[X.3. Consideration and Possible action regarding Resolution No. 25-2164 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.]

OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IF NOT, THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ACTION ITEM NUMBER THREE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 5-2164 DEDICATING REQUIRED PUBLIC PARKLAND IN THE SIERRA ON LAKE TRAVIS SUBDIVISION BY HINES LAKE TRAVIS LAND TO 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 I'M GOING TO TAKE A HACK AT KIND OF SUMMARIZING THIS, AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK BRAD TO DO THE SAME. SO WE'VE BEEN

[00:55:06]

WORKING WITH THE SIERRA DEVELOPMENT FOR, GOSH, ALMOST 20 YEARS. THERE'S BEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THEN SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONAL AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED THAT ARE KIND OF DICTATING HOW WE HAVE TO PROCEED. BUT PART OF THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT, PART OF THE DEVELOPER REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE TEN ACRES OF PARKLAND AS PART OF THE THEIR EFFORTS OVER THERE.

AND THEY HAVE DEVELOPED THEY HAVE DEDICATED SOME OF THAT ALREADY. THIS IS THE CONTINUED EFFORT TO TRY AND DEDICATE AND GET THEM UP TO THE TEN ACRES THAT ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM, AND IT IS ALSO A CORRECTION OF EFFORTS THAT HAVE GONE ON PRIOR TO NOW. AT THE TIME, PROBABLY IN THE 2017 TIME FRAME, THEY DEDICATED OR ATTEMPTED TO DEDICATE THE LAND UNDERNEATH THE POOL. AND THE POOL ITSELF IS WHERE'S THE PAVILION AND SOME OF THE OTHER FACILITIES THERE. THEY DIDN'T ULTIMATELY GET IT DONE UNTIL 2020, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. BUT WHEN THEY DID THAT, THE PAPERWORK THAT WAS EXECUTED BY THE THEN COUNCIL HAD AN ERROR IN IT, AND THAT IT CALLED OUT OVER SEVEN ACRES OF LAND, BUT IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO CALL OUT 1.28 ACRES, THE ACTUAL LAND THAT WAS UNDERNEATH THE POOL.

AND SO PART OF THE EFFORT THAT WE'RE UNDERGOING TODAY IS TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE BACK IN 2020 WITH THAT PAPERWORK TO INDICATE THAT ONLY 1.28 ACRES IS BEING DEDICATED AS UNDERNEATH THE POOL. AS PART OF THAT PREVIOUS DEDICATION IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE EXECUTED WITH THEM IN THE PAST, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT, THERE WERE SPECIFIC PARCELS THAT WERE INDICATED THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED IN THE FUTURE, THAT WOULD HELP THEM MAKE THEIR TEN ACRE REQUIREMENT. AND ONE OF THOSE IS WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY, THE ADA RAMP. THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ACREAGE THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEDICATED RELATED TO EASEMENTS ON THE TRAILS THAT ARE OVER THERE. THERE IS SOME LEGAL ISSUES WITH LIENS THAT ARE ON THAT PROPERTY. AND SO WE HAVE CARVED THAT OFF, AND WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THAT TODAY. THE ONLY THING WE'RE DOING TODAY IS CORRECTING THE ERRORS FROM 2020 AND POTENTIALLY TAKING ON THE DEDICATION OF THE ADA RAMP. IS BRAD, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL, ANY LEGALITIES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON. SO I THINK THE FIRST THING, CHARLES, I HAD EMAILED YOU. YEAH. STAN, CAN YOU SHARE YOUR SCREEN? LET ME PRESENT THAT. SO WHAT? I'M TRYING. WHAT WHAT WHAT WE WILL BE PULLING UP HERE ARE IS A LITTLE THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF. IT'S ENTITLED THE RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TESSERA ON LAKE TRAVIS. AND AND THEN YOU WILL ALSO SEE THE AGREEMENT THAT IS ATTACHED TO A RESOLUTION THAT THE CITY PASSED IN 2017, WHICH IS ENTITLED THE AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES. SO IN IN 2012, IT WAS WHEN THE RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON LAKE TRAVIS WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.05 OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT SAYS SUBJECT TO SECTION 4.07, THE DEVELOPERS WILL DEDICATE NOT LESS THAN TEN ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PROPERTY TO SARAH TO THE CITY AS PARKLAND, PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. SO IT SUBJECTS THOSE TEN ACRES TO PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS AS A CONDITION TO THE CITY'S APPROVAL, EXCUSE ME, OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, THE DEVELOPER WILL ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY UNDER WHICH THE DEVELOPERS AGREE TO PAY ALL COSTS TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC PARKS.

DEVELOPERS WILL. LET'S SEE. CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT? I'LL CLICK. THANK YOU. SCROLL.

OKAY OKAY. GOT IT. SO SO THIS IS WHAT I'M READING RIGHT HERE. SO THESE ARE THESE ARE JUST SCREENSHOTS OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND WHAT I'M READING RIGHT NOW IS THE SECTION 4.05. AND IT JUST SAYS THAT IT IDENTIFIES THE TEN ACRE REQUIREMENT DEDICATION

[01:00:01]

REQUIREMENT. AND THEN IT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPERS WILL DEVELOPER WILL PAY ALL OF THOSE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

THOSE ARE PUBLIC PARKS, THOSE ARE PIT BONDS. AND AND PUBLIC PIT BONDS MUST BE SPENT ON PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES. AND THAT'S STATE LAW. AND THEN IT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS OR WILL EXPEND ANOTHER 585,000 TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE HOA IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES. AND THEN IT SAYS, WHEREAS THE CITY HAS NOT EXPENDED CITY FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT THE PUBLIC PARKS FACILITIES AND IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THE PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES, AND THEREFORE AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, UNDER SECTION ONE, IT

[01:05:04]

IDENTIFIES THE PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES AND IT SAYS, WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC PARKS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT? NUMBER ONE, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6840 LINEAR FEET OF IMPROVED HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS. NEXT WAS APPROXIMATELY 2.18 ACRES CONTAINING THE PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES. EXCEPT FOR THE TRAIL FACILITIES, THE CONCRETE ADA RAMP FROM THE PARK AREA TO TURN BACK POINT, A PARKING LOT CONTAINING 25 SPACES LOCATED WITHIN THE PARK AREA. APPROXIMATELY 2006 SQUARE FOOT PAVILION WITH RESTROOMS IN THE PARK AREA. SHOWERS OUTSIDE THE FENCED POOL AREA AND THE SWIMMING POOL AND WATER RECREATION FACILITIES. LOCATED WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 9600FT■S AREA LOCATED WITHIN THE PARK AREA. COMBINED, THOSE REPRESENT PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES AND APPROXIMATELY 5.323 ACRES OF LAND. SO UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, THIS ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT FIVE LITTLE OVER FIVE ACRES OF THE PUBLIC PARKLAND THAT SARAH WAS OBLIGATED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY. AND UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT SETS FORTH NUMBER ONE. IT MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES THIS PORTION OF THE TEN ACRES THAT WAS BEING DEDICATED, AND IT'S FURTHER SETS FORTH AND MEMORIALIZES THE OBLIGATION OF THE DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR AND MAINTAIN THESE FACILITIES, TO MAINTAIN THE FACILITIES, AND THAT THAT MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION COULD THEN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE HOA. AND IT FURTHER IDENTIFIES THAT THESE FACILITIES WERE PURCHASED WITH WITH PIN BOND MONEY, WHICH REQUIRES THESE FACILITIES TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THESE ARE ALL SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTION ABOUT. THE ORIGINATION, OR HAS THE OR THESE FACILITIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED TO BE ACCEPTED TONIGHT BEING DEDICATED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, THE CORRECTION OF THE POOL DEED AND THEN THE ADA RAMP AND SOME PARKING AREA. AND ORIGINALLY THE IDEA HAD BEEN FOR THE TRAILS TO BE DEDICATED TONIGHT AS WELL, OR TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE THIS ACTION. THOSE ARE ALL IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

THERE ARE OTHER DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS THAT IDENTIFY OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ACREAGE THAT NEEDED TO BE DEVELOPED. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THOSE RELATES TO WHAT IS CALLED THE DETENTION POND, AND IT IS A PORTION OF ACREAGE. I FORGET HOW MANY ACRES. I THINK IT'S ABOUT TWO ACRE AND A HALF, TWO ACRES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ABOUT TWO ACRES THAT WERE DEDICATED TO THE CITY, A PORTION OF WHICH OPERATES AS AS SOME PARKLAND. AND THEN THE BACK PORTION OF IT, I BELIEVE, IS OR MAYBE IT'S THE FRONT PORTION IS DETENTION POND. I FORGET THE ORIENTATION, BUT IN ANY EVENT, A PORTION OF IT IS PARKLAND AND A PORTION OF IT IS DETENTION POND. AND SO THAT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT WAS THAT WAS DEDICATED PURSUANT TO A SEPARATE RESOLUTION. BUT IT'S THE SAME KIND OF THING. IT'S THE IT'S A SIMILAR DOCUMENT THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT AS SARAH DEVELOPS, THESE THINGS WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OVER TIME. AND THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT IN ADDITION, SO THESE IDENTIFY THESE ITEMS WERE IDENTIFIED.

NOW, I MENTIONED BRIEFLY THE TRAILS MAYOR, AS YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY, WHAT WE HAD CONTEMPLATED FOR TONIGHT AND WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY WAS THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO NUMBER ONE. YOU HAD TO CORRECT THE DEDICATION, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEDICATION OF THE POOL AREA. AS YOU NOTED, THE POOL AREA WAS IDENTIFIED AS SEVEN ACRES, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THAT SMALLER ACREAGE, THE KIND OF THE HOLE WITHIN THE DONUT. AND I FORGET THE EXACT ACREAGE OF THAT 1.2, 1.2, 1.2, 1.3 ACRES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND, AND AND AFTER, YOU KNOW, YOU WE LOOKED AT IT, WE LOOKED AT IT WITH THE SARAH ATTORNEY.

WE WENT THROUGH A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THESE RECORDS. AND WHEN YOU GO BACK AND YOU IF YOU WERE TO ADD UP THE THE ACREAGE THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED, WHICH INCLUDES SOMETHING LIKE THE DETENTION FACILITY AND YOU ADD UP THE OTHER THE TRAIL THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED, THE ADA RAMP AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. IT EQUALS OUT TO ABOUT TEN ACRES.

BUT IF YOU COUNT IF YOU INSTEAD USE THAT SEVEN ACRES, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE POOL DEDICATION, IT GOES OVER THE TEN ACRES. RIGHT? SO WE KNOW FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THAT THAT SARAH IS ONLY OBLIGATED TO DEDICATE TEN ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK. AND SO WHEN YOU ADD UP THE ACREAGE FOR THE POOL AND YOU ADD UP ULTIMATELY THE TRAILS, AND YOU ADD UP THE ADA

[01:10:02]

RAMP AND, AND THE DETENTION FACILITY AND PERHAPS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M FORGETTING, THAT ALL ADDS UP TO ABOUT TEN ACRES. AND SO THE IDEA TONIGHT HAD BEEN TO FOR THEM TO DEDICATE THE REMAINDER OF THESE, THESE ITEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE DEDICATED, WE RECEIVED WORD FROM THE SARAH ATTORNEY TWO WEEKS AGO, THREE WEEKS, A COUPLE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, WHATEVER IT WAS THAT HINES THAT THEY. THEY HAD TO THEY ARE STILL ON THEIR END AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS, BUT THEY ARE STILL RESOLVING MECHANICS AND MATERIAL LIENS THAT RELATE TO SOME OF THE PARCELS ON WHICH THE THESE THESE TRAILS ARE DEDICATED. AND THAT WAS TAKING THEM TIME TO RESOLVE THAT. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE TRAILS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THEY GO THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LEGAL PARCELS AND SO ON. EACH OF THOSE LEGAL PARCELS, THEY'VE GOT TO RESOLVE THOSE M&M LIENS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T ACCEPT DEDICATIONS THAT HAVE LIENS ON THEM. AND IT'S MULTIPLE PARCELS BECAUSE THE TRAIL GOES THROUGH AND, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY ACRES OF OF PROPERTY. SO THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH AND RESOLVE THESE LIENS ON EACH PARCEL. AND THAT'S TAKING THEM SOME TIME. SO THEIR REQUEST TO US WAS TO WITHDRAW THAT PORTION OF THE TRAIL PORTION FROM THE DEDICATION, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEDICATE IT TO US YET, AND WE CAN'T ACCEPT IT UNTIL THAT'S RESOLVED. THAT LEAVES US TONIGHT WITH YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE THE POOL CORRECTION DEED AND CORRECTING THE RESOLUTION, ACCEPTING IT TO IDENTIFY THE PROPER ACREAGE AND THEN THE ADA RAMP PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS DEDICATED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO LEGAL ISSUES WITH THAT. AND WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK LATER WHEN THEY HAVE RESOLVED THE LIEN ISSUE ON THE TRAILS AND DO THAT SEPARATELY. WE HAVE WANTED TO DO IT AS ONE ITEM, AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BECAUSE ONE OF THE OTHER SUGGESTIONS AND REQUESTS, AND I THINK COUNCIL WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, WAS TO THEN PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAP WHICH IDENTIFIES ALL OF THESE PARCELS AND AMENITIES THAT ARE PUBLIC, SO THAT THAT IS PART OF THE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS. STATE LAW ALLOWS HAS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICES RELATED TO PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN A PYD THAT SOMEONE BUYS. THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE NOTICES, BUT IT DOES ALLOW THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE NEW OR ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATIONS. AND THAT THAT REQUEST WAS BROUGHT TO US I THINK COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, VIEWED IT FAVORABLY. AND SO THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. HOWEVER, WE CAN'T PROVIDE THAT FULL LIST OF ALL OF THESE PUBLIC. AMENITIES. THERE MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN PAID FOR WITH BONDS UNTIL IT'S BEEN DEDICATED AND ACCEPTED. SO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL ALL OF IT IS DONE, UNTIL WE CAN AMEND. YOU CAN PASS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAP AND THAT THEN THAT NEW NOTIFICATION CAN THEN BE PROVIDED TO BUYERS ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS. SO I THINK, LESTER, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK I DO HAVE ONE FOR YOU. I'VE HAD NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

IT IS ON PAGE 228 OF THE PACKET. IT'S IN EXHIBIT B TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF RESERVED EASEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE. AND IT'S IN ITEM NUMBER ONE, ACCESS EASEMENT. AND IT GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. YOU SAID PAGE 228 228 IN THE PACKET ITEM NUMBER ONE ACCESS EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO PROVIDE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED, UNINTERRUPTED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE DOMINANT STATE TO PACE RAVINE DRIVE. THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE OVER AND ACROSS EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS ON THE PROPERTY. AS OF THE DATE OF THE DEED, THE DOMINANT ESTATE IS UNDEVELOPED. GRANTEE AGREES. THE DOMINANT ESTATE SITE PLAN WILL AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTING EXISTING PAVED AREAS. EXCUSE ME ON THE PROPERTY TO PAVED AREAS ON THE DOMINANT ESTATE TO PROVIDE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS TO BASED RAVINE DRIVE. I THINK THE CONCERN IS, IS THAT, EXCUSE ME, THIS WORDING PROVIDES THE CITY THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOME HUGE PARKING FACILITY DOWN THERE THAT OPENS THIS UP TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE PARKING AND UTILIZING THE FACILITIES DOWN THERE. WE HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT IT IS

[01:15:01]

YES SIR. IT DOES. SO I WILL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. AND FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. YES SIR. OKAY. I GUESS I JUST KIND OF DO THE ABBREVIATED VERSION OF WHAT YOU SAID, BRAD, WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A NARRATIVE OUT THERE THAT I'VE READ AND I'VE COMMENTED ON THAT THIS COUNCIL IS UTILIZING THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO DO SOMETHING NEFARIOUS AND TAKE PARKLAND AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR OWNERS AND CREATE SOME WATERSIDE PARK. AND I THINK IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT BRAD JUST SAID, THAT JUST UNEQUIVOCALLY IS A FALSE NARRATIVE. WE ARE SIMPLY FOLLOWING THROUGH OUR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2012. AND IT WAS 2017. IT SPELLED OUT THIS ADA RAMP. IT SPELLED OUT THIS PARKING.

THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE. THAT'S US TRYING TO DO ANY SORT OF TAKING. WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED. AND THEN I THINK THE DISCUSSION FOR US TONIGHT IS DO WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS PIECEMEAL VERSION OF IT, OR DO WE WAIT UNTIL HEINZ FIXES WHATEVER EASEMENT ISSUES THEY HAVE ON THE TRAIL PART OF IT, WHICH I THINK IT WAS SAID TONIGHT, THAT COULD TAKE A WEEK, THAT COULD TAKE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE THEM TO DO. YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN.

NUMBER ONE IS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE THESE AGREEMENTS PREDATE I THINK I MEAN, EVERYBODY EVERYBODY WHO'S ON THE DAIS TONIGHT, NOBODY.

YOU KNOW, I WAS AROUND BACK IN 2000, OH, 2012. SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. BUT WHEN IT WAS PASSED IN 2020 I WAS OFF COUNCIL. BUT I DO APPRECIATE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S REALLY CLEAR. BUT MY POINT IS THAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT GOES BACK 20 YEARS OR SO, AND THEN IT WAS AMENDED IN 2012, AND THAT THOSE AGREEMENTS CREATED THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

AND THE 2017 DOCUMENT RESOLUTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WAS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO ENTER INTO BY VIRTUE OF THE 2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THE 2017 AGREEMENT IDENTIFIES THESE PARCELS THAT WERE BEING THAT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE OR, YOU KNOW, DEDICATED TO THE CITY, WHICH YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT. SO THESE ARE THESE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR YEARS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THIS IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT WAS PROPOSED, EVEN IF THE TRAIL SYSTEM HAD BEEN ON TONIGHT AND THERE HADN'T BEEN THE LEAN ISSUE AND ALL THAT STUFF, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THIS 2017 DOCUMENT, AS IS ITEMS THAT HINES WAS ALREADY OBLIGATED TO DEDICATE IN. YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT BECAUSE IT'S GOT PIN MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY PAID FOR IT. SO THESE AREN'T ANYTHING NEW. THESE ARE JUST THE IT'S JUST THE CONTINUATION OF A CONTRACT. AND MAYBE IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, BUT IT DIDN'T. BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES FOR THEM TO DEDICATE IT AND THE CITY TO ACCEPT IT. I MEAN, IF I COULD ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SEPARATE SOMEWHAT FROM THE ISSUE THAT OVERALL, WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE RESIDENTS TO BEGIN WITH IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OWNERS WHO, WHILE THEY WERE PURCHASING, WERE NOT GIVEN FULL DISCLOSURE OF THIS PUBLIC LAND. AND AFTER THIS IS DONE CORRECTLY, THAT WILL HELP US GOING FORWARD LIKE THIS WILL BE ABLE TO BE DISCLOSED TO THOSE FOLKS. AND I THINK THIS ENTIRE COUNCIL MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE ITEMS YOU'VE PUT ON AGENDAS OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, BUT IT'S BEEN PRETTY REGULAR. I THINK THE WHOLE COUNCIL'S BEEN IN AGREEMENT THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT PRACTICE THAT HAPPENED. A NUMBER OF US HAVE SIGNED THE LETTERS THAT WENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

I HELPED GET THE OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, STATE SENATOR TO WRITE LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND I EVEN SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE MYSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO GO FORWARD. AND IT'S STILL GOING AND PENDING. SO WE

[01:20:02]

DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN PRETTY UNIFIED. I THINK, IN THAT MESSAGE, THE ONE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO SEND BACK TO YOU, BRAD, WAS IT'S BEEN THEORIZED AS WELL THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS AMENDMENT TONIGHT, THAT WE COULD DECLINE TO SIGN IT AND HAVE HINES DECLINE TO SIGN IT, AND THEN SOMEHOW THAT MAY REVERT LAND BACK TO HINES. AND THERE CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF THIS TO BE UNWOUND AND RETURN BACK TO THE HOA. DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY VALIDITY TO THAT? I THINK I THINK IF I, IF I UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE PROPOSAL OR THE SUGGESTION, THEN I THINK, NO, THERE'S NOT. AND THE REASON THERE'S NOT THE REASON I TAKE THAT STRAND FAIRLY STRONGLY IS BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE. ONE OF THEM IS NUMBER ONE, I JUST I WOULD I WOULD TELL YOU, I WOULD QUASH THE IDEA THAT THIS, THAT THE EARLIER MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE POOL PROPERTY SOMEHOW WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO GET OUT OF OUT OF THAT, OR IT WASN'T DONE PROPERLY OR SOMETHING TO THAT NATURE, BECAUSE AS THE 2017 RESOLUTION INDICATES, AND AS THE OTHER RECORDS AS WELL, THOSE THAT PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AND PURCHASED WITH BOND MONEY. THEREFORE, NUMBER ONE, IT MUST BE PUBLIC UNDER THE LAW. YOU COULDN'T HAVE USED PIT BOND MONEY ON IT OTHERWISE. AND SO THAT BECAUSE THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE, THAT THAT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO STAY AND REMAIN PUBLIC PARKLAND PROPERTY, THE ONLY WAY THAT IT COULD BE. ON PARKLAND, RIGHT, IF YOU WERE IF YOU WILL IS, IS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS OF LAGO VISTA AND THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE EVEN IF THAT HAPPENED AND THE VOTERS APPROVED THE, THE THE TO TO TO RELEASE THAT PUBLIC PARKLAND, IT STILL BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FOR WITH BOND MONEY AND THOSE BONDS ARE STILL BEING PAID BACK. I'M NOT BOND COUNCIL AND I DON'T PRETEND TO BE. THAT'S WAY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT WE'VE ALL TALKED WITH MR. FOWLER AS THE CITY'S BOND COUNSEL. HE'S HE'S APPEARED BEFORE. HE'S EXPLAINED THIS PREVIOUSLY. AND THE EARLIEST DATE ON WHICH THAT CAN BE PAID OFF, WHICH WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL COST IN THE MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD BE 2030. SO EVEN IF EVEN IF YOU HELD THE ELECTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR ELECTION DATE IN MAY AND THE CITIZENS SAID, LET'S RELEASE THE POOL OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY WANTED TO RELEASE, IF IT'S BEEN PAID FOR WITH BOND MONEY, THAT COULD NOT COME INTO EFFECT UNTIL 2030 AT THE EARLIEST, AND WHEN WHOEVER, NOT THE CITY OF SOMEBODY IS PAYING THAT MONEY BACK TO THE PIT, YOU KNOW, THE BOND MONEY TO THE MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BECAUSE THOSE WERE BONDS THAT FUNDED THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE HURDLES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CROSSED BEFORE THAT HAPPENED. SO EITHER WHETHER YOU CALL IT THE, YOU KNOW, THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR WITH RELATION TO THE POOL OR IF THE CITY SAYS NO, WE DON'T ACCEPT THIS, THIS PROPERTY, IF IT'S BEEN PAID FOR WITH BOND MONEY, IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY. IT, IT BY DEFINITION, UNDER THE LAW, IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY. AND YOU'RE YOU'RE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT IT. AND SO IF YOU DIDN'T I WOULD TELL YOU THAT, THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY PUT THE CITY IN BREACH AND EXPOSED TO LIABILITY. SO I THINK YOU'VE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED THESE ARE THESE ARE LONG STANDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF HOW THE BUILDERS AND HINES OR WHOEVER ELSE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAVE DESCRIBED THIS, THESE AMENITIES, THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES. THE CITY'S OBLIGATION IS HERE. WE'RE SET FORTH CONTRACTUALLY A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. AND MY ADVICE TO YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT AND FULFILL YOUR END OF THE CONTRACT. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. GARY YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. PLEASE COME FORWARD. AND WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALL THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ENLIGHTENING AND IT'S REALLY SUPER CRAZY, I GOTTA SAY. I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH US BEING SURPRISED AND THE COMPLEXITIES COMING AND GOING. GOD BLESS THEM. I SENT ALL OF YOU AN EMAIL, AND I WAS GOING OFF OF INFORMATION IN THE PACKET. I DID NOT HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH I WOULD BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. HAD I GONE TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I DO STILL SEE THAT VOTING NO ON TONIGHT'S THE THE RECITALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH. I ASK IF YOU VOTE NOW BECAUSE I'M STILL KIND OF HUNG UP ON THE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING LOT FOR THE ADA COMPLIANCE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS. IF IF YOU GO DOWN THE STREET AND YOU GO, LOOK WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S A UTILITY BOX RIGHT

[01:25:04]

THERE, IT DROPS TEN FEET, IT DROPS MAYBE 60FT. AND THEN IT'S IN FLOOD FLOODPLAIN. SO NONE OF THAT MAKES SENSE WHATSOEVER. WHY COULDN'T THE EXISTING PARKING LOT FOR THE POOL, WHICH IS ALREADY PUBLIC, RIGHT. IT'S GOING TO BE DEDICATED AS PUBLIC BETWEEN THE THE WORKING FACILITIES FOR THE POOL. AND THE POOL ITSELF IS WIDE ENOUGH TO PUT AN ADA SIDEWALK AND COME AROUND THE POOL, AND THAT'S WHAT THE EXISTING GRAVEL. AND IT DOESN'T COST YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. SO I STILL I STILL SAY STRIKE ALL OF THAT ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY ON PAGE 14 AND THE PARKING LOT DOWN BELOW, BECAUSE THE HOA WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO PUT THIS INTO THEIR OPERATING BUDGET. THERE'S GOING TO BE INSURANCES FOR THE FLOODPLAIN. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE MAINTENANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ASPHALT. IT HAS TO BE ROCK AND CONCRETE. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, NOT ENOUGH BLANK IN WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN ORDER TO EVEN SWITCH BACK IN.

AND THE PITCH, THE PITCH WOULD BE MORE THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED. AND SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS, I STILL SAY ALL THAT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE STRICKEN AND AND A MORE REASONABLE SOLUTION NEEDS TO BE OFFERED. THANK YOU MA'AM. APPRECIATE IT. GREAT. NO ONE ELSE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE? SURE. I WANT TO SAY ALL I WANT TO SAY REALLY IS WHY NOT TAKE A FIELD TRIP OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? COULD YOU PLEASE COME ON OUT AND SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, AND YOU'LL SEE WHY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. WOULD YOU MIND GIVING ROBIN YOUR NAME? MY NAME IS MARGARET PETERS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. RESIDENTS FOR COMING OUT. BRAD. I DIDN'T GET ALL THAT. COULD YOU REPEAT IT AGAIN? I'M GOING TO JUST BE REAL TO THE POINT. WE HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHOM I CONGRATULATE FOR WINNING, THAT ARE VERY WELL VESTED IN THE TESSERA MATTER. AND AND THE SIMPLEST OF TERMS. I'D LIKE THEM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS FROM THE DAIS.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I'D LIKE TO. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS. THAT'S MY POSITION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANY FORMAL MOTIONS WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S MY POSITION ON IT.

AND, MAYOR, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I, IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE CITIZENS COMMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS BEING DEDICATED. I'M I CAN'T REALLY ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT FROM A DEVELOPMENT IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT. THAT'S THAT'S. SOMETHING I UNDERSTAND. AND IT MAY NOT, BUT BUT FROM A PURE LEGAL TECHNICAL SENSE, WHETHER OR NOT IT, YOU KNOW, IS IT LEGAL, IS IT DIFFERENT THAN IS IT GOOD DEVELOPMENT? THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. BUT BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST DO, I DO WANT EVERYONE TO HEAR THOUGH, IS REMEMBER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. AND SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE POINT THAT YOU MADE ABOUT THE DROP OFF AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT KIND OF CAN CAN THE CITY ACCEPT SOME OF THIS IF IT'S CLIFFSIDE OR DROP OFF OR WHATEVER? AND I WANT EVERYONE TO BE AWARE OF 5.14 OF THE CITY'S PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS A FEW THINGS. I DON'T READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF OF PROPOSED PROPERTY, IT'S UNSUITABLE AND SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL IF IT'S LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR IT'S GOT UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREAS AND SO FORTH, AND IT HAS TO HAVE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET. HOWEVER, IT ALSO SAYS, AND IN THIS PART I AM GOING TO READ, QUOTE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OF THE ABOVE, THE COUNCIL, AT ITS DISCRETION, MAY DECIDE TO ACQUIRE ANY LANDS NOT OTHERWISE SUITABLE FOR PARKLAND IF THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH LAND WOULD PROVIDE FOR PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS, AREAS OF UNIQUE GEOLOGIC OR CULTURAL FEATURES, OR PROTECTION FROM PERIODIC FLOODING. SO I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE TRAIL AREA HAS EXTREME DROP OFFS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, BUT PART OF IT IS IT'S ALL IN 100 YEAR FLOOD. AND AND I UNDERSTAND AND BUT BUT I WILL JUST TELL YOU HAVING DONE THIS FOR, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE PARKLAND TRAILS AND SO FORTH ROUTINELY

[01:30:03]

IN FLOODPLAIN AREAS BECAUSE BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED. IT IS ALSO UNIQUELY SUITED FOR TRAIL AREAS, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND SO YOU, YOU, YOU MAY, YOU MAY, BUT YOU MAY MAINTAIN THE NATURAL FEATURES.

SO I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THAT DISCRETION UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE. I JUST WANT TO READ ONE PART OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT TO ME KIND OF SOLVES THE PROBLEM. IT SAYS THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE OVER AND ACROSS EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CREATING NEW ROADS THERE.

NO, IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE OVER AND ACROSS EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THIS EASEMENT GOES. IT DOESN'T GIVE US THE RIGHT TO CREATE A WHOLE NEW ROAD OFF OF PACE RAVINE, DOWN TO THE ADA RAMP, AND EXHIBIT B, THAT'S WHAT I'M READING FROM. I'M READING FROM EXHIBIT B IN THE PACKET. IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE OVER AND ACROSS EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S LIMITED TO THAT. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. AM I SPEAKING? YOU'RE FROM HAYNES, CORRECT? CORRECT. YOU. COULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? IT. AM I DRAWING THE CORRECT CONCLUSION THERE? ERIC HINES YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. IT'S OVER EXISTING FACILITIES. OKAY. THERE'S NOT NEW ROADS, NEW DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE ENVISIONED BY THAT PARTICULAR EASEMENT. NO, YOU'RE CORRECT. AND IT'S ACCESS EASEMENT. AND SO ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ACCESS EASEMENT, YOU'D HAVE TO GET PERMISSION AND APPROVAL TO BUILD A NEW ROAD BECAUSE YOU REALLY THE ONLY THE RAMP AND THE POOL IS CITY OWNED.

RIGHT. ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL EASEMENT, ADDITIONAL DEED, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. CORRECT. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO. YES, EXACTLY. I DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANOTHER DRIVEWAY. EXACTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR, I APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING ELSE ON UP HERE, MR. BENFIELD? DID YOU? I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY FOR YOU, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS IT. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN ROBERTS. WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION. YOU CAN ALMOST CONSIDER THIS TO BE A LAME, LAME DUCK SESSION. YOU KNOW WHERE WE HAVE THREE COUNCILORS ABOUT TO TAKE THE STAND AND TWO OF THOSE, ARGUABLY, ARE EXPERTS FROM TESSERA THAT LIVE AND BREATHE THIS AND HAVE TAKEN FIELD TRIPS THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD MAKE A DECISION TODAY UNTIL WE GET THEIR PROFESSIONAL INPUT. SO I THINK THE VOTERS OF LAGO VISTA SPOKE, AND I THINK MAKING A DECISION BEFORE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A PROFESSIONAL WEIGH IN WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. NUMBER TWO, I'LL PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT I THINK HAYNES HAS BEEN GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT PASS ON THEIR PARKLAND DEDICATION. WHILE I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU READ, MR. BULLOCK, THAT PARKLAND CAN RECEIVE A VARIANCE FROM COUNCIL, THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY SO THAT PARKLAND WAS DESIGNED TO BE PARKLAND. PARKLAND, RIGHT, RIGHT. IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE DRAINAGE DITCHES, WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE HILLSIDES. I MEAN, I GET IT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTS PARKLAND IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IF IT'S A NICE BEACHY AREA THAT GOES DOWN TO THE LAKE, I GET THAT. BUT NOBODY WANTS PARKLAND ON THE SIDE OF THE CLIFF. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TEN ACRES THAT HAYNES IS LOOKING AT DEDICATING TO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TO THE CITIZENS OF TESSERA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RETENTION DITCHES AND HILLSIDES. AND THOSE TEN ACRES DO NOT REPRESENT THE BEST. AND THAT'S WHAT PARKLAND IS DESIGNED TO BE. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE THE BEST ON TOP OF THE HILLSIDE OR DOWN BY THE WATER'S EDGE, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFUL SPOTS THAT PEOPLE CAN ENJOY AND LOVE. AND THAT'S THE CENTER POINT OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT RETENTION DITCHES. NUMBER TWO OR NUMBER THREE, KID VERSUS MUD. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. THESE ARE GOOD.

THESE ARE BAD. THIS ISN'T ABOUT THAT. THIS IS ABOUT DISCLOSURE. RIGHT. THIS IS ABOUT WHAT WAS TOLD TO THESE PEOPLE AT THE TIME THAT THEY PURCHASED. RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEDS OR MUDS BECAUSE IF THEY'RE PROPERLY DISCLOSED, THEN EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO ON THE FRONT END. THE ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE GETTING INTO UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE, RIGHT. AND I'M NOT GOING TO BREAK DOWN ALL THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF HOW THEY FEEL MISLED. BUT ONE OF THOSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS ON PARKLAND DEDICATION. RIGHT.

AND I FIND THAT IT WOULD BE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO DO THIS PIECEMEAL APPROVAL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES HINES THE UPPER HAND. I THINK FOR AS LONG AS THIS SCRIBNER ER IS NOT CORRECTED, WE ARE IN A POSITION TO NEGOTIATE, AND AS SOON AS IT'S

[01:35:04]

APPROVED, IT PUTS YOU IN THE IN THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE YOU SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT I'VE, I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THE SAME BROCHURES I'VE SEEN THAT SAID THAT THEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO PARKLAND OR THEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO ALL THESE DIFFERENT PRIVATE AMENITIES. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HINES COME OUT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S DO A REAL DEDICATION OF LAND. LET'S BUILD A REAL POOL. LET'S DEDICATE THIS POOL TO THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA. LET'S DEDICATE THIS POOL TO THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF TESSERA. LET'S MAKE THEM TWO SEPARATE AMENITIES. LET'S MAKE THESE WRONGS RIGHT. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING THIS THING APPROVED. IT WOULD BE DONE JUST LIKE THAT. BUT THE ISSUE IS, IS WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR SO THAT YOU CAN GET 99% COMPLIANCE. AND THEN A YEAR DOWN THE ROAD, WE'LL JUST DO THESE FINAL HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND EVERYBODY JUST GO ON THEIR MERRY DAY. AND I AND I PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. AND THEN WELL I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT I SECOND THE MOTION TO TABLE. SO I GUESS I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT. I MEAN, IS THAT YOUR INTENT THAT IF WE ARE TABLING THIS, YOU'RE COMING BACK WITH A PROPOSAL TO ASK HINES TO BUILD A SECOND POOL AND TO FIND NEW LAND AND CREATE DIFFERENT PARKLAND TO MEET THEIR TEN ACRE OBLIGATION. NO, I, I WOULD LOVE THAT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OF JESS HALL AND AMANDA AND KAREN. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEIR FEEDBACK ON THIS. I, I'M THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT THERE'S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS TO ACCEPT THESE THINGS, BUT I THINK AS LONG AS I THINK MR. ROBERTS ASKED A VERY ASTUTE QUESTION IS, IS ARE WE ON A TIME FRAME HERE? AND I DIDN'T GET THE ANSWER WAS THAT THERE WAS A TIME FRAME HERE. I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT. HE'S REFERRING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO IF THERE'S IF THERE'S NO REASON TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, THEN, YOU KNOW, LET'S GET THE LET'S GET THE PEOPLE THAT WON THEIR ELECTIONS AND LET'S SEE WHAT HINES IS WILLING TO DO TO HELP FIX SOME OF THESE ISSUES. YEAH, I DON'T OPPOSE TABLING IT EITHER, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR TRAIL EASEMENT STUFF DONE. BUT I DO WANT TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT. AND I MEAN, JESS, YOU'RE HERE. I GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TALK IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND. I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT CALL. BUT IN SOME WAY, IT SHOULD BE SAID TO YOU WHAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS? SO WE'RE ASKING, IN YOUR VERY EARLY DAYS OF BEING ON COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO THROW YOU STRAIGHT INTO THE FIRE OF THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WHO ARE QUESTIONING SARAH SLATE ARE NOW GOING TO SAY, OH, GREAT. THE VERY FIRST THING HE'S GOING TO WORK ON IS A SARAH ITEM IN HIS BACKYARD. AND HOW YOU VOTE ON THAT IS GOING TO IMPACT WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS THINK ABOUT YOU. AND ARE THEY GOING TO THINK, HEY, DID HE LIVE UP TO WHAT WE JUST VOTED HIM FOR? AND THEN YOUR OPPOSITION IS GOING TO SAY, HEY, WHY ARE THEY COMING IN? AND IMMEDIATELY WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T SOLELY FOCUSED ON? ARE YOU FULLY AWARE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING OF YOU? THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THAT OPPORTUNITY. EXCUSE ME? MY HORSE, MY HOUSE. MY VOICE IS A LITTLE HOARSE AFTER HAVING TALKED. SEEMS LIKE ENDLESSLY FOR SOME TIME NOW. THE THE I THINK CONCERN IS THAT WE FIND A SOLUTION THAT THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYBODY CAN BE TOTALLY HAPPY WITH, BUT EVERYBODY CAN LIVE WITH. AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AND, AND HAVE REPRESENTATION OF THE HOMEOWNERS RIGHT IN, IN THE CITY AND HIGH AND HOMEOWNERS LOOKING AT TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS AND THEIR WHICH ARE AGAIN COST 900 NOW AND WILL BE. FROM 2000 4000 DOWN THE ROAD? BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING FROM UNHAPPINESS TO ANGER AND HOW THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST AND AND WHAT WE'RE FACING IN THE FUTURE. I THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE SOLUTION THAT WOULD WORK WELL FOR ALL PARTIES, BECAUSE IF THE HOMEOWNERS THERE ARE NOT HAPPY AND THEY'RE NOT, EXPRESSING THAT PUBLICLY, FREQUENTLY, THEN AMONG THEMSELVES AND THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO DO WELL FOR THEMSELVES. AND RIGHT NOW, THE DEVELOPMENT IS IS NOT REALLY GOOD FOR. AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY. SO WE REALLY NEED A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR ALL. THE CURRENT POOL IS INADEQUATE FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WILL

[01:40:04]

ULTIMATELY GET THERE. IT'S JUST WHAT IT WILL. IT WILL HANDLE THAT. IT'S IT'S PRETTY FULL ON WEEKENDS ALREADY. SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THERE IS A NEED FOR A SECOND HOME. MAYBE THAT COULD BE PRIVATE OR PART OF THE KITCHEN. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I THINK I'M GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT. THERE ARE SOME CONCERN ABOUT CLARITY ON. IS THERE A VOTER TURNOUT OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED. THE DIAGRAM SHOWS A ROAD DOWN TO THE THE LOWER AREA NEXT TO THE TRAIL, AND THAT OPENS UP WISCONSIN LIABILITY ISSUES. ISSUES WITH KIDS HAVING EASY ACCESS TO GO AND JUMP OFF THE CLIFF OR INTO THE WATER, WHICH DOES UNDERSTAND I'VE ALREADY HAPPENS, BUT IF IF IN FACT IT'S NOT A ROAD, IF THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL PARKING DOWN THERE, THEN I THINK THAT'S SECRET. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THERE IS A ROAD. THERE IS A ROAD. THERE'S ADDITIONAL PARKING DOWN THERE THAT'S NOT. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THIS BE TABLED UNTIL WE CAN LOOK FURTHER AT IT, UNTIL WE CAN UNDERSTAND IS ARE THERE OPTIONS SO WE CAN SIT DOWN IDEALLY WITH HINES IN THE CITY AND SAY, LET'S TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US AND THAT WE CAN BE HAPPY WITH AND WE CAN PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL EVER BE PUBLIC UNTIL WE FIND SOME SOLUTION THAT MAKES THE HOMEOWNERS HAPPY IN THEIR HOUSING. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK ONE THING, SINCE WE HAVE HINES HERE, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HINES HAD A COMMENT ON THAT. DO YOU VIEW THIS AMENDMENT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK INTO SOME SORT OF RENEGOTIATIONS ABOUT PARKLAND DEDICATION, AND DO YOU SEE THIS AMENDMENT AS A A DOORWAY INTO DISCUSSING A SECOND POOL INTO SARAH? SURE. SO IN TERMS OF THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, THIS THIS IS RELATED TO THE DICTATED FIVE POINT WHATEVER ACRES IN THAT ARE CONTRACTUALLY DICTATE THAT MR. BULLOCK WAS TALKING ABOUT. SO IN TERMS OF THIS AMENDMENT, IT'S JUST ABOUT THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ORIGINAL 5.4 SOMETHING ACRES OF THE ORIGINAL TEN. NOW, THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT DICTATED THE FIRST 5.4 ACRES. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT HAS NOT BEEN DICTATED IS NOT CONTRACTUALLY.

SO THE DEDICATION AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR THAT 5.4 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS OUT OF THE TEN, ANYTHING BEYOND THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DICTATED OF WHAT AREAS THAT PUBLIC PARKLAND DEDICATION WILL BE IN TERMS OF LIKE GIVING DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND EVERYTHING. IF YOU'VE WALKED, THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY A VERY NICE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S THE WOODED AREA. IT'S THE PART OF THAT IT GOES AND IT'S YES, IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S ALONG THE WATERWAY, ALONG THE LAKE AND THE CHANNEL. SO I DO THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD TRAIL AND WE DO. THE HOA DOES PAY TO MAINTAIN THE TRAIL AS WELL. SO BUT IN TERMS OF TONIGHT'S RESOLUTION, WHICH THAT ONE IS JUST ABOUT CORRECTING THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND ALSO THE THE RAMP THAT'S DICTATED BY THE CITY FOR US TO PUT IN. AND THAT'S JUST FOR THAT ORIGINAL 5.4. NOW, AGAIN, ANYTHING AFTER THAT FOR PUBLIC PARKLAND, FOR THE REMAINING OF THE TEN THAT HAS NOT BEEN DICTATED IN ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. BUT HANG ON A SECOND. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE DETENTION POND AND THE TRIANGLE ABOVE IT ACROSS TO SARAH PARKWAY. THAT'S THE REST OF THE TEN ACRES. AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED TO THE CITY THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CITY'S HANDS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH IS WE HAVE THE 0.9 ACRES OR 1.2 ACRES. EXCUSE ME? THAT'S UNDERNEATH THE POOL.

THAT'S PART OF THE TEN ACRES. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ADA RAMP. YOU HAD THAT. AND THEN THE FINAL PIECE IS THE TRAIL EASEMENTS. AND THAT WILL TOTALLY TAKE CARE OF THE TEN ACRES. NOW, PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE THOSE ITEMS, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED ON BOTH PARTIES PARTS TO FULFILL THE TEN ACRE REQUIREMENT. SO IT'S ALL BEEN DEFINED. AND I GUESS ONE LAST COMMENT I'LL MAKE WITH THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE DETENTION POND, AND I HAD THE SAME OPINION. BELIEVE ME, IT'S LIKE, WHY IN THE HELL DID WE GET A DETENTION POND FOR PARKLAND? BUT I DID SPEAK WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME. WE DID IT, AND HE TOLD ME IT WAS PURPOSEFUL ON THEIR PART. THEY WANTED THE DETENTION POND BECAUSE THEY WERE FEARFUL THAT IF IT WAS LEFT TO THE HOA OR THE DEVELOPER TO MAINTAIN IT, IT WOULDN'T BE MAINTAINED. AND SO PART OF THE REASON WHY WE TOOK THAT DETENTION POND IS BECAUSE WE WANTED THE RESPONSIBILITY TO, BECAUSE WE

[01:45:02]

KNEW WE WOULD DO IT TO MAINTAIN THE DETENTION, THE DETENTION POND. YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PARTICULAR THAT'S THE ONLY DETENTION POND. THE REST IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY STRICT WITH LCRA AND EVERYTHING. THE ONLY ONE THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. AND IT'S IN THAT CHANNEL THAT'S KIND OF BETWEEN TO SARAH PARKWAY AND SURREY. AND THAT THAT PIECE WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE FOR THE CITY TO OWN, TO GET A CONTINUOUS TRACK WITHIN THAT KIND OF CHANNEL BETWEEN SURREY LANE AND SARAH PARKWAY. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. THANK YOU. WOW. NO WONDER. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ACTUALLY ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS OR JUST SAY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS OR EVEN IMPLICATIONS RIGHT HERE. CURRENTLY THERE IS A MISSING.

THERE'S A MISSING SEGMENT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE A STAKE IN ALL THIS THAT IS NOT HERE RIGHT NOW.

AND THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HOLD THE BONDS. SO THE BOND HOLDERS OF THIS. MUTUAL PROJECT. RIGHT. AND SO IF WE IF THE CONTRACT IS NOT FULFILLED, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S BREACH OF CONTRACT. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S ALSO POTENTIALLY LIABILITY ON THE CITY FROM THE BOND HOLDERS THEMSELVES. IF WE DO NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT WAS DICTATED IN THAT CONTRACT TO THE BOND HOLDERS, NOW WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE BOND COUNCIL. I KNOW, THANK YOU. COUNCILOR SAM, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU TALKED TO OUR BOND COUNCIL. IF IF WE ARE HAVING A NEGOTIATION, WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT OUR BOND COUNCIL IS PRESENT DURING THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE FACET THAT ARE SILENT. THEY ARE NOT HERE. AND WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS SATISFIED SO THAT THAT LIABILITY IS NOT PRESENT FOR ALL OF OUR SAKES. THE OTHER THING THAT I JUST WANTED TO TO GO AHEAD AND ASK BRAD, WHILE YOU ARE HERE BEFORE WE HAVE TO GO, IS THAT IF JESS AND OUR NEW COUNCIL, WHEN THEY FORGIVE ME, KNOW Y'ALL? WELL, I LOVE YOU TO DEATH. SO I'VE CALLED YOU BACK.

BUT FUTURE COUNCIL ELECT MEMBERS COMING UP HERE AS PART OF TESSERA. IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN TERMS OF THEIR ACTIVITY IN WORKING WITH US UP HERE IN THEIR VOTES? REGARDING TO SARAH I. I COULDN'T ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, IT BECOMES VERY FACT SPECIFIC. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY YES OR NO UNTIL I HAVE TO SPEAK WITH THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO HAVE AN IDEA, BECAUSE IT BECOMES IT BECOMES VERY FACT SPECIFIC. SO I COULDN'T I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW. SO LASTLY, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I'M REALLY JUST INTERESTED IN CROSSING T'S AND DOTTING I'S. I THINK WHAT YOU'VE HEARD UP HERE IS THAT ALL OF US ARE UNIFIED, THAT WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE IT WORK. THIS COUNCIL WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING WORKS OUT FOR THE BEST, FOR EVERYONE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT AND NOT CREATE A LARGER MESS. THANK YOU MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO. YES, SIR. OKAY.

BRAD. COUNCILMAN. SAM, YOU WERE ON THE PHONE CALL YESTERDAY WITH OUR BOND COUNCIL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, SINCE BOND MONEY WAS USED TO BUILD THE POOL AND EVERYTHING, THOSE BONDS WOULD HAVE TO BE RETIRED BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE DONE WITH THAT. OR AT LEAST THE MONEY FOR THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT INTO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT UNTIL 2030, AT WHICH TIME THOSE BONDS COULD BE CALLED. YES, SIR. SO WE'RE TALKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND THEN FOR US TO GO INTO NEGOTIATIONS ON LAND THAT IS BOUGHT WITH PUBLIC MONEY AND DEDICATED PARKLAND, AT THIS TIME, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE AN ELECTION. WE CAN'T JUST GIVE THAT LAND AWAY. WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT IT OUT FOR BID. WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT APPRAISED. SO SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO PUT UP MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT TO DO ALL OF THIS. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE. AND I'M ALL FOR DOING SOME NEGOTIATING AND TRYING TO GET THIS THING RESOLVED. BUT THE LAST THING I WANT THE CITY IS TO HAVE A SECOND SWIMMING POOL.

SORRY, BUT WE DO NOT NEED A SECOND MONEY PIT. WE'RE HAVING ENOUGH TROUBLE MAINTAINING THE ONE WE GOT. SO IF YOU TRADE FOR LAND, LANDS, GREAT. NO SWIMMING POOLS. JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. AND THE ONLY THING I KNOW, I'VE GOT A I DO HAVE TO GO SOON, BUT THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD TO THAT IS FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION IS THAT THE IN MR. SAMUEL. REMEMBER RECALL THIS AS WELL. IS THAT THAT. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAGO VISTA HID IS USED KIND OF STATEWIDE NOW AS A DON'T DO THIS. DO YOU JUST PIT MONEY TO PAY FOR A POOL. THIS WAS NOW PIT LAW IS VERY COMPLEX AND IT EVOLVES OVER TIME. BUT BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS OH LOOK, WE'VE CREATED SOME PSEUDO CASE LAW. YES. YOU'VE, YOU'VE YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY I, I WISH IT

[01:50:05]

WEREN'T TRUE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO ON A MOVING FORWARD BASIS.

AND MUNICIPAL LAWYERS AND LAWYERS ACROSS THE STATE POINT TO THIS AS, AS THAT AS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES. RIGHT, JESS? I'LL JUST A SECOND. I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS COMMENT. SO I'VE BEEN UP HERE A LONG TIME TAKING A LOT OF HARD VOTES, AND I THINK THIS ONE WILL BE A DIFFICULT VOTE. BUT THE REASON WHY I'M INTERESTED IN TAKING CARE OF IT IS SO Y'ALL DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT WHEN YOU GET UP HERE. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS FIVE WAYS TO SUNDAY. THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE THERE. ULTIMATELY, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE SAME DECISION, YOU KNOW, A MONTH FROM NOW, TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TONIGHT, WHICH IS WE'RE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THE ADA RAMP AS PARKLAND, PURE AND SIMPLE. AND SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, THREE MONTHS FROM NOW, OR DO YOU WANT US TO TAKE CARE OF IT TONIGHT? AND I REALLY DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS, IS THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION AND ANGER, EVEN BETWEEN THE THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE AND THE DEVELOPER. I THINK THE WHAT'S BEING CONFLATED IS THAT THIS PARKLAND ISSUE IS PART OF THAT. YEAH, I GET THAT IT WAS MISREPRESENTED THAT IT WAS A PRIVATE AMENITY WHEN REALLY IT WAS PUBLIC. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE IN PLACE. THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND AND REALLY IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE RESIDENTS WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO FIGURE OUT SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS ABOUT OTHER PRIVATE AMENITIES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO TRY AND GET. BUT ULTIMATELY, THAT POOL IS A PUBLIC AMENITY AND IT'S GOING TO BE ONE. THAT'S JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION. BASED ON ALL THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH BOND COUNCIL AND WITH OUR REGULAR COUNCIL, AND YOU CAN EITHER HAVE US VOTED ON IT TONIGHT OR YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT TWO MONTHS FROM NOW. MR. MAYOR, MR. CUSHMAN, OKAY, ROBERT, GO AHEAD AND JUST HAVE YOU COME UP AFTER THAT AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. GO AHEAD.

ROBERT. THERE YOU. CINDY. OH, OH. IT LOOKS ALMOST LIKE HE'S FROZEN. OH, NO. I JUST SAW HIM BLINK. YOU GOTTA GO. I GOTTA BE TEN MINUTES. YEAH, GO FOR IT. IF YOU GOTTA GO, YOU GOTTA GO.

YEAH, BC I DON'T WANT TO. I MEAN, IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY. OKAY. YEAH. ALL WE'RE DOING IS GETTING GATHERING INPUT THAT WILL THEN BE USED TO POTENTIALLY MAKE CHANGES. AND IF YOU NEED TO CALL IN, I CAN CALL IN IF I HAVE TO CALL IN. YEAH. AGAIN HAD SOME REALLY GOOD NOTES OKAY. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THOSE PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO STAFF. AND THEN THEY'LL GET WITH PC TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE THINGS THAT SUGGESTED. GO AHEAD ROBERT. OH THANK YOU MAYOR CAN YOU HEAR ME. YES WE CAN. GO AHEAD. OH CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH.

CAN YOU TELL HIM? ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? YES WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR. YOU KNOW. YOU CAN HEAR ME. OKAY. SO YOU GOTTA GO. YEAH. GO FOR IT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. GO. OKAY. SORRY. THERE'S A TIME DELAY HERE, SO I WANTED TO THERE WERE THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS THAT THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED, AND THAT IS NOT CORRECT. I. THINK JUST THOSE. FEEDBACK TO STAFF AND THEN THEY'LL GET REPEATED. OKAY. WELL, THIS ISN'T WORKING. NO PROBLEM. OKAY. GO AHEAD. OH THANK YOU, MAYOR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. GO AHEAD. OH, YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, YES. YES. SEE ME. ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? NO. OKAY. YOU KNOW YOU CAN HEAR ME. OKAY. YEAH. SO. THERE WAS A TIME DELAY BETWEEN THE TWO, THE GO MEETING AND THE LIVE WATCH. AND THAT'S THERE'S ABOUT A 32ND DELAY. SO TIME DELAY HERE. SO I WANTED TO THERE WERE THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE STATEMENTS THAT THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THAT IT IS A THE SCRIVENER ERRORS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT. AND THERE'S NO CHANGE TO EXHIBIT B VIRGINIA IN HERE. YEAH. YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME. YES. YEAH.

SORRY. YES. NO. OKAY. SO YOU CAN HEAR ME. OKAY. YEAH. SO. THERE'S A TIME DELAY BETWEEN THE TWO, THE GO MEETING AND THE LIVE WATCH. THAT'S THERE'S ABOUT A 32ND DELAY. SORRY.

THERE'S A DELAY. I WANTED TO. SAY A COUPLE STATEMENTS. THAT 30 MINUTES THAT'S BEING

[01:55:04]

REQUESTED. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THAT IT IS A THE SCRIVENER ERRORS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT AND THERE IS NO CHANGE TO EXHIBIT B. THERE IS. ERIC, DO YOU HAVE AN ABILITY. YEAH. JUST TELL HIM SORRY BUT OKAY. JUST COME ON BACK UP AND YOU CAN MAKE YOUR STATEMENT AND I'LL COME BACK TO YOU SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. BUT THERE'S A DELAY SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK BACK AND FORTH. SO JUST KEEP YOUR WHOLE SPIEL AND WE'LL HEAR YOU AND TELL THEM TO LOOK AT THE COMMENTS AND TELL THEM TO LOOK AT THE COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I KNOW. THAT THERE. WAS YEAH, I REMEMBER HAVING IT IS A THE SPEAKER APPEARS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT AND THERE IS NO CHANGE TO. THE LIVE FEED OFF. DO YOU HAVE A. YEAH. JUST SORRY BUT YEAH. I SUPPOSE ALTERNATIVELY HE COULD PUT HIM ON SPEAKER AND TAKE IT UP TO THE MICROPHONE ON HIS PHONE. YEAH. YOU WANT TO JUST CALL HIM ON SPEAKER? SURE, AS LONG AS HE'S ON CAMERA. YEAH. WE'RE CREATIVE HERE. YEAH. I JUST CAN'T SEEM TO MAKE THIS WORK. SO I THINK THE MAYOR WAS CUTTING ME OFF ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST. I JUST WANT. THERE'S NO AMENDMENT. CAN YOU. THERE YOU GO, THERE YOU GO. CAN YOU MUTE YOUR YOUR I THINK OH, WAIT. YOU CAN HEAR SOUND. YEAH. NOW PUT YOUR PHONE ON SPEAKER AND PUT IT UP TO THE MICROPHONE. PLEASE LET HIM KNOW THAT HE'S MUTED. WELL WE WANT HIM TO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR HIM OVER THE PHONE OKAY. BUT HE'S GOT TO TALK INTO HIS PHONE. HE'S TALKING ON THE PHONE OKAY OKAY. KEEP YOURSELF MUTED I'M JUST GOING TO PUT YOU ON SPEAKER PHONE RIGHT HERE OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. RIGHT. HE JUST PUT HIS. QUICKLY THE THERE WAS A REPORT SAID THERE WAS A THEY WENT ON THE TABLE. THEY WERE REQUESTED BY HOLLINGS AND THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THERE WAS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR. AND THE DEAN SWIMMING POOL TO THE CITY IN 2020, THERE'S NO CHANGE IN EXHIBIT B. THOSE WERE RESERVED AND ANTICIPATION THAT THERE COULD BE AN HOA FACILITY BUILT ON THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND IT'S VERY HARD TO ACQUIRE.

COMES ACROSS PARK LAND. SO THOSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SERVING THE TIME IN ANTICIPATION THAT AN HOA COMMUNITY CENTER OR MEETING WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THAT'S THE FACT WORD ON THAT. BUT THERE IS NO AMENDMENTS, AND I THINK THE MAYOR, YOU CORRECTLY SUMMARIZED THE SITUATION THAT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL, BUT I THINK. PEOPLE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE AT THIS POINT, SO I'LL STOP THERE. THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE IT JESS. WELL, I, I, I DON'T THINK I PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK YOU CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE PROBLEM OF DOING ONE SEC. YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO DO SO. I WANT YOU TO ARGUE THAT POINT. I DO WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT. WHETHER, IN FACT, A CONDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, CONDITIONAL PARKING AREA IS CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF WHAT'S BEING APPROVED, OR WHETHER THAT'S SIMPLY A CONCEPT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE PERMITTED, AS THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT IS MUCH. THERE'S BETTER ALTERNATIVES A BETTER WAY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE JUST ADDRESSED, THAT IT WAS ENVISIONED AS A POTENTIAL HOA AMENITY ADDITIONS, NOT SOMETHING THE CITY'S GOING TO DO. BUT LIKE I SAID, I'VE HAD PLENTY OF THESE VOTES. I DON'T MIND NOT TAKING THIS ONE, BUT I DON'T MIND DOING IT AS WELL SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER TO ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M HAPPY TO DO WHATEVER I NEED TO DO FOR THE FOR THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO DO. AND REALLY, SO I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEING OCCURRED UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO OUR OWN RESEARCH. YEAH.

AND AND THEN, ERIC, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WHEN MR. HORN WAS UP

[02:00:07]

HERE, HE WAS. HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ALL THAT'S REQUIRED IS. THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND THE DEDICATION OF THE POOL. EVERYTHING ELSE IS UP FOR NEGOTIATION. I'M NOT SURE I'M PARAPHRASING. RIGHT NOW. THE WHAT WHAT WE'RE DEDICATING TODAY IS JUST PART OF THE ORIGINAL 5.4 ACRES THAT WAS DICTATED THERE. YOU DID NOT MENTION THE TRAILS. THE TRAILS ARE NOT BEING DEDICATED TO. OKAY, THAT'S OFF THE TABLE. IT'S NOT IN THE DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE HERE. IF THERE'S ANY CHANCE TO RETHINK THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT IDEA, BECAUSE IT MAKES NO, I UNDERSTAND THE LEGALITY, THE LEGALITY OF THE WORDS, BUT THE USAGE AND THE ENFORCEMENT AND GOING FORWARD WITH HAVING PUBLIC TRAILS STOP, START OR START STOP. STOP, START, STOP, START, STOP AMONGST PRIVATE TRAILS MAKES NO SENSE. I MEAN, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT? HOW HOW DO HOW DO WE HOW DOES HOMEOWNERS OF LAKESIDE HAVE AN AMENITY THAT'S HERE AND HERE? I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE TRAIL SYSTEM AT TESSERA BEING TIED INTO THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCES YOUR SYSTEM. YOU GO TAKE A LOOK AT. YOU'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH RIVER PLACE, RIGHT? THEY HAVE A TRAIL SYSTEM THERE. IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. OKAY. AND IT'S A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THEIR SUBDIVISION.

THE FACT THAT IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE HAS NOT DONE ANY DAMAGE TO THAT COMMUNITY WHATSOEVER. THE HOA MAINTAINS THOSE WITH THE CITY PUTTING FORTH SOME MONEY TO HELP MAINTAIN THOSE. WHEN MANY BIKES AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE COMING ACROSS THEM. AGAIN, THE CONTRACTS THAT WERE SIGNED BACK IN THE PAST PUTS ALL OF THAT ON THE DEVELOPER SLASH HOA. AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT GOOD. IT'S NOT RIGHT QUESTION. BUT YEAH, I MEAN IT'S IT'S IT'S HOA MONEY.

IT'S IT'S NOT CITY MONEY CONTROLS. AND SO BY HOOKING UP TO THE CITY TRAIL SYSTEM, WE'RE AGAIN ADDING MORE ON TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE LAKESIDE HOA, WHICH IS ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH THEIR EXPENSES. SO. YES, SIR, I EMPATHIZE WITH YOUR POSITION AS AN HOA MEMBER THERE, BUT I DO THINK KEVIN IS IS FACTUALLY CORRECT WHEN IN HIS RESPONSES TO YOU. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE'LL TAKE WE'LL END UP TABLING THIS AND JESS AND AMANDA WILL BE ABLE TO DO A DEEP DIVE AND EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND LIKE KEVIN, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT AND THEY'RE GOING TO REACH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT OPTION. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANCE RIGHT. SO BUT BUT I WANT TO AFFORD THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES IS IT AFFORDS THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THOSE OTHER OPTIONS THAT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU AS A VESTED PARTY, THEY'RE THEY'VE SPENT MORE TIME CONTEMPLATING THAN ANY ONE OF. WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY ONE OF US, BUT AT LEAST ME. OKAY. BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT IN YOUR BACKYARD, IT'S TRUE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CARE AS MUCH. OKAY, SO LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T CARE. I JUST DON'T HAVE THE SAME VESTED. IT DOESN'T HIT ME AS PERSONALLY AS IT DOES YOU GUYS. AND ALL THE EMPATHY IN THE WORLD ISN'T GOING TO PUT ME COMPLETELY IN YOUR SHOES AND MOTIVATE ME TO PUT 50 HOURS OF RESEARCH INTO IT, AS SOME OF YOUR VERY VOCAL HOMEOWNERS HAVE DONE, TO WHOM I'M GRATEFUL AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, BECAUSE HAD THEY NEVER SPOKE UP OR SAID ANYTHING, NONE OF US WOULD. WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT THIS. WE WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO HELP YOU GUYS RIGHT NOW. AND TEN PEOPLE WHO SPEAK UP DO MAKE MORE NOISE THAN 10,000 WHO ARE SILENT. SO I'M GLAD THEY DID. AND I'M GLAD, GLAD THEY GOT INVOLVED, BECAUSE CITIZENS WHO ARE TOO BUSY TO GET INVOLVED IN IN GOVERNMENT ARE DESTINED TO BE RULED BY THOSE WHO ARE DUMBER. AND SO THANKS FOR EDUCATING US ON THIS. THANK YOU. KEVIN'S GOT A GOOD POINT IN THAT. I'M SORRY. WE NEED TO I'M HEARING FROM PEOPLE TO NO NO NO NO NO. YEAH. STEP UP TO THE MIC.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. NOW THEY CAN HEAR YOU. THEY WANT TO HEAR YOU. VERY GOOD IDEA. AND THAT WE DO HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO GO AND NEGOTIATE WITH CLIENTS. AND THIS IS A FORUM. BUT THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE CORRECT FORUM. SO THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT. ERIC, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH. THE ONLY THING WITH TIMING AND THE REASON FOR DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, ON THIS COUNCIL IS JUST BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF

[02:05:05]

HOURS THAT EVERYONE HERE AND THE ATTORNEY HAS PUT INTO IT, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN TRYING TO PUSH THIS FURTHER BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT I'M ON THE THIRD CITY ATTORNEY ON IN THE LAST. SO AND EACH TIME THERE'S A NEW CITY ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES SIX MONTHS JUST TO GET BACK UP TO SPEED. BUT IF YOU DECIDE TO, YOU KNOW, TABLE IT, THAT'S FINE.

BUT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TIMING FOR TONIGHT WAS JUST TO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HARD WORK WITH CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MAYOR, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE TABLED, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE REACH OUT TO OUR BOND COUNSEL AND SEE IF THEY COULD ATTEND THE NEXT MEETING TO UPDATE THE NEW COUNCIL MEETINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND EVEN POSSIBLY GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC. OKAY.

THANK YOU. GOOD INFORMATION. TAKE CARE OF THAT NEXT TIME. WELL, OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO TABLE RESOLUTION NUMBER 252164 UNTIL. AT THE NO SOONER THAN THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER, OR NO LATER THAN FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER. I JUST WANT TO GIVE HIM PLENTY OF TIME IN CASE THEY NEED TO COORDINATE WITH BART, SO NO LATER THAN THAT SHOULD GIVE HIM THREE TWO WEEKS. WHATEVER. YEAH, I'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS. I SECOND SECOND BY MISS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT MAYBE NOT SOONER THAN OR NOT LATER THAN THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, BECAUSE THE 20TH, WE WERE PLANNING TO REALLY BE A TRAINING FOR OUR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO COME IN. AND THEN THE THIRD IS A WORK SESSION, NOT AN ACTIONABLE ITEM. AND SO THE FIRST TIME WE WERE REALLY SCHEDULING AND PLANNING WAS GOING TO BE THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY WOULD BE THE NEXT ONE WHERE WE'D BE TAKING ACTION ITEMS. AND WE CAN ALWAYS AMEND OUTSIDE OF THAT PLAN. BUT WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO TWO MEETINGS IN DECEMBER. SO I'M JUST SAYING PUTTING IT IN A TIGHT WINDOW. SO THANK YOU, MR. SAM. SHOULD WE JUST I'M GOING TO NOT AGREE TO THAT, BUT INSTEAD JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT, AMEND MY MOTION TO BE THAT WHENEVER THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER DEEM MOST APPROPRIATE. PERFECT. YEAH. CAN YOU ACCEPT THAT? OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS, SECOND BY MISS. WHEN IT WAS AMENDED BY MR. ROBERTS ROBERTS AND ACCEPTED BY MISS ONLY ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. NAY, NAY. I THINK IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH.

PASSES 4 TO 1 WITH MR. SULLIVAN DISSENTING. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING

[XI. WORK SESSION]

[XI.4. Discuss Franchise Agreement with (PEC) Pedernales Electric Cooperative.]

OUT. OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR UNDERNEATH THE WORK SESSION, DISCUSS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH PC FOR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. AND MR. BULLOCK IS NO LONGER HERE. THIS IS SO WE HAVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH ALL THE VENDORS THAT PROVIDE THINGS TO US CABLE ELECTRICITY, THAT KIND OF THING. EXCUSE ME. THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT NEED TO BE FINALIZED UNTIL JULY OF 2026, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO GET AHEAD OF THE PROGRAM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE IF THERE ARE ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT WE WANT TO IT, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THAT BACK TO PINELLAS ELECTRIC. WE HAVE THE DOCUMENT AS IT WAS REVIEWED BY LEGAL, AND THEY HAD A VARIETY OF NOTES THAT THEY PUT IN THERE, EXCUSE ME, THAT WAS SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY IN A WORD DOCUMENT. AND SO THE THOUGHT WAS, IS THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS AND PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK TO THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF SO THAT IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK. OR FIRST OF ALL, IT COULD BE TAKEN TO PC TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES WITH THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED AND THEN BROUGHT BACK FOR POTENTIAL APPROVAL. AND SO I WILL OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL. THANKS. YEAH. KEVIN, YOU SAID THE WORD DOCUMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF I OVERLOOKED IT OR IS IT A WORD DOCUMENT. NOT IN THE PACKET. IT WAS NOT IN THE PACKET. IT WAS SENT OUT BY EMAIL BY ROBIN. OKAY, I APOLOGIZE, I'VE BEEN SLAMMED WITH THIS NEXT PERIOD RELATED CHIP SHORTAGE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, SO I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT YET. BUT I DID COME IN WITH SOME QUESTIONS AND I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM.

AND I APOLOGIZE IF THEY'RE REDUNDANT TO ANY CLARIFICATIONS MADE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT ROBIN WOULD HAVE SHARED WITH COUNCIL. CAN I DO SOMETHING? CERTAINLY. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THIS. YEAH.

I THINK I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT I READ THROUGH YOUR. OH OKAY. VERY GOOD THEN. SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES ART GENTLEMAN FROM RANCH FIRM. OKAY. AND SO IF YOU WANT I WILL GO

[02:10:01]

THROUGH THE DOCUMENT AND KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE ITEMS. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH IT TALKS ABOUT THE TERM. AND HE GOES, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT THE FRANCHISE TO LAST. CHARTER LIMITS THE TERM TO MAX OF 20 YEARS. I THINK THIS CURRENT AGREEMENT IS TEN YEARS IS WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON WANTING TO CHANGE FROM THE TEN YEAR AGREEMENT? DEPENDS ON SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS. I WOULD I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT HAVE FIVE YEAR AGREEMENTS. I THINK THE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS IT IS FOR LARGO, THE LONGER I WOULD WANT IT AND THE LESS ADVANTAGEOUS IT IS, THE SHORTER I WOULD OR THE, YOU KNOW, SHORTER I WOULD WANT IT. SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING DEFINITIVE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS IN THE CITY'S FAVOR OR AGAINST THE CITY, IF THAT WOULD MAKE YOU WANT IT TO BE SHORTER OR LONGER? WELL, ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THE FRANCHISE FEE. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S SET AT 2%. IF THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WE'LL MEET, WE'LL WE'LL MATCH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AND WE'LL DO 5% OR 6%. THEN BY ALL MEANS, LET'S DO A 10 OR 20 YEAR AGREEMENT. BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE AT 2%, THEN. SO YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE RESEARCH YOU DID SHOW THAT 2% IS TYPICAL.

AND WHATEVER FEE THEY CHARGE, THEY'RE JUST PASSING IT ALONG TO THE CONSUMER. CAN I GET THE EMAIL? I APOLOGIZE, I AND I AND I TRACK MY EMAILS PRETTY RELIGIOUSLY. SO I WANT TO EXPOUND UPON YOUR 2% POINT AND ALSO ADDRESS YOUR TEN YEAR QUESTION. MY MY QUESTION, CHARLES, IS THAT I, THAT I POSED AND I PUT THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. CAN STAFF CONFIRM WHETHER 2% ALIGNS WITH PECKS AGREEMENTS IN NEARBY JURISDICTIONS SUCH AS JONESTOWN, JONESTOWN, OR MARBLE FALLS, OR WHETHER A HIGHER RATE COULD BE JUSTIFIED? I KNOW YOU, YOU DID.

I DID HEAR IT DIDN'T. IT WASN'T LOST ON ME, KEVIN, THAT YOU SAID THAT 2% IS THE NUMBER SEEMED TO BE THE ORTHODOX NUMBER. MY RESEARCH 2% SEEMS TO BE THE COMMON THING ACROSS THE WHOLE STATE OF TEXAS. DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY, ANY BASIS FROM WHICH LEVERAGE FROM WHICH WE CAN NEGOTIATE MORE THAN 2%? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST DAMN THING ABOUT NEGOTIATING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH UTILITY CO-OP UTILITY COMPANIES. AGAIN, I BELIEVE IF WE RAISE IT, IT'S GREAT. IT WILL BE MORE MONEY REVENUE FOR THE CITY, BUT IT'S OUR RATEPAYERS WILL BE PAYING THAT. ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. NEXT QUESTION THEN. THE ONLY WELL I DIDN'T NOTHING WAS FLAGGED ON THE TEN YEAR TERM OTHER THAN THE QUESTION POSED WOULD BE SHOULD WE REQUEST LANGUAGE REQUIRING COUNCIL REAUTHORIZATION AT THE END OF THE INITIAL TERM RATHER THAN INDEFINITE AUTO RENEWAL, SUCH AS IT'S DRAFTED RIGHT NOW? THAT WOULD BE MY ONE PROPOSED EDIT TO THE TEN YEAR IS THAT IT DOES NOT AUTO RENEW, BUT IT DOES COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR RENEWAL. YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, KEVIN.

I DID RECEIVE IT. I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, IT JUST SAYS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. IT WASN'T SPECIFIC TO PSC. AND THAT'S LIKELY WHY I GLOSSED OVER IT, SO I APOLOGIZE I DID RECEIVE IT ROBIN. SO OKAY. AWESOME. IN IN THE SECTION ONE GRANT PARAGRAPH, ART HIGHLIGHTED A SENTENCE IN THERE THAT SAYS ALONG ANY AND ALL THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STREETS, LANES, ALLEYS HEREAFTER OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE CITY. HE SAID THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOOD WITH THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY. AND I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS, IS IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS. THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT. WHAT ABOUT THE COST SHARING BURDEN, THOUGH? THAT'S THAT'S ENUMERATED IN THE CONTRACT ON THAT? I THINK THAT WAS ANOTHER AREA THAT ARE CALLED OUT. IS THAT, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A COROLLARY THERE TO SOME EXTENT, THE, THE THE RELOCATION COST BURDEN, THE THE ORDINANCE PLACES THE COST OF RELOCATING, THE COST OF RELOCATING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. UNDERGROUND IS EXPENSIVE. PEAK FACILITIES ON THE CITY WHEN SUCH WORK IS TIED TO PUBLIC PROJECTS OR BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS. DOES THIS MATCH THE COST SHARING STRUCTURE IN OUR PREVIOUS PEAK FRANCHISE, OR ARE WE ASSUMING GREATER FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY NOW? IS IT MATCHES UP THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER? IF YOU PULL THE ORIGINAL AGAIN? SO IF WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON THIS TONIGHT, THEN I WOULD JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE COST SHARING BURDEN HAS NOT CHANGED. YOU KNOW, THIS ONE IS NOT MORE THAN WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. I TELL YOU WHAT SOUNDS LIKE MR. BENFIELD DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ACTUALLY HAVING THE DOCUMENT AHEAD OF TIME. YOU'VE STARTED A SOMETHING ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD

[02:15:02]

CORRECT TABLE. MAYBE WE JUST TABLE THIS AND THEN ALLOW PEOPLE TO GO IN AND WHATEVER COMMENTS YOU HAVE THAT YOU WANT TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK. AND THAT'LL BE ACTUALLY VERY TRANSPARENT FOR PSC. THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GO TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD AND SEE THE COMMENTS THAT WE PUT BACK THERE VERSUS US TRYING TO HASH THROUGH THIS HERE ON THE DIAS.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I DO HAVE COMMENTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF THE OPEN CUT ANY OF OUR STREETS, KNOWING HOW IT'S GOING TO BE REPAIRED BACK. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, AS A GENERAL RULE, OF COURSE, I WAS IN THE CONVERSATIONS EARLY ON WITH SPECTRUM WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OVERLAYING, UPGRADING, ENSURING THAT ESSENTIALLY THE THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT MAKE SURE THEY HAVE INFORMATION IN HERE. PART OF THE COST SHARING IS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY ACTUALLY THAT THEY DO THEIR SCHEDULE ACCORDING TO WHAT THE CITY IS DOING. SO IF THE CITY IS UPGRADING ELECTRIC LINES OR WATERWAYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THEY TEND TO LAY IT ALL TOGETHER, THAT THEY WANTED TO BE SPECTRUM AT LEAST. AND I'M SAYING THIS AS SPECTRUM, NOT PECK, WANTED TO KNOW WHEN ANY OF THAT WAS OCCURRING SO THAT THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CITY. THE COST ALREADY BEING OPEN. AND SO IN AMONGST THE THE SHARING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT WAS LESS THAN IF THEY WENT AND DID IT ALL THEMSELVES. RIGHT. SO PART OF THE THING THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IN HERE AND I DIDN'T IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF STARTING TO HIT ON THAT IN SOME OF THE THE CONVERSATION OR NOTES THAT ARE ON HERE WAS ADDRESSING POTENTIALLY PART OF HOW THAT HAPPENS. AND I WAS JUST LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A WAY FOR US TO BASICALLY TO COLLABORATE IN A WAY THAT IT WAS GOOD FOR BOTH PARTIES. YES, SIR. I'LL JUST READ AN ARTICLE REAL QUICK FROM AUGUST 26TH, 2016, THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A TEN YEAR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH PERTINENCE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. AS PART OF THAT AGREEMENT, THE FRANCHISE FEE ON UTILITY BILLS WILL BE INCREASING FROM 2 TO 4%. SO IF WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU'RE SAYING, MAYOR, IS THAT. IF WE GO DOWN TO 2% AS BEING PROPOSED, WE'LL ALL CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA THEN RECEIVE A REDUCTION ON THEIR UTILITY BILL. I HAVE NO CLUE. I THOUGHT THAT RIGHT NOW WHAT WAS IMPLEMENTED WAS 2%. WELL, IN 2016, THE ARTICLE PRODUCED SAID THAT WE MADE AN AGREEMENT INCREASING FROM 2 TO 4%. MAYBE PC CAN ENLIGHTEN US ON THIS. SO. I SHOULD RUN ON MY PC BILLS BECAUSE I THINK THEY THEY HAVE THE FRANCHISE FEE CALLED OUT ON YOUR JUST LIKE AT&T DOES. THEY ALL DO IT. AND JARED DO YOU KNOW ARE WE CURRENTLY ON OPERATING UNDERNEATH 2% OR 4% FRANCHISE FEE? I HATE TO SAY I DON'T KNOW. I LOOK AT THE CURRENT ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT. ARE YOU CALLING ME UP? YEAH. CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHAT IS THE FRANCHISE FEE FOR PC WITH LOG VISTA, TEXAS I GOT ONE. IT'S FOUR, SO IT'S BEING REDUCED FROM 4 TO 2%. IN THIS LATEST EDITION. THE PAPERWORK, THE FRANCHISE FEE FOR PC IN LAGO VISTA IS 4% OF GROSS REVENUES. IT'S UP FROM 2%. 16 ONE OF OUR FROM ONE OF THE CHECKS THAT COME IN, WE'RE AT 4%. OKAY, OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, GERARD FIELDS PINELLAS ELECTRIC. IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HERE. BUT I LOOKED AT THIS ONE. I DIDN'T LOOK AT 4% PREVIOUSLY. SO SO LET ME ASK THE EXACT QUESTION THAT MR. WINFIELD ASKED. YOU KNOW, IF WE AGREE TO THIS 3%, I'M ASSUMING THAT PC, THAT'S WHAT THEY PASS THROUGH IS 2%. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO CHARGE 4% TO OUR RATEPAYERS, CORRECT? CORRECT. WE WE COLLECT WHAT CITY COUNCIL SETS AS THAT FEE AND PASS IT THROUGH. CORRECT.

SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY HELPING REDUCE ELECTRIC BILLS IF WE AGREE TO THE 2%. THANK YOU.

HOW'S THAT FIT INTO YOUR MODEL NORMA. SO I WAS GOING TO SAY WE HAVE ALREADY BUDGETED 4%. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXACT NUMBERS. MR. COLE I'M SURE WOULD HAVE IT OVER THERE. GREAT CATCH. ADAM. YES. YEAH. WHEN I KEPT HEARING THE CONVERSATION, I RAN BACK TO TRY TO GET MY NOTES. SO CURRENTLY AT A 4% RATE, THE LAST FRANCHISE FEE THAT WE RECEIVED WAS $158,421 FOR A QUARTER OVER QUARTER. SO IT'S ABOUT 600,000 A YEAR. SO AND IT WOULD CUT DOWN TO 300,000 OKAY. YES. VERY GOOD. AND WE JUST DID OUR BUDGET BASED UPON THAT.

[02:20:05]

YEAH. OKAY. WELL I MEAN AGAIN THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ASSIGNED UNTIL JULY OF 26. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. I THINK WE WANTED TO START THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT, BUT I THINK QUITE FRANKLY, ESPECIALLY SINCE FOLKS DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, THAT WE OUGHT TO JUST TAKE IT UP ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, WRAP IT UP, AND IT CAN BE CHURNED THROUGH OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND THEN AGREED TO WITH DC. YEAH, UNLESS ANYBODY WANTS TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. AND THIS WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO THERE'S NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THAT. OKAY. I'M GOING TO BACK UP. OH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO

[VIII. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]

DO THE COMMUNITY INTEREST TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0415. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REPORT ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS A EXPRESSION OF THANKS FOR ATTENDING, CONDOLENCES B INFORMATION REGARDING HOLIDAY SCHEDULES. C RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS.

D REMINDERS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL EVENTS. E REMINDERS REGARDING COMMUNITY EVENTS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENTS. AND I'VE GOT QUITE A FEW HERE. THE FIRST ONE WAS FROM GREG AT THE GOLF COURSE. HE WANTED ME TO SAY THAT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE HELD THE SECOND ANNUAL GOLF COURSE APPRECIATION FUNDRAISER TOURNAMENT. THIS YEAR BROUGHT US 11 TEAMS VERSUS LAST YEAR, SEVEN TEAMS. $4,085 WAS RAISED, WITH 1385 OF THAT COMING FROM STRICTLY DONATIONS. THE MONEY IS BEING USED FOR NEW TEE MARKERS AND DRIVING RANGE ACCESSORIES. A BIG THANK YOU GOES OUT TO OUR PGA HEAD GOLF PROFESSIONAL AND STAFF. TO ALL THE LOCAL GOLFERS WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR COURSE AS WE CONTINUE TO PROGRESS. SO THAT WAS THAT. WE HAVE A VETERANS DAY CELEBRATION. THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ISD, INVITES THE COMMUNITY TO JOIN US AS WE HONOR AND CELEBRATE VETERANS DAY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11TH, 2025 AT 11 A.M. IN THE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM. A LUNCHEON FOR ALL VETERANS WILL FOLLOW THE CEREMONY IN THE MAC. WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO COME TOGETHER IN GRATITUDE AND RECOGNITION OF THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY. CITY HALL CLOSED FOR VETERANS DAY. CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11TH. IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY. NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS WILL RESUME ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH AT 7 A.M. TURN BACK CANYON TRAIL DEDICATION. JOIN US FOR THE TURN BACK CANYON TRAIL DEDICATION AND FIRST STEP EVENT ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH AT 9 A.M. AT THE TRAILHEAD ON FOOTHILL COVE OFF MCKAY RANCH ROAD. BE AMONG THE FIRST TO EXPLORE THE SCENIC NEW THREE QUARTER MILE TRAIL FEATURING SHADY TREE CANOPIES, BRIDGES AND PEACEFUL STREAM CROSSINGS.

ENJOY A FAMILY FRIENDLY SCAVENGER HUNT WITH HIDDEN SURPRISES ALONG THE WAY. IT'S THE PERFECT WAY TO TAKE THE FIRST STEP ON LAGO VISTA'S NEWEST OUTDOOR ADVENTURE. AND IF THE FOLKS WERE STILL HERE, JESS, YOU'RE STILL HERE. I'VE HIKED THAT TRAIL AND IT DOES CUT ACROSS ALL THE WAY OVER TO SARAH AND TIES INTO THE TRAIL THAT THEY HAVE OVER THERE. HEY, MR. MAYOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE CONTEXT. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. WHEN I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL, THE TURNBACK CANYON TRAIL CONSERVANCY WAS TRYING TO WAS HAD DESIRED FOR THE CITY TO TAKE OVER FOR THE FOR THE GRANT OBLIGATION. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT I THINK IT WAS $125,000 THAT RIGHT. THEY HAD TWO DIFFERENT ONES. ONE WAS 85, THE OTHER ONE WAS 45. SO YEAH. SO FINALLY, FOUR YEARS LATER, WITH THE WHEELS OF GOVERNMENT TURNING EVER SO EFFICIENTLY, WE'VE WE'VE GOTTEN THERE AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS. TRAILS ARE AN IMPORTANT. COMMUNITY, PART OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S A IT'S A QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITY.

AND YOU KNOW MORE OF THEM MORE PLEASE. IT DOES END AT THE DETENTION POND OVER AT SARAH.

THAT'S A HECK OF A COUNCIL RECEPTION. WHAT A VIEW. YES, YES, IT ENDS AT THE PARK. THE DETENTION CENTER. PARK. OH, MAN. CITY COUNCIL RECEPTION WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH AT 6:30 P.M. HERE IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK OUR OUTGOING AND INCOMING COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. WE INVITE EVERYONE TO JOIN US IN SHOWING APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATION AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO LAGO VISTA. CITY HALL WILL BE CLOSED FOR THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY. CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH AND 28TH IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY AND THE CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY, THE CITY OF VISTA INVITES THE COMMUNITY TO KICK OFF THE HOLIDAY SEASON AT OUR ANNUAL CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 1ST, 2025, FROM 5 TO 8 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL PARKING LOT. JOIN US FOR AN EVENING FILLED WITH FESTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, FOOD, FAMILY FUN AND A SPECIAL VISIT FROM SANTA CLAUS. TOGETHER, WE'LL COUNT DOWN TO THE LIGHTING OF OUR BEAUTIFULLY DECORATED TREE AND CELEBRATE THE START OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON IN VISTA. AND THOSE WERE ALL THE ONES THAT I HAD. I STARTED DOWN HERE. MISS BENEFIELD.

ANYTHING, MISS OWEN? YEAH. OKAY. YES. SO, THINKING ABOUT THE TRAILS OPENING UP AND WORKING

[02:25:03]

UP AN APPETITE. THE LIONS HAVE A PANCAKE BREAKFAST THAT VERY MORNING. AND SO I PLAN TO BE THERE BRIGHT AND EARLY ON THAT MORNING AND GRABBING A PANCAKE, GOING OVER TO THE TURN BACK TRAIL TO TO WALK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AND THEN GOING BACK AND ADDING A FEW MORE PANCAKES TO MY DAY. SO COME ON OUT. IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE FIRE STATION UP ON BRONCO DRIVE. THANK YOU.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE HOURS ARE? AND I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE 830 TO 1130, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE THERE AS EARLY AS 6:00, STARTING TO COOK. SO THEY MIGHT BE READY AS EARLY AS 7 OR 730. I'LL BE COOKING. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. OH. I'M SORRY. THIS WAY. DID YOU MENTION THE BALLOON FEST TOMORROW? BALLOONFEST TOMORROW. A LOT OF FUN. AND THERE'S A LOT OF BEER. SATURDAY. SATURDAY. SORRY. THEY HAD. AND THEN ANOTHER ITEM OF COMMUNITY INTEREST IS AFTER THIS MEETING TONIGHT, THE BAR IS OPEN AT MY HOUSE. EVERYBODY'S WELCOME.

GOING TO HAVE THE GOOD COGNAC. GOOD SCOTCH. BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO LEAVE AT EIGHT BECAUSE MY KIDS GO TO SCHOOL TOMORROW, SO. SALTY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT

[IX. CONSENT AGENDA]

AGENDA. 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 SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. BEFORE I GO THROUGH THESE, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? ITEM NUMBER TWO. NUMBER TWO. YES, SIR. OKAY. ONE SECOND.

THAT WAS THE GOLF COURSE. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONE I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST TOO. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

YEAH. SO NUMBER ONE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 2162A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, CONFIRMING THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE PRESIDING MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, ITEM NUMBER THREE ACTION REGARDING THE OCTOBER 2ND, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AND NUMBER FOUR ACTION REGARDING THE OCTOBER 16TH, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. AND IF YOU WOULD, WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WERE MODIFICATIONS MADE TO BOTH MINUTES TO CORRECT THE REFLECTION OF WHO VOTED FOR WHAT, HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR AND AGAINST IN BOTH THE OCTOBER 2ND AND OCTOBER 16TH MEETING MINUTES. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE EVERYTHING BUT ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE UPDATES TO THE MINUTES. YES. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. SONG? ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. SO WE WILL NOW GO TO ITEM

[IX.2. Consideration, and Possible action to approve Resolution No. 25-2163 authorizing the City Manager to execute a five-year lease agreement with United Ag & Turf for golf course maintenance equipment in the amount of $192,908.28.]

NUMBER TWO CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 2163, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED AG AND TURF FOR THE GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $192,908.28, AND BOTH MR. BENFIELD AND MR. ROBERTS ASKED. SO I'LL START WITH YOU, MR. BENFIELD, AND THEN I'LL COME TO YOU, MR. ROBERTS. CHARLES, MY MY QUESTION WAS SOMEWHAT WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS $190,000 REPRESENTS FOUR PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. TWO OF THEM ARE VERY EXPENSIVE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO EXERCISE, IT SAYS THAT YOU ARE DECLINING ANY KIND OF PLAN COVERAGES ON THIS THAT WOULD GO OVER AND ABOVE OUR THE EXISTING WARRANTY. DID YOU AT ALL EXPLORE WHAT THOSE ADDITIONAL COVERAGES WOULD? I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DID NOT LOOK AT THIS AGREEMENT THAT CLOSE. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS BECAUSE IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY. YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THERE THAT I AM NOT TOO THRILLED WITH. AND I DID NOT GET PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS UNTIL JUST VERY RECENTLY WHEN I ASKED FOR IT. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM STAFF AT THE GOLF COURSE, BUT I WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THIS CONVERSATION. I WAS JUST HANDED A CONTRACT AND SAID SIGN AND I AT FIRST WE WERE GOING TO SIGN IT AND I READ IT THROUGH IT AND I SAID, NOPE, NOT SIGNING. IT'S GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL. SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR THIS TO BE TABLED. YEAH, I MEAN, WE CAN DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON THIS BECAUSE I'M JUST THE EQUIPMENT BEING PURCHASED FROM JOHN DEERE.

NOT A PROBLEM. YEAH. THEY'RE ON TIPS ALL OF THAT. SO IT'S IT'S NOT A BIDDING PROCESS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IN PLACE AND THAT WE ARE GETTING WARRANTY THAT WE NEED ON THE EQUIPMENT. THAT THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN. I MEAN, ONE OF THE PIECES IS 99,000 IN AND OF ITSELF. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY INVESTMENT MADE

[02:30:05]

IN THESE ASSETS HAS A LONG TERM PLAN TO MAKE IT A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WE CAN BE PROUD OF FOR FIVE, TEN, 15 YEARS. YES, SIR. SO I LOVE TO HEAR THAT YOU ARE ON BOARD WITH THAT. YES. IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO. FOR ME. WHOEVER WANTS TO. I THOUGHT YOU SAID PLACE TOO. I'M SORRY. NO NO NO NO NO, I SAID I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. HOLD IT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS? YOU KNOW, I, I ALWAYS HAVE TREPIDATION ABOUT LEASING VERSUS BUYING OUTRIGHT. I JUST CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS. IT CAME OUT TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE 20, THAT WE'RE BASICALLY PAYING $20,000 TO FINANCE IT OVER THE, OVER THE TERM OF THE LEASE TO OWN. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT LEASE WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE INTEREST RATES BEING DROPPED, SO WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET A BETTER RATE NOW. WELL, IT'S FINE. IT'S STILL IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD VOTE AGAINST, BUT I'M TRUST THAT STAFF HAS TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CASH FLOW NEEDS ETC. AND THEN I THINK THERE WAS ALSO, I BELIEVE THIS ITEM HAD A RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY TIED TO THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE OBVIOUSLY. SO THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. AND. I DON'T KNOW, I HAD SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT I PUT TOGETHER. CAN STAFF CONFIRM THAT THE CITY'S EQUIPMENT WILL BE COVERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL POWER GUARD PLAN APPROPRIATE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS? AND I THINK I PUT THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS WELL. SO IF YOU NEED TO REFERENCE IT OR ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOK AT THAT. HAS THE CITY'S INSURER, PML RISK POOL CONFIRMED THAT OUR CURRENT COVERAGE SATISFIES THIS REQUIREMENT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PREMIUM OR POLICY CHANGES? TWO MORE QUESTIONS WERE THE TRADE IN VALUES BENCHMARKED AGAINST RECENT RESALE OR AUCTION DATA, AND ARE THOSE PAYOFF BALANCES ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL COST? WHEN I LOOKED AT THE THE TRADE IN VALUES, THEY'RE GIVING US BOTTOM DOLLAR WHOLESALE VALUE, NOT RETAIL OR ANYTHING. IT'S JUST WHOLESALE, WHICH IS NOT UNORTHODOX IN ANY INDUSTRY FOR HAVE EXPENSIVE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT LIKE THIS. AND THEN LAST ONE THE PURCHASE RELIES ON SOURCE WELL CONTRACT AND THEN THE NUMBER CAN STAFF CONFIRM THAT THIS CONTRACT REMAINS ACTIVE THROUGH 2526, AND THAT THE PRICING USED IS CURRENT? YOU ADDRESS THAT WITH THE INTEREST RATE. SO THAT'S EVERYTHING. IT'S ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IF YOU GO BACK TO REFERENCE ADAM, I BELIEVE YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR SULLIVAN, WILL YOU I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER 9.2 SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BENEFIELD. SECOND, BY MR. ROBERTS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. EXCUSE ME.

[X.1. Consideration and Possible action to fill a vacancy on the Planning & Zoning Commission resulting from the resignation of Jeff Flauding.]

OKAY. ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESULTING FROM THE RESIGNATION OF JEFF. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE. I'LL LISTEN. BUT NUMBER ONE, WE DON'T HAVE RESOLUTION. NUMBER TWO, OUR LIAISONS OUT HERE TONIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION. SO WE CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION, CAN WE? I THAT WOULD BE A BAD QUESTION. WELL, WE COULD WE COULD TAKE ACTION IF WE KNEW WHO THAT PERSON WAS THAT WE WANTED TO NOMINATE. AND THEN WE WOULD JUST DIRECT THE SECRETARY TO GO PUT THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION TOGETHER, NAMING THAT PERSON, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION. WE COULD DO THAT.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD. MAY I, IF I MAY, SO A FEW THINGS. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING.

YEAH I DO NO NO NO NO. YOU'RE GOING TO TALK. YEAH I'M GOING TO TALK. AND THEN I CAN MAKE A MOTION SUBJECT TO EVERYBODY ELSE HAVING OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING. CHARLES ASKED SOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RECENTLY ON EMAIL THAT BRAD RESPONDED TO AND SHARED WITH THE WHOLE OF COUNCIL AND WHAT IT INVOLVED. THE QUESTION POSED WAS, DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM? DO WE HAVE A POTENTIAL WALKING QUORUM? TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT? ARE WE INVITING? ARE WE INVITING? ARE WE CREATING A HIGH PROBABILITY OF. VIOLATIONS OF OF THAT STATUTE? AND AND BY HAVING MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS ON MULTIPLE COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE CITIZENS ON MULTIPLE COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. IT'S ONE THING IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY, I THINK, ON EDAC AND ON GOLF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY THERE. BUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF A COMMISSION AND ALSO ON ANOTHER COMMISSION, AND I'LL JUST SPEAK TO THAT INDIVIDUAL,

[02:35:03]

MR. ROBBINS, WHO IS AN ALTERNATE ON THE PNC AT PRESENT. HE AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I LOVE I LOVE FRANK MOST OF THE TIME. AND HE JUST KIDDING. HE AND I GO BACK AND FORTH AND HAVE REALLY GOOD, INTELLECTUALLY HONEST DEBATES WITH EACH OTHER. BUT THE THE CONCERN THAT THE LEGAL CONCERNS THAT CAME TO BEAR IN THIS EMAIL WAS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ON A VERY SIMILAR REGULATORY BODY THAT IS DISCUSSING ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE HEARD ON BOTH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE. SORRY, I'M TIRED, I'M DRAWING A BLANK. IT'S THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCE.

THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCE IS BEING DISCUSSED BY BOTH THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.

ACTUALLY, THEY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND ALSO PNC, YOU HAVE THE AGGRIEVED PERSON IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED ON BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AND ALSO ON PNC. AND IN HIS EMAIL HE SAID YOU JUST FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO WALK IN BETWEEN THOSE, THOSE VERY WELL DEFINED LINES IS A VERY HARD THING TO DO AND IT'S JUST NOT ADVISABLE. IT'S ALSO NOT BEST PRACTICE TO HAVE PEOPLE ON MULTIPLE COMMISSIONS. IT'S NOT ORTHODOXY IN, IN IN OTHER CITIES. YOU'VE ALSO GOT THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU HOW WOULD YOU APPOINT SOMEBODY WHO'S AN ALTERNATE WHO ALREADY IS SERVING A TERM AS ANOTHER TITLE? I MEAN, YOU CAN'T I MEAN, THEY'RE ALREADY SERVING AS AN ALTERNATE. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, OKAY, NOW YOU'RE THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THAT PERSON FIRST THE ALTERNATE AND THEN DO THAT, AND THEN YOU CREATE THIS, THIS DUPLICATE SITUATION ON THE BOARD. SO ANYWAY, WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IT ALSO MIGHT SERVE WELL TO CONSIDER A NAME, A VERY WELL QUALIFIED NAME LIKE HIS AMONGST A POOL OF APPLICANTS TO FILL ANY ADDITIONAL VACANCIES COME JANUARY. THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD MOVE TO APPOINT DAVE STEWART, WHO HAS APPLIED TO BE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. HE HAS AN APPLICATION ON FILE. THAT'S WHO I WOULD. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE FILL THE VACANCY WITH FOR THE BALANCE OF JEFF'S TERM, WHICH IS THROUGH THE END OF 2026. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. YEAH, I WAS JUST SAYING, I'VE ONLY HEARD FROM ONE PERSON THAT ASKED TO BE APPOINTED ON THIS, AND THAT WAS DAVE STEWART. SO THAT WAS THE ONE I WAS AWARE OF.

AND I THOUGHT THAT'S WHY THERE WAS A BLANK IN HERE SO THAT WE COULD WRITE IN, IN THE RESOLUTION TO THE PACKET. SO I WOULD SUPPORT DAVE STEWART BEING APPOINTED TONIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MY ISSUE WITH APPOINTING ANYBODY TONIGHT IS WE ARE LITERALLY TWO WEEKS AWAY FROM A NEW COUNCIL SITTING HERE. WE ARE THREE WEEKS OR MAYBE FOUR WEEKS AWAY FROM CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTEES FOR ALL THE COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES THAT ARE VACANT. AND WE WE DON'T HAVE A LIST OF APPLICANTS OR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE APPLIED OR WOULD APPLIED OR HAVE, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK IT'S JUST MOST APPROPRIATE. AND WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FRANK ROBBINS WHO IS VERY CAPABLE AS AN ALTERNATE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS SHORT SHORTHANDED IN ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER. I DO AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT I DON'T LIKE PERSONALLY MULTIPLE PEOPLE SERVING ON MULTIPLE COMMISSIONS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT GET CLEANED UP. SO PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE NO ACTION ON THIS.

PUNT IT ALLOW FRANK TO SERVE AS AN ALTERNATE. THAT'S WHAT HIS ROLE IS. AND YOU KNOW, FIRST, FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER. GREAT PEOPLE LIKE KAREN AND JESS AND AMANDA WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. AND WE CAN JUST GET THESE COMMISSIONS FULLY STAFFED. SO DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I WILL LET YOU KNOW. I'M A LITTLE BIT TORN, BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT DAVE STEWART WOULD BRING EXPERTISE, YOU KNOW, TO PLANNING AND ZONING THAT WE'RE MISSING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS FOR A ONE YEAR TERM. AT FIRST, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HEAR ME KIND OF GOING, I'M LISTENING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GO WHICH WAY I WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE I AM NOT. AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT US HAVING THE SAME PEOPLE ON MULTIPLE COMMISSIONS. NOW. IT'S HAPPENED A LOT OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS OF LARGO, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SERVE. AND SO OUT OF JUST BEING ABLE TO GET BUSINESS DONE, WE HAD THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME UP.

SO. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYTHING, BUT I WILL SAY WHETHER I WOULD BE LOOKING TO ASK FOR DAVE STEWART TO BE ON THERE, WHETHER IF HE'S MADE THE APPLICATION ON PLANNING AND ZONING JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT OF KNOWLEDGE SET THAT I THINK WOULD BE VALUABLE AT THIS TIME. SO THAT'S MY I DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER HIM. WHETHER IT'S TONIGHT OR THREE WEEKS FROM NOW, MY VOTE IS GOING TO BE FOR DAVE STEWART TO GO ON THE PLANNING

[02:40:02]

AND ZONING. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DELAY WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR. WELL, I'LL JUST THROW IN MY $0.02 WORTH. I AGREE WITH MR. BENFIELD. I THINK JUST LET THE NATURAL PROCESS PLAY OUT, AND WE'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO CAN FILL IN FOR NOW AND ALLOW THE NEW COUNCIL TO MAKE A LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE THEM MOVE. JORDAN. DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING CRITICAL COMING UP ON THE NEXT MEETING? YES, SIR. OKAY, SO NO PLATS OR ANYTHING ARE COMING BEFORE I THINK. I THINK WE'D BE GOOD THEN TO WAIT. MY BIGGEST CONCERN OVER ALL OF THAT IS HAVING A MAJORITY OF YOUR PNC MEMBERS ARE ALSO YOUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS WHO PNC DECISIONS ARE APPEALED TO. SO THAT TO ME IS NOT FAIR TO YOUR DEVELOPERS. AND I'M NOT I'M NOT PRO DEVELOPER, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS TREATED FAIRLY WELL. I THINK IF YOU STEP THROUGH THE NATURAL PROCESS OF WAITING AND HAVING LEAVES AND ASSIGNMENTS AND NOMINATIONS IN DECEMBER, YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT HOLISTICALLY ACROSS ALL OF ALL THREE OF THOSE COMMISSIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE DUPLICATING SERVICE. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE PERIOD FOR APPLICATIONS, IT ENDED, BUT SOMEBODY HAD RAISED CONCERNS OVER THAT. IT WASN'T ADVERTISED ENOUGH. SO I'VE ASKED HIM TO EXTEND IT UNTIL AT LEAST NEXT WEEK AND REALLY PUSH IT OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS RIGHT NOW TO TRY TO GET MORE RESPONSES. YES, SIR. JUST A FINAL COMMENT. I, I AGREE WITH WHAT MAYOR ELECT SAID. I MEAN, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY THINK DAVE WOULD BE AWESOME AS WELL, BUT JUST FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT MAYOR SULLIVAN MENTIONED, I THINK PUTTING THIS IN DECEMBER IS THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND SORTING OUT THE BOA AND THE BS AND THE JUST GETTING ALL THAT FIXED IN ONE GO IS THE WHAT FEELS THE BEST. EVEN THOUGH I WILL VOTE WITH YOU FOR DAVE STEWART. YEAH, I THINK I THINK I GET THE THE OPTICS, I, I THINK THE OPTICS THAT BOTH YOU AND KEVIN HAVE POINTED OUT ARE VIRTUOUS AND WELL-FOUNDED. I ALSO THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE'LL END UP ON THERE, WHETHER IT'S NOW OR LATER. SO ME, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT THING WITH ME IS IF WE CAN GET IT DONE, LET'S JUST GET IT DONE.

SO IT'S FOR THAT REASON I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD JUST DO IT NOW. I MEAN, HOW HOW HOW AVERSE ARE THE TWO OF YOU ALL TO JUST DOING THE INEVITABLE, THE LIKELY INEVITABLE. INEVITABLE NOW ANYWAY, AND JUST PUT THEM ON THERE TONIGHT? I WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT TONIGHT. WOULD YOU? OKAY, WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO APPOINTING PEOPLE, I'D LIKE TO SEE A NON DIVISIVE VOTE. SO FOR THAT REASON THEN I'M FINE. I'M AGREEABLE TO TABLING. UNTIL THEN I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. JUST LIKE I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT WAS CLEAR IT'S REALLY THE ISSUE OF HOLISTICALLY LOOKING AT ACROSS THE THREE COMMISSIONS. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT. AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEW COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE UP. SURE. OKAY, OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? MAYOR I MOTION TO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY A I GUESS IT DOES STILL HAVE TO BE A TABLING DOESN'T IT. YEAH.

TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL MAYOR, MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA. WHENEVER THEY THINK BEST GET A MOTION BY MR. ROBERTS. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. BENNEFIELD? ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY.

HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. I'M GOING TO JUMP AROUND A LITTLE BIT. I'M GOING TO SAVE ITEM TWO FOR LAST WORK SESSION. UPDATE. DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE? WAS THERE STUFF THAT HAPPENED THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OR UPDATED? I JUST WANTED TO SAY THERE IS A UPDATE ON THE COUNCIL FORUM. THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND FORGIVE ME FOR TAKING AN EXTRA MINUTE IS THAT THERE'S A FULL REPORT THAT I WAS TRYING TO GET ON THE ON THE COUNCIL FORUM SO THAT EVERYBODY COULD SEE IT, BUT THE IT WOULDN'T TAKE IT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO BIG OF A FILE. SO I NEEDED TO HAVE THE TIME TO BREAK THE FILE DOWN OR, AND THEN WHEN I TALKED TO CHARLES ABOUT IT, HE SAID HE'S GOING TO PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE.

SO I MIGHT BE ABLE JUST TO PUT A LITTLE LINK OVER THERE TO IT. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S REALLY GOOD.

THEY'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. WE ARE GOING TO BE MEETING THIS IS NEXT NEXT WEEK. CORRECT.

TUESDAY. YEAH, I DON'T REMEMBER. NOT ON TUESDAY. IT WEDNESDAY, WEDNESDAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK OVER. THEY DID A MAGNIFICENT JOB AND HAD A LOT OF REALLY GOOD INFO. I'M EXCITED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES GET OUT THERE SO THAT OUR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN SEE THAT OUR INCOMING AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. SO I'M EXCITED. THANK YOU. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER TWO, AN UPDATE FROM THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE. IS THERE ANYTHING TO REPORT, MR. BENTON? NOT THAT I RECALL, I THINK COUNCIL PRINCE, YOU KNOW, GOT THAT UPDATE FROM VICTOR THAT HE'S ABOUT 90% ON THE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN AND OR 90%

[02:45:04]

OF HIS QUESTIONS ON THE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN. AND HE SHARED THAT WITH US. AND I THINK PRINCE IS GOING THROUGH IT, BUT NOTHING THAT WE HEARD IS SHOWING ANY SORT OF DELAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THINGS ARE MOVING FORWARD AS WE THOUGHT AND WE UPDATED LAST TIME. YEAH, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS VICTOR. SO YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, THE COMMITTEE HAS NOW RECEIVED THE DESIGN. OKAY. AND SO WE ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT. IF THERE'S CONSENSUS, I AM HAPPY TO UPLOAD WHAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD. SO YOU THE COUNCIL CAN NOW START LOOKING AT IT. QUESTIONS FROM VICTOR HAVE BEEN SENT TO MR. HILL. ONCE ALL OF THAT GETS POLISHED 100%, I THINK THE ANTICIPATION IS THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL HAVE A FINAL MEETING, GIVE IT THE THUMBS UP AND IT WILL GO OUT FOR RFP. EXCELLENT. I HEAR OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE, UPDATE FROM

[XI. 3. Update from the (STR) Short-term rental Sub-Committee.]

THE SHORT TERM RENTAL SUBCOMMITTEE. IS THERE AN UPDATE? SMALL UPDATES. YES. THE AFTER WE MET STAFF FELT LIKE IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH DECKARD. SIR DECKARD SOFTWARE, WHICH IS THE FACILITY THAT WAS BEING UTILIZED TO TRACK OUR STRS AND DO REPORTING AND WHATNOT. THERE'S DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A TWO YEAR PERMIT OR A THREE YEAR PERMIT IS GOING TO BE MOST IDEAL. I THINK WE'RE ALL LEANING TOWARDS SELF CERTIFICATION. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT TML TO HAVE A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH NICK, WHO IS THE COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR AIRBNB. AND, YOU KNOW, ON THE ADVICE OF COUNCIL, HE IS WILLING TO COME AND DO A PRESENTATION ON WHAT THEY CAN DO TO ASSIST. US IN WRITING OUR ORDINANCE. ONE THING THAT THEY HAD MENTIONED IS THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER GOING TO. THEY ARE CAPABLE AND WILLING TO CHARGE THE GUEST THE HOT TAXES, AND THEN THEY WILL SEND A SEPARATE PAYMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE STR THAT HOT TAX, BUT THEY ARE NO LONGER WILLING TO THEN JUST SEND THAT HOT CHECK DIRECTLY TO THE CITY. OKAY. THEY TRIED TO ADVOCATE TO SEND THAT CHECK TO THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER, AND THEN THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER WOULD THEN SEND IT TO THE CITY. BUT THAT LEGISLATION GOT VOTED DOWN. SO AIRBNB JUST SAID, WE'RE GOING TO SEND A SEPARATE CHECK, WHICH IS TRACEABLE TO THE OWNER, AND THEN THAT OWNER WILL THEN HAVE THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO FORWARD THAT PAYMENT TO THE CITY. SO HAVING AN ORDINANCE WHERE PEOPLE ARE PERMITTED IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER, BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL JUST NEVER GET THAT MONEY. YEAH.

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, I THINK THERE'S CONSENSUS AMONGST THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT LESS IS MORE, THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO PACK A BUNCH OF THINGS INTO THIS ORDINANCE. THAT WOULD MAKE IT CONVOLUTED. I THINK THE IDEA IS WE WANT TO ADDRESS YOU HAVE A PERMIT, YOU'RE PAYING YOUR TAXES, AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE THE SAME OBLIGATIONS AS ANYBODY ELSE IN THE CITY.

NOISE, PARKING. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THE SELF ASSESSMENT. YOU MENTIONED THAT Y'ALL MADE THE DECISION THAT TO OPT OUT OF THE OFFER, DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT'S BETTER OR WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WASN'T THAT WASN'T I DON'T THINK THAT WAS NECESSARILY A SUBCOMMITTEE DECISION. I THINK THAT WAS A DECISION AMONGST STAFF. OKAY. SO THE ONE TO CANCEL THE DECKARD ONE, I YEAH, THERE'S A LOT A LOT OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO BESIDES SCRAPING THE INTERNET TO FIND WHERE THE STARS ARE, WHICH IT TURNED OUT, WAS WAY LESS THAN WHAT THEY INITIALLY TOLD US. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THAT SOFTWARE DOES TO US THAT WE WERE GETTING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DOES. AND SO WE HAD A DUPLICATION OF WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE DOING, AND IT'S COSTING EXTRA MONEY AND KIND OF CREATING MORE OF A HASSLE. AND I THINK THAT THAT REFLECTS WHAT STAFF FELT. YEAH, OKAY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES IS, IS IN DECKARD'S PRESENTATION, THEY ALLUDED THAT. WELL, EVEN EVEN LAST COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF IS THERE A THOUSAND STARS IN IN LAGO VISTA? IS THERE 500? AND ON THE FIRST SCRUB WE HAVE 47 REGISTERED STARS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. AND THEN WE HAVE 170, WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN OUR THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED. SO AT MAX WE HAVE ABOUT 200 STARS THAT ARE OPERATING. AND WHEN YOU TOOK THE $34,000 THAT THE DECKARD SERVICES WAS CHARGING, AND YOU START DIVIDING THAT AMONGST, EVEN IF YOU HAD 100% OF EVERYBODY COMPLIANT, ENDED UP BEING JUST TOO TALL OF A NUMBER PER MONTH OR PER YEAR TO HAVE THEM PAY. WHEN OUR CURRENT SOFTWARE WITH SERVICE WITH WHAT IS IT CALLED? CITIZEN PLUS, WAS CAPABLE OF VIRTUALLY DOING THE

[02:50:04]

SAME STUFF. YEAH, AND I THINK CHARLES POINTED OUT TOO, YOU CAN PAY FOR THAT ONE TIME SCRAPE WHENEVER YOU WANT TO. WE EVER WANT TO GET A SCREENSHOT OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE CITY. WE CAN JUST PAY, DO IT, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A SCREENSHOT. AT THAT TIME, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAN 47 STARS AT THE ISLAND ALONE. OH YEAH. YEAH, THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S SEVERAL COMPANIES OUT THERE BESIDES DECKARD THAT'LL DO A SCRUB AND GIVE YOU A LISTING. OKAY, OKAY.

ARE THEY ACTUALLY OPERATING? THEY'RE HAVING A REAL STRUGGLE ACTUALLY GETTING PEOPLE. WELL,

[XII. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

GOOD. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. HOW ABOUT STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS? A ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF. ANYTHING TO REPORT IS BUSY AT CITY HALL. LOTS OF THINGS GOING ON. I THINK Y'ALL PROBABLY SEEN FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S DESK GOING OUT EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS OR SO. I'M GOING TO TRY TO CONTINUE THAT. THE ONE THIS PAST WEEK WAS A LITTLE LENGTHY.

THEY WON'T ALL BE THAT LONG, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY THAT. AND ALL OF MY STAFF IS WORKING GREAT. THEY'RE GOT DIFFERENT PROJECTS THEY'RE WORKING ON. TML WAS GREAT LAST WEEK. I HAVE A TON OF INFORMATION THAT I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH DAVID REGARDING PARKS AND STUFF, AND JORDAN IS IN HERE. SHE IS WORKING ON GETTING SOME SOPS AND OTHER THINGS TOGETHER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A BIG IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR CODE.

ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN RENAMED TO CODE COMPLIANCE. THEY HAVE BEEN MOVED OVER TO CITY HALL. I THINK THAT'S BEEN A POSITIVE MOVE SO FAR. NICOLE IS WORKING TO GET ALL OF THE LAST OF THE FINANCIALS BALANCED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR, AND AS THEY ARE COMING UP, THEY'RE HITTING THE WEBSITE. SO I KNOW WE HAD HAD RECEIVED CONCERN THAT THOSE WEREN'T ON THE WEBSITE YET. THEY ARE GOING OUT THERE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. NICOLE'S GOT A NEW EMPLOYEE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS HELP TO HER STARTING NEXT WEEK, SO WE WON'T BE AS BEHIND. WE'LL HAVE THE STAFFING TO WHERE WE CAN STAY CAUGHT UP ON THINGS. SO I'M KIND OF EXCITED HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS COMING YEAR. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU SIR. MY QUESTION FOR CHARLES JUST I CAUGHT WIND OF THE IS IT THE LEAVES OF GRATITUDE PROGRAM OR WHAT IS IT CALLED. KUDOS TO THE KUDOS. THERE'S A THING THAT THE STAFF DO EVERY YEAR AROUND THANKSGIVING. AND EVERYBODY TAKES A LEAF. OH YEAH. LEAVES.

LEAVES OF THANKS. YEAH I THINK COUNCIL WASN'T PARTICIPANTS IN IT LAST YEAR, BUT I THINK THAT THERE WAS AN ASK THAT WE COULD BE INVOLVED THIS YEAR. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON HOW WE COULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT? NICOLE. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IN THE CRAYONS. THAT'S DIFFERENT NOW OKAY. BUT SO THE LEAVES OF THANKS WAS SOMETHING WE STARTED, I BELIEVE, ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO. THERE ARE COLORED LITERALLY LEAVES OR IN THE SHAPE OF LEAVES THAT THE CITY DOES BETWEEN ALL OF OUR STAFF. THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT BOXES AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS PUBLIC WORKS, PD, CITY HALL, THE LIBRARY, AND WE TEND TO AND TRY TO WRITE NOTES TO EACH OTHER. OH, CHIEF'S GOT ONE. OH, THERE IT IS. THAT LEAVES JUST CAME IN TODAY. SO THEY'RE BOXES LIKE THIS. AND THEN THERE ARE ACTUAL LEAVES. SO YOU CAN WRITE A NOTE TO CITY STAFF MEMBERS. WHAT YOU WHAT YOU APPRECIATE, WHAT YOU'RE THANKFUL FOR THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THEY'RE COLLECTED, THEY'RE KEPT. AND THEN RIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING THEY ARE GIVEN TO EACH DEPARTMENT AND EACH INDIVIDUAL SO THAT THEY HAVE THAT TO READ RIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING. THE OTHER THING THAT CHARLES IS TALKING ABOUT IS LAST WEEKEND WHEN I WAS GROCERY SHOPPING, THERE WAS CUTE LITTLE TURKEYS THAT SAID WHAT I'M THANKFUL FOR. AND SO THESE WERE NOT READY YET. AND SO I HAD JUST BROUGHT THOSE UP. AS FOR UP HERE AND NOW, THESE ARE GENERALLY, I DON'T SAY KEPT QUIET, BUT IT'S MORE OF A VERY PERSONAL THING THAT YOU CAN WRITE TO A STAFF MEMBER AND IT'S KEPT IN HERE AND THEN IT'S GIVEN TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

IT'S NOT PUBLICIZED UNLESS THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT THEM OUT. THE TURKEYS ARE JUST KIND OF CUTE AND YOU CAN WRITE SOMETHING ON IT, WHETHER IT'S TO OTHER CITY STAFF OR YOUR OWN PERSONAL LIFE.

AND THEN WE STARTED TO STICK THEM IN THE ENTRYWAY SO THAT WHEN CITIZENS, PUBLIC, DEVELOPERS, ANYONE COMES IN, THEY CAN SEE THEM POSTED ALL THROUGHOUT THE ENTRANCE OF CITY HALL TO HOPEFULLY FEEL HOW COMFORTABLE AND HAPPY AND THANKFUL EVERYONE IS IN THIS TIME. OH, AND WE DO HAVE OUR CHILI COOK OFF AMONGST STAFF COMING UP, I BELIEVE. JENNIFER, WHAT DAY IS IT? IT IS ACTUALLY ON THURSDAY FROM 11 TO 1. YOU'RE WELCOME TO TROPHIES INVOLVED SO WE KNOW WHO'S GOING TO TRY TO WIN THIS TIME AGAIN. WHEN IS THIS? NEXT THURSDAY. OH,

[02:55:02]

ONE WEEK FROM TODAY. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE. OH I'LL OPEN IT UP. I MEAN, YOU'LL BE WASTING YOUR TIME, BUT YEAH, YOU'RE WELCOME. THE DEBATE IS BEING OR NO BEING. SO IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION. YOU'RE IN TEXAS. YOU DO NOT PUT BEANS AND CHILI.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT OUT FRONT. NO, I DON'T KNOW YOU I LIKE BEANS. YEAH. THIS IS TEXAS.

YOU DON'T PUT BEANS IN CHILI. FAIR ENOUGH, FAIR ENOUGH. IT'S JUST MY IT'S MY TAKE. DIDN'T YOU. YOU WANT IT? YOUR EMOTION. WHAT DID YOU WIN YOUR FIRST? MY FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS HERE. I WILL SAY THAT WE HAD A DIP CONTEST AND I WON ALL THREE TOP PRIZES. JUST SAYING. SO THE THE BAR IS SET BEEN KIND OF HIGH, AND MY WIFE HAS ALREADY GOT IT FIGURED OUT HOW SHE'S GOING TO WIN THIS CHILI COOK OFF BECAUSE I DON'T COOK. YEAH. SO OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL BOARD COMMISSION COMMITTEE LIAISONS, MISTER BENNEFIELD, THE ONLY UPDATE IS, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY. THEY DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, AGREED. INDIVIDUALS. THEY HAVE PUT TOGETHER A SUBCOMMITTEE TO DISCUSS IT, AND THEY'RE JUST WORKING HARD. VERY GOOD.

EXCELLENT. SO I JUST HAD THE I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS CANCELED THEIR MEETING BECAUSE IT FALLS ON VETERANS DAY. JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW THERE IS NO MEETING RIGHT NOW. AND THEY ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE EDC. AND I KNOW THERE'S ERIC, BY THE WAY. THANK YOU. CHARLES HAS BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE PAPERWORK IS TIGHTENED UP ON THAT AND JUST SAY AT LAGO VISTA ISD, UNDERSTAND WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO NEW MEMBERS ON THERE. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOT GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM. AND SO I REALLY HAVE HIGH HOPES THAT BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE LBUSD, THAT THAT WILL GET BETTER. AND THE LAGO VISTA PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION IS CRYING BECAUSE, OH, SHE'S NOT HERE, KAREN IS LEAVING AND WE'RE GAINING HER. SO BUT LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT RELATIONSHIP. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. MR. ROBERTS, NOTHING FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. OKAY. MR. SALT AND THE CRC MET. THEY'RE STILL WORKING DILIGENTLY. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SEND TO US AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY'RE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS. OKAY. HEY, I WILL COMMENT ON CRC. I SIT IN ON THAT MEETING YESTERDAY. OUT OF ALL THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES I'VE WORKED WITH, I SAY WE'VE GOT THE BEST ONE THAT THERE'S EVER BEEN. THEY ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB, GOOD YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS HAVING A MEETING NEXT WEEK. NOTHING ON AND NOTHING ON EITHER TEXDOT OR CAPMETRO.

KEVIN, QUESTION ARE YOU GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO BE THERE NEXT WEEK AT THEIR MEETING, I PRESUME YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNDETERMINED RIGHT NOW, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO SAY IF YOU NEED THE KIDS HAD A PARTY AT MY HOUSE LAST WEEKEND AND THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T SURE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE THERE. IF YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO COVER FOR

[X.2. Consideration and Possible action to amend Ordinance No. 24-09-19-03. An Ordinance amending section 1.310.4 and section 1.310.5 of the Lago Vista Code of Ordinances. Procedures for personnel interaction. To clarify Councilmember access to information for Legislative purposes while preserving the City Manager's administrative authority; Providing findings of fact severability, repealer, effective date, and open meeting clauses.]

YOU, LET ME KNOW. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. SO WE WILL GO BACK TO OUR LAST ITEM. ACTION ITEM NUMBER TWO CONSIDERATION. POSSIBLE ACTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 24 0919203. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.310.4 AND SECTION 1.310.5 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROCEDURE FOR PERSONNEL INTERACTION TO CLARIFY COUNCIL MEMBER ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES WHILE PRESERVING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT, SEVERABILITY, REPEALER EFFECTIVE DATE AND OPEN MEETING CLAUSES. AND MR. BENNEFIELD, YOU BROUGHT THIS ITEM, SO I'M GOING TO LET YOU INTRODUCE IT.

YEAH, I THINK THERE HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I THINK THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW IT SHOULD BE UTILIZED. I DON'T THINK IT REALLY NEEDS A LOT OF INTRODUCTION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DISCUSSION. BUT IN SHORT, BACK IN 2020 4TH SEPTEMBER, AN ORDINANCE WAS PROPOSED 2409 1903 IT BASICALLY JUST TALKED ABOUT HOW CITY COUNCIL CAN INTERACT WITH THE DIRECTORS OR DEPARTMENT HEADS. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, ULTIMATELY PASSED 5 TO 2. I PUT THE ORDINANCE INTO CHAT AND JUST SAID, FROM THE MOST UNBIASED PERSPECTIVE POSSIBLE, I DROPPED THE CHARTER IN THERE. I SAID, ARE THESE THINGS COMPLIANT WITH EACH OTHER? DO THEY MESH? IT SAID, NO, IT DOESN'T. THERE'S SOME ISSUES HERE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. THIS IS WHAT YOUR ISSUES ARE. THEY WERE ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN VOICED BY THE TWO DISSENTING COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THE TIME. SO REALLY MY PURPOSE IN REVISITING THIS WAS JUST SIMPLY TO BRING THE ORDINANCE MORE COMPLIANT WITH OUR CHARTER.

AND THAT THAT'S REALLY THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THIS FORWARD. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU SIR. COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. I THINK JUST IN TERMS OF WRAPPING THIS UP, I GUESS, HOW WOULD YOU

[03:00:09]

DO A MOTION, ADAM, TO RECOGNIZE THE CHANGES, THE THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE ALL AGREED ON ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FROM MYSELF THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO NORMA AND THEN KEVIN'S POINT, WHICH IS WELL TAKEN REGARDING THE CHARTER, ALLOWS US THAT ACCESS TO DEPARTMENT HEADS, NOT ALL EMPLOYEES. SO STRIKE THE ALL EMPLOYEES AND JUST LEAVE IT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGES FROM YOUR RED LINE. I THINK THE ONLY.

OH, THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE TWO SENTENCES. YEAH. YEAH. I AND I HAVE THAT I THINK THE ONLY PORTION THAT WAS STILL UP FOR DISCUSSION WAS 1.310.4 C FOUR, THAT DISCUSSED WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD OR OUGHT TO BE COPIED ON INTERACTIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. I THINK ALL THE OTHERS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, I THINK THERE SEEMED TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST COUNCIL ON. SO I THINK THERE WAS JUST THAT ONE POINT THAT THERE PROBABLY WASN'T CONSENSUS. RIGHT. I THINK KEVIN WAS THE DISSENT ON THAT AND THE, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT YOU, NORMA, SHANE AND I HAD APPEARED TO AGREE ON WAS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE ENCOURAGED, BUT NOT REQUIRED, TO KEEP THE CITY MANAGER INFORMED WHEN PRACTICABLE, PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH NOTICE, PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A DUTY. SO YEAH, AND I THINK THE COMMENT I MEANT YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, IS THAT IT'S SUCH A LOW BAR. HAVING THAT IN THERE AS A REQUIREMENT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY MINOR THING. AND I THINK THERE WAS A VARIETY OF REASONS WHY IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE COMFORTABLE. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE JUST REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE, PERIOD.

OKAY. I WAS ACTUALLY COMFORTABLE WITH HOW HE RESTATED IT, HOW HE HAD IT STATED IN ITEM NUMBER FOUR. I ORIGINALLY ORIGINALLY, YEAH. WHICH MADE IT COMPULSORY. YEAH.

WHICH IS YEAH. I THAT'S I DON'T THINK THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN US ON THAT ONE FOR ME.

YEAH THAT'S FINE OKAY. I ONE THING THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED FOR THOSE THAT HASN'T THAT HAVEN'T READ THE DISCUSSION BOARD, ONE THING THAT YOU SAID, KEVIN, THAT I, I DO LIKE IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE CHARTER DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE IN AN ORDINANCE OR, YOU KNOW, AND SO AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CHARTER IS LIKE THE STATE, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, RIGHT? IT'S NEVER WAS DESIGNED TO CAPTURE EVERY IOTA OF ANYTHING. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT. WE HAVE THIS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T RESTRICTIONS PUT IN PLACE ON WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. WE HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SO THE WAY I TOOK KEVIN'S RESPONSE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS, IS JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS IT DOESN'T SAY IN THE CHARTER THAT YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER, DOESN'T MEAN THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER. I KIND OF I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT CORRECTLY. I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON. I JUST AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A RELATIVELY LOW BAR, AND I THINK THE CITY MANAGER CAN BENEFIT SIGNIFICANTLY FROM BEING KEPT INFORMED OF ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WHY NOT HAVE IT THERE? WELL, I CAN I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE WHY NOT SURE. SO THE WHY NOT IS BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE IS IT CAN IT CAN SILENT PEOPLE ON DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO MIGHT NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING THINGS WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER BECAUSE IT COULD BE ABOUT WRONGDOING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IF THEY'RE HAVING TO PROVIDE A RECAP TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THEIR CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER, THEN THEY MIGHT NOT BE WILLING TO SPEAK. WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FIND THINGS OUT. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ANNUAL REVIEW THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH. I MET WITH 23 MEMBERS OF STAFF. ADAM AND I MET WITH AROUND 15. NORMA MET WITH 10 TO 13. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT SHANE, BUT ANYWAY, POINT IS, IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ACCESS IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T MAKE PEOPLE FEAR OR WORRY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, OR THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER YOU'RE LOOKING INTO BECAUSE YOU'RE QUESTIONING SOMETHING IT'S REALLY ABOUT IN YOUR YOUR POINT IS LIKE IT'S RECEIVED WELL IN A EVERYTHING IS FUNCTIONING AS IT SHOULD IN THEORY. MY POINT IS THAT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK THAT WAY.