. I MEAN, WE WE KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS WANT TO EXPAND AT SOME
POINT. 
          WE WOULDN'T SPEND A BUNCH OF MONEY BUILDING A FACILITY THAT WILL BE UNDERSIZED. 
          RIGHT. OKAY. YES, SIR. A FEW QUESTIONS. WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, I TOTALLY AGREE ON THE TYPE ONE. 
          I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED INTO CONVERTING TO TYPE ONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          GET THAT THREE YEAR PRECEDENCE UNDER, YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE A LOT OF PARKS, SUNSET PARKS, AND THERE'S PARKS THAT NOT ONLY COULD ESTABLISH THE THREE YEAR HISTORY, BUT ALSO COULD ADD BEAUTIFICATION TO OUR TO OUR PARKLANDS. 
          RIGHT. SO I WOULD MUCH RATHER SPEND 4 TO $5 MILLION ON TYPE ONE THAN ANOTHER POND,
RIGHT? THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, SO IF WE CAN GET AWAY WITH 130 ACRE FEET OF WATER,
BUT THEN BE ABLE TO GO TO TYPE ONE, AND THAT ALL MAKE SENSE. I THINK THAT'S REALLY I THINK THAT'S WISE. 
          I THINK IT'S BETTER MONEY, BETTER SPENT. SURE. 
          AND JUST SO YOU GUYS, I MEAN, THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL SCOPE IN JANUARY THAT'S
ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT, IS TO DESIGN A TYPE ONE FACILITY FOR 1.5. THAT WAS AT AT ALL. 
          SO THAT'S NOT LIKE AN ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU GUYS. 
          SO YOU MAY NOT KNOW MY UNUSUALLY, THE PERSON ON THE DAIS THAT'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL
APPARENTLY I'VE BEEN TOLD. 
          SO HERE WE GO. SO YOU ORIGINALLY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR A DESIGN AT 2.8 MILLION. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. AND WHEN DID THAT OCCUR? IN JANUARY OF 2025. 
          OKAY. AND THEN YOU. AND SO YOU GOT THIS APPROVAL. 
          AND THEN IN YOUR ORIGINAL PR DELIVERED IN APRIL 2025,
YOU LAID OUT PLANS FOR AN EXPANSION THAT WOULD MINIMIZE PROJECT COST BY REUSING THE EXISTING PROCESS. CORRECT. CORRECT. 
          OKAY. SO IN APRIL 2025, WE'RE GOOD. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN,
IN JULY OF 2025, WE'RE NO LONGER GOOD. 
          YES. SO WHAT HAPPENED? I LOOK AT THIS LIKE MAYBE YOU GUYS DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB. 
          BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TO THOSE PLANTS. I'VE BEEN TO THOSE CONCRETE STRUCTURES,
AND I SAW THEM WAY BEFORE JULY OF 2025. 
          AND THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH THOSE BASINS. 
          SO WE WERE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WHEN WE VISITED WITH OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 
          PRIMARILY WITH THE HEADWORKS FACILITY, WHICH IS WHICH IS TIED TO THE MAIN PROCESS BASINS,
BUT FROM FROM VISUAL INSPECTION, THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROCESS BASINS. WE WERE OKAY WITH IT. 
          AND WHAT HAPPENED IN JULY OF 25 IS WE RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE CITY I BELIEVE IT WAS A
PREVIOUS CITY STAFF MEMBER WHO WAS WORKED WITH THE CITY DURING THAT EXPANSION AND WAS ON SITE. AND WHAT THEY WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO US IS THESE STRUCTURES WERE
ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE PARTIALLY BURIED. 
          THEY RAN THE CAR'S FEATURES. THEY FILLED IT WITH FLOWABLE FILL. 
          THEN THEY RAISED THEM. THEY WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE THIS FAR OUT OF GROUND. WE SHOULDN'T
BE REUSING THEM. 
          AND THAT WAS THE FIRST WE HAD EVER HEARD OF ANY OF THAT HISTORY. 
          YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED, VISUALLY,
THEY LOOKED OKAY. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY WERE ONLY 20 YEARS OLD AS FAR AS WE WE KNEW THE THE DESIGN THAT WAS DONE BY
THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AT THE TIME AND SEALED BY TEXAS. YOU KNOW, PE WAS WAS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DESIGNS. 
          THAT WAS ALL OUR UNDERSTANDING. AND THEN IN JULY OF 25,
WE GET ALL THIS NEW HISTORY ABOUT THESE STRUCTURES. 
          HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE CONCERNS,
OR ARE YOU BASING THIS ENTIRE CHANGE ORDER JUST BASED ON HISTORY? SO. YEAH, WHAT WE DID IS WE IMMEDIATELY WENT BACK AND WE SAID,
OKAY, WELL, LET'S DIVE INTO THESE RECORD DRAWINGS. 
          AND THEN THAT'S WHERE WE FOUND THE ISSUES WITH THE ASI. 350. 
          AND THEN OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS HAD CONCERNS OVER WALL THICKNESS,
REBAR SPACING AND REBAR SIZE. 
          DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU HAD PROPOSED IN JANUARY,
INSTEAD OF A $2.5 MILLION DESIGN, A $4.5 MILLION DESIGN, YOU POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE GOT A DIFFERENT RESPONSE FROM CITY COUNCIL. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO EXPECT. I MEAN, FOR US AND FOR ME,
I MEAN, WHEN WE GET A JOB, WHEN WE WIN A JOB WE WE SCOPED THE JOB AND WE SAY, OKAY, THESE ARE THE DELIVERABLES AND THESE ARE ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE
PLANNING TO HAVE AS PART OF OUR DESIGN. 
          SO WE LISTED OUT, YOU KNOW, UNDER OUR PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
STAFF AT THE TIME. 
          HEY, WE'RE ASSUMING THAT WE CAN REUSE THESE BASINS. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT LOOK, OKAY. AND AS FAR AS WE HAVE HEARD ARE PERFORMING. 
          OKAY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASSUMING THAT WE'RE GOING TO REBUILD THE HEADWORKS. WE'RE ASSUMING
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD AN ALL NEW DEWATERING BUILDING. WE LIST OUT EVERYTHING THAT WE 
          [01:45:03]
ANTICIPATE TO BE IN THE DESIGN. AND THEN I GO TO PRETTY MUCH ALL MY DESIGN MANAGERS,
AND THEN I GET THEIR PRICING. 
          AND THEN THAT IS WHERE WE COME UP WITH THE FEE. 
          IF IN JANUARY WE KNEW THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF SAID,
HEY, THESE WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER THESE BASINS. 
          WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THEM AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT YOU TO REBUILD THEM. 
          THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO OUR SCOPE, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE GONE TO OUR DESIGN TEAMS,
AND WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN KIND OF THE PRICING THAT WE HAVE TODAY. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD SAID, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL, THIS IS THIS IS THE FEE WE'RE ASKING FOR,
AND HERE'S WHY. 
          DO YOU I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE THE WHITE CRUSTACEANS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CONCRETE JUST BY
VISUAL INSPECTION. 
          I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE? THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS, I MEAN, LITERALLY,
WHAT YOU'RE TELLING THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA IS. 
          LOOK, I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO GO FROM $28 MILLION PROJECT,
WHICH IS A PRETTY HEAVY PILL TO SWALLOW TO. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO $47 MILLION. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY
OF LAGO VISTA IS GOING TO HAVE A $1,500 ADD ON TO THEIR TAX BILL TO COMPENSATE FOR SOMETHING THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF IN JANUARY WHEN WE APPROVED THIS PROJECT. 
          AND THAT'S MY HEARTBURN. IF YOU WOULD HAVE CAME TO US IN JANUARY AND SAID,
LOOK, WE DID ALL OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO COST. 
          I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU. SURE. BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING. 
          I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SAYING NO TO YOU BECAUSE I DON'T WANT A DEFICIENT WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS. 
          RIGHT. BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SAYING YES TO YOU BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS
NEGLIGENCE. 
          I'M NOT BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT THERE WAS DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONCRETE WHEN YOU COULD
VISUALLY SEE THAT THERE WAS LEAKAGE. 
          SURE. YEAH. YEAH. I GUESS JUST FROM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. 
          AND WHEN WE DID OUR SITE VISITS, REALLY THE ONLY MAJOR AREAS WE SAW MAJOR DEFICIENCIES
WERE AT THAT HEADWORK STRUCTURE AND PROCESS BASINS, YOU KNOW, CONCRETE CRACKS. RIGHT. AND WE DID SEE YOU KNOW,
YOU'LL SEE CRACKS IN PRETTY MUCH ALL CONCRETE. 
          BUT FOR A 20 YEAR LIFE BASIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TOLD US WAS,
YEAH, THIS, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REUSE THIS. AND THEN IT WASN'T UNTIL WE GET ALL THIS NEW
INFORMATION IT'S LIKE, WELL, NOW WE'RE NOT SO SURE ABOUT THE INSIDE OF IT. 
          AND THEN LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT,
YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT WE DID TELL STAFF, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE DON'T FEEL GREAT ABOUT THESE RECORD DRAWINGS AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IN
TERMS OF HOW THESE WERE BUILT. 
          BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE BUILT TRULY THIS WAY AND NOT REINFORCED, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE FAILED BY NOW, BUT THEY STILL SEEM TO BE AN OKAY CONDITION. 
          THE CRACKS SEEM IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT FOR A 20 YEAR STRUCTURE. 
          AND THEY'VE BEEN SERVED. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN SERVING YOU GUYS WELL FOR 20 YEARS. WE CAN
STILL GO DOWN THE PATH OF REUSING THEM BECAUSE THE MODIFICATIONS WE'RE MAKING TO THEM ARE MINIMAL. BUT WE JUST NOW KNOW ALL THIS OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE DIDN'T BEFORE,
AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO DOCUMENT KIND OF THAT RISK. 
          BUT WE WERE CERTAINLY OKAY WITH GOING EITHER WAY. 
          AND THEN EVERYBODY NOW KNOWS AS OF JULY 25TH,
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WAS PRESENTED AT A COUNCIL MEETING. HEY, BY THE WAY, ALL THIS HAPPENED DURING CONSTRUCTION. WE'VE WE'VE GONE 20 YEARS,
YOU KNOW, IT IS A RISK. 
          YOU KNOW, WE NOW KNOW MORE THAN WE DID. THOSE BASINS CAN STILL BE REBUILT AT A LATER DATE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD YOU WANT TO, TO PUSH THAT OFF. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, SO I APOLOGIZE,
BUT I KNOW ON ONE SIDE OF THE CONCRETE, THERE WERE, LIKE, STABILIZING PILLARS THAT WERE INSTALLED TO SUPPORT THE CONCRETE. 
          WHAT ARE THOSE? BUTTRESSES? OKAY. BUTTRESSES. 
          CAN THOSE BE ADDED TO INCREASE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TO THE OUTSIDE OF THOSE WALLS. 
          I CAN TALK TO MY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, AT LEAST WHEN I'VE HAD PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, AND THESE GUYS ARE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS,
RIGHT, WHO ARE TRYING TO DEFEND EVERYTHING THAT THEY PUT THEIR SEAL ON. 
          SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY RISK AVERSE. AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT OUT HERE TALKING TO YOU GUYS AND THINKING ABOUT ALL THE COST IMPACTS NECESSARILY. RIGHT. THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING STRUCTURALLY SOUND. BUT THE THE
INITIAL CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THEM IS THEY WEREN'T COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, RETROFITTING THOSE BASINS WITH BUTTRESSES YOU KNOW, REALLY IT'S JUST NOT TYPICAL IN WHAT YOU SEE IN THE
WATER WASTEWATER INDUSTRY FOR WATER BEARING STRUCTURES. 
          I'D SAY TYPICALLY YOU SEE BUTTRESSES ON THINGS LIKE CHURCHES AND BUILDINGS WITH,
WITH, YOU KNOW VAULTED CEILINGS AND WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF LOAD PUSHING OUT ON HIGH WALLS. YOU DON'T SEE IT FOR, FOR WATER BEARING STRUCTURES. 
          AND SO YOU MAY FIND SOMEBODY WHO, WHO WILL SAY,
YES, I WILL ADD THE BUTTRESSES AND I WILL SEAL THAT FOR YOU. 
          BUT GARVER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS WILL NOT. YOU KNOW,
MISS BATES SAID IT EARLIER IN HER PRESENTATION THAT ONCE YOU GET LOCKED INTO A CONTRACT, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF STUFF THAT HAPPENS AND THAT'S THE SCOPE INCREASE. AND WHAT SHE
SAID IS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE, IN MY OPINION. YEAH. AND I GUESS TO THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE WE CERTAINLY DON'T ENJOY, YOU KNOW, COMING UP AND ASKING FOR FOR MORE COST. I'LL SAY WHAT WHAT WE PRESENTED AND WHAT IS 1.8
MILLION IS, IS FULLY COMPREHENSIVE. AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT STAFF TALKED TO ME YESTERDAY AND SAID,
WELL, 
          [01:50:05]
HEY, ARE THERE THINGS WE CAN DO THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY 100% REQUIRED TO WHERE WE CAN CUT
COSTS? AND I SAID, YEAH, CERTAINLY. YEAH. YOU KNOW,
ONE IS THE OBSERVATION WE CAN CUT THAT DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY. 
          AND THEN THAT'S KIND OF WHY I PREPARED THIS THIS SPREADSHEET THAT I SHARE WITH YOU GUYS
WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF COST WITH THIS AMENDMENT WHERE WE'RE
ONLY FOCUSING ON REBUILDING THE BASINS AND THAT WE CAN CUT SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, REQUIRED NECESSARILY TO TO HAVE A GREAT DESIGN. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S SEALED BY, YOU KNOW,
ENGINEERS SO THAT THAT PRODUCT REMAINS THE SAME. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. MY CONCERN WITH GOING WITH THAT ROUTE IS WE JUST END UP IN THE
SAME POSITION WE ARE TODAY, JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE HAD SOMETHING BUILT,
PROBABLY NOT TO THE SPEC IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AND NOW WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH IT. IN TERMS OF NOT HAVING AN OBSERVER ON SITE. 
          NO. YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE COULD TAKE SOME THINGS OUT AND CUT CORNERS,
REDUCE COSTS TODAY. 
          AND I'M ASKING, WOULD THAT PUT US IN THE SAME BOAT,
YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, EIGHT YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THE TWO THINGS WE IDENTIFIED AS REMOVING IS ONE IS JUST TAKING OUT THE POND ITEM. 
          RIGHT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO SAY. THEY SAY WE HAVE TO BUILD IT. WE GOT TO COME
BACK. BUT OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE WOULD ASK FOR REMAINS THE SAME AS WHAT'S ON THE PIECE OF PAPER THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM WAS JUST OBSERVATION,
RIGHT. 
          SO A LOT OF THE CONTRACT COST IS IS OBSERVATION. 
          RIGHT. IT'S EXPENSIVE TO HAVE AN OPERATOR ON SITE FULL TIME FOR,
FOR THREE YEARS. 
          AND SO I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT 655,000,
THE AMENDMENT OR THE ORIGINAL PLUS THE AMENDMENT WAS AT 1.1 MILLION. BUT IF WE REDUCED THAT TO, YOU KNOW,
JUST COMING OUT ONCE A WEEK DURING THE CRITICAL TIME PERIODS, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S GETS IT DOWN TO 228,000 TOTAL. 
          SO THAT'S A BULK OF THE COST. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE DESIGN DELIVERABLE AT ALL. 
          THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T TAKE I GUESS HOURS FROM FROM OUR ENGINEERING STAFF. 
          MY MANAGEMENT WON'T EVEN LET ME DO THAT. RIGHT. 
          THEY WILL WALK ON A JOB BEFORE BEFORE WE CUT HOURS FROM,
FROM OUR ENGINEERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT OUR ENGINEERS PUTTING THEIR SEALS AT RISK BY BY HAVING LESS HOURS. THEY DON'T WANT OUR DESIGN REPUTATION GOING DOWN. 
          RIGHT. BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO HELP AUGMENT SOME
OF THOSE INSPECTION SERVICES, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN REMOVE SOME OF THAT SCOPE,
WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOWED. 
          THE DESIGN PACKAGE REMAINS THE SAME. YOU KNOW,
HOURS FOR FOR ENGINEERING INPUT REMAINS THE SAME. 
          QUESTION ARE YOU ARE YOU EMPOWERED TO ADJUST PRICING? THE ONLY PRICING WE CAN MODIFY IS IF SCOPE IS REDUCED. 
          I HAVE NO POWER TO. SO YOU'RE WORKING OFF A MENU FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVELY. 
          YEAH. ESSENTIALLY I MEAN I GET I GET INPUT FROM MY TEAM BUT I YOU KNOW I CAN BUT ARE YOU
YOURSELF ALLOWED TO DISCOUNT FOR EXAMPLE THE ENGINEERS HOURLY RATE. 
          NO. WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THAT'D PROBABLY BE AT A DIRECTOR LEVEL. 
          AND HOW WHERE ARE YOU? THE DIRECTORS HERE. WHERE ARE YOU? SO, YEAH, I GUESS MY BOSS IS OUR REGIONAL MANAGER. 
          SO? SO TWO LEVELS ABOVE ME. OKAY. AND TYPICALLY,
YEAH, WE'LL COME FORWARD WITH, WITH A PROPOSAL THAT IS TIED TO INDIVIDUAL TASKS. 
          I'VE NOT SEEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY WE CAN REDUCE A TASK THAT MAY NOT BE NEEDED OR CAN BE AUGMENTED BY CITY STAFF. 
          THAT PRICE GOES AWAY. BUT IF WE WANT TO REDUCE,
LET'S SAY A B ON A CERTAIN TASK, WHAT WE'LL THEN DO IS WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL WRITE IN MORE ASSUMPTIONS. SO, HEY,
YOU KNOW, WE, WE PLAN FOR A LOT OF HOURS TO LOOK AT MAYBE A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          FOR INSTANCE, LET'S GO WITH THE DEWATERING BUILDING. RIGHT. IF I MAY. YES,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. 
          I STILL WANT THE WHOLE CAR WITH ALL THE ACCESSORIES. 
          I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE ACCESSORIES. I JUST WANT A BETTER PRICE. SURE. 
          YEAH, I SAY SO. WHAT? I WOULD LIKE WHAT? I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE AT THIS
POINT. 
          I JUST ASSUME PUT INSTEAD OF APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER. 
          IS TABLING IT GOING OUT FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS? UNLESS YOU GUYS CAN COME BACK WITH A BETTER PRICE WITH THE SAME ACCESSORIES. 
          THE ONLY THINGS WE'D BE ABLE TO CHANGE IS IS MODIFYING OR ADDING SOME ASSUMPTIONS TO THE
SCOPE. 
          AND I GUESS, FOR INSTANCE, THE EXAMPLE I WAS GOING TO GIVE IS,
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR ORIGINAL DESIGN, WE LEFT THE WATERING OPEN BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WE WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT STAFF AND THE OPERATORS ARE GOING TO LIKE,
RIGHT. 
          SO WE WE GIVE OURSELVES THE GRACE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          AND WE GO OUT AND WE WE DO TOURS. AND WE DID THIS WITH STAFF. 
          WE WENT TO HUNTSVILLE. WE WENT TO KYLE. WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT. AND THEN WE WE SELECTED A VOLUME PRESS AND WE SAID,
OKAY, THAT'S WE'RE GOING TO DESIGN AROUND. SO BUT FROM THE GET GO YOU GUYS SAID, NOPE. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT I WANT. 
          THAT THAT KIND OF THOSE KIND OF DECISIONS EARLY ON CAN HELP US REDUCE COSTS BECAUSE IT
TELLS OUR ENGINEERS, YOU KNOW, SO SO I GUESS FOR YOUR CAR FEATURE. 
          RIGHT. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE SCOPE OF
WORK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE THE PROGNOSIS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THE CHANGES THE CHANGE WHERE YOU
RECOMMEND RECOMMENDING IS BASED ON YOUR PROGNOSIS AND, 
          [01:55:07]
AND ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE SITUATION. 
          WHAT I WONDER IS IF, YOU KNOW, IF, FOR EXAMPLE,
I WERE WILLING TO NOT MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS, TO CONTEMPLATE AND BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION TO THE COUNCIL THE QUESTION OF GOING OUT FOR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING INSTEAD OF APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER. 
          WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GO BACK TO YOUR DIRECT,
YOUR REGIONAL AND YOUR DIRECTOR AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM ABOUT KEEPING THE SCOPE OF WORK, BUT COMING BACK WITH A BETTER PRICE DISCOUNTED? I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO THEM. I WOULD GET PROBABLY PUSHED BACK AND I COULD HAVE THE
CONVERSATION AT A MINIMUM. 
          AND THEN I GUESS AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING, RIGHT. 
          IS, IS SHOULD YOU GUYS YOU KNOW, TABLE THIS,
SHELVE THIS, AND THEN GO BACK OUT? IT WOULD BE THROUGH A RFQ PROCESS. AND THEN PRICING OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE DETERMINED AFTER
YOU SELECTED THE THE SUBSEQUENT ENGINEER. 
          OKAY. THANKS FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS I APPRECIATE IT. AND BY THE WAY ADAM,
I TAKE OFFENSE TO YOU HAVING THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL TITLE. 
          I BELIEVE THAT BELONGS TO ME. I'M COMING FOR IT. 
          BY I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH SOMETHING RECENT. 
          TO WHAT, RECENTLY TO WHAT MR. ROBERTS JUST DESCRIBED ON THE IRRIGATION PROJECT,
WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAD AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT GAVE US THEIR WE SELECTED SOMEONE TO DO THE IRRIGATION DESIGN THROUGH THE RFQ PROCESS,
AND THEN THEY CAME BACK WITH THEIR DOLLAR AMOUNT TO DO IT, AND WE SAID, HANG ON, THAT SEEMS PRETTY HIGH. 
          WE WE ACTUALLY HAD SOMEONE ELSE THAT WAS ALREADY A QUALIFIED FIRM. 
          AND SO WE DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK OUT FOR RFQ BECAUSE WE,
WE ALREADY HAD SOMEBODY THAT WAS WE KNEW WAS QUALIFIED AND WE GOT THEM TO GIVE US A BID AND WE ENDED UP SELECTING THEM. SO IF THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE BESIDES GARVER THAT WE
ALREADY HAD AS A QUALIFIED FIRM, WE COULD POTENTIALLY NOT GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO SQUARE ONE OF RFQ PROCESS. 
          AND WE COULD GET, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT BID ON IT. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST JUST AN OBSERVATION ON, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER WE WANT TO DO THAT OR NOT IS IS AN OPEN QUESTION. 
          I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IF THAT IS THE ROUTE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE FURTHER CONTEMPLATION OF
THAT, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO AFFORD YOUR FIRM THE PROFESSIONAL,
COURTESY OF BEING ABLE TO COME BACK TO US BEFORE WE RESOLVE EITHER WAY. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WE'D BE HAPPY TO BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS LIKE THAT. 
          I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK,
AND I INVITE YOU TO TAKE A SEAT. 
          SURE. YOU MIGHT HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YEAH. AND THEN,
MR. STEWART, YOU SAID I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST DAY BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR WAS MR. STEWART. JUST COME ON UP HERE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. 
          ERIC, YOU SAID IT FOR SIX MINUTES. OKAY. SO. YEAH. 
          SO THE CURRENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS AT 65% CAPACITY. 
          WELL BELOW THE 75% TRIGGER TO BEGIN PLANNING FOR EXPANSION. 
          THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE NEED TO EXPAND THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THIS TIME. 
          NOW, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO I'LL GO WITH THE REST OF THIS. WE DO NEED TO IRRIGATE AN ADDITIONAL 40 ACRES AT THE
CEDAR BREAKS, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE Q FACTOR WITH THE GOLF COURSE. 
          I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER DOING 50 IF YOU NEED IT,
YOU HAVE IT. 
          IF YOU DON'T NEED IT, IT'S GOOD FOR THE FUTURE. 
          IT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT. A CITY UTILITY COMMITTEE SHOULD BE CREATED. 
          WE'VE GOT TO GET SOME OF THIS LEGACY KNOWLEDGE BACK TO THE CITY. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT CEDAR BREAKS IRRIGATION EXPANSION SHOULD BE A SEPARATE ENGINEERING
PROJECT, NOT A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CURRENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ENGINEERING PROJECT OBJECT AS
IT BYPASSES THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND THAT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO GETTING THE BIGGEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK. 
          SO LISTENING TO HIS PRESENTATION, I LEARNED A LOT FROM HIM. 
          BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MELD WHAT HE'S DOING WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN WE HAD. 
          NOW, HOW LONG AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL KNOWN THAT THAT CONCRETE AND THOSE STRUCTURES
WAS BAD? PROBABLY THREE YEARS. WAS IT COMMUNICATED TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER? NOT UNTIL MR. WEST GOT HERE. HE'S THE FIRST CITY MANAGER THAT BELIEVED ME WHO ACTUALLY HAD
IT INVESTIGATED. 
          SO WHEN I WAS THERE WITH THREE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE,
WHAT, LAST YEAR, OCTOBER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          [02:00:01]
I LOOKED AT A LOT OF THE CRACKS, AND THEY ARE NO LONGER THREE FOOT LONG. 
          THEY'RE THERE ALL THE WAY DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW. 
          SO THEY ARE EXPANDING, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY LEAKING. 
          THE BUTTRESSES ARE HOLDING UP AND THE CARBON FIBER IS HOLDING ON THE CLARIFIER. 
          THE BEST THING THAT I CAN SEE TO DO IS NOT DO AN IN-GROUND CONCRETE TYPE ONE CONVERTER,
BUT TO GO TO THE 500,000. 
          THEY'LL DO 500,000 GALLONS OF EFFLUENT, BUT THE STEEL VESSELS WILL PUT TWO SIDE BY SIDE. 
          THEY'RE MOUNTED ABOVE GROUND. YOU CAN PICK THEM UP AND MOVE THEM WITH A CRANE IF YOU NEED
TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THAT SPOT LATER. 
          THE SOONER YOU GET THE TYPE ONE, THE SOONER YOU CAN SELL IT. 
          AND THE SOONER YOU START YOUR THREE YEAR TRACK RECORD THAT THAT WE NEED. 
          I WOULD AND I'VE SAID THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WE WERE JUST GOING TO BUILD A TWO MGD DIGESTER
AND A TWO COMPARTMENT, TWO ONE MGD COMPARTMENTS. AND THAT WAY, IF WE EVER HAD A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE,
WE COULD ABANDON THE ORIGINAL PLAN. 
          WE HAD A ONE MGD CLARIFIER. WE WOULD JUST MOVE REAR TO HALF OF THE NEW DIGESTER AND DEAL
WITH IT. 
          NOW THE I DON'T SEE US HITTING NEEDING TO EXPAND THE SEWER PLANT PROBABLY UNTIL ABOUT
2033. 
          UNLESS SOMEBODY HERE KNOWS WHERE ALL THIS GROWTH IS GOING TO COME FROM. 
          CONSTRUCTION STARTS AT 90. WE'RE AT 65%. SO WE HAVE TIME TO WORK AT THIS,
TO TRY TO BREAK IT INTO PIECES, TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE. THE POND SHOULDN'T GO AT THE CEDAR BREAKS. 
          THE POND OUGHT TO GO ON THE 14TH. NEXT TO THE TEE BOX. 
          IT'S AN EASY, ACCESSIBLE. THERE'S NO LAND CLEARING. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE CHEAPER TO BUILD IT THERE. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY,
FORGIVE ME FOR UP TO YOU. 
          WHY NOT BUILD IT AT THE CEDAR BREAKS? I WAS JUST FIXING TO GET THERE. 
          OKAY. YOU. YOUR CROP IS THE CEDAR TREES. AND HE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT OUR 6.28 ACRE FEET
PER ACRE IS THE HIGHEST IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WHY WOULD YOU KILL A CEDAR TREE? I DON'T LIKE THEM. 
          AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO HEAR THAT. WHEN WE PUT THE ROADS IN AT CEDAR BREAKS,
WE TOOK DOWN OAK TREES WITH 23 TRUNKS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CEDAR TREES AND THEY DON'T DRINK ENOUGH EFFLUENT. HAD A LOT OF FIREWOOD. 
          SO WE NEED TO PROTECT THE CROP. PUTTING THAT PARK OUT THERE REALLY HURT US. 
          SO THE POND, EVEN IF. EVEN IF WE POND 14 WON'T DO IT. 
          THE NEXT POND NEEDS TO GO SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN THE CEDAR BREAKS. 
          OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE BUYING ANOTHER 300 ACRES SEVEN MILES FROM LAGO VISTA AND PIPING
EFFLUENT TO IT. 
          YOU'VE GOT TO GET A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THIS FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO. 
          THERE'S 2 OR 3 REACTIONS DOWN THE ROAD. THEY'RE GOING TO COST MORE THAN THE MONEY YOU JUST
SAVED. 
          SO I WOULD, I WOULD LET'S GET THE LET'S GET THE LAP TAKEN CARE OF TO GET US TO ONE MGD. AND IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT PONTOON WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ENOUGH WATER FOR US TO GO
TO ONE MGD. 
          WE WON'T HIT THE 1.5, BUT WE SHOULD BE GOOD. I NEED TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT MY MATH
ON THAT, BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD A MILLION AND A HALF GALLONS OF STORAGE IN SURPLUS. 
          BUT IF. IT NEEDS TO BE PHASED, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN
FIRST. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THE CEDAR BREAKS AND THE TYPE ONE WATER. 
          AND THOSE ARE BOTH AFFORDABLE. AND IF YOU GO WITH THE PRESSURE VESSELS FOR THE TYPE ONE,
I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN A 1.5 MILLION. AND LIKE I SAID, IF YOU DON'T, IF THEY IF HE NEEDS TO MOVE THEM,
THEN WE PICK HIM UP AND WE GO PUT THEM WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THEM TO. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GO TO ONE AND A HALF MGD BY ANOTHER 500,000 GALLON VESSEL AND YOU'RE GOOD,
YOU'RE YOU'RE SIX MINUTES IS UP. 
          BUT IF DID YOU HAVE MORE THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY? NO, I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS THOUGH. OKAY, IF I COULD. 
          I WANT TO GET VICTOR UP HERE REAL QUICK, BECAUSE HE SENT US AN EMAIL EARLIER TODAY AND
COMMENTING ON THE WHERE WE ARE AT CAPACITY WISE. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO HAVE HIM GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHAT HE SENT THE COUNCIL EARLIER
TODAY. 
          SO LET ME ACTUALLY PULL THAT EMAIL. SO SPEAKING INTO JUST THE WASTEWATER TRENDS FROM THE
LAST THREE MONTHS I BELIEVE LAST MONTH WE HIT A RANGE OF OVER A MILLION GALLONS. 
          AND THAT IS JUST FOR LAST MONTH. AND THEN ON AVERAGE,
I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND 820,000 FOR YEARLY 
          [02:05:04]
HIGHEST POINT. NOW THAT 650 OR THAT 650,000 NUMBER IS COMING FROM AN AVERAGE,
WHICH ISN'T IDEAL TO USE FOR A HIGH PEAK DEMAND, BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL,
I THINK, 3 OR 4 DEVELOPMENTS COMING ON BOARD, AND THAT COULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THE DEMAND THAT WE NEED SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          WHAT DOES TC DO? THEY DICTATE WHETHER YOU USE AVERAGE DEMAND OR PEAK DEMAND. 
          I SEE YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD. YES. PEAK DEMAND. 
          PEAK DEMAND. SO I MEAN, HE MAY BE RIGHT THAT ON AVERAGE WE'RE USING 65%. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT TC WANTS TO LOOK AT. THEY WANT TO LOOK AT PEAK DEMAND,
WHICH IS HIGHER THAN 75% RIGHT NOW. 
          YEAH OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. AND ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM. 
          I BELIEVE FOR CONTRACTING SERVICES, FOR ENGINEERING,
YOU REALLY DON'T DO COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THAT. 
          YOU ACTUALLY SELECT THEM BY THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. 
          THE ONLY TIME YOU DO QUALIFY FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS ACTUALLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
WORK, BUT NOT THROUGH THE DESIGN, NOT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING YOU CANNOT USE PRICING AT ALL BASED ON THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 
          IS THAT CORRECT, BRETT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THAT IS CORRECT. 
          HOWEVER, AS WE JUST DID WITH THE IRRIGATION PROJECT,
AFTER WE HAVE SELECTED SOMEONE BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS ONLY, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REJECT THEM BASED ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT THEY BRING TO US. 
          RIGHT. SO THAT'S RECENT HISTORY. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH. 
          YES. SO NEGOTIATION REMAINS. SIR, YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. 
          BUT IF WE DO GO BACK OUT FOR RFQS, THEN WE POTENTIALLY JUST LOST ALL THE MONEY THAT WE'VE
ALREADY SPENT ON GARDENER. 
          NOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE T LABS PERMIT AND EVERYTHING. 
          THERE ARE CERTAIN LINE ITEMS THAT WON'T BE AFFECTED AND WON'T LOSE THAT MUCH,
BUT FOR 30% DESIGN, THEY JUST DESIGN TO A CERTAIN POINT AND WE WILL LOSE THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING AND AGAIN, I COULD BE WRONG,
IS THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WE HAVE KIND OF WE'VE BEEN USING AND THAT OUR QUALIFIED ENGINEERING FIRMS WOULD THERE BE ANOTHER ENGINEERING ENGINEERING FIRM
BESIDES GARVER THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AS A QUALIFIED ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WE COULD WE COULD SELECT TO GIVE US A BID ON THIS PROJECT. 
          POTENTIALLY, FREESE AND NICHOLS WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE TO GO TO AT THAT TIME OR AT THIS
TIME. 
          I'LL WALK HER. WALK HER PARTNERS KNOW BECAUSE WE WE DID NOT SELECT THEM TO IN THE RFQ
PROCESS. 
          WE SELECTED THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 
          OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER GENTLEMAN. 
          OH, SURE. VICTOR, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR EMAIL. 
          LET ME JUST I WANT TO PHRASE THIS CORRECTLY,
THAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NUMBER ONE 04,250% WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 75 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WATER. 
          I'M SORRY. YEAH, YEAH. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THE WHOLE REASON THAT THESE
NUMBERS SPIKED AS HIGH AS THEY DID IS YOU SAY, IN WORST CASE, WET WEATHER MONTHS, LIKE WHAT WE HAD IN JULY AND AUGUST. 
          AND YOU'RE SEEING THAT IN THE WASTEWATER PLANT WHERE IT WAS OVER A MILLION GALLONS TO BE
TREATED. SO WHAT WOULD IT BE ABOUT? I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER HERE. I JUST WANT YOU TO SAY IT IS WHAT WOULD IT BE ABOUT RAINY
WEATHER THAT WOULD CREATE OUR SEWER TO INCREASE? OH, INFLUENCE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION, WHERE WATER IS COMING THROUGH OUR GRAVITY MAINS AND
OUR MANHOLE LIDS AND ETC. 
          MAYBE SOMEONE IN THEIR GARAGE MIGHT HAVE A A RIGHT. 
          A DRAIN PIPE THAT LEADS INTO THE GRINDER PUMP. 
          OR IT'S ALL GRAVITY FED. PEOPLE. PEOPLE PIPING THEIR GUTTERS TO DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND STUFF
LIKE THAT. 
          RIGHT? SO AS WE STARE DOWN THE BARREL OF A $24 MILLION INCREASE,
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE ABOUT DOING A SMOKE TEST TO THAT'S THAT'S BEEN DONE IN STAFF AND PUBLIC WORKS,
HAS BEEN DOING THAT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. 
          THEY'VE ALREADY MOVED FORWARD IN THAT. HAVE HAVE WE SEEN ANY RESULTS FROM THAT. 
          I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT ERNEST OKIN. 
          GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING A CONTRACTOR OR DOING INTERNALLY TO
DO A SMOKE TEST IN THE COMING MONTHS. 
          SO WE HAVEN'T DONE IT THUS FAR. NOT YET. I THINK MY TIME,
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY IMPORTANT PROCESS IS LET'S SEE HOW MANY VIOLATIONS WE ACTUALLY HAVE, RIGHT? I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE,
YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT WE'RE AT 85, 90% BASED ON WORST CASE SCENARIOS IN THESE RAINY MONTHS, BUT WE MIGHT FIND THAT A HUGE AMOUNT OF THAT IS PEOPLE DUMPING HOUSE WATER FROM
THEIR GUTTERS DIRECTLY INTO OUR SEWER SYSTEM. 
          [02:10:04]
WE'RE PROCESSING IT, AND WE'RE OVER HERE ABOUT TO SPEND $50 MILLION BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTED
TO SAVE A HUNDRED BUCKS. I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR A NEW BUDGET CYCLE TO START. AND WE'RE GOING TO BECAUSE WE HAVE
SEVERAL MILES OF GRAVITY LINES THAT WE TOTALLY AGREE. SO I HADN'T HEARD OF ANY SMOKE TESTS GOING ON. USUALLY THERE'S NOTIFICATION SAYING,
HEY, IF YOU SEE SMOKE IN YOUR HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE TEST THAT WE'RE CONDUCTING, YOU KNOW,
AND EVERYBODY'S LOOKING FOR THE SMOKE COMING OUT OF SOMEONE'S GUTTERS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S WHERE THE VIOLATION IS OCCURRING. THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD THAT,
YOU KNOW, LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE COMING SOON. SO DON'T BE ALARMED. 
          BUT WE'LL DO PUBLIC NOTICE AND WE'LL LET THEM KNOW. YEAH. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAPACITY, BECAUSE PART OF WHAT SOLD ME ON APPROVING THIS BACK IN JANUARY IS WE WERE TOLD WE WERE AT NEAR 90% PERCENT AND THAT THIS HAD TO HAPPEN RIGHT
AWAY. 
          AND THEN MR. WEST PRODUCED SOME DOCUMENTS SAYING,
WELL, ACTUALLY WE'RE PROBABLY CLOSER TO 65%. 
          WELL, THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED MY VOTE IN JANUARY,
RIGHT? AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WELL, NO, ACTUALLY WE'RE BACK AT THAT 90%. 
          BUT HOW MUCH OF THAT IS WET WEATHER RELATED? BASED ON THE EMAIL,
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE POTENTIALLY IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD CLOSE THAT LOOP BEFORE WE GO OFF AND SPEND A BUNCH OF MONEY,
BECAUSE I AGREE WITH MR. STEWART. IF WE CAN KICK THIS CAN DOWN TO 2033. 
          KICK IT AS FAR AS YOU CAN. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT,
I TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF MATH TODAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF I DID IT RIGHT OR NOT, BUT THE CONCLUSION I CAME TO IS LET'S SAY WE ARE AT
65% RIGHT NOW. 
          ALL IT WOULD TAKE FOR US TO JUMP TO 75% IS A COUPLE OF YEARS LIKE WE HAD WHERE WE HAD 425
HOUSES THAT ADDED EACH YEAR, AND WE HAD BACK TO BACK YEARS THAT WERE EXACTLY THAT. 
          SO IF INTEREST RATES DROPPED TREMENDOUSLY OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS,
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD TWO YEARS LIKE THAT. BOOM. 
          WE'D BE UP AT 75, 80%. NOT IN 20, 30, 33, BUT 20,
27 OR 28. 
          SO WE DO NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT, IS ALL I WOULD SAY. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. MR.. SAUL. YEAH. I WANT TO CLARIFY THE THE DISCUSSION YOU GUYS
HAD ABOUT T-C-E-Q IS LOOKING AT AVERAGE VERSUS PEAK. 
          WAS IT DID DID YOU SAY PEAK SEASON PEAK BECAUSE I SAW YOU KIND OF GO LIKE THIS. 
          AND THEN I LOOKED IT UP AND 7590 RULE IS I'M THREE MONTHS RUNNING AVERAGE. 
          OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT 75%. YOU NEED TO BE IN DESIGN. 
          90% YOU NEED TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT'S AVERAGE,
NOT PEAK THREE MONTH THREE MONTH TOP PEAK AVERAGE. 
          SO IT'S IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, ANNUAL AVERAGE. IT'S A COMBINATION BETWEEN IT'S NOT PEAK
MONTH. 
          IT'S THE THREE MONTH HIGHEST MONTH AVERAGE OKAY. 
          SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH A LITTLE BIT OF PEAK AND A LITTLE BIT OF AVERAGE. 
          SAY IT SAY IT RIGHT. YEAH. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHEN I ASKED. 
          I TRULY WANTED TO KNOW. WAS IT OR WAS IT AVERAGE? SO. SO WHERE DOES THAT PUT US AT? SO WE'RE SAYING THE 65% IS AVERAGE,
BUT WE'RE HEARING THE PEAK IS OVER THAT OR. 
          WELL, I THINK WHAT VICTOR SAID, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN YOUR EMAIL WAS,
IS THAT WHEN YOU TOOK THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE PEAK MONTHS, IT WAS HIGHER THAN 65% IS AROUND 80, 83, 85%. 
          CAN YOU TAKE THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE PEAK MONTHS? SO WHEN YOU DO TAKE AN AVERAGE, BUT IT IS OF THE THREE HIGHEST MONTHS,
IT'S THREE CONSECUTIVE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. THREE CONSECUTIVE. RIGHT. 
          SO HAVE WE DONE THAT. ARE THEY THREE. ARE WE DOING THREE CONSECUTIVE MONTHS. ARE WE DOING
THE THREE OR WE'RE PICKING THE THREE PEAK MONTHS? I WILL SAY THAT THAT HAS BEEN A FRUSTRATION OF MINE,
IS GETTING ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR CAPACITY AND KNOWING WHEN WE NEED TO BE IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. WE'VE GOTTEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS,
JUST LIKE THE DIFFERENT ANSWERS FOR HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO GET TO TYPE ONE. 
          AND IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO TO MAKE DECISIONS UP HERE WHEN YOU GET BECAUSE I COULD
SEE HOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE JULY FLOODS, I COULD SEE HOW WE GOT IN THAT THREE MONTH RANGE. 
          BUT THAT IS AN ANOMALY, I WOULD THINK. YEAH. BUT I THINK DAVE WASN'T NECESSARILY DONE. 
          I STILL HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR HIM. HANG ON,
DAVE, I'M GOING TO BRING YOU BACK UP, I PROMISE. I DID HAVE A GENTLEMAN NAMED ERIC HORNE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK AND SO ON THIS TOPIC. THIS IS PRETTY MUCH I THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE
LAST THREE MONTHS WAS ACTUALLY OKAY. 
          WERE THEY WERE THEY CONSECUTIVE? YEAH. YES. OKAY. 
          AUGUST, JUNE JULY. AUGUST OKAY. BUT I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE AN ASTERISK WITH THAT,
RIGHT. 
          LIKE, WE HAD A PRETTY A PRETTY ANOMALY STORM THAT HAPPENED ON THE JULY 4TH WEEKEND. 
          IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, WOULD THOSE THREE MONTHS STILL BE LIKE THAT? OKAY. REMEMBER, THE NUMBER FOR JULY WAS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE NUMBER FOR JUNE. 
          NO, I'M SORRY, LOWER THAN AUGUST. SO THEY'RE ALL ABOUT THE SAME BETWEEN THOSE THREE
MONTHS. 
          19 MILLION GALLONS FOR THE MONTH IN JUNE. 20 MILLION GALLONS,
ALMOST 21 IN JULY AND 22 IN AUGUST. 
          SO AUGUST ACTUALLY HAD MORE THAN JULY FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          [02:15:02]
SO WHATEVER. 20 60 MILLION GALLONS DIVIDED BY 90 DAYS. 
          THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE MTD. SO THEN WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THE AVERAGE IS THEN? BUT I'M USING THE ISD. 
          FOR THAT TIME. OH, YES. YEAH I SEE. 
          I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS,
I PROMISE. 
          SURE. ERIC HORNE I USUALLY SPEAK TO YOU IN MY CAPACITY AS DEVELOPER FOR HINES OUT AT
LAKESIDE TESSERA. 
          I ALSO LIVE HERE IN LAGO VISTA. SO BUT ON THIS,
I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE. 
          A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS BEFORE I JOINED, I WAS A CONTRACTOR WHERE MY MAIN CLIENT WAS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
          AND IF WE HAD A CHANGE ORDER OVER 20% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE BY CONTRACT,
YOU KNOW, WE WE'D HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY REBID IT OR, YOU KNOW,
THEY'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD AND DO EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NEARLY DOUBLE IN BOTH THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT AND LOOKING AT
THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. 
          SO THAT REALLY PUTS THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE OF MAKING SURE GOOD STEWARDS OF PUBLIC MONEY. 
          SECOND THING IS I HAVE BID OUT A NOT THE SAME TECHNOLOGY,
BUT I HAVE BID OUT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 300,000 GALLON. 
          SO NEARLY THE 500, YOU KNOW, THE 0.5 MGD. AND NOW IT WAS RAW,
YOU KNOW, VIRGIN LAND AND EVERYTHING, BUT IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE $48 MILLION. AND IT GOT IT TO TYPE ONE EFFLUENT AS WELL. 
          SO I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES TO LOOK AT. 
          I HAVE NOT SEEN THE PLANS HERE AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TECHNOLOGIES THEY'RE USING FOR
IT. 
          BUT THAT NUMBER IS EXTREMELY HIGH COMPARED TO WHAT I'VE SEEN. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AS HE WAS SAYING, COMPARED TO WHAT THAT $40 PER GALLON IS AS WELL. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. STEWART. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO FIRST OF ALL, GOING BACK TO THE TYPE ONE WE,
THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA DOES HAVE A CURRENT 210 A WHICH COVERS EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THE CITY WOULD EVER CONSIDER IRRIGATING WHEN WE REWROTE THE
PERMIT IN 215. WE ALSO MODIFIED THE 210 AND IT COVERS THE MEDIANS. 
          IT COVERS THE PARKS, IT COVERS EVERYTHING. SO WE DON'T NEED TO PUT THAT OUT FOR
ENGINEERING. 
          YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE A DOCUMENT ON FILE. SO AS FAR AS THE THREE MONTHS GO,
HITTING THAT 75% DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL. YOU GUYS ARE HOLDING CONVERSATIONS RIGHT NOW. 
          WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE 75% TRIGGER LEVEL TO BEGIN PLANNING FOR EXPANSION. 
          THIS IS PLANNING FOR EXPANSION. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO MOVE DIRECTLY INTO
CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT AND I GAVE ONE TO COUNCIL
MEMBER OWEN, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO APPEAL EXCEPTIONS, AND I AND I IS AN EXCEPTION TO AVERAGE FLOW. 
          SO YOU ISOLATE THE THREE MONTH PERIOD. YOU INFORM THEM THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN SMOKE
TESTING. 
          AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE DID THIS WITH TC. 
          THE LAST TIME I HAD AN ENE PROBLEM I HAD, WE WERE SHOCKED THAT WE HAD 195 GALLONS OF ION I
WHEN A NORMAL RAINSTORM BROUGHT IN ABOUT 65. WE SMOKE TESTED. WE FOUND OUR BIGGEST CULPRIT TO BE CLEANOUTS PVC CLEANOUTS THAT HAD
BEEN MOWED OVER MOSTLY AT THE SHORES, PEOPLE PUTTING DRAINS INTO CLEANOUTS LIKE COUNCILMAN,
BENFIELD SAID. 
          AND WE GOT SUPER AGGRESSIVE AND WE PUSHED IT BACK TO 65,000. 
          AND IT'S IT'S I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT THEY HAD A 300,000 GALLON STUFF BECAUSE WE SKIPPED A
COUPLE OF MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, BUT THEY'LL KNOCK IT BACK DOWN AND YOU'LL SEE YOUR AVERAGE GO DOWN. 
          AND THE NEXT RAIN EVENT, YOU JUST MONITOR IT. 
          IT SHOULD GO BACK DOWN. SORRY ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE BID. 
          I SHOULD HAVE SAID RFQ, BUT I STILL THINK THAT THE CEDAR BREAK IRRIGATION WAS PROBABLY NOT
CALLED OUTRIGHT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE ATTORNEYS,
BUT I STILL THINK IT OUGHT TO BE A STANDALONE PROJECT, BECAUSE THE INTRICACIES OF THAT ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN BUILDING A WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT. 
          [02:20:12]
SO. YEAH. ANYWAY. THANK YOU SIR. I ASKED A QUESTION TOO. 
          YEAH. NO, YOU GO FIRST. BACK IN YOUR FIRST ONE,
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TYPE ONE AGAIN. 
          YOU SAID THERE'S A UNIT THAT WE COULD BUY, AND IF WE NEEDED TO,
WE COULD ADD ANOTHER ONE EVENTUALLY. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS. IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN MORE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE VESSEL NAME, BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT IN 2018,
WE FOUND IT BASICALLY LOOKS LIKE A BIG PROPANE TANK. I MEAN, BIG, AND IT SITS UP ON A CONCRETE CRADLE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF A TRUCK. 
          YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE CRADLE WHERE YOU WANT IT. 
          NOW, IF YOU NEED TO MOVE IT, YOU PICK IT UP AND YOU MOVE IT. 
          EACH VESSEL IS DESIGNED TO HANDLE A HALF A MILLION GALLONS OF EFFLUENT. 
          SO WE WERE SPENDING, I THINK, $475,000, BOUGHT US TWO VESSELS,
AND WE NEEDED 125 FOR PIPING, VALVES AND THE PERMIT PRICE, WHICH IS WHERE I CAME UP WITH THE 600,000. 
          I TALKED TO TC ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AGO, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT 85% OF THE TYPE ONE ON CONVERSIONS THAT ARE NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE USING THESE VESSELS. 
          THEY'RE CHEAP AND THE THEY'RE THEY'RE ALMOST MAINTENANCE FREE IN THE OPERATORS LOVE THEM. 
          THEY DON'T BREAK. AND IT'S A QUICK PATCH TO GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO NOW MAYBE LONG
TERM. 
          WHEN WE GO TO 2.7 WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO DO A CONCRETE STRUCTURE,
BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT. 
          THE BIGGEST IMPORT ABOUT THESE TWO STEEL VESSELS IS THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE PLASTIC
GOING LEAVING THE SEWER PLANT. 
          YOU ARE IN A UNIQUE POSITION WHERE YOU'RE BUILDING PONTOON. 
          IT HAS NO PLASTIC IN IT. YOU'RE GOING TO REBUILD POND 17. 
          IT HAS NO PLASTIC IN IT. YOU'RE GOING TO REBUILD THE ENTIRE LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING AUTOMATING WHAT I USED TO IRRIGATE WITH GARDEN HOSES WHEN I HAD TO DURING WET
WEATHER. 
          AND THOSE SPRINKLER HEADS HAVE NO PLASTIC IN THEM. 
          TO ME, I WOULD GO AND GET THOSE TYPE ONE FILTERS AND PUT THEM IN BEFORE POND THREE TWO IS
BROUGHT INTO SERVICE AND YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO CONTAMINATE EVERYTHING THAT WAS PRISTINE AND FOR A
MILLION AND A HALF BUCKS, EVEN IF IT GOES TO 1,000,005, IT'S GOING TO START BACKING OFF IN THE LABOR YOU'RE NOT
SPENDING CLEANING ALL YOUR BRAND NEW IRRIGATION HEADS TO GET ALL THAT PLASTIC OUT OF IT. SO AND WITH SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO IRRIGATE AREAS THAT WON'T BE IN YOUR 305 PERMIT,
BUT ALL OF THE BALL FIELDS ARE IN THE 210. 
          LIKE I SAID, ALL THE MEDIANS ALONG HIGHLAND LAKES ALL THE MEDIANS ALONG DORN DRIVE BARK
R.K. 
          PARK. WE LISTED EVERY FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD IRRIGATE IN THAT
210. 
          AND THE PROBLEM BECOMES THE DISTRIBUTION TO GET IT THERE. 
          THAT'S SO EXPENSIVE. IT'S ALSO EXPENSIVE TO APPLY FOR A 210,
A PERMIT FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU FORGOT TO ADD. 
          YEAH, WE WE WE DON'T EXPECT YOU TO IRRIGATE THEM. 
          WE SIMPLY TRIED TO SAVE YOU THE MONEY BY SAYING YOU CAN IRRIGATE IT. 
          YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO IRRIGATE ALL THAT PROPERTY FOR OVER TEN YEARS. 
          YOU HAD A QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT POND 14,
BUT IT TRANSITIONS ALSO INTO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 
          AM I OKAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT? PART OF LARGER. 
          YEAH. SO I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, I THINK,
AS YOU WERE, THAT WE WERE GOOD ON POND SPACING. 
          I TODAY WAS THE FIRST I HEARD THAT WE NEED MAYBE 40 MORE ACRE FEET. 
          RIGHT. I ALSO HOLD THE OPINION THAT THE BEST LIKELY SPOT FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY
IS AT POND 14. 
          OKAY. I'VE WALKED IT. I'VE SEEN IT. KIND OF LOOKED AT HOW THAT WOULD BE DONE. 
          WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO MY ORIGINAL CONCERN WAS WHEN WE GAVE LES HILL DIRECTION. 
          AND THERE'S A QUESTION HERE FOR YOU, BY THE WAY THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION THAT WE KIND OF LED
LES HILL DOWN WAS THAT WE WANTED A PUMP AT POND 14 TO DISTRIBUTE WATER FOR THAT ADDITIONAL EXPANSION THERE. 
          LES HILL CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, LET'S JUST KEEP IT AT POND TWO. 
          [02:25:03]
AND THEN POND 14 IS GOING TO BE A STAGNANT POND,
WHICH IS ONLY GOING TO BE AERATED, AND NOTHING'S EVER GOING TO LEAVE IT. 
          RIGHT. BASICALLY MAKING THAT A EVAPORATION ONLY POND. 
          RIGHT. IF AND I KNOW NOBODY CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS
GOING TO SAY, BUT IF TC DOES COME BACK AND SAY YOU NEED AN ADDITIONAL 40 ACRES. 
          AND COUNCIL SAYS, WELL, THE BEST SPOT FOR THAT IS ON 14. 
          DOES THAT CHANGE OUR MINDSET WITH HOW WE HANDLE A PUMP AT POND 14? RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM THAT'S GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. 
          WHEREAS IF WE DO UTILIZE POND 14, WE LIKELY WOULD NEED A PUMP TO DISTRIBUTE WATER. 
          SO LET ME LET ME TELL YOU THIS. WHEN YOU PUT A PIPE IN,
WATER FLOWS BOTH WAYS. 
          IF YOU CAN PUT WATER INTO THAT POND, YOU CAN BACK YOU CAN SEND IT BACK TO POND 17. 
          SO YES, IT WILL COUNT FOR YOUR STORAGE. RIGHT NOW,
THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS WE PUSH SURPLUS WATER TO THE CEDAR BREAKS POND. IN THE WINTER, AND IN THE SUMMER WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF BRINGING IT BACK SO WE
DON'T HAVE TO BUY RAW WATER TO PUT ON THE GOLF COURSE. 
          WE WE, JACK. WE CAN JACK WATER BETWEEN ALL THESE PONDS AT WILL,
BUT LCRA PAID FOR THE GRANT TO CONNECT TO CEDAR BREAKS BACK TO 17. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW, ON 14, YOU HAVE A VIABLE SUCTION LINE. 
          I WOULD BUILD THE PUMP. I WOULD BUILD THE PUMP HOUSE AND HOOK IT TO THE CURRENT SUCTION
LINE AT 14. 
          YOUR BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH USING THE PONTOON,
THE PONTOON PUMP LIKE THAT, IS THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SUPER BIG TO GET THE SPRINKLER HEADS TO WORK ON 14. 
          IT'S IT'S HIGHER UP FRONT COST, HIGHER MAINTENANCE COST,
AND A HUGE ELECTRIC BILL. 
          BY HAVING HAVING TWO SMALLER STATIONS, YOUR PAYBACK IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE 5 TO 7 YEARS. 
          AND THEN THE SAVINGS START AFTER THAT. SO SO FOR CLARIFICATION THERE THERE IS GOING TO BE
A BOOSTER PUMP AT POND 14. 
          BUT THERE'S NOT BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY WATER OUT OF POND 14. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONSIDERATION FOR NEEDING TO USE POND 14 FOR
A ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY? DO WE NEED TO POTENTIALLY RETHINK THE WAY THAT WE'RE DESIGNING THE SPRINKLER
SYSTEM? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S UNDER THE DESIGN PHASE. RIGHT. 
          DO WE NEED TO RETHINK THAT TO CONSIDER INSTEAD OF HAVING BOOSTER PUMP ONLY ACTUALLY GOING
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD OF HAVING A SECONDARY PRIMARY PUMP, I WITH THE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, THE AMOUNT OF HEAD BETWEEN POND. 
          FAIRWAY 14 AND THE FIRST. FAIRWAY ONE AND TWO. 
          ABSOLUTELY. THE THE YOU WOULDN'T BE HAVING ALL THE LEAKS ON THE LOWER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
RIGHT NOW IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE POND 17 PUMPS IRRIGATING POND OF THE UPPER 1415 AREA. 
          SO. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR DOWN THAT ROAD. 
          SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE FIXED BY CHECK VALVES,
PRESSURE REDUCERS AND THE BOOSTER PUMP ONLY FOR THE UPPER PORTION. 
          BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE GETTING PAST THE DESIGN. YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF HAVING A MORE ROBUST
PUMP BEYOND A ACTUALLY TAKING WATER OUT OF PUMP 14 RATHER THAN JUST BEING A STAGNANT POND. I WOULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
CONNECTED BY A CLOSED VALVE THAT I COULD OPEN IF I HAD A SOMETHING FRIED BY AN ELECTRICAL STRIKE. 
          BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO PUMPS AT BOTH PUMP STATIONS,
AND YOUR FINAL BACKUP IS THAT YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO IRRIGATE THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE WITH THE POND 17 PUMP. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DOUBLE REDUNDANCY FOR BOTH PUMP STATIONS,
LONG RANGE TO PROTECT YOUR GRASS I WOULD DO TWO PUMP STATIONS. 114 ONE TWO. YEAH, I WANT TO BRING IT BACK IN,
JUST FOR CLARITY. 
          YEAH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK,
DAVE. 
          OKAY. VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND TAKING THE QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. BRAIN TRUST. HERE'S FIGURING OUT I THINK IT SHOULD COME BACK FOR
MOTION. 
          AND HOPEFULLY IT'S GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. 
          YEAH, I THINK TABLE IT. GIVE THIS GENTLEMAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH HIS,
HIS, HIS TEAM. 
          AND IN THE MEANTIME, DIRECT STAFF TO GO TALK TO FREESE NICHOLS AND SEE WHAT THEY KNOW. 
          THAT'S IT. YEAH. AND DAVE CAN SEND MORE EMAILS. 
          THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. LET'S SAY WE DETERMINE THAT WE'RE REALLY ONLY AT 65%. 
          [02:30:03]
RIGHT NOW IT'S MR.. MAYOR. IT'S A LEVER THAT GOT PULLED. 
          YAY. THAT MAKES YOUR YOUR CHART THAN IT IS TODAY. 
          CAN WE I KEEP REFERRING TO YOU. HIM? I FORGET YOUR NAME. 
          JEFF. YEAH. AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY,
BUT AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS, ONCE YOU GUYS GO AND SOLICIT I GUESS A PROPOSAL FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS THAT THAT WE HAVE
TO BOW OUT COMPLETELY. 
          AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FOR FOR STATE LAW. SO FOR ME,
I GUESS IF I COULD TALK TO TO MY TEAM AND THEN WE CAN, I GUESS, COME BACK TO YOU GUYS, AND THEN FROM THERE,
WE CAN DECIDE IF WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE THEN. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN RUN IN PARALLEL, SO I CAN APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THEN I THINK I WOULD JUST CLARIFY THAT THE DIRECTION THE STAFF WOULD BE,
REACH OUT TO SEE IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN HAVING AN ADDITIONAL TALKING ABOUT IT FURTHER. 
          SO I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE AND BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IT IS
THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND TAKE A VOTE ON IT. 
          YES, SIR. NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE OTHER COMPANIES RUNNING IN PARALLEL SINCE THE CONTENTION
SEEMS TO BE AROUND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BASINS. 
          COULD WE HAVE, LIKE, A A UT ENGINEERING SCHOOL,
GIVE US A SECOND OPINION ON THE BASINS. 
          I MEAN, THEY WORK ON ENGINEERING, AND THAT'S NOT A DIRECT COMPETITION TO YOURS. 
          SURE. AND YOU COULD YOU COULD BRING ON I MEAN,
YOU COULD BRING ON AN OWNER'S ADVISOR. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU COULD BRING ON A NICHOLAS TO TO HAVE THEIR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LOOK AT IT
AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ULTIMATELY BE A THIRD PARTY CHECKER. 
          BUT IF YOU ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE PRICING ON THE SAME SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE WERE SUBMITTED, AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING OF STATE LAWS AND YOU GUYS HAVE,
YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE'VE REACHED AN IMPASSE, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE TO BOW OUT AND YOU GUYS HAVE TO,
YOU KNOW, GO THAT PATH. 
          AND MAYBE WE CONSIDER THAT FOR SEPARATE SCOPE,
LIKE I SAID, A THIRD PARTY OPINION ON THE BASINS AND SEE IF THERE'S A REHAB OPTION OR WHAT OUR FULL RISK IS OF NOT COMPLETELY DEMOLISHING AND REBUILDING THEM. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. VERY GOOD. WELL. 
          YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. JUST FOR INFORMATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A STUDY DONE IN
SOMEWHERE IN OUR ARCHIVES OF COMPUTER STUFF. AND I'M GOING TO LOOK AT DAVE RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE IS A STUDY ON THOSE BASINS THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY HOLD TILL 2033. 
          IS THAT AM I RIGHT ON THAT? I DON'T THINK THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO LAST THAT LONG. 
          OKAY. SO ATTENTION. SO I'M LOOKING FOR LOVERS. 
          HE GAVE A PRETTY GOOD HISTORY. WE HAD A CAST. 
          WE FILLED IT WITH TEN CONCRETE TRUCKLOADS OF GROUT WHICH WERE RATED TO SUPPORT THE BASIN. 
          THE PROJECT ENGINEER MADE A DECISION WITHOUT CONTACTING AND EQUIPPED AND RAISED A PLANT
11FT OUT OF THE GROUND. 
          SO WHEN I FILLED IT, WE CRACKED IT IN 53 PLACES. 
          AND WE HAD LEAKS AND THE BUTTRESSES WORKED AND THE SPACE SHUTTLE STUFF WE PUT ON THE
CLARIFIER WORK. 
          SO TO CERTIFY THE REPAIRS, WE HAD A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN 2002,
CAME IN AND WROTE A REPORT THAT HE WOULD GUARANTEE A SERVICE LIFE OF 25 YEARS, WHICH ENDS IN 2027. 
          AND HE SAID AT THAT TIME, THE CITY SHOULD START CONSIDERING REPLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURES. 
          AND IN HIS HONEST OPINION, THE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SHOULD BE IN PLACE NO LATER THAN 2035. 
          NOW, THAT'S A 23 YEAR OLD STUDY, AND EVIDENTLY THEY SEEM TO LOOK OKAY,
AND HIS ESTIMATES ARE PROBABLY GOOD. BUT THIS THESE STRUCTURES IN THE GROUND SHOULD HAVE LASTED 50 YEARS. 
          THE TCDC REQUIRES US TO BUILD FOR 50 YEARS. BUT LIKE THE LIKE HE SAID,
YOU KNOW, 40 YEARS, WE START WORRYING A WHOLE BUNCH, AND THAT'S WHEN WE START THE TO REPLACE. 
          BUT YEAH, I THINK YOU COULD PUSH IT OUT. I'M GETTING A HYBRID BETWEEN THESE TWO PLANS AND
AND CHANGING DIRECTION A LITTLE BIT. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE COULD EVENTUALLY GET I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 1.5 WHEN WE COULD PUT
THAT ONE VESSEL, CONCRETE VESSEL IN THE GROUND AND GET A 2.0 RATING,
YOU KNOW THAT WE COULD CONTROL AND IT WOULD GIVE US THE BACKUP THAT WE NEED. BUT IF, IF, IF WE DO LOSE, IF WE DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF MAKING ONE MGD AND WE
DO LOSE THE VESSEL BEFORE. WE CAN ALWAYS, LIKE YOU SAID,
BRING IN A PACKAGE PLANT. 
          THEY'RE THEY'RE PRETTY CHEAP TO RENT. I MEAN,
THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT THAT EXPENSIVE. 
          OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED. THANK YOU. THANKS,
DAVE. 
          OKAY. WELL, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION ON 11.6 SHAUN. 
          [02:35:05]
CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR SUGGESTION AGAIN? RESTATE IT. 
          STAFF EXPLORE A THIRD PARTY OPINION OF THE BASINS AND TABLE UNTIL OUR NEXT CITY COUNCIL
MEETING IN OCTOBER. I WOULD PUT IT FURTHER. I THINK COUNCILOR SUGGESTED NOVEMBER. 
          HOW ABOUT MID-NOVEMBER? SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER? OH, YEAH. OF COURSE. WELL, I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN OFFICIAL MOTION,
SO SOMEONE. 
          SO I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
REACH OUT TO UT AND GET A WHAT WAS THE REST OF IT? ANY THIRD PARTY THAT COULD LOOK AT THE BASINS AS,
LIKE YOU SAID, I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR MISTER ROBERTS. THANK YOU. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL A SECOND. A SECOND BY MR. PSALM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I WOULD JUST ASK FOR STAFF COMMENT. 
          ARE THEY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR? MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER
ENGINEERING FIRM TO JUST LOOK AT THE STRUCTURAL REVIEW OF THIS. AND IN THE MEANTIME,
WE WILL FIND THAT 2002 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORT SOMEWHERE. 
          AND I'D ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSITIES,
TOO, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A CHEAPER OPTION, POSSIBLY THE THE CROCKER SCHOOL OR KRAKEN, WHATEVER AT UT COCKRELL. YEAH, THEY'RE PRETTY WELL KNOWN. 
          AND JUST I JUST WANT TO ADD, JEFF, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING. 
          I BELIEVE YOU GUYS HAVE OPERATED ABOVE BOARD,
BUT IT'S IT'S OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITIZENS TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE DEAL WE CAN. AND THAT MEANS SPENDING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE,
BUT GETTING IT DONE CORRECTLY, TOO. 
          THANK YOU. UNDERSTOOD. AND THANK YOU. AND I THINK,
WELL, IT'S NOT PART OF THE MOTION. 
          WE'RE HIGHLY ENCOURAGING, JEFF, TO GO BACK TO HIS FIRM TO LOOK AT PRICING AND COME BACK TO
US WITH ANY OPTIONS FOR DECREASING. 
          RIGHT. EXCELLENT. OKAY. SO THE STAFF IS GOING TO BASICALLY INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THERE'S A REUSE POSSIBILITY OR WHETHER WE'VE GOT TO TO RIP THIS OUT AND DO THIS MAJOR
CHANGE AS IT IS PROPOSED TODAY. 
          AND I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR STAFF TO TRY AND DETERMINE IS TIMING. 
          TIMING, EXACTLY. DO WE NEED TO DO THIS CONSTRUCTION,
YOU KNOW, STARTING TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THE DESIGN IS DONE OR YEAR WHATEVER? OR CAN WE WAIT 4 OR 5 YEARS BEFORE WE NEED TO START CONSTRUCTION? I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. THAT'S GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. AGREED. OKAY. SO I JUST A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT. 
          I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE EXPLORATION, TOO,
OF WHAT DAVE WAS TALKING ABOUT. 
          I WAS ON THE TYPE ONE. THESE VESSELS, IF YOU GUYS COULD LOOK INTO WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE AND
WHAT THOSE COST. 
          YEAH, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT. 
          WHAT AREAS COULD BE EASILY IRRIGATED OR USED WITH THAT TYPE ONE? I MEAN, I KNOW WE CAN ALL TALK ABOUT 50 DIFFERENT PARKS,
BUT THEY MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE. 
          SO WHAT? BUT WHAT WHAT ACREAGE CAN REALISTICALLY BE EXPANDED TO TYPE ONE WITH TYPE ONE. 
          WE'LL WE'LL MAKE SUNSET PARK. I'LL MAKE THE SOCCER FIELD INTO A HAY FIELD. 
          SO. OKAY. OKAY. I BELIEVE WE'VE GIVEN STAFF ADEQUATE DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. 
          SO I STILL HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS AND A SECOND BY MR. SOM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          I TELL YOU WHAT, AFTER THAT LITTLE BIT OF FUN,
I'M GOING TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS OF FIVE MINUTES FOR A BIO BREAK AND THEN COME BACK. 
          AND I'M GOING TO QUESTION WHO WE HAVE OUT HERE. 
          WHO WANTS TO TALK AND WHICH ITEM WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP NEXT. 
          WE ARE RECONVENING FROM RECESS AT 5:49 P.M.,
AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP WORK SESSION. 
          [X.1. Discussion on short term rental (STR) ordinance.]
ITEM NUMBER ONE 10.1 DISCUSSION ON SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. 
          AND I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MR. BENNEFIELD. I THINK THIS WAS YOUR ITEM AND LET YOU
INTRODUCE IT FOR US. 
          LET ME JUST PULL IT UP HERE, SIR. SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO PROBLEM. 
          WHERE'S OURS? I CAN GET THAT. WE GOT PLENTY. CAN I GO GET MY PARKS DIRECTOR? THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE CAME FROM. SO I THINK SHORT TERM RENTALS HAS BEEN A TOPIC
OF DISCUSSION IN LAGO VISTA FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 
          PREVIOUSLY, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TOOK A HARD,
LONG LOOK AT WHAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND. 
          [02:40:04]
OVER THAT TIME PERIOD, WE'VE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FROM CITY,
CITY STAFF, CITY COUNCIL, AND MOST RECENTLY MR. BULLOCK PROVIDED A RESOLUTION THAT WAS DRAFTED BY THEIR LAW FIRM FOR
A CITY IN OKLAHOMA. AND AT THE SAME TIME THIS YEAR, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA PURCHASED SOME SOFTWARE THAT WOULD HELP TRACK SHORT TERM RENTAL USAGE WITHIN THE CITY. 
          A REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED JUST TODAY SHOWS THAT THERE IS 221 ACTIVE STR OWNERS IN THE CITY
OF LAGO VISTA. BUT THE SOFTWARE HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE 173 ACTIVE STRS WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMITTING OR LICENSING,
SO ALMOST NEARLY 40% OF ALL STR OWNERS IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA ARE OPERATING WITHOUT EVER HAVING AN INSPECTION,
WITHOUT EVER PAYING THEIR PERMIT FEES, AND LIKELY WITHOUT EVER PAYING ANY TAXES. AND THAT WAS REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THE CITY. 
          SPENDING THE $30,000 A YEAR ON THE SOFTWARE IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE WERE MISSING OUT ON
ALMOST $500,000 OF HOT FUNDS ANNUALLY, JUST BASED ON NON-COMPLIANT STR OWNERS. 
          AND SO THE SOFTWARE'S LIVE NOW. BUT IN ORDER TO REALLY GIVE THAT SOFTWARE SOME TEETH,
WE NEED TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT CAN BASICALLY SAY WHAT PROCESSES NEED TO BE IN PLACE, SUCH AS IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FEE? WHAT'S THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? IS THERE ANNUAL RENEWAL FEES LIKE RIGHT NOW? IF YOU PAY FOR AN STR PERMITS AND YOU GET YOUR INSPECTION,
THAT PERMIT IS THERE INDEFINITELY AND THERE'S NO WAY TO THERE'S NO WAY TO LOSE IT OTHER THAN SELL THE PROPERTY. AND SO I WENT AND JUST SPOKE TO JILLIAN,
BECAUSE YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE A DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF STR OWNERS IN LAGO VISTA. 
          AND SO I ASKED HER IF THE PERMIT NEVER EXPIRES. 
          HOW DOES THAT NUMBER GO DOWN? AND THE ANSWER IS PEOPLE SELL. 
          AND WHEN THEY SELL, THE NEW OWNERS DON'T MAKE IT AN STR. 
          SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING A DECREASE IN STR OWNERS IS I'M SURE THE MARKET'S DIFFICULT. 
          THEY'RE NO LONGER WANTING THAT HOME. SO THEY'RE SELLING THEM. 
          AND SO WE'RE SEEING THAT THAT DECLINE. SO THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK SESSION IS TO CODIFY A
LONG TERM ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HELP THE CITY DO THE PROPER INSPECTIONS, COLLECT THE INITIAL PERMIT FEES ENSURE SAFETY WHEN
POSSIBLE, BUT PUT MANAGEMENT WHERE WE CAN HAVE LIKE A MANAGER ON CALL 24 OVER SEVEN. 
          SO IF THERE IS A NOISE COMPLAINT OR IF THERE ARE PARKING ISSUES THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY TO
CONTACT TO HELP MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES AND THEN ANNUAL INSPECTIONS OR ANNUAL PERMITS, RENEWALS. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY IT. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY MAKING SURE THE CITY IS COLLECTING THOSE HOT
FUNDS SO THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS. 
          I BASICALLY TOOK MR. BULLOCK'S DRAFT FOR OKLAHOMA AND PERSONALIZED IT TO LAGO VISTA. 
          AND THE GOAL TODAY IS TO TO TO TALK THROUGH THAT,
FIGURE OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED, AND THEN HOPEFULLY AT THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, EARLY NOVEMBER, BRING FORTH AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE TO BE CODIFIED BEFORE THIS COUNCIL CHANGES
IN THE SECOND MEETING OF NOVEMBER. 
          THANK YOU SIR. MR.. THANK YOU MAYOR. YEAH, I THINK THAT I GO BACK TO I THINK WE HAD THIS
CONVERSATION A YEAR AGO, OR MAYBE IT WAS NINE MONTHS, WHATEVER IT WAS. BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SOFTWARE AND
WE HAD ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT UP AN ORDINANCE, AND WE WENT THROUGH A COUPLE VERSIONS OF IT AND EDITS, AND THAT'S WHEN WE DECIDED THAT ONE,
WE WERE GOING TO FAR. 
          WE WERE PUTTING A LOT OF LEGAL RISK, BUT TWO,
I MEAN, WE REALIZED WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES YOU IN LARGO TO GET A PERMIT. 
          WE DO HAVE ENFORCEMENT ON THE BOOKS FOR EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS NOISE,
TRASH, PARKING, YOU NAME IT, ALL THOSE THINGS. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY. 
          CURRENTLY YOU ALREADY ARE REQUIRED TO PAY YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES. 
          THERE ARE ALREADY PENALTIES IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES. 
          I BELIEVE IT GOES UP. YOUR FEE IS 5%. AND ADDITIONALLY IT KEEPS CONTINUES TO GO UP MORE
AND MORE. 
          THAT'S ALREADY SPELLED OUT IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. BUT WHAT WE HAD SAID A YEAR AGO WAS, OKAY, WELL, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF DATA TO SUPPORT A FULL ON ORDINANCE. 
          LIKE, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? WHERE'S THE DATA THAT PROVES IT? SO
WE SAID, ALL RIGHT, GET THE SOFTWARE. LET'S GET THE SOFTWARE LIVE. 
          [02:45:01]
THE SOFTWARE IS GOING TO TELL US HOW MANY STARS THERE ARE,
HOW MANY ISSUES WE'RE HAVING WITH THEM, WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUES, WHO ARE THE PROBLEM? CHILDREN. AND WE NEVER GOT THAT. 
          SO I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS JUST RECENTLY GONE LIVE. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST REPORT THAT ANY OF US HAVE EVER SEEN FROM IT. 
          WE JUST GOT IT. YOU KNOW, TODAY AFTER WE WERE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          SO IT'S A GOOD START. BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE A YEAR LATER THAN I WAS THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET INFORMATION FROM. 
          SO I SAY ALL THAT JUST TO SAY I THINK THAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAD CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE
GOING TO DO A DEEP DIVE AND GET DATA AND BACK UP AN ORDINANCE WITH REAL INFORMATION THAT WAS OUT THERE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD THAT YET. 
          I THINK WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. WE'RE JUMPING BACK TO THE AUDIENCE
INSTEAD OF JUMPING TO THE DATA. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO SEE STAFF COME TO US WITH A COUPLE MORE DATA POINTS TO SHOW US. 
          HOW MANY STARS ARE THERE? HOW MANY HAS THE SOFTWARE TOLD US THAT THERE AREN'T ANY MORE? I
KNOW IN HERE IT SAYS SOMETHING. I THINK IT SAID 500 516 ESTIMATED PROPERTIES. I WOULD LIKE US TO GO THROUGH THAT MORE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT DONE TO IMPROVE WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH
THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING WITH STRS? I THINK I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK CHIEF TO COME UP HERE IF THEY
HAVE DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT GOING AFTER STR, SPECIFICALLY ON NOISE AND PARKING AND THOSE ISSUES. 
          ARE WE SEEING HOMES THAT ARE NOT STRS HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS? ARE WE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE? I DID HEAR FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT LIVE ON THE
ISLAND. 
          THAT'S WHERE I LIVE. SO OF COURSE I WOULD HEAR FROM THEM. THEY REACHED OUT TO AIRBNB,
SO I REACHED OUT TO AIRBNB'S LOBBYIST BECAUSE I KNOW THEM AIRBNB HAD ISSUES WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. THE MAIN ISSUES WERE THEY THINK THAT THE FEE WAS TOO HIGH. 
          THE FEE HAS TO BE PER STATE LAW. FOR COST RECOVERY. 
          SO I'D LOVE TO SEE STAFF PUT TOGETHER AN OFFICIAL MEMO OF SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THIS COST
THAT WE PUT IN THERE IS MEETING THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. 
          THERE ARE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THEY CLAIM TO ME THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIGHT THE 24 OVER
SEVEN REQUIREMENT WITH ONE HOUR RESPONSE TIME AS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN UPHOLD BECAUSE YOU DON'T REQUIRE OTHER BUSINESSES TO HAVE 24 OVER SEVEN CUSTOMER SERVICE. 
          THEY BALKED AT THE THE FEE COULD BE UP TO $2,000. 
          I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED ALREADY HERE, THOUGH,
THAT WE DO HAVE OTHER ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS THAT YOU COULD HAVE A FEE UP TO $2,000. 
          SO THAT WAS MAYBE NOT A BIG ISSUE. BUT ANYWAYS,
ALL THAT TO SAY IS I THINK WE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THE WORK THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO IN THE MEANTIME, AND WE'VE JUST JUMPED BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE
STAFF DO A LITTLE MORE COMPREHENSIVE DEEP DIVE, AND AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM CHIEF HERE TONIGHT. 
          I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I HEAR FROM CITIZENS IS WHEN THEY HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH
STRS. 
          WHAT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT DOING ABOUT IT? AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR IF YOU GUYS HAVE IMPLEMENTED
ANYTHING NEW. 
          IF YOU HAVE, I KNOW YOU GUYS INSTALLED SOME SORT OF DATA OR SOME NEW SOFTWARE IN THE PAST
YEAR WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO MORE EASILY TRACK AND REPORT THINGS. 
          HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN ABLE TO SPELL OUT STRS ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS? NO, SIR. PART OF THE ISSUE AGAIN, MOST OF OUR SCHOOLS,
A LOT OF TIMES OCCUR ON WEEKENDS. 
          THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET ARE COMING IN AT NIGHTS. WE HAVE ROTATED OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS TO WHERE THEY'RE COVERING MORE SHIFTS ON THE WEEKENDS. 
          THEIR ORIGINAL SCHEDULE WAS SIMILAR TO THE CITY SCHEDULE HERE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. 
          A LOT OF THE LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS COME IN ON,
LIKE, SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, NOT THROUGH DISPATCH. 
          ANY COMPLAINTS THAT COME INTO THE DISPATCH AN OFFICER OR CODE ENFORCEMENT IS IS,
DISPATCHED TO EVERY SINGLE CALL. 
          SOMEBODY WANTS TO FILE A COMPLAINT. SO I THINK MAYBE SOME EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT AVENUE TO FILE COMPLAINTS. 
          AND THEN JUST FOLLOWING UP WITH THE PATROL OFFICERS THAT ARE GETTING COMPLAINTS AT NIGHT
TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY IN ENFORCING THE ORDINANCES AS WELL, VERSUS WAITING FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND TRANSFERRING THE CALL
COMPLAINT TO THEM. 
          THEY COME IN MONDAY MORNING. THE TRAFFIC ISSUE IS GONE. 
          THE NOISE ISSUES GONE. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ACTING. 
          SO THEY FOLLOW UP WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GO TO THE SCENE,
THERE'S NO CARS PARKED THERE. 
          THERE'S NO MUSIC PLAYING. CONTACT THE COMPLAINANT BACK AND SAY,
WELL IT WAS OVER THE WEEKEND. 
          SO PART OF THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO WITH REARRANGING SCHEDULES,
REARRANGING SHIFTS. 
          AND AGAIN, EDUCATING PATROL ABOUT WHAT THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENFORCING
ORDINANCES ARE AS WELL. 
          AND WHEN YOU'RE. I MEAN, IT'S ALL OF YOU. IT'S NOT JUST CODE ENFORCEMENT,
RIGHT? LIKE YOUR GUYS THAT GO OUT THERE, DO THEY ASK,
LIKE, IS THIS A SHORT TERM RENTAL? ARE YOU RENTING? ARE YOU A HOMEOWNER? I MEAN,
DO YOU GUYS BREAK IT DOWN LIKE THAT, OR ARE YOU JUST THERE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE? IF YOU HAPPEN TO GET THERE AND IT'S STILL GOING ON? I WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND
REVIEW VIDEO, THE BODY CAM VIDEO FOR ANY COMPLAINTS THAT THEY FOLLOWED UP. 
          AGAIN, EDUCATION AND, AND BASICALLY INSTRUCTION ON HOW THEY NEED TO HANDLE THOSE CALLS
WOULD RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, 
          [02:50:06]
LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THAT'S THE STEPS THEY NEED TO TAKE,
NOT JUST, HEY, TURN DOWN THE MUSIC OR MOVE THE VEHICLES. 
          IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE SYSTEMS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE REGISTERED. WHO THE ACTUAL
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS. 
          THANKS, FOR THAT MATTER. YES, SIR. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS CAPTURE THESE THINGS IN YOUR
MONTHLY REPORTS, BUT ARE YOU SEEING NOISE VIOLATIONS GO UP OR DOWN? AND I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THIS REPORT, WE'RE SEEING STARS POSSIBLY GO DOWN. 
          ARE YOU SEEING NOISE VIOLATIONS GO DOWN, OR IS IT STAYING STEADY OR INCREASING? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC I DON'T HAVE MY LAPTOP HERE WITH ME,
BUT WE DO. 
          YOU CAN PULL THAT. WE PULL ALL THE STATS I HAVE. 
          I HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY CALL OF NATURE EVERY INSTANT THAT WE RESPOND TO,
EVERY CALL THAT COMES IN TO DISPATCH. 
          AND I JUST HAVE TO COMPARE THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS. 
          BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN GET YOU, OKAY, I THINK,
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A WORKSHOP ITEM, SO IT'S GOING TO COME BACK. SO I THINK THAT'D BE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
IS I THINK THE DATA THAT YOU GUYS HAVE IS, IS SUPER HELPFUL TO THIS CONVERSATION. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU DELINEATE ANY REPORTS OF WHO'S IN SDR OR NOT, BUT THAT WAY WE COULD SEE MAYBE HOW MANY PROBLEM PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY
SPECIFICALLY NOISE COMPLAINTS AND PARKING COMPLAINTS. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE. AND UNLESS YOU GUYS THINK OF OTHERS,
I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT PEOPLE PROBABLY COMPLAIN MOST ABOUT. SO UNLESS YOU CAN THINK OF ANOTHER, I THINK THAT'S THE TWO SOMEONE TALKED ABOUT TRASH I GUESS. 
          TRASH, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW, THAT WOULD BE CALLED FOR THOSE. 
          BUT YEAH, NOTHING THAT SPECIFICALLY STANDS OUT IN THOSE COULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THE OTHER PART OF I GUESS, IS JUST, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I TALK TO STAFF ABOUT THIS, ALL THEY SAID THEY REALLY NEEDED WAS WE NEEDED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WERE DOING WITH THE INSPECTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT I HEARD FROM THE CITY
MANAGER AND WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL HERE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LIKE BASICALLY A SELF INSPECTION UNLESS YOU'RE A PROBLEM PROPERTY. AND THEY NEEDED TO HAVE US TELL THEM HOW LONG
YOU WANT THE TERMS ON THE PERMITS. 
          THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO THINGS THAT I HEARD STAFF ASK FOR. THIS ORDINANCE GOES QUITE A BIT
ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, AND I WOULD LIKE US TO GO BACK TO THE SHORTENED REQUEST. 
          THE STAFF IS ASKING US TO ADDRESS THOSE TWO THINGS,
AND THEN LET'S SPEND SOME TIME LETTING THE SOFTWARE DO WHAT IT DOES AND COLLECT THAT INFORMATION. I THOUGHT THIS SUGGESTED THE FIRST INSPECTION WOULD BE BY US,
BUT THEN AFTER THAT SELF INSPECTION DRIVE THAT WRONG? YES. WELL, IN THE DRAFT THAT MR. BULLOCK PRODUCED FOR OKLAHOMA,
IT WAS A CITY INSPECTION. 
          YEAH. HOWEVER THE LOOSENING OF THE REGULATIONS IN IN LAGO VISTA. 
          RIGHT NOW IT IS A PHYSICAL INSPECTION BY CODE ENFORCEMENT,
BUT IN THIS ORDINANCE, IT ACTUALLY LOOSENS THAT TO ALLOW THE FIRST ONE TO BE A SELF INSPECTION. SO IT ACTUALLY LOWERS THE STANDARD. 
          AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS, IF YOU START GETTING A LOT OF CALLS AND YOU GET BY,
YOU GET VIOLATIONS, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL INSPECTION AFTER THAT AT SOME POINT,
OR YOU LOSE THAT ABILITY TO SELF INSPECT WHEN YOU RENEW, OR THAT'S AN IDEA I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED. I MEAN,
I THINK IF THERE'S A IF, I THINK IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT REGARDING SAFETY,
YEAH, THEN THAT PROBABLY SHOULD WARRANT INSPECTION. 
          AND I GUESS FOR CHARLES, I MEAN IS IS THAT ACCURATE. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE HOPING FOR. BECAUSE I KNOW THE INSPECTIONS TAKE UP A LOT OF YOUR
STAFF TIME. AND YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SELF INSPECTION. BUT UPON ANY COMPLAINTS THEN A PHYSICAL INSPECTION
DONE BY THE INSPECTOR. 
          OKAY. ANY COMPLAINT BECAUSE, I MEAN, I THINK LIKE A A NOISE COMPLAINT,
YOU'RE NOT GETTING A NOISE COMPLAINT. 
          BUT LIKE IF THEY SAY, HEY, LOOK, THIS PLACE WAS NASTY OR THERE'S 20 PEOPLE IN A ONE
BEDROOM, OR IF IT'S OVERCROWDED, THEN I THINK, OKAY. YES,
SIR. 
          I JUST WANT TO ADD SOME CLARITY. I I'VE STOOD WITH COUNCILOR SAM,
I THINK ON THIS TOPIC. 
          I MEAN, I, I'VE BEEN A PROPONENT AGAINST THE SDR ORDINANCES THAT HAVE TALKED ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, REGULATING HOW MANY CAN BE IN THE CITY, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO THIS. 
          I MEAN, I'VE BEEN A PROPONENT THAT YOU HAVE TO TREAT STR OWNER PROPERTIES THE SAME AS YOU
DO LONG TERM RENTALS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF OWNER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. 
          YOU CAN'T TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO TREAT THEM THE SAME. 
          SO I WOULD JUST LET COUNCIL KNOW AND I WOULD LET YOU KNOW THOSE SITTING OUT HERE AND
LISTENING KNOW THAT IF YOU READ THIS ORDINANCE PAGE ONE SIMPLY IS DEFINITION. WHAT IS AN STR RIGHT. IT JUST JUST SAYS THIS IS WHAT AN SDR IS. 
          PAGE TWO JUST SAYS THAT IF YOU WANT TO OPERATE AN SDR,
YOU NEED TO GET A PERMIT. 
          AND THAT PERMIT IS VALID FROM JANUARY 1ST TO DECEMBER 31ST. 
          ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SECOND PAGE IS WHAT DO WE WANT ON THE APPLICATION? WE WANT YOUR NAME. YOU WANT YOUR ADDRESS. WE WANT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 
          WE WANT TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION. SO IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WE KNOW WHO TO
CONTACT. 
          WE WANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENT PLATFORMS LIKE YOUR ADVERTISING YOUR SDR ON SUCH AS VRBO AND
AIRBNB. 
          [02:55:06]
THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS A FEE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS YOUR INITIAL REGISTRATION AND YOUR ANNUAL
RENEWAL FEE. 
          I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THOSE SHOULD BE UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          THEY SEEM HIGH TO ME, BUT ALSO WE'RE SPENDING $30,000 A YEAR FOR 300 STR OWNERS,
SO THAT'S $100 A POP. 
          SO TO ASK SOMEONE TO SPEND 250 BUCKS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IS NOT UNREASONABLE,
YOU KNOW? BUT WE'LL LOOK AT THAT THEN THE THE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE NEXT PAGE,
IT TALKS ABOUT INSPECTIONS LIKE WHAT WE WANT TO SEE INCLUDED IN THAT INSPECTION. THINGS LIKE DO YOU HAVE SMOKE DETECTORS. 
          DO YOU HAVE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. DO YOU HAVE ADEQUATE EXIT? I MEAN, THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT ARE UNREASONABLE OR BURDENS THAT SHOULD BE THAT ARE
BEING PLACED. 
          IT SAYS IF YOU'RE AN EXISTING STORE OWNER, THAT YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY GRANDFATHERED IN,
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE INITIAL, THE INITIAL FEE, THAT YOU'LL BE GRANDFATHERED IMMEDIATELY INTO THE EXISTING. 
          IT GOES THROUGH SOME OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES,
LIKE MAKING SURE ALL YOUR ADVERTISEMENTS AND ALL YOUR LISTINGS HAVE YOUR PERMIT NUMBER. 
          AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IF YOU REQUIRE THAT,
THEN THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY AIRBNB THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. 
          THEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY COLLECT THOSE HOT FUNDS FOR YOU,
AND THEY WILL PAY THOSE HOT FUNDS AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN US AND THE OWNERS, RIGHT? JUST MAKES THINGS SUPER, SUPER EASY. 
          IT DOES TALK ABOUT THE 24 HOUR EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON WITH THE ONE HOUR NOTIFICATION. 
          I'M OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO THAT. IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT WE DO IN THE EVENT THAT YOU HAVE A
HABITUAL VIOLATOR, AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN THE EVENT OF THE CITY MANAGER NEEDING TO IMPOSE FINES. 
          SO THEY'RE THERE AND THAT'S IT. SO THERE'S NO LIKE LIKE THE THE INFORMATION THAT WE ASK
STAFF BEFORE WAS, IS CAN WE LIMIT HOW MANY STR OWNERS THERE ARE. 
          CAN WE SAY WE CAN ONLY HAVE SO MANY ON THE LAKE OR NOT? THE LAKE CAN WE. THAT WAS THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED ALL THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. 
          SO I JUST DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL STAFF INFORMATION. 
          WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TREATING LIKE WHEN WE SAY,
YOU KNOW, ASK THE CHIEF TO BRING BACK INFORMATION ABOUT NOISES. 
          IT REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON THIS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A NOISE VIOLATION,
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TREATED JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE CITY. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE A LONG TERM RENTAL.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A IF YOU HAVE A NOISE VIOLATION, THE POLICE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP AND WRITE YOU A TICKET. AND THERE'S JUST NOTHING HERE THAT
CHANGES ANY OF THAT. 
          SO I, I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED ADDITIONAL STAFF INPUT TO PUT THIS TOGETHER,
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DELINEATE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION ANYMORE. IF I COULD CLARIFY, PART OF MY ARGUMENT IS JUST THAT IT'S KIND OF SOMETHING THAT
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH CHARLES IS THE COUNCIL KEEPS PUTTING OUT ORDINANCES WHEN WE DON'T NEED ORDINANCES. LIKE A LOT OF THIS COULD BE DONE AS
ADMINISTRATIVELY WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOK. 
          THERE ALREADY IS A PERMIT, THERE IS AN APPLICATION,
THERE IS A DEFINITION. 
          THERE ARE NOISE VIOLATIONS. THESE ARE ALREADY COVERED. WE'RE BASICALLY DOUBLE TIMING IT
NOW DOING SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN HERE. 
          AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR US TO POSSIBLY JUST DO WHAT STAFF ALREADY ASKED US. 
          JUST TWEAK THE TWO THINGS AND GO FROM THERE. THIS IS SOMEWHAT OVERLAP OF WHAT WE ALREADY
HAVE, AND SOME IS OVERLAP OF DISCUSSIONS WE HAD BEFORE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. OKAY,
IF I COULD I'VE GOT A CITIZEN THAT HAS ASKED TO SPEAK. 
          HE'S BEEN SITTING THERE VERY PATIENTLY ALL AFTERNOON. 
          MR. WOOLLAM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND HAVE YOUR SAY,
YOUR PIECE. YEAH. THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          I'M NEW TO LEGO VISTA. I LOVE THIS PLACE AND I'M REALLY NEW TO LEGO VISTA. 
          I AM OPPOSED TO THE SDR ORDINANCE. AFTER HEARING THE LAST CONVERSATION,
I THINK YOU MAY NEED IT FOR SOME REVENUE, BUT I'M OPPOSED TO IT FOR SEVERAL REASONS. BUT IF WE BROKE DOWN STRS INTO FOUR THE
INTERESTED PARTIES INTO FOUR MAIN GROUPS. 
          YOU HAVE YOUR RESIDENTS, YOU HAVE YOUR SMALL BUSINESSES,
YOU HAVE INVESTORS, YOU HAVE YOUR VISITORS BRING IN A LOT OF REVENUE INTO THE CITY. 
          BUT SINCE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES, I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE RESIDENTS. 
          RIGHT? SO WHO MAKES UP THIS POOL OF RESIDENTS? IT'S YOUR RETIRED PEOPLE. IT'S YOUR DISABLED VETERANS. 
          IT'S YOUR FAMILIES WHO AREN'T TRYING TO RUN A BUSINESS. 
          BUT THEY MAY RENT OUT THEIR HOMES 4 OR 5 TIMES A YEAR TO HELP PUT THEIR KIDS IN COLLEGE,
TO HELP PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR HOMES, TO HELP PAY FOR MEDICAL BILLS. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS ORDINANCE,
I THINK IT'S A BURDEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE ANY STUDIES ON HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE ACTUALLY DOING THIS,
AND HOW DOES IT IMPACT THEM. 
          HAS ANYBODY SENT OUT SURVEYS? FIRST, THE INVESTOR,
RIGHT. 
          WE'RE LITERALLY TREATING A RESIDENT WHO IS PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON THEIR HOME AS IF
THEY'RE A MEDIUM OR LARGE BUSINESS NOW. 
          [03:00:04]
SO AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO IS IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE THAT SOURCE OF INCOME AWAY FROM
THEM FOR A PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN AND THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING TAXES ON. 
          SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT WE GATHER ENOUGH DATA AND THAT WE ALSO FOCUS ON THE ON THE
RESIDENTS AND ASK THEM, I MEAN, HAS ANYBODY HAVE WE DONE A SURVEY? DO WE KNOW HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE RENTING OUT
THREE TIMES, FOUR TIMES, FIVE TIMES A YEAR? THE ORDINANCE WHEN I READ IT,
IT LOOKS LIKE IT TARGETS OR MORE AIMS AT THE INVESTOR. 
          YOU COME IN AND YOU BUY 8 OR 9 UNITS OR FOUR UNITS,
AND YOU'RE RENTING THEM FULL TIME ALL THE TIME. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DO IT BECAUSE THEY NEED THE INCOME. 
          THEY'RE ON FIXED INCOME. AND THIS ORDINANCE,
I THINK IS TWO, TWO OF A BURDEN TO THEM. 
          IT'S TOO COMPLICATED. AND IT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE THEM NOT BRING IN THAT,
THAT MONEY THAT THEY GREATLY NEED. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. SIR. 
          CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. YEAH. MORE SPECIFICALLY WHAT? BECAUSE THIS IS A WORK SESSION. WE CAN TWEAK THIS. 
          YEAH, SURE. SO IF YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SOMETHING IN HERE THAT IS OVERLY BURDENSOME,
AS YOU SUGGEST, WILL YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY WHAT THAT IS? I MEAN,
THERE'S AN APPLICATION. 
          THERE'S A PERMIT TO ENSURE SAFETY. WHAT ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE IS OVERLY BURDENSOME. 
          I THINK THERE'S I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS. NOW,
I DIDN'T STUDY THIS THING RIGHT. 
          I LITERALLY GOT TO JUST READ IT. YEAH. BUT I THINK THE FINES ARE EXCESSIVE. 
          I THINK TRYING TO BE AVAILABLE IN 24 HOURS, OR IF SOMEBODY IS PLANNING BECAUSE IT IS THEIR
RESIDENCE, IT'S THEIR HOME. BUT IF I'M GOING TO RENT OUT A HOME AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE ON VACATION
AND RENT MY HOME, HOW COULD I BE AVAILABLE IN ANY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME? BUT NOW I'M IN VIOLATION. I THINK THE FINES ARE EXTREMELY HIGH,
AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OR THAT I'VE HEARD ON WHY DO WE NEED AN ORDINANCE? WE'VE ALREADY HAD. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ORDINANCES IN LAGO VISTA,
ALL THOSE THINGS ARE ADDRESSED. 
          I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE DUMPING TRASH EVERYWHERE. THEY CAN ALREADY GET IN TROUBLE. THEIR
PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THEY'RE THROWING PARTIES AND KEEPING THEIR NEIGHBORS UP, THEY CAN ALREADY GET IN TROUBLE. SO WHY PUT ANOTHER ORDINANCE ON THAT NOW? OUR RESIDENTS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, CAN I COMPLY WITH THIS? AND FOR MANY OF THEM ESPECIALLY, I FEEL THE RETIRED,
THE DISABLED THAT NEED THIS EXTRA INCOME, THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT. AND I THINK IT HURTS THEM. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. YEAH I GOT A FOLLOW UP QUESTION WITH YOU TOO. 
          I DID MISSPEAK EARLIER. THE STAFF SAID THE MINIMUM THINGS THEY WOULD WANT ARE THE TAKE
CARE OF THE TERMS OF HOW LONG THE PERMIT IS FOR. 
          THE INSPECTION PART. BUT ALSO THEY DID ACTUALLY ASK FOR A FEE INCREASE,
BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THAT WAS A MINIMUM NEEDED. SO ON THE I THINK YOU MADE A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRS. DO YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO
HAVING A SCALED SYSTEM OF THE FEES? RIGHT. IF YOU'RE A HEAVY STR USER, THEN MAYBE YOU GOT A HIGHER FEE. 
          IF YOU ARE A ONCE IN A OCCASIONAL, YOU KNOW,
THEN IT'S A IT'S A SMALLER. 
          YEAH, DEFINITELY. AND I THINK IT'S MUCH MORE FAIR SYSTEM. RIGHT. VERSUS I MEAN IF I WAS AN
INVESTOR AND I'M RUNNING 4 OR 5 AIRBNBS, I'M MOST LIKELY HAVE THE BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE STAFF TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. 
          BUT IF I'M THE SINGLE RESIDENT THAT'S TRYING TO RENT IT OUT 4 OR 5 TIMES A YEAR TO PUT MY
KIDS THROUGH COLLEGE OR TO HELP MAKE ENDS MEET. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE I SEE THAT ON THE ISLAND TO THE SOUTH,
THAT LEGAL CHANGE, IT CHARGING DIFFERENT FEES DEPENDING ON HOW OFTEN YOU BASED ON USAGE. 
          WHY WOULD IT NOT BE? SO YOU KNOW I THINK FEES ON I THINK FEES ON USAGE PROBABLY,
YOU KNOW, I MEAN BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT NECESSARY MIGHT BE I'D WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH. 
          BUT BUT YOU KNOW, THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STATE DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO DO. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T CHARGE CERTAIN KINDS OF FEES BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          RIGHT. THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE LAW, RIGHT? SO I NEED TO I NEED TO LOOK AND SEE THE DEGREE
TO WHICH SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT OVERLAP AND APPLY. 
          BUT THE I MEAN, JUST TO CLARIFY HERE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FINES,
THESE FINES THAT ARE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT WAS FOR A CITY IN OKLAHOMA. 
          SECONDLY, FINES FOR VIOLATIONS. THOSE ARE SET BY STATE LAW. 
          SO THE FACT THAT THAT FINE CAN GO UP TO $500 FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF OFFENSES,
AND $2,000 FOR OTHER KINDS OF OFFENSES. 
          THOSE ARE SET BY STATE LAW. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THAT SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS. 
          OKAY. COULD YOU BASE IT OFF OF. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE REPORT THAT THE NEW SOFTWARE,
WE GOT NEW SOFTWARE THAT TRACKS THESE. 
          IT SAYS HERE, LIKE SOME OF THE MOST ACTIVE HOSTS,
THIS ONE, GUYS MAKING UP TO $885,000 A YEAR. 
          COULD THE FEE BE COULD THEY BE BASED ON YOUR REVENUE? AGAIN, I'D WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS THAT LAW THAT THAT PROHIBITED CITIES FROM
FROM CHARGING BILLING FEES BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT THAT APPLICATION WOULD BE IN THIS CONTEXT. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID WHILE YOU ALL WERE UP HERE TALKING WAS I JUST RAN A
SEARCH ON WESTLAW FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL IN TEXAS AND FIFTH CIRCUIT. 
          AND IN THE JUST IN 2025, THERE ARE OVER LIKE 21 OR 22 DIFFERENT CASES. 
          [03:05:02]
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE VOLUME OF LITIGATION THAT IS STILL GOING ON. 
          SO THIS ORDINANCE IS ABOUT AS MINIMALLY RESTRICTIVE AS AS CAN BE. 
          AND THE PURPOSE OF AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS IS PRECISELY TO ADDRESS WHAT YOU JUST POINTED
OUT, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MAYBE 40%, 45% OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THEIR HOMES AS
STRS IN LAGO VISTA WHO ARE NOT PAYING TAXES, WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY LAW. THAT'S,
YOU KNOW, SO THE IDEA THAT THAT THAT INDIVIDUALS MIGHT NOT DO THIS BECAUSE, I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO PAY A TAX BY, YOU KNOW,
SO I MEAN, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CAPTURE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THEIR PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY, WHO ARE THEN OBLIGATED TO PAY TAXES THAT ARE ASSESSED BY STATE LAW,
NOT THE CITY OF VISTA. 
          SO YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DELTA BETWEEN THE PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHO ARE
REGISTERED AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THAT ARE APPARENTLY IDENTIFIED BY THAT SOFTWARE. THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO POINT OUT,
TOO, BECAUSE I DID HEAR FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE THAT WELL,
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. WELL, THAT'S ALREADY DECIDED. YOU ARE EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING IT. SO IF YOU HEAR THIS,
PAY IT, PAYING IT, IT'S IT. 
          IT'S JUST THROUGH THE BOOKING. YEAH. WHEN YOU WHEN YOU BOOK IT,
THE INDIVIDUAL BOOKING THE HOUSE OR FACILITY PAYS IT AND THEN THE INDIVIDUAL JUST RECEIVES THEIR PAYOUT AND THEN THAT MONEY GOES STRAIGHT TO THE CITY. 
          SO THIS IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE INDIVIDUAL. 
          AND REALLY WHAT IT DOES IS, IS YOU HAVE 173 PEOPLE THAT ARE OPERATING STRS,
NOT PAYING THE TAXES. 
          YOU HAVE 221 PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING TAXES. AND SO WHEN YOU COMPARE THOSE PEOPLE SIDE BY
SIDE, I CAN STAY AT AN UNREGULATED HOUSE FOR CHEAPER THAN I CAN AT THE REGULATED HOUSE,
AND THAT PUTS THE PERSON THAT'S RUNNING THEIR BUSINESS CORRECTLY AT AN UNFAIR DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY. AND ONE PARTICULAR QUESTION I HAVE FOR
YOU IS I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT OPERATING SHORT, LIKE, MAYBE ONLY 3 OR 4 TIMES A YEAR VERSUS EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          BUT I ALSO ASK, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO RUN A BUSINESS FOR BREAKFAST ONLY
VERSUS BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND DINNER, WOULD I WANT THE HEALTH MEASUREMENTS TO CHANGE? WOULD I WANT SAFETY MEASUREMENTS TO CHANGE WHAT I WANT? FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? WOULD I STILL WANT THAT ESTABLISHMENT TO BE PERMITTED AND INSPECTED,
AND TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE PAYING ALL THEIR LEGITIMATE FEES? JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE OPERATING FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT
STANDARDS THAT AN ESTABLISHMENT MUST FOLLOW. 
          AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH, I JUST I JUST DON'T THINK THAT SAYING,
HEY, I'M OPEN ONE HOUR A DAY VERSUS I'M OPEN 24 HOURS A DAY IS A VIABLE ARGUMENT TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD PAY THE FEE OF OWNING A BUSINESS. 
          I THINK HIS POINT AND MY POINT EARLIER, THOUGH,
WAS THAT I DON'T THINK THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE DOES ANYTHING TO CHANGE THOSE. I MEAN, YOU STILL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING YOUR HOT FUNDS TODAY. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE FIRE. YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE
FIRE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THOSE THINGS. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS CHANGING ANY OF THAT. THE COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE IS I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT IT
BEING LEGAL OR NOT. 
          AS FAR AS DISCRIMINATING ON FEES AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE,
WHAT WE FOUND WAS, OH, THAT'S ILLEGAL, THAT'S ILLEGAL. YOU NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS. AND I THINK WE'RE
TRYING TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T PASS ANYTHING THAT CONTAINS IDENTIFIABLE THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL AND HAVE,
YOU KNOW, BEEN TESTED IN COURT AND THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO AS AS STRANGE AS IT MIGHT SOUND, WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION,
IT REALLY IS BASED IN THE FACT THAT WE'VE HEARD SO MANY TIMES THAT, OH, YOU CAN'T YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT LEGAL. IT'S BEEN CHALLENGED AND IT'S
BEEN OVERTURNED, THAT KIND OF THING. SO JUST FYI, IF YOU HAVE ANY WORK GROUPS OR BEFORE WE GO ON, I SURE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP INFORMED. SURE. 
          GATHER MYSELF AND AS MANY OTHER LEGAL RESIDENTS I CAN FIND. 
          YEAH. COME WITH ME. THANK YOU. SIR. SO. YES,
SIR. 
          MR. ROBERTS. I JUST LOVE OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH CITIZENS DURING THE THREE MINUTES. 
          I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, THAT'S REALLY GOOD. YOU KNOW,
I THINK WE'RE PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THAT. YOU SEE, THESE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT YOU KNOW, MAKE YOU COME UP AND DO ALL THE ALL THE YOUR THREE MINUTES IF THEY GIVE YOU THREE
INSTEAD OF TWO AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA AND THEY DON'T GIVE TWO CRUDS LATER, FOUR HOURS LATER INTO THE MEETING. TRAVIS COUNTY,
RIGHT. 
          SCHOOL DISTRICT. BUT SO. I'M ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FOLKS UP HERE IN THE STATES. 
          WHEN THIS CONVERSATION STARTED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WANTED TO SEE RESTRICTIONS PUT IN
PLACE AND I WANTED TO SEE AND I FRANKLY, I STILL DO. I WANT IT. I WANT TO SEE NEIGHBORS PROTECTED FROM THE NUISANCE FACTORS OF,
OF THE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT WHAT I'VE COME TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND IS,
LIKE ANYTHING, WHEN THE FACTS CHANGE, 
          [03:10:01]
YOU HAVE TO CHANGE. AND IT'S IT'S THE GUIDANCE FROM TWO CITY ATTORNEYS THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP GETTING SUED. YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE. SO THAT'S THAT RIGHT. 
          NOW, WITH THAT BEING SAID I DID RECEIVE A A COMMENT FROM A CITIZEN I DON'T KNOW,
AFTER THE PACKET WAS PUBLISHED OVER THE WEEKEND. 
          AND I DID PUT THOSE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IT WAS FROM JOHN VAI UP ON THE DASH ON THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          THERE, THERE. I THANK ALL OF YOU. ALL HAVE PROBABLY READ THEM. 
          SO RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, MAKING THIS TAKE ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY,
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE, YOU KNOW, BRAD DID OPINE AND WEIGH IN ON THIS ALREADY. 
          IN A IN, IN SOME LEGAL GUIDANCE TO COUNCIL AND BASICALLY AFFIRMING THE,
THE SUGGESTIONS WHICH WERE BASICALLY LET'S NOT SET UPSET HE DIDN'T SAY THIS. I'M GOING TO SAY THIS PART. I DON'T WANT TO SET PRECEDENTS FOR US PASSING
ORDINANCES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS, THAT ARE CONTRARY TO UNDERLYING DEED RESTRICTIONS,
BECAUSE IN THE END, THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS DO MATTER. IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND ZONING MATTER,
FOR EXAMPLE, SAY ALL THESE LOTS ARE RESTRICTED TO A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES,
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE COUNCIL PASSING A ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE A DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THERE. I DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE DOING THAT. IT'S DEED
RESTRICTION. THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE CIVIL LITIGATION THAT WILL NEVER END. 
          THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE AREA. SIMILARLY WITH THIS A WAY TO ADDRESS YOU'VE GOT YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE HOAS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SUBJECT WHETHER IT'S TESSERA OR FIREFLY OR THE GROSS CLOSE PROPERTY
IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN HOA RULES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT RESTRICT WHICH IS WHICH IS LEGAL UNDER STATE STATUTE,
RESTRICT STRS. 
          AND SO THIS ORDINANCE IN THE ASK THAT WAS PUT ON DISCUSSION BOARD WAS THAT WE MAKE SURE
THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU COME IN AND APPLY FOR THIS LICENSE,
WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU THE OKAY TO GO VIOLATE YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          THAT'S MORE OR LESS THE GIST OF IT. AND BRAD OPINED IN EMAIL AND SAID,
YEAH, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. 
          SO I THINK WHAT BRAD SAID WAS, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING BUT THAT WE ASKED THE
APPLICANT TO AFFIRMATIVELY, YES, SAY, HEY, I KNOW MY DEED RESTRICTIONS DO NOT PREVENT ME FROM FROM DOING THIS. 
          AND THEN THE THREE, I'LL JUST READ THE THREE SUGGESTIONS. 
          CERTIFICATE OF SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT THEY HAVE
REVIEWED ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION COVENANTS, DEED RESTRICTIONS OR HOA RULES AND WILL COMPLY WITH THEM. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON THE APPLICATION TO YOUR CLARIFICATION. 
          NOTICE TO ASSOCIATIONS. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STR LICENSE APPLICATION TO
THE APPLICABLE HOA PO FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND NUMBER THREE. 
          DISCLAIMER. ISSUANCE OF A CITY LICENSE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE OPERATION OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL
IN VIOLATION OF ANY PRIVATE COVENANTS, DEED RESTRICTIONS, OR HOA RULES. THAT'S IT. SO THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR. 
          THAT'S MY ONLY ASK IN THIS. THAT'S IT. SO WHEN WE DO GET TO A FINAL PRODUCT,
PLEASE JUST GO BACK AND REFERENCE EITHER BRAD'S EMAIL OR THE STR SUBJECT LINE. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD ITEM WHERE THIS IS NOTED. 
          JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY,
BUT THEN MAYBE I HEARD IT DIFFERENTLY AT THE END. 
          DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN NOW RESTRICTS INDIVIDUALS DEED
RIGHTS? NO, BUT IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T DISAVOW OTHERWISE. 
          IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO THAT. SO THIS IS JUST LIKE THAT EXTRA LAYER OF MAKING SURE. 
          THAT'S IT. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, WELL, MY COMMENT IN SOME WAYS,
MAYBE WE'RE MAKING THIS HARDER THAN IT SHOULD BE. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S I THINK WE AGREE ON MOST OF THE THINGS HERE THAT THAT WE WANT TO HAVE A
PROCESS THAT CAPTURES THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY PAYING THEIR TAXES. 
          WE WANT TO HAVE A FAIR AND APPROPRIATE FEE THAT COVERS OUR COSTS. 
          AND THEN WE WANT TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCES WE ALREADY HAVE. 
          RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT PUTTING NEW REQUIREMENTS IN HERE FOR NOISE OR PARKING OR OR,
YOU KNOW, THE THE FIRE PIT NONSENSE THAT WE WENT THROUGH BEFORE. 
          RIGHT? SO ALL OF THAT'S GONE. AND I, IN SOME WAYS,
IT'S ALMOST THIS IS AN ACT OF JUST KIND OF CLEAN UP AND CLARIFYING AND, AND HOPEFULLY MAKING IT EASIER FOR CITY STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE THE THE THE TRACKING AND THE PROCESS AROUND STR NOT ADDING A BURDEN ONTO CITY STAFF. 
          AND I THINK I THINK WE'RE GETTING THERE. AND SO I'M,
I'M, I THINK WE CAN GET THERE PRETTY QUICKLY, 
          [03:15:03]
FRANKLY, FROM WHERE WE ARE. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU,
MR. BENEFIELD. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED A LOT MORE DATA FROM FROM CITY STAFF,
BECAUSE WE'VE BACKED IT DOWN TO SOMETHING THAT'S PRETTY REASONABLE AT THIS POINT. 
          YES, SIR. I DO WANT TO ADD THAT I, I THINK, I THINK $250 APPLICATION FEE IS NOT
UNREASONABLE, BUT I ALSO CONCEDE THAT HAVING A A GRADUATING SCALE OF FEES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS WELL,
BASED ON USAGE, IF IT'S LEGAL. YES. YES, SIR. YEAH, I THINK I THINK THIS IS REALLY CLOSE. 
          I THINK IT'S A GOOD JOB. CONGRATULATIONS, ADAM. 
          AND THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAVE ADDED IS. 
          AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY PAUL WHEN WE INITIALLY LOOKED AT THIS. 
          BUT THEY NEED TO DISCLOSE THE LOCATION OF ANY CAMERAS. 
          OH YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT THEY HAVE IN THE,
IN THE DWELLING UNIT. 
          YOU KNOW A PERVERT WOULDN'T MIND PAYING 250 BUCKS A MONTH TO SPY ON PEOPLE. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THAT'S. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S OVERLY BURDENSOME. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT? YEAH. 
          AGREE ON THE CAMERA DISCLOSURE. YEAH. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT STRENGTHENING THAT? JUST A LITTLE BIT AND JUST SAYING, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLOSURES,
THESE ARE AREAS WHERE CAMERAS JUST CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED. 
          I MEAN, THERE ARE THERE IS LANGUAGE LIKE THAT ON AIRBNB THAT SAYS YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ONE
FACING A BATHROOM. 
          YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ONE IN A BEDROOM. YOU CAN. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T CARE HOW IT'S HANDLED. CAN I JUMP? I MEAN, YEAH. SO WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP. 
          THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THAT. ROB. YOU KNOW,
I DON'T EVEN WANT HIM ON THE FRONT DOOR. 
          YOU KNOW, I REFLECT UPON BEING IN FLORIDA AND BEACH LOCATIONS AND STARS WHERE YOU'RE
WALKING INTO THE HOUSE OFTENTIMES IN IN YOUR BATHING SUIT OR YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER JUST HAVE SHORTS ON IN THEIR BIKINI TOPS. 
          YEAH. IT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED. AND I WOULD,
I WOULD SAY EITHER FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M THINKING, I MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, I'M THINKING OF MY HOUSE. I'M LIKE,
OKAY, IF I EVER WANTED A SHORT TERM RENTAL, I HAVE LIKE 23 CAMERAS ON THE PROPERTY IN AND OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND THEY HAVE MICROPHONES. I WOULD PROBABLY I'M THINKING OF A
SCENARIO WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS THAT SITUATION. 
          YOU EITHER DISCLOSE THEM OR YOU REMOVE THEM. I GUESS IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, EITHER JUST HAVE FULL DISCLOSURE,
BUT THEY MUST BE TURNED OFF. 
          HOW DO YOU GUARANTEE THEY'RE TURNED OFF? I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. 
          SO I THINK MAYBE I'M THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. DEDUCTIVE REASONING,
I THINK. 
          I THINK PROBABLY IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO JUST FLAT OUT BAN THEM SO YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM. 
          BUT IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD EVEN DO? WELL,
I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU SAID THE FRONT DOOR, BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE RING CAMERAS ON THEIR FRONT DOOR? RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, I THINK I, I, I THINK THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. 
          WELL, THEN JUST DISCLOSURE. I THINK I THINK PROBABLY A DISCLOSURE IS FINE. 
          I MEAN CANDIDLY, I'M, I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT,
MR. BENEFIELD, WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S ON THE AIRBNB SITE ALREADY. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD STARTING PLACE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
WHICH IS TO BASICALLY ADOPT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A POLICY FOR THAT. 
          I'LL GO IN THERE AND LOOK AT THAT POLICY AND SEE IF THERE'S NOT JUST SOME LANGUAGE WE CAN
MODEL AFTER. 
          I THINK, I THINK DISCLOSURE, I THINK DISCLOSURE,
I, I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD WORRY ABOUT BANNING, YOU KNOW, I MEAN BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW,
RING RING FRONT DOOR CAMERAS ARE SO UBIQUITOUS NOW. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET OFF. OH, NO. NO,
THAT'S PROBABLY THAT. YEAH, THE FULL DISCLOSURE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT PROHIBITS OR ALLOWS VISITORS TO SAY,
OH, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IT'S PERHAPS IT'S IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THAT, YOU KNOW,
I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK, I THINK THE CONSENSUS HERE IS,
YES, GO LOOK AT THE MODEL LANGUAGE FOUND IN THESE OTHER COMPANIES AND INCLUDED IN WHATEVER THE DRAFT IS THAT COMES BACK. OKAY. MR.. WERE YOU DONE? I UNDERSTAND THE SLIDING SCALE DEAL ON THE PERMIT COSTS,
BUT HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROVE IT? I MEAN, I'M NOT A I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTANT OR AN AUDITOR,
AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO HAND OVER THEIR INCOME TAX EACH YEAR. 
          SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO COME WITH A FLAT FEE. 
          WHAT'S ON HERE? IT'S ON HERE. WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH THEY'RE HOW MUCH THEY'RE CHARGING,
HOW MUCH THEY'VE RECEIVED, HOW MANY NIGHTS. YEP. I MEAN, IF EVERYBODY IS ACCURATE AND GOING THROUGH AIRBNB OR WHOEVER
TO GET THAT INFORMATION, THAT'S, THAT'S THERE'S A LOT TO THAT BECAUSE I'LL BET I'LL BET MONEY THERE'S SOME IN THIS
TOWN RIGHT NOW THAT DON'T ADVERTISE THAT GO BY WORD OF MOUTH OR ADVERTISE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND STUFF. A SMALL NUMBER OF THEM. 
          ANYONE. YEAH, IT'D BE A SMALL AND HANG ON NORMAL WAS NEXT. 
          AND THEN I'LL COME THIS WAY. NORMAL DIDN'T HAVE HER HAND UP HERE BEFORE I CAME TO MR.
WEST. 
          [03:20:04]
I JUST WANT TO. SO COUNCILOR SAM HAD TALKED TO AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS IN THE HOMEAWAY. 
          HOMEAWAY? THAT'S IT. WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE GO AHEAD AND PUT IN SOME LANGUAGE SO THAT
EFFECTIVELY, IT'S ON THE ON THE BOARD. I JUST WANT TO JUST STATE IT OUT LOUD THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT
WHERE IT HAS SHORT TERM RENTAL PLATFORM, FACILITATE THE BOOKINGS AND BASICALLY COLLECT THE HOT TAX TO REMIT BACK TO US. 
          THEY DO FOR THE STATE, BUT THEY DON'T DO IT LOCALLY. BUT YOU CAN PUT LANGUAGE IN THEORY
REQUIRES THEM TO COLLECT THE LOCAL AS WELL. 
          AND THEY GAVE THE HOME AWAY. GAVE US THE LANGUAGE. 
          IT'S ON THE ON THE COUNCIL FORUM. OKAY. YEAH. 
          I MEAN I THINK YEAH. SO ANOTHER THOUGHT ON THIS DIFFERENTIATION AND SCALE AND OUR CITIZEN
THAT WE HAD SUCH A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH A MINUTE AGO, THE EXAMPLES THAT HE WAS RAISING WAS,
YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO RENTS THEIR HOME 4 OR 5 DAYS A WEEK TO HELP PAY FOR WHATEVER AGAIN,
IF LEGAL, I CAN SEE US SAYING ON THE APPLICATION FORM THE REGISTRATION FEE IS THIS UNLESS THE
PROPERTY IS A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY, IN WHICH CASE THE REGISTRATION FEE WOULD BE THIS LESSER AMOUNT. 
          AND THAT'S. SO LET ME LET ME STOP YOU THERE. OKAY. 
          LET ME STOP DOING THE FLAG. SO ONE OF THE THERE'S ALREADY A FIFTH CIRCUIT CASE THAT TALKS
ABOUT THE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF, OF ALLOWING OR NOT ALLOWING AN STR ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OWNER OCCUPIED OR
NOT. 
          NOW, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT,
BUT IT'S IT SIMILAR ENOUGH. 
          IT'S SIMILAR THAT THAT I JUST WOULD, YOU KNOW,
CAN I TELL YOU IT WOULDN'T CHALLENGE. 
          NO, I CAN'T TELL YOU IT WOULDN'T BE CHALLENGED. AND HOW WOULD THAT TURN OUT? I DON'T KNOW,
I GOT TO READ THESE 22 CASES. SO I JUST, YOU KNOW THE SLIDING SCALE CAUSES ME A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN. 
          HONESTLY, I, YOU KNOW I'VE GOT TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S EVEN
POSSIBLE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, I KNOW FOR, YOU KNOW, BUILDING PERMIT PURPOSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
YOU'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE STATE'S TAKEN AWAY THE ABILITY TO CHARGE ON THE ON THAT BASIS. 
          SO I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT THAT THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT APPLY. 
          THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE IN THE LAW. I JUST BUT I DON'T KNOW YET. 
          BUT BUT I THINK FROM A, FROM A, REMEMBER THE QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER IF
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY KIND OF A SLIDING SCALE PERMIT FEE, THERE'S PERMIT FEES CANNOT GENERATE REVENUE. ALL THEY CAN DO IS RECOUP YOUR COSTS. 
          AND SO THE QUESTION IS WHY WOULD THE COST FOR THIS ONE BE MORE THAN THE COST FOR THIS ONE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT. SO I THINK I THINK A REASONABLE FLAT FEE IS
EASIER TO ADMINISTER. 
          IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY LOOKING BEHIND THE THE APPLICATION. 
          IT'S JUST HERE'S YOUR FLAT FEE. THIS IS TO RECOUP OUR COSTS FOR HAVING TO ADMINISTER THIS
PROGRAM. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE EASIEST THING TO DO. AND YOU JUST SET IT AT A REASONABLE RATE. 
          THAT IS THAT IS RELATED TO THE COST TO THE CITY. 
          RIGHT? I TELL YOU WHAT, I'M GOING TO TRY MY HAND AT KIND OF SUMMARIZING WHERE WE STAND AND
SEE IF WE CAN'T MAYBE MOVE ON FROM THIS ITEM. 
          SO TO ME, THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS WAY MORE INNOCUOUS THAN WHAT WE WERE WORKING WITH
BEFORE, WAY MORE SIMPLIFIED THAN WHAT WE WERE WORKING BEFORE. AND IT IS PROBABLY FAIRLY CLOSE TO
WHAT WE WOULD WANT. 
          EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE I THINK WE ALL ON THIS DAIS WANT TO MAKE SURE WE AVOID DOING
SOMETHING THAT'S ILLEGAL OR LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED. 
          AND SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT MR. BENEFIELD WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO TRY AND FIND OUT
WHAT THAT COST IS, FOR EXAMPLE, ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING APPLICATIONS AND SO FORTH,
AND COME UP WITH A FEE, THAT INITIAL FEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COST INVOLVED. 
          AND LET'S PUT THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE. LET'S LOOK AT THE FINES. 
          I KNOW YOU SAID THAT THE STATE LAW DICTATES $500 A DAY AND $2,000,
BUT CAN WE CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT IF WE WANT TO? OR IS IT COMPLETELY DICTATED BY THE STATE AND WE HAVE NO LATITUDE? YOU CAN GO LOWER IF YOU WISH. OKAY. BUT I GENERALLY ADVISE AGAINST THAT. 
          AND THE REASON I ADVISE AGAINST THAT IS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THAT DECISION PROCESS THAT THAT IS A JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
          AND AND, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU ARE YOU'RE TYING YOUR JUDGES HANDS. 
          YOU'RE TYING YOUR PROSECUTOR'S HANDS AND THE ABILITY TO. NO MORE NEED,
NO NEED. ALONG WITH THE IDEA OF WE WANT TO AVOID LITIGATION, JUST LEAVE STATE LAW IN THERE. AND IT IT IS WHAT IT IS. 
          THEY ARE THEY HIGH? YES. BUT THAT STATE LAW AND WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF. 
          WELL THAT'S A RANGE THOUGH. IT'S NOT $2,000. BUT WE'RE LEAVING THAT LATITUDE TO THE JUDGE. 
          TO THE JUDGE. CORRECT, CORRECT. BUT WE'RE LEAVE THOSE STATE LAW IN OUR ORDINANCE. 
          CORRECT? YOU WILL. YES. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN IF YOU WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE
AIRBNB LANGUAGE AROUND THE CAMERAS AND TO SEE IF WE CAN USE THAT AS A 
          [03:25:05]
MODEL AND INCORPORATE THAT AND THEN LET'S JUST BRING IT BACK AND,
AND, YOU KNOW, WE EITHER TAKE ACTION ON IT OR WE DON'T. 
          DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? YEAH. GOOD SUMMATION. YEAH. 
          ON THE ON THE FEES UP TO THE $500 OR 2000. I MEAN,
THE REALITY IS THE FEE THERE IS ALREADY A SECTION IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT HAVE OUR FEES BROKEN DOWN. RIGHT. AND SO THIS ISN'T SUPERSEDING THOSE. 
          THIS IS JUST DEFERRING BACK TO THOSE. RIGHT. AND SO MAYBE THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE
IS IS REFERENCING THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ALREADY HAS THE FEES ESTABLISHED SAYING PLEASE SEE SECTION 1.2 FOR FEE STRUCTURE. 
          BUT IT CAN BE UP TO THIS AND THIS, YOU KNOW,
BUT THIS ISN'T A NEW FEE. 
          IT'S JUST IT'S JUST DOCUMENTING WHAT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING FEES I THINK FINES. 
          I APOLOGIZE. YEAH. NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE FOR EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE THESE
ARE CLASS C MISDEMEANOR FINES THAT ARE SET BY STATE LAW. 
          AND THEY ARE UP TO THOSE NUMBERS. RIGHT. YEAH. 
          AND THE $500 FOR THE APPLICATION AND THE 250,
JUST TO BE TOTALLY CLEAR. 
          THOSE WERE JUST NUMBERS THAT CAME OUT OF OKLAHOMA. 
          HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR BEARING. OUR GOAL IS TO FIND OUT WHAT OUR ACTUAL COSTS ARE,
TO ESTABLISH THOSE PERMITS AND TRY TO GET THAT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND BY GOING THROUGH THAT EFFORT, WE WILL HAVE DOCUMENTED IT. 
          AND SO IF WE EVER GET CHALLENGED ON IT, WE'LL HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION,
WHICH WILL BE A GOOD THING. YES. 
          OKAY. I STOLE MY CLARIFICATION IS I STILL THINK I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING FROM STAFF
ADDITIONAL ON THE DATA SIDE OF STUFF. 
          I MEAN, YOU CAN PUT ANY ORDINANCE YOU WANT OUT THERE. I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE WE'VE SEEN
IN LARGO IN THE LAST THREE YEARS IS NO CITIZEN BELIEVES THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO BE DOING. AND SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM CHIEF THE DATA THAT THEY HAVE AND
HOW THEY INTEND TO TAKE THIS ON, BECAUSE YOU CAN PASS EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT IN HERE. IF THE CITY ISN'T FOLLOWING THROUGH
ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF IT, IT'LL MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, JUST LIKE THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT ALREADY EXISTS THAT APPARENTLY WE'RE JUST IGNORING THAT EVEN EXISTS. 
          BUT WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES,
WHETHER WE PASS AN ORDINANCE OR WHETHER THEY'RE BEING FORCED TO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES, DIFFERENT ISSUES? BUT MY MAIN POINT, I GUESS I'M NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB IS THAT WE
ARE ONCE AGAIN SKIPPING OVER TO THE ORDINANCE PART WE JUST LOVE WITH OUR OWN WILLY NILLY ORDINANCES OUT THERE AND PASSING THEM, AND WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE REAL ISSUE.
WE SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, AND STARTED GOING AFTER CODE ENFORCEMENT SAYING, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THIS? AND THIS IS
WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO. AND INSTEAD OF GOING THAT ROUTE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO ANOTHER ORDINANCE LIKE WE DO ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE. 
          WE'VE ALREADY DONE ALL THOSE OTHER ONES WE MIGHT AS WELL DO. I GUESS MY LAST POINT,
THOUGH, IS TO WE TALK A LOT ABOUT WE JUST GOT OUT OF THE BUDGET. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TOURISM. WE
WANT TO BRING PEOPLE TO THIS TOWN. JUST REMEMBER, THERE ARE NO HOTELS HERE. IF YOU BRING MORE PEOPLE TO THIS TOWN AND YOU WANT TO PUT HEADS IN BEDS,
THEY GOT TO STAY AT THESE STARS. 
          AND I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. I JUST THIS ORDINANCE IS SO INNOCUOUS COMPARED
TO WHAT WE WERE DOING BEFORE. 
          I DON'T SEE IT CAUSING A PROBLEM VIS A VIS PEOPLE COMING AND STAYING AT OUR STARS. 
          I JUST DON'T AS LONG AS YOU TAKE OUT THE 24 SEVEN ONE HOUR RESPONSE TIME AND I APOLOGIZE,
THAT WAS ONE THING I DID MISS, ADAM, IF YOU WOULD ADD THAT TO IT. IF IF MR. SAM IS RIGHT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET
CHALLENGED ON THAT, LET'S FIND SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE THAT WE WON'T GET CHALLENGED ON. 
          MY ASSUMPTION IS ANY VIOLATIONS ARE GOING TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING THERE,
NUISANCES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMEONE ON RECORD. 
          YEAH, NECESSARILY. THAT HAS TO BE RESPONSIVE WITHIN AN HOUR. 
          YEAH. AND I THINK LET'S FIND OUT IF YOU CAN. WHAT'S BEEN CHALLENGING? WHAT'S BEEN UPHELD? A RESPONSE IN TWO HOURS,
FIVE HOURS, YOU KNOW, TEN HOURS. 
          WHAT'S BEEN UPHELD? AND IF THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN UPHELD,
THEN LET'S JUST PUT THAT IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND DID YOU ADDRESS WHAT THE STAFF ASKED ON HOW LONG DO YOU WANT THESE PERMITS TO BE GOOD FOR? I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT EVERY TWO YEARS BEFORE. THIS SAYS EVERY YEAR. 
          YEAH, I KNOW IT DOES. BUT I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT EVERY TWO YEARS BEFORE. WHAT THAT WILL
LIKELY DO IS JUST INCREASE THE COST OF THE PERMIT. 
          RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE TRULY BASING ON WHAT IT COSTS,
I MEAN, WHETHER YOU'RE DOING $100 A YEAR VERSUS $200 A YEAR, THAT MIGHT DECREASE THE SELF CERTIFICATION A LITTLE BIT,
BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE OVERALL FEE. 
          WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND BRING US BACK SOME INFO. 
          AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. AND THE HOMEOWNER AND THE WHAT I'M CALLING IT THE HOMEOWNER. 
          YEAH I HAVE THAT OKAY OKAY OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH, JUST A COMMENT. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD COST. CAN YOU COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE? THAT WAY IT GETS PICKED UP. WHY WOULD IT COST MORE IF WE WENT EVERY TWO YEARS OR A YEAR? WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT COSTS YOU TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION. 
          WHY DOES IT COST MORE? WELL, SO LIKE WE'LL JUST TAKE THE SOFTWARE FOR EXAMPLE. 
          IT'S $30,000 A YEAR RIGHT. SO $30,000 DIVIDED BY 300 STR OWNERS IS 100 BUCKS RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S $100 THAT WILL BE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONGST ALL THE STR OWNERS. 
          NOW IF YOU'RE DOING THAT EVERY TWO YEARS NOW IT'S 200 BUCKS. 
          SO THAT FEE IS DOUBLED FOR THEM. BUT I THINK TO TO ASSUAGE ANY FEARS YOU HAVE,
ADAM'S GOING TO GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          HE'S GOING TO BRING BACK HIS SUGGESTIONS. WE'LL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN. AND THEN
BEFORE WE APPROVE SOMETHING, 
          [03:30:03]
YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE FOR INPUT BASED ON WHAT YOU HEAR. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON FROM THAT ONE TO ITEM. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GO TO TEN FOR. I'VE GOT SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR THAT ONE AS WELL.
THIS IS DISCUSSION ON THE SARAH PITT DISCLOSURES AND POTENTIAL POLICY DIRECTION. 
          [X.4. Discussion on Tessera PID Disclosures and Potential Policy Direction.]
AND, MR. BENFIELD, I THINK THIS WAS YOURS AS WELL,
GETTING YOU ALL UP FRONT. 
          I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S GOT PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. 
          YOU KNOW, MR. TROUBLEMAKER, THAT YOU ARE. OH,
THERE HE IS. 
          I AM A TROUBLEMAKER. ACTUALLY, THE GUY THAT HELPED ME PUT THIS TOGETHER,
MR. DONNELLY. HE'S PROBABLY A BIGGER TROUBLEMAKER THAN I AM. WELL,
HE'S THE GUY. 
          HE'S AN UP AND COMING STAR, SIR. SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM HIM IN JUST A MINUTE. 
          BUT GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE, PLEASE. SO WHAT THIS IS,
IS THIS IS A WORK SESSION ITEM TO ADDRESS TO DISCLOSURES, BUT REALLY ALL DISCLOSURES AND WHETHER OR NOT WE AS A CITY ARE DOING ENOUGH TO ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY FOR BUYERS AND COMPLIANCE FROM BUILDERS. 
          OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, MR. DONNELLY HAS PROVIDED MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES AND MARKETING
MATERIALS THAT THEIR RESIDENCES HAVE ENDURED OR SEEN DURING THE PURCHASE PROCESS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
IT APPEARS LIKE THERE'S SEVERAL BUILDERS. 
          I WILL NOT NAME THEM, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE IN THE PACKET THAT ARE NOT DISCLOSING THE ACTUAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          SO WHEN YOU GO TO THE WHEN YOU GO TO THE DISCLOSURE,
IT SAYS, PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. 
          OR THERE MAY BE A CHART WHERE YOU CAN TRY TO GO IN THERE AND FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE IS
APPLICABLE TO YOU. 
          HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE BUILDER THAT IS PUTTING THE DOLLAR FIGURE IN THERE,
AND IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE NICE. I MEAN, IT LITERALLY SAYS YOUR PIT ASSESSMENT IS THIS. 
          AND IT'S IN BIG, BOLD LETTERS. AND I MEAN, THAT'S,
TO ME, TRANSPARENT, RIGHT? AS IT IS TODAY BUYERS ARE SIGNING VAGUE FORMS TELLING THEM TO CONTACT THE CITY. 
          ON PAGE 193, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE ONE PIT FORM THAT SAYS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CITY OF
LEANDER. 
          PED. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR ASSESSMENT,
PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF LEANDER. 
          YOU KNOW, AND SO LIKE, THEY'RE LITERALLY JUST TAKING THESE DOCUMENTS FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS USING THEM HERE. 
          SO, I MEAN, IF THAT HOMEOWNER TRULY WAS GOING TO CALL AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR PET
ASSESSMENT IS, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO TO CALL BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT IS IT'S JUST US. 
          BUYERS HAVE NOTED THAT AFTER THE FACT, THEY'RE BEING SHOCKED TO FIND OUT THAT THEY'RE
HAVING A $4,700 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT. 
          HOMEOWNER STATE THAT MARKETING MATERIALS FROM HEINZ PRESENTS THIS PIT AS A TAX RATE OF A
2.94, INCLUDING THE PIT, WHICH MISLEADS BUYERS INTO BELIEVING IT'S PART OF THEIR PROPERTY TAX
INSTEAD OF A 30 YEAR DEBT OBLIGATION. 
          SOME SALES REP THAT ARE A PART OF THE THAT DESCRIBE THE PIT AS BEING PART OF THEIR TAX
BILL, OR THEY'LL SAY THE PIT YES IS HIGHER, BUT OUR TAX RATE IS LOWER TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT OR
TO BALANCE THINGS OUT, WHICH JUST IS NOT TRUE. AS A PIT ISSUER, LAGO VISTA HAS THE BROAD AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER
372 TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE, WE CAN ENSURE THAT THE P3 UTILIZES CITY APPROVED DISCLOSURE FORMS THAT MLS. 
          MLS LISTINGS HAVE FULL DISCLOSURES. AT ONE POINT,
THERE USED TO BE SIGNAGE ALONG THE FRONT OF TESSERA AND GOING DOWN TO SARA PARKWAY SAYING THAT THIS AREA IS A MEMBER OF A PYD. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE
CAN ENSURE THAT THERE IS PROPER DISCLOSURES, EITHER THROUGH THE PERMITTING,
INSPECTION OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY STAGES OF THE PROCESS. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. 
          THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO GAIN TRANSPARENCY, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY,
ENSURE THAT THE MEMBERS THAT ARE MOVING INTO THESE BIDS, WHETHER IT BE TURN BACK OR WHETHER IT BE TESSERA,
THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING BAMBOOZLED BY THESE BUILDERS BY SALES CELLS, TECHNIQUES THAT SAY, OH, IT'S JUST PART OF THE TAX RATE,
OR IT'S JUST THIS, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A NUMBER RIGHT ON THAT DISCLOSURE FORM, AND WE NEED TO FORCE THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT INTRODUCTION. 
          I WAS THINKING I WOULD BRING MR. DONNELLY UP AND LET HIM SPEAK,
AND THEN I'LL TAKE IT TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. 
          ARE YOU READY TO COME UP AND CAUSE SOME TROUBLE? DID WE JUST TALK? OH. OH, OKAY. YEAH. YES. I RAN OVER SIX MINUTES. 
          ALL RIGHT. WELL. OH, MAN. WHERE SHOULD I EVEN START? I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS MOSTLY THE CONCEPT OF NO MORE FIBS. 
          PERFECT. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I WANTED TO KIND OF HELP PAINT A BIGGER PICTURE FOR YOU. 
          [03:35:02]
ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WORD TRANSPARENCY HAS COME UP SO MUCH LATELY. 
          AND TO BE HONEST, I'VE BEEN BRAGGING ON YOU GUYS TELLING PEOPLE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE
MOST TRANSPARENT CITY COUNCIL THE CITY HAS EVER SEEN. 
          CONSIDER THE RECENT ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL WORKSHOPS,
COUNTLESS MAN HOURS FROM BOTH COUNCIL AND STAFF, OPEN SCRUTINY OF SEVERAL AREAS, AND PROPER DUE DILIGENCE AND OTHERS. 
          YOU APPROVED A $25 MILLION BUDGET THAT WILL ACTUALLY SAVE TAXPAYERS A FEW DOLLARS. 
          EARLIER TONIGHT, YOU SPENT TWO HOURS SCRUTINIZING WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A $45 MILLION
INVESTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. 
          NEXT MONTH, WHEN HOMEOWNERS OPEN THEIR TAX BILL,
THEY'LL SEE THE RESULT OF YOUR HARD WORK. 
          IN MOST CASES, THEIR CITY TAXES WILL BE SOMEWHERE AROUND $1,000 THE SAME OR LESS THAN LAST
YEAR. 
          BUT FOR SOME HOMEOWNERS, THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL LINE ITEM,
SOME FOR AS MUCH AS $6,000 OR SIX TIMES THE CITY'S TAX RATE. 
          THAT IS ALSO THE RESULT OF AN ANNUAL PROCESS,
ONE IN WHICH THE COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THESE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BONDS DEBT ON THE BACKS OF A FEW HUNDRED HOMEOWNERS. 
          YET UP UNTIL THIS YEAR, THAT PROCESS DID NOT RECEIVE THE SAME LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND DUE
DILIGENCE AS THE CITY BUDGET. 
          INSTEAD, IT WAS OFTEN LUMPED IN AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM,
VOTED ON AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION. 
          FOR INSTANCE, LAST YEAR COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION TO ADD
ANOTHER $13 MILLION IN BOND DEBT TO THE ALREADY $42 MILLION IN EXISTING BOND DEBT ON THE SHOULDERS OF A FEW HUNDRED CURRENT AND FUTURE
HOMEOWNERS. 
          THAT NOW TOTALS MORE THAN $130 MILLION IN AMORTIZED PAYMENTS OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS. 
          YET TWO THIRDS OF VICE CHAIR REMAINS UNDEVELOPED. 
          AND ACCORDING TO LAST YEAR'S BOND MEMORANDUM,
WE CAN EXPECT THE DEVELOPER TO REQUEST TENS OF MILLIONS AND EVEN MORE BONDS. 
          REMEMBER, THIS IS AN ANNUAL PROCESS THAT THE CITY COMMITTED ITSELF TO FOR THE NEXT 30 TO
EVEN POSSIBLY 45 YEARS. 
          YET THIS 12 YEAR OLD PIT MODEL IS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE. 
          MORE BONDS WILL BE REQUESTED AS DEVELOPMENT COSTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE. 
          BUT THERE ARE NOW SIGNS THE EXISTING DEBT BURDEN IS MAKING THOSE LOTS COST PROHIBITIVE FOR
HOME BUILDERS. 
          THE 2024 BOND OFFERING MEMORANDUM, WHICH I READ TODAY,
971 PAGES LONG, CONTAINS SEVERAL MILESTONES THAT HAVE MISSED THEIR TIMELINE. DARLENE IS GONE. THE DEVELOPER HAS GONE STATIC ON DEVELOPMENT. 
          HOME BUILDERS HAVE STOPPED BUYING LOTS AND ARE PULLING OUT. 
          THERE'S AN ACTIVE AG INVESTIGATION, PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DEVELOPER,
AND ISSUES WITH ARBITRAGE ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE THE CITY OF LARGO'S ABILITY TO OBTAIN FUTURE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE CITY. 
          SO AS YOU DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT FUTURE BIDS,
AND CONSIDER THE SUGGESTIONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER BENEFIELD AND COUNCILMAN ROBERTS PRESENT, PLEASE FOCUS AS WELL ON THE EXISTING ONE AND HOW YOU CAN EXERCISE THE CITY'S LEGAL RIGHTS
AND REMEDIES. 
          WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHY THE TESSERA HAS THUS FAR BEEN EXEMPT FROM THE CITY'S POLICY OF
TRANSPARENCY WHILE VIOLATING EVERY PROVISION THEREOF. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I'LL THROW THIS OPEN TO COUNCIL FOR
DISCUSSION. 
          YES MR. PRINCE? ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THIS AGENDA ITEM SAYS PIT,
AND EVERYTHING IN HERE IS PIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DISCUSSION WOULDN'T ALSO COVER MUD. 
          AND WE DID THE FIREFLY MUD RECENTLY. AND, YOU KNOW,
I WENT BACK AND DID A GOOGLE SEARCH. 
          MUD VERSUS PIT, YOU KNOW, AND BASICALLY THE THE INTERNET WILL TELL YOU MUDS ARE ABOUT
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE WATER WASTEWATER AND PITS ARE ABOUT AMENITIES. 
          RIGHT. WE WE ENDED UP AND I VOTED FOR IT. WE ENDED UP PILING A NUMBER OF AMENITIES ONTO
THE FIREFLY MUD THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY PIT LIKE THINGS. SO I JUST WOULD WOULD SUGGEST THAT AS WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION,
LET'S NOT JUST LIMIT IT TO PIT, BUT LET'S ALSO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT SHOULD OUR POLICY BE ON MUDS AS WELL? OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. MR. ROBERTS THANKS. YOU KNOW,
I. 
          I DON'T LIKE MUDS. I DON'T LIKE PITS. I DID VOTE FOR A PIT FOR TURN BACK AS PART OF A
NEGOTIATED LONG. I MEAN, THAT WAS THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK GETTING THAT DOWN FROM OVER 750 DOWN TO. 
          I THINK IT WAS 430. LOUISE. IN THE END. AND WE DID. 
          WHAT WAS IT? 349. 349 THANK YOU. AND SEARED IN MY BRAIN. 
          [03:40:05]
YEAH. IT'S. AND THERE WAS A THERE WAS A IT WAS A REALLY GOOD PRODUCT. 
          AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVES ALL OF THOSE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS CERTAINTY AS OPPOSED TO
THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE MISERABLE LIFE ONE LIVES IN WHEN THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF LARGE PROPERTY. 
          AND YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO KEEP COMING BACK TO THE CITY EVERY SINGLE YEAR OR EVERY FEW
YEARS WANTING TO AMEND THEIR PDS CONSTANTLY AND CAN ASSURE YOU, HAVING BEEN THERE MYSELF, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT. WITH THAT BEING SAID I
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MUDS AND PDS ARE DIFFERENT IN WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT THE GOVERNANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEM
IS ALSO DIFFERENT. 
          THERE'S ALSO ONE VERY THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE,
AND IT'S THE ONE I POINTED OUT IN MY OPPOSITION TO THE MUD FOR FIREFLY, MUD IS A TAXING AUTHORITY, AND PEOPLE WHO BUY THOSE PROPERTIES WILL BE PAYING A COUPLE
HUNDRED DOLLARS SHY OF WHAT THEIR NORMAL PROPERTY TAXES ARE. SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT TAX BILL,
AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GET A $450,000 MEDIAN PRICE. 
          HOME IN LAGO VISTA IS GOING TO YIELD. I REMEMBER ON THE FIREFLY USING THAT NUMBER,
I CAME UP WITH $4,300 IN MUD TAXES. 
          THAT'S ON TOP OF THE PROPERTY TAXES THEY'RE GOING TO GET FROM THE COUNTY,
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETC.. AND THAT JUST NEVER GOES AWAY. IT NEVER GOES AWAY. 
          IT WILL ALWAYS GO UP EVERY TIME TCAD RAISES IT. 
          WHETHER YOU'VE GOT YOUR 10% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION OR NOT,
IT'S GOING TO GO UP AND IT WILL ALWAYS GO UP AND CONTINUE TO GO UP UNTIL YOU EITHER CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MUD DISTRICT TO LIVE THERE
ANYMORE, OR YOU DIE AND YOUR KIDS CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY TAXES MAKE
IT IMPOSSIBLE. 
          I DON'T LIKE PROPERTY TAXES. SO WHILE THE BONDS. 
          I SEE ROBERT SHAKING HIS HEAD BACK THERE. WELL,
IN THEORY, THE BONDS GO AWAY ONCE THEY'RE PAID IN THE MUD DISTRICT. 
          THEY ALSO NEVER GO AWAY. THEY STAY THERE, THEY GO,
AND THEY GET APPROVAL AND AUTHORITY TO REFINANCE THE DEBT AND EXTEND IT FURTHER OR TO DO MORE IMPROVEMENTS. SO THEY DO STAY THERE OR IF NOT,
THEY'RE THERE FOR 30 YEARS. 
          EITHER WAY, AT A MINIMUM, YOU'RE STUCK ON THAT 30 YEAR BOND. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE HPID WHERE IT'S A SET ASSESSMENT,
SAY ON THE HIGH END $125,000. 
          THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY IT OFF. OTHERWISE,
THEY'RE AMORTIZING THAT OVER THEIR 30 YEAR MORTGAGE OR 15 YEAR MORTGAGE OR WHATEVER THEY'VE GOT GOING ON. SO ONE IS A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE OTHER $4,300 A YEAR ON A
MEDIAN PRICE HOME FOR A MUD, OR YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE $1,200 A YEAR AMORTIZED FOR THAT $125,000 PIT ASSESSMENT ON A
30 YEAR MORTGAGE. 
          ROUGH NUMBERS I'M JUST DOING IN MY HEAD I COULD BE WRONG. SO IF,
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, I THINK I SOME PEOPLE FRAMED THIS AGENDA ITEM AS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE KIDS? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE KIDS GOING FORWARD? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT MUDS. TO SIMPLY PUT,
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO NO NEW KIDS, I WANT NO NEW MUDS. AND THAT'S JUST MY POSITION AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO
ADD. 
          THANK YOU SIR. MR.. OKAY. I CAN'T BELIEVE I GET SO MUCH CRAP FROM A GUY WHO WE BASICALLY AGREE ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. 
          BUT WHAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE IS THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS BASICALLY
GETTING FREE MONEY ON TOP AND ON THE BACKS OF THE PEOPLE THAT HE INTENDS TO SELL TO AND I. 
          ADAM, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH A UNIFORM DISCLOSURE FORM FOR THE CITY OF VISTA. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. AND BUT THE OTHER THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN THINK OF IN
TERMS OF HOW TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE BETTER IS BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WHEN THE BUILDERS SELL THE HOUSES,
THEY USE EMPLOYEES AS THE SALES AGENTS. THEY DON'T THEY'RE NOT LICENSED. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LICENSED. THEY COULD BE THEY COULD BE LICENSED. 
          BUT YEAH, BUT THAT'S LIKE SAYING I COULD BE A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND WORK AT LOWE'S TOO. 
          BUT BUT MY, MY PUSH WOULD BE TO AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT,
BRAD. 
          BUT WE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE THEM TO REQUIRE BUILDERS TO USE LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS
BECAUSE A THEY'RE USUALLY INSURED. B EVERY REAL ESTATE AGENT I KNOW IS FABULOUS ABOUT 
          [03:45:03]
DISCLOSURES. I MEAN, THEY'RE DISCLOSING CRAP ALL THE TIME. 
          AND C THEY GOT THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CARE ABOUT THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE. 
          AND THEY PROBABLY WON'T LOSE IT FOR SCREWING UP ON ONE HOUSE AND NOT GIVEN DISCLOSURE. 
          THEY HAVE A LICENSE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE. 
          SO YOU KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE TO TRY TO TRY TO TRY TO WHIP THIS DOWN. 
          BUT A AND THAT ALONG WITH A UNIFORM DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE COULD DO ON TOP OF THAT. 
          I THINK THE ISSUE IS IT'S STATE LAW DICTATES THAT BUILDERS DON'T HAVE TO HAVE LICENSED
SALES AGENTS. 
          AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN SUPERSEDE THAT. TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. NO,
I BELIEVE THAT'S. I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE. AND THE NOTICE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GOVERNED BY IT'S NOT GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 372, WHICH IS THE STATUTE,
BUT IT'S GOVERNED BY 5.014 OF THE PROPERTY CODE, WHICH RELATES TO NOTICES THAT ARE THE NOTICE THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO BE PROVIDED
TO BUYERS WHO ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PED. NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW,
AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, THE NEW LAW THAT BECOMES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER OF NEXT YEAR,
WHICH WILL REQUIRE CITIES TO POST ALL OF THEIR PED DOCUMENTATION ON YOUR WEBSITE FOR FOR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY. BUT THE SECTION THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO ADOPT
SOME ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IS IS IN THAT 5.014, WHICH SAYS, I MEAN, THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE LIMITED IN IN WHAT WE CAN DO. 
          WE THE CELLAR BUILDERS MUST PROVIDE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT PLUS ANYTHING THAT THE
SELLER OR THE MUNICIPALITY THAT CREATED THE PYD MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE
DISTRICT IN THE NOTICE PRESCRIBED BY THESE SECTIONS. 
          SO THE WHAT MR. LEE HAD PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED WAS A LIST OF ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE
DEDICATED, THAT ARE DEDICATED TO THE CITY SO THAT, THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT HAS ARISEN
APPARENTLY WITH, WITH REGARD TO POTENTIALLY SOME ISSUES OF, OF I'LL BE VERY CAREFUL HERE MISSTATEMENTS OF
WHAT MIGHT BE PUBLIC, PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED SO AS TO CLEAR UP THAT CONFUSION. 
          AND THAT IS YOU CAN DO THAT AS FAR AS REQUIRING THAT TO BE PROVIDED BY LICENSED REAL
ESTATE PROFESSIONALS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE. SO YOU CAN REQUIRE THIS. 
          AND HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU POLICE IT? HOW DO YOU. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW ONCE THIS. SO THE CITY. I KEEP GETTING SOME FEEDBACK. 
          SORRY. ONCE THE CITY ADOPTS. AND JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE WHERE WE ARE,
THE ITEM THAT GOT TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA ARE PUSHED TO A FUTURE AGENDA. EARLIER TODAY ON, THE DEDICATIONS FOR TESSERA MEAN THAT THE NOTICE THAT
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE ALSO NEEDS TO BE PUSHED OFF BECAUSE UNTIL THOSE ARE FORMALLY DEDICATED AND
ACCEPTED, THAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE WOULD BE INACCURATE BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T TECHNICALLY OWN ALL OF
THAT YET. 
          SO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THEM BEFORE WE CAN ADOPT,
BEFORE THEY CAN PROPERLY ADOPT THAT, THAT THAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE. 
          BUT ONCE THAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE HAS BEEN PERFORMED,
THEN IT IS UP TO THE CITY TO THEN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. 
          SO ANYTIME YOU PROVIDE A YOU UPDATE YOUR SAP,
YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU FILE FOLLOWED UP WITH THE COUNTY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. 
          THIS AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAP. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT CHANGING A LEVY OR AN ASSESSMENT OR ANY OF THE FINANCIAL TERMS,
THAT YOU DON'T REQUIRE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. 
          I'VE RUN THAT DOWN. SO ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS PASS THIS ORDINANCE. 
          YOU WOULD PROVIDE THAT TO P THREE, WHO IS YOUR ADMINISTRATOR FOR THIS? AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY THEN PROVIDE THAT ARE THAT THE
BUILDERS ARE THEN REQUIRED TO PROMULGATE AND PASS ON TO EVERYONE. 
          NOW, IF SOMEONE GETS SOMETHING THAT'S INACCURATE,
I MEAN, IN THAT RESPECT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S COMPLAINT DRIVEN. 
          WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO ENFORCE IT BEFORE THE FACT OTHER THAN THE PASSAGE OF
THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE CITIES AREN'T PRESENT AT THESE CLOSINGS. 
          SO THERE'S NO WAY THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE CITY TO KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPER
FORM IS BEING USED. 
          AND SO IN SOME RESPECTS, IT'S JUST COMPLAINT DRIVEN WHERE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO COME AND
TELL US, HEY, THIS WAS THE NOTICE I GOT. AND THEN WHEN THAT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH,
THEN THAT BUILDER WHO SOLD THAT HOME IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PROPERTY CODE. AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THE PROPER STANDING TO
PURSUE SOME ACTION ON THAT. 
          I YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF A COUPLE STEPS DOWN THE ROAD,
BUT THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW. 
          AND WHAT THOSE I'D HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH TO SEE WHAT THE PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF THIS 5.014 OF THE PROPERTY CODE WOULD BE. 
          [03:50:07]
I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD PROSECUTE THAT,
BUT BUT CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BE THE THAT'S BE THE VIOLATION. 
          IT'S A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW REALLY MORE SO THAN YOUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S 5.014 IS
WHAT GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THESE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES. AND IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES. 
          OKAY. I I'LL ADD A FEW THOUGHTS AND I'LL THROW THEM OUT AND THEN MOVE ON. 
          SO MY BIGGEST PROBLEM IS I LOOK THROUGH THOSE EXAMPLES,
WAS THEM REFERRING TO THE CITY OF LEANDER THAT DROVE ME NUTS WHEN I SAW THAT. 
          IT'S LIKE, HOW BAD CAN YOU BE? SOMEHOW THAT NEEDS TO GET CLEANED UP AND CLEANED UP
IMMEDIATELY. 
          I AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TO USE THE P3 DOCUMENTS IF THAT'S LEGAL FOR US TO REQUIRE
THAT. 
          I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT THEY NEED TO USE A COMMON STANDARD FORM THAT HAS THE ABSOLUTE
ACCURATE INFORMATION FOR A PARTICULAR HOME BEING MARKETED. 
          IF IT'S LEGAL TO REQUIRE THE SIGNS ON TO SARAH PARKWAY THAT THIS IS PART OF A BID. 
          I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT THOSE GO BACK UP. I'M NOT SO SURE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THE
INFORMATION BEING REQUIRED TO BE IN MLS AND THE THE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS BEING THERE, AND HOW YOU WOULD CONFIRM AND ENFORCE THAT THEY'RE
USING THE RIGHT DOCUMENTS. 
          THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A FIELD IN MLS FOR YOU TO SPECIFY. 
          IS THIS IN A MUD? IS IT IN A PIT? AND THERE ARE PLACES FOR YOU TO UPLOAD DOCUMENTS. 
          BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT. THAT'S THAT WOULD BE MY BIGGEST ISSUE. 
          I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO OUTLAW PEDS. 
          I KNOW YOU'D LOVE TO SEE THEM GO AWAY. I JUST IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THE STATE
PROVIDES THIS AS A MECHANISM FOR DEVELOPERS TO DO WORK. 
          AND I THINK THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT I THINK IT RICOCHETS ON YOU WHEN YOU WHEN WE TRY TO
SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THINGS TO ME THAT JUST EMBOLDENS THE BETANCOURT'S OF THE WORLD TO,
TO PUSH DOWN STATE LEGISLATION THAT OVERRULES THIS AND SAYS, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. AND SO IT'S LIKE,
WHY PICK A FIGHT WITH THEM? LET THE MARKET DETERMINE? BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY,
I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IT'S GOING TO BECOME SO FINANCIALLY ONEROUS TO BUY A HOME AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STOP. AND UNTIL THE EXACTLY UNTIL THE DEVELOPER AND THE
BUILDERS FIX THAT PROBLEM, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SITTING ON DEAD PROPERTY,
PURE AND SIMPLE, AND THE MARKET WILL CORRECT THAT PROBLEM, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. AND I DON'T I REALLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PITCH THAT EXIST THAT
HAVE NOT DEFUZED ALL OF THEIR DEBT. 
          WE SHOULD NOT LOOK AT TRYING TO DISSOLVE THEM. 
          AND IN THE, IN THE CASE OF OF TURN BACK WHERE THEY PROBABLY THEY HAVEN'T CREATED THE BID
YET, BUT WE'VE AGREED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL FACILITATE THAT FOR US TO TRY
AND SAY NO, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED. WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO GET SUED. 
          BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY AGREED IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL FACILITATE THAT
PROCESS AND TO TRY AND DISSOLVE IT, I THINK WOULD BE JUST INVITING A LAWSUIT. I MEAN,
WHAT IF WE JUST INVITED THEM TO LOOK AT MUD OPTIONS? THEY MAY NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT WAS A AS AS LONG AS IT'S AN INVITATION AND A JOINT DECISION
MAKING. 
          NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. NONE. I JUST A UNILATERAL ATTEMPT ON OUR SIDE TO DISSOLVE
SOMETHING THAT WE'VE AGREED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD FACILITATE. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A LAWSUIT NOT TO GO DOWN THE MERITS
OF MUDS, BECAUSE I AM NOT A MUD MY OPPONENT, AND I CERTAINLY OFTEN FEEL LIKE I'M FIGHTING FOR BUDS, AND I AND I DON'T HAVE A POSITION. RIGHT. BUT I DO THINK THERE'S FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN A MUD AND A PIG THAT WHILE I AGREE WITH MR. ROBERTS THAT A MUD PROBABLY IS MORE EXPENSIVE IN THE LONG TERM
BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED TO THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE. 
          WHAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THE MUD OVER A PIT IS A IT'S HOMEOWNER DRIVEN,
MEANING YOU HAVE PEOPLE, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD,
NOT MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPER. 
          YOU HAVE THE STATE MANAGING AND REGULATING THE MUD. 
          AND AS OPPOSED TO A CITY THAT MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE FEES AND MONEY AND,
YOU KNOW, ATTORNEYS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY. WE DON'T HAVE LIKE 30 ATTORNEYS. 
          SO ALL I GUESS ALL I'M SAYING IS I DON'T LOVE EITHER ONE OF THEM. 
          BUT I DO THINK THERE'S BUILT IN MECHANISMS OF A MUD THAT JUST MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY
TO THE HOMEOWNER. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, AS YOU SAID, MR. MAYOR THE MARKET'S GOING TO DICTATE,
YOU KNOW, THE THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS AREA IS THE DISCLOSURE, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO GO OUT AND BUY A LAMBORGHINI,
GO BUY A LAMBORGHINI. IF YOU WANT TO GO BUY A HOUSE AND A PIT AND PAY $67,000, GO FOR IT, I DON'T CARE. WHAT I DON'T WANT IS JUST PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT. 
          AND THAT'S AND THAT'S REALLY THE. SO I THINK AT A MINIMUM,
THERE'S ONE THING WE CAN AGREE ON THIS EVENING IS THAT THE DISCLOSURES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. RIGHT. CAN WE AGREE ON THAT AND FOREGO ALL THE OTHER CONVERSATION,
MOVE PAST THAT? 
          [03:55:06]
THAT BEING THE CASE I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO IS,
IS IF THE CITY IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN WRITING THE DISCLOSURES. 
          I DON'T WANT US TAKING ON ANY LIABILITY. I UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION FROM THAT FOR TO THE
SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THAT IS PERHAPS HAVE LIKE P THREE WRITE THE LANGUAGE. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, WE DON'T NEED. 
          SO THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN DRAFTED, RIGHT? THE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN
DRAFTED AND AND IS READY TO BE PUT INTO ORDINANCE FORM AS SOON AS THE CONVEYANCES. BECAUSE THAT THAT ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE FOR THIS. 
          BUT BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT B THAT WE PASSED LAST
TIME, BUT DID INCLUDE THE TWO ADDITIONAL THINGS. I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT
DISCLOSURES IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REFERENCES TO THE CITY OF LEANDER,
THE NOT PUTTING IN THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE WANT TO CORRECT WITH THE DISCLOSURE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDERS ARE PRESENTING THOSE PROPERLY. 
          NO, NO, NO QUESTION, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO SO I MEAN,
THOSE TYPES OF ERRORS ARE EGREGIOUS AND SHOULD NOT BE THEY SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. 
          AND SO IF THOSE ARE HAPPENING THEN AND OR, OR A HOMEOWNER HAS AND I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW
UP WITH ONE THING BECAUSE I HAD I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AND I'VE LOOKED THAT UP. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS ABSOLUTELY ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. 
          AND 5.0145 OF THE PROPERTY CODE PROVIDES THAT REMEDY. 
          AND THAT IS IF THERE IS A SALE OR CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY THAT VIOLATES THE DISCLOSURES,
THEN THEN THAT IS A SUIT FOR DAMAGES BY THE PURCHASER AGAINST THE SELLER. OKAY. AND THE CITY THE CITY HAS NO ROLE IN THAT. 
          THAT IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARTIES. 
          SO SO WE CAN REQUIRE ALL THE PROPER FORMS THAT WE WANT. 
          BUT WE HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. YOU DO. 
          YOU DON'T. MECHANISM HERE IS A IS A IS A SUIT. 
          I MEAN THAT'S WHAT IF A SALE OR CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN A PED IS NOT MADE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5.014, WHICH IS THE NOTICE PROVISION, THE PURCHASER MAY INSTITUTE A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION SUBSECTION B OR E THAT THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE MECHANISM WE WE WE CAN REQUIRE THESE DISCLOSURES,
AND WE CAN STAY ON TOP OF P THREE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PROVIDE THEM PROPERLY. 
          WE CAN PUT THEM ON YOUR YOUR WEBSITE. YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE IT AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY THAT IS A TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES TO WHICH WE ARE NOT A
PARTY. 
          GOT IT. OKAY, MR. DONNELLY, YOU JUST TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS,
LIKE HE WAS SAYING. 
          SO THE ORIGINAL PIT DISCLOSURE THAT SHOULD ORIGINATE FROM P THREE,
WHICH ACCORDING TO THE PIT POLICY, THE BUILDERS SHOULD HAVE ON FILE AT SITE AT THE AT THE POINT OF SALE. 
          OKAY. SO THAT THE CITY CAN INSPECT EVERY TIME. 
          LET ME SEE WHAT YOU'RE USING. OKAY. SO ONCE THAT ONCE THAT DOCUMENT BECOMES THE OFFICIAL
FILING AT AT CLOSING, IT'S BORN. OKAY. NOW THAT'S GOING TO COME UP IN ANY OTHER TITLE SEARCH SUBSEQUENT TO THAT
SALE THAT A TITLE COMPANY WILL PULL AND SAY, OH, WE'VE GOT A LIEN. LEAN AND THEY THEY TYPICALLY TEND TO REUSE THAT FORM,
WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE SEEING WHAT WAS BASICALLY THE DEVELOPERS FORM WHEN THEY SOLD THE LOT TO THE HOME BUILDER, THE HOME BUILDER REUSED,
OR EVEN THE TITLE COMPANY REUSED. 
          HAYNES. DISCLOSURE. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY SOME OF THEM SAID LEANDER. 
          BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HAYNES IS IN HOUSTON. THEY DIDN'T KNOW LARGO WAS IN TRAVIS,
YOU KNOW. 
          SO BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S HOW THAT GOES AS FAR AS YOU KNOW. 
          AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY MOOT AT THIS POINT,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE THING ABOUT THE MUDS. 
          I'VE RUN SOME NUMBERS AND OVER LONG TERM MUDS WENT OUT. 
          BUT HERE'S THE DEAL. MUDS ARE TYPICALLY ESTABLISHED OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. 
          OKAY. AND AND THE ADVANTAGES WITH MUDS THEN IS THAT THEY OWN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          OKAY. KIDS ON THE OTHER HAND, OWN NOTHING. OKAY. 
          IT'S ALL TURNED OVER TO THE CITY UPON ACCEPTANCE. 
          SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT, FIRST OF ALL, IT'D BE KIND OF ODD FOR A DEVELOPER TO COME IN
TO LAGO VISTA AND SAY, HEY, I WANT TO SET UP A MUD, WHY THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THE WHOLE POINT OF A MUD WAS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT STUFF OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. 
          SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT CURES ITSELF. SO THANK YOU,
SIR. 
          I'LL JUST I'LL JUST ADD, HAVING DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE,
JUST UNDERSTAND THAT MUD CREATION A CITY, UNLESS YOU ARE THE APPLICANT AND YOU ARE THE LANDOWNER AND YOU WANT TO CREATE A MUD,
YOU HAVE, THE WATER CODE IS SET UP SO THAT THE MUD IS GOING TO GET CREATED,
PROBABLY WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, BECAUSE IT CAN BE CREATED BY THE T-C-E-Q, RIGHT? AND IT CAN BE CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND YOU CAN PROTEST. 
          BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT PROCESS IS SET UP SO THAT THAT MUD ULTIMATELY GETS
CREATED. 
          [04:00:05]
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A POLICY OF, OF OF OF I'M GOING TO GET THE WORD WRONG,
BUT, BUT BASICALLY SO THAT THERE AREN'T OVERLAPPING SYSTEMS. RIGHT? BUT T-C-E-Q IS NOT REAL GOOD AT ENFORCING. 
          SO, SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THERE WOULD BE ALMOST NO REASON TO FIGHT. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN A CITY PETITION TO CREATE A MUD WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS. 
          I JUST THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. 
          BUT A DEVELOPER WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS PETITION IS THE PETITIONER. 
          BUT THE CITY IS A PETITIONER. DOESN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. 
          EXACTLY. SO A DEVELOPER, BUT I WOULD WHAT I WOULD SAY IS,
IS THE WAY WE HANDLED IT HERE TO ME WAS THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS IN THAT WE COULD HAVE SAID NO, AND THEN THEY COULD HAVE GONE AND APPLIED TO TCU OR THE LEGISLATURE AND GOT IT
APPROVED ANYWAY. 
          BUT IN OUR CASE, WE NEGOTIATED ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE WANTED AS PART OF IT,
AND WE ENDED UP GETTING WHAT WE WANTED OUT OF THAT AGREEMENT. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE'S A LITTLE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MORE AUTHORITY WHEN THE MUD
WANTS TO COME INTO YOUR CITY LIMITS. 
          OKAY. IT'S YOUR ETJ WHERE YOU CAN STILL PROTEST IF IT'S IN YOUR ETJ. 
          BUT UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE A CCN WHICH ALLOWS WHICH GIVES YOU EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WITHIN THAT
CCN TERRITORY, THEN IF THEY WANT TO GO INTO YOUR YOUR ETJ, THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO YOUR ETJ IF THEY WANT
TO COME INTO YOUR CITY LIMITS, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE AN ABILITY TO SAY NO. YOU KNOW,
NOT WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS, BUT BUT THAT IS A DISTINCTION. 
          BUT BUT AGAIN, IN ALL OF THOSE KIND OF GOES AWAY. 
          ALSO IF YOU HAVE A CCA. SO IT KIND OF THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS TO TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CCN THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE STUCK WITH YOUR AREA. 
          YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO SO HERE'S MY QUESTION. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR,
I DON'T KNOW, 45 MINUTES. 
          AN HOUR. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MR. BENFIELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THIS PARTICULAR
ITEM? DO YOU WOULD YOU ASK THAT FUTURE ACTION BE TAKEN ON THIS,
AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? AND AND WHAT KIND OF STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN IN THE INTERIM SO THAT WE CAN BRING THIS BACK
IN A TIMELY FASHION? I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO THE
HOMEOWNERS HAVE AS MUCH TRANSPARENCY AS POSSIBLE, LIKE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN ADD TO THAT DOCUMENT IS ADDED,
EVEN IF THAT ADDS THREE OR 4 OR 5 EXTRA PAGES TO THEIR CLOSING DOCUMENTS THAT THAT THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE CITY, THEY GO THROUGH P3,
IT HAS THE CORRECT NAME, IT HAS THE LIKE, THE CITY HAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BARE MINIMUM. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ADDITIONAL STUFF LIKE THE SIGNAGE ALONG THE ROAD SAYING,
HEY, YOU ARE ENTERING A DISTRICT. 
          DO YOU WANT TO WORK WITH MR. BULLOCK TO DETERMINE WHAT'S LEGAL? AND THEN WHAT'S THE KIND OF ADVISED DIRECTION AND THEN BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL? ABSOLUTELY. IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? YES. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT. YOU GUYS ALSO, LOOK, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HEARD FROM
THE VOICING CITIZENS IN THAT AFFECTED AREA, IMPACTED AREA IS THAT THEY'RE SOMETIMES NOT EVEN
FINDING OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL PIT ASSESSMENT IS UNTIL THEY'RE ACTUALLY AT CLOSING, IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE SELLER TO DISCLOSE THE
STUFF MUCH EARLIER IN THAT PROCESS, PERHAPS WHEN THEY GO, YEAH, OKAY. OKAY. THEY'RE JUST. 
          YEAH, THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE JUST NOT DOING IT. I THINK,
I THINK THE, I THINK REALISTICALLY THE BEST YOU COULD DO IS TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A, HAVE A LINK ON YOUR WEBSITE PERHAPS. 
          AND YOU KNOW THAT THAT IT'S DIFFICULT. RIGHT. 
          BUT SO I WOULD JUST LEAVE YOU GUYS TO JUST, JUST MAKE SURE YOU LEAVE THAT STONE. 
          TURN THAT STONE OVER. THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THAT'S GOOD,
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON. 
          OKAY. EXCELLENT. DOES EITHER THE IRRIGATION OR THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE A REPORT? 
          [X.3. Update from the Finance Committee.]
FINANCE? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK. 
          SO UPDATE FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. SORRY,
I'M JUST READING IT INTO THE RECORD. NO. GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT WE DID GET A CHART OF ACCOUNT EXAMPLE BACK FROM MATT. FROM TEXAS STATE. 
          WE DID GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE TIME TO RUN THROUGH IT WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THEN
GAVE IT BACK TO CHARLES TO FORWARD ON TO TO MATT. 
          I HADN'T HEARD IF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT. 
          CHARLES. NOT YET. THEY DID SAY THAT THEY STILL INTEND TO HAVE US A REPORT BY THE END OF
THE MONTH. 
          GOOD DEAL. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. VERY GOOD. IRRIGATION UPDATE FROM THE IRRIGATION
SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          [X.2. Update from the Irrigation sub-committee.]
GO AHEAD. YEAH. THE FIRST OF ALL, VICTOR HAS BEEN DOING A FANTASTIC JOB KEEPING THE
SUBCOMMITTEE UP TO DATE. 
          HE'S WORKING WELL WITH MR. HILL. HE DID CAUTION ABOUT SHARING TOO MUCH TONIGHT BECAUSE
THERE'S STILL SOME FLUIDNESS TO THE DESIGN. 
          BUT HE DID. THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP YESTERDAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE. THERE'S CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL OF WHETHER OR NOT WHEN THE
IT'S VICTOR'S EXPECTATION OR MAYBE THE 
          [04:05:09]
SUBCOMMITTEES. I DON'T KNOW IS THAT WHEN THE DESIGN IS FINISHED,
ONLY THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS GOING TO REVIEW AND APPROVE AND THEN PUT IT OUT FOR BID. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL,
RATHER THAN DOES COUNCIL WANT TO SEE THE DESIGN BEFORE IT GOES OUT TO BID? I THINK THE COMMITTEE'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB. 
          YEAH. PERSONALLY, I JUST GIVE DEFERENCE TO YOU GUYS. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THE ONLY, ONLY QUESTION. 
          HE SAID THAT NO COMMITMENT HERE, BUT THAT WE SHOULD BE READY TO GO OUT TO BID IN ABOUT TWO
MONTHS. 
          EXCELLENT. OKAY. MID NOVEMBER, TWO MONTHS. AFTER WE'RE PUSHING. 
          SO 1ST DECEMBER. AFTER MID NOVEMBER. YEAH. OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE BIDDING PROCESS WILL BE A 60 DAY. 
          YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO MAYBE HAVE SOMEONE AWARDED END OF JANUARY NEXT YEAR. 
          OKAY. FEBRUARY. MORE LIKELY. YEAH. AND THEN 4 OR 5 MONTHS TO SIX MONTHS. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE AUGUST BEFORE WE'RE ABOUT A MONTH MAYBE BEHIND WHAT WE WERE PROJECTING. 
          BUT YEAH, THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. 
          THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE BACKWARDS. IF WE COULD GO THERE. 
          I BELIEVE SHE'S ONLINE. OH, PERFECT. SURE. OKAY,
I'M GOING TO READ IN ITEM NUMBER 9.3, RECOMMENDATION BY CITY MANAGER CHARLES WEST TO 
          [IX.3. Recommendation by City Manager Charles West to approve the hiring of Jordan Strohmyer as Director of Development Services.]
APPROVE THE HIRING OF JORDAN STROHMEYER AS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          SO, MR. WEST, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. JORDAN'S ACTUALLY ONLINE. 
          WE WERE ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HER SINCE COUNCILMAN ROBERTS HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR HER, I BELIEVE HE. YEAH. SO. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. CHARLES. 
          I DID REQUEST THIS COME OFF CONSENT AGENDA. IF YOU GUYS WILL CHECK YOUR INBOXES. 
          JORDAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. IF YOU CAN HEAR US. 
          AND IF IT IF IS IT POSSIBLE TO TURN YOUR. THANK YOU. 
          JUST PURSUANT TO OPEN MEETINGS ACT. WOULD YOU MIND TURNING YOUR CAMERA ON? IT REQUIRES THAT ANYBODY PARTICIPATING OR SPEAKING REMOTELY,
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR CAMERA ON. 
          YES. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. YES, MA'AM. AND I'M GOING TO BE REAL BRIEF ON THIS. 
          I'M SURE SHE CAN STILL HEAR ME. I PULLED THIS OFF THE AGENDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE
TO ASK HER SOME QUESTIONS BASED ON THE READING OF HER RESUME. 
          I'VE. I EMAILED THOSE TO HER ABOUT AN HOUR AGO. 
          SHE PROVIDED A WRITTEN RESPONSE BACK, WHICH I'VE SHARED WITH ALL OF YOU,
AND BASED ON THOSE RESPONSES, I'M I'M FINE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE HER. 
          SO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          AND I IT'S, IT'S IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS,
JUST SUBMIT AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST OR EMAIL ME AND I'LL FORWARD THEM TO YOU. 
          OTHERWISE IT'LL IT'LL BE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WAY,
AND SHE'LL BE AT THE OFFICE MONDAY MORNING BRIGHT AND EARLY. 
          RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY, WELL, I TELL YOU WHAT. 
          LET ME LET ME ACCEPT EMOTION AND TAKE A VOTE,
AND THEN WE'LL MAKE IT OFFICIAL. 
          HOW ABOUT THAT? ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. 
          MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE JORDAN STROHMEYER
AS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. 
          AND I GOT A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS. SECOND. SECOND BY MR. DURBIN. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          MAYOR. COUNCIL. THANK YOU. JORDAN. LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON MONDAY. 
          WELCOME ABOARD. WE'RE EXCITED JORDAN. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. YEP. AND THANK YOU. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT AS WELL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. 
          YOU BET. THANK YOU FOR MAKING YOURSELF AVAILABLE. APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. 
          [IX.2. Consider approval of Resolution No. 25-2155; a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas adopting the Purchasing & Procurement Policy for Fiscal Year 2026.]
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 25 2155, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026. 
          AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO THAT WAS. ME. OKAY. GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. SO AGAIN, I'VE I'VE POSTED THIS ALREADY TO THE THE DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAS READ IT. I WANT TO THANK MR. DE LA CRUZ VERY MUCH FOR HIS RESPONSIVENESS IN ANSWERING MY INITIAL ROUND OF QUESTIONS,
AS WELL AS PUTTING STICKING AROUND. 
          I THINK IT TOOK YOU A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO FIND THAT THE NUMBERS,
WHICH I APPRECIATE I HAVE SPENT I ALSO JUST BASED ON FEEDBACK I GOT FROM EVERYBODY ON MY ROUND TABLE AND THEN SOME OF WHAT I'VE SEEN ONLINE. 
          MY PREFERENCE MY POSITION IS TO LEAVE IT AT THE CURRENT LIMIT OF $50,000. 
          OH, YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 252155. CORRECT. 
          [04:10:02]
OH I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SORRY. YES, SIR. 
          SO MY PREFERENCE IS TO LEAVE IT UNCHANGED. I THINK ONE THING I SAW IN THE NUMBERS,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND AGAIN, I POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD,
IF YOU WANT TO FIND THEM FOR QUICK REFERENCE IS THERE'S, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WE ALL DID UNDER AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          OKAY. BUT I LOOK AT THE LEASE AGREEMENT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULD KEEP THE THRESHOLD
FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND COUNCIL APPROVAL INTACT AT THE 50,000 THRESHOLD. THE LEASE AGREEMENT CAME IN AT $99,000. 
          I UNDERSTAND MY INTERPRETATION OF THINGS IS THAT THAT WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN COME TO COUNCIL,
BECAUSE IF IT WERE 100, IN FACT, $100,000. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. SO FOR THAT REASON ALONE, YEAH, I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE
TYPES OF DECISIONS. 
          I THINK THE LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE A
CONTRACTUAL THING. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, THE EXPENDITURE ITSELF MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO BIDDING,
BUT AN EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. 
          I MEAN, UNLESS YOU HAVE AUTHORIZED YOUR CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND WITHOUT COUNCIL REVIEW UP
TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. 
          SOME, SOME, SOME CHARTERS DO THAT. BUT BUT BUT RIGHT NOW OUR THRESHOLD IS 50,000. 
          MY RECOMMENDATION, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO CONTRACTS,
I WANT MY CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVING THOSE CONTRACTS. 
          YEAH. PERIOD. AND I WOULD MAKE IT QUICK. EASY,
I DON'T CARE, BUT I'M SURE COUNCIL ACTION. 
          AND I THINK WE WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR DOING THAT,
YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT BY CONTRAST A CITIZEN WHO WORKED IN PROCUREMENT FOR OVER ALMOST 20 YEARS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN,
ONE OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS SHE REACHED OUT TO ONE OF THEIR FRIENDS AND SAID TO ME THAT THEY THEY RAISED THEIR LIMIT FROM 50,000 TO 78,000. 
          I MEAN, IF AUSTIN'S GOING TO 78,000, WHY IS LAGO VISTA GOING TO GO TO 100,000? I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES Y'ALL'S LIVES A LOT EASIER ON STAFF. 
          I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND I GET THAT. BUT I JUST MY JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE, ACT AS A FIDUCIARY, CONDUCT OVERSIGHT. AND THE FEEDBACK,
THE OVERWHELMING FEEDBACK I RECEIVED FROM THE CITIZENS WAS KEEP IT WHERE IT'S AT. 
          SO FOR THAT REASON, THAT'S MY POSITION ON THIS. 
          THANK YOU SIR. DID I SEE YOUR HAND? YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO CLEAR OUT THAT CLARIFY I
DON'T THINK THIS IS ABOUT DOES IT SAY IN HERE ABOUT NOT BRINGING THINGS TO COUNCIL? I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT IT, DIDN'T I JUST I CITED THE LEASE AGREEMENT BASED ON MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I THOUGHT BECAUSE THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS UNDER $100,000, HAD THE THRESHOLD BEEN $100,000, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE HAD NO SAY IN. 
          BRAD CORRECTED THAT BECAUSE IT'S A CONTRACT. SO I WAS MISTAKEN IN THAT PRESUMPTION. 
          LEASE AGREEMENT. ARE YOU TALKING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR CARS? MAYBE A MORE APPROPRIATE EXAMPLE WOULD BE BACK WHEN WE WERE PURCHASING VEHICLES. 
          YEAH, A POLICE CAR WITH 65, 70 OR $80,000 THERE JUST THERE WAS NO CONTRACT INVOLVED. 
          AND IF IT'S IN THEIR BUDGET, THEY COULD GO BUY AS MANY AS THEIR BUDGET WOULD ALLOW FOR.
AND WE MIGHT OR IT'S NOT. 
          BUT IT'S NOT JUST YOU APPROVE THE BUDGET THOUGH BEFORE THEN YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THAT
EXPENDITURE. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY POSITION. I JUST I'M SORRY. 
          I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW WINS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY
LESSENED THEIR HOLD ON MUNICIPALITIES AND NOT RESTRICTED IT ON THEIR GOVERNANCE. 
          SO WHAT IT DOES, IN MY OPINION, IT JUST CHANGES THE BIDDING POLICY,
BECAUSE WHEN WE HAVE TO DO THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING, THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND THIS IS JUST GOING TO DRIVE THAT COST UP. 
          SAY I'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT'S $51,000. WELL,
NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS AND HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS ADVERTISING AND EVERYTHING WHEN I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. 
          IT'S GOING TO. SO IT'S GOING TO ADD TO THE COST OF WHATEVER WE'RE TRYING TO PURCHASE AND
LIKE THE TIME AND LENGTH, THE TIME. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE THAT IS THE,
THE THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGAIN, AND I THINK I SAID IT RIGHT WAS IS SIMPLY GIVEN INFLATION, JUST, YOU KNOW, AN INCREASED COST OF THINGS,
THINGS WERE BEING PUT OUT TO BID THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, BECOME ONEROUS AND BECOME DIFFICULT TO CONSIDER. 
          SO EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE. SO TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION,
I MEAN THAT THAT NUMBER HAS GONE UP HISTORICALLY. 
          THE NUMBER WAS ORIGINALLY LIKE 5000 OR WHATEVER. 
          IT WAS WAY BACK WHEN WHEN THE BIDDING STATUTES WERE FIRST ADOPTED. 
          SO IT'S JUST GONE UP TO TO TO KEEP UP, NOT KEEP UP WITH INFLATION BUT TO ACCOUNT FOR,
FOR RISING COSTS. 
          RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, IF Y'ALL WANT TO KEEP IT AT 50,000 AND YOU WANT TO COUNCIL,
I MEAN STAFF TO BID THOSE OUT, THEN BID THOSE OUT. BUT IF IT'S BUT BUT REGARDLESS IF,
IF, IF THE EXPENDITURE REQUIRES THE ENTRY OF A CONTRACT, THAT'S GOING TO STILL COME BACK TO YOU ANYWAY FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT. 
          SO YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT LIKE THESE EXPENDITURES ARE GOING TO GO UNDER THE RADAR TO
THE EXTENT THAT THEY REQUIRE, 
          [04:15:01]
YOU KNOW, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY. 
          YEAH. GO AHEAD. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FINISH WITH THIS IS IS THE BIDDING THRESHOLD VERSUS
IT COMING TO COUNCIL. 
          IF IT'S OVER 50,000 THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS RIGHT. 
          OKAY. SO AS LONG AS COUNCIL IS STILL ABLE TO AND WE HAVE WITHIN OUR POLICY FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING OVER 50,000, IF WE THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REBID,
WE COULD DO IT AT THAT TIME. 
          BUT THIS POLICY SIMPLY IS A THRESHOLD, NOT A NORMAL. 
          WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS RAISING IT FROM 50,000 TO 100,000 THRESHOLD. 
          YES, YES. OKAY. SO FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING, NOT THE OVERSIGHT DOESN'T CHANGE. 
          NO, OVERSIGHT SHOULDN'T CHANGE. IT'LL STILL HAVE OVERSIGHT. 
          IT'S JUST THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING ASPECT. OKAY. 
          IN THAT POLICY THAT'S PROPOSED, IT IS UP IN THE THRESHOLD FOR COUNCIL AS WELL. 
          YEAH, IT IS ON THE THIRD BULLET. IT SAYS PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITHOUT THE DELAYS
ASSOCIATED WITH FORMAL BIDDING OR COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          OH, NO. YEAH. NO, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE EVEN THE COUNCIL APPROVAL THRESHOLD AT 50. 
          SO I'VE WORKED WITH A LOT LESS. IT DOES NOT BOTHER ME TO HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY,
HEY, I WANT TO SPEND THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY. YOU'RE DOING THE BIDDING PROCESS IS THE ONLY THING I
DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH. 
          I MEAN, MY THOUGHTS. I MEAN, I IN ONE, IN ONE WAY CONCUR WITH YOU,
MR. WEST, THAT IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY CITY COUNCIL,
IT'S IN THE BUDGET. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW A LOT OF THE VENDORS WHERE YOU BUY STUFF FROM HAVE ALREADY BEEN
VETTED. 
          YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS LIKE SOME OF THE PLACES YOU
BUY YOUR VEHICLES. IF SOMETHING'S IN THE BUDGET AND IT'S ALLOCATED, IT'S $80,000, AND YOU WANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON IT AND YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE,
I HONESTLY, I THINK THAT'S BEAUTIFUL. YOU. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT DECISION. 
          I BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IF IT'S A NEW EXPENSE, LIKE THE AIR CONDITIONER THAT BROKE ON THE AC
UNIT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT CAME IN AT 75,000, IT WASN'T SOMETHING YOU WERE EXPECTING. 
          I FEEL A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ABOUT IT. SO. THAT WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. 
          THEY'D HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. MAYBE THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE. BUT YOU KNOW,
IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN CONTEMPLATED, THEN I THINK PERSONALLY, YES, LET'S HAVE COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          BUT IF WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT IT, I MEAN, NOBODY'S LOOKED AT THESE NUMBERS MORE THAN,
YOU KNOW, THE, THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, RIGHT? I MEAN,
IF THEY'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT IT, THEY'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT. 
          GIVE, GIVE THE GIVE THE CITY MANAGER THE AUTHORITY HE NEEDS TO RUN THE CITY. 
          AND AGAIN, I'M ACTUALLY MY COMFORT LEVEL IS THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE THE COUNCIL THRESHOLD
REMAINED AT THE 50,000. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. 
          BUT THE BIDDING THRESHOLD BASED ON ALL THE GOES UP TO 100,000. 
          ACTUALLY, UNDER THAT MR. SONG, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? NO. OKAY. IS THE RESOLUTION. I DIDN'T PRINT OUT THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. 
          IS IT IN THE PACKET? I JUST WANTED TO READ IT. 
          YES IT IS. AND I DON'T THINK IT REFERS. IT JUST SAYS FROM 100,000 TO 50 TO 100,000. CAN I ALSO ALLOW GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRINCIPAL OF THE NEW
PROGRAM. 
          I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT IF WE DO WANT TO APPROVE THIS,
THAT WHATEVER THE MOTION IS, JUST INDICATE THAT IT WE'RE ONLY CHANGING THIS FOR THE BIDDING PROCESS AND NOT FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT IS IN THE RESOLUTION. DOES IT SAY IT CHANGES ANYTHING
FOR COUNCIL. 
          LOOK, IT JUST ADOPTS THE POLICY. JUST. IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          IT LOOKS TO ME. CHARLES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT TOO. IT SAYS IT ADOPTS THE PURCHASING
PROCUREMENT POLICY FOR THE COPY ATTACHED. 
          AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT WHEN THE MOTION'S MADE,
IT INDICATES THAT THE PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT POLICY IS MODIFIED FOR BIDDING PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL PURPOSES. RIGHT. 
          IF THAT'S YOUR WISH. YES. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SOME FACTS THAT I HAD SENT OVER TO MR. ROBERTS. THERE WERE ONLY FIVE PURCHASES THAT FALL IN BETWEEN THAT 50 K TO 100 K MARK. 
          ALL WERE BUDGETED ITEMS. I JUST WANT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT Y'ALL FORMALLY APPROVED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. 
          AND OUR PROCESS FOR THE PROCUREMENT POLICY DOES REQUIRE THAT LENGTHY PROCESS OF GETTING
QUOTES AND GETTING BIDS, AND IT GOES THROUGH A DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL, AND IT HAS TO GET CITY MANAGER SIGN OFF. 
          AND IT ALSO HAS TO GET VETTED AGAINST THE BUDGET AS WELL. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL KNOW THAT IT'S NOT FRIVOLOUS
SPENDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S IT'S BASED UPON STUFF THAT YOU ALL APPROVE. 
          IT'S NOT HERE TO RUN AROUND CREDIT CARD CHARGING EVERYTHING. 
          I DON'T HAVE ONE OF THEM CHECKBOOKS LIKE THEY'VE GOT IT IN WASHINGTON,
UNFORTUNATELY. 
          [04:20:02]
BUT, YEAH, THAT'S ALL Y'ALL IS. WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO. 
          MY CITI CREDIT CARD GOT TURNED DOWN FOR $100 PURCHASE. 
          YOU NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY. I IF WE'RE COOL,
I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION. 
          I'D LIKE TO TAKE A STAB AT IT. SURE. YEAH. I DOUBT THERE'LL BE CONSENSUS,
BUT WE'LL GO FOR IT. 
          MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE
BIDDING THRESHOLD FOR THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA FROM 50,000 TO 100,000,
AND ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE PURCHASES UP TO $100,000 FOR BUDGETED ITEMS. HOWEVER, IF IT'S A NON BUDGETED ITEM,
THE THRESHOLD WILL REMAIN AT 50,000. 
          YEAH, OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. BENEFIELD. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION? WHEN YOU SAID IF IT'S A NON BUDGETED ITEM,
THE THRESHOLD WILL REMAIN THE THRESHOLD FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 
          THE THRESHOLD FOR CITY APPROVAL. COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          OKAY, THEN I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. BENEFIELD AND A SECOND BY MR. PRINCE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? YEAH. JUST REPEAT THAT LAST PART THAT YOU JUST CONFIRMED TO MR. PRINCE. SO IN BOTH SCENARIOS, THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS THRESHOLD WILL BE 100,000. 
          OKAY. BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONE CLARIFICATION I NEEDED. 
          THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 25 2155. 
          YES OKAY. YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO AGAIN, A MOTION BY MR. BENNEFIELD AND A SECOND BY MR. PRINCE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE WHO DON'T. 
          NAY, NAY. SO WE'VE GOT 4 TO 3 APPROVED. MR. ROBERTS,
MR. DURBIN AND MISS OWEN DISSENTING. CAN WE DO A DOING WHAT NOW? NO. IT PASSED. SO APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED 4 TO 3. 
          YEAH. PASSED. SO NO NEED TO DO ANOTHER MOTION. 
          NO, IT APPROVED 4 TO 3. OKAY. WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. 
          [IX.5. Consideration to approve Resolution No. 25-2157, a resolution to appoint Associate Judge Gunnar Seaquist.]
SORRY ABOUT THAT. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 2157. 
          A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ASSOCIATE JUDGE GUNNER SEAQUIST AND MR. WEST, I'LL LET YOU INTRODUCE THAT ONE IF YOU WANT. 
          WE WE COVERED IT ALREADY. I PULLED IT OFF THE CONSENT IN RESPONSE TO LINDA AIRD'S
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. 
          I GOT THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. I, I THINK JUST SINCE THEN I RECALL A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT IT. 
          AND I THINK THE REASON IT WAS IT WAS DROPPED,
AS I RECALL, WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT OR THERE WAS SOMETHING UNENFORCEABLE ABOUT ABOUT THE CITATIONS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS
SO FOND OF DAVID. AND IT WAS BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT PERSONALITY,
BUT I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH JUST SOMETHING UNENFORCEABLE, THE ORDINANCES, AND IT JUST COULDN'T BE DONE. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S ALL IT WAS. BUT SO THAT'S NOT AN ARBITRARY CHOICE. 
          BY GUNNAR SEAQUIST TO. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IT WAS NOT BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE JUDGE'S
DECISION, AS I RECALL. IT WAS IT WAS PROSECUTORIAL. THE PROSECUTOR HAD JUST MADE IT CLEAR,
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I CAN SHARE BECAUSE SOME OF THAT WAS BACK THERE. 
          SO I'LL STOP THERE. LET ME JUST I THINK WHAT I CAN DO,
WHAT I CAN FILL IN THE BLANKS THAT I CAN FILL IN IS THAT AND MR. DURBIN CAN BACK THIS UP, THAT AS A PROSECUTOR,
YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO ONLY MOVE FORWARD ON THOSE CASES THAT IN GOOD FAITH, YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN LEGALLY PREVAIL ON. AND IF FOR SOME REASON THERE IS A PROCEDURAL
DEFICIENCY AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN LEGALLY PREVAIL ON THAT, THEN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO DISMISS. THERE WAS SOMETHING DEFICIENT IN OUR ORDINANCE,
AS I RECALL. 
          SO, LINDA, WHEN YOU WATCH THIS, THAT'S THE BEST OF THE RECOLLECTION IS EITHER IT WAS
EITHER OUR ORDINANCE OR THE WAY THAT THE FINES WERE WRITTEN CITATION. 
          THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT AND IT COULDN'T BE DONE. SO IT WASN'T ARBITRARY. AND THE
PROSECUTOR MAKES THAT DECISION TO DISMISS IT'S WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO HE COULD HE COULD REFILE. 
          I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF THE FACTS I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THE FACTS EITHER. 
          I JUST IF HE WERE TO RECEIVE VALID CITATIONS THAN HE COULD REFUND. 
          I COULD MAKE A MOTION. WELL, YEAH. YES. THE EMPLOYEES. 
          COULD ACTUALLY WRITE THE CITATIONS. SO IF YOU WANTED THE THE OFFICER WHO OR,
YOU KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WHO INITIATED WHO INITIATED THE CITATIONS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AGAIN. IF THEY DON'T,
THERE'S NOTHING YOUR PROSECUTOR CAN DO. 
          RIGHT. RIGHT. SO IF THEY IF THE IF THE CITATION IS DEFICIENT FOR SOME REASON THEN,
THEN THEN, 
          [04:25:03]
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO DISMISS IT. OKAY. 
          AND IT COULD BE THE ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T KNOW,
IN THAT CASE WHICH ONE IT WAS, BUT ONE. 
          BUT UNDER EITHER SCENARIO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE YOU'RE ETHICALLY OBLIGATED TO DISMISS IT IF YOU
THINK YOU CAN'T PREVAIL ON IT. 
          OKAY. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR,
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 20 5-21. FIVE. SEVEN. APPOINTING ASSOCIATE JUDGE CONNOR TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
MR. PRINCE. OKAY, I GOT A MOTION BY MR. DURBIN, A SECOND BY MR. PRINCE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. NUMBER SEVEN, CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS FOR THE RELEASE AND VACATING OF
UTILITY EASEMENTS. 
          [IX.7. Consideration to approve Resolutions for the release and vacating of utility easements.]
THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY FOR THIS. 
          YOU MAY SEE THIS APPEAR ON SUBSEQUENT AGENDAS BECAUSE WE DO STILL HAVE MORE THAT NEED TO
BE APPROVED. 
          BUT WE WON'T BE BRINGING ACTUALLY TAKING ACTION UNLESS WE GET THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK
FOR REVIEW BY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE ON FROM NUMBER SEVEN,
AND I'LL TAKE ANY ACTION. 
          NUMBER EIGHT, REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 14, 
          [IX.8. Referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission for Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 14, Sections 11.20 and 11.30 (Variance and Special Exception Procedures)]
SECTION 1120 AND 1130, A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURES. 
          AND, MR. ROBERTS, I THINK YOU'RE THE ONE THAT PULLED THIS ONE. NO,
SIR, IT WAS JUDGE DURBIN. 
          OH. I'M SORRY. THEN YOU GO AHEAD. YEAH. MR. DURBIN. 
          IN READING THROUGH THE THE STAFF SUMMARY OR THE MR. ROBERTS SUMMARY, WHICHEVER. WHOEVER DID IT, I DID. 
          OKAY. IT IT CITES TWO CODE SECTIONS, 1120 OF OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
211009. 
          AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS WRITTEN WRITTEN DOCUMENT FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT IN THIS CASE,
THE PLANNING AND ZONING, BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE BOTH OF THOSE ORDINANCES, WELL, STATUTES SPEAK TOWARDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
RIGHT? YEAH. BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR A WRITTEN EXPLANATION AT CITING THE THE CAUSES THAT OR THE REASONS THAT THEY DENIED A EXEMPTION OR OR PASSED. 
          SO THIS WAS I'M SORRY. THAT WAS IT. I THAT'S A QUESTION TO YOU. 
          UNDERSTOOD. THEN I'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE IF I GET AN ANSWER. 
          THIS WAS BORN OUT OF A, OUT OF A RECENT OUT OF THE MOST RECENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
MEETING, AND WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, BASICALLY,
BRAD EXPLAINED SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY. 
          WHY ARE AND HE STILL IS. HE'S STILL WRITING EMAILS ABOUT IT. 
          WHY OUR ORDINANCE IS DEFICIENT AND CREATES A LIABILITY FOR US IF WE ARE IF THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT IS GOING TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BECAUSE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS LANGUAGE DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY CRITERIA TO GIVE
GUIDANCE TO THE BOE TO CONSIDER. 
          AND WHAT HE HAS BASICALLY SAID IS WHILE THAT IS HOW YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. 
          IT'S STILL NOT THE MOST LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE THING. 
          SO, PRINCE, MR. PRINCE SECONDED THIS WITH ME. 
          AND WHAT WE DID IS WE JUST SIMPLY FELT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE,
THE PNC NEEDS TO DECIDE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          DO THEY WANT TO SHORE UP THE LANGUAGE AND PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THAT HAS TO BE MET TO
APPROVE THE HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS, OR DO THEY WANT TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW? IS THAT A PRETTY GOOD SUMMARY? YES, SIR. I GET A GOLD STAR FOR THAT. 
          YEAH. NO, THAT'S THAT'S. THANK YOU SIR. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
MR. DURBIN? I THINK SO. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING FOR A WRITTEN A WRITTEN STATEMENT AS TO WHY
IT WAS PASSED. NO, SIR. IT'S WRITTEN FINDINGS. NO. NOT EXACTLY. 
          SO SEVERAL COMMENTS, AND I PUT MOST OF THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD SO YOU CAN READ. 
          PAUL POSTED AND THEN I PUT A COMMENT ON THAT. 
          SO I READ PAUL'S POST, BUT I DIDN'T. SO READ MY COMMENT. 
          IT WENT UP IN THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, 36 HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S TWO PIECES TO THIS IN MY MIND. 
          ONE IS RIGHT NOW, HEIGHTS ARE DEALT WITH IN CHAPTER 14 AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION,
AND THE DEFINITION THAT IS USED TO DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE APPROVED IS TOO VAGUE. 
          THAT'S BEEN THE CLEAR FEEDBACK. OKAY. SO I THINK THERE ARE THERE ARE ONE OF TWO COURSES OF
ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN. 
          EITHER IT CAN BE PUT TO IT CAN BE REMOVED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND MADE SIMPLY YET
ANOTHER VARIANCE, 
          [04:30:08]
WHICH IS A HIGHER STANDARD, WHICH IS A HIGHER STANDARD. AND,
AND AND I PUT IN MY NOTES ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW. OR IT CAN BE LEFT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. 
          AND WHATEVER THE CRITERIA ARE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR,
SO THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ABLE TO BE VERY CONSISTENT IN APPLYING THOSE CRITERIA. AND THEN IF IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION,
AND IF THERE ARE CLEAR CRITERIA, THEY NEED TO DOCUMENT WHY THEY GRANTED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR WHY THEY DENIED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PART OF
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING? YES, SIR. ADDING ON, DID YOU WANT TO? I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON. 
          AND I MEAN, EVEN BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL, I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING TO CHANGE THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS TO JUST FLAT OUT VARIANCES. 
          I MEAN, VARIANCES OF VARIANCE. AND YOU CAN CALL IT A DUCK,
BUT IT'S STILL A VARIANCE. 
          AND I YEAH. AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT QUICK. SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE AND,
AND ONE LONG TIME MEMBER OF PLANNING AND ZONING SENT A NOTE TO ALL COUNCIL. 
          THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD STILL BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S WORTHY OF A GOOD DISCUSSION AT PLANNING AND ZONING AS TO
WHETHER IT SHOULD STAY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR BE MOVED TO THAT HIGHER STANDARD, AS MR. ROBERTS PUT IT, ON VARIANCE. UNDER THE. 
          I'M ASSUMING THEY WILL LISTEN TO THIS AT SOME POINT. I KNOW AT LEAST ONE PERSON WILL. 
          MR. ROBBINS, AND HOW ARE YOU DOING, FRANK? AND THE TO HIS POINT ABOUT THAT IS THAT
REMEMBER, THOUGH, IS THAT EVEN IF WE SHORE UP THE CRITERIA FOR WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE THAT MUST BE
MET TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE FACT THAT IT'S THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HEARING IT,
HEARING IT, IT REALLY SHOULD JUST BE TREATED AS A VARIANCE THAT'S THE MORE DEFENSIBLE, LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE POSITION. BECAUSE IF YOU SHORE UP THE CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
AND YOU GRANT IT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS GRANTING IT, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE
TREATING IT LIKE A VARIANCE. AND IT'S CHALLENGED. THE POINT BRAD IS MAKING IS IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO STAND. SO BUT ULTIMATELY THAT IS FOR THE PNC TO MAKE TO STUDY AND
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND BRAD CAN EXPLAIN IT THREE MORE TIMES. I'LL JUST I'LL JUST THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS, AND I DON'T MEAN THAT JUST FOR REFERENCE TO ANY PNC MEMBERS,
I DON'T MEAN THAT AS IN CONDESCENSION. 
          I JUST KNOW THAT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT SEVERAL TIMES. 
          ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT THAT THE IDEA THAT THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY AND AND IF
AND IF WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS ROUTINELY GRANTING, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CALL IT,
VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR DUCK OR WHATEVER BEYOND WHAT WE'VE DEFINED. 
          IF YOU'RE ROUTINELY GRANTING SOME SOMEONE THE ABILITY TO EXCEED OR VARY FROM THESE MINIMUM
OR MAXIMUM STANDARDS YOU SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE, THEN PERHAPS THE ANSWER IS TO LEGISLATIVELY LOOK AT WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE. 
          OTHERWISE, YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE WHERE EXCEPTIONS,
VARIANCES, VARIATIONS, WHATEVER YOU WOULD CALL IT ARE BEING GRANTED WITHOUT CONSISTENCY. AND THAT'S REALLY THE LEGAL LIABILITY THAT THE CITY HAS. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THESE VARIATIONS ARE GRANTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION. 
          THAT'S DOCUMENTED IS ALSO PROBLEMATIC. SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH
IT. 
          AND I'VE WRITTEN I'VE WRITTEN MULTIPLE TIMES WHAT I THINK SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS ARE HAPPY
TO GO INTO IT IF YOU WANT ME TO, BUT BUT I THINK THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THAT PROCESS WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT. 
          AND BECAUSE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SUED BEFORE
DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S RATHER BESIDE THE POINT. 
          SO I CAN MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. I'M READY FOR IT. 
          MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REFERRAL OF THIS ITEM. 
          AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. HOW IS THIS NUMBER 989.8 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO
THEIR NEXT AGENDA MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS EFFORTS TO CLARIFY NOT THERE NEXT OCTOBER AGENDA,
BUT THEIR NEXT NOVEMBER. 
          NEXT SECOND. I THINK MR. PRINCE GOT THERE FIRST. 
          SO THE MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS AND A SECOND BY MR. PRINCE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE DOWN TO 11.1 DISCUSSION,
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER TEN, 
          [XI.1. Discussion, Consideration and Possible action on amendment to Chapter 10, Section 2.16 (Subdivision Ordinance) to Add Cross-Reference to Preliminary Plat Submittal Calendar; Direction to Publish Calendar on City Website.]
SECTION 2.16 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD CROSS REFERENCE TO PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL,
CALENDAR AND DIRECTION TO PUBLISH CALENDAR ON THE CITY WEBSITE. 
          I BELIEVE, MR. ROBERTS, THIS IS YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU,
MR. MAYOR. I GUESS LET ME JUST ASK THIS. 
          DOES ANYBODY ON COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS,
OR HAVE YOU HEARD THIS ENOUGH OR YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS? IF NOBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS 
          [04:35:06]
AND EVERYBODY'S ALREADY UP TO SPEED ON THIS. I WON'T WASTE ANY TIME ON IT. 
          IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SEVERAL TIMES. YEAH. 
          IF MAYOR. IF THAT'S OKAY. MAYOR. MAKE A MOTION. 
          YEP. MAYOR. DO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE NUMBER FOR THIS? IS THERE AN ORDINANCE NUMBER? NO. IN FACT, I HAD A COMMENT ON THIS. 
          THIS WAS THE ONE WHERE I. YEAH, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE I SENT IT TO YOU. 
          I SAID, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE STAFF WILL NEED TO DRAFT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE. SO THERE'S NO
ORDINANCE IN IT SINCE THERE'S NO ORDINANCE HERE. 
          WHAT ACTION CAN WE TAKE AND DOES IT HAVE TO COME BACK ONCE THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED? YES. WHAT ITEM ARE WE ON? 11. 11.1. COME BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, DO WE NEED AN ORDINANCE? I RECOMMEND THAT THAT YOU WE GET THE ORDINANCE
DRAFTED, WE GET YOUR NEXT AGENDA, AND THEN YOU ADOPT I DON'T YES. 
          THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. SO I DON'T THINK ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN JUST DIRECTION TO
STAFF. 
          YEAH. SO THE ORDINANCE DRAFT THE ORDINANCE, PUT IT ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THANK YOU. WAS THIS. YES. YOU'RE IN TROUBLE. I THINK I THINK WE ALREADY. 
          JUST KIDDING. OKAY. YOU'RE ALREADY DRAFTING IT? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. 11.2 DISCUSSION. CONSIDERATION,
POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CLARIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER TEN ORDINANCE LANGUAGE 
          [XI.2. Discussion, Consideration and Possible action regarding clarification and amendment of Chapter 10 ordinance language related to public notice and signage requirements prior to preliminary plat hearings.]
RELATED TO PUBLIC NOTICE AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND I BELIEVE AGAIN, MISTER ROBERTS, THIS IS YOUR ITEM. YES,
SIR. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE BEFORE A FEW TIMES. 
          WE DISCUSSED IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND I DON'T KNOW,
I THINK THE ONLY EITHER WE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON PAGE, MY PAGE TWO OF FOUR. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CHANGED. 
          THIS WAS PRINTED BEFORE ANOTHER ITEM WAS ADDED TO IT. 
          EITHER WE JUST STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE COMPLETELY,
BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE. 
          THIS IS SO. BRAD, THIS IS THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NO LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC MEETING. 
          SOME FORM OF SPECIAL NOTICE SHALL BE PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE,
AND AT LEAST ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY. 
          WE'RE CLEAR ON THE 72 HOURS. THE SIGN IS IS THE THE ANOMALY,
AS YOU PUT IT? YOU KNOW, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A SIGN REQUIREMENT FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ANY OTHER CITY'S
ORDINANCES THAT YOU'VE WORKED WITH THROUGH THE YEARS. CORRECT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT WHAT IS THE WHAT NOTICE? ARE WE PROVIDING THE PUBLIC WITH THAT? WHAT NOTICE DO YOU WANT THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THAT'S
ON THE AGENDA? NOTICE IS THE ONLY THING I IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NOTICE. BUT BUT HERE'S THE THING. 
          YOU'VE POINTED OUT THAT THE SIGN, THE COMPLICATING FACTOR OF HAVING A SIGN ON A PROPERTY
THAT IS HAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION IN FOR IT IS THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITH SHOT CLOCK CONSIDERATIONS,
AND WHEN IT'S DEEMED SO, I WAS GIVEN THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU THINK IT'S BEST TO JUST STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE. 
          HERE'S A PROBLEM. THIS IS HERE. IT'S IT'S MY I MEAN,
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING THIS, SO EITHER WE REMOVE THIS OR TONIGHT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFTED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD
AUTHORIZE THAT REMOVAL, OR WE EDIT IT. OR IS THERE A THIRD OPTION WHERE WE CAN SAY IGNORE IT UNTIL WE GET A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CODE CODE DIAGNOSTICS. SO I THINK I THINK YOU CAN DO A COUPLE OF THINGS IF,
IF YOU CAN PROVIDE SOME. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT I DON'T KNOW AGAIN, IS,
IS ALL IS THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT THAT WE EXPECT TO BE CONTAINED ON THIS SIGN THE DATE AND TIME OF THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT'S ALREADY BEING NOTICED IN ON YOUR AGENDA,
AND IT'S BEING NOTICED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND SO FORTH. 
          TO THE DEGREE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. I MEAN,
WHAT OTHER INFORMATION? I WOULD SAY NO, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SIGN ON IT,
WHICH IS GENUINELY MY PREFERENCE. 
          ASSUMING THAT DOESN'T COMPLICATE THINGS LEGALLY FOR US,
THEN MY PREFERENCE FOR THE SIGN WOULD BE NO MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU WOULD SEE FOR A PENDING ZONING APPLICATION SIGN. AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON THAT SIGN,
SO I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S ON THAT SIGN. 
          IT'S THE DATE OF THE OF THE MEETING. A PHONE NUMBER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          THE LOT NUMBER, AND THAT'S IT. BASICALLY, IT'S JUST PENDING ZONING. 
          IT'S HONESTLY, IT'S MORE AMBIGUOUS THAN I WOULD LIKE. IT'S NOT EVEN ZONING,
THOUGH. IT'S JUST A PLATTING PROCESS. 
          RIGHT. WHICH. AND LET ME LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT CAN BE RELEVANT THOUGH. 
          WHY THE PUBLIC NOTICING CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. OKAY. IF,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH ONE PROPERTY YOU KNOW, TO DO THE PRELIMINARY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE YOUR CONCEPT PLAN,
RIGHT? THERE SHOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 
          [04:40:07]
IF IT'S A PDP AND IF SOME DIVISION. WELL, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE. 
          HOLD ON A SECOND, PLEASE. SO IF YOU'VE GOT A TRACK OF LAND THAT HAS A PDP ON IT,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND IT'S GOING AND SOMEBODY HAS FILED A PRELIMINARY PLAT,
THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET. 
          UNDER OUR ORDINANCES FOR THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          THE BENEFIT OF HAVING A PUBLIC NOTICE IS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF WHAT HAS BEEN FILED AND WHAT'S
IN THE PACKET, WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, ETC. THEY MIGHT FIND SOMETHING DEFICIENT WITH THE APPLICATION THAT
IS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, AND THAT MIGHT SIMPLY BE THEY THEY DON'T LIKE IT. 
          WELL, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO NOT LIKE IT. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. 
          I I'M NOT UNCERTAIN. I'M UNSURE WHY. THAT WOULD BE ONEROUS TO STAFF TO HAVE A SIGN PUT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION PENDING. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ONEROUS, BUT HERE'S THE HERE'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE. THE BIG
DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE OTHER CONTEXT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS ZONING. 
          THAT THOSE ZONING DECISIONS ARE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION DECISIONS. 
          SURE. YOU CAN ZONE IT THIS WAY. YOU CANNOT ZONE IT THIS WAY. YOU CAN MAKE SOMETHING
NONCONFORMING. AND WHEREAS WITH PLATTING IF ALL THE BOXES ARE CHECKED IT'S ALL BUT OBLIGATORY. IT'S THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT ANSWER,
WHICH IS IF A PLAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THEN THEN YOUR, YOUR IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT TIMELY, IT'S APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE I STARTED LIKE I STARTED WITH IT'S THIS IS ON THE AGENDA
BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, THE CITY MANAGER. THIS IS A PROBLEM. IT'S CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR HIM. 
          YEAH, RIGHT. SO MY INTENTION OF PUTTING THIS ON HERE WAS TO GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM
STAFF AS TO WHAT? HOW WOULD THEY LIKE THIS TO BE RESOLVED? BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT REQUESTED RECOMMENDATION
FOR HOW THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE RESOLVED. 
          SO TONIGHT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS HOW DO WE WHAT IS THE RESOLVE IN THIS? ME DESIRING TO HAVE A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT A HILL I'M WILLING TO DIE ON,
AND IT'S FOR THE REASONS IT IS ALL BUT, YOU KNOW, COMPULSORY OR OBLIGATORY ONCE ALL THE BOXES ARE CHECKED. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD I CAN THINK OF EITHER. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO APPROVE IN REFERENCE WITH THE MOTION TONIGHT. 
          THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ON OUR AGENDA. 
          AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU ALL WANT? HOW DO YOU WANT TO RESOLVE THIS? WHAT'S THE REMEDY THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE? AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. 
          STAFF SITS ON THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TILL MONDAY. 
          STAFF WOULD LIKE TO LET THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC GET DONE AND FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
NICHOLS OR. 
          WELL, LET ME SAY FREESE AND FRASER NICHOLLS IS GOING TO POINT OUT ALL OF THE DEFICIENCIES
IN OUR ORDINANCES, AND IT IS UP TO PNC AND CITY COUNCIL TO FIX THOSE DEFICIENCIES. 
          AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT TIME TO FIX THAT DEFICIENCY. 
          SO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME. TAKE NO ACTION. THAT BEGS ONE QUESTION THEN,
IS THAT IS THAT IS US HAVING THE LANGUAGE LIKE THIS IS IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          IS THAT PROBLEMATIC FOR US IN THE INTERIM? NO,
IT'S NOT PROBLEMATIC. 
          AND IF COUNCIL WANTS ME, THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT I GAVE YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE CONSENSUS. YES. WHICH IS THIS UNLIKE PLAT REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE APPLICANT
HAS TO CHECK OFF CERTAIN BOXES, RIGHT. IN ORDER FOR THAT PLAT TO BE FOR APPROVAL TO BE A MINISTERIAL ACT. 
          THIS IS AN OBLIGATION THAT'S PLACED ON THE CITY. 
          AND SO THIS AROSE WHERE THERE WAS A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PLAT FROM AN AGENDA,
BECAUSE THE CITY HAD FAILED TO POST THIS SIGN. 
          WELL, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THAT THAT SUBJECTS YOU TO SHOT CLOCK ISSUES AND
POTENTIAL LIABILITY, BECAUSE IF THAT PLOT WAS OTHERWISE COMPLIANT,
THEN THE CITY'S FAILURE TO POST A SIGN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SIGN IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO SAY, THAT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF PUNTING THAT BEFORE PNC OR APPROVAL OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          SO THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. WE CAN'T TAKE SOMETHING OFF AN AGENDA BECAUSE WE DON'T POST A
SIGN. 
          BUT STRUCTURALLY THAT THAT ORDINANCE IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TELL US WHAT THAT
SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO SAY. 
          SO IT'S VAGUE. AND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IT CAN'T ALTER THE TRAJECTORY OF THE,
OF THAT PLAT APPROVAL. 
          SO IF WE TAKE NO ACTION TONIGHT, AND WE SIMPLY ENCOURAGE MR. WEST AND HIS STAFF TO IGNORE THAT FOR NOW, ARE WE OKAY? YEAH. YOU'RE. YES. YOU'RE OKAY. BECAUSE BECAUSE HONESTLY,
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS HOW THAT IS TO BE INTERPRETED. 
          I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S TOO VAGUE TO ENFORCE. BUT BUT DIRECTION DOES NEED TO BE GIVEN TO
PLANNING AND ZONING TO NOT TRY TO AVOID HANDLING THESE ISSUES JUST BECAUSE NO SIGN WAS PUT OUT. THAT IS EXACTLY. 
          [04:45:02]
THAT'S MY. AND I BELIEVE OUR STAFF LIAISON CAN CONVEY THAT. 
          YEAH. AND COUNCIL I WILL MAKE THIS NOTE. STAFF DID HAVE TEN SIGNS PRINTED UP THAT SAY
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT, AND STAFF IS GOING TO STICK THAT ON THAT LOT JUST SO WE CAN STICK SOMETHING OUT THERE. 
          AND IT'LL BE 72 HOURS BEFORE A MEETING. IF WE HAVE ANY MORE COME IN BEFORE WE GET THIS
FIXED. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO ON ITEM NUMBER TWO,
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE BYLAWS FOR THE
LAGO VISTA TYPE B ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 
          [XI.3. Discussion, Consideration, and Possible action to approve bylaws for the Lago Vista Type B Economic Development Corporation (EDC).]
AND SO ON. IS THIS YOUR ITEM? WELL, IT HAS IT BY BRAD,
BUT ESSENTIALLY. 
          OH, OKAY. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING, I THINK BECAUSE OF HOW WE WORDED IT. 
          I WAS HOPING THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL CREATION DOCUMENTS. 
          BUT I WILL TAKE A PROVE BY LAWS UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT MR. BULLOCK WOULD LIKE TO SAY BASED ON. 
          WELL, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS WRITTEN VERY SPECIFICALLY
SAYING THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE THE BYLAWS. 
          WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE HAD TO SAY ALL THE FORMATION DOCUMENTS,
BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER DOCUMENTS BESIDE THE BYLAWS THAT WE'LL NEED TO ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A QUANDARY ABOUT HOW
WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION OUT HERE TONIGHT, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD APPROVE WOULD BE THE BYLAWS,
AND WE'D HAVE TO BRING THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OTHER THINGS BACK AT A LATER TIME. 
          YES, SIR. I WAS GOING TO SAY, DEPENDING ON HOW THE DISCUSSION GOES,
MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO TO BRING IT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE WITH THE AGENDA WORDED PROPERLY. BUT THAT. THAT DEPENDS ON HOW THE DISCUSSION GOES. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD. IF. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? WELL, JUST A COUPLE. I HAD WRITTEN MYSELF SOME NOTES. 
          AND JUST SOME DETAILS I WAS GOING THROUGH, AND I LOST MY NOTES,
SO I PROBABLY WON'T. I'LL HOPEFULLY FIND THEM LATER, BUT I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, NUMBER ONE, I DID HAVE THE QUESTION. 
          THERE WAS A BLANK FOR MONEY THAT WOULD BE PUT IN FOR THE BEGINNING. 
          I, I THOUGHT WE HAD THE DISCUSSION DURING BUDGET THAT WE WERE NOT ALLOCATING ANYTHING FOR
THE EDC AT THIS POINT. 
          RIGHT. SO THE SEED MONEY WOULD BE ZERO TO START WITH. 
          OKAY. AND THEN SECONDLY, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR THE EDC AND
JUST REITERATING THAT THE WAY IT READS RIGHT NOW IS TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS AT MOST,
AND THEN 4 OR 3 MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF OR COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS OR COUNCIL. 
          RIGHT. AND AND MAYBE THAT'LL BE EASY TO FIND. 
          MAYBE NOT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT BUT THE PEOPLE,
THE PEOPLE THAT, THAT WE WANT WOULD WANT TO BE ON THIS WOULD TEND TO BE PEOPLE THAT ARE KIND OF AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY AND TEND TO BE PEOPLE WHO SIGN UP FOR BOARDS
AND COMMITTEE. 
          SO I MAYBE I INTERPRETED THAT WRONG, BUT I COULD I COULD UNDERSTAND IT IF THE PEOPLE WE
WOULD SAY NOT CITY STAFF AND NOT CITY COUNCIL, BUT BUT NOT HAVE OTHER EXCLUSIONS BEYOND THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF IDAC,
MAYBE THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE, BECAUSE IF SOMEONE WAS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE AND THEY WANTED TO BE ON
THIS, WOULD THEY BE EXCLUDED, FOR EXAMPLE? I THOUGHT THE LANGUAGE MIGHT EXCLUDE THEM,
BUT MAYBE I WAS MISINTERPRETING THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT. AND I WILL SAY YOU KNOW,
WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE BYLAWS, I MEAN, THEY THEY WOULD PREFER BASICALLY EDICT DISSOLVES IN,
YOU KNOW, THE EDC IS FORMED AND THE AND THE INDIVIDUALS ON THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN SO INVOLVED WITH IT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY CANDIDATES FOR THE FOR THOSE THREE
POSITIONS FOR THE. 
          THE COUNCIL, IT CAN HAVE UP TO TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO THOSE CAN BE ACTUALLY MEMBERS AT LARGE. 
          RIGHT. SO SO WHAT WAS WHAT WAS NAMED IN THERE,
I THINK WAS MR. PSALM AS HE GOT A TITLE THERE, YOU KNOW, MR.. 
          ALMOST MAYOR OR WHATEVER THE TITLE IS IN THERE,
MAYOR. 
          LIKE, BUT THAT WAS FOR REGISTERED AGENT. IT WASN'T FOR BOARD MEMBER,
I DON'T BELIEVE REGISTERED. 
          IT WAS REGISTERED AGENT. REGISTERED OFFICE. OKAY. 
          YEAH. AND THEN WAS THE SAME THING TRUE FOR CITY MANAGER WHO WAS LISTED BUT REGISTERED
AGENT. 
          CORRECT. REGISTERED AGENT, SO CALLED FOR TWO. 
          THEN LET ME JUST COME BACK TO WHEN WE APPROVED THIS IN TWO WEEKS FROM NOW,
ARE WE IS THE INTENTION TO APPROVE SEVEN NAMES OR WILL THAT BE A LATER DECISION? SO THEY'LL HAVE TO BE A LATER DECISION LATER. 
          [04:50:02]
BECAUSE ONCE THAT APPROVAL GOES THROUGH, THEN THERE'S STILL THE STEPS OF FILING WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, AND IT STILL WILL NOT EXIST UNTIL ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED AND APPROVED. 
          AND YOU GOT TO CREATE THE CORPORATION, YOU KNOW,
AND THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WHEN IT'S VOTED ON. 
          THAT HAPPENS LATER ON WHEN YOU FILE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND YOU GET EVERYTHING BACK TO THE
STATE. SO IT TAKES A LITTLE TIME. 
          I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW LONG, BUT IT'S NOT IMMEDIATE. 
          BUT IT IT WON'T BE THAT NIGHT. SO YOU'D HAVE TO THEN COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING AND
THEN PUT FORWARD YOUR SLATE OF, YOU KNOW, NOMINEES AND THEN AND THEN DO THAT ONCE WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING PAPER FROM THE
STATE THEN. 
          OKAY. THEN MY ONLY QUESTION ON THAT WAS WHAT PROCESS WE WILL FOLLOW TO COME UP WITH THOSE
SEVEN NAMES. 
          OTHER COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. WE'VE APPOINTED A LIAISON WHO BASICALLY CAME IN AND
SAID, HERE'S MY SUGGESTION. AND THEN WE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED. 
          IS THAT THE PROCESS WE WILL FOLLOW? I GUESS WE'LL GET TO THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET THERE. 
          BUT MY INTENTION AND PART OF MY REASON FOR STARTING TO KIND OF DRIVE THIS UP IS THAT WE'RE
ABOUT TO GO INTO THE SEASON WHERE WE START ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO SIGN UP FOR COMMITTEES AND DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS AND STUFF THAT BY CREATING THE EDC,
IT BECOMES ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES THAT WE THEN ASK FOR APPLICATIONS. 
          WE HAVE REALLY STRONG INTEREST FROM THE MEMBERS OF EDC. 
          WE HAD ONE POSITION THAT WE HAVE NOT REFILLED BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATED THAT THIS WAS GOING
TO OCCUR. 
          AND SO ANYWAY, THAT THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY IN MY MIND,
UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER LEGAL REASON NOT TO THAT WE WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR IN WHAT WE ALREADY DO WITH OUR OTHER COMMISSIONS. SOUNDS GREAT. 
          I THINK ALL I CAN THINK OF ON THIS TOPIC. OKAY. 
          YES, SIR. THE FOLLOW UP. I HAD WONDERED ABOUT THAT TOO,
BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE YOU READ THE ORDINANCE, WE LIST THE SEVEN PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE INITIAL BOARD. SO I THOUGHT WE COULDN'T REALLY PASS THIS UNTIL WE CAME UP WITH
THOSE SEVEN NAMES, THE ORDINANCE SIDE OF IT. BUT YEAH. NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SEVEN NAMES. OKAY. 
          THE ORDINANCE I MEAN, THE IF IT FAILED THREE,
FOUR, THEN NOTHING. 
          RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO POINT IN GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF HAVING NAMES. AND I'M NOT
SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD, BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, UNTIL IT IS ACTUALLY APPROVED AND THEN ONCE IT IS CREATED, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO,
YOU KNOW, YOU START THINKING OF THEM. 
          NOW, I WILL SAY THAT IN OTHER CITIES I FORGET HOW MANY ARE ON THIS BOARD. 
          SEVEN, SEVEN ON THE. AND SO THEN IN OTHER CITIES,
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY BRINGS FORTH, YOU KNOW, TWO NOMINEES AND, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT THEM IN A PILE AND YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY A LOT OF OTHER CITIES DO IT. 
          SO BUT YOU GUYS DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. I MEAN,
IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER PROCESS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, I CAN'T RECALL. OKAY. 
          BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO WROTE THE ORDINANCE LIKE THAT. 
          IT JUST MADE IT CONFUSING. BUT FOR NOW, WE'RE OKAY WITH JUST TAKING NO ACTION TONIGHT,
AND IT'LL COME BACK. 
          AND I'LL JUST PREFACE THIS BY. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          I'VE GOT MY LONG STANDING UP AGAINST THIS, AND SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT. 
          SO I MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT IT ON ACTION ITEMS SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA. 
          YEAH. OKAY. SO WE ARE DONE WITH ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          ITEM NUMBER FIVE DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, POSSIBLE ACTIONS SURROUNDING THE CITY.
STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES RELATED TO REACHING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF AND THE RUSTY ALLEN 
          [XI.5. Discussion, Consideration, and Possible action surrounding the city’s strategy and priorities related to reaching an agreement between itself and the Rusty Allen Airport POA and any possible items the council would like to recommend the AAB take up for possible recommendation back to council.]
AIRPORT POA, AND ANY POSSIBLE ITEMS. THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THE AB TAKE UP
FOR POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          SO THIS IS MY ITEM. THIS IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND FINANCE. 
          IF WE'VE HEARD BACK FROM MR. HELVEY FROM THE FAA,
I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT. 
          I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING. SHANE, HAVE YOU OR MR. LOWRY GOT ANYTHING? I HAVEN'T, I'D HAVE TO ASK MR. LOWRY IF HE HAS. OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A QUICK MINUTE TO WALK THROUGH A COUPLE OF
THINGS ABOUT THIS. 
          I FIGURE I ONLY GOT A COUPLE MORE MEETINGS TO EVENT ON THIS. 
          SO YOU GUYS ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME? SO I WANTED TO BRING THIS BACK, AND I THINK THESE ITEMS ARE WORTHWHILE TO,
TO LISTEN TO. 
          I THINK THEY'LL STRIKE HOME TO YOU A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE HEALTH OF THE AIRPORT. 
          LAST NIGHT AT THE CANDIDATES NIGHT, ONE OF THE CANDIDATES TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT OH,
SHE HAD HEARD THAT YOU. 
          FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE PUT IN, WE GET $100 BACK,
AND IT HAD THE RIGHT IDEA. 
          BUT WRONG NUMBERS. IT'S A 9010 SPLIT AT BEST. 
          SO WE PUT IN $10. THEY PUT IN $90. SO STILL,
STILL VERY GOOD. 
          ALTHOUGH SOME OF IT CAN BE 75, 25. BUT I WANT US TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          IF YOU REMEMBER LAST TIME I TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I TALKED TO MR. HARMON, WHO HAD SAID THAT THE TEXTILE WAS LOOKING TOO POOR,
AT LEAST, OR UP TO $10 MILLION INTO OUR AIRPORT. 
          AND YOU AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE CITY? THAT MEANS IN ORDER TO GET THAT, YOU KNOW, $10 MILLION,
WE HAVE TO PONY UP $1 MILLION. 
          OKAY. AND WHERE IS THAT GOING TO COME FROM? SO TO ME THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT FOR US TO GET TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT SO 
          [04:55:07]
THAT WE CAN TURN THAT COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THEM BACK ON. 
          AND WHAT I WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT IN THE 2000 OR THE 1999 AGREEMENT AND THE 2009
AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD WITH THEM IT WAS DIFFERENT IN THAT THE CITY AND THE POA AGREED THAT THEY WOULD COME UP WITH HALF THE MONEY,
AND WE WOULD COME UP WITH HALF THE MONEY. 
          FOR THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE 9010 SPLIT. SO IN THIS EXAMPLE YOU KNOW,
$9 MILLION FROM THE STATE, $1 MILLION FROM THE CITY. THE POA WOULD COME UP WITH HALF A MILLION,
AND WE WOULD COME UP WITH HALF A MILLION. 
          WELL, WHEN THE 2012 LAW WAS PASSED, THE FAA MODERNIZATION ACT,
IT OUTLAWED OUTLAWED THOSE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS. 
          AND SO NOW THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH THE FULL MILLION DOLLARS. 
          THE POA CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT. AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT IS IF WE
HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM, AN ANNUAL COST SHARING AGREEMENT WHERE THEY PAY UP AND WE CAN START TO TAKE SOME OF THAT
MONEY AND PUT IT INTO A FUND THAT WILL HELP US FUND THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT NEED TO COME FROM THE CITY FOR US TO TAKE CARE OF THE. SO I'M JUST SAYING ALL THESE THINGS SO THAT
WE'LL BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT WITH THE POA, THAT WE TURN THE COST SHARING BACK ON,
AND THEY PONY UP SO THAT WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE FUND. 
          SO WHEN IT COMES TIME TO OPENING UP THE MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE CITY WE'VE GOT IT. 
          AND JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. IF WE DON'T GET SOME MONEY FROM THEM. 
          A A LOT OF THIS ISN'T MR. HALL, AT THE MEETING LAST NIGHT,
TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUNSHADES OVER AT THE AT SUNSET PARK AND THAT THEY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THEM FOR YEARS AND NEVER DONE THEM. THE CITIZENS TALK AD NAUSEAM ABOUT POURING MONEY
INTO PARKS. 
          SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHEN YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY,
OH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE $1 MILLION OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND POUR IT INTO THE AIRPORT. 
          YET WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING FOR PARKS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO GO OVER VERY
WELL. I'M JUST ENCOURAGING US THAT WE NEED TO COME TO SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION. 
          END OF RANT. I'LL STOP. AND I WILL JUST ALSO ADD I DID THIS WEEK. 
          MR. SHARMA, I, I PINGED MR. HELVEY AGAIN. I GOT HIM ON MONDAY,
AND I GOT HIM AGAIN ON WEDNESDAY. 
          JUST TELLING HIM, HEY, WE'D LOVE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. 
          WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION UNTIL YOU GET BACK TO US. 
          I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING BACK. I DID INDICATE THAT WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE IT ON OUR 16TH
AGENDA AS WELL. 
          MY HOPE IS WE GET SOMETHING BACK FROM THEM. AND WE'LL JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU OR MR. LOWRY GET SOMETHING BACK,
BY ALL MEANS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          WE'LL MAKE SURE IT'S PART OF THE PACKAGE MATERIAL. OKAY. 
          OKEY DOKE. OKAY, SO WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON NUMBER FIVE. 
          AND I BELIEVE. YES, MR. SOLOMON WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT. 
          OH I'M SORRY. I WOULD JUST ADD, I MEAN, YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ASK THE ARB TO TAKE UP
A POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? AND THEY ARE SCHEDULING A MEETING RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. YEAH. WE PUT FORWARD THOSE FOUR THINGS. 
          LAST MEETING. OKAY. AND I THINK I SENT A NOTE TO YOU AND MR. LOWRY. MR. PECK, ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH THE MEETING AND SEE,
BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE NICE. 
          YEAH, I MISSED THAT. I JUST I SAW HIM EMAILING TODAY. 
          THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND THE BEST DATE AND TIME,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IT SET UP HERE PRETTY SHORTLY. PERFECT. OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANKS. 
          THANKS. OKAY. I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR LAST ITEM. 
          [XI.7. Discuss and consider Ordinance No. 25-10-02-03 amending Chapters 3 and 6, Code of Ordinances, concerning drainage regulation.]
NUMBER SEVEN. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2510 0203,
AMENDING CHAPTER THREE AND SIX CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING DRAINAGE REGULATION. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR ITEM,
MR. BENFIELD. WELL, IT'S MY ITEM BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH THE BUILDING AND CENTERS COMMISSION. 
          BUT I THINK INITIALLY THIS WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY MR. ROBERTS. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE IT? I THINK EVERYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH IT, HONESTLY. I THINK WE'VE GOT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          WE'VE SEEN THEM. AND YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE REALLY GOT TWO OPTIONS IN THIS. 
          OKAY. YOU'VE GOT AND I'LL JUST STATE MY DESIRE BEFORE I GO INTO THE OPTIONS. 
          MY DESIRE IS TO JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THIS. 
          I'M LOOKING REAL QUICK FOR SOMETHING, I APOLOGIZE. 
          YEAH. SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY REFERRED TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE PNC
BACK IN. 
          I THINK IT WAS LIKE OUR MAY 17TH MEETING. MAY 16TH,
I FORGET. 
          IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT WE REFERRED IT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION,
THE PNC, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DRAINAGE FOR THE CHAPTERS WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW. 
          IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO BE ON NZ'S AGENDA FOR THEIR THEIR COMPONENTS OF IT IN THEIR
OCTOBER MEETING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION,
THEY PUT THIS PRODUCT TOGETHER RECENTLY. 
          IT CAN BE APPROVED TONIGHT FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, IT DOESN'T THERE'S NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CHAPTERS. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE MY, MY PREFERENCE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
MY SAMPLE MOTION WOULD READ, I MOVE THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER THREE BUILDING REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER
TEN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS PRESENTED, 
          [05:00:03]
AND FURTHER DIRECT THAT THE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.5 SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
AND CHAPTER 14 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REMAIN UNDER REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          THAT SOUND LIKE A MOTION TO ME? WELL, I HAVE SOME. 
          I JUST I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT TO KNOW WHERE I'M AT ON IT. 
          OKAY. SO ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE RED LINE, THERE WAS A FAIRLY HEALTHY DISCUSSION FROM THE
BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION ABOUT WHAT WOULD TRIGGER SITE WORK THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT. 
          SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU READ TWO GRADING SITE DEVELOPMENT IF A HOMEOWNER HAS ANY ILL ROCK, IF A HOMEOWNER ADDS ROCK THAT'S USED FOR A FRENCH DRAIN CEMENT. 
          SO ANY LEVEL OF CEMENT DOESN'T SPECIFY SQUARE FOOTAGES. 
          BUT IF YOU ADD CEMENT. SORRY, JUST A POINT OF ORDER. 
          I'M IN THE RED LINE DOCUMENT TRYING TO FIND PAGE SEVEN. 
          PAGE SEVEN. WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE YOU READING? IT'S THE BIG RED LINE,
SECTION 6.20 FOR PROHIBITED CONDUCT. 
          AND THEN IT SAYS A MUST BE IN THE WRONG DOCUMENT. 
          PAGE SEVEN IS NUMBER TWO. ENGINEERING DESIGN WITH A BUNCH OF LETTERS UNDERNEATH. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TOO. I GOT TWO. EXHIBIT A,
CHAPTER THREE BUILDING REGULATIONS. 
          I'M IN THE BSC DRAIN ORDINANCE FOR SEVEN AUGUST 25TH DOCUMENT. 
          THAT'S NOT THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. WELL,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOCUMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 
          I'M LOOKING AT EXHIBIT A, CHAPTER THREE BUILDING REGULATIONS,
SECTION 3.110. 
          ARE YOU IN THE I APOLOGIZE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR. ARE YOU IN THE PACKET,
OR ARE YOU ALSO LOOKING AT ONE OF THE DOCUMENT EMAIL FROM CHARLES OR. 
          I'M LOOKING AT THE EMAIL FROM CHARLES. YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. IF I'M IN THE SAME EMAIL THERE ARE FOUR ATTACHMENTS TO THAT. 
          LOOK HERE. IT SAYS HERE BSC DRAIN ORDINANCE OR SEVEN AUGUST 25TH. LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT FROM CHARLES. 
          YEAH. AND THEN. PAGE SEVEN. IT'S ALMOST AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. 
          NUMBER TWO. ENGINEERING. DESIGN. YEAH. BSC DRAIN ORDINANCE FOR SEVEN AUGUST 25TH. YEAH. I'M WITH MR. PRINCE AT PAGE SEVEN. 
          IT'S LIKE ITEM NUMBER TWO. ENGINEERING. DESIGN. 
          WHEN WAS IT EMAILED TO US? WAS EMAILED ON TEN ONE AT 537 YESTERDAY. 
          YEAH. AND WHICH ONE OF THESE? THANK YOU. I CAN TELL YOU THAT OH, I NOW SEE WHERE YOU ARE. I THINK HE IS. IT STARTS ON PAGE NINE AND GOES ON TO PAGE TEN
IN THAT DOCUMENT AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT ITEM TWO 62042 GRADING SITE DEVELOPMENT FILL DIRT,
ROCKS. 
          IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT. YEAH,
I SEE THAT VERY BOTTOM OF THE IT IS ON THE SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. 
          YEP YEP YEP YEP. OKAY. FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT SHOWS PAGE SEVEN ON MINE I APOLOGIZE. 
          YEAH. NO PROBLEM. I THINK I'M WHERE YOU ARE NOW,
SO. 
          YEAH. SO IT SAYS TWO GRADE SITE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT A HOMEOWNER OR INDIVIDUAL COULD DO THAT WOULD TRIGGER REQUIRING
ENGINEERING. 
          RIGHT. SO IF A HOMEOWNER ADDS FILL DIRT ROCKS USED AS FILL FOR A FRENCH DRAIN NO
SPECIFICATION. 
          JUST CEMENT. DOESN'T SAY 100FT². THOUSAND SQUARE FEET DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SQUARE
FEET PAVERS, YOU KNOW. SO THERE WAS A ROBUST DISCUSSION SAYING,
OKAY, SO I WANT TO ADD FIVE PAVERS THAT GO FROM MY DRIVEWAY TO THE FRONT DOOR AND KIND OF CUT THE CORNER. THAT WOULD TRIGGER AN ENGINEERING PERMIT. 
          NO WAY. WELL, ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, YES. 
          OR SIMILAR MATERIAL THAT MAY NOT BE REMOVED FROM OR ADDED TO AN AREA WITHIN THE CITY
GRADING SITE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND THEN IT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE CONCENTRATION OF WATER. 
          SO IF, IF YOU CONCENTRATE WATER TO ONE AREA OF YOUR HOME. 
          RIGHT. SO LET'S THINK THROUGH THIS. THINK OF YOUR HOUSE. 
          [05:05:02]
THINK OF A GUTTER. YOU WERE CONCENTRATING WATER OUT OF A SINGULAR DOWNSPOUT,
RIGHT. 
          SO I COULD ARGUE THAT IF MY NEIGHBOR HAD A GUTTER AND THERE WAS TWO GUTTERS ON THE SIDE OF
THEIR HOUSE WITH, IF THEY HAD ONE GUTTER WITH TWO DOWNSPOUTS, I COULD EASILY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THEIR GUTTERS
IS REROUTING WATER UNNECESSARILY TO THE SIDE OF MY PROPERTY. RIGHT. I COULD ADD RIVER. I COULD ADD,
I COULD ADD I COULD ADD ANYTHING TO MY PROPERTY THAT I COULD ARGUE IS REROUTING WATER IN AN UNNATURAL WAY, WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THIS TRIGGERING AN ENGINEERED STORM. 
          HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATED ANY ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE OR STRIKING? I MEAN YES. IT'S IT'S TOO BROAD. IT'S JUST IN MY OPINION, I MEAN, I, I OBVIOUSLY SAT THROUGH THE BUILDING AND SAYING,
OH, YEAH, I SAT VERY QUIETLY. 
          IT'S HARD TO DO SOMETIMES WHEN YOU SEE THINGS. 
          WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT WE SEND IT BACK TO THEM WITH SOME INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THIS BEING
OVERLY BROAD AND FOR THEM? SO WHAT IT SAYS ARE INTENDED TO FLOW FROM THIS PROPERTY ONTO AN ADJOINING PROPERTY UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY. 
          SO AND SO AND SO. THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE,
DRAINAGE, RUNOFF, ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD DO. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY WAS HAVING A LOW SPOT IN THEIR YARD AND THEY WANTED TO REROUTE THAT WATER
TO THE, LET'S SAY, OTHER SIDE OF THEIR YARD TO PREVENT IT FROM POOLING. 
          RIGHT. BY DEFINITION, THAT WOULD TRIGGER AN ENGINEER REPORT. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS VERY REASONABLE. 
          AND INSTEAD OF REFERRING IT BACK TO BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION,
IF I COULD JUST RECOMMEND LIKE THESE, YOUR RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THIS, TO WHAT THEIR PRODUCT IS. 
          THROW IT UP ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND LET'S KNOCK IT OUT AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          YEAH. IF WE TABLED IT AND I GAVE SOME REAL RIGHT BECAUSE I DID,
I'LL SHARE WITH YOU, IF I MAY, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST PLUG THEIR PRODUCT INTO CHATTY. 
          AND SOME OF I ASKED, DID YOU KNOW WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES? POTENTIAL GAPS, CAUTIONS. SUBDIVISION TIE IN SOME DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. STEM FROM LOT GRADING AND SUBDIVISIONS WHICH LIVE IN CHAPTER 14 UNTIL P AND Z WAYS IN
ENFORCEMENT AT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT STAGE COULD STILL SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS. THERE'S TWO MORE CULVERT SPECS. 
          THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION MEMO MENTIONS ENFORCEMENT,
BUT DOESN'T ADD TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CULVERT DEPTH OR WIDTH THAT MAY NEED TO BE SET IN DESIGN CRITERIA OR REFERENCED BY ORDINANCE. AND LASTLY,
GRANDFATHERING THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION NOTES ENFORCEMENT GOING FORWARD, BUT EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PAST APPROVALS OR NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR RUNOFF
WON'T BE SOLVED UNLESS COUNCIL ADDS A CORRECTIVE ACTION MECHANISM. 
          YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. SO IT WOULD WOULD COUNCIL MIND IF I,
I MEAN, IF IF ADAM AND I GOT TOGETHER ON THIS AND TRIED TO WORK UP SOME LANGUAGE AND, AND WHETHER IT BE,
YOU KNOW, INDEPENDENTLY COLLABORATING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD OR PRIOR TO WHATEVER. 
          THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE A SUBCOMMITTEE, IT DOES SAY GRADING PLAN,
SIGNED AND SEALED BY AN INTERESTED IN THE STATE MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. SO IT DOESN'T DEFINE SHALL. ALTHOUGH I WOULD THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MAY IT
NEEDS TO DEFINE IN WHAT CASES YOU SHALL HAVE TO SUBMIT THEM. 
          WELL IT WOULD CERTAINLY TRIGGER A PERMIT. I THINK IF I'M STAFF,
I WOULD LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE GUIDANCE THAN JUST MAY. 
          OH, AGREED. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD SUGGEST IS,
IS THAT I WOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LANDSCAPING AND, YOU KNOW, EROSION CONTROL. IF IT'S PURELY LANDSCAPING,
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. 
          AND THERE WAS A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT,
AND I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GET THERE BECAUSE CRAIG STANFORD JUST KEPT GOING BACK TO THE I CAN'T BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO LAY FIVE PAVERS DOWN. 
          YEAH. AND THEY NEVER GOT TO THE POINT OF THAT DELINEATION BETWEEN DRAINAGE AND
LANDSCAPING. 
          YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO IF I COULD JUST REQUEST THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS CONTEMPLATES
REMEDIAL ACTION ON PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST, I THINK I HEARD SOMETHING. MATTER OF FACT,
PLEASE RUN THAT BY LEGAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THAT THAT IMPLICATES YOU KNOW, KIND OF REGULATORY TAKING TYPE STUFF. SO YOUR INCLINATION IS LIKE,
YOU HEARD THE CONCERN THAT I RAISED HERE, AND IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU'RE SAYING DON'T LET THAT BE A CONCERN FOR YOU,
BECAUSE IF YOU DO, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. IF YOU TRY TO ADDRESS THAT,
IF YOU TRY TO ADDRESS THE IF YOU TRY TO ADDRESS RETROACTIVITY. 
          SO JUST LEAVE IT AS SAYING THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          [05:10:04]
AND I'LL JUST SAY WHAT I SAID AGAIN, JUST TO BE SURE I'VE GOT A GOOD UNDERSTANDING. 
          THE BUILDING, THE NOTES, ENFORCEMENT GOING FORWARD,
BUT EXISTING EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PAST APPROVALS OR NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR RUNOFF WON'T BE SOLVED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UNLESS COUNCIL ADDS A CORRECTIVE ACTION
MECHANISM. 
          YOU'RE SAYING DON'T ADD A CORRECTIVE ACTION UNLESS IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY SCRUTINIZED. 
          OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. YES, SIR. WELL,
MY ONE CONCERN WITH THAT DISCUSSION IS WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT THEY'VE GOT A HUGE DRAINAGE PROBLEM BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING ON THEIR NEIGHBOR'S
PROPERTY. 
          AND WHETHER THAT IS FROM THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WITH BAD DRAINAGE OR WHETHER IT'S
SOMETHING THAT THEY DID WITHOUT A PERMIT OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IN MY MIND, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF PROCESS FOR HANDLING YOU KNOW,
MAYBE IT'S COMPLAINT DRIVEN ISSUES THAT ARE EXISTING THAT WE CAN SAY YOU HAVE TO FIX IT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT,
BUT THE AS YOU SAY, THE LAST TIME WE TALKED, WE SPOKE TO THAT VERY VALID CONCERN. I REMEMBER HIM SAYING HOMEOWNERS,
INDIVIDUALS SUING. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE. 
          IT'S IT'S I KNOW IT'S NOT A POPULAR ANSWER, BUT BUT BUT YOU KNOW,
THE NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR PROPERTY OWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER RUNOFF, WHETHER YOU'RE IN A CITY OR OUT OF A CITY, THERE ARE OR NOT DRAINAGE STANDARDS,
WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THOSE ARE CIVIL ACTIONS BETWEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          IF I AM INVADING MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY BECAUSE OF NOISE,
LIGHT DUST, VIBRATION, WATER, WHATEVER, IF I'M CAUSING THINGS TO HAPPEN THERE THAT AREN'T THROUGH THE NATURAL COURSE,
THEN I CAN BE POTENTIALLY CIVILLY LIABLE. 
          BUT THE CITY ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE A ROLE IN THOSE ISSUES. 
          IT'S IT'S A SIMILAR CONCEPT TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WITH PIT DISCLOSURES. 
          RIGHT. THAT'S IF THE IF THE IF THE SELLER DOESN'T GIVE A PIT DISCLOSURE,
THEY MIGHT BE VIOLATING STATE LAW. 
          BUT STATE LAW SAYS THAT'S BETWEEN THE SELLER AND THE BUYER. 
          IT'S A SIMILAR CONCEPT. SO THERE'S THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THE CITY CAN DO. 
          AND AND EVEN IF A PERMIT WAS GRANTED, BUT SOMEBODY GOES AND THEY BUILD SOMETHING THEY'RE
NOT SUPPOSED TO, YOU CAN CITE THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PROPER PERMIT FOR SOMETHING THAT
THEY'VE BUILT, THEY DIDN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT. SURE. THAT'S DIFFERENT. 
          BUT THE RUNOFF ITSELF, THOSE DRAINAGE ISSUES,
THOSE ARE TYPICALLY JUST OR NUISANCE OR FAILURE OR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE. THAT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. WELL, IF IT'S IN THE CITY RESPONSIBILITY,
THAT'S THE CITY. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEN THAT OUGHT TO BE THE CITY. SO BUT BUT YOUR YOUR
LIABILITY FOR THAT KIND OF STUFF IS LIMITED BY THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT AND IMMUNITIES. 
          SO THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT THE CITY CAN BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR. 
          AND IT'S NOT THESE DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. 
          THAT'S JUST IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH PIT DISCLOSURES. 
          SO IF I MAY AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN KIND OF CLOSE THIS OUT. 
          ADAM IS GOING TO SUBMIT HIS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THIS ON DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          AND IF I FIND ANY, I'LL ADD SOMETHING TO IF FOR ANY REASON HE AND I WANT TO GET TOGETHER
ON THIS AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          AND I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IF WE START TALKING ABOUT IT AFTER THIS,
I THINK IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. 
          RIGHT. BRAD, IF WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION IF ADAM AND I VISIT ABOUT THIS ONE ON ONE? NO. AS LONG AS THAT REMAINS, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE,
OKAY, JUST AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          OKAY? OKAY. SO FINE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T DO EMAILS TO EACH OTHER AND THEN
SEND THEM OUT TO EVERYBODY ELSE THAT AREN'T LEGAL QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE GOOD THING IS MR. WEST DID ENACT A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION TO HAVE AN ENGINEERING PLAN. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THIS TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET CORRECT I THINK MR. WEST HAS TAKEN THE NECESSARY ACTIONS TO ENSURE ANYTHING WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION IS BEING
HANDLED. 
          RIGHT. AND YOUR STAFF IS FOLLOWING THAT DIRECTIVE,
I PRESUME? YES THEY ARE. GOOD. 
          AND AND AND THE ONLY, ONLY PLACE THAT THAT DOESN'T APPLY IS IN MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES
LIKE THE HOLLOWS OR TO SARAH, WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE MASSIVE ENGINEERED PLANS FOR DRAINAGE. 
          MR. KING, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS THAT MEANDERED AROUND,
BUT THINGS THAT STAYED ON THE TOP OF MY MIND. 
          IT WAS MENTIONED A LOT OF THE THE EASEMENTS. THE CITY HAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I SPECIFICALLY, AFTER THE INDEPENDENCE FLOODS,
I CAN THINK OF AT LEAST 15 HOUSES IN AREAS WE WENT TO TO HELP MITIGATE OR RESOLVE SOME OF THE CRAZY FLOODING ISSUES WHERE CITY WATER FROM THE STREETS DUMPED AND FLOODED PEOPLE'S
HOMES. 
          [05:15:05]
THE CITY CAN BE A NEIGHBOR WHERE THERE'S ILLEGAL TAKING BECAUSE OF ENCROACHMENTS FROM
WATER, WHATEVER. SO, I MEAN, IT'S A PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT I ASSUME YOU ALL WILL HAVE. 
          ANOTHER ISSUE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE 4 OR 5 PAVERS THING. 
          HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DELINEATE OR APPROVE? WELL,
THIS WAS LANDSCAPING. 
          WELL, NO, THIS WAS XYZ. THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO
COME UP. 
          AND THEN BEYOND THAT, OUR LANDSCAPE IN LAGO VISTA,
SOME OF THESE LOTS ARE 75 DEGREE HILLS. 
          AND IT TAKES A SPECIAL PSYCHOSIS TO BUILD ON THEM. 
          BUT THERE'S ALREADY JUST BY THE SHEER NATURE OF THE LANDSCAPE WE HAVE HERE,
SOME OF THESE LOTS WILL, ON THEIR OWN, ALREADY SHOVE ALL OF THEIR WATER INTO ONE AREA AND REALLY AMICABLY BETWEEN
PEOPLE. 
          I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE ENGINEERS HAVE A WATER RUN OFF PLAN IN THERE. 
          IT MAKES SENSE. EVERYWHERE ELSE REQUIRES THIS,
BUT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN IS JUST LIKE INSANELY, INSANELY VAGUE TRIGGERS AT NOTHING. WE DON'T HAVE PERMITS ALREADY SET ASIDE FOR THESE
INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. SO IT JUST PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S A MESS. THAT'S ALL I GOT. 
          THANK YOU SIR. YES SIR. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          YOU KNOW, ADAM, HE REMINDED US THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS,
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MASS DRAINAGE ENGINEERING STUDIES DONE. 
          AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, CHARLES. ARE THERE ANY ARE YOU ARE THERE ANY DEVELOPMENTS, LIKE IN TESSERA GOING ON? ARE THEY COMPLYING WITH THAT OR ARE THEY PROVIDING THE
ENGINEERING STUDIES? YES, THEY ARE FOR THE DRAINAGE STUDIES OKAY. THEY ARE BECAUSE WE HAD SOME PROBLEMS IN THAT
WE HAD SOME PROBLEMS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          EVEN THOUGH IT IS A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY,
WE STILL HAD SOME LOTS THAT WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT WERE CAUSING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE PROPER PROCEDURES. SO WE WERE WE WERE ABLE TO REMEDY
THAT BEFORE IT BECAME A PROBLEM. 
          YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COOL. THANKS. THEN MY ONLY REQUEST WOULD BE WHEN YOU GENTLEMEN WORK
ON THIS, WHEN IT'S READY TO COME BACK, JUST GIVE US A SIGN AND WE'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. I'LL LIKELY WITH CHARLES'S PERMISSION,
MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WORK WITH A MEMBER OF STAFF TO MAKE SURE IT'S BUTTONED UP. 
          YEP. YEAH. VERY GOOD. OH. WE NOW HAVE STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS,
AND I'LL START NOW. 
          [XII. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]
OH STAFF REPORTS FIRST. OKAY, LET ME SEE. I GOTTA SEE IF I CAN DRAG THIS OUT TILL 9:00. 
          I SAID 815 IN THERE. YOU SAID 830. 830. OH, SOMEWHERE. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME STUFF REAL QUICK. BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
I'M ALREADY WORKING ON THE BUDGET CALENDAR FOR 2627. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING FOR NEXT YEAR ON THE FUNDS. 
          THE FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BROKEN OUT INTO THEIR OWN SECTIONS LIKE THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO, BECAUSE BY MY CURRENT COUNT, WE HAVE ONE OPERATING FUND, WE HAVE THREE ENTERPRISE FUNDS,
AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE REMAINING 13 ARE ALL RESTRICTED FUNDS. 
          SO YOU'LL SEE STAFF WILL PROBABLY BE BRINGING FORTH SOME ORDINANCES TO CLARIFY,
LIKE THE TREE MITIGATION MONEY, PARKLAND DEDICATION MONEY, WHERE THOSE CAN BE SPENT,
HOW THEY CAN BE SPENT. 
          BECAUSE I THINK YOU NEED THAT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THE IMPACT FEES,
MAKE SURE THEY GO INTO THE IMPACT FEE FUND. 
          AND THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE CIP FUND BECAUSE IMPACT FEES ARE VERY SPECIFIC. 
          WHEN YOU READ THE STATE LAW AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT BE SPENT FOR,
AND I THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME CO-MINGLING OF THAT AND CIP FUNDS. 
          SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THAT CLEANED UP FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR AND STUFF. SO
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. 
          CHART OF ACCOUNTS YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT. WE EXPECT THAT REPORT FROM TEXAS STATE BY THE
END OF OCTOBER. 
          STAFF'S WORKING ON GETTING THINGS CLEANED UP AT CITY HALL,
IMPROVING THE OVERALL APPEARANCE. 
          WE'VE BEEN CLEANING AND STUFF. WE'VE GOT SOME LIGHT FIXTURES THAT ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO
BE CHANGED OUT OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO BRING US IN COMPLIANCE WITH DARK SKY. 
          YEAH, NEW NEW LOCKS ARE COMING FOR THE DOORS. 
          IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS. FREESE AND NICHOLS, WE'VE GOT A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY MORNING
AT 9 A.M. 
          TO GO OVER THE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORT THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON. 
          NOW THAT THE STATE'S THROUGH PLAYING THEIR GAMES. 
          HAVE THAT'S WILL THAT COVER ALL THREE OF OUR IMPACT FEES WATER WASTEWATER AND IT WILL
COVER ALL THREE DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD ON. WE HAVE IT COMING TUESDAY MORNING AT 10 A.M. 
          FROM FRIESEN NICHOLS. SO THAT WILL PROBABLY BE ON THE OCTOBER 16TH AGENDA FOR APPROVAL TO
MOVE FORWARD. 
          EDEK EMAILED ME THIS AFTERNOON. THEY ARE WORKING ON A GRANT FOR STREETS AND PLACES,
STREETS AS PLACES AND DESTINATION STATIONS. 
          [05:20:04]
THAT GRANT IS APPLICATION IS DUE BY OCTOBER 13TH. 
          I BELIEVE IT IS IS WHAT'S IN THE NOTES. YEAH. 
          OCTOBER 13TH DEADLINE. SO THEY ARE USING THEIR GRANT WRITER THAT THEY CONTRACTED OUT WITH
AND MOVING FORWARD THEY'RE WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT NEW AGENDA SOFTWARE OR. 
          WELL WE'RE NOT WE'RE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE AGENDA SOFTWARE TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE THE ELECTRONIC VOTING ALL YOU'RE ALL GOING TO GET BRAND NEW TABLETS. 
          AND YOU'RE AS WE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERNET,
YOU'LL HAVE QUICK INTERNET SPEEDS. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR OWN INTERNET OR WIRELESS CONNECTIONS FOR JUST THE CITY COUNCIL
UP HERE. 
          SO PERMIT FEE SOFTWARE. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM MGO,
AND WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THROUGH CIVIC. PLUS, YOU WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GO ONLINE,
SEE WHERE YOUR PROJECT IS IN THE QUEUE AND WHAT STAGE IT'S AT. 
          SO WE WILL FINALLY HAVE THAT FIXED. IT'LL TAKE US A FEW MONTHS TO GET ALL THIS
IMPLEMENTED, BUT WE ARE GETTING IT FIXED. NICE. FOR YEARS THE ANSWER HAS BEEN IT'S WE KNOW IT'S
TERRIBLE, BUT IT'S FREE. YES. WELL YOU KNOW, I AFTER HAVING TO ACTUALLY WORK IN MGO FOR A FEW DAYS. 
          YEAH, I SAID NO MORE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE STAFF SPENDS HOURS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHERE A PROJECT IS ON THERE. 
          SO BRILLIANT DECISION. SO YES, I THINK THAT'S THE END OF MY LIST. 
          AND WE'RE AT 831. SO THANK YOU, SIR. MR.. JUST WHAT I SAID EARLIER,
THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD IS SCHEDULING THEIR NEXT MEETING, SO THEY'LL HOPEFULLY HAPPEN HERE PRETTY SHORTLY. AND I
THINK THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE, MISS BENEFIELD. I I LET DARK-SKY KNOW THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT GETTING NEW LIGHT FIXTURES
FOR CITY HALL, AND THEY WERE VERY PLEASED. MR. WEST. NOTHING FROM CALEB. 
          THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION DID MEET YESTERDAY DURING THE MEET THE CANDIDATES. 
          THEY PRIMARILY DISCUSSED TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE,
ARTICLE 9.9.8 OF CHAPTER NINE, CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT BASICALLY OUTLINED THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION. 
          THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION YESTERDAY. BUT AFTER DISCUSSION, I THINK WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE IS THE FINAL VERSION IN A,
IN A DRAFT, HAVE IT PASSED BRAD AND CHARLES AND JUST LOOK AT IT ONE MORE TIME BEFORE THEY GAVE IT A FINAL APPROVAL. 
          BUT BASICALLY, WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS BEING VERY SIMILAR TO THE PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT PRIOR TO CHAPTERS THREE, 3.5, FIVE, SIX AND 11, BEFORE ANYTHING IN THOSE CHAPTERS CAN BE MODIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL,
WE SHOULD, AT A MINIMUM, SEEK A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION. 
          YES, SIR. QUESTION. THANK YOU. I'M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THIS. WHEN I BROUGHT THIS TO
COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, I KNEW THAT THEY WOULD DO A GOOD JOB WITH THIS ONE QUESTION. 
          WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION AND WAS IT CONSEQUENTIAL REGARDING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP
ABOUT THE EMPOWERMENT OF THE COMMISSION UNDER OUR CHARTER? DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING LIKE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP DURING THE
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE THE STATUTES, THE STATE STATUTE SAYS THIS. OUR CHARTER SAYS THEY DO HAVE THIS AUTHORITY. 
          YOU REMEMBER THAT, BRAD? YEAH, WE'VE WRITTEN SEVERAL EMAILS ON THAT AS WELL,
SO IT'S OKAY. 
          I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION REALLY SO MUCH
ABOUT THAT, I MEAN. OKAY, COOL. I'M SORRY. NO. NO, PLEASE. I JUST YOUR YOUR CHARTER THAT YOUR PSC OPERATES AS A PSC
IS A QUASI JUDICIAL, BUT THAT IT DOES HAVE SOME LIMITED RECOMMENDATION TYPE AUTHORITY LIKE PSC TO
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO IT'S NOT REALLY QUASI JUDICIAL, WHICH IS A,
YOU KNOW, A LITTLE UNUSUAL, BUT THAT'S IN YOUR CHART. 
          SO JUST WE'VE WRITTEN SOME MEMOS ON IT BEFORE I CAN SHARE THEM AGAIN IF ANYBODY NEEDS
THEM. 
          THANK YOU. YEAH. OF COURSE. AND THEN THE BSE HEARD FROM A COUPLE BUILDERS THAT CAME IN TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE MAYBE A CHANGE OR RECOMMENDATION TO OUR THE LENGTH OF PERMIT TIMES FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES THAT MAY,
THAT MAY BE ON THE CLIFFS OR THAT ARE IN FEMA FLOOD ZONES SIMILAR TO THAT VERY CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD HERE ON THE DAIS. 
          YES. YEAH. SO THEY'RE LOOKING THEY'RE THEY'RE WELL,
SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY ENDED UP CREATING A SUBCOMMITTEE MADE UP OF CRAIG STANFORD, LAURA ZOTTER AND CLIFTON MCCULLOUGH TO REVIEW CHAPTER 3.110 TO DETERMINE IF AND WHAT WOULD
BE THE RIGHT WAY TO ALLOW FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS TO TAKE UP TO MAYBE TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE WITHOUT LARGE
PERMIT 
          [05:25:09]
FEES OR RENEWAL FEES? COOL. THAT'S IT. OKAY,
SO NOT A LOT HERE. 
          I'M GOING TO SAY WITH THE POA, THOUGH AT THE MEETING,
I WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED TO SEE THERE'S LIKE, I DON'T REMEMBER, THERE'S 11 OR 13 PEOPLE AND THERE'S A LOT OF CANDIDATES FOR POA,
SO WATCH THAT. 
          BUT EDC IS COMING UP, AND I WILL BE HAVING A MEETING AGAIN WITH DARREN,
SO NOTHING NEW ON THAT PARTICULAR FRONT. 
          I DO WANT TO SAY A SHOUT OUT. ERIC IS SO KIND TO KEEP ME KIND OF IN THE LOOP ON SOME OF
THE STUFF THAT'S GOING ON WITH THE GRANTS. 
          AND LET ME TELL YOU, SHE IS ON FIRE AND PUSHING THINGS THROUGH. 
          AND IF ERIC OR IS NOT ON THE MOVE, SHE'S SAYING HELLO. 
          SHE'S A LITTLE TASKMASTER ON GETTING STUFF THROUGH. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. MISTER. YEAH. PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          MET ON THURSDAY, AND THEY THEIR CHARTER THAT NIGHT WAS TO REVIEW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. 
          THEY AT ONE POINT, THEY WANTED TO KIND OF GO HUDDLE UP IN THE BACK AND TRY TO REWRITE IT
THERE OR MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF CHANGES TO IT, AND I WOULDN'T LET THEM GO IN THE BACK. AND THEN SO THEY CAME,
THEY, THEY BASICALLY SAID AND THIS WAS, THIS WAS FRANK'S SUGGESTION. HIS SUGGESTION WAS THE BEST CHARTERS HE'S SEEN OR THE BEST
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS HE'S SEEN WERE HOMEGROWN AND THAT YOU KNOW, THEY THEY THEY OUGHT TO TAKE A SHOT AT REWRITING IT. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU KNOW, KEVIN CALLED ME WITH SOME OTHER,
OTHER IDEAS, AND SO BUT THAT WAS THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. 
          THEY WANTED TO THEY BASICALLY WANTED TO REWRITE IT THEMSELVES. 
          AND I'LL ADD TO THAT, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MISS EYRE,
THE CHAIRPERSON MR. ROBBINS, AND THEN ALSO MR. WEST AND ROB. AND THE CONCLUSION WE CAME TO IS THAT I,
I HATE TO SEE THIS COUNCIL THAT HAS ALL THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM,
NOT TAKE A BITE AT THE APPLE. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'VE ARRANGED AND IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH MR.. 
          AND MR. ROBBINS ON THE 16TH AT OUR COUNCIL MEETING,
WILL HAVE A JOINT SESSION OF WORK SESSION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING TO DISCUSS THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN TO FIGURE OUT IS IT FIXABLE IN SHORT ORDER OR IS IT
IRRETRIEVABLY BROKEN? AND THEY NEED TO HAVE A HOMEGROWN REWRITE. AND SO WE'LL HAVE THAT SESSION ON THE 16TH AND
AND SEE IF WE CAN GET TO A CONCLUSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN. 
          OR IT JUST NEEDS TO GO TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE HERE OF LOCAL FOLKS TO REWRITE. 
          SO WE'LL SEE MORE ON THE 16TH. AND THEY DID TALK ABOUT USING,
YOU KNOW, USING IT AS A GUIDE AS WELL AS SOME OTHERS. 
          AND THEY THEY HAD ACTUALLY THEY'D RESEARCHED SEVERAL OTHERS FROM OTHER TOWNS AND THEY,
THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD DO IT FAIRLY QUICKLY USING THE,
USING THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THEY GOT AS A KIND OF A FORM. RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW, THEY THEY. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'D GET IT DONE BEFORE THE
ELECTION. 
          AND ONE LAST COMMENT, AND I'LL COME TO YOUR DIRECTION. THE INTENT IS,
IS FOR MR.. 
          MR. ROBBINS, ANYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO WORK WITH CHARLES? BECAUSE SOME OF THE STUFF IS FUTURE LAND USE MAP. 
          HE'S BEEN DRIVING THE GIS STUFF. EXCUSE ME, BUT BUT TO GET THOSE MODIFICATIONS MADE PRIOR
TO THE 16TH SO THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE. 
          SO THEY'LL BE. WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT. I THINK YEAH,
THEY DID WANT TO SPLIT IT UP. 
          THEY WANTED, YOU KNOW, ONE THEY WANTED A KIND OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE FILM AND
THEN ANOTHER SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE REST OF THE THE REST OF THE CONFERENCE. 
          AND THEY CREATED THOSE. THEY DID NOT CREATE THEM. 
          OKAY. DO IT NEXT TIME, I BELIEVE. WELL, IF THEY'RE IT'S ON THE AGENDA,
IF THE PNC, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING, AND PNC MEMBERS CAN WORK WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY WITH CHARLES TO IDENTIFY PARCELS FOR THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO PROHIBITION AGAINST US DOING THAT EITHER INDIVIDUALLY. 
          IT'S OKAY. AND THEN AND YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT INPUT BEFORE GIS PRODUCES THIS DRAFT. 
          FLUME. CHARLES. OKAY. YEAH, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF THAT WORK WILL PROBABLY BE DONE RIGHT THERE
IN MY OFFICE. 
          AS LONG AS MY. DO YOU HAVE A DATE APPOINTED FOR THIS ALREADY? I DO NOT. OKAY. I'LL REACH OUT TO YOU AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE,
BECAUSE I WILL START PLAYING WITH THE GIS ON MONDAY WHEN I GET TO THE OFFICE. 
          [05:30:01]
I'LL GET WITH YOU THEN. MONDAY MORNING, REACH OUT TO YOU. 
          AND ONE LAST COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS, IS I ASKED MR. BULLOCK WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS RIGHT THAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD TO REVIEW AND MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL BEFORE COUNCIL COULD TAKE UP THE COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN. THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT EVERYBODY WAS THINKING. 
          AND WHAT HE DID IS HE TOOK A LOOK AT STATE REGS. 
          AND THE ANSWER IS THEY HAVE TO REVIEW IT, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION,
AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY HAD IT ON AGENDA MEANS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED IT, SO WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THEM. THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. 
          THE INTENT IS TO WORK TOGETHER TO SEE IF WE CAN'T COME OUT WITH SOMETHING AND UTILIZE SOME
OF THE EXPERTISE THAT'S ON COUNCIL NOW BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER. 
          AND JUST FOR POSTERITY'S SAKE, I WOULD SAY TO THE COUNCIL,
FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, THAT FUTURE COUNCIL IS. DON'T DON'T DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY WITH THIRD PARTY. 
          JUST GET WITH THE P AND Z AND STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS AND,
AND AND HIRE A TECH WRITER BECAUSE I CAN, I CAN SAY WE DID A COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN IN 2016 WITH FREESE NICHOLS AND THEN HERE
RECENTLY WITH APH. 
          AND IN NEITHER CASE WERE WE SATISFIED WITH THAT. 
          THAT'S JUST MULTIPLE TIMES. YEAH. OKAY. MR. ROBERTS ARE WE HAVING A BOE MEETING IN
OCTOBER, SIR? NO BOE MEETING IN OCTOBER. DO WE HAVE ANY PENDING APPLICATIONS THAT VOA WILL HEAR
THAT I PRESUME MAYBE YOU'RE JUST DEFERRING UNTIL I HAVE ONE THAT WAS TABLED AT THE LAST VOA MEETING, BUT WE WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE
ORDINANCES AND EVERYTHING BEFORE WE BRING THAT ONE BACK. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY, MISTER PRINCE. YEAH. SO MINE IS IS A LITTLE BIT INDIRECT IN THE CHARTER
REVIEW COMMITTEE WE WERE HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS AND, AND I BROUGHT THOSE UP FOR FOR,
FOR FEEDBACK AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE ATTORNEY. 
          BUT ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THAT DISCUSSION WAS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION
BOARD. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I STUMBLED UPON, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY COUNCIL ALREADY
HAVE REALIZED THIS, BUT THERE IS A COUNCIL LIAISON. WE NOW HAVE A DISCUSSION BOARD FOR EVERY COMMITTEE. 
          RIGHT. AND SO FAR, FOUR OF OUR COMMISSIONS HAVE ACTUALLY USED THEM WITH SO CRC BUILDING
STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ZONING, AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THE OTHER COMMITTEES HAVE NOT USED IT SO
FAR. BUT IN ALL CASES, ONE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO OR TWO IN THE CASE OF CRC,
THE LIAISON ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO POST TO THAT MESSAGE BOARD. 
          AND SO I WANTED TO GET YOUR CONSENSUS. I THINK THE APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE SHOULD BE THAT THE
LIAISON SHOULD ONLY BE POSTING TO THEIR COMMITTEES MESSAGE BOARD IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY WOULD COMMENT IN MEETINGS TO HELP
CLARIFY ANSWER QUESTIONS, KEEP THEM FROM GOING OFF THE RAILS PROCEDURALLY,
BUT NOT OFFERING ANY OPINIONS SINCE ALL OF COUNCIL CANNOT COMMENT ON EVERY BOARD. 
          SO IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT THAT WAY, THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE ALL OF COUNCIL
COULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMENT ON EVERY BOARD, AND THEN IT'S OPEN FOR COUNCIL TO INTERACT WITH THE BOARDS,
WHICH MAY IN FACT BE WHAT WE WANT TO DO, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SET UP. ANY LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS THERE? SO THE I NEED TO GO BACK AND, YOU KNOW, THE THE EXPANSION OF THE MESSAGE BOARDS TO BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS IS NEW. 
          I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE RULES IN ANY WAY. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAD NOT I'VE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THOSE BOARDS AND
COMMISSION MESSAGE BOARDS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE CAN BE TOTAL OVERLAP BETWEEN THEM AND COUNCIL. 
          THAT'S I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT I NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THAT
THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE LAW. 
          I THINK IT WAS INTENDED SO THAT EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN. 
          BUT IF YOU'VE GOT A QUORUM OF COUNCIL TALKING TO A QUORUM OF THE BOARD ON A COMMISSION ON, MAYBE THE STATE LAW ALLOWS IT, BUT I, I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT YET. 
          SO I'M GOING TO DO I NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON THAT. WELL,
INSTEAD OF DOING RESEARCH, LET'S JUST SEE WHAT CONSENSUS IS OF THE TITUS. 
          YEAH. WELL, IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY,
THEN I WOULD SUGGEST DON'T DO IT THAT WAY. 
          LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AT BOTH ENDS. DO WE WANT TO LEAVE IT AS IT CURRENTLY IS? WHERE THE LIAISON HAS THE ABILITY TO COMMENT OR REMOVE THAT ABILITY OR GO TO THE OTHER
EXTREME AND HAVE ALL COUNCIL? I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE CONDITIONS THAT I WOULD ASK US TO WEIGH IN THIS PROCEDURE. 
          RIGHT. YEAH. YES. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT TOO. 
          YES, SIR. THE ONLY I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION'S OR COMMITTEES FOR SURE. 
          I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE,
WHERE THEY ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON A ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THEY'RE TALKING AND
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, 
          [05:35:02]
BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD MISS SAY THIS. SHE GOES,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE UP HERE TALKING AND WE DON'T EVER GET ANY FEEDBACK. 
          YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AND PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO
CHIME IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? YES, SIR. I GET IT, I GET THEIR FRUSTRATION. BUT THE WAY THE WHEELS OF GOVERNMENT WORK,
WE CAN'T ALL. 
          WE CAN'T SIT IN A ROOM WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND BE TELLING THEM,
HEY, I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THIS. 
          I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THIS INDIVIDUALLY. 
          THAT NEEDS TO COME FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS. I MEAN,
COUNCIL AS A WHOLE. 
          DO WE WANT THEM TO CONSIDER THIS? DO WE WANT THEM TO CONSIDER THAT THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT
IS THEY WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND THEY DERIVE THEIR OWN QUESTIONS FROM OUR QUANDARIES THAT ARISE HERE ON THE DAIS. 
          LET ME MAKE IT SO. IN THE MOST RECENT MEETING ONE MEMBER OF THE CRC SAID,
BOY, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET COUNCILS FEEDBACK ON THIS BEFORE WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT IT. 
          ANOTHER MEMBER SAID, DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT,
OR DO YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS IT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT THEM TELLING US WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE? AND SHE SAID,
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST. SO SO I THINK THAT THAT CRC IS,
IS ON THE WHOLE IS SAYING WE WANT TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS WITHOUT BEING IMPACTED DIRECTLY. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT'S SUCH A GOOD JOB. 
          THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. I WOULDN'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THAT. 
          IT'S JUST LONELY RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHAT OUR ETHICS
POLICY SAYS TOO, IS THAT WE CANNOT GO AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. YOU CANNOT GO AND TRY TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE
WORK PRODUCT OF SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BE SENDING YOU A RECOMMENDATION FOR SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON. 
          NOW, WE DID PUT A CARVE OUT IN THERE THAT SAID,
IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT SAYS IF THEY WANT TO ASK US A QUESTION AND GATHER OUR FEEDBACK, THAT'S CERTAINLY PERMISSIBLE. BUT I CAN'T GO TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING AND SAY, HEY, LISTEN, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU GUYS LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS CRAP,
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S INFLUENCING THE WORK PRODUCT. SO TO TAKE YOUR
EXAMPLE, THEN JUST A STEP FURTHER THEN. SO SUPPOSE A SCENARIO WHERE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          I GUESS THAT COULD BE DONE ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          THE LIAISON COULD ASK, I GUESS, TO THE WE HAVE AND WE HAVE DONE THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES. 
          YEAH. SO YEAH, BECAUSE THEY CAN SPECIFICALLY ASK AND THERE IS NO PROHIBITION THAT I'M
AWARE OF WHERE A MEMBER OF ANY COMMITTEE CAN'T REACH OUT TO, ANY ONE OF US CAN ASK FOR OUR OPINION THAT'S PERMISSIBLE. 
          THEY CAN ASK, RIGHT? ANY COUNCIL MEMBER. YES,
THEY CAN, BUT WE CANNOT BE REACHING OUT TO THEM BECAUSE IT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO INFLUENCE SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO
VOTE ON. 
          AND THAT'S THAT VIOLATES, I THINK, THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND HAVING A CITIZEN,
AN UNELECTED CITIZEN BODY REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS. ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL. THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY ON CRC IS THEY'VE BEEN WORKING
THROUGH VARIOUS CITY CHARTERS, AND THEY THEY THEIR NEXT MEETING, THEY'LL DO THE NATIONAL CITIES LEAGUE AND CL I THINK IT
IS. 
          AND THEN AT THAT POINT THEY WILL HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE REFERENCES AND I THINK THEY'RE
GOING TO START MAKING RAPID PROGRESS AT THAT POINT. THANKS. YEP. 
          ALL DONE. OKAY. SO YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE? NOTHING. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO MEET IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. KUDOS TO YOU,
SIR. BY THE WAY, IS YOU BEING THE LIAISON TO THAT COMMITTEE? WHAT THEY DID AT THE CANDIDATE MEET THE CANDIDATES NIGHT LAST NIGHT. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE. THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT. WHAT THE YAC IS DOING THIS YEAR IN 2025 IS,
IS THEY'VE BEEN THE MOST INVOLVED I'VE EVER SEEN THAT COMMITTEE. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME CREDIT FOR THAT,
BUT I CAN'T. 
          THAT'S REALLY MISS BALLOU AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF YAC THAT ARE CAUSING THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S GREAT. YEAH. BUT AGAIN,
THEY WILL MEET IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          CAPMETRO. WE DID HAVE THE SMALL CITY MAYORS MEETING HERE IN LAGO VISTA LAST WEEK. 
          WE HAD IT OVER AT THE EOC. WONDERFUL VENUE. WE HAD THE BEST ATTENDANCE EVER OF THESE SMALL
CITY MAYORS MEETINGS. 
          WE HAD MAYNOR WAS THERE VIRTUALLY, BUT POINT VENTURA,
JONESTOWN, LEANDER, AND LAGO VISTA WERE ALL IN PERSON. 
          WE HAD FIVE CAPMETRO FOLKS ATTEND ALL THE WAY FROM THE DEPUTY CEO TO GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
AND OPERATING AND PLANNING. 
          THEY GAVE A PRESENTATION ON A VARIETY OF THINGS. 
          I HAVE POSTED THAT TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. 
          SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO LOOK AT THAT PRESENTATION,
JUST FOLLOW THE LINK THAT I POSTED THERE. 
          AND THIS LAST ONE IS FROM TEXDOT AND I APOLOGIZE,
BUT I'M GOING TO READ THESE BECAUSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HAVE IT REALLY CLEARLY WHAT THEY SENT ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT THINGS. FOR THE SIGNAL AT BARQUET,
THE LAST UPDATE I HAVE IS STILL IN LINE WITH THE BLOW. 
          [05:40:02]
SHOULD SOME WORK START TO TAKE PLACE IN NOVEMBER WITH THE CONTRACTOR TARGET COMPLETION
DATE IN SPRING. 
          SO MARCH IS A GOOD GOAL OPENING WEATHER. SO THAT'S THE LIGHT OF EXCUSE ME AND 1431 THE
RESTRIPE AT LOWMAN FORD IS STILL A HIGH PRIORITY. OUR TRAFFIC OFFICE HAS THE PLANS DETAILED AND COMPLETED,
BUT I'M STILL WAITING TO SEE WHEN THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE MOBILIZING OUT. 
          I'LL TRY TO GET MORE OF AN UPDATE ON THIS FRONT BEFORE YOUR COUNCIL MEETING. 
          I DID NOT GET ANYTHING FROM HIM. I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS. 
          AND I WILL ADD THAT MISS OWENS SENT ME A NOTE ASKING IF WE COULD MAYBE PASS A RESOLUTION
TO PASS TO TEXDOT. 
          I SAID, SCREW THAT. I'M JUST GOING TO ASK HIM. AND HE DID. AND IT IS WITH REGARD TO THE
LIGHT THERE AT LOWMAN IN 1431. 
          THE SUGGESTION WAS, IS AS YOU COME DOWN AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE TURN ONTO LOWMAN
INSTEAD OF THE LIGHT, THE GREEN ARROW JUST GOING AWAY AND NOTHING BEING THERE,
A YELLOW FLASHING LIGHT BE THERE. 
          AND I'M PASSING ALONG TO KYLE. AND HE SAID THEY WOULD ABSOLUTELY TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT
AND TRY AND IMPLEMENT THAT WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE RESTRIPING. 
          AND THEN THIS LAST ONE THE RESTRIPING LIKE IN A COUPLE WEEKS. 
          THE RESTRIPING IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. HE DIDN'T GIVE A SPECIFIC TIME,
BUT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OKAY THIS FALL. 
          OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. SO I'M ABOUT TO READ WHAT THEY'RE DOING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW,
BETWEEN WHERE THEY STOPPED BEFORE AND ALL THE WAY TO DESTINATION WAY. 
          THE NEW WORK ON 1431 THAT EXTENDS TOWARDS DESTINATION WAY IS A CONTINUATION OF THE
PREVIOUS SEGMENTS. 
          WE'VE COMPLETED THAT CONSIST OF WIDENING THE ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL SHOULDERS AND
A TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE. 
          THE CONTRACTOR RECENTLY MILLED AND RESTRIPED THE ROADWAY TO A THREE LANE SECTION DURING
CONSTRUCTION TO SAFELY ACCOMMODATE THE ROADWAY WIDENING AND UPGRADING OF THE CROSS DRAINAGE CULVERTS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO KEEP
ROADWAY. 
          ONE KEEP THE ROADWAY ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION TO BUILD IN THE NEW SLOPE PROTECTION ALONG
THE EXISTING ROADWAY. 
          THERE'S ALSO TEMPORARY SPEED REDUCTION THAT WILL BE IN PLACE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. 
          THE CONTRACTOR'S INITIAL SCHEDULE SHOWS THEM TO BE FINISHED WITH THE PROJECT NEXT SPRING. 
          THESE LINEAR WIDENING JOBS CAN VARY A BIT ON SCHEDULE DEPENDING ON HOW COOPERATIVE THE
WEATHER IS. 
          THE PREVIOUS PROJECTS THAT WE BUILT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS IN LARGO AND JONESTOWN
AREA WERE THE RESULT OF OUR OFFICE SUBMITTING THEM TO THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, THE CIP, WHICH IS MANAGED BY OUR TRAFFIC DIVISION. 
          AFTER THE CURRENT PROJECT THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED,
THERE AREN'T PLANS TO CONTINUE THE FIVE LANE SECTION. 
          I'D ASKED, WOULD THEY CONTINUE AND GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH LAGO VISTA? HOWEVER, WE DO PLAN TO CONTINUE SUBMITTING SEGMENTS ON 14 TO 31 IN THE AREA FOR FUTURE CIP
CALLS. 
          THERE ARE ALSO SOME HIGH LEVEL PLANNING EFFORTS THAT WE'VE WORKED ON,
BUT NOTHING FUNDED FOR CONSTRUCTION LIKE WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO HAVE WITH THIS CIP PROGRAM. AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO CONTINUE POUNDING ON THEM,
SEEING IF WE CAN GET IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF WE COULD GET THAT DONE. ABSOLUTELY. AND
THAT'S ALL I HAD. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 852.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.