Jan 06, 2026 City Council

[III. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS]

[00:00:09]

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILS NOW RETURNING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE TIME IS 4:00 PM.

ROBIN, PLEASE NOTE THAT COUNCIL IS HERE AND WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND WE HAVE BRAD, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, WHO IS HERE VIRTUALLY. BRAD, DID YOU WANT TO GIVE ANY QUICK OVERVIEW OF THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES. MAYOR, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES, YES. OKAY, GOOD. I MISSED I'M WEARING EARBUDS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. SO WE DISCUSSED THE THERE IS A ONGOING LITIGATION THAT'S BEEN HANGING AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW CALLED KALAM CAPITAL VERSUS THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. AND WE DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THE CASE. AND I RECEIVED DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON, YOU KNOW, STEPS MOVING FORWARD TO TAKE. AND SO WE WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH TRYING TO MOVE THAT CASE FORWARD. AND I WILL REPORT BACK ACCORDINGLY. AND I THINK THAT WAS ALL WE TALKED ABOUT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, FROM TIME TO HELP ME HERE. SO FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM ONE CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING ALL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE AS NEEDED PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.

IS THERE ANY MOTION? NO ACTION, MAYOR. NO ACTION SESSION ITEM TWO CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING UPDATE ON CAUSE NUMBER D123001164 KALAM CAPITAL LLC VERSUS CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. IS THERE A MOTION? NO ACTION. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE ON. IF YOU WILL, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF THE UNITED STATES IN TEXAS. FLAGS. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOW THE TEXAS FLAG. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE.

TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR THE INVOCATION OF COUNCIL BENEFIELD TODAY, UNLESS YOU. YEAH. SORRY, COUNSELOR IS GOING TO. LET US PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LA VISTA, FOR ITS FAMILIES, HIS NEIGHBORHOODS, ITS BUSINESSES, AND THE NATURAL BEAUTY THAT SURROUNDS US. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THAT, FOR THE TRUST PLACED IN THIS COUNCIL AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE. LORD, WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AS WE CARRY OUT THE WORK BEFORE US. WE ARE MINDFUL THAT OUR COMMUNITY HAS WALKED THROUGH DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS AND CHALLENGING MOMENTS FOR QUIET OUR HEARTS AND RENEW OUR SPIRIT. HELP US TO RELEASE PRIDE, FRUSTRATION AND PERSONAL AGENDAS AND RETURN OUR FOCUS TO SERVANT LEADERSHIP, PLACING THE NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY ABOVE OUR OWN. GRANT US GRACE TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DISAGREEMENT. TEACH US TO LISTEN WITH HUMILITY, SPEAK WITH KINDNESS, AND WORK TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH. MAY JUSTICE GUIDE OUR DECISIONS.

WISDOM SHAPE OUR JUDGMENT, AND COMPASSION GOVERN OUR ACTIONS. MAY THIS MEETING TONIGHT REFLECT ACCOUNTABILITY AND A GENUINE DESIRE TO STRENGTHEN LAGO VISTA, NOT JUST FOR NOW, BUT FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. WE ASK THESE THINGS WITH GRATITUDE AND FAITH. AMEN. AMEN. I'LL

[VI. CITIZEN COMMENTS]

HERE, A LITTLE SOMETHING TO KEEP ME FOCUSED AND CONCISE HERE. OUR COMMUNITY VALUES AN ACTIVE OUTDOOR LIFESTYLE. AND WITH THAT COMES A RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD A STRONG CULTURE OF SAFETY THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES TO ENJOY A COMFORTABLE RATHER THAN REACHING TO INDIVIDUAL ISSUES. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROACTIVELY SUPPORT SAFE USE OF

[00:05:05]

SINCE EARLY 2025, MULTIPLE WASTE CONNECTIONS TRUCKS HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN GATHERING AND PARKING IN FRONT OF OUR ROADWAY, FIRE HYDRANT, OUR DRIVEWAY, HOME, YARD, AND PARKING LOT FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES AT A TIME. AS MANY AS FOUR TRUCKS WITHIN ONE HOUR HAVE BLOCKED THEIR INGRESS AND EGRESS. THEY DISCHARGE BIOHAZARDOUS TRASH JUICE, AS THEY CALL IT, DIRECTLY ON OUR PROPERTY THROUGH TRESPASS AND SEEPAGE. WE HAVE HEARD THE COMPRESSION FROM INDOORS ON MANY OCCASIONS. I PERSONALLY PHOTO DOCUMENTED MANY INCIDENTS IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS OR SO.

AT ONE TIME THIS OCCURRED OVER THREE CONSECUTIVE CYCLES. MOST RECENT EVENT OCCURRED YESTERDAY.

IT WAS NOTED FROM OUR BACKYARD IN PHOTO CLEARLY SHOWS BLOCKAGE OF OUR DRIVEWAY AFTER TRASH HAD BEEN COLLECTED IN THE TRUCK. LINGERED AT THIS VERY BUSY INTERSECTION. BIOLOGIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST NOT BE JUICED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN FRONT OF OUR HOMES. ONE OF THE REASONS WE THEN STOPPED WORKING WAS BECAUSE WE WITNESSED WASTE CONNECTIONS ENTERING OUR PARKING LOT, LINGERING, OR TO TURN AROUND WASTE CONNECTIONS PERFORMS AN INVALUABLE SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY, AND THEY SERVE LAGO VISTA, AS DO MANY OF OUR OWN CITIZENS. MY QUESTION CAN YOU? I KNOW YOU WON'T ANSWER IT. NOW. CAN Y'ALL PLEASE SET A PROCEDURE IN THEIR CONTRACT TO PROHIBIT THIS PRACTICE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OVER 20 YEARS AT THIS LOCATION? THIS PRACTICE IS ONLY OCCURRED SINCE 2025. THE CITY SHOULD DESIGNATE A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR WHATEVER COMPRESSION OPERATIONS THE TRUCKS HAVE TO PERFORM BEFORE LEAVING LAGO VISTA. AND BY THE WAY, I SPOKE TO DONNA WITH THE CITY A COUPLE, PROBABLY ABOUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. SO SHE'S AWARE OF THE THE CONCERN IN THIS SITUATION. BUT IT IS ONGOING. IT IS FREQUENT. AND THAT BIOHAZARDOUS WASTE IS ONE NOT ON THE ROADWAY, BUT ON OUR PROPERTY AND OTHERS. OBSCENE. YOU CAN SEE IT ALL AROUND THE CITY WHERE THEY'RE STOPPED AND COMPRESSED, AND WE SEEM TO BE, I THINK, THE LAST LOCATION BEFORE MAYBE THEY LEAVE LAGO.

SO THEY EITHER GO ON OR THEY TURN ON NATIONAL. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S VERY FREQUENT. OKAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. HAPPY NEW YEAR. NEXT I HAVE. HELLO COUNCIL. HAPPY NEW YEAR I'M SURE. WELL I HAVE NOTICED AT LEAST A COUPLE OF COMPLAINTS AND DISCOURSE ON DIFFERENT VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT LEAVING 1431 AT LOMAN'S FORD. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY COME AND OFFICIALLY ADDRESS ANYBODY ABOUT IT. SO I WANTED TO BECAUSE THAT LIGHT WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING TAKES SO FREAKING LONG TO CHANGE. SO I KNOW THAT IT IS A DOT MATTER, BUT I WAS HOPING THAT AT LEAST THERE COULD BE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT GETTING THE SEQUENCING OF IT CHECKED OUT. I KNOW THAT WE DID IT FOR THE TURNING LANE TO TURN

[00:10:02]

I KNOW THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRAFFIC LIGHT INSTALLED SOON, BUT MY CONCERN IS THE WAY THAT 1431 CAMBERS IN THAT CURVE YOU CAN'T SEE THE ROAD GOING DOWN THE HILL, YOU CAN'T SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF BARQUET GOING DOWN THE HILL. YOU CAN'T SEE IF THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE CROSSWALK THAT'S RIGHT THERE AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND YOU CAN'T SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY WAITING TO LEAVE THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF BARQUET. AND THE WAY THAT BARQUET LINES UP, IT'S NOT EQUALLY DISTANCED ACROSS 1431. SO YOU CAN'T SEE THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF BARQUET UNTIL YOU'RE ALREADY CROSSING OVER 1431. AND YOU JUST HAVE TO KIND OF GUESSTIMATE WHERE YOU'RE TURNING AND IF YOU'RE TURNING INTO THE CORRECT LANE. SO I WAS JUST HOPING UNTIL WE GET A TRAFFIC LIGHT PUT THERE, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO GET ONE OF THOSE BUBBLE MIRRORS INSTALLED.

SO THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE DOWNHILL SIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAD TO HAVE MR. ROBERT OWEN. OKAY. ROBERT OWEN, CITIZEN LAGO VISTA, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TODAY I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL. I WILL REFERENCE THE CRC, BUT I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CRC OR ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT MAY OR MAY NOT RESIDE IN MY HOUSEHOLD. WHEN CITIZENS ELECTED OFFICIAL, THEY EXPECT THE OFFICIAL TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS AND BE THEIR VOICE IN PUBLIC MATTERS. WHEN ELECTED OFFICIALS TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE, THEY ACCEPT A PUBLIC DUTY THAT TRANSCENDS THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS. THIS PUBLIC DUTY IS NOT JUST IDEALISM. IT'S CODIFIED IN OUR CHARTER THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC ISSUES, ELECTED OFFICIALS MUST TAKE A POSITION ON MATTERS AND MAKE THAT POSITION KNOWN. WHEN, BY VOTING, REFERENCE OUR CHARTER, SECTION 3.14 STIPULATES THAT YOU MUST VOTE UNLESS YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO ABSTAIN. AND THERE'S TWO OF THOSE. ONE, AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OR TWO IF IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOUR CONDUCT. AT THE DECEMBER 4TH, 2025, COUNCIL MEETING, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE CHARTER 14 TIMES BY ABSTAINING TO VOTE, SEVEN TIMES WITHOUT DUE CAUSE, AND BY NOT OFFERING ANY VALID REASON AS REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER. SEVEN TIMES. I'M SORRY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE TIME OF DAY OF MY VOTE. YOU DON'T DESERVE IT IS NOT, IN MY OPINION, A VALID REASON. UNDER THE CHARTER, IT DOESN'T MEET ONE OF THE TWO EXCEPTIONS. SO MY QUESTION OF FACT FOR THIS BODY IS IN THE LAST MONTH, HAS THERE BEEN ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THIS BODY TO ADDRESS THE EGREGIOUS REPEATED CHARTER VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED? I SEE NO ACTION. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS NOTED OTHER CITY CHARTERS HAVE PROVISION FOR A BOARD OF ETHICS TO INVESTIGATE AND BRING FORTH ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHARTER VIOLATIONS. THERE'S A DISCUSSION BOARD POSTING AND THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO GO READ A LOT OF RESEARCH THERE.

IF YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, PLEASE SHARE IT ON YOUR BOARD AND WE CAN CROSS-REFERENCE.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ONE SHOULD THERE BE A BOARD OF ETHICS, HOW SHOULD IT BE CONSTITUTED? HOW WOULD THE MEMBERS BE APPOINTED? WHAT WOULD BE THE SCOPE AND MANDATE OF SUCH A BOARD OF ETHICS? FOR ME, THIS EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE EGREGIOUS AND WILLFUL CHARTER VIOLATIONS WITH NO ACTION BY THIS BODY TO ADDRESS IT, IS CONCERNING AND REINFORCES TO ME SOME OF THE THINKING OF SOME OF THE CRC MEMBERS THAT ABOARD THE ETHICS IS NEEDED IN OUR CHARTER. MAYOR, I KNOW BASED UPON YOUR SPEECH YESTERDAY, I'M GOING TO YOU OFF.

BUT THAT'S HOW IT GOES AT THIS POINT, SINCE THERE IS THIS BODY IS NOT TAKING ANY ACTION TO ADDRESS THE CHARTER VIOLATIONS. AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS FOR ME TO APPEAL TO, MY ONLY RECOURSE UNDER THE CHARTER, SECTION 3.08 IS TO SUBMIT A SWORN COMPLAINT OF CHARTER VIOLATIONS TO THE MAYOR. THANK YOU. SIR. YOUR SECOND. THANK YOU. SO NOW I'LL GO BACK TO IS MR. ROBERT DONNELLY ONLINE. HE WAS THERE AND NOW HE'S GONE AGAIN. HE HE HAS SAYS HIS INTERNET CONNECTION. HE CAN'T MAINTAIN A STABLE ONE SO HE'S NOT ABLE TO JOIN US. OKAY.

WELL THEN WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE CITIZEN COMMENTS. DON'T HAVE ANY OTHERS. I DIDN'T MISS

[VII. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]

[00:15:04]

I HAVE A COUPLE THAT I WILL FINISH WITH, SO I WILL START DOWN WITH MR. HALL IF HE HAS ANY ITEMS. I DO NOT MR. BENNEFIELD. NO THANKS. MR. ONE COMMUNITY EVENT THAT I'M AWARE OF IS GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING DOWN THE LIGHTS WITH CBLB ON THURSDAY. SO IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO COME TO VOLUNTEER AND HELP, THEY'RE STARTING AT NINE AT VOTING POINT. AND THEN WE ARE ALSO HAVING A MEETING THAT EVENING AT 630 FOR ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU MISS. SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THREE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT ACTUALLY STEPPED UP DURING A TIME THAT WE ARE WORKING TO GET OUR COMMISSIONS IN LINE. AND BECAUSE THEY SERVED ADMIRABLY AND REALLY DID THE CITY OF FAVOR LAST NIGHT ON THE B OF A, AND THAT WAS GENE HARRIS, THAT WAS LINDA AIRD, AND THAT WAS KEN MINYARD, WHO DID MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A QUORUM ON THE B OF A. THEY SERVED ONE LAST TIME BEFORE THEY ARE OFFICIALLY POTENTIALLY CHANGED AS OF TODAY. SO I APPRECIATE ANY TIME THAT WE HAVE CITIZENS WHO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY WHEN THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE TO. THAT SHOWS DEDICATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS VANESSA. NO, NOTHING, MR. MAYOR, I HAVE ONE. SO THIS SATURDAY AT 10 A.M. THERE WILL BE A MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR LAGO VISTA RESIDENT, A LONG TIME, KELLY DUPNIK. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW HER, BUT SHE'S BEEN VERY ACTIVE MEMBER OF SOME OF THE CHRISTIAN WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS RECENTLY PASSED AWAY, AND SO SHE'LL BE SORELY MISSED. EVERYONE WOULD BE WELCOME TO ATTEND AT ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH AT 10:00 SATURDAY. MR. WEST. NO. ALL RIGHT THEN. I HAVE TWO CHRISTMAS RELATED ONES. I WILL START WITH THE CITY HALL ONE HERE. SO WE HAD OUR SECOND ANNUAL CHRISTMAS DECORATING SHOWDOWN WINNERS ANNOUNCED. THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO VOTED ON THAT. AND THERE WAS A TOUGH VOTE THERE AT THE END. IT WAS VERY CLOSE, AND I'M PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE WINNERS OF THE SECOND ANNUAL CHRISTMAS DECORATING SHOWDOWN, THE YEAR'S WINNING TEAM, IMPRESSED EVERYONE WITH THEIR THEME LAGO CHRISTMAS EDITION. THEY TRANSFORMED THEIR WORKSPACES INTO AN INTERACTIVE, MONOPOLY STYLE GAME BOARD, WITH EACH SPACE FEATURING A CREATIVE AND HUMOROUS STORY THAT REFLECTED CITY LIFE AND THE WORK WE DO EVERY DAY. I MEAN, WE WERE LITERALLY ROLLING GIANT DICE AND WALKING FROM PIECE TO PIECE, AND THEY HAD THE ACTUAL MONOPOLY THING. THERE WAS A LOCAL STORIES IN THERE, LIKE THERE'S A LAGO DEER WITH CHRISTMAS LIGHTS ON ITS ANTLERS, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON AT THE TIME. SO IT WAS VERY CREATIVE. SO CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OUTSTANDING TEAM REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, MUNICIPAL COURT, PARKS AND RECREATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PARTNERSHIP, COLLABORATION AND CREATIVITY AND HOLIDAY SPIRIT MADE CITY HALL FEEL EXTRA FESTIVE THIS SEASON. THANK YOU FOR GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND. AND SO THIS GOES TO THIS AMAZING. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO CALL THIS, BUT AN EXCITING AWARD. SO WHO AM I GIVING THIS TO? YAY! SECOND YEAR! THEY ONLY WON BY HALF A POINT. OH, WE CAME IN A HALF A POINT BELOW. I'M STILL COUNTING. ALL RIGHT, SO THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER CHRISTMAS THEMED ONE. THIS IS A PROCLAMATION, SO I'M PROBABLY GOING TO READ IT FROM HERE. AND THEN I'LL HAVE MARK COME OVER AND WE CAN DO A PICTURE RIGHT HERE. SO THIS PROCLAMATION, WHEREAS THE HOLIDAY SEASON IS A TIME FOR COMMUNITY TRADITION AND SHARED JOY THAT BRINGS NEIGHBORS TOGETHER ACROSS THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. WHEREAS FESTIVE HOLIDAY LIGHT DISPLAYS ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR COMMUNITY BY CREATING MOMENTS OF WONDER, LAUGHTER AND CONNECTION FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE. AND WHEREAS MAYOR 2025 HOLIDAY LIGHTS CONTEST WAS ESTABLISHED TO CELEBRATE CREATIVITY, ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY FUN AND SPREAD CHRISTMAS CHEER THROUGHOUT LAGO VISTA. AND WHEREAS, AND I HOPE I GET THIS RIGHT, MARK STOJNIC. STOJNIC HAS FOR MANY YEARS BROUGHT EXCEPTIONAL HOLIDAY JOY TO THE COMMUNITY THROUGH HIS CHRISTMAS LIGHTS DISPLAY, DEMONSTRATING CREATIVITY, DEDICATION AND IMPRESSIVE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. AND WHEREAS HIS DISPLAY HAS STOOD OUT FOR ITS SCALE, INNOVATION AND CRAFTSMANSHIP, INCLUDING A SYNCHRONIZED LIGHT SHOW COORDINATED WITH THE RADIO STATION PLAYING HOLIDAY CLASSICS, DELIGHTING VIEWERS AND EARNING THE ADMIRATION OF JUDGES AND THE PUBLIC. AND WHEREAS, AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW, THE JUDGES CONCLUDED THAT CLARK GRISWOLD HIMSELF WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD THAT MARK WAS SELECTED AS THE FIRST PLACE WINNER OF MERCYME'S 2025 HOLIDAY LIGHTS CONTEST. NOW, THEREFORE, I CHAINSAW MAYOR OF CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AND RECOGNIZE MARK STOJNIC AS LAGO VISTA'S CHRISTMAS LIGHT KING IN

[00:20:01]

I TRY TO QUIT EVERY YEAR, BUT YOU KNOW. BUT Y'ALL LET ME. DRIVE UP THE DRIVEWAY AND JUST NOVEMBER TRYING TO SEE WHAT I'M DOING. AND I'M LIKE, ALRIGHT. TRYING TO SIMPLIFY IT, MAKE IT MORE OF A THERE'S THERE'S PLENTY TO YOU. I'M NOT CHRISTMAS LIKE, LIKE LEVEL, BUT THERE'S A LOT. CONGRATULATIONS I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT.

MY DAUGHTER MADE ME STOP EVERY NIGHT AND DROVE DOWN THERE WITH MY SON TO WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER.

YEAH, BECAUSE THEY LIVED CLOSE TO US, SO. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO PRESENTATIONS.

[VIII.1. Presentation outlining the financial considerations and rationale for a potential refinance of bonds.]

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER TODAY, BRIEFLY, IS A PLAN OF FINANCE FOR A PROPOSED SERIES OF REFUNDING BONDS, TITLED THE GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BOND SERIES 2026. THOSE OF YOU AGAIN THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE, YOU'LL KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME BACKGROUND INFO ON THIS. WE'VE BEEN MONITORING THE AVAILABILITY AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF REFUNDING TRANSACTION FOR THE CITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, AND IN 2024, WE ACTUALLY LOOKED TO MOVE TO EXECUTE THIS TRANSACTION AND RATES MOVED AWAY FROM US AND THE FINANCIAL METRICS NO LONGER MADE SENSE. AND SO WE SHELVED THAT TRANSACTION UNTIL NOW. AND WE'RE HERE AGAIN TO AGAIN PRESENT THE PLAN OF FINANCE. SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADD A COUPLE NEW SERIES OF BONDS TO THE TRANSACTION. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY INCREASED THE SIZE OF OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO BE REFINANCED WITH THE TRANSACTION. SO PLEASE STOP ME AT ANY TIME IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT IF EVERYONE HAS THEIR PRESENTATIONS HERE, WE CAN MOVE TO THAT FIRST PAGE HERE. WHAT I'VE GOT HERE IS JUST AN OUTSTANDING DEBT SUMMARY. LOOKING AT AGAIN ALL THE OUTSTANDING BOND SERIES HELD BY THE CITY AT THIS TIME HIGHLIGHTED OR I GUESS KIND OF CIRCLED THERE IN GREEN ARE THE THREE SERIES AGAIN THAT WE ARE GOING TO INCLUDE IN THIS TRANSACTION, THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION HERE. SO IN 2024 WE'RE LOOKING AT ONLY REFUNDING THE COMBINATION TAX AND LIMITED PLEDGE REVENUE CEOS OR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION SERIES 2014. THOSE BECAME CALLABLE OR ELIGIBLE TO BE REFUNDED IN FEBRUARY OF 24. SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADD THE SERIES 2015, WHICH WAS CALLABLE IN 25, AND NOW WE CAN ADD THE SERIES 2016 A, WHICH WILL BE CALLABLE IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. SO ANY OTHER BONDS ON THERE THAT ARE CALLABLE CURRENTLY OR CALLABLE IN 26. WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY THEY ARE NET DRAG ON THE REFUNDING SAVINGS OF THE OF THE TRANSACTION. AND SO THE ONES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED BUT ARE CURRENTLY CALLABLE DO NOT BENEFIT THE TRANSACTION OR ADD POSITIVE SAVINGS OR PERCENTAGE SAVINGS TO THE TRANSACTION. SO PART OF THE TRANSACTION IS OBVIOUSLY TO REFUND THESE THE OUTSTANDING BONDS WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED. AND THEN WE DO NOT EXTEND THE FINAL MATURITY. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE ISSUING A NEW BOND WITH AGAIN A FINAL MATURITY HERE OF 20 OR 2037 HERE. SO YOU WILL NOT BE EXTENDING ANY ANY PAYMENT ON THE OUTSTANDING BONDS. AND YOU'LL BE BOOKING DEBT SERVICE OR INTEREST SAVINGS, WHICH WILL BE OBVIOUSLY A BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND THE TAXPAYERS HERE. A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THE TABLE. TWO OF THE THREE SHOW A FINAL MATURITY DATE OF 2035. WILL THOSE BE EXTENDED TO 2037? NO. SO WHEN WE SELL THE BONDS, IT'LL ESSENTIALLY BE A MATURITY BY MATURITY MATCH. AND SO THE YEARS WITH MORE BONDS UP TO 2035 WILL ONLY BE REFUNDED.

THE NEW REFUNDING BONDS WILL ONLY BE SOLD TO REFUND THOSE PORTIONS OF THE 14 AND 15, AND THEN THE FINAL TWO MATURITIES OF THE NEW REFUNDING BOND WILL ONLY BE RELATED TO THAT 2016 A OKAY, SO THERE WON'T BE ANY TRUE EXTENSION OF MATURITY. EVERY EVERY MATURITY WILL BE MATCHED FOR EACH SPECIFIC REFUNDED MATURITY. GREAT QUESTION. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO

[00:25:08]

AND THIS DOES FACTOR THAT IN OKAY. OKAY. YOU CAN SEE IN THAT BOTTOM RIGHT PORTION ESTIMATING RIGHT NOW OUR REFUNDED PAR AMOUNT. SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE THREE SERIES WE'RE GOING TO REFUND IS 12,775,000 FOR REFUNDING PAR ON THE NEW BOND. THE SERIES 26 OF 11.75 MILLION.

SO ABOUT A MILLION LESS IN BONDS. AND THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS MADE UP WITH SOMETHING CALLED PREMIUM. ESSENTIALLY, INVESTORS ARE WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF A BOND AND WILL PAY YOU MORE THAN $1 PER BOND. AND SO THAT DIFFERENCE THERE IS USED TO BOOST THE SAVINGS ON THE TRANSACTION. AND AGAIN, ALSO PAY COST OF ISSUANCE TO OURSELVES. BOND COUNCIL, THE ESCROW AGENT WHO WILL HOLD THE MONEY IN ESCROW UNTIL IT'S PAID OUT TO THE BOND HOLDERS AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT TRANSACTION. BUT YES, THAT DOES FACTOR IN ALL COSTS OF ISSUANCE, WHICH AGAIN, IS AN ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW. BUT WE'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT AGAIN, THAT NUMBER SHOULD IMPROVE IF THE MARKET CONTINUES TO MOVE OUR WAY. THE GOOD THING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY IS YOU'RE GIVING THE CITY THE FLEXIBILITY TO MONITOR THE MARKET TRENDS OR MARKET METRICS OF THE TRANSACTION AND MOVE AT A TIME THAT'S BEST TO BOOST AND MAXIMIZE SAVINGS ON THE ON THE TRANSACTION FOR THE CITY. THAT BOTTOM RIGHT PORTION AGAIN HIGHLIGHTED AND KIND OF THAT LIGHT BLUE COLOR YOU'RE LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT ABOUT 4% SAVINGS.

THAT'S JUST THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NPV SAVINGS ON A DOLLAR BASIS AND THE REFUNDED PAR AMOUNT. SO AGAIN I IMAGINE IF WE RERAN IT TODAY, THE MARKETS FLUCTUATING A LOT WITH A LOT OF THE VOLATILITY AND ALL THAT, IT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN 4%. WE'RE HOPING THAT BY THE TIME WE LOOK TO PRICE AND SELL THESE BONDS IN FEBRUARY, THAT THAT NUMBER WILL BE HIGHER THAN 4%. BUT THE ORDINANCE YOU ALL PASSED TODAY HAS CERTAIN PARAMETERS WHICH MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE DEAL, INCLUDING A MINIMUM OF 3% SAVINGS AND NO HIGHER AMOUNT THAN I BELIEVE IT'S 14.8 MILLION OR 14.0 14.08. EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL AVAILABLE CALLABLE DEBT. AND SO WE WILL NOT BE SELLING MORE AMOUNT THAN IS CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PORTION THERE. SO SO A COUPLE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TERM I KNOW YOU ADDRESSED SOME OF THE TERMS. YES HERE, BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT TERMS THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED OR WILL BE MODIFIED DURING THE REFUNDING TERMS? IN WHAT SENSE OF THE EXISTING BONDS OR IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING BONDS TO.

NO, NO, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHANGE TO ANY OF THE CITY'S CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AGAIN, NO EXTENSION OF OF MAXIMUM TERMS. WE WON'T GO BEYOND 2037. OBVIOUSLY, OUR GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE DEBT SERVICE SAVINGS FOR THE CITY.

[00:30:05]

YES. SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE REFUNDED PA AMOUNT VERSUS THE REFUNDING PA AMOUNT. YES.

AND THAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS ABOUT 7.5%. SO THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT INCLUDES THE REFINANCE FEES AND THE ESCROW AGENT FEES AND YOUR FEES. YES, YES. SO THE THE ESTIMATED REFUNDING PA AMOUNT OF 11.75 MILLION INCLUDES THE TOTAL COST TO FUND AN ESCROW, WHICH WILL PAY OFF THE THREE SERIES HERE AND PAY FOR THE COST OF ISSUANCE TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP AND A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION. YES. SO THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS, AGAIN, FROM THE PREMIUM. AND SO A LARGE PORTION OF THAT IS BEING USED TO FUND THE ESCROW AND INCREASE THE SAVINGS. AND THEN A PORTION, I THINK OUR ESTIMATE MAYBE WAS ABOUT $160,000 IN TOTAL COST OF ISSUANCE FOR AGAIN, FINANCIAL ADVISOR, BOND COUNCIL ESCROW AGENT PAYING AGENT, VERIFICATION AGENT RATING AGENCY. OKAY, ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORK. I WAS LOOKING AT THE 4% AND I WAS LIKE, THAT'S NOT 4%, THAT'S CLOSER TO 8%. BUT WHEN I WAS DOING THE DIFFERENCE. SO I THINK THANK YOU. YEAH, OF COURSE. AND WE DID ACTUALLY IN 2024 GO OUT FOR A RATING WITH S&P. AND SO THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THEIR ANALYSIS. THEY'LL UPDATE THAT. WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER RATING MEETING. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY INVOICED. AND WE PAID THE INVOICE FOR THE RATING THAT WE DID IN 2024. AND SO THAT'LL BE ADDED ON TO THIS TRANSACTION.

BUT THAT THAT PORTION HAS ALREADY BEEN INVOICED AND PAID. BUT WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO I WON'T SAY PLEAD THE CITY'S CASE, BUT HAVE A GREAT CONVERSATION WITH S&P TO HOPEFULLY GET SOME MORE RATING MOVEMENT ON THE RATING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY DOUBLE A WITH S&P. I'M SORRY.

AND IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY ANNUAL IMPACT ON OUR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS, BY THE WAY? TELL US SO YOU CAN YOU CAN SEE HERE AND THAT THAT LEFT HAND TABLE THERE, WE'RE INCLUDING A PORTION THAT ACCRUED INTEREST CONTRIBUTION IS SOMETHING THAT WE INCLUDE. BECAUSE THE CITY IS ALREADY LEVIED A TAX TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THESE OUTSTANDING BONDS HERE THAT WE'RE REFUNDING. WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY APPLY THAT PORTION FROM THE CITY'S DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE TRANSACTION, WHICH WOULD HAVE ALREADY GONE TO PAY THAT INTEREST PAYMENT ANYWAYS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A NEGATIVE SAVINGS AMOUNT IN 2026. IT'S NOT A TRUE A NEGATIVE AMOUNT BECAUSE YOU'LL SEE THE PRIOR DEBT SERVICE IS ABOUT $30,000 MORE THAN THE REFUNDING DEBT SERVICE. THE 2027 NEGATIVE SAVINGS AMOUNT IS JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT REFUNDING ANY BONDS IN 2027. THEY DON'T BENEFIT THE TRANSACTION. THEY ACTUALLY DRAG DOWN THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT PERCENTAGE SAVINGS. AND SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTEREST WE'RE GOING TO PAY IN 27 AND VERSUS THE OUTSTANDING INTEREST IS JUST ABOUT $71,000. AND SO WE DO HAVE THAT LITTLE BIT OF NEGATIVE SAVINGS. BUT OF COURSE IF THE CITY'S ASSESSED VALUE GROWS AT ALL IN THE NEXT YEAR, THEN IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR YOUR TAX RATE, GIVEN THAT IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL AMOUNT. EXCUSE ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONTINUING ON THE OTHER PAGES? YES. YEAH. WE CAN CONTINUE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. PAGE FOUR IS A PROPOSED TIMETABLE. I CAN JUST COVER THE HIGHLIGHTS HERE. AND SO OBVIOUSLY TODAY MEETING TO DISCUSS THE RESOLUTION. AND OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN OF FINANCE HIGHLIGHTED BELOW THERE ON THE 3RD OF FEBRUARY, THE PLAN WOULD BE TO HAVE AN UPDATE WITH S&P, THE RATING AGENCY, AND DO A DUE DILIGENCE CALL WITH THE UNDERWRITER, WHERE THEY'LL ESSENTIALLY ASK THE CITY STAFF SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INFORMATION WE INCLUDE IN THE OFFERING DOCUMENT. MOST OF THAT IS WRITTEN DOWN AND GIVEN TO THE UNDERWRITERS BEFOREHAND, SO THAT'S USUALLY A PRETTY QUICK AND PAINLESS CALL. THE PLAN RIGHT NOW WOULD BE A 25TH OF FEBRUARY PRICING DAY, WHERE WE WOULD TAKE THE TRANSACTION TO THE MARKET, AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE WOULD SET THE INTEREST RATES, THE MATURITY SCHEDULE. WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS FROM THE LAST PAGE FINALIZED, THE TOTAL SAVINGS, THE NEW DEBT SERVICE, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE FINAL ON THAT DAY. AND THEN ABOUT 30 DAYS LATER ON THE 25TH OF MARCH, IS WHEN WE WOULD LOOK TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTION AND THE UNDERWRITERS WOULD WIRE THE MONEY TO THE ESCROW AGENT WHO WOULD HOLD THAT, HOLD THAT MONEY IN ESCROW, WHICH WOULD THEN PAY OFF THOSE OUTSTANDING BONDS. AND SO ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF BONDS WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CITY'S BOOKS AND REPLACED WITH A NEW SINGULAR SERIES. 2026 REFUNDING BOND. AND AGAIN, THIS IS SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO MARKET COOPERATION. IN 24. OBVIOUSLY, WE TRY TO DO THE SAME THING IN THE MARKET MOVED AWAY TO NO LONGER MADE SENSE, BUT WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MODIFY THE

[00:35:01]

UNFORTUNATELY, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TO BOOK THE SAVINGS, BUT YOU WON'T OWE ANYONE ANY FEES.

HOPEFULLY WE'LL JUST TRY AGAIN AT A LATER DATE. BUT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. YES, YES ME TOO.

WE'RE WORKING ON QUITE A FEW OF THESE. THAT WOULD BE IN TROUBLE IF IT GOES THAT HIGH, BUT. OKAY.

BUT YES, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, IF IT DOES MOVE AWAY FROM US, THEN WE WOULD PUT THE TRANSACTION ON HOLD AND HOPEFULLY MOVE ON AT A LATER DATE THIS YEAR. BUT AGAIN, THE ONLY ONLY NET DRAG TO THE CITY WOULD BE THE THE INABILITY TO DO THE SAVINGS. AND THERE WON'T BE ANY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. MR. PRESIDENT, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE, AND THIS IS JUST A MATH QUESTION. SO I'M BACK ON YOUR PAGE. WHAT IS IT. PAGE TWO OKAY. OUTSTANDING DEBT SUMMARY. THAT TABLE, WHEN I LOOK AT THE AMOUNTS OF THE THREE HIGHLIGHTED, IT'S 1.3 MILLION 5.6 AND 7.2. AND THAT ROUGHLY ADDS TO LIKE 14.1 MILLION. BUT THE REFUNDED AMOUNT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT 12.7 CAN YOU HELP ME WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT? YES, SIR. AND SO WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IS THE TWO 1526 PRINCIPAL PAYMENT, WHICH WE'RE NOT INCLUDING THE 27. AND THEN WE ARE INCLUDING SOME OF THE 28. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT IS THE 26 PAYMENT ON THE THREE SERIES AND THE 27 PAYMENT ON THE THREE SERIES. SO BASICALLY THAT'LL GET US DOWN TO THE 12.75. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO IF I INCLUDED THOSE IN OUR IN OUR TRANSACTION, IT WOULD ACTUALLY DRAG THE SAVINGS PERCENTAGE DOWN.

BECAUSE THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE PAYMENT, THE LESS FINANCIAL BENEFIT WE GAIN. WE'RE NOT REFUNDING AS MUCH INTEREST AND SAVING AS MUCH MONEY. AND SO WE DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE.

CERTAINLY IF RATES IMPROVED TO A POINT THAT WE CAN INCLUDE THEM, THE FLEXIBILITIES IN THE THE ORDINANCE TO REFUND UP TO 14.1 MILLION, 14,080,000, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL OUTSTANDING ABOUT ROUGHLY. YEAH. AND THEN SECOND QUESTION, I THINK YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE IF WE DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY AND AND YOU ALL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THERE'S KIND OF A TRIGGER. IT HAS TO BE. DID YOU SAY NPV SAVINGS OF AT LEAST 3%? YES, SIR. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IS 3%. AND THEN AT LEAST TWO TIMES THE TOTAL COST OF ISSUANCE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE FEES TO ALL OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND THEN THE FEE TO THE UNDERWRITER WHO ACTUALLY MARKETS AND SELLS THE TRANSACTION. IS THAT 3% AND TWO TIMES IS THAT APPLIED TO EACH OF THE THREE PIECES OF THIS INDIVIDUALLY OR ONLY IN AGGREGATE OF THE THREE? BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT IT RIGHT, THE HIGHEST SAVINGS WILL BE ON THE SERIES 2014 BECAUSE IT HAS THE CURRENT HIGHEST INTEREST RATE. SO IF, SAY, IT MADE SENSE 3% TO ONLY DO THAT, ONE WOULD, WOULD YOU ALL BREAK THAT ONE OUT AND DO THAT, OR IT WOULD BE ALL OR NOTHING ON THESE THREE? YES, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND PART OF THE REASON WHY SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES AREN'T INCLUDED IS AS RATES, YOU KNOW, MOVE AROUND AND CHANGE. WE MONITOR THE TRANSACTION BOTH IN WHOLE AND THEN ALSO IN SEPARATE PIECES TO TO, I GUESS IDENTIFY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WHICH MATURITIES ADD BENEFIT BOTH ON A POSITIVE AND PERCENTAGE BASIS TO THE TRANSACTION. AND SO IN MY ADD BENEFIT, IT'S WITH RESPECT TO THAT 3% MINIMUM. YES SIR. YEP YEP. SO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BOOST YOUR PERCENTAGE IN DOLLAR SAVINGS.

AND WELL MOST OF THE TIME IT CAN BOOST THE DOLLAR SAVINGS. BUT IT'LL PULL DOWN THE PERCENTAGE. SO IT'S NOT QUITE AS EFFICIENT AS WHAT WE CALL IT. WE MONITOR THAT WHICH MATURITIES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE INCLUDED, THAT ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE SAVINGS FOR THE CITY. AND SO IF AGAIN, RATES DRASTICALLY WENT DOWN, WE COULD INCLUDE THE 27 MATURITY, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE REFUNDED PAR AS LONG AS IT ADDED A POSITIVE PERCENTAGE BENEFIT TO THE SAVINGS WE COULD. WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE TODAY THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER. HAS ALL OF THAT FLEXIBILITY TO ADD SOME MORE, IF IT MAKES SENSE, AND REMOVE FROM IT. OKAY, YES, UP TO THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL OUTSTANDING ON THOSE THREE SERIES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT PORTION? OKAY.

AND THEN THE FINAL PAGE HERE, PAGE FIVE IS JUST A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP.

[00:40:04]

DON'T GO FAR I'M GOING TO BRING THIS ACTION ITEM UP NEXT OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. SO THAT ENDS THE PRESENTATION I WILL NOW CALL UP THE ACTION ITEM THOUGH. SO ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE

[XI.1. Consideration and possible action to approve Ordinance No. 26-01-06-02; Ordinance authorizing the issuance of City of Lago Vista, Texas general obligation refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $14,080,000 in one or more series; approving an official statement, a paying agent/registrar agreement, a bond purchase agreement, and an escrow agreement, as needed for the sale of bonds; establishing the procedures for selling and delivering one or more series of the bonds; providing for the approval of this ordinance on one reading only as authorized by state law; and authorizing other matters relating to the bonds.]

IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME IF THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO PROCEED. THAT'S ONE QUESTION. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, ONCE THE BONDS ARE PRICED, WILL THE FINAL INTEREST COST AND ACTUAL SAVINGS BE REPORTED BACK TO COUNCIL AND MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT? SURE. THANK YOU AGAIN. IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE. I'M BART FOWLER WITH MCCALL, PARKER AND HORTON. IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. SERVE THE CITY'S BOND COUNCIL.

TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION, IF THE SAVINGS DROP BELOW 3%, YOU CANNOT ISSUE THESE BONDS.

YOU'LL HAVE TO. YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3% SAVINGS. SO IT'S NOT THAT YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE OPTION TO PROCEED OR YOU HAVE ANY OPTIONS. YOU HAVE NO OPTIONS. AT THAT POINT. WE CAN'T DO IT. THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION, SINCE I'M UP HERE NOW, IS THE PRICING OFFICER. RIGHT NOW, THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER OR THE MAYOR.

THAT CAN BE ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU WANT IT TO BE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAD IN 2020 AND WE KEPT IT CONSISTENT THIS TIME. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY YOUR DISCRETION. IF SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO ACT AS PRICING OFFICER JUST MEANS YOU HAVE TO SIGN A LOT OF PAPERS. YOU'LL SEE THE FINAL NUMBERS. THEY'LL CERTAINLY BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW, THOMAS, IF YOU PLAN ON COMING BACK TO THE CITY FOR AN UPDATE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE HE DOES. BUT THAT INFORMATION, THE SAVINGS INFORMATION, WILL CERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND IF THOMAS IS BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING, IT'LL CERTAINLY BE DISCLOSED AT THAT TIME AS WELL, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SEE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS, SO I WILL CLOSE THAT PORTION AND WE WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26 010602 AS READ INTO THE RECORD, A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. PRINCE? A SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. AND I'M GOING TO ROLL THROUGH MAYBE SOME OF

[XI.2. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. 26-2189 resolution by the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas appointing individuals to serve on the Planning & Zoning Commission.]

[00:45:02]

I HAVE NO WAY TO SIGN UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. SO I AM OPEN TO A MOTION THAT WILL BE MY MOTION. THOSE FOUR NAMES HUGUELY, CLEATOR, MINYARD AND LOPEZ FOR THE NEW TWO YEAR TERMS AND MR. STEWART FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE OPEN ONE YEAR TERM. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION MOTION BY COUNCILOR PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IS A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. NAY. THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 2. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER THREE. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE

[XI.3. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. 26-2190; resolution by the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas appointing individuals to serve as members on the Board of Adjustments Commission.]

[00:50:06]

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. AS I STATED AT TIDWELL, FOR 2020 THROUGH 2027, JEFF SMITH AND TODD MASSEY THROUGH 2026. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE. IT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ITEM

[XI.4. Consideration and Possible action regarding Resolution No. 26-2191; resolution of the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas appointing individual to serve as Council liaison to the Building & Standards Commission for the 2026 calendar year.]

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR THAT, SO I THINK WE WILL JUST ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WHO THAT LIAISON MIGHT BE? I KNOW THAT POPE FRANCIS HAD SAID THAT IF HE TOOK OVER, BEING THAT HE WOULD NOT LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH OPEN STANDARDS, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO MINISTERS IN ADDITION TO THE LETTER. THAT'S OKAY. YES. OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT AS WELL. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? I THINK I HAVE NO CITIZEN SIGN UP FOR THIS. I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT AMANDA CHAVARRIA FOR THE BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. COUNCIL LIAISON, HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILOR VENICE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MAYOR, IF I MAY JUST CONFIRM, THERE IS IN FACT, A MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT. YES. YOU WILL ATTEND THAT? YES, I WILL, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M HOPING THIS ONE WILL BE QUICK. I

[XI.5. Consideration, and possible action regarding Ordinance No. 26-01-06-01; an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas Pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 102, Sections 102.007(b) and 102.010, Providing for Amendments to Ordinance No. 24-09-19-01, Municipal Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2024 and Ending September 30, 2025; Providing for Severability, and Effective Date.]

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. AND I WILL SEND THIS OVER TO CHARLES. YEAH, YEAH, WE BROUGHT THIS TO Y'ALL LAST MONTH, AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT WE SHOW HOW THE MONEY WOULD BE, WHERE THE SAVINGS WOULD BE, AND THAT THE BUDGET STILL REMAIN BALANCED.

WE'RE USING THE FUNDS FROM THE TRANSFERS THAT WERE NOT DONE TO COVER. CORRECT. BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE, IT WOULD BE. ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE. WE ARE TAKING IT FROM THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL CONTRACT SERVICES. THAT FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRETTY MUCH THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO THAT LARGE STUDY. THERE WAS A LARGE SAVINGS THERE, THAT $216,000 WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE TO GO AHEAD AND COVER THAT. AND THEN ON THE UTILITY SIDE, THERE WAS A LARGE SAVINGS ON THE UTILITY INFILL PROGRAM THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WAS NOT NEEDED. AND ON OUR WATER AND SEWER TAP AND EXTENSION LINES THAT WE DID NOT GET DONE OR DID NOT NEED. I'M SORRY. COUNCIL, ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THAT? SEEING NONE, WE CAN SWITCH REAL QUICK TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. DID WE RECEIVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? IT LOOKS LIKE NO, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? IF NOT, I THINK IT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. TO A MOTION THEN. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26 010601. THE ORDINANCE

[00:55:06]

[IX. CONSENT AGENDA]

EVERYBODY SAW THOSE. YES, I WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. THOSE ARE ALREADY. INCORPORATED INTO OKAY WHICH THEY HAVE. OKAY. NO OBJECTION THEN DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS NUMBER ONE AND TWO AS READ INTO THE RECORD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN HALL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. AMEN. IT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM,

[X.8. Discussion and update on Cedar Breaks and allegations from TCEQ.]

WE WILL DO EIGHT. DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON CEDAR BREAKS AND ALLEGATIONS FROM T-C-E-Q. THE GIANT BOOK OF MAPS AT THIS TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MAYOR CHARLES HOPE YOU ALL HAD A GREAT NEW YEAR'S. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR THE CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC WORKS. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, FACED SOME CHALLENGES AND YOU ALL BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF WHAT THE PRESENTATION IS TODAY. IN 2024, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA RECEIVED TWO T-C-E-Q VIOLATIONS AS PART OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND ASSESSED FINES. WE REALLOCATED THOSE FINES THROUGH A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT BEST KNOWN AS SCP. THOSE FUNDS ARE REALLOCATED FROM THOSE FINES ARE REALLOCATED INTO THE PROJECT REPAIRS, SO THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY FINES BECAUSE THOSE FINES NOT TO THE PROJECT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS IN SOME POND 17 AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF CEDAR BREAKS. I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT CEDAR BREAKS. THE FIRST, I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED THIS YEAR BREAKS WAS FAILURE TO ENSURE THE FACILITIES AND ALL SYSTEMS OF COLLECTIONS, TREATMENT AND OPERATIONS WERE PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE ESTIMATED 25 TO 50% OF WATER CANNONS WERE NOT OPERATIONAL. WATER CANNONS ARE STRICTLY SPRINKLER HEADS LARGE. ADDITIONALLY, WATER CANNONS WERE NOT BEING ROTATED ON A REGULAR BASIS BY STAFF, WHICH RESULTED IN OVERWATERING, ULTIMATELY CAUSING THE DEATH OF REQUIRED CROPS. THAT'S THE FIRST ALLEGATION. THE SECOND ALLEGATION IS FAILURE TO MAINTAIN AND MONITOR FACILITY RECORDS AS REQUIRED. NEXT, WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER MY PRESENTATION AND KIND OF GO OVER HOW WE GOT HERE. THE PUMP HOUSE WAS HIT IN 2018, WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THAT CAUSED A WHOLE OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS INSIDE TO FAIL. THEY WERE NO LONGER AUTOMATED. THEY WERE BEING HAND OPERATED SINCE 2018. SO THAT

[01:00:07]

WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT. WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON IT. SO APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILES OF TRAILS TO MAINTAIN MEANING, CLEAR OUT THE TRAILS, CLEAR OUT THE BRUSH AND EVERYTHING. WE HAVE A LARGE PILES OF BRUSH WHICH ARE STATIONED IN SEVERAL AREAS. WE HAVE STAGING AREA HERE, STAGING AREA HERE, STAGING AREA OVER HERE. WE CAN SEE THAT. SO THIS IS AN EFFICIENT TIME OF STAFF BECAUSE IT'S IF IT'S YOU HAVE TO GO OUT THERE CONSTANTLY, THEN THEY'RE TAKING AWAY FROM OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OUT IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY. CURRENTLY WE THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE IS GOING OUT THERE DAILY TO OPEN THE IRRIGATION HEADS, EVEN AFTER HOURS OR ON THE WEEKENDS. SO THE INCREASE OF OVERTIME, THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME WE HAVE TO INCREASE IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT. HAVING CALCULATED THAT BECAUSE WE JUST STARTED DOING THAT, THAT PROCESS, AND IF WE DON'T GET THIS REPAIR OR GET ALL THE WAY TO WHERE WE NEED TO, WE INCREASE GETTING MORE FINES.

T-C-E-Q T-C-E-Q REQUIRES AN ACCURATE EFFLUENT TRACKING AND REPORTING MANUAL OPERATION PREVENTS RELIABLE AUTOMATED LOGGING. THE SCREENS INSIDE THE PUMP HOUSE THAT WE GET TO ONE OF THOSE SLIDES HERE IN A MINUTE. YOU CANNOT LONGER SEE THE SCREENS. WE'RE NEVER ABLE TO SEE THEM. SO WHAT WE COLLECT DATA IS THROUGH SCADA, BUT WE STILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY MONITOR ON SITE AND HAVE TWO WAYS OF ACCOUNTING THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE AND WE IRRIGATING. MINING OPERATION PREVENTS A RELIABLE AUTOMATED LOGINS, INCREASE OF IRRIGATION CYCLES OF REPORTING GAPS. 2018 CAUSE LIGHTNING. LIGHTNING STRIKE CAUSE PERMANENT AUTOMATIC FAILURE. CURRENT APPROACH TO WASTEWATER OPERATIONS. OTHER OTHER ITEMS THAT THEY NEED. ADDED DUTIES THAT THE STAFF NEED TO TAKE. SO ON THE MINING OPERATION, LIKE YOU, YOU ASKED MAYOR ON A DAILY BASIS. THE STAFF GOES ON SITE, TURNS ON THE PUMPS, GOES ON THE FIELDS, OPENS THE IRRIGATION HEADS. WHAT WE CAN MANUALLY OPEN HAS BEEN OPENED AND ROTATING. PREVIOUSLY. THE REASON WHY WE HAD SO MANY DEAD ZONES AND WE'LL GET THE VIOLATIONS BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS THE TRAILS. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOWOUTS ON THE LINES, A LOT OF LEAKS AND WHATNOT, AND MAINLY BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS ACCESS THE AREA. THIS IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF OUR PUMP HOUSE. SO RUST HAS TAKEN THE BEST OF IT.

IT'S IN THE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY WE BRING THIS TO YOU GUYS TO COUNCIL SO IT DOESN'T TURN INTO AN EMERGENCY AND IT FALLS INTO THE WET. WELL, WE WANT TO AVOID THAT. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. PROBABLY NOT. BUT IT'S A IT'S A CONCERN OF MINE ABOUT OF STAFF.

IT'S ANOTHER SIDE. SO THE PANEL WITH THE THE LABELING FLOW IT'S WHAT OPERATES THE PUMPS. THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAS TO GO ON SITE TURNS US ON, GET THEM ACTIVATED AND THEN PRESSURIZE THE SYSTEM AND GO OUT TO THE IRRIGATION AREA. THE PICTURE NEXT NEXT TO IT IS THE PLC, WHICH IS A COMPUTER THAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING. SO WE THE STAFF, IF IT WAS AUTOMATED THROUGH THE PHONE, THROUGH SCADA, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TURN ON THE IRRIGATION HEADS AND OPEN UP THE HEADS UP THE HILL AND OPERATE THE PUMPS FROM FROM THE WASTEWATER PLANT OR WHICHEVER LOCATION IT NEEDS TO BE, SO THEY CAN ROTATE THE THE IRRIGATION AREAS PROPERLY. SO

[01:05:04]

CAN IT BE REPAIRED IN SECTIONS? NO. THOSE PUMP HOUSE ARE BUILT AS A WHOLE AND THEN BROUGHT ON SITE. AND THE REST IS OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU ALL SAW, THAT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. THERE'S NO WAY TO TO DO ANY REPAIRS ON IT ANYMORE. CAN THE PANEL BE REUSED? SOME OF THE COMPONENTS COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED AS SPARE PARTS, AS THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE THE SAME FROM THE SAME MANUFACTURER. SO THE SAME PUMP HOUSE THAT IS ON SITE RIGHT NOW IS WHAT WE THE SAME MANUFACTURERS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET, WHAT WE'RE GETTING SO THAT IT GETS INSTALLED SO WE CAN USE THE COMPONENTS THAT ARE ON PANELS ON THE PLC OR WHATEVER WE CAN SALVAGE TO USE AS SPARE PARTS ANY OTHER COST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO GET THIS REPAIRED. PREFAB BUILD PUMP STATIONS IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY FOR FABRICATION. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES EXPENSES ON SITE LABOR, ENGINEERING TIME AND CONSTRUCTION DELAYS LEADING TO HIGHER TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, MEANING THAT IF IF WE PIECE IT TOGETHER IN THERE, IT COULD BE ISSUES, DELAYS, WRONG SIZES, ALL KINDS OF ISSUES. AND WHEN THIS WHEN THIS PUMP WAS WAS BUILT, IT WAS INSTALLED WITH THE PRE FILE FOR COST SAVINGS. AND THE LAST ONE IS WHAT A PLC REPEATER IS. PLC IS PROGRAMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLER. IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL GRADE DIGITAL COMPUTER USED TO AUTOMATE AND CONTROL PROCESSES IN MANUFACTURING OR COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTS. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE INSTALLING SCADA ON OUR SYSTEM.

NOBODY ELSE OTHER THAN OUR CONTRACTOR WILL BE INSTALLING SCADA. THIS SYSTEM IS SKATER READY, MEANING THAT OUR SCADA CONTRACTOR WILL COME AND INSTALL THE COMPONENTS AND THE PROGRAM AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY NEED TO DO. CURRENTLY, ALL PUBLIC WORKS IS WORKING AT CEDAR BREAKS, CLEANING OUT THE TRAILS. LIKE I MENTIONED, WE HAVE A LARGE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US IN THAT AREA. UTILITIES AND PLANT OPERATIONS ARE WORKING HAND TO HAND CLEANING OUT THOSE TRAILS. WE ARE MIDWAY DOWN THE HILL AND WE ONLY CLEARING WHAT WE NEED TO WITHOUT BREAKING PERMIT, AND WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH TREES ON SITE TO BE ABLE TO IRRIGATE. ONCE THAT'S COMPLETE, WE HAVE TO GET ON THE POLES TO REMOVE THE HEADS AND INSTALL NEW CANNON WATER CANNONS. WE WE WE'RE USING THE SAME SYSTEM, THE SAME MODEL. SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT BREAKING ANY TYPE OF PERMIT OR WE'RE NOT INCREASING OR REDUCING THE FLOW THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE. WE'RE TRYING THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE. AND IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. PRINCE, YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE, I THINK, WORK NOT SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION, ALL THE SCADA WORK AND THEN REPLACEMENT OF THE HEADS AND WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE COST IN ADDITION TO THE COST THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THIS PRESENTATION. YES. BUT THAT THAT COULD BE PUT OFF A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THAT SYSTEM ALREADY COMES WITH ITS OWN AUTOMATED SYSTEM. SO WE CAN USE THAT FOR NEXT UNTIL NEXT FISCAL YEAR. IT WILL BE FULLY AUTOMATED, BUT NOT THROUGH A SCADA. BUT STAFF WILL HAVE A

[01:10:03]

IT'S A LARGE MATERIAL COST. YES. THE CITY HAS SAVED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. I DID TRY TO GET QUOTES TO GET THIS CLEAR. THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRAIL. IT WAS GOING TO COST $34,000. SO IT'S GOING TO BE MORE COST TO REPAIR THOSE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET SHIPPING. WE HAVE TO RENT THE EQUIPMENT, WE HAVE RENT EQUIPMENT, SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT. BUT STAFF IS DOING MOST OF THE WORK IN-HOUSE. WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS ON THAT AND THE REPAIRS OF THE HEADS. YES, WE WOULD DO AN IN-HOUSE AS WELL WHERE WE CAN. SOME OF THOSE POLES ARE ON EDGES ON THE EDGE OF THE HILL, SO IT COULD BE DANGEROUS. WHAT WE CAN WE DO NOW? WE'LL CONTRACT OUT. AND ALL OF THAT WORK. YOU PLAN TO JUST ABSORB THAT INTO YOUR BUDGET, EXISTING BUDGET, OR YOU EXPECT TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO COVER THAT. IT SHOULD IT SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH ON THE EXISTING BUDGET. BUT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOR THIS. IF I IF I GET THIS AND I USE EXISTING BUDGET, I SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO GET MOST OF THE REPAIRS. I CAN DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT AND GET ALL THE REPAIRS DONE AT CEDAR BREAKS, IF THAT'S WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE, AND COME UP WITH THE NUMBER. I GUESS I JUST, I LIKE KNOWING WHAT THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS. RIGHT. AND SO SO HAVING THIS IS JUST A PIECE OF IT, KNOWING WHAT THE TOTAL COST IS, SOME OF WHICH YOU MAY JUST ABSORB WITHIN THE EXISTING LABOR BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE, BUT SOME OF IT IS NOT LABOR. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND THIS IS JUST ONE PART OF THE EFFLUENT SYSTEM. SO I DID CONSIDER PUTTING ALL OF ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE TOGETHER, BUT IT MIGHT BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO PIECE IT TO, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIZE WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. CEDAR BREAKS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. BUT IF I IF COUNCIL WANTS, I CAN PUT SOMETHING MORE OF WHAT I NEED FOR THE WHOLE BUDGET BECAUSE THIS IS JUST CEDAR BREAKS AND I ALSO HAVE THE PUMP HOUSE, THE DIFFERENT POND 17 THAT NEEDS SOME REPAIRS AND NOT JUST FOR MY PURPOSES. I REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE BIG PICTURE. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE TOTAL THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING IF YOU WANT TO BREAK IT UP INTO, LET'S DO THIS PIECE NOW AND THAT PIECE LATER, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING THE WHOLE PICTURE IN MIND APPROVING THIS 247,000, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER CHUNK THIS SIZE COMING BACK IN IN SIX MONTHS OR YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. SO IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. YES, SIR. YES, I HAD A QUESTION ON THE AUTOMATION AUTOMATED PORTION. YOU SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING. IS THERE ANY INSURANCE OR THAT WE CAN DO POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE TO PREVENT LIKE, ACTS OF NATURE? I MEAN, I KNOW THEY'RE UNPREDICTABLE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE HAD BEEN INSURED IN THIS KIND OF MANNER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASICALLY IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED. RIGHT NOW, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, ONCE WE GET EVERYTHING IT HAS, IT HAS A WARRANTY FOR LIGHTNING STRIKES.

IT DOES. AND AS A CITY, I'M NOT SURE. I'M SURE OUR ASSETS ARE INSURED THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO THAT. YES. IN 2018 OR 17 WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A CLAIM WITH TML TO HAVE THIS REPAIRED. THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING WHY I WAS ASKED. I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, ANYBODY THAT WAS HERE AT THAT TIME IS NO LONGER HERE. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS. YEAH. WE'LL MAKE SURE. OKAY. I KNOW BECAUSE IT'S FOR YOU TO SEE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I DO WANT TO REITERATE, ERNESTO, WHAT COUNCILOR PRINCE WAS SAYING. IF WE KNOW THE TOTAL COST. I MEAN, PART OF WHAT I'M HEARING IN HERE IS THAT WE'VE GOT OTHER ISSUES AS WELL IN ADDITION TO THIS. AND SO THAT IS FOCUS AND TIME THAT IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED OUT BY OUR STAFF IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. SO DEPENDING ON THE COST AND THE PAYBACK ON IT, THAT TO ME ALSO PLAYS INTO WHEN WE GO ABOUT TAKING CARE OF THIS. AND IF WE HAVE THE FUNDING POTENTIALLY IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT UP SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. BASED ON THAT, WHEN WE DO THESE REPAIRS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMPLIANCE DEADLINES THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF? WILL WE MEET THEM? CAN YOU REPHRASE THE VIOLATIONS? AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN GOOD STANDINGS BECAUSE THOSE THOSE FINES WERE IMPLEMENTED INTO, LIKE I SAID, THIS PROJECT. SO AS LONG AS WE KEEP THEM UP DATES AND TELL THEM THAT WHATEVER THEY'RE

[01:15:03]

THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT, I MEAN WE'RE GOOD IF WE JUST GET THIS ALL DONE. CORRECT. YES. BECAUSE WE'LL BE BACK ON TRACK ON ON DOCUMENTING AND LOGGING ALL THE EFFLUENT AND THE ZONES. THERE WAS, THERE WAS SEVERAL ZONES THAT WERE DEAD. I DIDN'T PUT THE PICTURES AS WELL, BUT WE ARE CLEARING OUT ALL THOSE DEAD ZONES. WE'RE GOING TO REPLANT CEDARS TO IRRIGATE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS. SO REPAIRING THE CANYONS IS THE FIRST STEP. AND THEN CLEARING, REPAIRING AND INSTALLING NEW CEDARS SO THEY CAN BE IRRIGATED. BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS WE COULD POTENTIALLY OVER IRRIGATE AN AREA AGAIN AND KILL MORE, MORE, MORE TREES. AND THEN ONE LAST ITEM THAT ACTUALLY WAS FOR NICOLE OR CHARLES. AND THAT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CIP ITEMS, THIS IS OF INTEREST TO THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW WONDERFUL MEMBERS THAT KIND OF KEEP ON TOP OF THIS, AND THEY'RE REALLY GREAT AT IT. BUT IN ADDITION TO ME, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK CHARLES IF WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE IF THERE IS AN AMENDMENT NEEDED THAT THAT ACTUALLY COME BEFORE US SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AT THE END OF THE YEAR. AND, AND COMBINE THIS JUST IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE WHICH THERE WOULD BE ON THIS, I PLAN ON BRINGING IT BACK IN FEBRUARY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, ARE WE OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE POA OR WAIT ON IT? YOU GOT TO WAIT ON IT. THIS IS JUST A WORK SESSION ITEM. NOW I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH. I WAS JUST TO ELABORATE ON AGAIN AS A WORKSHOP ITEM. THE THOUGHT HERE WAS BY THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS THAT IT GETS FAR ENOUGH THAT I SHOULD PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA FOR AN ACTION? AND SO AS WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS, JUST PLEASE SHARE THAT OPINION. WHETHER YOU FEEL THIS IS CLOSE ENOUGH OR HOW HE CAN GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET THIS ON AN ACTION ITEM. SO I HAD SOME MORE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY. SO LOOKING AT THE UNFORTUNATELY STAN, MY SCREEN KEEPS LOCKING ON ME AS WE TALK. SO THIS TIME OUT ON MY MACHINE IS A REAL TIME, REAL TIME PROBLEM FOR ME HERE. SIR, THE IN THE PICTURES. THERE'S TWO THINGS I WANT TO CLARIFY IN THE PICTURES OF THE THE FITTINGS AND THE PUMP AREA, WHICH LOOKS SO HORRIBLE AND RUSTY AND FALLING APART. I PRESUME THAT'S JUST AGE AND AND CONDITION OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE LIGHTNING STRIKE. IS THAT TRUE? SO THE LIGHTNING STRIKE DESTROYED SOMETHING. MAYBE IT'S THIS TLC OR WHATEVER AND DOSE.

OKAY, SO THE COST OF THE LIGHTNING STRIKE WAS NOT $247,000 WORTH OF REPAIR. THE LIGHTNING STRIKE JUST KILLED SOME THINGS THAT ALLOW US TO DO THINGS AUTOMATED AND KEEP TC HAPPY. THIS WORK IS FIXING THE PROBLEM CREATED BY THE LIGHTNING STRIKE AND UPDATING ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S SO BAD AND OUT OF SHAPE. YES. IS THAT ACCURATE? RIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S JUST PART OF OUR CHARLES, OUR NEED TO PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES ON OUR EXISTING EQUIPMENT. RIGHT. THAT'S SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT. IS HE HE STATED THAT THEY'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME CLEANING THE TRAILS TO GET TO THE HEADS, TO REPLACE THEM. DO WE HAVE A PLAN TO KEEP THE TRAILS MAINTAINED FROM NOW ON? SO WE IF YOU HAVE A HEAD, GO BACK. WE'RE NOT WASTING TIME TO CLEAN THE TRAIL AGAIN. YES, HISTORICALLY, PLANT OPERATIONS WAS SHORT STAFF AND CURRENTLY WE'RE OKAY. BUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON MAINTAINING ALL THIS AND IT WAS JUST NOT DOABLE.

RIGHT IN MY NEXT QUESTION IS WITH ALL THE SKID STEERS AND ALL WE GOT, COULD WE NOT GET A MULCHING ATTACHMENT FOR ONE OF THE SKID STEERS TO HELP MAINTAIN THESE? YES, BUT THE THE POWERS OF OF TREES ARE VERY LARGE. WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW, BUT TO KEEP THIS FROM GETTING TO THAT POINT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS WE NEED TO COME IN WITH A WHOLE PACKAGE, NOT JUST THE PUMP HOUSE. WE NEED TO COME IN WITH THE TOTAL COST OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO PUT THIS THING BACK IN SHAPE WITH REPLACEMENT HEADS, CLEANING TRAILS, ANY EQUIPMENT THAT YOU NEED TO MAINTAIN THOSE TRAILS. LET'S PUT THAT ALL IN ONE PACKAGE TOGETHER. SO WE WE'RE DOING THIS ONCE WE'VE GOT IT DONE, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY

[01:20:01]

OKAY. MR. MANSFIELD, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IS THERE ANY VALUE IN WAITING ON THESE REPAIRS UNTIL AFTER WE DETERMINE TYPE ONE CONVERSION? NO, IT'S VERY TIME SENSITIVE BECAUSE THE PRICES WILL PROBABLY GO UP. THE CONTRACTOR, I UNDERSTAND, ON THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND EVEN THE PIPING. BUT ONE OF THE COMPONENTS IS UNCLOGGING THE HEADS, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, THEY'RE NOT CLOGGED. THEY'RE JUST NOT OPERATIONAL BECAUSE THEY'RE BLOWOUT BLOWOUTS AT THE END. THERE'S LEAKS ON IT AND THE IRRIGATION HEADS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT USED. THEY HAVE SEATS SO THEY DON'T MOVE. THIS BRINGS ON HIM. THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH CLOGGING FROM THE PLASTICS OR MATERIALS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT TYPE ONE WOULD BENEFIT IN THAT AREA. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. WE WE DON'T WE HAVEN'T ENCOUNTERED ANY CLOGS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. OKAY. YEAH. WE IT'S REALLY GOOD EFFLUENT UP THERE FOR SOME REASON. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. YES. MAY I JUST ASK THE 40 WEEKS, IS THAT JUST TO DO THIS REPLACEMENT OR IS THAT THE FULL PROJECT TIMELINE YOU'RE THINKING OF REPAIRING THE HEADS AND ALL THAT? THAT'S JUST FOR THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I SAID THIS IS VERY TIME SENSITIVE. BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED PRETTY SOON, WE'RE PUSHING THAT DEADLINE BACK. AND THAT JUST TO GET THAT STUFF TO THE THE PUMP HOUSE ON ON SITE, THE ACTUAL REPAIR WILL TAKE TWO WEEKS.

OKAY. SO THE CRITICAL PATH IS MORE GETTING THE EQUIPMENT, PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT IN FROM CHINA OR WHEREVER IT'S COMING FROM USA, USA. OKAY, SO INTERESTING, BUT IT TAKES THAT LONG. IS IT LIKE A BESPOKE SYSTEM THEY'RE BUILDING OR WE'RE IT'S YEAH, THEY BUILD IT TO OUR SPECIFICATIONS. THEY DON'T HAVE THEM JUST IN STOCK. GOT IT TO WHERE IT IS. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE USING THE SAME INSTALLER ORIGINAL INSTALLER ORIGINALLY THE SAME PERSON WHO INSTALLED IT. IT WAS A TECHNICIAN AT THE TIME. NOW HE'S A SUPERVISOR OF THE COMPANY. HE'S THE ONE THAT GAVE US A QUOTE AND CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT THE SITE. OKAY. YEAH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BUREAUCRACY. QUESTION FOR TC. THIS LAST LETTER I SEEN HERE, IT SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM SEPTEMBER. DID WE DO THAT. YES. OKAY. SO HOW DOES IT WORK WITH TC RIGHT NOW. ARE WE GETTING CONTINUOUS CHECK INS FROM THEM OR HOW'S HOW ARE WE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM. YES. SO WE SEND OUT THE APPLICATION. IT GOT APPROVED AND THEY RESPONDED. AND THEY TOLD US, YOU KNOW, IT'S APPROVED. JUST GIVE US AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS. AND WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU A TRACKER KIND OF SHEET. AND THEN YOU JUST PUT IT IN THERE. YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE TO GIVE THEM A TIMELINE OF REPAIRS. THAT'S WHY WE GAVE THEM PON 14 BECAUSE WE'RE PREDICTING HOPEFULLY PON 14 WILL BE FIXED SOONER THAN CEDAR BRIDGE. CEDAR BREAKS LOOK IN JUNE, JULY, MAYBE AUGUST TO REPAIR. DID WE PAY A FEE TO THEM A FINE OKAY, NO. HAVE WE PAID FINES FOR ANY OF THEM? OKAY. AND WHEN YOU DO PAY A FINE TO TC, AM I RIGHT THAT THAT MONEY COMES BACK TO YOU AT SOME POINT? IS THAT RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK SO. I THOUGHT I HEARD OKAY. YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS INSTEAD OF US HAVING TO PAY THE FINE, THEY'RE LETTING US TAKE THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD HAVE USED TO PAY THE FINE TO PUT IT TOWARDS THE REPAIRS.

OKAY, SO THAT WAY THE MONEY DOESN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY LEAVE OUR HANDS, BECAUSE ONCE YOU PAY THE MONEY TO THE STATE, YOU DON'T SEE IT AGAIN. YEAH. MAYBE REMEMBERING AN OLD BILL PROPOSAL WAS THAT WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THE MONEY FROM A CITY THAT NEEDS IT TO MAKE THE REPAIRS? AND THAT'S THAT? BILL, DOES THE CP THAT'S WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED. OKAY. HOW DID THE BID ON THIS WORK? DID WE GET MULTIPLE BIDS OR BECAUSE YOU WENT THROUGH BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO. CORRECT. OKAY. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LOWER BID OUT THERE. THIS WOULD BE I LOOKED AROUND, BUT CONSIDERING THE SENSITIVITY OF IT, WE WENT WITH HIM AS LIKE, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL RIGHT NOW OR ANYTHING, BUT. LOOKING TO. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION ON THEIR WARRANTY? I NOTICED IT SAID MANUFACTURER PARTS ONLY ON THE WARRANTY UNLESS THEY SPECIFY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

ARE THEY OPEN TO SPECIFYING ANYTHING? YEAH, IT'S ON THE ON THE I DID PUT IT. WE DID PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. THE ESTIMATE AT THE VERY BOTTOM AT THE VERY BACK I BELIEVE OF THE PACKAGE.

YOU SEE THE WARRANTY. IT SAYS HERE WARRANTY ITEMS INCLUDED SIX YEAR WARRANTY ON VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE INCLUDED INCLUDES LIGHTNING DAMAGES, COVERAGE AND LABOR TO REPLACE SIX YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL COMPONENTS AND ELECTRICAL PANEL, INCLUSIVE OF POWER RELATED

[01:25:04]

SO JANUARY 15TH NEXT WEEK. YEAH I GOT A LOT OF WORK AHEAD. YEAH. THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO GET. YES.

ON THE WHOLE PICTURE YOU Y'ALL GUIDED ME TO GET MORE PRICING OR INFORMATION ON ALL THE EFFLUENT REPAIRS OR JUST CEDAR BREAKS REPAIRS AS A WHOLE. I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET THE AN ALL IRRIGATION, BUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE SHORT TERM HERE, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE TOTAL COST OF THE CEDAR BREAKS PROJECT IS, IS, IS, I THINK, A GOOD NEAR-TERM REQUIREMENT.

SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. WE ALREADY HAVE QUOTES ON ON THE CANNONS, WE ALREADY HAVE SEVERAL QUOTES ON IT. AND JUST TO REPAIR. WHAT'S THAT? I CAN GET QUOTES TO GET SOME MORE IN STOCK.

CEDAR BREAKS PLANS OPERATION STAFF MADE GREAT PROGRESS BECAUSE THEY THEY DID REPAIR THE IRRIGATION AROUND THE BERM. SO THAT'S ALREADY OPERATIONAL. AND THEY ALREADY ORDER CONTROL HEADS FOR THE OUTSIDE. AND WE ALREADY HAVE THAT IN STOCK. SO I JUST WANT TO THE TRAILS AND REPAIR THE HEADS AND REPAIR THE LEAKS. SO WE ALREADY SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN MAYBE HAVE A COST ESTIMATE FOR POND 17? I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE CEDAR BREAKS, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE CONSIDERATION TO IF THAT'S PART OF THE VIOLATION. WELL, POND 17 IS ALREADY A CIP PROJECT, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE REPAIRED. THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF HOLDING OFF ON MAJOR REPAIRS. THE PUMP HOUSE IS NOT HOWEVER. SO THE PUMP HOUSE NEEDS SOME SOME SOME TENDING TO. DID I UNDERSTAND VICTOR CORRECT EARLIER THIS MORNING ON 17. GOT TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT THE GOLF COURSE. YES, SIR. OKAY, OKAY. I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH FOR NOW. AND I'LL BRING THIS BACK ON THE 15TH AS AN ACTION ITEM. WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION OUT TO COUNCIL. I THANK YOU FOR A VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION AS YOU'VE BEEN DOING, AND YOU HAD IT ALL READY FOR THE PACKET WHEN IT WAS POSTED, SO I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE MORE PICTURES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEAH, I HAVE THREE CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR RULES AND PROCEDURE, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE. TO THAT ITEM, WHICH IS. SESSION NUMBER ONE. NUMBER ONE, BACK TO WORK.

[X.1. Discussion and workshop regarding updating, changing or possibly amending the Rules of Procedure that are utilized by the City Council and all other Boards and Commissions for the City of Lago Vista.]

MAYOR, I DO THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THE

[01:30:03]

WE COULD DO THAT. BUT THAT'S SO COMPLICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOBODY SITTING UP HERE, I THINK, WHO FULLY UNDERSTANDS ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT. SO I THINK AT LEAST HAVING THINGS LIKE THE SIMPLE TABLE OF MOTIONS AT THE END AND, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING I THINK IS HELPFUL. COULD WE PARE DOWN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BE A LOT LESS CONTENT THAN IT IS PROBABLY? YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO COME BACK TO IS IT EASIER TO START OVER AND REWRITE IT, OR IS IT EASIER TO START FROM WHERE YOU'RE AT AND, AND MAKE CHANGES? AND I'M KIND OF ON THE FENCE ON WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS. INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT CITIZENS HAVE TO SAY.

MY OTHER THOUGHT I FORGOT TO MENTION IS HOPEFULLY AFTER THIS MEETING, WE USE THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR ANYBODY TO PUT ANY SUGGESTIONS OUT THERE THAT WE COULD PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT WOULD COME BACK. CAN I ASK JUST A PROCESS RELATED QUESTION? SO WHETHER IT'S AN EDITING OR FULL REWRITE, BURN IT DOWN AND REWRITE IT, WHAT PROCESS WOULD YOU ARE YOU THINKING? I THOUGHT IT WAS THIS ONE. I THOUGHT MAYBE JUST AN EDIT. YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE AT LEAST I WENT THERE FOR TWO YEARS, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK LIKE MR. PRINCE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST MAKE EACH ONE KIND OF MAYBE TOOLS A COUPLE THINGS EACH YEAR. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE CHANGED IT LAST YEAR. I THINK WE HAD A QUICK DISCUSSION ON IT. IF I REMEMBER IT WAS THE YEAR BEFORE, THIS ONE'S NOT WHAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE A FULL REWRITE, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL. YEAH.

JUST FROM HISTORY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THREE YEARS AGO, IT FELT LIKE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. TWO YEARS AGO, WE SPENT EVEN MORE TIME ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. IT SEEMED LIKE THAT DISCUSSION WAS AT EVERY MEETING FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. IT JUST WENT ON AND ON. AND I THINK WE HAD SOME SOME EXHAUSTION FROM THAT LAST YEAR. WE DIDN'T SPEND VERY MUCH TIME ON RULES OF PROCEDURE AT ALL. I'M CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN DOING CLEANUP AND ADJUSTMENTS, BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN RELITIGATING THE 50 HOURS OR SO THAT WE SPENT ON IT THREE YEARS AGO. ANY OTHER QUICK POINTS BEFORE CITIZENS AND I BRING IT BACK TO YOU, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, MAYOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY DEFINITELY LIKE AND WANT TO REITERATE. DITTO. MR. PRINCE, IN REGARD TO THE ROSENBERG RULES AND JUST A SHORT SENTENCES, I AM A BIG PROPONENT, AFTER REALLY DIVING INTO THAT OF ROSENBERG'S VERSUS ROBERT'S BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF IT. NOW, THAT BEING SAID, I AM GOING TO BE RELOOKING. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SPOTS THAT I FELT COULD BE PARED DOWN BECAUSE WE DO DUPLICATE OTHER.

DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CONFLICTING WITH THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, A SMALL HEADED IS GOOD IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS IN MY MIND. THANK YOU THAT I WILL TURN TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. MR. GENE HARRIS SIGNED UP FOR THIS. GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DUE TO RECENT EVENTS, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND ONE THING THAT IN GOING THROUGH STUFF RECENTLY, ARTICLE 3.9.3, IT TALKS ABOUT CITIZENS SHALL NOT SINGLE OUT A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, BUT A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN SINGLE OUT A CITIZEN IN A PUBLIC MEETING. IF THE CITIZEN CAN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY TO A CITIZEN. THAT SEEMS LIKE A SUPPRESSION OF MY FREE SPEECH AS A CITIZEN. AS THE SAYING GOES, WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE SHEET AT THE DOOR. TALKS ABOUT ARTICLE SIX RULES GOVERNING CITIZEN COMMENTS. AND ON NUMBER SEVEN OUT THERE IT SAYS PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED FOR CITIZENS COMMENTS. BUT IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE OKAY TO BE MADE ON CITIZENS AND THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND SO MY QUESTION, WHICH I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN ANSWER NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT STEPS OR CHANGES WILL BE ADDED TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.

NEXT ON THIS, I HAVE MR. ROBERT OWEN. SORRY. MY MOTHER IN LAW WAS TEXTING ME. JUST REAL QUICK TOPIC OF THE DAY. ABSTENTIONS. I KIND OF READ PARAPHRASE CHARTER SECTION 3.14 ON VOTING EARLIER. CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE 3.28. VOTING, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT

[01:35:03]

WHERE'S THE MAJORITY? HOW DO YOU RECORD THE ABSTENTION WHEN YOU HAVE NO MAJORITY? NOW, OBVIOUSLY, WHATEVER THE ACTION IS CAN'T GO FORWARD BECAUSE IT DIDN'T PASS, BUT IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE. SECONDLY, IN THE CASE, SORRY, I FORGOT TO TAKE THAT OFF. IN THE CASE OF A SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY, YOU HAVE A LOGICAL SITUATION SET UP WHERE YOU HAVE A51 VOTE WITH AN ABSTENTION. THE PERSON WHO'S ABSTAINING, ABSTAINING FOR GOOD, CONFLICT OF REASON, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REASON NOW GETS SCORED WITH THE MAJORITY, WHICH WOULD THEN BE A POSITIVE VOTE. SO IN EFFECT YOU COULD HAVE A51 VOTE. THE EXCEPTION GOES TO THE MAJORITY UNDER OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND YOU HAVE AN ABSTENTION THEN CONSTITUTE NOW A SUPERMAJORITY BY ABSTENTION. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. SO I WOULD SUGGEST TWO THINGS.

ONE, JUST REFER THE FIRST PART TO THE CHARTER. GET RID OF ALL THAT. AND SECONDLY, IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO DESIGNATE HOW ABSTENTIONS, WHEN THEY'RE VALID OR TREATED, TREAT THEM AS A NO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I HAVE MR. PAUL ROBERTS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, JUST FOLLOWING ON ROBERT'S COMMENTS THERE AT THE END. MUCH OF IT IS DUPLICATIVE BETWEEN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ETHICS POLICY AND THE CHARTER. THE LAST TIME WE DID AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE ALSO ADDED A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT SPENDING MONTHS, LITERALLY MONTHS GOING OVER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND WHAT WHAT MR. PRINCE AND I FOUND DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS, A VERY COMMON THREAD OF THAT WAS REALLY TRYING TO ARTICULATE OR LEGISLATE. THE LANGUAGE WHICH EXPOUNDED ON THE CHARTER OR THE ETHICS POLICY IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH IS REDUNDANT AND FRANKLY, NOT NECESSARY. I, FOR ONE, THINK IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY REDONE.

ONE OF THE LAST PROVISIONS AND DIRECTION WE GAVE TO STAFF WHEN WE APPROVED THE LAST AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER, WHICH WAS IN 2024, WAS THAT THEN COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL, EXCUSE ME, CITY ATTORNEY KOBE CAPUTO WOULD GO AND RECONCILE ALL OF THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. I GUESS HE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. IT WAS NEVER DONE. AND STAFF DIDN'T PURSUE THAT. NOBODY PUSHED IT. SO IT WASN'T THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO REALLY DO THAT, OR AT LEAST MAYBE A LIGHT VERSION OF IT. JUST FIGURE OUT WHAT IS NECESSARY, WHAT IS IT NECESSARY, AND STRIP IT DOWN. ULTIMATELY, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CITY SHALL PASS AN ORDINANCE WHICH PRESCRIBES FOR HOW THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONDUCT ITS MEETINGS. THAT IS YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT'S IT. I THINK.

WHAT ELSE CAN I ADD? IS HAVING SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, WHAT ARE THE PARLIAMENTARY RULES PROCEDURE GOING TO BE? ROSENBERG. ROBERTS. YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT IN THERE.

DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE SUPERMAJORITY? IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN DRAFTING THIS AGENDA ITEM? MAYOR SAM, YOU HAD YOU NOTED IN HERE THE STATUTORY MINIMUM THREE BUSINESS DAYS FOR THE POSTING OF AGENDAS. WHILE I DON'T THINK IT'S IT'S I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD CODIFY SEVEN DAYS HAS BEEN THE NORM FOR LAGO VISTA SINCE I CAN REMEMBER. AT LEAST THE SIX YEARS I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS TRIED TO PUBLISH AN AGENDA WITH A COMPLETE PACKAGE,

[01:40:01]

CITIZENS HAVE TIME TO STUDY IT, JUST LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERS DO. AND ONE THING I THINK, I DON'T RECALL IF IT'S IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE CHARTER, BUT ABSENTEEISM, THE RULE, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH AUTHORITY IT IS, IS THAT IT'S 2 OR 3 UNEXCUSED CITY UNEXCUSED ABSENCES BY A COUNCIL MEMBER IS CAUSE FOR ACTION TO BRING THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND REMOVE THEM OR PUNISH THEM. I THINK NOW THAT WE HAVE VIRTUAL MEETINGS, I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO VISIT OR GOING TO PARTICIPATE. COUNCIL MEMBER IS GOING TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY FOR TEN MEETINGS IN A ROW. IS THAT ABSENT OR IS THAT PRESENT? I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE ABSENT. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. YEAH, I WOULD ADD TO THE RECOMMENDATION ON THREE BUSINESS DAYS, I DIDN'T ADD THAT PART THAT CAME FROM STAFF.

I THINK YOU GUYS WERE TRYING TO REPLICATE NEW LAWS. I'M NOT SURE WHO WHO ADDED THAT. MAYBE ME. OKAY, SO I'M NOT SURE IF DOES THAT BASED OFF OF SOMETHING THAT PASSED THIS PAST SESSION. PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEY CHANGED IT TO POSTING REQUIRES A MEETING BE POSTED THREE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WELL, TO MEET THAT DEADLINE, YOU ACTUALLY GOT TO POST IT FOUR BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AND THAT EXCLUDES HOLIDAYS IN TEXAS, HAS SOME STRANGE HOLIDAYS THAT ACTUALLY GO AGAINST THAT. TO WHERE? IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL, YOU WOULD MISS IT REAL QUICK. BUT I'M GOING TO USE AUGUST 27TH BECAUSE THAT'S LBJ DAY. THAT IS ACTUALLY A STATE HOLIDAY, AND THAT IS CONSIDERED A HOLIDAY ON THE BOOKS, EVEN THOUGH NOBODY RECOGNIZES IT. BUT YOU COULD NOT POST AN AGENDA THAT DAY AND THEN OR THE DAY BEFORE AND THEN THAT COUNT AS ONE OF THE BUSINESS DAYS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NORMAL BUSINESS DAY FOR STAFF. SO THAT'S SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GOT TO REALLY LOOK AT THERE. I MEAN, I AGREE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY MY PREFERENCE IS TO GET THE AGENDA AND THE PACKET OUT 7 TO 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. NOW, IS THAT ALWAYS FEASIBLE TO DO? NO, BECAUSE WE'RE LATE GETTING SOME INFORMATION IN. BUT SEVEN DAYS I REALLY LIKE AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STICK TO THAT HERE LATELY, IS GETTING IT OUT SEVEN DAYS PRIOR. YEAH. SO YEAH, I MEAN SO FORMER COUNCILMAN ROBERTS POINT THAT WHAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IS ACTUALLY HAVING OUR ATTORNEY LOOK AT IT. BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO THE ETHICS POLICY WORK SESSION ITEM THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY BIGGEST RECOMMENDATION IS LET OUR ATTORNEYS TAKE A STAB AT IT.

AND MAYBE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR ETHICS POLICY OR ANY OF THESE OTHERS, THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MIGHT BE ONE TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DUPLICATING THINGS, MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT OUT OF DATE ON ANY NEW STATE STATUTE. MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL. YEAH, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S A BIG CONCERN THAT I'VE HAD IS THE DUPLICATION ACROSS DOCUMENTS.

AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY RIGHT NOW. BUT I THINK DOES A CHARTER GET TOO IN THE WEEDS ON CERTAIN ITEMS THAT REALLY OUGHT TO BE POLICY ITEMS OR IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? AND THEN I THINK ANY CHANGES WE MIGHT MAKE IN PART OF OUR DISCUSSION LATER DEFINITELY WOULD WANT A LEGAL REVIEW. YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB RESEARCHING AND CHATGPT REPORTING OUT AND VERY THOROUGH AND INFORMATIVE, WHICH IS HELPFUL, BUT FRANKLY, I WOULD WANT LEGAL TO DO A THOROUGH REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY BECAUSE CHATGPT CAN BE INCORRECT SOMETIMES. AND I THINK TO ESPECIALLY WITH ETHICS POLICY OR CHANGES TO SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY OR RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. SO YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I WOULD I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ON SEVERAL POINTS. I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE NOT IN EITHER DUPLICATING THE CHARTER OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE CHARTER. I 100% AGREE WITH THAT. AND I THINK THAT HAVING A LOT OF DUPLICATION IS JUST A BAD THING. SO SIMPLIFYING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY, IT DOESN'T RECREATE THINGS THAT ARE STATE LAW OR THAT ARE CHARTER ENFORCED IS. YES, I AGREE WITH THAT. HOWEVER, I ALSO WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT WE HAVE ASKED THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO DO A COMPLETE REDO REWRITE AND BRING THAT PROPOSAL BACK TO US. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE WANT TO INVEST IN ANALYZING THE CURRENT RULES OF PROCEDURE AGAINST THE CHARTER, WHEN WE KNOW WE'RE NOT THAT FAR AWAY FROM MAYBE HAVING A CHARTER CHANGE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY THAT'S ULTIMATELY WASTED AND HAS TO BE REDONE. YOU KNOW, IN ANOTHER SIX MONTHS. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IT JUST

[01:45:07]

HANG ON. HE CAN'T HEAR THE SYSTEM. OH NO HE CAN HEAR OKAY. ALL RIGHT I WAS I WAS MUTED BY THE ORGANIZER I THINK I TOOK A SIP OF MY DRINK AND I THINK I MADE SOME NOISE I APOLOGIZE. SO YES I MEAN OBVIOUSLY ANY AD HOC TYPE QUESTIONS OR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO ANSWER. BUT I MEAN, TO MR. PRINCE'S POINT, I'M GLAD HE MADE IT, BECAUSE IF HE HADN'T, I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO DO THAT REVIEW NOW OF YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE COMPARING TO THE CURRENT CHARTER, IF, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL REWRITE AND A NEW CHARTER DOWN THE ROAD, IT JUST I AGREE THAT THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. I WILL NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME PECULIARITIES OF YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT DIFFER FROM ROSENBERG'S RULES. RIGHT. SO YOU'VE ADOPTED ROSENBERG, BUT THEN YOU ALSO MADE SOME SOME IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO HOW ROSENBERG OPERATES THAT MAKE YOURS A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGID. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I THINK, IN THE PAST, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT RULE CHANGE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I DO REMEMBER I WAS TALKING ABOUT ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT THAT MAKES YOUR RULES A BIT MORE RIGID. AND THE IDEA BEHIND ROSENBERG IS TO HAVE A MORE FREE FLOWING, LESS RIGID STRUCTURE. SO. SO I SUPPORT I MEAN, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO HELP AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, BUT I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD NOT BE THE BEST USE OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY TO HAVE US CONFORM YOUR CURRENT RULES TO THE CURRENT CHARTER. IF THE CURRENT CHARTER'S GOING TO BE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. YES, MA'AM. SO MAY I SO I GUESS ALSO BRAD. SO WE'VE GOT THE CHARTER REVIEW GOING ON, WHICH I THINK THE TIMELINE ON THAT'S BEEN EXTENDED. SO WE CAN, I GUESS, UPDATE. WHAT'S THAT TIMELINE. WE KNOW THERE'S DUPLICATION ACROSS RULES OF PROCEDURE POTENTIALLY THE ETHICS POLICY. IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE IF WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING PIECEMEAL OR IT'S BEEN DONE MAYBE PIECEMEAL IN THE PAST, AND THAT RECONCILIATION THAT MR. ROBERTS MENTIONED WAS NEVER REALLY COMPLETED. SO I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE YOUR SUGGESTION? OBVIOUSLY, A COST CONSCIOUS SUGGESTION TO MAYBE TIE ALL THESE THREADS TOGETHER SO WE CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT AT UNIFYING THESE DOCUMENTS, IF YOU WILL, AND MAKING SURE WE'RE AVOIDING DUPLICATION AND THEN CORRECTING ANY OF THOSE PECULIARITIES OR THINGS THAT MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF STATE LAW OR WHATNOT. SO YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW, A CITY'S CHARTER IS IT'S BASELINE GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTION, AS IT WERE. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK FOCUSING ON THE, THE CHARTER, HAVING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN HAVING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TO HAVE THE PUBLIC INPUT AND TO HAVE A FINAL VERSION THAT IS PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS, THAT IS, THEN, YOU KNOW, HAS TO BE ADOPTED UNTIL THAT HAPPENS. I MEAN, THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. AND IF AND I KNOW THAT THOSE EFFORTS ARE ONGOING NOW, YOU KNOW, WE WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT THOSE EFFORTS ARE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, BEARING IN MIND THAT YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE YOUR CHARTER ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S IT'S IT'S IT IS IMPORTANT TO PUT REASONABLE THINGS THAT ARE IN YOUR CHARTER. AND I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT

[01:50:02]

AND I'LL JUST I WILL MENTION AND I THINK I'VE MENTIONED IT TO 1 OR 2 OF YOU ALL, BUT IN THE PAST I HAVE BEEN THE THE ETHICS ATTORNEY FOR ANOTHER CLIENT. AND THAT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, AND THEY HAVE AN ETHICS COMMITTEE THAT WHEN AN ETHICS COMPLAINT IS FILED, IT GOES TO THEIR ETHICS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS JUST ANOTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION OF OF APPOINTED INDIVIDUALS WHO THEN MAKE THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING DETERMINATION. SO, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, WE HAD A PRELIMINARY HEARING YESTERDAY WHICH REQUIRED THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS THE BODY THAT HEARS THAT TYPE OF HEARING, HAS THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ACTS AS THE JUDICIAL BODY. BUT IN THE CASE OF HAVING A COMMITTEE, THAT COMMITTEE WOULD MAKE THAT THAT DECISION AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHETHER TO REFER IT. IF THERE WAS A COMPLAINT YOU REFER IT TO FOR FURTHER ACTION OR NOT. AND SO I THINK, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OTHER CITIES DO THAT. AND I THINK IT PROBABLY IT MIGHT BE IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING. CERTAINLY. YES.

KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING IS, YOU KNOW, WE DID WANT SOME MAYBE SOME SORT OF LEGAL REVIEW ON IT, BUT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND THAT MONEY. SO MAYBE WHAT WE WANT IS TO JUST REMOVE ALL THE REFERENCES TO THE CHARTER AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR NOW, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DOES. AND MAYBE THAT'S HOW WE SIMPLIFY WHAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE NOW. AND WE HASH THIS ALL OUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AMONGST OURSELVES. SO YOU THINK REMOVE REFERENCES TO THE CHARTER. ARE YOU SAYING DUPLICATIVE LANGUAGE. IT'S IN THE RFP WITH THE CHARTER I DON'T JUST REMOVE IT, BUT THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED FURTHER ON DISCUSSION BOARD OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE THEN. BRAD, WE STILL HAVE YOU TILL 630. IS THAT RIGHT? OR WAS IT SIX SIX 3630 OKAY. YES. WELL, I HAVE TWO CITIZENS THAT ARE HERE FOR ALSO THE ETHICS. SO I

[X.2. Discussion regarding a rewrite or amendment of the City Ethics Policy.]

[01:55:01]

I KNOW MONTHS AGO I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY. RIGHT NOW, BRAD, AND I THINK THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF CITIES RUN INTO THE SAME ISSUE. YOU TRY TO EXPOUND UPON YOUR ETHICS CODE BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BEHAVE IN A CERTAIN WAY, AND ULTIMATELY YOU END UP WITH AN ETHICS CODE THAT MAYBE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. AND SO THAT WAS MY THOUGHT ON IT. MY OVERALL GOAL HERE IS REALLY TO KICK THIS BACK TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND HAVE HIM TAKE A CRACK AT WHAT IS A BETTER ETHICS CODE, BASED ON WHAT THE REST OF COUNCIL HAS INPUT ON. AND WHILE WE STILL HAVE BRAD, I DID WANT TO BRING HIM IN. AND YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH OUR ETHICS CODE, AND I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS ABOUT THAT. AND WHAT WOULD YOUR FIRM'S ABILITY BE TO GIVE US A BETTER VERSION? CERTAINLY. SO FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW. SORT OF MY, MY, MY REENTRY INTO DOING SOME WORK FOR LAGO VISTA WAS AS THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON AN ETHICS MATTER BEFORE I THEN BECAME YOUR CITY ATTORNEY. SO AT THAT POINT, I HAD TO BECOME FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S ETHICS POLICY. AND AND THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, JUST THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS QUESTIONS RELATED TO IT ASKING FOR INTERPRETATION OVER THE YEARS. AND, OF COURSE, I MEAN, I GUESS JUST FOR CLARITY WITH WITH COUNCIL'S CONSENT, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE SOME LEGAL OPINIONS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE TYPICALLY THOSE WOULD BE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE. SO WITH COUNCIL'S CONSENT. YEAH. WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S OKAY FOR YOU GUYS TO THAT YOU ARE OKAY WITH ME PROVIDING SOME OF THESE OPINIONS ABOUT THE ETHICS POLICY. ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT? OKAY, I HEAR NONE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO SO I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEPLY INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS, ALTHOUGH I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE ETHICS POLICY THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE AND THAT THAT DON'T, DON'T, DON'T MAKE FOR EASY INTERPRETATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP HAS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES IS A PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS WHEN IT'S WHEN WHEN THE WHEN THE ETHICS COMPLAINT RELATES TO A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT WE'VE GOT A YOU GET A VISITING MAYOR HERE. I'M HERE IN LOCKHART CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS, IN YOUR ETHICS POLICY, PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO ARE PART OF THIS QUASI JUDICIAL JUDICIARY BODY, WHO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION ON A ON A COUNCIL MEMBER COMPLAINT. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CONSULT OR ASK QUESTIONS OR DISCUSS ANYTHING RELATED TO THE COMPLAINT WITH ANYONE. AND SO THAT THAT'S PROBLEMATIC, BECAUSE IF I GET AN EMAIL FROM SOMEONE ASKING FOR A PROCESS QUESTION ABOUT HOW THE ETHICS POLICY WORKS, WHICH IS A REASONABLE THING THAT I, AS THE ATTORNEY, WOULD EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO TO PROVIDE THAT OPINION TO MY CLIENT. IT MIGHT BE PROHIBITED. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT. I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT WAS TO PREVENT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO ARE GOING TO ACT AS THE JUDGES FROM GETTING WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED EX PARTE TYPES OF COMMUNICATIONS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THAT PROVISION. SO THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A PROVISION THAT I THINK. I THINK THE INTENT WAS FINE, BUT THE WAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IS OVERBROAD AND CAN

[02:00:05]

IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE STATE LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND PECUNIARY INTEREST, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, THEN YOU NEED TO SET FORTH VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF WHAT THAT CONDUCT IS AND WHAT IS AND IS NOT ACTIONABLE.

AND SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE IT'S IT'S BROADLY WRITTEN AND IT ALLOWS FOR DISAGREEMENTS IN OPINION TO BE CHARGED AS ETHICS VIOLATIONS. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY I DON'T THINK IT BEHOOVES THE CITY TO TO HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, CONSTITUTE AN ALLEGED ETHICS VIOLATION. SO THAT'S JUST MY EXPERIENCE. I MEAN, I'VE DONE THESE ETHICS. QUOTE UNQUOTE, PROSECUTIONS BEFORE. I WAS ONCE TASKED WITH ANOTHER BY ANOTHER CLIENT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WITH HELPING THEM DRAFT THE MOST. AND WHAT THEY WANTED WAS THE MOST, I THINK, TOUGHEST ETHICS POLICY IN THE STATE, WHICH IS A LAUDABLE GOAL. BUT IT MADE IT. BUT BUT WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS THAT THEY ENDED UP REPEALING IT NOT LONG AFTER BECAUSE IT IT. ONE COUNCIL MEMBER FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY GOT TO BE THE PROSECUTOR. AND SO IT PUT EVERYONE IN A VERY DIFFICULT AND FRACTIOUS POSITION. AND THEY REALIZED THAT RATHER THAN ENHANCE ETHICS, IT JUST CAUSED FOR MORE CONFLICT WITHIN THE CITY. AND IT DISTRACTED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. SO EVERYBODY WANTS ETHICS AND EVERYBODY WANTS, YOU KNOW, GOOD, HONEST WORK, TRANSPARENCY.

THOSE ARE ALL PERFECTLY GOOD GOALS, AND THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A COST TO AND THERE WILL BE A COST BECAUSE YOUR COUNCIL COUNCIL, YOU HAVE TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHEN THERE ARE COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCIL. THAT'S FINE. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO BE CHARGING MY BOSSES WITH ETHICS VIOLATIONS. THAT PUTS ME IN A DIFFICULT POSITION. SO. BUT NONETHELESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE BODY THAT HEARD IT. THERE WAS THERE WAS A THERE WAS A MONETARY COST INVOLVED WITH THAT. NOW, MONETARY COST CAN'T BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE FOLLOW. WE HAVE GOOD ETHICAL STANDARDS.

RIGHT. SOMETIMES THERE'S JUST COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BUT BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICY THAT IS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW AND SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET, IT DOES INCREASE COSTS, PERHAPS UNNECESSARILY. SO IT JUST IS SOMETHING THAT THESE ARE POLICY DECISIONS FOR YOU AS A BODY TO MAKE. THESE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS, HAVING DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT CLIENTS OVER THE YEARS, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO TO TELL YOU WHAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO. MY JOB IS TO TO, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW YOUR DIRECTION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A SOUND POLICY THAT CAN THAT IS, THAT IS LAWFUL AND ENFORCEABLE. BUT YEAH, I MEAN I'M, I THIS PARTICULAR POLICY IS HAS SOME DIFFICULTIES IN ENFORCEMENT.

I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. AND THE OTHER PART OF THAT QUESTION, BRAD, WAS, YOU KNOW, HOW STRONG IS THE STATE'S ETHICS PROCESS FOR MUNICIPALITIES, IF YOU WERE TO RELY ON THE STATE, IS THAT NOT A STRONG PROCESS? I MEAN, THE STATE IS CONCERNED WITH THE STATE IS PRIMARILY STATE LAW, IS CONCERNED WITH PRIMARILY TWO THINGS. ONE OF THEM IS DOES DOES THE PERSON VOTING HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON? AND IF THEY DO HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN IT, THEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DISCLOSE THAT FINANCIAL INTEREST AND RECUSE THEMSELVES.

THE STATE ALSO HAS A POLICY REGARDING NEPOTISM AND, YOU KNOW, IS BENEFITS AND GIVING BENEFITS TO TO FAMILY MEMBERS, BASICALLY. AND BUT BEYOND THAT, AND THOSE ARE THE TWO MOST

[02:05:03]

YEAH, WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT THAT HAVE VARYING LEVELS OF, OF I GUESS, SPECIFICITY OR COMPLEXITY. AND ULTIMATELY YOU'RE THE YOU'RE THE POLICY MAKERS. AND SO YOU, YOU, YOU WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA MAY NOT BE RIGHT FOR THE CITY OF, YOU KNOW, FILL IN THE BLANK, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME, I THINK. EASY TO FOLLOW YET, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT OR MAYBE NOT IMPORTANT. IT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT BUT EASY TO FOLLOW. BUT BUT STANDARDS THAT WILL THAT WILL HELP ENSURE AND PROVIDE COMFORT TO YOUR CITIZENS THAT THAT THINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN A, IN A TRANSPARENT AND ETHICAL WAY AND THAT THEY CAN BE REST ASSURED THAT THE TAX DOLLARS ARE, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IS BEING SPENT OR EXPENDED INAPPROPRIATELY THAT PEOPLE WHO, WHEN THEY HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, THAT ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, THEY ARE RECUSING THEMSELVES. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. WE'VE DONE IT FOR OTHERS. I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. AND THEN KIND OF A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR BRAD TO MAYBE RESPOND TO THIS. SO IF I LOOK AT THE CITY CHARTER IN SECTION 3.08, IT TALKS ABOUT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE COUNCIL. AND 3.08 B OF THE CHARTER SAYS AND FIRST OF ALL, THE LEADING LEAD IN LANGUAGE SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REMOVE ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL FROM OFFICE FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS. AND THEN THERE'S FOUR THINGS STATED, ONE OF WHICH IS ITEM B, WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER OR ANY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS ADOPTED UNDER SECTION 11.05 THAT PROVIDES FOR REMOVAL OR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, AND THEN SECTION 11.05 OF THE CHARTER IS TITLED ETHICS, POLICY AND CODE OF CONDUCT. AND THERE'S A RELATIVELY SHORT PARAGRAPH I WANT TO READ. THE COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT AND FROM TIME TO TIME MODIFY AND AMEND AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING AN ETHICS POLICY RIGHT? I MEAN, THE I THINK YOU RUN INTO TROUBLE THE THE LAW OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, BECAUSE

[02:10:01]

RIGHT. AND SO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'VE BEEN DULY ELECTED TO OFFICE AND YOU ASSUME OFFICE, IT OUGHT NOT BE EASY TO REMOVE THAT PERSON FROM OFFICE EXCEPT FOR VERY, YOU KNOW, SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF LAW. MUST BE RESERVED FOR THE MOST SEVERE THINGS, WHICH ARE GENERALLY.

AND THE STATE LAW ALREADY COVERS THAT. SO I YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOUR ETHICS POLICY GOES OVER, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY AND LOBBYING AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE, BY AND LARGE, THEY'RE ALL COVERED BY STATE LAW ALREADY. AND SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS YOU FROM ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE, THAT COPYCAT STATE LAW, BUT YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT STATE LAW DOESN'T ALREADY PROVIDE.

OKAY. I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT. YOU ANSWERED THE THE INTENT OF MY QUESTION. I MAY NOT HAVE WORDED IT WELL. SO I UNDERSTAND WE OR OTHER CITIES MAY HAVE ETHICS ORDINANCES THAT GO WAY TOO FAR, WAY TOO DETAILED, COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY REMOVAL FROM OFFICE THAT THAT COULD BE OVERTURNED. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IS IT COMMON OR UNCOMMON FOR CITIES TO HAVE NO ETHICS ORDINANCE, OR IS IT MOST COMMON FOR CITIES TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ETHICS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS MORE DETAILED THAN THE STATE LAW AND, YOU KNOW, MAY OR MAY NOT BE WELL WRITTEN, BUT, YOU KNOW, IS IT A COMMON THING FOR CITIES TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO DOCUMENTED ABOUT ETHICS ORDINANCE BEYOND WHAT ALREADY EXISTS AT STATE LAW LEVEL? THAT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER. I THINK SMALLER CITIES IN GENERAL TEND NOT TO HAVE COMPLEX ETHICS POLICIES OR ETHICS POLICIES, EXPLICIT POLICIES AT ALL. THE LARGER THE CITY, THE MORE LIKELY THEY ARE TO HAVE AN ETHICS POLICY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THE MORE COMPLEX IT GETS. BUT IT'S IT'S I COULDN'T GIVE YOU PERCENTAGES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I CAN CERTAINLY TRY TO LOOK THAT UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW FROM A NUMBERS OR PERCENTAGE STANDPOINT WHICH PERCENTAGE DO OR DO NOT. NO. THAT'S FINE. YOUR YOUR COMMENTS THERE ADDRESS THE SPIRIT OF MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY FOR CITIZENS BEFORE WE CONTINUE THIS? MR. GENE HARRIS. SIMPLE. I MEAN, YOU CAN SIMPLE, STUPID. SOME OF THE NUANCES IN THIS POLICY, ETHICS POLICY IS IT'S FRANKLY HEAVILY BIASED TOWARD THE COMPLAINANT. SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT BRAD WAS JUST REFERENCING IS OUT OF 1.1810 SOMETHING, SUBSECTION SIX. AND

[02:15:04]

YOU DON'T NEED TO GIVE THEM TEN ADDITIONAL DAYS TO DO A DO OVER. CAN YOU IMAGINE BEING THE PERSON WITH THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST YOU, AND SOMEBODY GETS AN ADDITIONAL TEN DAYS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MERIT TO THEIR ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH? YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT DOES TO A PERSON. TEN ADDITIONAL BUSINESS DAYS. ARE YOU READING THE ETHICS POLICY BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT? THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A FORMER MAYOR? SHOPPING, AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, GOING TO VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS, TRYING TO GET THEM TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT CREATES A WALKING QUORUM. BUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT, THE ETHICS POLICY DOESN'T STATE THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO WHO KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN THAT WALKING QUORUM HAVE TO RECUSE, EVEN THOUGH THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IN 1.81810, ETC. SAYS YOU CAN'T DISCUSS THE FACTS OF IT, BUT THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IN THE POLICY. IF YOU DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO RECUSE. IT'S IT'S IT'S TERRIBLE. IT'S A REALLY TERRIBLE POLICY, HONEST TO GOODNESS. BUT AS ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER POINTED OUT THE OTHER NIGHT, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A POLICY IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED INFRACTION, THE RULES ARE THE RULES. I'M OUT OF TIME. BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. I COULD ASK YOU A QUESTION IF YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON IT, SINCE YOU AND I HAVE BOTH BEEN IN THIS PROCESS, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO HOW THE HEARING ITSELF GOES? THE PRE-HEARING ITSELF GOES, HOW THE HEARING GOES? I KNOW MAYOR SULLIVAN HAD COMMENTS ABOUT IT. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I SAW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I WENT THROUGH IT, I WAS GIVEN 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT I WAS GOING TO PRESENT. AND THEN YESTERDAY THE GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL WAS, NO, THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT. IT'S ARBITRARY. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT REASONABLE. YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT THAT'S FILED AGAINST SOMEBODY. THAT COMPLAINT IS LIKE PLEADINGS IN A LAWSUIT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE FACTUAL, COMPLETE, COMPLETE BS. IT DOESN'T MATTER. AND PEOPLE KNOW THAT. AND THAT'S WHY THEY FILE AND GAME THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. THEY WANT TO GET IT OUT THERE AND THEY WANT TO HARM YOU, AND THEY WANT TO HARM YOUR FAMILY, AND THEY WANT TO THREATEN YOU, AND THEY WANT TO BLACKMAIL YOU, AND THEY WANT TO PLAY GAMES. THEY ASSUME THAT THE PERSON THEY'RE ACCUSING DOESN'T PLAY THE LONG GAME. THEY DON'T HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. BUT NEVERTHELESS, AND NOTWITHSTANDING, YOU GO THROUGH THAT AND IT'S DISHEARTENING AND IT IS WEAPONIZED. AND I THINK IF YOU WANT TO GO TO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S SO EGREGIOUS THAT YOU WANT TO BRING A COMPLAINT AGAINST SOMEBODY, GO TO THE STATE ETHICS BOARD. AND IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU, THOSE ARE NONPARTISAN PEOPLE THAT HAVE NO TIES TO ANY ONE OF YOU. THEY'RE NOT LIKE A BOARD LIKE THE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS DISCUSSING. WELL, WHO'S GOING TO APPOINT THOSE MEMBERS? YOU GUYS, YOU HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM. THEY HAVE LEANINGS. THEY HAVE FRIENDSHIPS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A NONPARTIZAN REVIEW WITH THE LOCAL ETHICS BOARD. GO TO THE STATE IN MY OPINION. ANOTHER THING, THERE'S PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT SOUND TOUGH IN THE ETHICS POLICY, AND IT TALKS ABOUT HOW IF THE COUNCIL DETERMINES AFTER THE DISMISSAL, THEY WANT TO REFER IT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT NO ONE'S EVER DONE THAT. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. THE ARGUMENT YOU MIGHT HEAR FROM AN ATTORNEY IS, WELL, THE CIVIL, THE THE ACCUSED WHO'S NOW BEEN EXONERATED, HAS THE ABILITY TO GO OUT THERE AND SUE FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE PERSON THAT FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OR WHATEVER, AND THEY CAN LITIGATE THAT. BUT ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, JUST DON'T. WHEN YOU SEEK OUT A PATH OF REVENGE, DIG TWO GRAVES.

DON'T YOU KNOW, LET GOD TAKE CARE OF THOSE PEOPLE. HE ALWAYS DOES. IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, IT STATES THAT YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO FILE A IF SOMEBODY VIOLATES THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO FILE A

[02:20:04]

SO YEAH, IF YOU COULD GIVE US A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF MAYBE SOME, MAYBE SOME MORE LENIENT POLICIES OR CITIES THAT HAVE POLICIES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENT, SOME THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT, MAYBE WE CAN MELD THEM TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH OUR OWN. I DO AGREE WITH THE TWO YEAR TIMETABLE. I THINK THAT IS A LENGTHY, LENGTHY GAME TO PLAY. I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT DOWN TO 30 TO 90 DAYS AS WELL. THERE COULD BE SOME RESOLUTION THAT HAPPENS, AND NOT EVERYONE IS FEELING ON EDGE AS TO WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BROUGHT BACK AGAINST THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE YOU WITH, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OR, YOU KNOW, 2 OR 3 DIFFERENT EXAMPLES, WHATEVER YOU WISH.

I'M SORRY, BUT I WOULD LIKE IT ACTUALLY, IF MAYBE YOU COULD DO IT FOR MAYBE THE SIZE OF OUR TOWNS. IF WE COULD DO LIKE, COMPARABLES. I DON'T WANT TO COMPARE US TO A TOWN THAT HAS 250,000 PEOPLE. I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT UNDER 50,000, MAYBE EVEN UNDER 25,000 WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC. YEAH, YEAH, I WOULDN'T GOING TO GIVE YOU DALLAS OR HOUSTON. SO WE'LL WE'LL GET YOU SOME, SOME THAT ARE COMPARABLE AND, AND THAT, THAT ARE EFFECTIVE. AGAIN, EVERYBODY WANTS AN ETHICAL GOVERNMENT. AND THAT'S I THINK WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.

THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE ENFORCE IT? AND IS IT IN A REASONABLE WAY THAT DOESN'T COST THE CITY UNNECESSARY EXPENSES? JUST FOR AN FYI, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S, YOU KNOW, EDIFICATION? JUST LEADING UP TO THE PROCESS, JUST YESTERDAY WAS WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN A COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY'S FEES BETWEEN MY OFFICE AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO GET THROUGH. ALL OF YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T RUN THOSE NUMBERS YET. TOTALLY.

AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE INVOICE FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL WILL BE, BUT I'LL BE SURPRISED IF THE TOTAL IS LESS THAN $2,000 FOR ONE COMPLAINT. NOW, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, THAT'S TOTALLY YOUR CHOICE. AS A CITY. YOU HAVE YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND AND AGAIN, THE COST CAN'T BE ULTIMATELY THE DECIDING FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT WE OPERATE ETHICALLY. BUT COST IS ALWAYS A YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT'S GOT TO BE A CONSIDERATION AT SOME POINT TO SOME DEGREE. YOU DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES. SO, YOU KNOW, BUT IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE CITIZENS WANT TO EXPEND THE TAXPAYER MONEY, THEN THEY GET TO DO THAT. BUT THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THAT'S ABOUT WHAT YESTERDAY COST. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT, AND THAT IS THAT I AGREE. THE TEXAS LAW ALREADY PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE ETHICS FRAMEWORK.

IT'S PRETTY STRINGENT. AND THAT IS WHY MANY SMALL CITIES CHOOSE NOT TO ADOPT A SEPARATE ETHICS POLICY FOR THAT VERY REASON. THAT WITHSTANDING, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. THERE'S PROBABLY SOME ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP LOCAL. AND WITH THAT, THOUGH, I THINK THAT I APPRECIATE, BRAD, THAT YOU WILL PUT TOGETHER SOME SAMPLES AS

[02:25:04]

I'LL BE HAPPY TO GET IT TO YOU AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFLICT. BUT IT WAS JUST UNAVOIDABLE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS A LOT, FOLKS. BYE BYE. ALL RIGHT, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM

[X.3. Discussion regarding repeal or amendment of the City Social Media Policy]

THIS IS AGAIN, ALL THE OTHER POLICIES I BROUGHT FORWARD. THIS IS ONE WHERE UNLIKE THE ONE WHERE I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE NEED ONE, I THINK I PUT IN THE PACKET, THIS IS ONE WHERE WE'VE HAD THREE STRAIGHT CITY ATTORNEYS SAY AGAIN THEY THINK THAT THIS IS PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AGAIN, I'M USING AS A FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE FROM YESTERDAY'S ETHICS HISTORY HEARING. THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME. AND SOMETHING THAT I'VE ALWAYS NOTED IN OUR IN OURS IS THAT AND WE WERE SENT A TML FAQ TODAY. AND YOU WILL NOTE IN THE TML FAQ, IT SAID THAT THERE WAS A NEW SUPREME COURT DECISION AT THAT TIME GOING ON FROM LINK VERSUS FREED, BUT IT WASN'T COMPLETED YET. SO THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT WAS GOING TO BE. WELL, THE IMPACT OF THAT WAS THAT I THINK MANY PEOPLE MAYBE REMEMBER BACK WITH TRUMP AND THE TWITTER STUFF GOING ON, THEY FOUND THAT THEY BELIEVED HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT WAS ACTUALLY AN OFFICIAL ACCOUNT, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOCK FOLKS.

AND WHAT PEOPLE PROBABLY DIDN'T SEE COVERED IN THE NEWS IS THAT DECISION ONLY LASTED FOR 6 OR 7 MONTHS. THE LINK VERSUS FREED DECISION CAME OUT AFTER THAT, AND IT DECIDED THAT THAT ORIGINAL POLICY WAS WAY TOO LAX, THAT IT BASICALLY SAID ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, IF YOU EVER TALK ABOUT ANY SORT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS BOOM, YOU'RE NOW THAT IS NOW AN OFFICIAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT. BUT ACTUALLY LINK VERSUS FREED SAID THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE AND SAID THAT IT IS ONLY A STATE ACTION, ONLY A STATE ACCOUNT, ONLY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ACCOUNT. IF BOTH OF THESE TWO CRITERIA ARE TRUE AND ONE IS THE OFFICIAL POSSESSED ACTUAL, THE OFFICIAL WHO POSTED POSSESSED ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO DO THE THING BEING DISCUSSED, AND TWO THE OFFICIAL PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY IN THE POST OR INTERACTION. YOU HAVE TO HAVE BOTH OF THEM. AND SO WOULD THAT REALLY IS SAYING IS TO USE MY EXAMPLE SPECIFICALLY ON MY PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE, WHICH I HAVE A NOTATION THAT THIS IS MY PERSONAL PAGE IS NOT OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS. I MADE A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN POST FOR ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND ON THAT POST I EVEN SAID THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL BUSINESS. SPEAKING ON MY PERSONAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND IN THERE, SOMEBODY CAME IN THERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR OPPONENT AND BROUGHT UP AN ITEM THAT WAS TO BE BEFORE COUNCIL, AND THAT ITEM WAS TO CORRECT PARKLAND DEDICATION UP TO SARAH, WHICH I BELIEVED AT. THE OPINIONS THAT WERE GIVEN WERE INACCURATE INTENTIONALLY, AND I THOUGHT THEY WERE FOR POLITICAL REASONS. AND SO I SAID, I BELIEVE THAT'S A LIE AND SOME OTHER THINGS. AND THEN I EVENTUALLY BLOCKED THAT PERSON BECAUSE THEY CONTINUED TO GO ON IT. BUT IT WAS MY PERSONAL PAGE. WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT BECAUSE I TALKED ABOUT ANY CITY BUSINESS THAT WAS NOW OFFICIALLY A OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PROFILE, BUT ACCORDING TO THIS, I HAVE TO HAVE OFFICIAL POSSESS ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. I HAVE NO OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION. THAT IS THE AUTHORITY THAT IS ONLY GIVEN TO AN ENTIRE BODY OF COUNCIL, AND THEN A SECOND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY IN THE POST OR INTERACTION. I WOULD HAVE HAD TO SET IN THAT POST THAT I HEREBY, AS COUNCILMAN SHANE STORM, HAVE APPROVED THIS PARKLAND DEDICATION. AND IT IS NOW. SO BE IT. NEITHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. I BRING UP THAT LONG EXAMPLE SIMPLY TO SAY THAT OUR CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY DOESN'T INCORPORATE THIS LINK VERSUS FREE, EXCEPT FOR IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH A SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2024 COUNCIL DISCUSSION. IT WAS ONLY SIX MINUTES LONG. WE AMENDED THE POLICY. WHAT COBB CAPUTO, AT THE TIME, WHO WAS OUR CITY ATTORNEY, STARTED SAYING IS I'M LESSENING THIS SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY BECAUSE IT WAS FAR TOO STRICT FOR WHAT CURRENT COURT RULINGS WERE. AND HE ALLUDED TO THIS CASE, WHICH STILL, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY OUT THERE YET. BUT EVEN AT THAT TIME, HE SAID, YOU JUST CANNOT

[02:30:03]

COUNCILMAN SHANE'S OFFICIAL PAGE, AND YOU'RE DOING OFFICIAL ACTION. IT STILL IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ACCOUNT. AND THIS POLICY IS SO AMBIGUOUS THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE MOST SUPREME DECISION THAT DECIDES ALL OF THESE THINGS CURRENTLY. AND AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED WITH THE ETHICS POLICY, IT'S NOW TRYING TO BE WEAPONIZED. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO POLICE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE, HOW THEY USE THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, NONE OF IT'S GOING TO HOLD UP IN COURT.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO HAVE IT. THE CURRENT POLICY DOESN'T CONFORM WITH THE LAW.

ANYBODY WHO TRIED TO HOLD YOU TO WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE THIS POLICY TO BE CAN'T BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PURPORT TO LAW. BUT ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT POLICY ACTUALLY DEFINES NO VIOLATIONS. IT PROVIDES NO PUNISHMENTS. IT'S JUST RIPE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS. SO I KNOW THERE WAS A LONG WINDED I HAD A LONG DAY YESTERDAY, SO I JUST WANTED TO REALLY LAY THAT OUT THERE. I KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER ATTEMPTS AT DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, BUT I ASSURE YOU I AM EXTREMELY POSITIVE THAT THE LINCOLN VERSUS FREED SUPREME COURT DECISION IS THE BAR RIGHT NOW. AND I'VE LAST JENNIFER IF IF THAT'S HER UNDERSTANDING, IF SHE'S COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT, I KNOW THAT BRAD IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO AN ANALYSIS THAT I'D ASK THEM TO DO ON THIS, BUT HE COULDN'T GET IT DONE FOR TODAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE FORTHCOMING. BUT TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I SAID, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO CONTROL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND WE HAVE TOO MUCH CITY BUSINESS TO DO TO BE WASTING TIME ON THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ASK JENNIFER, IF DID I MISSPEAK THAT THAT IS STILL THE PRESIDING CASE THAT THE COURTS ARE LOOKING AT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS? IT IS. AND I KNOW BRAD WAS GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SOME OTHER CASES AND GET SOMETHING BACK TO YOU ALL.

THANK YOU. I CAN GO TO COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR I CAN. WE HAVE ONE CITIZEN THAT IS GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. LINCOLN VERSUS REED WAS ACTUALLY THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED THAT RULING THE LOWER COURT. SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT BRAD NEEDS TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT. AND ACTUALLY, THEY HAVE NOW STATED, BECAUSE LINCOLN IS ACTUALLY A FUGITIVE FROM THE LAW ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW. SO THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE THAT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO UTILIZE FOR CASE LAW, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY, LIKE I SAID, HE'S A FUGITIVE RIGHT NOW FROM AND THEY'VE DECIDED TO TO DROP THAT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF CITIES DO HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES IN EFFECT, AND THAT IT IS OF CONCERN WHEN A PERSONAL PAGE DOES BECOME BECOME DOES BECOME A PUBLIC FORUM WHEN YOU HAVE INCLUDED ANY CITY BUSINESS IN THERE AND YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY INTERACTED WITH CITIZENS ON IT AND ALLOWED THEM TO COMMENT AND GO BACK AND FORTH, AND IT CONTINUES TO DISCUSS CITY BUSINESS, I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A PERSONAL ACTING AS A PERSONAL ACCOUNT. I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT THEN BECOMES A CITY BUSINESS AND REALLY SHOULD BE LEFT OPEN TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THAT THERE'S CLAIMS THAT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH SCHOOL BOARD, PREVIOUS SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUED AND WON WHEN THEY WERE SHUT DOWN FROM AN ACCOUNT OR BLOCKED, AND THEIR COMMENTS WERE DELETED WHEN THEY WERE SPEAKING ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOL BUSINESS. SAME THING CAN BE SAID FOR FOR THE CITY IF WE'RE BLOCKING AND DELETING COMMENTS, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SHUTTING DOWN THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY CONFLICT WITH OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND WE YOU CAN'T JUST DELETE AND GO AGAINST THAT. SO BASICALLY, THE RECOMMENDATION I'VE SEEN FOR CITIES FOR THIS IS THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU EITHER SHUT OFF COMMENTING COMPLETELY AFTER YOU MAKE YOUR POST AND DON'T ALLOW COMMENTING TO OCCUR AT ALL, OR YOU REDIRECT THE ALL COMMENTS TO BE PUT ON TO SEND BY, BY, BY EMAIL, OR ENCOURAGE THE COMMENTER TO COME TO, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC FORUM CITY COUNCIL AND MAKE THEIR, YOU KNOW, USE THEIR THREE MINUTES. THAT WAY IT CUTS DOWN ON THE DISCOURSE

[02:35:01]

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AFTER THAT I DON'T I THINK IT WAS THAT SUPREME COURT CASE. I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT IT WITH ONE OF MY ATTORNEYS, AND WE WERE JUST HAVING, YOU KNOW, CHIT CHAT ABOUT IT. AND HE'S AND HIS TAKE WAS, FRANKLY, THE SAME TAKE THAT YOU JUST SHARED WITH EVERYBODY. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, AFTER I HAD THAT CONVERSATION, IT WAS THE CATALYST FOR ME SENDING COPY AT THAT TIME, AN EMAIL AND COPYING THE MAYOR, ASKING FOR AN AGENDA ITEM TO GET COPY TO MAKE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. BUT HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT ONE EITHER. AND THERE WAS NEVER AN AGENDA ITEM. BUT YEAH, I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD UPDATE THAT THAT SOCIAL AT A MINIMUM IF YOU IF YOU END UP SCRAPPING IT OR WHATEVER THE FINAL PRODUCT IS. I THINK THAT AT A MINIMUM, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF TRAINING FOR INCOMING COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO JUST SIMPLE GUIDANCE LIKE HAVE A DISCLAIMER ON THERE, INCLUDE THAT ON YOUR PROFILE. BIFURCATE THE TWO. HAVE YOUR CITY ONE YOU KNOW JUST SOME GENERAL HELPFUL GOOD ADVICE. AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES YOU'RE ONLY AS SMART AS WHAT YOU KNOW. AND YOU MAY NOT THINK OF THESE THINGS, HOWEVER COMMON SENSE IT MIGHT BE. SO THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT ON THAT. THANK YOU. OH, ONE OTHER THING. THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY, IT HAS NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. SO IF YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF IT. OKAY. GREAT.

THAT'S IT. THANKS. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT I HAVE. IS THERE ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION? YEAH. IF I COULD. SO I THINK I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED BRAD TO COME BACK AND OPINE ON THE CURRENT POLICY AND WHAT HIS SUGGESTIONS MIGHT BE, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY WOULD. I WANT TO SEE THAT BEFORE I KIND OF COME TO A CONCLUSION. PART OF ME IS IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ULTIMATELY NOT ENFORCEABLE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE POLICY. ON THE OTHER HAND, I SHARE AMANDA'S CONCERNS. I'M ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT DECORUM, YOU KNOW, AND PROFESSIONALISM WHEN WE'RE IN THIS ROLE. AND IT KIND OF SUCKS BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO YOU AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. BUT I THINK THE WAY WE HANDLE OURSELVES ONLINE IS VERY IMPORTANT, RIGHT. AND REPRESENTING THE CITY. SO I, I KIND OF HESITATE TO SAY NO POLICY AT ALL AT THIS POINT, JUST BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING AROUND PROFESSIONALISM AND DECORUM AT A MINIMUM, ALTHOUGH I'M UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LEGAL REMEDY TO HELP ENFORCE THAT. SO IT MAY BE A MOOT POINT, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET BRAD'S FEEDBACK ON THAT. YOU KNOW FOR SURE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. YEAH. SO YOU KNOW TML AND POST. BUT ALSO NOT ONLY THAT CASE, THE HOUSTON VERSUS HILL CASE IS BACK FROM 1997. ALSO COME TO PLAY IN THIS. AND EFFECTIVELY WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTED OFFICIALS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT'S VERY VERY DIFFICULT AND VERY TOUCHY.

SO REALLY BASIC GUIDANCE, ESPECIALLY AS IT COMES FROM THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, IS THAT IS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND CITY ACCOUNTS ONLY IF, INDEED, THAT WE WANT TO DO ANYTHING, THAT IT

[02:40:03]

[02:45:05]

SO. SO CAN I ASK ONE OTHER DISTINGUISHED CITY ATTORNEY REAL QUICK? YEAH, JUST TO IF YOU CAN ALSO LET US KNOW, BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED. SOME OF THESE CASES REFER TO CITY STAFF AS OPPOSED TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND THE KIND OF NUANCES OF STAFF AND THEIR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA VERSUS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT COUNCIL COUNCILOR OWEN HAD BROUGHT UP EARLIER. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE REFERRING TO A LOT OF CASES AND AND LAWYERS.

AMONGST LAWYERS CAN EVEN ARGUE ABOUT WHAT THESE CASES MEAN. AND SO AND IT'S A MOVING TARGET.

AND SO I THINK WHAT BRAD COMMITTED TO Y'ALL WAS THAT HE WOULD GET BACK TO YOU WITH AN ANALYSIS OF YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. AND SO I'M GOING TO LET HIM DO THAT. I DO WANT TO MENTION REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY, WHILE WE'RE KIND OF AT A ABOUT TO MAYBE ABOUT TO GO ON TO ANOTHER ITEM, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE TO DROP OFF REAL QUICKLY TO GO TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ANOTHER CITY, BUT I'LL JUMP BACK ON. THAT SHOULD TAKE ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES, BUT I'LL HOLD ON. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN I WILL TAKE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT WON'T NEED YOU FOR THE NEXT 15 MINUTES. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. I'LL BE BACK AS SOON AS I CAN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ONE MORE THING. NUMBER. I'M READY TO MOVE ON. THERE'S NOT. THERE'S NOT BEEN A POINT OF ORDER TO LIMIT THE SPEECH. SO I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE MORE THING. OKAY? ONE THING THAT. CITY MANAGER WEST HAS BEEN DOING IS A CO-DIAGNOSTICS OF ALL OF OUR

[02:50:01]

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

I'LL HAND IT TO CHARLES, BUT I KNOW THAT VICTOR HAD STUFF TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE AS WELL.

YEAH, I TURNED THAT OVER TO STAFF TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY DEAL WITH PSC MORE THAN I DO. I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING THE MONEY FROM THEM FOR THE FRANCHISE FEES, BUT STAFF MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS TO VICTOR, DID AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS, AND I INCLUDED IT IN THE PACKET. SO HE'S HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING. BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF DOING A RED LINE COPY WITH ALL OF HIS IMPLEMENTING A LOT OF HIS DEALS, UNTIL WE GOT SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, ON WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? IF YOU READ THROUGH VICTOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE PSC FRANCHISE AGREEMENT? WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF QUESTIONS, BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE ANALYSIS OF RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, THAT'S GREAT. I THINK WE SHOULD WE SHOULD FIX THOSE THINGS. I'M 100% WITH YOU. IT DOES OCCUR TO ME, THOUGH, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD RAISE THE FRANCHISE FEES. AND MY CONCERN THERE IS REALLY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FRANCHISE FEES ARE NOT REALLY ABOUT THIS PROVIDER PAYING MONEY TO THE CITY BECAUSE THEY PASS IT THROUGH TO THE CONSUMERS. SO FRANCHISE FEES ARE REALLY A TAX ON OUR CITIZENS. AND, YOU KNOW, SO DO WE. ARE ARE THE FRANCHISE FEES FEES AT THE RIGHT LEVEL? YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOME REASON WHY WE NEED THEM TO BE MORE BECAUSE THIS SERVICE IS COSTING THE CITY MONEY AND WE NEED THEM TO BE MORE. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. BUT IT JUST RECOGNIZE IT'S NOT PSC THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE MONEY FROM.

IT'S OUR OWN CITIZENS THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE MONEY FROM. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THAT IS, WE LEAVE IT WHERE IT'S AT, WHICH IS 4%. AND. I THINK, MR. WEST, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FRANCHISE FEE USED TO BE 2%, BUT AS AN EFFORT TO HIDE THOSE EXPENSES FROM THE CITIZENS THROUGH TAXES, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID IS JUST RAISE THE FRANCHISE FEE WITH PSC TO 4% SO THAT WE COULD ARTIFICIALLY SHOW THE CITIZENS THAT WE HAVE A LOW TAX RATE, BUT IN REALITY, THEY'RE STILL PAYING THE SAME FEE. SO WE ARE FORCED TO NOT LOWER THAT THAT FRANCHISE FEE FROM 4 TO 2%, BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE A OVER $200,000 DEFICIT IN OUR BUDGET. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? OUR BUDGET IS BASED ON THE 4% INCREASE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T HERE WHEN IT WAS RAISED FROM 2% TO 4%, BUT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS 4%, SO I CAN'T I, I CAN'T GO BACK AND COMMENT ON THAT. BUT I WOULD COMMENT THAT EVEN IF WE LOWERED IT TO 2%, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A REDUCTION IN YOUR ELECTRIC BILL. YEAH. BUT I GUESS TO THAT POINT, OUR CURRENT BUDGET IS BASED ON A 4%, RIGHT? SO OKAY. YEAH, YOU'LL HAVE HER MAD IF YOU LOWER IT. I DID NOT HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR THIS. IS THERE.

WHAT ARE OUR NEXT STEPS? SO MAYBE I DID. MR. ROBERTS. THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON THE 4%. I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THIS DURING THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT SAME PERIOD. AND COUNCILMAN BENEFIELD, ON THE FLY, ASTUTELY RESEARCHED THE PROPOSITION OF LOWERING IT FROM 4 TO 2 AND FOUND THAT THE THE MARKET AND THE OTHER AREAS IN THE COMMUNITY WAS 4%. AND THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER. AND I WOULD, JUST AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN, ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO LOWER THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, MR. WEST, WHAT ARE OUR TIMELINE RIGHT NOW ON THIS PSC FRANCHISE AGREEMENT? IT'S GOING TO BE FINALIZED BY JUNE. WE CAN GET A

[02:55:02]

SO IT'S JUST KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH. SO THIS WILL PROBABLY BE ON THE AGENDA SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. OKAY. SO WE WE GOOD TO INCORPORATE WHAT VICTOR HAD ALREADY PUT FORWARD. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MY ONE ADDITIONS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. AND IT MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL ADDED ON TO IT THOUGH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DURING LIKE AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE ISSUES THAT WE HEARD, THE SD HAS DIRECT CONTACT WITH PSC AND THEY'RE INVOLVED. I THINK I SAW THAT GEORGETOWN REQUESTED THAT THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR A CONTACT WITH PSC, AND POSSIBLY HAD THEM THERE IN THE OPERATING CENTER WHEN THIS WAS GOING ON. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT FOR OUR REGION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE NICE TO FIND OUT. THAT WAS IN GEORGETOWN. YEAH, WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PSC FOR THE CITY NOW, WHETHER HE HAS AUTHORITY OVER EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, I HAVE NO IDEA. OKAY. SIR. NO. YEAH. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO REITERATE THAT. AND I THINK AS I WAS GOING THROUGH, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ACTUALLY CREATE LANGUAGE OR SEE WHAT THE SPECIFICS WERE ON THIS. WE'RE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING FREQUENT OUTAGES, ESPECIALLY IN TERA. AND THIS IS IMPACTED. I'LL JUST TELL YOU PERSONALLY, I KNOW OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE CRITICAL HEALTH NEEDS, AND IT'S IN THIS CASE, CAN IS ACTUALLY A LIFE THREATENING CHALLENGE. AND IF IT WAS ON OCCASION, THEN I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE THINGS WILL HAPPEN. YOU'VE GOT TO DO REPAIRS, ETCETERA. THINGS HAPPEN. BUT WHAT IT WAS RELAYED TO ME IS THAT IT HAS BEEN GONE, ONGOING, ALMOST LIKE CLOCKWORK. RIGHT? EVERY SIX WEEKS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. EVERY THREE, FOUR, SIX WEEKS. IT'S BEEN MIDDLE OF THE DAY A LOT OF TIMES. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON PORTABLE OXYGEN OR OXYGEN TANKS. I'VE LIKE OUR NUTRITION FEEDERS AND THEY HAVE ACTUALLY FILLED OUT THE FORMS AND SENT THEM IN TO BECK, STATING THAT THEY ARE NOT TO HAVE EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PAY A BILL, THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR ELECTRICITY SHUT OFF. BUT IT'S JUST RANDOM. YEAH. THE OUTAGES. AND SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WAS THERE? AND FORGIVE ME IF YOU ADDRESS THIS IN THERE, BUT COMMUNICATION IS TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES AND THE FIXES AND TIMELINES. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IF THERE IS A RECURRING, YOU KNOW, IS THAT AN END OF LIFE THING? I WOULDN'T THINK SO TO SEE THOSE FAIRLY NEW. BUT IF THEY HAVE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS CONTINUALLY FAILING. I MEAN, THE ONE THING THAT WE ASK OF VICTOR AND VANESSA IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE, REPLACE, ETC. SO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES THAT ARE LEADING TO THESE ONGOING OUTAGES, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT. SO IF THERE'S A WAY TO PUT A PROVISION ABOUT COMMUNICATION IN REGARD TO IF THERE'S SO MANY OUTAGES WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME ON A FREQUENT BASIS, POTENTIALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN PUT IN A CONTRACT. DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IT IS ASKED OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO REPORT THAT, AND THAT IF THIS CONTINUES TO RECUR, THAT WE ARE INTIMATELY COMMUNICATED WITH IN REGARD TO WHAT THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME IS, SO THAT THESE ROLLING OUTAGES EFFECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, WILL CEASE FOR OUR RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. HALL. WELL, I AGREE, I'M CONCERNED. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THESE THESE OUTAGES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE WHAT WHAT THE STATUS OF THEIR SYSTEM IS, HOW WELL THEY'RE MAINTAINING IT, WHAT GROWTH THAT THEY HAVE PROJECTED, WHAT ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OR WHATEVER THAT THEY NEED TO PUT INTO PLACE TO HANDLE POPULATION GROWTH AND, AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PREVENT THESE OUTAGES GOING FORWARD. SO THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S A LITTLE BIT BEYOND JUST HAVING THE CONTRACT. IT'S WHAT IS WHAT IS THE STATUS OF OF THEIR THEIR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. MR. BLACKWOOD YEAH. JUST TO COMMENT ON OR PIGGYBACK ON BOTH OF THOSE, I'D LIKE TO SEE A COMMITMENT FROM PC TO UPDATE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE MORE UNDERGROUND. YOU KNOW, MUCH OF OUR OVERHEAD LINES ARE AGING. AND AS THEY BRING IN AND DEVELOP MORE OF OUR AREA, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THAT UNDERGROUND SO IT'S MORE SUSTAINABLE. MR. PRINCE, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC, I RECALL MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, AND IT'S BEEN, AS YOU MAY HAVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS, THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE WAS TALKING ABOUT, IS THERE AN

[03:00:01]

[X.5. Discussion and workshop regarding the City’s Fiscal and Budget Policy.]

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? MAYOR PRO TEM. SO AND LET ME JUST STATE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO ANOTHER DEEP DIVE THAT AND THEN I'LL PUT ANY COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD ABOUT THIS.

BUT ONE OF THE GAPS POTENTIALLY IS IN REGARD TO OUR CIP LINKAGE AND HOW THAT CONNECTS. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY BRAINSTORM OR RELOOK AT THAT IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE HAD BETWEEN THE MONEY AND HOW IT'S MOVING. ET-CETERA I KNOW THAT IN PARTICULAR, WHEN I ASK QUESTIONS AND OR NICOLE HAS TO GO, WELL, IT DEPENDS. AND SO MAYBE WE CAN TIGHTEN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT OR AT LEAST PROVIDE A WAY OR A GUIDE SO THAT, AS I KEEP HARPING ON IN REGARD TO A REPORT OR DASHBOARD, REALLY FOR CITY COUNCIL DECISION MAKING, NOT ONLY FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET YEAR BUT FOR FUTURE YEARS AS WELL. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY, I GUESS, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, TO MAYBE PROVIDE SOME OF THOSE LINKAGES THAT WOULD MAKE THAT POSSIBLE. YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE WORKING ON ON THE CIP PROJECT IS TO LIST OUT HOW EACH PROJECT IS FUNDED, WHERE THAT FUNDING IS GOING TO COME FROM. MR. ROBERTS WILL BE PROUD.

ONE THING THAT I RAN THROUGH CHATGPT, AND ONE THAT I KIND OF AGREE WITH BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HAVING SIGNED CHECKS A LITTLE BIT MORE NOW SINCE BECOMING MAYOR, WAS A POTENTIAL REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY COUNCIL WHEN A CUMULATIVE SPENDING WITH THE SAME VENDOR EXCEEDS $50,000.

SO WHEN WE'RE SIGNING CHECKS, A LOT OF TIMES WE SEE THE SAME VENDOR A LOT OF TIMES. AND THERE'S A CONCERN IN SOME CITIES THAT YOU COULD BE TRYING TO BREAK UP PURCHASES SO THAT YOU STAY BELOW THE $50,000 THRESHOLD, BUT REALLY, IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME, THE SAME PROJECT. SO TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT, OR AT LEAST TO GIVE COUNCIL EYES ON IT, YOU PUT SOMETHING IN THE POLICY THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE SEEING THE SAME VENDOR FOR A HUGE AMOUNT OVER 50,000. ONE NOTE I DO HAVE, MAYOR IS TO ADD OR MR. PRINCE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BROUGHT FORTH SHOWS HOW THEY ARE FUNDED. YEAH, UNDER UNDER THE UMBRELLA. OF KEEPING THE BUDGET REQUIREMENT OF OUR CHARTER, THAT BUDGET MUST BE BALANCED. YES. SO SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO ONE OF THE GAPS THAT I HAD IN HERE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND ESPECIALLY BASED ON BANESTO AND TALKING ABOUT A REPAIR, THAT WE NEED 2 TO 300,000, YOU KNOW, IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, IS THAT WITHIN OUR POLICY OR BUDGET AMENDMENTS, ADDRESSING THOSE EMERGENCIES OR RECURRING FORECAST GAPS? SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER PLACE I'M

[03:05:04]

THANK YOU. AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBER AND MAYOR PRO TEM ON, I AGREE, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND AROUND THIS DOCUMENT ON THE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND POTENTIALLY DO SOME PRETTY MAJOR CHANGES TO IT. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU ALL, OR SOME OF YOU ANYWAY, WILL RECALL THAT LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO I, I PUT TOGETHER A, I DON'T KNOW, A TEN PAGE POWERPOINT DOCUMENT PROPOSING A PROCESS FOR BUDGETING AND THAT'S NOT CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT AT ALL. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT MAKES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE OPERATING BUDGET, THERE'S A SECTION 22A IS COMPREHENSIVE SLASH STRATEGIC PLANNING. AND IT TALKS IN THERE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE MAYBE I'M IN THE WRONG SECTION. OH NO IT'S IT'S PREPARATION. SO IT'S TO BE UNDER PREPARATION. THE CHIEF QUOTE THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PRIOR TO AUGUST 1ST OF EACH YEAR, SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COUNCIL A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ENSUING FISCAL YEAR AND AN ACCOMPANYING BUDGET MESSAGE. AND IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING HAPPENING BEFORE THAT. AND THE PROPOSAL THAT I HAD SUGGESTED WAS COUNCIL SHOULD START FROM KIND OF GIVING GUIDANCE. DO WE THINK IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO RAISE TAXES OR DO TAXES NEED TO BE REDUCED OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT'S THE LAY OF THE LAND AND, AND GIVE SOME COUNSEL SHOULD START BY GIVING SOME GUIDANCE AND THEN IT SHOULD BE AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS. SO I THINK WE NEED SOME MAJOR SURGERY ON THIS DOCUMENT. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW WE'RE DOING, GOING TO DO ACCOUNTING AND MANAGE OUR OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR CREDIT CARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. RIGHT.

AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO BE UPDATED. BUT THIS KIND OF BIG PICTURE OF HOW WE WANT TO DO BUDGETING, I THINK, IS REALLY IN MY MIND. WE HAD AGREED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE DOING BUDGETING THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. AND I AGREE WITH THAT, AND I LIKE THAT. MY HOPE IS THEN COUNCIL PRINCE, MAYBE YOU CAN START THAT DISCUSSION BOARD THREAD FOR THIS DOCUMENT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM. THE NEXT ONE IS CLOSELY RELATED. ITEM NUMBER SIX DISCUSSION AND WORKSHOP

[X.6. Discussion and workshop regarding the City’s Purchasing and Procurement Policy.]

[03:10:01]

[X.7. Discussion of a proposed resolution requesting Travis County funding under SB 3 for emergency siren funding.]

AND SO I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO HEAR HERE FIRST AND HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT THAT IS AND WHY IT MIGHT BE ON THE 15TH. AND ALL THAT REALLY WOULD BE IS A PROCEDURAL THING OF SENDING THEM THE RESOLUTION, SAYING WE ARE READY AND WILLING TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT. IF WE ARE APPROVED, IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE THE APPROVAL OR ANY OF THAT. YET. IT'S JUST CHECKING THE BUREAUCRACY BOXES SO THAT WE CAN STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME. YEAH, IF I CAN JUST REITERATE, STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME, BECAUSE MUCH OF THE TIME WHEN I'VE PURSUED GRANTS, NOT ONLY HERE OR FOR GRANTS, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME WE GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER, IF WE ARE NOT AHEAD OF THE GAME, THEN THOSE ALLOCATIONS ARE ALREADY EXPENDED, OTHER CITIES WHO ARE ON THE GAME. AND SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD. AND LET'S GET THIS DONE QUICKLY. YEAH, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS. WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THERE WAS A LOT OF. PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS AND OPINING ON HOW EFFECTIVE A SETUP OF SIRENS WOULD BE. AND THE COST WAS QUITE HIGH. I'LL SAY THAT SIRENS THAT ARE NOT PERFECT ARE BETTER THAN NO SIRENS, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM, THEN LET'S GO AFTER A FULL FORCE. YOU KNOW, IT WAS REALLY ABOUT THE THE COST TO BENEFIT RATIO THAT I THINK KEPT US FROM SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE, I'LL SAY PERFECT, BUT DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE NOT PERFECT, BUT STILL BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IS, IS, I THINK, A STEP IN THE ABSOLUTELY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. MR. HALL, I WOULD JUST AGREE THAT WE WE LIVE IN AN AREA WITH WE'RE BLESSED WITH GREAT FORESTS AND AND WE ARE VULNERABLE TO WILDFIRES. AND THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE TIME TO NOTIFY AND ALERT THE POPULATION IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE WAY OF GETTING EVERYBODY NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND GETTING ACTION PROMPTLY. AND AND IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US TO DO.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE SAID. AND I GUESS ONE QUESTION I HAVE, AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WILL DETERMINE, ARE THERE DIFFERENT SOUNDS TO THE SIRENS AVAILABLE?

[03:15:03]

[XII. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

[03:20:04]

THAT SUMMARY WAS NOT CREATED BY THE CITY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US. IT WAS SO IT FREESE AND NICHOLS PROVIDED IT THE WAY THAT THEY DID THEIR SCOPE AND TIMELINE FOR THE PROJECT.

DOESN'T MAKE IT EASY TO SCHEDULE THINGS, BECAUSE IT WAS A SMALLER SCOPE OF WORK FOR THEM. AND SO THE WAY THAT THE DEADLINES HAVE BEEN STAGGERED WITH WHERE THEIR MEETINGS HAVE BEEN STAGGERED, AND IT HASN'T BEEN PRUDENT TO HOW WE SCHEDULE OUR MEETINGS WITH BOARDS. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE GOT THE SUMMARY. AND IN ORDER TO GET THE SUMMARY IN FRONT AS A JOINT WORKSHOP, PNC HAS TO RECOMMEND IT. AND SO OUR TIMING IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET WITH THE SCHEDULE THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED US. SO THE FULL REPORT AGAIN JANUARY 20TH, WE WILL MAKE IT AS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AS WE CAN, WHETHER THAT'S POSTING IT ON THE WEBSITE, SENDING IT DIRECTLY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE'LL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE IT PUBLIC. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE 30 DAYS AFTER THE RESCHEDULED JOB. I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION OF DOING A SUBGROUP RATHER THAN A JOINT SESSION, BECAUSE I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT A FIRST RUN THROUGH OF THIS WITH A JOINT SESSION OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE IS GOING TO REALLY COME OUT WITH A GOOD PRODUCT. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE A

[03:25:06]

I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAILURE ON THEM SO MUCH AS A FAILURE OF OUR CODE TO BE TRANSPARENT AND CLEAN. A LOT OF THE REPORT WE HAVE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES, AS I'M SURE WE'RE ALL AWARE OF. WE HAVE ISSUES WITH CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE NOT BEST PRACTICE ANYMORE THAT WE'RE STILL DOING. THERE'S NOT CLEAR GUIDANCE ON APPLICATIONS. WE HAVE STUFF IN SECTIONS THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE, BUT IT APPLIES KIND OF BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF IN A SECTION THAT, YOU KNOW, BRIEFLY TALKS ABOUT SOMETHING AND IT'S JUST NOT I DON'T KNOW IF THE STAFF AND BOARD AND COMMISSION TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO FIX THESE DETAILS IS WORTH THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO JUST DO A REWRITE AND MAKE SURE IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT FROM SCRATCH, AND A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE INSTEAD OF JUST ORDINANCES. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. ELSEWISE. BUT IT'S IT'S A PRETTY BIG UNDERTAKING TO TRY TO CORRECT WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD OF JUST CHAPTER BY CHAPTER REWRITE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE.

WHEN WE ADOPT NEW ORDINANCES, WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS UNDER THOSE ORDINANCES, THEY GET LOCKED IN TO THOSE ORDINANCES. AND SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY COGNIZANT WHEN WE'RE DOING WHEN WE'RE CORRECTING ISSUES VERSUS A REWRITE AND WHEN THINGS GET PASSED AND APPROVED. BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE ADOPT AN ORDINANCE NOW, TODAY, AND THEN IN SIX MONTHS WE ADOPT A REWRITE, WHICH THAT'S VERY MUCH WISHFUL THINKING. PLEASE DO NOT HOLD ME TO THAT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM FOR THIS SIX MONTH PERIOD. ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS

[03:30:04]

AND I THINK FOR ME, THERE'S PARTS OF THE CODE THAT ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND THEN THERE'S STUFF THAT IS DEFINITELY MORE TECHNICAL AND WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER SUITED TO BE OUTSOURCED. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO SEND THE WHOLE THING OUT. BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT, I MEAN, AND THERE'S THERE'S ALSO UNIFORM CODE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN STICK WITH THAT WITH OTHER CITIES. THAT WOULD BE EASY. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT PORTION OF IT. BUT YEAH. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT FOR FOR GIVING ALL DIFFERENT OPTIONS. OKAY. THE OTHER ONE IS I KNOW I MADE MY FIRST VISIT TO THE STAFF MEETING THIS MORNING AND BROUGHT UP THE TRANSFER FROM MGO TO CIVIC PLUS. DO YOU HAVE ANY THING TO SAY ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE I KNOW SOME CITIZENS WHO ACTUALLY USE MGO AND BEEN WONDERING WHEN'S THAT TRANSITION GOING TO HAPPEN AND WHAT'S THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? SO WE DON'T HAVE A SET DATE ON WHEN IT'S HAPPENING. WE HAVE TO DO ABOUT 30 HOURS OF TRAINING ON THE SOFTWARE IN ADVANCE, AND THEN WE MOVE INTO THE MIGRATION PHASE OF IT. AND THEN FROM THE MIGRATION, WE HAVE TO TEST IT FROM OUR END, TEST IT FROM THE PUBLIC SIDE BEFORE IT CAN EVEN GO LIVE. SO WE'VE STARTED THE TRAININGS. THOSE KICKED OFF BEFORE THE NEW YEAR. AND SO WE'RE GETTING THROUGH THOSE.

REASONABLY SPEAKING, I WOULD SAY 6 TO 8 MONTHS BEFORE WE'RE LIVE, BUT A LOT OF IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE MIGRATION. BECAUSE IF WE'RE STARTING TO LOSE DATA, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RESTART AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT. AND THEN THE AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS, GOING TO NEW SOFTWARE, IT'S NOT FUN STUFF GOES WRONG. AND SO REASONABLY I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT 6 TO 8 MONTHS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. NO OTHER STAFF REPORTS THAT I'LL MOVE TO BE ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL BOARD COMMISSION COMMITTEE LIAISONS I'LL START DOWN THERE WITH MR. HALL. NO, NO ROUTINE REPORTS, MR. BENNEFIELD. YES, SIR. THE ONLY REPORTS I HAVE IS I HAVEN'T HAD ANY MEETINGS YET, BUT THERE WILL BE A BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS MEETING TOMORROW. LIBRARY IS IS SET TO MEET FOR THE FIRST QUARTER. IT'S GOING TO BE ON NEXT MONDAY AND CBLB ARE IS MEETING ON THURSDAY EVENING. SO I'LL BE ABLE TO REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON THOSE THREE. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MET YESTERDAY. AND THROUGH A MIRACLE WE HAD ALL SEATS SEATED IN ORDER TO DO THAT BUSINESS. AND SO THAT IS ON POINT IN TERMS OF THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC. BECAUSE LAST NIGHT THE DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF HOW OUR CODE CAN BE CONSTRUED WAS IN FULL

[03:35:07]

THERE'S BEEN A SMALL WORK GROUP OF THEM THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING ON A DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. AS YOU RECALL, WE HAVE NOT BEEN UNDER ONE WITH THE AIRPORT FOR AT LEAST A YEAR NOW. SO I'M NOT PROMISING THAT ONE'S GOING TO GO FOR. BUT THEY ARE WORKING ON ONE, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING SOON TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. IT'S I KNOW FOR STEVE AND JAMES AND LINDA AND ALL THEM, IT'S BEEN A REALLY HEAVY LIFT. THEY'VE SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME ON THIS AND THERE'S A LOT OF STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT IT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'RE PUTTING INTO IT. AND THEN THE DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THAT, ERIC? OH, I CAN ASK THAT MAN. GREAT IDEA. AND THE OTHER PART IS, YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE FAA THAT I THINK WAS A MIXED THERE WAS POSITIVE AND SOME OTHER IN THERE THAT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE TAKE CARE OF SOME THINGS, THE FUNDING IS COMING OUR WAY FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE NEEDED UP THERE. THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IS SORT OF PART OF ONE OF THE THINGS THE FAA ASKED FOR. BUT THE OTHER PART WAS THEY SAID OTHER THAN THAT, IT APPEARS TO BE FINE WITH US. THEY JUST ASK THAT WE WORK THROUGH TEXTILE ON A LOT OF THINGS. SO I SEE A LOT OF POSITIVES COMING FROM THE AIRPORT. WE DID GET A GRANT FROM THE TECH STOCK TO REPLACE OUR LOSS THIS YEAR. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S HUGE. THE OTHER MY UNOFFICIAL LIAISON POSITION, THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK TO GET US SOME FEDERAL FUNDING. ON MONDAY, THE CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CAME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, AND IT INCLUDES $750,000 FOR LAGO VISTA'S WASTEWATER EXPANSION. THAT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T PAY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PROJECT.

BUT WHAT'S HUGE ABOUT THAT IS ONE, IT'S NOT THAT EASY TO GET MONEY THROUGH CONGRESS, BUT TWO, IT'LL GO THROUGH THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THROUGH THE STATE REVOLVING FUND, THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS THAT WE ARE APPLYING THROUGH, THE ONES THAT ERNESTO IS WORKING ON THE APPLICATION. SO INCLUDING THAT THE FEDS HAVE ALREADY VETTED OUR PROJECT AND ARE GIVING US

[03:40:03]

AND THEN THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT. THEY'VE ALREADY DONE ALL THE BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT. SO I'M PRETTY EXCITING TO GET TO THAT POINT. AND THEN IN MARCH AND APRIL WE CAN MAKE A NEW REQUEST FOR OUR DRINKING WATER WHEN I'M ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU. I'M GOOD. GREAT. NOTHING TO REPORT. NOW, THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE NEXT MEETING IS NEXT WEDNESDAY, SO WE'LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT IN OUR NEXT MEETING. CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAD A MEETING A FEW WEEKS BACK, AND I'LL ASK ROBERT AND JEAN TO MAKE SURE I DON'T MISS ANYTHING OR MISREPRESENT ANYTHING HERE.

BUT THERE WAS A PRETTY ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND TERM LIMITS AND TERM LENGTH TWO VERSUS THREE YEAR. YOU MAY THOSE OF YOU WHO SAW THEIR RECOMMENDATION THEY BROUGHT IN LAST YEAR MAY RECALL THEY HAD A RECOMMENDATION AROUND THREE YEAR GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS. BUT THEY AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT WAS A BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. THEY THEY OPTED TO LEAVE TERM LIMITS OFF. SO THEY HAD REVISITED THAT. AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS WAS TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. IT WAS KIND OF A SPLIT DECISION ON TWO VERSUS THREE YEARS. IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE AMONG THE FIVE. AND BUT THEY ASKED ME AND I'M OVERDUE ON INITIATING THIS. THEY ASKED ME TO INITIATE A CONVERSATION ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD AROUND THIS TOPIC, AND THEY EXPLICITLY SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF CRC SAID, WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR COUNCIL TO TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD RECOMMEND BACK TO COUNCIL, BUT THIS IS SUCH A THORNY ISSUE. I THINK THEY JUST WANT US TO GET STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME. RIGHT.

AND SO SO THAT IS A COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD THAT THAT I OVERDUE. I PROMISE THEM I'LL INITIATE. AND SO I'LL DO THAT AND INVITE YOU GUYS TO SPEND SOME TIME THINKING AND COMMENTING ON THAT. THERE WAS ALSO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ROUND OF ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COUNCIL INTERACTION WITH STAFF MODEL. AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT THAT CAME OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION THAN WHAT WE HAD SEEN FROM THEM IN THE PAST. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING ANY ACTION FROM ME AS LIAISON ON THAT. DID I GET STUFF RIGHT THERE? ROBERT JEAN, ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? NO. THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION, WHICH YOU MAY BE. ALL OVER THE MINUTES WEEKS AGO. OKAY, WELL, REMIND ME OR REMIND MR. HALL TOMORROW NIGHT AND WE'LL GET THAT SORTED OUT IN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

OKAY. THAT MY BEST IS CLEAR. IF I HEAR NO OBJECTION, THEN I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 7:42 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.