[I.CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [00:00:10]
          MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ORDER. IT IS 2 P.M. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. I HAVE ALL COUNCIL 
          [II.EXECUTIVE SESSION]
MEMBERS HERE. BUT COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. AND THE FIRST THING THAT WE WILL BE DOING IS GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL CONVENE INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO ONE CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072 CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 FOR RENT RENDITION OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO ZONING DESIGNATIONS, SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND PROCESS FOR CHANGING AND APPROVAL THEREOF. CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 FOR THE RENDITION OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO NOTICE OF CLAIM AND DEMAND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION BY A BENEFIELD AND ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED THERETO. COUNSELORS. IS THERE ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEMS THAT Y'ALL INTEND TO BRING UP FOR LEGAL DISCUSSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? OKAY, WITH THAT, WE WILL ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COUNCIL IS NOW RETURNING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE TIME IS 
          [III.ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS]
4 P.M. PLEASE NOTE, WE HAVE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, AND WE WILL GO INTO ITEM THREE ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. I'LL READ THESE IN ORDER. NUMBER ONE, CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072. 
          IS THERE ANY ACTION? MAYOR. NO. ACTION. NO. ACTION. ITEM TWO CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. FOR THE RENDITION OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO NOTICE OF CLAIM AND DEMAND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION BY A BENEFIELD AND ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED THERETO. IS THERE ANY ACTION? MAYOR. NO. ACTION ITEM THREE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 FOR RENDITION OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO ZONING DESIGNATION, SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND PROCESS FOR CHANGING AND APPROVAL THEREOF. IS THERE ANY ACTION, MAYOR, ON THIS ONE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE TABLE OF ALLOWED USES OF C-1, SPECIFICALLY TO PUT IN INDOOR INVENTORY STORAGE, WHICH ALSO CREATES AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE C-2 AND C-3 CATEGORY AS WELL. I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND TO THE PLEDGE OF THE TEXAS FLAG. PLEASE RISE. 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. AND NOW TO THE TEXAS FLAG. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. AND IF YOU PLEASE STAY STANDING, WE HAVE THE INVOCATION. AND WE HAVE COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. 
          BEFORE I START INVOCATION, I'D LIKE. MEANING WITH GRATITUDE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. MAY WE APPROACH TONIGHT'S DISCUSSIONS WITH WISDOM, PATIENCE AND INTEGRITY. 
          HELP US TO LISTEN WITH OPEN MINDS, SPEAK WITH RESPECT AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT REFLECT FAIRNESS, COMPASSION, AND LONG TERM VISION. MAY WE REMEMBER THAT OUR ROLE IS STEWARDSHIP OF OUR CITY'S RESOURCES, ITS FUTURE, AND THE TRUST PLACED IN US BY OUR RESIDENTS. GUIDE OUR WORK SO IT STRENGTHENS OUR COMMUNITY AND HONORS DIVERSE VOICES WE REPRESENT. AMEN. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA, AND OUR CONDOLENCES. THANK YOU. NEXT I WILL GO TO CITIZEN 
          [VI.CITIZEN COMMENTS]
COMMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING ACT, COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM ACTING OR DISCUSSING ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. TO PARTICIPATE IN CITIZEN'S COMMENTS PORTION OF THE MEETING, YOU MUST SUBMIT A COMPLETED FORM. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING THE MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YOU MUST COMPLETE THE FORM AVAILABLE AT THE LOCATION AND PROVIDED TO THE MAYOR PRIOR TO START OF THE MEETING. THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. I HAVE TWO THAT ARE NON AGENDA ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE I HAVE DAVID VAUGHN WORKING. 
          MAYOR. I'M GOING TO YIELD MY TIME TO HIM. OKAY, SURE. OKAY. IF THERE'S A GREEN LIGHT YOU 
          [00:05:13]
SHOULD HAVE A GREEN LIGHT. DO WE HAVE A TIMER. I GOTTA DO IT MANUALLY. OKAY, JUST GIVE US A MOMENT TO PUT A TIMER FOR. UNLESS YOU THINK YOU'LL STAY UNDER SIX MINUTES, I. OKAY, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD? AND THIS IS BROKEN WITH NO PLANNING. BUT IT HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF CONTENTION THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED FOR MANY MONTHS. BUT NOW IT'S KIND OF EXPLODED INTO THE FOREFRONT WHERE MORE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING INTO WHAT CAMERAS ARE POPPING UP AND DELIBERATING, AND IT'S BEGUN TO SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SECURITY ISSUES RELATED TO THESE. I MEAN, AD HOC, THIS WHOLE THING, THERE'S A POWER WITHOUT CONSENT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE CAN PAUSE REAL QUICK WHILE WE FIX YOUR MICROPHONE. WHILE WE'RE WAITING. JULIE BUNDGAARD WAS IT DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE PGD ITEM? THE HOTEL? I'M RIGHT HERE, YES I CAN WELL, NOT RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST VERIFYING IT WASN'T WRITTEN ON YOUR CARD. SO THAT'S THE ITEM THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON LATER? YES. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. CHECK, CHECK. 12AB. THERE WE GO. NICE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN GO. ALL RIGHT. 407. SO THE THE PUBLIC CONCERN COMES FROM THE FACT THAT ANY OF THESE SURVEILLANCE ITEMS END UP CIRCUMVENTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ABOUT CONSENT AND WARRANTS AND SEARCHES, AND NO ONE'S NO ONE'S ARGUING THAT WE DON'T WANT MORE SURVEILLANCE TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY, CHILDREN, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE CAMERAS ARE WILDLY INSECURE, SUPER EASY TO HACK. I MEAN, YOU CAN GET IT. I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T DESCRIBE HOW TO DO IT, BUT THERE'S SEVEN STEPS AND THEN YOU'RE IN. AND IF I CAN, IN JUST SPARE TIME IN A FIVE MINUTE SEARCH, GOOGLE HOW TO GET ON AND THEN JUST WATCH, SAY THE ONE IN FRONT OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, WHICH IS JUST AIMED AT OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL GIRLS WORKING OUT ALL DAY. YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF A PROBLEM. AND THERE'S CURRENT LAWSUITS AGAINST BLOCK FOR PEOPLE ACCESSING THESE STALKERS, EXES, CRIMINALS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS. AND THE PROLIFERATION OF AI TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE ONLINE, YOU CAN SIMPLY GET ON, DO FACIAL RECOGNITION AND YOU GET AN ENTIRE PROFILE OF SOMEONE'S LIVELIHOOD. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE CONFLATING IT'S JUST A LICENSE PLATE READER VERSUS A FLOCK CAMERA. THESE ARE OWNED BY FLOCK. AND THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT THEM AS A COMPANY ARE CAUGHT TIME AND AGAIN MISREPRESENTING WHAT THEY DO, MIS SELLING WHAT THEY DO, AND JUST TRYING TO WIGGLE THEIR WAY IN TO GET CONTRACTS, YADA YADA. SO POWER WITH CONSENT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS. IT'S TRACKING EVERYONE'S MOVEMENTS. NO ONE ASKED FOR IT. 
          THERE'S IT'S WARRANTLESS. IT IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT IT'S IMPROPERLY USED. AND IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL ON STAFF WHO HAVE DOCUMENTED CASES OF HARASSMENT, STALKING, WHO CURRENTLY HAVE ACCESS TO THIS TOOL, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO KNOWN BAD ACTORS ARE JUST LIKE RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF THE HAT, A BAD PROBLEM, UNKNOWN BAD ACTORS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, BUT WE SHOULD MAYBE NOT HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IS SCRIPT KIDDY ACCESSIBLE WHERE A 12 YEAR OLD 
          [00:10:03]
CAN GET IN, NOT ONLY VIEW THE FILES AND GET EVERYONE'S ENTIRE SNAIL TRAIL OF WHERE THEY GO EVERY DAY, WHAT STORES THEY SHOP AT, WHAT MOOD THEY WERE IN, WHAT THEY WERE SCROLLING ON THEIR PHONE, LOOKING AT WHILE THEY'RE WALKING DOWN THE ROAD. NOT ONLY JUST THIS, BUT YOU CAN JUST GO IN AND EDIT THE FOOTAGE. THEREFORE, SOMEONE CAN BUILD A FALSE CASE AGAINST YOU, WHICH JUST HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON BY UPLOADING FOOTAGE, EDITING IT WITH AI, THE LIST GOES ON. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS ABOUT IT. AND IT'S NOT THAT ME OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE AGAINST SURVEILLANCE. WE'RE AGAINST A THIRD PARTY WITH NO OVERSIGHT, WITH NO SAFEGUARDS. 
          HAVING ALL THIS DATA COLLECTED ON CITIZENS AND HANDING IT OUT HAPHAZARDLY ON ACCIDENT FOR FREE. AGAIN, THIS I PERSONALLY WOULDN'T EVEN LIKE IT IF THERE WERE JUST OWNED BY THE PD ONLY, BUT AT LEAST THEN IT WOULD BE ON A PROTECTED SERVER. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT WITH THE FLOCK CAMERAS. AND IF YOU ADD THE ISSUES OF PUBLIC DISTRUST WITH THE CITY, GENERAL DISTRUST WITH AI TECHNOLOGY, TOOLS AND UNDERSTANDING OF NEW LAWS THAT SURROUND THIS DATA, AND THEN YOU ADD ON TOP THAT PEOPLE ARE GENUINELY OFF BY THESE THINGS. I DON'T WANT TO PAY TAX MONEY TO REPLACE THE 1 OR 2 THAT APPARENTLY GOT KNOCKED DOWN. I DIDN'T DO IT, BUT IT I, I AM NOT GOING TO PRETEND THAT I DON'T FIND IT FUNNY AND I REALLY, I REALLY HOPE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP HAVING TO PAY TO REPLACE THESE THINGS, BECAUSE I GUARANTEE THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. I MEAN, PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED ON. THE THE OTHER ISSUE ABOUT FLOCK, WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE I'VE STILL GOT SOME TIME. IT ISN'T JUST THE LICENSE PLATE READER VERSUS THE FULL SWIVEL CAMERAS. 
          THERE'S THERE'S SCOPE CREEP. THERE'S RIGHTS CREEP. IF WE'RE ALREADY SUBSCRIBED AND PAYING MONTHLY FOR THESE PEOPLE TO JUST GIVE THEM DATA THAT WE REALLY CAN'T USE THAT MUCH. YAY! IT HELPS PEOPLE REPAIR THEIR CARS. AND MAYBE WHEN A CAR IS STOLEN, WE GET TO CONFIRM, YEP, THAT CAR WAS STOLEN AND STILL NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT THE THE RIGHTS ARE THERE BY FLOCK AND THE WAY THEY VERY EGREGIOUSLY SET UP THEIR DOCUMENTATION AND THEIR CONTRACTS WITH CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, THEY KIND OF HAVE AN OPEN DOOR TO CONTINUE EXTENDING THEIR REACH FURTHER AND FURTHER OVERREACHING AS FAR AS THEY WANT. SO IT'S NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF LICENSE PLATE READERS. MAYBE THOSE ONES AREN'T ZOOMING IN ON OUR PHONE, OKAY, BUT THEY CAN STILL HEAR 200M AWAY INSIDE OF YOUR HOUSE. THAT'S FOR GUNSHOT DETECTION, WHICH IS WRONG 99 OR SORRY 92% OF THE TIME. DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE 90S. 
          BUT IT'S IT'S JUST WILDLY THERE'S NO SAFEGUARDS. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT ESTABLISHED IN PUBLIC TRUST. AND IF PEOPLE ALREADY IF RING HAS PULLED OUT OF THEIR CONTRACT WITH FLOCK BECAUSE FLOCK ISN'T DOING A GOOD JOB AT PROTECTING PRIVACY, RING WAS THE ONE RECENTLY SUED BECAUSE IT WAS JUST HANDING OUT INDOOR FOOTAGE OF PEOPLE IN THEIR PRIVATE TIMES IN THEIR BEDROOMS TO POLICE BECAUSE SOMEONE DOWN THE STREET TWO MILES AWAY STOLE A BIKE. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE ALL THE CAMERA FOOTAGE AND JUST SEE EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING AND THEN EXTRAPOLATE FROM THERE. I'M SURE I'M CLOSE TO SIX MINUTES. PLEASE CONSIDER NOT CONTINUING TO SPEND TAX DOLLARS ON FLOCK CAMERAS. GET OUR OWN. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAD EBS. ARE YOU ALL RIGHT? EBS WORKING. I THINK DAVID LOOKED AT MY SPEECH AND STOLE A LOT OF IT, BUT I'M GOING TO GO FOR IT ANYWAYS. WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE WE ARE WATCHED MORE THAN ANY OTHER GENERATION BEFORE US. THAT IS SIMPLY THE REALITY OF MODERN LIFE. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING TO LISTEN. BECAUSE OF THAT REALITY. THE LAST REMAINING PROTECTION WE HAVE IS CHOICE AND WHICH ENTITIES AND DEVICES WE SURROUND OURSELVES WITH. I HAD NO CHOICE IN THIS ONE. FLOCK CAMERAS COME WITH A LONG AND GROWING RECORD OF LAWSUITS, DATA MISUSE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PUBLIC TRUST IN THIS CITY TO JUSTIFY MASS SURVEILLANCE BY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT THAT TRUST WILL EXIST ANYTIME SOON. AND I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN QUESTIONING THIS ISSUE HAS A RIGHT TO FEEL THE WAY THAT THEY DO. THEY ARE EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO QUESTION SYSTEMS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WEAK POINTS. 
          FLOCK CAMERAS ARE NOT SECURE, WHETHER THROUGH COMPANY DATA SHARING PRACTICES OR BASIC HACKABILITY, THEY ARE VULNERABLE. BACK IN 2024, I TOOK A COURSE ON ETHICAL HACKING TO HELP JUMP START A CYBERSECURITY PROJECT. AND BY COURSE I MEAN THAT TERM VERY 
          [00:15:02]
LOOSELY BECAUSE I 100% TRAINED MYSELF WITH PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AI TOOLS, BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW THE RIGHT WORDS TO GET AROUND THE GUIDELINES, YOU CAN JUST DO THAT AND WITHIN HOURS, AND I DO MEAN HOURS. I HAD A CLICK BY CLICK WALKTHROUGH ON HOW TO LOOK AT VARIOUS CAMERAS AROUND THE COUNTRY OR EVEN AROUND THE WORLD. I PRETTY EXCITEDLY SHOWED MY HUSBAND, DAVID, CAMERAS THAT I COULD WATCH IN VARIOUS STATES, COUNTRIES, AND EVEN PEOPLE'S PRIVATE SECURITY SYSTEMS, MUCH LIKE FLOCK CAMERAS THAT WE HAVE HERE. NOW, I AM NOT SAYING THIS TO BRAG. I AM SAYING THIS TO WARN YOU BECAUSE I AM VERY AWARE OF HOW INSECURE THESE THINGS CAN BE. 
          IF A REGULAR CITIZEN WITH NO MALICIOUS INTENT CAN MANIPULATE AI TO SHOW THEM THE TO SHOW THEM THESE THINGS, SO CAN SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DOES MEAN HARM. THEREFORE, THESE THINGS BEING POINTED DOWN OUR MAIN STREETS AND AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, THAT IS NOT SAFETY. 
          THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER REALITY THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED. MULTIPLE WOMEN IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE SHARED THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING STALKED AND EVEN SEXUALLY HARASSED BY OTHERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, SOME OF WHICH IS FROM INSIDE OF OUR VERY OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          THOSE STORIES ARE NOT MINE TO TELL, BUT THEY DO EXIST. IT MAKES ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE TO KNOW WHERE THESE CAMERAS ARE, AND TO THINK OF WHO COULD BE WATCHING THEM, WHO HAS ACCESS TO THEM, AND WHO IS ALL BEING WATCHED WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. JUST THIS MORNING, I KNOW OF AT LEAST TWO CAMERAS THAT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE SPENT TO REPLACE THESE CAMERAS EVERY TIME THEY GET VANDALIZED, BECAUSE I CAN PROMISE YOU THEY WILL BE VANDALIZED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT TRUST THEM. 
          THIS IS NOT THE ONLY COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN, DUE TO THE PERCEPTION THAT THESE CAMERAS CARRY. AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO KEEP THEM, I JUST HOPE THAT THERE IS NOT A DISGRUNTLED CITIZEN SOMETIME IN YOUR POLITICAL CAREER WHO SEES IT AS THEIR DUTY TO PERFORM A POLITICAL HIT JOB ON YOU WITH DIRECT ACCESS WITH THESE SYSTEMS. ALL RIGHT, MISS, WE ARE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS. 
          SO WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE ON TO. THOSE WERE ALL TIED TO AN AGENDA ITEM. SEVEN ITEMS OF 
          [VII.ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
COMMUNITY INTEREST. I WILL START DOWN WITH MR. HALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS TO DISCUSS? TO DISCUSS? ALL RIGHT, MR. BENFIELD, MR. CHAVARRIA, I HAVE SOME IDEAS ON ALSO COMMUNITY ORIENTED, BUT THAT'LL BE OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, I SIMPLY WANT TO SAY BE ON THE LOOKOUT IF YOU'RE A GOLFER FOR THE LIONS GOLF TOURNAMENT COMING UP APRIL 11TH. THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE I KNOW THAT THERE'S A SURVEY OUT THERE FOR THE CIVIC ACADEMY, SO HOPEFULLY YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO FORM THAT PROGRAM. AND I THINK WE ALSO HAVE THE STREET SURVEY STILL OUT THERE TOO. SO PLEASE CHECK OUT FOR THOSE. CHARLES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU COVERED? WHAT I HAD? ALL RIGHT, MISS FINESSE. NO, NO, MR. PRINCE, ALL RIGHT. 
          AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO EIGHT OR. NO. WHAT DO WE HAVE? IT CALLED? SEVEN ONE PRESENTATIONS AND 
          [IX.1.Proclamation Declaring February, 2026, as Government Communicators Day in the City of Lago Vista.]
PROCLAMATIONS. I DO HAVE A PROCLAMATION HERE. PROCLAMATION DECLARING FEBRUARY 20TH, 2026 AS GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS DAY IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. AND I THINK WE WERE GOING TO HAVE AMANDA COME RECEIVE THIS. AND I CAN READ IT REAL QUICK. WHEREAS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONALS IS TO INFORM, EDUCATE AND ENGAGE THEIR COMMUNITIES. AND WHEREAS ROBUST COMMUNICATION AND GOVERNMENT CREATES TRUST AND INSPIRES RESIDENTS TO TAKE ACTION AND BE INVOLVED. AND WHEREAS GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS CREATE RELATIONSHIPS AND CALL TO ACTION, BUILD AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING THROUGH STORYTELLING. ENGAGE AND FOSTER ENGAGEMENT ON CIVIC ISSUES AND USE ALL CHANNELS TO INCLUDE PEOPLE IN CRITICAL DECISIONS. AND WHEREAS IT IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE STRONG COMMUNICATIONS IN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT IS A FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT OF LIVING IN A DEMOCRACY WHERE CITIZENS HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD. AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA IS PROUD AND HAS DEEP GRATITUDE AND RECOGNITION FOR GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS, PROFESSIONALISM, DEDICATION, HARD WORK, COMMITMENT, ENTHUSIASM AND SACRIFICE. NOW, THEREFORE, I, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY 20TH, 2026 AS GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS DAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE WILL 
          [VIII.1.25-2905-PDD-REZ: Open a Public Hearing for discussion on the rezoning of 19708 Boggy Ford Road, ABS189 SUR 98 CAMPBELL M F ACR 7.055 (AKA LOT 32 RAN CHOL CIELO) from TR-1 to a Planned Development District Rezoning pursuant to Section 10 Chapter 14 of the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances]
          [00:20:06]
NOW MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT, THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 125 2905 PD REZ. OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DISCUSSION ON THE REZONING OF 19708 BOGGY FORD ROAD, ABS 189 SR 98 CAMPBELL M F ACR 7.055, AKA LOT 32, RANCHO EL CIELO, FROM TR ONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. REZONING PURSUANT TO SECTION TEN, CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. CODE OF ORDINANCES. 
          BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL HAVE A STAFF REPORT FIRST. I BELIEVE JORDAN. 
          ALL RIGHT. MAYOR. SORRY, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A REZONING FROM TR ONE. 
          THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED BACK IN 2024 TO A PD THAT INCLUDES THE C2 BASE DISTRICT, WITH SOME ALLOWANCES ON OTHER THINGS, THE BIGGEST THING IS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESTAURANT, A HOTEL AND CASITAS, WHICH IS COVERED IN THIS PD. THEY HAVE ASKED FOR. IN THE AGREEMENT. 
          THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ON STAFF. I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A AGREEMENT FOR THE WATERSHED PROTECTION THAT GOES AWAY AFTER THEY'VE ANNEXED. 
          IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT DURING REVIEW, AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE DESIGN AND THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. FOR THIS, WE HAVE A TIA CURRENTLY IN REVIEW WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS. WE HAVE A MINOR PLAT CURRENTLY IN REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL. THE MINOR PLAT IS CLEANING UP SOME LINES AND EASEMENTS AND JUST MAKING IT A CLEAN SLATE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD. THOSE BOTH APPROVAL OF THOSE IS BASED OFF OF TONIGHT'S DECISIONS. AND SO THEY ARE IN OUR QUEUE. THEY ARE UNDER REVIEW. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS IN ADVANCE, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TO ADDRESS WHATEVER THERE MAY BE. MR. MAYOR, I HAD I HAD TEED UP A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT I SENT TO JORDAN AND, AND SOME OF THESE YOU AS STAFF REPRESENTATIVE MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER AND SOME WE MAY NEED TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER ANSWER YES AS WELL. AND SO FIRST, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU'LL HELP US ON COUNCIL AND CITIZENS UNDERSTAND SO SO THIS IS REALLY ABOUT APPROVING THE ZONING CHANGE FROM, FROM TIER ONE ZONED TO A PD. RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME CONCEPT DRAWINGS THAT ARE IN THE PACKAGE. AND SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS YOU KNOW WHAT ALL IF WE APPROVE THIS BE REZONED AS A PD. 
          WHAT ALL ARE WE APPROVING. ARE WE APPROVING THE CONCEPT. ARE WE APPROVING, YOU KNOW, WATER RIGHTS AND. YEAH. YEAH, I SEE MR. ROBERTS SHAKING HIS HEAD AND HE AND I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I WANT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE RECORD, LET'S LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING AND WHAT WOULD BE APPROVED LATER IN THE PROCESS AND WHAT THE STEPS WOULD BE FOR THAT. AND I'D JUST NOTE REAL QUICK THAT TONIGHT'S ITEM WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO THERE WON'T BE ANY APPROVALS OR NOT TONIGHT. THANK YOU. SO TODAY IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE ZONING. IT IS THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO HAVE THIS PD. THE CAVEATS IN THERE, THE 65 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS. THERE'S SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SIDEWALKS THAT I KNOW ARE TAKING PLACE. THE CONCEPT PLAN IS A BASE STRUCTURE FOR THE PD THAT THEY'RE USING. IF APPROVED, STAFF IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE SUBSTANTIVE OR SUBSTANTIVE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. WE CAN INCREASE INTENSITY. WE CAN'T INCREASE DENSITY, NOTHING TO THAT EFFECT. IT'S PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE ESQUE CHANGES THAT ARE TO BE MADE. THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN YOUR QUESTION. DID I HIT EVERYTHING OR AM I MISSING ANYTHING? NO. 
          THAT'S FINE. AND WE'LL MAYBE WE'LL GET TO IT MORE AND APOLOGIZE COUNCIL. BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE. SO HANG WITH ME AND YOUR QUESTIONS MAY FOLLOW ON TO THIS AS WELL. AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT AS LIAISON TO PLANNING AND ZONING, I WAS THERE WHEN PLANNING AND ZONING HAD THE DISCUSSION, AND THEY RECOGNIZED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT I'M GOING TO RAISE, KIND OF ON THEIR BEHALF. AND I THINK THEY WERE COUNTING ON COUNCIL TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND THIS. AND SO THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL THAT A PD ZONING BE APPLIED, THAT AS I HEARD THEIR DISCUSSION AND SAW THEIR VOTE, THAT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE APPROVING THE DETAILS OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AS SHOWN HERE. IN FACT, THEY HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE CONCEPT PLANNING HERE. SO YOU SAID IN ANSWER TO ONE OF THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTION, WAS THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN AS SHOWN HERE WOULD KIND OF BE I'LL REPHRASE THE STARTING POINT. IT COULDN'T GET MORE DENSE. IT COULDN'T GET BIGGER. ON THE FLIP SIDE, AS WE GO FURTHER ALONG IS COUNCIL DEFACTO? IF OR WHEN WE DO APPROVE IT AFTER TONIGHT'S 
          [00:25:06]
DISCUSSION AND IN A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, WOULD WE BE SORT OF SETTING THE EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE APPROVING THIS, OR COULD WE IN THE FUTURE SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE HALF OR A QUARTER OF THIS SIZE. IT NEEDS TO BE A WHOLE LOT SMALLER THAN 65FT TALL. YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT WHAT IN THE IN THE IN THE PARING DOWN SPACE CAN HAPPEN OVER THE COURSE OF FUTURE DECISIONS IF THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL WANTS IT TO GO. SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OUR PD LANGUAGE WORKS IS THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A DETAILED PLAN TO COME BACK AND BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE ZONING. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY AS FAR AS THAT GOES. THE DEVELOPER, I DON'T THINK, HAS QUITE MADE IT TO THE POINT OF FULL ENGINEERING PLANS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE KIT AND CABOODLE, BECAUSE WITHOUT ZONING, THERE'S NO POINT IN SPENDING $100,000 ON ENGINEERING AND VICE VERSA. SO WE HAVE THAT DETAILED PLAN. IT'S WHEN THE DETAILED PLAN IS APPROVED. I THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS LOCKED IN. NOTHING CAN CHANGE. AND THAT'S WHEN WE MOVE INTO SITE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS STAFF APPROVAL, NOT AT A COUNCIL OR BOARD LEVEL. AND THEN WE MOVE INTO BUILDING PERMITS. THAT'S HELPFUL. SO I THINK WHILE WE WOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES, I THINK IT IT IS ONLY APPROPRIATE FOR US TO TO ENTER OUR DISCUSSION, HELP THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE NOT WILLING TO GO AND WHERE WE MIGHT BE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GO. AND SO, YOU KNOW, ALONG THOSE VEINS. LET ME JUMP INTO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST START BY SAYING THAT I THINK A 90 ROOM HOTEL SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG ENDEAVOR FOR THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, AND ESPECIALLY ON THAT SMALL PROPERTY. AND SO I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, FROM A FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THIS HAD HALF THE NUMBER OF ROOMS, YOU KNOW, OR 40 INSTEAD OF 90. DOES THAT MAKE IT A NONSTARTER? YOU KNOW, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE 90 IS TOO MUCH. AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER THE DEVELOPER MIGHT HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT ALSO ANY EXAMPLES OF OTHER, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE SUPPOSEDLY AN INDIGO HOTEL AND OTHER INDIGO HOTELS OR SIMILAR TYPE OF PROPERTIES. AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, 90 ROOMS ON SEVEN ACRES IS, IS IS TYPICAL OR IS THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TO MY INTUITION SEEMS KIND OF HIGH DENSITY. SO I KNOW THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ON THE CALL AS WELL. 
          FROM A THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DENSITY ON THE LOT, I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNDER DENSITY. 
          TYPICALLY, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, ABOUT 100 ROOMS CAN FIT ON A FIVE ACRE LOT IF THERE'S NOT IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS LIKE WE HAVE HERE, WHERE IT'S VERY STRICT. THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THEY GO SMALLER THE HIGHER YOU ALLOW THEM TO GO. AND SO THE FOOTPRINT DECREASES AND YOUR ROOMS INCREASE. A LOT OF IT'S BASED ON THE HEIGHT. AS FAR AS THE PROFORMA, I THINK THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAN BE PASSED AROUND. YEAH. 
          IF YOU'RE WILLING TO. YEAH. DO WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ON IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION. YES. I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY, SIR. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, GENTLEMEN. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU, JORDAN, FOR GIVING ME THIS. GIVING THE INTRODUCTION ON THE TYPE OF THE HOTEL WHICH YOU ARE BUILDING, THE HOTEL INDIGO. THEY HAVE A RESTRICTION OF 80. AND ABOVE IS THE RESTRICTION THAT I CAN GO WITH ANYTHING. I CANNOT GO BELOW IT. THAT IS THE FIRST WHEN WE WHEN WE WENT INTO CONTRACT WITH THE HOTEL INDIGO IHG BRAND, THAT IS THE MINIMUM I COULD REALLY GO. I CANNOT GO ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT ONE. AND AS JORDAN SAID, WE CAN BUILD IN TWO ACRE LOT. I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE BUILDING 120 ROOMS AND IT IS NOT UNUSUAL AND I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE MULTIPLE HOTELS WITH 120 OR MORE WITH THREE ACRE LOT AND FIVE ACRE LOT FOR HOTEL INDIGO. I WENT TO TENNESSEE, GATLINBURG WHERE THEY HAVE AN INDIGO HOTEL WHERE I STAYED. THEY HAVE 140 ROOMS IN THAT THREE ACRE LOT, WHICH GOES HIGHER ON WHICH IS BUILT ON THE TOP OF THE HILL. SO IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO BUILD THAT DENSITY OF ROOMS. KEEP IN MIND IT, THE ROOM COUNTS ARE LOW AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS SO HIGH BECAUSE IT IS A MORE RESORT SITE TYPE OF HOTEL. ACTUALLY, WE ARE GIVING A BIGGER ROOMS THAN ANY OTHER HOTEL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 400 OR 500FT■!S OF HOTEL. THAT IS OE OF THE THING. SECONDLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EVENT CENTER WHICH IS AROUND 6 TO 8000FT■!S F SPACE, WHERE WE ARE TALKING 
          [00:30:04]
ABOUT 300 TO 400 PEOPLE SITTING IN THERE FOR AN EVENT. IT COULD BE WEDDINGS, IT COULD BE SMALL CONFERENCES, ALL THOSE THINGS. AND WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT A GOOD FINE DINING RESTAURANT, WHICH, TO CATER THE PEOPLE OF CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA, WHICH WE ARE MISSING IN THE CITY. AND THE THIRD, FOURTH POINT, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, IS THE SPA, WHERE WE HAVE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A SPA, WHICH CITY DOESN'T HAVE A FINE DINING. SO WE ARE PROVIDING ALL THOSE FULL SERVICE HOTEL IN THE IN THE IN THAT FOOTPRINT, WHICH IS THE REASON WE ARE GOING ABOVE 65 FOOT LEVEL. SO TAKING ALL THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE CAN REDUCE MAYBE 5 OR 6 ROOMS LESS, BUT WE CANNOT GO BELOW IT BECAUSE THE IHG BRAND DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO DO SO. OKAY, OKAY. 
          THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. IT LEADS INTO WHAT I THINK WAS PLANNING AND ZONING IS BIGGER. 
          CONCERN IS MY CONCERN IS THE HEIGHT. SO I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. SO IN C-1 ZONING WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR C-2 ZONING I'M SORRY. RIGHT. C-2 ZONING, WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE FOR THE BASE FOR THIS PDP. THE BY RIGHT HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS 28FT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO THIS PROPERTY HAS A HUGE VARIANCE. IT JUST LOOKING AT YOUR MAP, I THINK YOU SHOW IN THE PACKET AT NEAR BOGGY BOARD ROAD, ABOUT 925FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL AND AT THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE PICTURE THERE. THERE'S A 1001 LABELED, SO PRESUMABLY THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY IS 1001FT. SO BY RIGHT YOU COULD BUILD SOMETHING WHERE THE WHEREVER THE BUILDING IS ON THE PROPERTY, THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING IS 1029FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY YOU WANT TO BUILD A 65 FOOT BUILDING, IS THAT GOING TO BE LOCATED AT THAT PEAK OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT WILL GO TO 1066FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL, OR WILL IT BE LOCATED SOMEWHERE ELSE? SO IS THE 65FT IN HERE. AND THIS WAS WHERE I WAS REALLY UNCLEAR. IS THE 65FT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR 65FT ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE 65FT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. IT'S THAT. SO IN THEORY, SIX STOREYS WE HAVE THE BOTTOM LOBBY WITH THE RESTAURANT, THE SPA, ALL THAT JAZZ. WE HAVE THE ROOMS. AND THEN AT THE TOP THERE'S A CONFERENCE CENTER WITH MEETING SPACE AND THINGS TO THAT EFFECT. MY FROM WHAT I'M GATHERING FROM THE PLANS, AND I BELIEVE I'VE TALKED TO THE ENGINEER ABOUT THIS AS WELL. 
          THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO BUILD ON THE SIDE OF A CLIFF. AND SO THAT 65FT IS STRICTLY BUILDING HEIGHT. IT'S NOT BASED OFF OF THE PEAK OF THEIR PROPERTY, PLUS HOWEVER MANY FEET THAT WOULD BE CALCULATED AT THE TIME THAT THEY GO INTO CIVIL ENGINEERING, WHAT THEIR THEIR PEAK HEIGHT WOULD ACTUALLY BE BASED OFF OF HOW FAR THEY HAVE TO DIG DOWN INTO THE THE GROUND ITSELF, AND SO THAT THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING WOULD BE. AND I SEE THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO CHIME IN, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY SO HE CAN ANSWER, WOULD THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING STAY BELOW THE BY RIGHT, 28FT ABOVE THE MAX POINT ON THE PROPERTY? I'M NOT SURE FROM MY END BECAUSE IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHEN THEY GET INTO CIVIL SITE, HOW FAR DOWN THEY HAVE TO GO. SO BASED ON CAN CAN, CAN I SPEAK? YES, PLEASE. BASED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE ARCHITECT WHICH ARE DESIGNED WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WE THOUGHT IS FROM THE 1000FT, WE ARE GOING 19FT DOWN, WHICH IS SO IT'S AROUND 9.798 AROUND THAT NUMBER. AND FROM THERE WE ARE GOING 65FT ABOVE. SO FROM 1000. SO THINK ABOUT IT. NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE 1000 FOOT LEVEL. 
          WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 45 FOOT LEVEL. SO SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY NOT CLEAR IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING DISCUSSION. AND I THINK WHAT, WHAT LOCAL CITIZENS AND I THINK OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS, FROM LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ROOM, YOUR BUILDING THAT HAS THE 90 ROOMS IS NEAR THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY. AND WHAT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY IS, NO, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. IT WILL BE LOCATED FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE PEAK THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD IT WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE BY RIGHT HEIGHT FOR THAT PROPERTY. NO, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT I SAID NO. FROM THAT TOP OF THE HILL WE WOULD BE GOING 45FT. SO IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 29 OR 30FT ON THE TOP OF THE HILL NOW, WE'LL BE GOING 15 FOOT HIGHER. SO I WOULD, I WOULD I WANT WILL MY CIVIL ENGINEER WHO IS THERE WHO HAS DESIGNED DESIGN IN THE SENSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE THINGS. HE WORKED ON THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ASPECT TO REALLY TALK TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER THINGS. HE HAS DONE A LOT 
          [00:35:04]
OF RESEARCH, A LOT OF DESIGN ON IT. WILL, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO JUST ON IT? DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE? YEAH I'M HERE. HEY, EVERYBODY. I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. THANKS, COUNCIL AND MAYOR FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ON THIS. I'VE GOT A I CAN SHARE. WE HAVE TO HAVE YOUR VIDEO ON, SIR. OH, OKAY. YEAH. HI. HELLO. CAN YOU SEE ME? THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. YEAH. I'M NOT ABLE TO SHARE. APPARENTLY, THAT'S BLOCKED ON MY ACCESS HERE. I WAS GOING TO PUT AN EXHIBIT UP, BUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, CURRENTLY, THE PROJECT TOP OF THE BUILDING SITS AT 1066. IS THE MAX ELEVATION THAT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING SITS AT. AND WE SENT SEVERAL FIRE EXHIBITS FOR, YOU KNOW, FIRE ACCESS APPARATUS, ACCESS TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. THOSE HAVE BEEN SHARED SEVERAL TIMES. THE BASE OF THE BUILDING, I BELIEVE, IS AT AROUND 993, AND THAT COULD BE MITIGATED, RIGHT? WE COULD WORK ON LOWERING THE BUILDING TO TRY TO APPEASE CONCERNS. BUT NO, THE THE THE ASK IS TO. BUILD 65FT MAX BUILDING. YEAH. SO I PERSONALLY I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH YOU BUILDING A 65 FOOT TALL BUILDING, BUT BUILDING IT AT THE PEAK OF THE PROPERTY I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT OKAY WITH. SO I MEAN, IF YOU COULD. THIS PROPERTY SLOPES A LOT, AND IF YOU CAN MOVE DOWN 40FT IN ELEVATION ON THE PROPERTY AND BUILD 65FT UP FROM THERE, WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS TALL BUILDING UP AT THE 1000 ISH FEET OR 990 OR WHATEVER, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY NEAR THE TOP OF THE PEAK, YOU KNOW, TALK TO ME ABOUT 30 VERSUS 28, NOT 65 VERSUS 28. I JUST I'M NOT INTERESTED IN GOING THERE AT ALL. AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN THE CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND, IS THAT THIS 65 FOOT TALL STRUCTURE WOULD BE IN THEIR BACKYARD. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE THIS PROPERTY. WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A SMALL HOTEL AND BRING ALL THE VALUES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE WRONG PROPERTY FOR YOU, BUT HAVING IT ON THE TOP OF THAT PROPERTY, I THINK IS, IS REALLY, REALLY PRETTY, PRETTY BIG ASK. AND FAR AWAY FROM THE C-2 ZONING THAT WE THAT WE THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO ANYWAY, I GUESS WE CAN LEAVE IT THERE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU THINK YOU CAN MOVE THE PROPERTY TO. AND THIS IS WHY, FRANKLY, I WAS ASKING, COULD YOU DO IT WITH LESS THAN 90 ROOMS? BECAUSE I'M WONDERING, COULD YOU DO IT IN THREE STORIES INSTEAD OF SIX STORIES? COULD YOU MOVE IT, YOU KNOW, 15 OR 20FT DOWN IN ELEVATION AND THEN STAY WITHIN THE, THE, THE, THE RULE OF 28FT ABOVE THE HIGH POINT OF THE PROPERTY. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. AND THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY FAR FROM WHAT I PERSONALLY AM WILLING TO TO ACCEPT. AND OKAY, SO LET ME MOVE ON FROM THAT. I THINK I HAVE JUST THREE MORE THINGS. ONE IS, AND I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED, JORDAN, YOU MADE A CORRECTION ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE REQUIRED TO STAY AT 25%. FOR WHAT WILL THE REQUIREMENT BE WHEN THEY ANNEXED IN THAT 25% WENT AWAY? THAT'S OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE WATERSHED AND LCRA AND EVERYTHING. SO OUR CITY STANDARD IS 60%. WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING IS 37. OKAY. SO THEY'RE WELL UNDER THE WELL UNDER THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THE REQUIREMENT AND ALMOST NEAR THAT 25% IF IT WAS APPLICABLE. 
          BUT AS SOON AS THEY ANNEXED OUR AGREEMENT SAYS THAT GOES AWAY AT CITY STANDARD WHICH IS 60. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP I SEE IN THE CONCEPT PLAN SOME DRAINAGE CONTAINMENT DOWN NEAR BOGGY FORD, BUT THAT PROPERTY SLOPES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. AND SO I HAVE SOME PRETTY BIG CONCERNS ABOUT DRAINAGE OFF OF THE PARKING LOT THAT'S SHOWN ON SORT OF THE TOP END OF THE PROPERTY TO WHAT'S BEHIND. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT CONCEPT PLAN FOR ME, I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, BUT THAT CONCEPT PLAN TO ME MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS ABOUT DRAINAGE FROM YOUR PROPERTY ONTO NOT JUST BOGGY FORD, BUT THE OTHER THREE SIDES OF YOUR PROPERTY. SO I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND THE CITY WOULD, WOULD NEED TO, TO REVIEW THOSE PLANS IN A WAY THAT'S THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I DON'T KNOW, JORDAN, IF YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT OR HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY IT IS OUR CODE REQUIREMENT AT STATE LAW REQUIREMENT. YOUR DRAINAGE CANNOT IMPACT YOUR NEIGHBORS. SO WHEN THEY SUBMIT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, THEY HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT THAT THEY CAN MEET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLOW AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND HOLD IT ON SITE. THAT THAT'S WE'RE IN A VERY PROTECTED AREA BEING THIS CLOSE TO THE LAKE. AND SO THERE'S VERY FINITE DETAILS THAT GO INTO THAT. THEY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THEM TO PROVE IT. IF THEY CAN'T PROVE IT, THEY DON'T GET BUILDING PERMITS OR 
          [00:40:01]
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. AND SO IT'S OKAY. IT'S A REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE THE I THINK MY LAST QUESTION, AT LEAST FOR NOW, IS I'M NOT CLEAR ON HOW MANY HOW MUCH WATER AND SEWER RIGHTS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. LOUISE. WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE THE THE THE AMOUNT WE WOULD HAVE TO ALLOCATE LOUISE FOR THIS PROPERTY IF IN FACT, IT'S IT'S APPROVED. SO A DAY WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED WAS NOT CREATED. SO THERE ARE NO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO SERVE THIS TRACK BEYOND WHAT WE CAN. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEIR ENGINEER HAS PROVIDED US CALCULATIONS OF 72 LOUISE, WHICH IS A HUGE REDUCTION FROM WHAT IT WAS ANNEXED IN. AS WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF WE MOVE FURTHER IN THIS PROCESS DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO US INFORMATION FOR US TO STICK IN OUR MODEL. THE MODEL WILL TELL THEM WHAT IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE TO THE CITY SYSTEM. 
          THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BASICALLY DO ANYTHING ELSE, SO THEY HAVE TO BUILD IT. WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT BEFORE THEY CAN PULL BUILDING PERMITS. SO I, I PERSONALLY THAT NUMBER DOESN'T SCARE ME. AND I THINK THE VALUE OF A HOTEL IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. REALLY. THE HARD ISSUE FOR ME HERE IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, SO I'LL YIELD WITH THAT. WELL, IF I MAY JUST PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT, JUST ROUGH MATH WITHOUT A CALCULATOR, SO BEAR WITH ME. IF THEY DROP IT TO 980, THEY'RE AT 1045 THEIR MAX TODAY CURRENT CONDITIONS IS 1029, IF THAT GIVES ANY ANY FRAME OF REFERENCE, THEY HE THEIR ENGINEER MENTIONED 1060. AND SO WE CAN PUT A CAP ON THEIR MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST THE BUILDING ACCORDINGLY BASED OFF OF THAT PEAK ELEVATION. RIGHT. 
          AND WHERE I'M AT IS I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO IT STAYING WITHIN 1029, WHICH IS THEIR BY RIGHT HEIGHT ON THIS PROPERTY. AND YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A IF IT'S A MAKE OR BREAK, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IT'S A MAKE OR BREAK BECAUSE THEY NEED TWO MORE FEET OR SOMETHING. LET'S GO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD THIS IS BY BREAKING THE RULE BY 30FT. OKAY. YEAH. MISS VANESSA, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO FOLLOWING UP ON SOME OF COUNCILOR PRINCE'S QUESTIONS, I HAD MY OWN KIND OF CONCERNS, IF YOU WILL. OR JUST CURIOUS ON THE WATER. RIGHT SITUATION. RIGHT. THE NUMBER OF LOWS DOESN'T SOUND BIG, BUT I KNOW MR. STEWART HAD INDICATED THAT THEY'RE ALREADY COMMITTED LOWS IN THAT AREA FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED OR ANTICIPATED. PLUS, HE SUGGESTED MAINTAINING A RESERVE OF LOUISE FOR THE KIND OF OLD LAGO RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR BUILD OUT OF THAT AREA. 
          SO COULD YOU JUST COMMENT ON THAT? IS THAT IS THIS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT OR TO AN EXTENT. SO I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REGARDING THIS. HE FULLY BELIEVES THAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY AND THE ABILITY TO SERVE AS FAR AS TO HOW WE SERVE. 
          THAT WILL COME FROM THE MODELING AND WHAT IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE. BUT THEY'RE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM PUBLIC WORKS IS THAT THERE IS CAPACITY. THANK YOU. AND THEN ANY IDEA WITH THE TIMING ON THE MODELING WHEN THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED? I HAVE A FEELING THAT THEY'RE READY TO SUBMIT AS SOON AS ON THE BASELINE MODELING. THEY'RE READY TO SUBMIT AS SOON AS THEY GET THEIR ZONING. WE CAN SEND IT TO AN ENGINEER. THEY ESSENTIALLY PLUG IT IN AND SAY, GO, NO, GO. AND IF IT'S A NO GO X, Y, AND Z, WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IF IT'S COMPLETELY UNFEASIBLE? AND THEY SAY THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS CAN WORK, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. WE WILL NOT. IF OUR ENGINEER TELLS US NO, THAT MEANS NO AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE SOMETHING ELSE OUT. THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER PIECE ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT. RIGHT. 
          YOU SAID FREEZING. NICHOLS IS DOING A STUDY NOW, BUT HOW SOON WOULD THAT BE AVAILABLE? AND ONE REASON I'M ASKING ABOUT THESE THINGS IS JUST COMFORT LEVEL WITH APPROVING SOMETHING WITHOUT THESE OTHER DATA POINTS THAT AREN'T IN YET. SO JUST AND I WILL SAY THIS JUST MY OPINION, BUT BOGGY FORD'S ALREADY GETTING PRETTY BUSY WITH CURRENT TRAFFIC. AND THEN WE'VE GOT SOME ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE COMING ONLINE. POTENTIALLY THE LIKE BACKS UP QUITE A BIT. I'VE HEARD I HEAR A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS AND I DRIVE BOGGY TOO, SO I'VE SEEN IT SO JUST REAL. I THINK THAT'S A REAL IMPORTANT DATA POINT WE NEED TO FACTOR IN. 
          SO AS FAR AS A RESPONSE GOES, I'M NOT SURE I CAN CHECK IN WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS. IT SHOULD BE PRETTY QUICK. THEY WERE ALL SUBMITTED AROUND THE SAME TIME. I WOULD I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON IT, BUT I WOULD VENTURE A GUESS THAT IT IT'S PRETTY QUICK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THEN THIS PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER, SIR. AND DON'T SHARE ANY OBVIOUSLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, BUT I'M ASSUMING IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE OR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH, WITH INDIGO THAT THEY'VE SUPPORTED SOME TYPE OF MARKET RESEARCH OR ANALYSIS THAT INDICATES THAT A HOTEL OF THIS TYPE RESTAURANT AND SPA WOULD BE VIABLE IN LAGO VISTA. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT KIND OF MARKET ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN DONE. AND IT'S PROVEN OUT THAT VIABILITY OF, YOU KNOW, SUCH A DEVELOPMENT. YES. YES, MA'AM. ACTUALLY, WITHOUT THAT MARKET 
          [00:45:07]
ANALYSIS AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, IHG HOTELS WILL NOT AWARD ANY KIND OF FRANCHISEE TO ANY DEVELOPER. SO WE HAVE DONE MULTIPLE FEASIBLE STUDIES FROM A THIRD PARTY AND THE PARTIES FROM FROM THE HOTEL OPERATORS, WHICH IS AIMBRIDGE AND REMINGTON. THESE ARE THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN IN AMERICA. THEY THEY HAVE DONE THE MARKET FEASIBILITY OR THE PROFORMA WE CALL PROFORMA INVOICE NOW PROFORMA ON REVENUES PER YEAR PERFORM ON THE REVENUES. AND IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY PROFITABLE FOR ANY KIND OF DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP THE HOTEL IN THIS. AND KEEP IN MIND 90 ROOMS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS MUCH LESS WHEN COMPARED TO THE DEMAND WHICH THIS PARTICULAR REGION HAS. IS THERE IT IS FROM THIS POINT 15 OR 20 MILES AWAY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF HOTEL AND PEOPLE ARE RUNNING AWAY OR PEOPLE ARE WHO ARE COMING INTO THE CITY. THEY ARE GOING OUT OF THE CITY TO SLEEP OR EAT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE THE CITY. AND WE ARE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 500,000 MORE OR MORE REVENUES OR TO THE CITY BY IN THE IN IN THE WAY OF HOT TAXES, YOU KNOW, HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES OR SALES TAX OR PROPERTY TAXES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AROUND $538,000 IN REVENUES TO THE CITY. IF CITY IS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT KIND OF REVENUE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT NO CITY NEEDS IT. 
          AND WE WE ARE HERE TO REALLY PROVIDE THIS KIND OF. INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE CITY, TO PROVIDE RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE CITIZENS OF VISTA. WHEN IT COMES TO WHEN IT COMES TO THE THE TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC, THE THE PRISON, NICOLE'S HAVE DONE IT AND IT IS THE THIRD PARTY WHO HAS DONE IT. AND BY ADDING ADDING THIS HOTEL TO THIS PARTICULAR ROAD, WE ARE JUST ADDING SIX SECONDS OF DELAY TO THE WHOLE FORD AND BOGIE FORD, AND WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER. I'LL TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY WE ARE ADDING AROUND SIX SECONDS TO GIVE ME ONE SECOND. SIX SECONDS OR LESS TO THE BOGIE FORD AND LOMAN'S FORD INTERSECTION. THAT MUCH I CAN SAY, AND MOST OF THE MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS IMPACTED BY THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. IT COULD BE SHORELINE OR IT COULD BE NATURE POINT. THESE ARE THE THINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST, SO THAT MOST OF THE THINGS THE GROWTH IS FROM THOSE AND WE ARE ADDING VERY LITTLE. WE ARE ADDING ONLY 1 OR 3%, UP TO 3% ONLY TO THAT DAILY TRAFFIC. OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. IF I MAY, I IF I MAY, I CAN SHARE YOU SOME SLIDES WHICH I HAVE CREATED BASED ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WHICH YOU HAVE DONE. IF THAT IS OKAY I CAN SHARE YOU A FEW THINGS. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE MAYOR. I'LL JUST MAKE ONE FINAL COMMENT THAT I SHARE COUNCILOR PRINCE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPACT ON ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA, LIKE SEVEN PORTICOS AND OTHERS. SO I'M SURE WE'LL PROBABLY HEAR SOME CITIZEN COMMENTS. BUT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, DESIRABLE. YEAH, YEAH. IN THE SEVEN PORTICOS, WE ARE 1000FT AWAY FROM THAT SEVEN PORTICOS, AND THEY ARE AT 960 AT THE FOOT LEVEL. THEY WE ARE NOT IMPACTING THEIR VIEWS IN ANY WAY. WE ARE EVEN IF I STARTED, MY BUILDING HAS STARTED. THERE IS A ONE MORE PARCEL IN BETWEEN THE SEVEN PORTICOS AND MY LOT. AND AND WE ARE 1000FT AWAY FROM MY LOT, THAT THE SEVEN PORTICOS IS 1000FT AWAY FROM MY LOT, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THE IMPACT. 
          I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE IMPACT AND THE RESPECT THEM. ACTUALLY, IF THEY ARE SAYING THAT MY VIEWS ARE IMPACTED, I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW I'M IMPACTING THE VIEWS. 
          AND WE TAKE EVERY CITIZEN'S VIEWS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE HAVE COMING UP WITH THIS KIND OF A DESIGN. IF IF I CAN SHARE YOU, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THAT FOR NOW. I WANT TO KEEP THIS TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND THEN I WANT TO GET TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION SO THE CITIZENS CAN SPEAK. AND THEN AFTERWARDS, WHEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL, WE CAN HAVE SOME OF THOSE PRESENTATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. MISS. OKAY I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. AND WHILE THIS IS REALLY LOUD, I'LL PUSH IT OUT. I WILL SAY THAT I'VE RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS REGARDING THE ENTRANCE LOCATION. I WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE. I'M 
          [00:50:06]
QUITE PRO PROPERTY, RIGHT, OWNER. YOU KNOW, RIGHTS AND BUT I'M ALSO ABOUT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THEY DO STAY WITHIN THEIR THEIR HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE 1029. THEY DO A DRAINAGE STUDY. THERE'S NO IMPACT AROUND SURROUNDING TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS THAT THEY STAY WITHIN THEIR LOSE. IF THEY CAN GET US DOWN TO 80, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I MEAN, EVEN IF THEY EXTEND EXTEND THEIR FOOTPRINT OVER OR THE BASE FOOTPRINT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER AND SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO AS HIGH AS THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT, BUT ALSO RELOCATING THE ENTRANCE, THE THE ENTRANCE THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED SO FAR IS ON BOGGY IS TO ME, JUST IS GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE. I THINK THAT RELOCATING THAT OR EVEN JUST POSSIBLY LOOKING INTO RELOCATING IT TO LOW MILL WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION. AND I DO AGREE, YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND I'M GLAD THAT THEY DID THE MARKET RESEARCH STUDIES BECAUSE I ACTUALLY CONDUCTED ONE MYSELF. I'VE DONE A COUPLE OF THEM ACTUALLY, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY SMALL THIS IS A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT. WE THE MARKET RESEARCH STUDIES THAT I'VE DONE SHOWED THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT THREE HOTELS OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS AT 140 APIECE, 140 ROOMS APIECE. SO I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ONE. AND DON'T HATE ME FOR SAYING THAT, BUT I THINK THERE'S MORE COMING. SO I THINK WE NEED TO SET A PRECEDENT OF STICKING TO OUR, YOU KNOW, STICKING TO OUR GUNS. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A BUNCH OF CONCESSIONS FOR ONE DEVELOPER WHEN I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE COMING OUR WAY. SO I THINK THAT WE STICK WITHIN THE ZONING WITH THEIR ALLOWED. IF THEY HAVE TO DIG DOWN, THEY HAVE TO DIG DOWN AND LOOK AT LOOK AT THAT ENTRANCE. AND BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MORE ACCIDENTS OR MORE COMMUTE TIME. AND I'D REALLY BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT FREEZING NICHOLS STUDY, THE SIX SECOND DELAY OR ADDITION THAT HE'S SPEAKING OF DOESN'T SEEM JUST DOESN'T DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME AT THIS, THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU. SO, AS I WAS GOING DOWN HERE. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PRINCE, YOU STARTED JUST CHECKING OFF A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD DOWN HERE. BUT PART OF THIS IS A STATEMENT. AND JUST JUST FROM HOW I'M VIEWING THESE DEVELOPMENTS, IN ADDITION TO BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS. ET CETERA. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS PARTICULAR AREA ON THE FLUME, I'M SEEING IT AS A C2 OR HIGH, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH COULD MEAN APARTMENTS OR SOMETHING. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, NO. SO THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND OR THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS IT AS REGIONAL RETAIL. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO AS I WAS LISTENING AND IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE TRUE, WE COULD HAVE REGIONAL RETAIL ANOTHER GAS STATION. PERHAPS THIS FITS INTO THAT CATEGORY IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHICH I REALLY WOULD ABHOR ACTUALLY. BUT JUST STATING THIS, THIS GENTLEMAN HAS HAS INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY. SO FINDING SOMETHING THAT THE RESIDENTS DO WANT AND MATCHES WITHIN THE FLUME, IF HE IS BRINGING IN POTENTIALLY WITH THIS HOTEL, 538,000 TO THE CITY THAT ACTUALLY PAYS FOR THE 300,000 ESTIMATED, I BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL MAYOR SAM HAS STATED A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WOULD COST THE CITY SO EFFECTIVELY. I I'M JUST SAYING WHEN I LOOK AT OVERALL MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T TAX PEOPLE OUT OF HOMES, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IS A CONSIDERATION THAT I DO HAVE IN MY MIND FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY THAT ARE ON FIXED INCOMES, I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND BEING. I WAS SO CONCERNED. I ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO YOU, JORDAN, AND YOU EXPLAINED TO ME HOW POTENTIALLY THIS COULD EVOLVE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OR CHALLENGE, BECAUSE I'M ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A LEFT HAND TURN OUT OF THAT PROPERTY ONTO BOGGY FORD. I CAN HAVE. YES. SO THROUGH THE TIA PROCESS, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE DEVELOPER SUBMITS THE TIA WITH THEIR NUMBERS. OUR ENGINEER MAKES SURE THAT THEY'RE CALCULATING IT CORRECTLY AND NOT TRYING TO TO FLUB NUMBERS ANYWHERE. THEIR ENGINEER WILL RECOMMEND SOME KIND OF SOLUTION BASED ON THEIR CALCULATIONS. 
          OUR ENGINEER WILL SAY YES OR NO OR YES, BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO DO X, Y, AND Z. AND THEN WHATEVER THAT AGREEMENT IS, IS WHAT WE GO WITH. AND SO BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THEIR TIA AND OUR ENGINEERING REVIEW OF THEIR TIA, ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE TIA. AND THAT'S MANDATORY TO DO ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S ADDRESSING ISSUES 
          [00:55:05]
ALONG THAT STRETCH OF BOGGY FIXING THE INTERSECTION OR EXPANDING THE INTERSECTION BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE TIA, IS WHAT WHAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED. BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE HAVE THE ANSWER OF THE TIA. MISS. SO. SO JORDAN, THIS TIA IS BASICALLY BEING DONE WITH THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE AS IT SITS NOW. SO THIS WOULD NOT ENCOMPASS OR, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATE ENTRANCE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPLETELY OTHER STUDY, CORRECT? YES. SO TYPICALLY WE CANNOT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ADVISABLE TO ASK THEM TO REACH OUT TO ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER AND BASE THEIR WHOLE PROJECT ON THAT PROPERTY OWNER, GIVING THEM AN ACCESS EASEMENT. AND SO COMING IN RIGHT OFF THE BAT, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. IF THE TIA COMES BACK AND IT'S $50 MILLION TO FIX BOGGY, THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND SAY, WHAT ARE OTHER OPTIONS? THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION WE PROVIDE. TRY TO GET ACCESS FROM ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO ESSENTIALLY GO THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY TO MAKE THEIR PROJECT WORK. YEAH, BACK TO MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN. THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO I DID WANT TO STATE I HAPPEN TO NOTICE SIDEWALKS WERE NOT PART OF THIS. AND ALONG THAT STRETCH, WE'VE HAD CITIZENS STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE SEEN AT LEAST FROM THE ECO SCAPES THAT THERE IS INDIVIDUALS WALKING ALONGSIDE BOGGY, YOU KNOW, IN THE THING. AND SO I WOULD JUST JUST STATE AS WE GO FORWARD. AND I JUST WANTED THE DEVELOPER TO HEAR THAT I WOULD BEING IF WE COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE SIDEWALKS AVAILABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUALS TO BE ABLE TO WALK UP TO THE THE DONUTS, IS IT SMILING DONUTS UP THERE? YES. TO GET THEIR COFFEE WOULD BE GREAT. AND THE LAST THING IS, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS ANNEXED AND I SO APPRECIATED IT BECAUSE NEXT DOOR IS A GENTLEMAN WHO IS GOING TO BUILD A GAS STATION AND RETAIL CENTER THAT IS IN THE ETJ, AND THERE IS AVAILABILITY FOR THEM TO DO IT. AND WE CANNOT STOP IT. WE CANNOT REGULATE IT. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO. IT IS IN THE ETJ. THIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE ETJ. I APPRECIATED THIS DEVELOPER DID DO THE RIGHT THING AND COME TO THE CITY. NOW IT DOES COME WITH WATER RIGHTS. 
          ET CETERA. BUT I DID WANT TO ASK. I DID ASK YOU, JORDAN. I THINK I TOLD HER I WAS GOING TO PUT HER ON THE SPOT THAT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THIS PROJECT DOESN'T WORK, HOW DIFFICULT IS IT FOR THEM TO JUST PULL OUT AND GO BACK TO BEING AN ETJ? AND OUR IF I'M MISSPEAKING STATE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE ANNEXATION. ESSENTIALLY, IF WE'RE NOT PROVIDING A SERVICE OR WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST TO ANNEX. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR GROUNDS WOULD BE FOR DENYING THAT ANNEXATION, BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT THEY'RE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR THEM BUT TAXING THEM. ART. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL? NO. JORDAN'S RIGHT. THERE IS PROCEDURES IN THERE FOR. WELL, THERE'S THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS FOR DISSENTING STATION. BUT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IS AN INVOLUNTARY MANNER FOR ANNEXATION BASED UPON LACK OF PROVISION OF SERVICES. NOW, THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THAT. AND AND SO THAT THAT IS A VERY FACT INTENSIVE TYPE OF ANALYSIS THAT THEN GOES INTO MEDIATION PROCESS AND ARBITRATION PROCESS LATER. BUT BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE MECHANISMS BY WHICH ONE CAN REQUEST AN EXCEPTION WOULD BE FOR THE LACK OF PROVISION OF SERVICES. SO ONE ONE OF SEVERAL MANORS. YEAH. BUT IF IF WE'RE NOT DENYING TO PROVIDE THEM SERVICES, WHERE DOES THAT FALL. BECAUSE. RIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING THERE FOR THEM TO BE PROVIDED, WHETHER THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT OR NOT IS ON THE DEVELOPER. THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE FACT INTENSIVE PROVISIONS OF IT. AND IN MY OPINION, AS LONG AS WE'RE MAKING THE SERVICES AVAILABLE, IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES, THEN THEN WE ARE MAKING THEN WE ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO TO YOUR POINT. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S NORMALLY YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. AND THERE'S A LOT OF FACTS AND WATERS UNDER THE BRIDGE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN BE ABLE TO. SO I MEAN I CAN GIVE YOU DEFINITIVE RIGHT NOW WHETHER THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED OR NOT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY VERY TAX FACT INTENSIVE BECAUSE IT'S ALSO IT'S NOT JUST WATER WASTEWATER. ARE WE PROVIDING SUFFICIENT POLICE SERVICES. ARE WE PROVIDING CODE ENFORCEMENT. ARE WE PROVIDING THERE'S, YOU KNOW, OUR PARKS AVAILABLE, EMERGENCY SERVICES? IT'S NOT JUST WATER. I MEAN, IT IS THE WHOLE THE WHOLE BUNDLE, THE WHOLE BASKET OF SERVICES THAT A CITY CAN PROVIDE. COUNCILMAN 
          [01:00:05]
PRINCE SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE GAS STATION. I THINK IF I'VE GOT THAT PROPERTY RIGHT, THE PROPERTY YOU MENTIONED IS THE PROPERTY THAT IS BETWEEN TONIGHT'S PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND THE SEVEN PORTICOS. RIGHT. AND THAT GENTLEMAN IS, SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, CAME INTO CITY COUNCIL AND SAID, I WANT TO BUY WATER FROM THE CITY. AND WE SAID, YOU'RE NOT IN THE CITY, SO IF YOU WANT TO BE ANNEXED. AND HE SAID, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN BEING ANNEXED. AND AND HE WALKED OUT AND WAS WAS MAD WHEN HE LEFT, AS I RECALL. RIGHT. SO MAYBE HE CAN MAYBE HE CAN'T BUILD THAT GAS STATION. HE'S GOT TO DEAL WITH THE COUNTY. AND THAT'S A NON-TRIVIAL THING, CERTAINLY. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THAT THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO BUY THAT PROPERTY FROM THE GUY WHO WILL HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME DEVELOPING A GAS STATION THROUGH THE COUNTY AND MAKE THIS A MUCH EASIER DISCUSSION FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. 
          MR. SAVORY, JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS THINKING FOR THE ENTRANCE. 
          SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU JORDAN. SO THEN AT THIS TIME, I I'M SORRY. LET ME LET ME OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND HEAR FROM CITIZENS AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. SO IT IS 5 P.M. I'M NOW OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE A NUMBER OF CITIZENS ALREADY SIGNED UP TO FILL IN CARDS. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND YOU HAVEN'T TURNED IN ONE OF THESE CARDS, PLEASE GET WITH ROBIN TO FILL ONE OUT. THE FIRST CITIZEN I HAVE AND YOU GUYS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES IS LINDA AIRD. THANK YOU. I WANT TO SAY THAT I AM SPEAKING AS A COMMISSIONER. 
          I'M NOT SPEAKING OR I'M NOT TAKING A POSITION PRO OR CON. I'M JUST BRINGING UP SOME ISSUES, OKAY? THE THE HOTEL HAS GENERATED A LOT OF INTEREST. AND SO I WANT TO BRING UP PLANNING AND ZONING RELATED ISSUES ABOUT IT. AND EVEN TODAY, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID BRING UP EVEN MORE QUESTIONS. AND. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS SINCE SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE HANDLED AS A MINOR PLAT AND THE MINOR PLAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED AND IS ALREADY BEING EVALUATED AS A MINOR PLAT, TO ME, THAT MEANS IT'S NEVER COMING BACK TO P AND Z, AND IT'S NEVER COMING BACK TO COUNCIL. ONCE COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THAT IT WILL BE ADMINISTRATIVELY HANDLED. AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY WHEN CODE WAS WRITTEN, THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE SOMETHING THIS THIS LARGE, THIS MAJOR AS A HOTEL AND CONFERENCE SPACE AND CASITAS AND A RESTAURANT, ETC. ALL BEING HANDLED AS A MINOR PLAT. BUT OUR CODE DOES PROVIDE IT, AND THAT'S HOW THEY HAD SUBMITTED IT. SO IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GOING TO EVER COME BACK TO COUNCIL OR PNC AFTER COUNCIL APPROVES IT, I THINK THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO GET EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT DONE, DONE BEFORE YOU ALL APPROVE IT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, MY REQUEST TODAY IS AND SO I'M GOING TO CUT TO THE TO MY, MY REQUEST IS THAT IF IT'S IF IT'S HANDLED AS A MINOR PLAT, THAT MEANS ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, IT WILL BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY CITY STAFF. SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASK THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE A CONCEPT AND DETAIL PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN BY YOU, UNTIL A CONCEPT PLAN TO ME, WOULD BE A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WOULD FIT ON A PIECE OF PAPER ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE ALL OF OUR PLANNING, ALL OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCES DO HAVE EXHIBITS ATTACHED, WHICH IS THE CONCEPT OR DETAIL PLAN. 
          SO THEY ALL HAVE TO FIT ON AN EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 INCH PIECE OF PAPER. AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT WITH THIS RIGHT NOW. TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAY BE QUESTIONABLE. 
          THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IN THE PACKET REFERS TO A STANDALONE. A SEPARATE STANDALONE RESTAURANT WOULD BE ALLOWED. BUT WHEN JORDAN WAS SPEAKING, SHE ACTED, OR SHE SPOKE AS IF THE RESTAURANT WAS GOING TO BE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOTEL. SO THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION LIKE, WELL, WHERE WOULD THIS RESTAURANT BE? AND IF WE HAD A CONCEPT IN DETAIL PLAN, WE'D KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT RESTAURANT WAS GOING TO BE. IT ALSO SAYS IN THIS LANGUAGE, IN THE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU, THAT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE 65FT. WELL, IF WE HAD A CONCEPT IN DETAIL PLAN TO CONSIDER, WE'D KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 65FT. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE CASITAS ARE GOING TO BE 65FT? PROBABLY NOT. BUT WE WE SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE 65FT AND WHAT WON'T BE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, IT STILL HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED WHETHER THE ISLA THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN 
          [01:05:04]
WAS CONTROLLING, OR WHETHER THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA'S ZONING ORDINANCES WERE SO. IT SEEMED THAT JORDAN WAS SAYING THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED AT THIS POINT. IF WE ARE USING THE THE REQUIREMENTS, IF WE HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ISLA WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S RELEASE TO TO OUR, TO OUR ETJ, THEN IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 25% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. BUT IF WE ARE USING CITY, THEN IT COULD BE LARGER. BUT AS I SAY, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IT HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF IT'S BEEN DECIDED WHO DECIDED IT. IS IT REALLY OFFICIALLY, TOTALLY DECIDED. THE THE ORDINANCE? I WON'T EVEN MENTION THAT. BUT. I GUESS I JUST REALLY WANT TO SAY THAT IN IN MY MIND, WE NEED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, REALLY GET THEM ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY BEFORE YOU ALL MAKE, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR IT TO COME BACK TO P AND Z WITH A CONCEPT IN DETAIL PLAN. ANSWERING ALL THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE ROBERT RUGGERIO. I'M ROBERT RUGGIERO, I LIVE ON HIGHLAND LAKE DRIVE. 
          I WANTED TO VERY BRIEFLY DISCUSS A COUPLE OF ISSUES. ONE OF THEM THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS WATER PRESSURE ON HIGHLAND. WHATEVER SIZE THE HOTEL FINALLY GETS DECIDED. IF IT DOES, IF IT CAN BE DESIGNED INTO PRESSURE NEUTRAL WAY THAT NO ONE ELSE SUFFERS BY ITS PRESENCE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY COMMENDABLE IN THE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF IT. AND THEN SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE, BUT WE'RE IN A 150 YEAR DROUGHT CYCLE, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO GET BETTER. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FEW YEARS WHERE IT GETS WET, BUT THEN IT GOES DRY AGAIN. WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG, BUT IF TREE RINGS ARE ANY INDICATION, THE SOUTHWEST UNITED STATES IS BECOMING MORE DESERT. AND I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO BE THOUGHTFUL WHEN WE DO DEVELOPMENT TO BE THINKING ABOUT WATER AND HOW OUR LAKE LEVELS ARE IMPORTANT TO US ECONOMICALLY, AS WELL AS BEING ABLE TO OPEN THE TAP AND HAVE A GLASS OF WATER. BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN I HAVE SALLY RUGGIERO. HI, I'M SALLY RUGGIERO AND I LIVE AT SAME RESIDENCE. THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH WATER AND WE KNOW THAT'S A TWO LANE ROAD. BOGGY FORD AND HIGHLAND IS BECOMING AS CRAZY AS BOGGY PEOPLE SCREAMING AT 60 MILES AN HOUR UP TO A STOP SIGN. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SINCE 2014. THEY'VE TRIED TO DO HOTELS, THEY TRIED TO DO CONDOS, THEY'VE TRIED TO GO 35FT IN THE AIR. AND WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT 15FT RESIDENTIAL, AND WE HAVE SAID WE WILL SUPPORT THAT WITH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STICKING TO WHAT THE AREA CAN HAVE AND CAN DEMAND. THERE'S ALSO ISSUES OF FIRE. WE ONLY HAVE BOGGY FORD AND NATIONAL, AND IF WE EVER HAD A FIRE AND WE NEED TO VACATE THIS REGION, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN DEEP TROUBLE. WE'VE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY AT THE. OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO DO ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS. I THINK THE PROJECT HAS MERIT. I THINK IT HAS MERIT FOR OUR REGION. I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG LOCATION, AND I WILL HAVE TO BEG TO DIFFER, THAT IT WILL CERTAINLY IMPACT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN RANCHO CIELO IN SEVEN PORTICOS. 
          US PERSONALLY JUST BEING RIGHT THERE, EVERYBODY TRYING TO GET OUT OF OUT OF, YOU KNOW, LAGO VISTA. IT'S YOU DON'T JUST LOOK STRAIGHT UP, OKAY? IF YOU CAN SEE SOMETHING AND IT'S BLOCKING 
          [01:10:01]
VIEW AND TAKING AWAY PRIVACY AND TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT PERHAPS. I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE TO DIG DOWN 200 TO 400FT TO HIT NOT SO GOOD QUALITY WATER, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SULFUR WATER IN THE IN THE TRAVIS PEAK FORMATION OF THE TRINITY AQUIFER. YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S I MEAN, ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE IF THEY ANNEX, YOU CAN DRILL DOWN 90FT AND PUT A BUNCH OF PYLONS IN, RAISE THIS STRUCTURE. BUT IT DOES IMPACT A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONCERNS. FOR ME, TRAFFIC FLOW IS A HUGE ONE, AND I JUST THINK IT'S THE AREA'S ALREADY OVERBURDENED. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. I HAVE LEAH FOWLER. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I LIVE IN THE SEVEN PORTICOS AREA ON VICTORIA CHASE, AND I'M PRETTY MUCH GOING TO ECHO WHAT EVERYBODY SAID AND WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER PRINCE HAS HAS MENTIONED THE SCALE OF THIS. I THINK A HOTEL WOULD BE AMAZING. I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT. I LOVE INDIGO HOTELS. I'VE STAYED THERE, BUT THIS PROJECT ON THIS ROAD, THE SCALE IS RIDICULOUS. FOR THIS ROAD OF TWO LANES TODAY IT TOOK FIVE MINUTES AT 140 FOR ME TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN FROM LINCOLN COVE ONTO BOGGY. THAT WAS NOT A HIGH TRAFFIC TIME. IT'S JUST A REGULAR TIME. AND FIVE MINUTES SITTING AT LINCOLN COVE IS ALREADY A BIT OF A PROBLEM, AND THAT'S AT A AT A NON-PEAK TIME. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. 
          AND THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN THINGS GET SAID LIKE THAT, YOU LOSE ALL TRUST IN WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU, THAT IT WILL ADD SIX SECONDS. A HOTEL AND A RESTAURANT IS GOING TO ADD SIX SECONDS. NOW THAT IMMEDIATELY YOU JUST DON'T TRUST WHAT YOU'RE HEARING. SO THAT'S VERY THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IS TRAFFIC. BUT THE OTHER ONE IS JUST THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT ON THIS ROAD, IN THIS AREA OF HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT'S GOING TO BE, I THINK, WOULD IT BE THE TALLEST STRUCTURE IN LAGO VISTA? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TALLEST STRUCTURE IN LAGO VISTA IS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF A SMALL ROAD SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOCATION OF IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE OR NOT, BUT APPARENTLY THERE WAS A SAW STRATEGIES. ORG FEASIBILITY STUDY DONE ON REQUESTED BY THE CITY, AND IT SAID THAT IT WOULD BE VERY FEASIBLE TO HAVE A HOTEL, BUT IT RECOMMENDED 1431 AS THE LOCATION AND THAT IS THE RIGHT LOCATION. IT'S VISIBLE FOR PEOPLE RIDING, DRIVING BY. IT'S ALREADY A LARGE SCALE, YOU KNOW, AREA, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY AFFECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR TAXES, THE, YOU KNOW, THE OUR PROPERTY VALUES, OUR TAXES WON'T GET AFFECTED, BUT OUR RESALE VALUE WILL GET AFFECTED. AND I JUST THINK IT'S THE WRONG SPOT FOR IT. AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. THANK YOU. I HAVE CONSTANT MENDEZ. I HAVE A PETITION HERE. I COULD ONLY GET 52 SIGNATURES, BUT I HAD A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. I COULD GET MORE. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING ME. I AM CONSTANCE MENDEZ, 2010 FOR VICTORIA CHASE AND I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PRINCE, FOR BRINGING UP SOME THINGS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT. AND MISS OWEN AND MISS CHAVARRIA AND MISS VENICE, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. SO I WON'T, YOU KNOW, REPEAT ALL THE THINGS THAT I SAID IN THE EMAILS THAT I SENT TO EACH ONE OF YOU. BUT I'M BASICALLY AGAINST THIS WHOLE THING. AND IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT IT'S A HOTEL. IT IS, AGAIN, TO REITERATE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IT'S THE LOCATION. 1431 WOULD BE SUCH A BETTER CHOICE, YOU KNOW, TO TO PUT THIS THERE. AND IT IS GOING TO PROFOUNDLY AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE PROXIMITY WHERE WE ARE THERE IN SEVEN PORTICOS. BUT JUST TO ADD A COUPLE MORE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, IT'S OUR SAFETY, YOU KNOW, WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS, WITH WILDFIRES, CENTRAL TEXAS SUPPOSEDLY CARRIES THE GREATEST RISK OF WILDFIRE OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A PRECARIOUS STATE HERE. SO WE HAVE ONE ENTRANCE, WHICH IS WHAT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TOLD ME, THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE WAY TO GET IN AND ONE WAY TO GET OUT TO THIS HOTEL. SO I 
          [01:15:02]
DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY WOULD EVACUATE. WE'RE CATEGORIZED RIGHT NOW IN A SEVERE DROUGHT HERE IN LAGO VISTA. AS OF FEBRUARY 10TH, 73% OF TEXAS IS UNDER DROUGHT CONDITION, 24 IS ABNORMALLY DRY. BUT WE'RE IN A SEVERE DROUGHT RIGHT HERE. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN SPARE THE WATER, BECAUSE WATER USAGE IN HOTELS, THEY AVERAGE 100 TO 400 GALLONS A DAY PER ROOM. SO YOU CAN DO THE MATH ON THAT. AND IT'S OFTEN EIGHT TIMES HIGHER IN A HOTEL THAN THE LOCAL RESIDENTS USE THEIR WATER. SO I KNOW SOMETIMES IF YOU GO TO A HOTEL, YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT HOW MUCH WATER YOU'RE USING AND YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, THE LAUNDRY, THE RESTROOMS, LANDSCAPING, COOLING, HEATING, ALL THESE THINGS THAT GO INTO OPERATING A HOTEL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE IF HE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THERE. IF YOU PUT A BED AND BREAKFAST IN, YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING REALLY SMALL AND THAT WOULDN'T INTERRUPT, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH BECAUSE I REALIZE HE'S BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND HE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING. AND GOING BACK TO COLLECTING TAXES FOR THE CITY, WE ALREADY HAVE OVER A THOUSAND VRBOS AND AIRBNBS HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, OUR OCCUPANCY RATE GOES, BUT THEY SHOULD BE GENERATING SOME TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY. AND BACK TO THE WATER USAGE REALLY QUICKLY. A BED AND BREAKFAST USES 709 7925 GALLONS PER BED PER YEAR, WHICH EQUALS TO 713,250 GALLONS PER YEAR. OOPS. THAT'S MY TIME AND MY CONDOLENCES TO YOU ON YOUR GRANDFATHER. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING ME. AND PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. THANK YOU. I KNOW JAY MENDEZ. WELL. OF COURSE IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, RIGHT? THE OTHER THING I'LL MENTION IS ACRONYMS THAT YOU ALL THROW AROUND DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYBODY ELSE, BUT THE FIRST THING I'LL TELL YOU, THE LUIS DOESN'T MEAN A THING WHEN YOU START REALLY LOOKING AT THE SPECIFICS, THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS ABOUT HOW MUCH WATER IS USED BY A HOTEL OF THIS CALIBER, AND IT'S ALMOST 2 MILLION GALLONS A YEAR. THAT'S A MORE CONCRETE NUMBER TO DEAL WITH THAN LUIS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, BECAUSE THE LUIS ARE BASED ON A HOME. RIGHT. THIS IS BASED TOTALLY ON OTHER CALCULATIONS FROM OTHER THINGS THAT I'VE READ. THE ASPECT ABOUT TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE AND SIX SECONDS OR 10S OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S IT'S THE DANGER OF ADDING MORE TRAFFIC. AND ALREADY IT'S DANGEROUS, AS YOU ALL KNOW. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS DO THIS, BUT THE SPEED LIMIT ISN'T BEING ADHERED TO AT ALL. AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO ADD MORE TO THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET OTHER TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, VOLUME TO THAT STREET. AND 1431 OF COURSE IS LOGICAL. BUT SO WOULD YOU KNOW, LOWMAN, FORD. IT'S GOT ENOUGH ROOM AND IT CAN BE EXPANDED. YOU CAN'T EXPAND. BOGGY FORD I THINK SOMEBODY AT THE PNC SAID THAT THE ORIGINAL PLANS WERE FOUR LANES. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, SO FORGET THAT. 
          FROM WHAT I CAN SEE. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE USAGE OF WATER TRAFFIC. AND THEN THIS WHOLE ASPECT ABOUT THE 65FT, YOU ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HOTEL. FINE. YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT I ALWAYS ENVISIONED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLACE. I FEEL LIKE I'M OUT IN THE COUNTRY, NOT THE CITY THAT'S CHANGING. AND I THINK THINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGING ALL OVER TEXAS, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME HERE. BUT CONTINUING ON WITH WHAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, I CAN SAY THAT YOU ALL DISCUSSIONS THAT I'M LISTENING TO IS APPROPRIATE. SO KEEP ON GOING AND ESPECIALLY LISTEN TO LINDA AIRED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE JULIE BUNDGAARD. HELLO, I AM ALSO A 
          [01:20:04]
SEVEN PORTICOES RESIDENT, BUT I'M ALSO A 17 YEAR OLD 17 YEAR BROKER. REAL ESTATE, PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL BUT IN THE AUSTIN AREA. I THINK EVERYTHING'S BEING REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          I DON'T THINK THE IDEA OF A HOTEL IS A BAD THING FOR LAGO VISTA. THE LOCATION IS CLEARLY NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT. JUST THIS PAST SUNDAY, THERE WAS A NEAR HEAD ON COLLISION AT BOGGY AND LOHMAN. I WAS TWO CARS BEHIND IT WHEN IT HAPPENED. BRIGHT SUNSHINY DAY, NOT A MILE. 
          NOT A VERY BUSY DAY. IT'S PRETTY LAUGHABLE, UNFORTUNATELY. YEAH, I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE. RIGHT THERE AT LINCOLN AND BOGGY, HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE HAD TO REPLACE THAT UTILITY BOX THAT GETS WIPED OUT ALL THE TIME? THERE'S EVEN BEEN A DEATH THERE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING LAUGHABLE AT ALL WHATSOEVER. THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS. MY PROPERTY IS 1996 AND WE BACK UP TO BOGGY RIGHT THERE ACROSS FROM THE GLASS COMPANY, NEXT TO WHERE THE GUY LIVES, WHERE IT WAS A BRAUN MODEL HOME. SO WE BACK UP RIGHT THERE. WE SEE AND HEAR IT ALL. YOU KNOW, I HATE THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN LABELED AND CONSTANTLY MARKETED AS A SMALL BOUTIQUE BOUTIQUE HOTEL, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. THIS IS A HUGE CONGLOMERATE. THERE ARE KNOWN FOR THEIR HOTEL INDIGO'S, CROWNE PLAZA, CANDLEWOOD SUITES, HOLIDAY INN, HOLIDAY EXPRESS. 
          THERE ARE REVENUE THEIR MARKET CAP AS OF FEBRUARY JUST THIS MONTH WAS $21.84 BILLION. 
          SURELY THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAGO VISTA CITY LIMITS. THAT'S A LOT SAFER. 
          THAT IS A MAIN ARTERY. LIKE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WILDFIRES. THERE'S NOT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT, NOT JUST ROADS AND CURBS AND SIDEWALKS AND LIGHTING AND UTILITIES. BUT THAT'S GOING TO TAX OUR POLICE. WE DON'T HAVE AN AMBULANCE. I MEAN, WE DO, BUT IT'S CAREFLIGHT MOST OF THE TIME, IF THERE'S A SEVERE FATALITY TYPE ACCIDENT OR INJURY, I KNOW BECAUSE MY HUSBAND HAD TO DO THAT IN A SEPARATE SITUATION, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT THE LOCATION. IT'S VERY CONCERNING. IT'S NOT THE REASON WHY WE MOVED TO LAGO VISTA FOR IT TO BE SOME BIG MAIN HUB WITH BIG HOTELS AND LAVISH THINGS. I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM OUR LOCAL EATERIES THAT ARE FAMILY OWNED AND OPERATED. IT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO AFFECT THE WAY OF LIFE AND THE VIBE OF WHAT LAGO VISTA IS ALL ABOUT, THE HEART OF LAGO VISTA, IN MY OPINION. I WORRY ABOUT THE WATER, THE SEWER, JUST THE TRASH AND THE POLLUTION. NOT JUST THE TRASH TRASH, BUT LIGHT POLLUTION, NOISE POLLUTION. WE CAN ALREADY HEAR A LOT FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH IS DOWN QUITE A BIT AWAY FROM SOUTHERN PORTICOES. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE MAINLY RIGHT THERE IN OUR BACKYARD. I KNOW I WILL SELL MY HOUSE AND MOVE. SO I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DAVE STEWART. THANK. I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AS FAR AS THE WATER PRESSURE, THIS THING IS GOING TO BE ON ITS OWN HYDRO SYSTEM. THEY'RE GOING TO BE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A RESERVOIR ON TOP OF THE HILL, PROBABLY 50, 75,000 GALLONS. 
          PUMPS WILL COME OUT OF THE TANK. THEY'LL PRESSURIZE THE BUILDING. IT'S ALMOST AS HIGH AS HALFWAY UP THE TOWER AND TANK. SO HOW'S IT GOING TO GET ANY PRESSURE? SO IT'S NOT GOING TO INFLUENCE ANYTHING. AND THE WATER STORAGE WILL ALSO SERVE AS THE FIRE SUPPRESSION WATER FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE SAME HYDRO PUMPS WILL PUT THE FIRES OUT IN THE BUILDING. AS FAR AS VALUES GO. I SENT YOU ALL AN ANALYSIS FOR THIS FOR PRESSURE PLANE ONE AND PRESSURE PLANE SIX. I DID STATE THAT THERE WERE 653 UNATTACHED, UNSOLD. LOUISE, IF IT'S YOUR DECISION TO USE 72 OF THEM ON THE WATER SIDE, THERE'S PLENTY OF WATER ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE. I TOLD YOU THAT I HAD NOT DONE THAT ANALYSIS YET, BUT I HAD CONCERNS. BUT I ALSO TOLD YOU THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THIS ONE TOO MUCH. BUT THERE IS AN OUT. IF WE GO BACK TO WHAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVE DONE. AS FAR AS THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, THERE ARE FOUR ROADS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED TO BE FOUR LANE ROADS. BOGGY FORD IS ONE OF THEM. NATIONAL DODGE TRAIL, 
          [01:25:05]
HIGHLAND LAKES AND ONE OTHER THAT'S ELUDING ME. I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE THAT WE KNOW BOGGY FORD IS A FOUR LANE ROAD, BECAUSE WE FOUND THE WATER LINE 20FT OFF THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT, AND THE CITY OWNS THAT WHOLE 20FT. SO THERE'S YOUR TWO MISSING LANES AS FAR AS THE FIRE EXIT, THERE IS ANOTHER FIRE EXIT THAT CAN ONLY BE OPENED DURING EMERGENCIES, WHICH CONNECTS SHORELINE RANCH ROAD WITH DESTINATION WAY, BUT IT'S KEPT LOCKED EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY. SO THERE THERE IS ANOTHER OUT GOING THROUGH MONTALCINO AND SHORELINE RANCH. 
          THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE MR. PAUL ROBERTS. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR, COUNCIL STAFF. A FEW THINGS. 
          THE WATER MODEL AT SOME POINT, IF THIS IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, THE WATER MODEL. YES THE NUMBERS WILL GET PLUGGED IN BUT THAT DOESN'T. AND THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. THAT'S THAT'S A GIVEN. BUT THAT IS NOT A LIMITATION ON HOW MANY LOUISE THEY GET FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A PDE READ. THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN THE PACKET. AFTER THE CONCEPT PLAN. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THIS PROPERTY. WHAT PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE IS THAT THAT CONCEPT PLAN IS NOT A BINDING INSTRUMENT. IT'S NOT PART OF A CONTRACT. IT'S JUST A PRETTY PICTURE THAT SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. AND IF YOU DON'T REMAND THIS BACK TO PAZ AND SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WANT TO DO WELL, WE'LL JUST GIVE YOU C-2 SO YOU GET YOUR LIMITED ON THE HEIGHT. WELL, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A HOTEL. 
          THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE THERE AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN WHAT'S ALLOWED IN TABLE. I THINK IT'S TABLE B IN OUR ORDINANCES. SO REMANDING IT BACK. I MEAN HAD I BEEN ON PAZ, I WOULD HAVE TABLED IT AND REQUESTED THAT THEY COME BACK WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN DETAIL PLAN AND I WOULD HAVE MARKED EVERYTHING UP BEFORE SENDING THIS TO YOU GUYS. BUT YOU ARE HERE NOW, AND YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT IN FRONT OF YOU. ABSOLUTELY, IF YOU WANT TO. IF YOU'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PERIOD AND YOU WANT TO SEE ANOTHER REVISION OF IT, REMAND IT BACK TO PAZ, REQUIRE A CONCEPT PLAN, DETAIL PLAN, BE A PART OF IT. BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN IS WHERE YOU DECIDE HOW MUCH WATER OR HOW MANY LOUISE THEY GET FOR THIS PROPERTY. YOU CAN DECIDE YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM 20 OR 300. THAT'S UP TO THE CITY TO DECIDE IN CONSULTATION WITH STAFF AND WHAT YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE. I THINK ALSO YOU REMEMBER TOO, IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, YOU'LL WANT TO INCLUDE PHASING, BECAUSE IF THEY GET THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY, YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS AN MOU WITH THE HOTEL GROUP OR A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. NOTHING. HE DOESN'T. THERE'S NO OBLIGATION THERE FOR HIM TO DO THIS. SO HE COULD TAKE THIS ONCE HE GETS THE ENTITLEMENTS AND FLIP IT TO WHOMEVER HE WANTS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE PHASING IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SO THAT IF THEY DON'T START CUTTING GROUND, THEY DON'T START GETTING THINGS, YOU KNOW, DONE PURSUANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT GOES AWAY AND THEY LOSE THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. BUT I THINK A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I JOTTED DOWN IS, YES, I ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THIS. BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THAT WAS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH A BLESSING FOR THIS PROJECT. THE ANNEXATION WAS RECOGNIZING THAT IF WE DON'T BRING THEM INTO THE CITY, THEY COULD DO SOMETHING MORE AVERSE TO WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. THAT BEING SAID, EVEN IF THEY'RE IN THE ETJ, CHAPTER TEN OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES DOES APPLY TO OUR ETJ. THEY DON'T GET TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. 
          THEY'RE STILL SUBJECT TO THE LCRA T-C-E-Q JONESTOWN, ONE HOUSE, ONE LOT YOU HAVE TO HAVE. 
          THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN DO IT. THAT'S WHY THE GUY AT THE GAS STATION HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING. 
          THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD IN PERSON. I DID HAVE ONE OTHER PERSON THAT ASKED ME TO WRITE THEIRS IN. OH, YOU DID. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I'LL CALL EBS OR KING. PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE SPOKE UP BECAUSE I DO HAVE AN UNPOPULAR OPINION ON THIS ONE. BUT FIRSTLY, I'LL SAY I AM NOT ANTI-GROWTH, BUT I AM ALSO NOT BLINDLY PRO-DEVELOPMENT EITHER. WHAT I AM IS A STRONG BELIEVER IN PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THOUGHTFUL PROGRESS. EVERY LOT IN THE CITY IS ALREADY OWNED AND WITH OWNERSHIP COMES RIGHTS. WE SHOULD CONSIDER. WE SHOULD CONSIDER OURSELVES FORTUNATE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS 
          [01:30:03]
PUBLIC INPUT, REVIEW AND ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE BEFORE THE ANNEXATION, SOMETHING FAR LESS DESIRABLE COULD HAVE GONE ON THAT LAND LIKE A JUNKYARD, AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE LITTLE TO NO SAY AT ALL. INSTEAD, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS A BOUTIQUE HOTEL, SOMETHING THAT SERVES RESIDENTS, VISITORS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES BECAUSE PEOPLE VISITING IS GOOD FOR THE SMALL BUSINESSES, SOMETHING THAT ADDS VALUE INSTEAD OF BLIGHT, SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY REFLECTS PRIDE IN THE CITY RATHER THAN NEGLECT OF IT. I'VE HEARD MANY PEOPLE SAY I'M NOT AGAINST A HOTEL. I JUST THINK IT SHOULD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. RESPECTFULLY, I'D LIKE TO ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION WHERE THERE'S NOT A SPACE ON 1431 WHERE IT COULD POSSIBLY FIT. THERE IS LITTLE TO NO SOMEWHERE ELSE. LAGO VISTA DOES NOT HAVE ENDLESS COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WAITING FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS. IF WE WANT AMENITIES, SERVICES AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, THEY HAVE TO EXIST SOMEWHERE IN REALITY AND NOT IN THEORY. I'VE ALSO HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, BUT 90 ROOMS DOES NOT MEAN GRIDLOCK, AND WE ARE SURROUNDED BY CITIES WITH SMALLER POPULATIONS THAN LAGO VISTA THAT ARE FAR MORE BUILT OUT AND FUNCTIONING JUST FINE. 
          WHAT MATTERS TO ME IS THAT THIS PROJECT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE CITY, RATHER THAN FREEZE IT IN TIME OUT OF FEAR. GROWTH DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THE LOSS OF CHARACTER. IN FACT, NEGLECT IS OFTEN FAR MORE DAMAGING THAN THE PROGRESS THAN PROGRESS DONE RIGHT. THIS SAID, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS ABOUT THIS PLAN THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED BEFORE APPROVAL, BECAUSE THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED LIKE THE HEIGHT, BUT I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE A WELL-DESIGNED, INTENTIONAL PROJECT THAT BEAUTIFIES LAGO VISTA THAN AN EMPTY LOT, AN EYESORE, OR SOMETHING THAT IS TRULY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY. WE CAN RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HOLD DEVELOPERS TO STANDARDS. WE CAN PROTECT THE CITY OF THE. WE CAN PROTECT THE SPIRIT OF THE CITY WITHOUT REJECTING EVERY STEP FORWARD. THOSE THINGS ARE NOT OPPOSITES. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS THOUGHTFULLY, AND I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO DO THE SAME WITHOUT FEAR, WITHOUT EXTREMES, AND WITH THE LONG TERM VISION FOR LAGO VISTA. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I NOW HAVE A CITIZEN WHO WROTE IN. MR. JEFF HUGHLEY ASKED THAT I READ THIS. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS JEFF HUGHLEY AND I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT AS A RESIDENT AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          THESE ARE MY PERSONAL NOT TO APE THE PDT RELATED TO THE PROPOSED HOTEL ON BOGGY FORD ROAD. HERE ARE THE KEY REASONS, INCLUDING MYSELF. BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION. 
          FIRST, THE SCALE AND HEIGHT ARE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 30 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE, ALLOWING A STRUCTURE UP TO 65FT ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THE BACK OF THE SITE SITS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ROAD, THE VISUAL IMPACT WOULD BE EVEN MORE DRAMATIC. A FIVE STORY BUILDING AT THE ENTRANCE TO ONE OF OUR LARGEST RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS SIMPLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. SECOND, THE LOCATION IS TOO CLOSE TO EXISTING HOMES. BOGGY FORD IS A PRIMARY ENTRY CORRIDOR FOR THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS, PLACING A LARGE COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ESPECIALLY ONE OF THIS HEIGHT AND INTENSITY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO HOMES UNDERMINES THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER THAT PEOPLE EXPECT WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE IN THIS PART OF LAGO VISTA. THIRD, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BINDING THE DEVELOPER TO ANY PARTICULAR DESIGN OR OUTCOME. SOME CONCEPT IMAGES WERE CIRCULATED ON FACEBOOK BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT BOUND TO THOSE IMAGES IN ANY WAY. WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY HAS NO ENFORCEABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED OR BUILT IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PRESERVES OUR SCENIC BEAUTY. THE DEVELOPER COULD CHANGE THE DESIGN ENTIRELY, INTENSIFY THE USE OR SELL THE PROPERTY. SOMEONE ELSE WHO COULD BUILD ANYTHING ALLOWED UNDER CODE IN 65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. FOURTH, THE SCALE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERM BOUTIQUE. A 90 ROOM HOTEL PLUS ADDITIONAL CASITAS IS NOT. A SMALL, LOW IMPACT BOUTIQUE LODGING OPTION IS A MID-RISE, HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE BEING PLACED IN A QUIET RESIDENTIAL SETTING. FIFTH, THIS STRETCH OF BOGGY FORD SHOULD SERVE AS A BUFFER, NOT A COMMERCIAL EXPANSION ZONE. THIS CORRIDOR TRANSITIONS DIRECTLY INTO A LARGE RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          HISTORICALLY AND LOGICALLY, IT SHOULD REMAIN NONCOMMERCIAL. A VERY LOW IMPACT COMMERCIAL. 
          APPROVING A FIVE STORY HOTEL HERE SETS A PRECEDENT THAT COULD PERMANENTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE ENTIRE AREA. MANY RESIDENTS AGREE THAT LAGO VISTA MAY BENEFIT FROM A HOTEL, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT ONE, IT SHOULD BE LOCATED WHERE IT HAS MINIMAL IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS, FITS OUR SCENIC ENVIRONMENT, AND IS ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR OUR OWN RESIDENTS VISITING FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET THOSE STANDARDS. FOR THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS HOTEL. 
          I ALSO ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO STAY ENGAGED AND HELP ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT AT LAGO VISTA REFLECTS THE CHARACTER AND VALUES OF THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. JEFF HUGHLEY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? WHO HAS NOT SPOKEN YET? SEEING NOBODY, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC. OKAY. SORRY, SIR. I SORRY, MY NAME IS CHRIS. I JUST MOVED INTO THE SEVEN PORTICOES NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE FEBRUARY 3RD. SO MY FAMILY AND I WERE EXCITED TO FIND A PLACE THAT MET A LOT OF OUR DESIRES. I'VE GOT TWO SMALL KIDS. JUST WANTED TO RAISE THEM SOMEWHERE A LITTLE BIT MORE COUNTRY LIKE I GREW UP. I'VE WORKED OUT IN LAGO VISTA WITH BOB CRAWFORD FOR LIKE FIVE YEARS, AND WAS EXCITED TO MOVE FROM ROUND ROCK AND TAKE LIKE TWO HOURS OFF OF MY DAY COMMUTING. THE BIGGEST THING I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS HOTEL 
          [01:35:01]
YESTERDAY. JAKE CAME BY THE HOUSE AND LET US KNOW. I MEAN, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT'S JUST A LOT TO TAKE IN. I JUST CAME HERE FOR THE INFORMATION, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S INPUT AND I MEAN A BIG CONCERN I HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT ABOUT IS I MEAN, JUST LIKE LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION. A COUPLE PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED THAT TOO. AGAIN, I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF ECHO SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. SO PRETTY UNPREPARED. BUT THANKS FOR HEARING ME, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. AND PLEASE GET WITH THE CITY SECRETARY WITH THE CARD. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MR. THOMPSON, GO TO MR. THOMPSON. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, YOU'LL HAVE TO BE ON CAMERA. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAMERA IS CONNECTING. I CAN HEAR YOU, BUT WE CAN'T SEE YOU. IT'S CONNECTING, AND I APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S JUST SPINNING. IS IT OKAY IF I SPEAKERS? YEAH. WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE YOU ON CAMERA IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK. CIRCUS. OKAY. THERE. YOU SEE ME? YEP. I CAN SEE YOU. GO AHEAD. SO IT'S JUST TO ECHO PRETTY MUCH ESSENTIALLY WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID. AND I DON'T THINK THAT, FOR INSTANCE, MARBLE FALLS, THEY HAVE A LOT OF HOTELS AND IT HELPS THEIR COMMUNITY GENERATES REVENUE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA, BUT IF YOU GO THERE, MOST OF THOSE HOTELS ARE OFF THE MAIN STRIP. I LIVE BY EMERALD OFF BOGGY. I DRIVE UP THIS ROAD EVERY DAY AND I GO BY THE GAS STATION. OVER THE LAST MONTH, I THINK EVERY WEEK I'VE NOTICED MORE AND MORE CARS. AS YOU COME UP TO THE LIGHT THERE ON NATIONAL BY COPPERHEAD AND WHATNOT. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 40 DEEP TODAY GOING TO WORK, SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THAT DRAMATICALLY. IF HE'S TALKING ABOUT A SPA, A RESTAURANT AND A HOTEL. I THINK THIS IS I THINK ONE LADY MENTIONED A BED AND BREAKFAST. I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY SUITED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE A 8 TO 10 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, OR A KIND OF LIKE THE OVER THERE BY BROOKSHIRE'S, WHERE THEY'VE GOT AN UPPER AND LOWER AND YOU'VE GOT A TINY LITTLE STRIP MALL WHERE YOU'VE GOT A FEW BUSINESSES. HE CAN GENERATE REVENUE. I THINK THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD HELP THE COMMUNITY GENERATE JOBS. I THINK ANYTHING OF THOSE LINES WOULD BE FINE. BUT TO PUT A LARGE, GIGANTIC HOTEL RIGHT THERE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS IS JUST ATROCIOUS TO ME. I MEAN, I MOVED OUT HERE BECAUSE I WAS GETTING BOXED IN FROM EVERY ANGLE. AND LEANDER, BY DEVELOPMENT, I LIKE WALKING MY DOG DOWN THERE. I LIKE THERE NOT BEING A HUGE AMOUNT OF LIGHT POLLUTION EVERYWHERE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA. I THINK A MUCH BETTER LOCATION WOULD BE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND TO SARAH. SOMETHING OVER THERE WHERE HE CAN STILL HAVE THOSE GREAT VIEWS. HE'S STILL GOING TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAT WAY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING BY, I THINK JUST TO HAVE IT DOWN THERE IS TERRIBLE. THE TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE WORSE. 
          IT'S JUST AS I'M DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD, I LIKE TO SEE THE SUNSET. I DON'T WANT TO SEE A A 15 STORY BUILDING WHEN IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING PEACEFUL. COMING HOME FROM WORK AFTER A STRESSFUL DAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TURN THAT BEFORE IT GOES OFF. OKAY. THIS IS OUR. I'VE ALREADY HAD EVERYONE COME UP. I'M SORRY, MR. ROBERTS. I ASK THAT YOU EMAIL THAT TO THE COUNCIL. IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE AT THIS TIME, I'M READY TO CLOSE THE HEARING AT 538. AND NOW I BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. MR. BENEFIELD, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A KIND OF A DISCUSSION. ONLY I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS JUST BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD WITH SOME OF THE THINGS I LOVE. WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT PRESSURE NEUTRAL, AS I'VE MADE A LOT OF MY NOTES BEFORE COMING TO THE MEETING, EVERYTHING THAT I WROTE DOWN IS, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS AS NEUTRAL AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO THE CITIZENS THAT WILL BE LIVING AROUND IT OR BE AFFECTED BY IT, NOT JUST BY PRESSURE, BUT BY TRAFFIC AND BY NOISE AND LIGHTING AND EVERYTHING THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO AS I LOOK AT A PROJECT LIKE THIS, THE EXPECTATIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE IS HOW DOES THIS GET ACCOMPLISHED? COMPLETELY 
          [01:40:02]
NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE. SO I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID. THANK YOU. I ECHO MISS VAUGHN COMMENTS VERY CLOSELY. I THINK. I DON'T SAY I'M PRO-DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M ALSO NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. I BELIEVE IN RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK IF WE HAD 15,000 RESIDENTS IN HERE, I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY WANT A HOTEL. I THINK THEY WOULD WANT A HIGH END RESTAURANT, THEY WOULD WANT A SPA. I MEAN, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I HEARD PEOPLE SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE A GATEWAY TO WHAT IS A GATEWAY TO GETAWAY? COME ENJOY LAGO VISTA. BUT THEN WHEN YOU'RE DONE, LEAVE. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND HOW DO WE ACCOMPLISH THAT? YOU KNOW, WE'VE SAID FOR YEARS WE NEED A HOTEL AND WE WOULD LIKE A SPA. WE WANT BETTER RESTAURANTS. AND HERE AT STARING IN OUR FACE, NOT NOT EVEN JUST A BOUTIQUE RESTAURANT OR A HOTEL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NICE HOTEL, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, LET'S NOT SAY NO TO SOMETHING TODAY THAT WE WOULD BEG FOR TEN YEARS FROM NOW. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A REAL OPPORTUNITY IF WE CAN DO IT AS A CITIZEN NEUTRAL WAY. MEANING HOW DO WE DO IT? OR DOES IT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR TRAFFIC? RIGHT. I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC IF I LOOKED AT, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO ADD A 90 ROOM HOTEL, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY INFRASTRUCTURE TO BOBBY. THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN OF MINE. BUT WHEN, YOU KNOW, IF FIREFLY WAS APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL, THEY REQUIRED SO MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO BE INVESTED BY FIREFLY TO MAKE SURE THAT FOGGY WAS APPROVED. RIGHT. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? AND THOSE AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVEN'T OCCURRED YET. RIGHT. BUT THEY WILL. AND I WOULD EXPECT THE SAME THING OUT OF A PD LIKE THIS. I WOULD EXPECT THE DEVELOPER TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, I'M GOING TO INVEST SO MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HAD A NEUTRAL EFFECT ON THE HOMEOWNERS. I AGREE WITH THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE A VARIANCE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A 65 FOOT MONSTROSITY ON TOP OF THE HILL, BUT IF THEY CAN APPROVE IT, IF WE IF THEY CAN BUILD THIS IN A WAY WHERE IT'S ONLY 25FT ABOVE AND IT MEETS OUR STANDARD CODES AND ZONES, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. 
          I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE ALREADY SAYS. AND SO AS I AS I GO THROUGH THIS, I, I HAVE CONCERNS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY CAN DO IT IN A NEUTRAL WAY. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, I WROTE DOWN WASTEWATER. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WASTEWATER. SO NOT ONLY WOULD I WOULD I EXPECT TO SEE IMPACT FEES, BUT JUST LIKE FIREFLY, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THEY INVESTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER AND ABOVE TO GO TOWARDS OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS. I WOULD EXPECT THE SAME THING TO BE APPLIED TO OUR WATER SYSTEM, THAT THEY WOULD INVEST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TOWARDS OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM. AND SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT A NEUTRAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I WOULD EXPECT THE LIGHTING, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. I MEAN, ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS SHARED AND I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS, BUT I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE PDB THAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED IN A NEUTRAL WAY, AS MUCH AS, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I DID HAVE ONE CONCERN THAT I'D LIKE STAFF TO LOOK INTO. ONE OF THE MISTAKES THAT I REMEMBER SEEING IN LEANDER IS THEY APPROVED A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN 2017. 
          IT WAS A IT WAS LIKE A RETIREMENT FACILITY OVER OFF OF NAMELESS. AND IT WAS LIKE 4 OR 5FT BY FIVE STORIES TALL. IT GOT APPROVED, IT GOT BUILT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY FOUND OUT THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE A SPECIAL LADDER TRUCK, AND IT ENDED UP COSTING THE CITY $1.5 MILLION TO INVEST IN A FIRE TRUCK, JUST TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TALL OF A BUILDING. RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN A AVENUE OF SAYING, OKAY, YEAH, LET'S PUT IN A SIX STORY BUILDING, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN CHARLES SAYING, HEY GUYS, REMEMBER THAT DVD YOU APPROVED? YOU NOW HAVE TO STRIKE A $2 MILLION CHECK TO GET A FIRE TRUCK OUT HERE. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. IF I JUST AS A RESPONSE TO THAT, THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEFORE I ACTUALLY CAME ON BOARD AS STAFF. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETELY OKAYED IT WITH THE EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE. THE ENGINEER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE GONE, GONE THROUGH THE WRINGER, MAKING SURE THAT THEY CAN APPROVE IT. WE HAVE ALL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN MY EMAILS, BUT THAT'S BEEN CLEARED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, SO THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR ANOTHER LADDER TRUCK. IT WAS A PROVISION THAT THEY CONSIDERED PERFECT. THANK YOU. BUT YOU KNOW, TO TO ECHO MR. ROBERTS, HE DIDN'T SAY IT TONIGHT. I'M ACTUALLY VERY DISAPPOINTED YOU DIDN'T. BUT SOMETHING YOU ALWAYS SAY IS THAT A PD REQUIRES A HIGHER STANDARD. HIGHER BETTER USE. 
          RIGHT. AND IF AND IF AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. THEN THE LEVERAGE THAT WE HAVE AS CITY COUNCIL THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE 
          [01:45:01]
IF IT WAS AN ETJ OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE IT IF IT WAS JUST A REGULAR PROJECT. THE THE BENEFIT OF A PD IS THAT WE GET A HIGHER, BETTER USE. WE GET MORE OUT OF THIS THAN WHAT WE COULD IF IT WAS JUST A NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHERE THEY WANTED TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, STORAGE, LIKE WHAT'S ON LOMAN, AND WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, RIGHT? WE GET BETTER, HIGHER USE WITH THIS KIND OF A PROJECT, AND THERE'S LEVERAGE THERE SO THAT WE CAN GET THE VERY BEST PRODUCT. SO I HOPE I DIDN'T PLAGIARIZE YOU TOO MUCH THERE, MR. ROBERTS, BUT. YOU KNOW, $500,000 IN SALES TAX, ANNUAL REVENUE. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT. SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT WE PROBABLY GET THAT FROM OUR CURRENT STAFF. UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T. THEY'RE NOT PAYING US. IT SHOULD BE. YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR LOCAL RESTAURANTS LIKE THE BURGER BAR AND BELLA VISTA, THIS IS HOW WE DO THOSE THINGS. 
          WE INVITE PEOPLE TO LOG A VISTA. THEY STAY HERE AND THEN THEY LEAVE. SO IF WE CAN DO THAT AND DO IT ON A NEUTRAL LEVEL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN, BUT IF WE CAN, I THINK IT'S GREAT FOR LAGO VISTA. MR. HALL. WELL, MY CONCERN DOWN HERE BUT. OH THAT'S RIGHT. HAVE TO HOLD THE BUTTON DOWN. SORRY. MY CONCERNS HAVE ALL BEEN EXPRESSED AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS FROM THE DEVELOPER AND AND THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD AND BACK TO PNC FOR THOSE DETAILS. I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BENEFIELD THAT AND OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ADVANTAGE TO THE CITY, AND CERTAINLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING OUR OUR TAXES AND LOWER AND HAVING THAT OUTSIDE INCOME THAT WILL SUPPORT THAT. AND SO BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND, AND I, I EXPECT THAT ALL OF THOSE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU, MR. HALL. 
          AND I'LL SAY A COUPLE WORDS BEFORE I GO TO EVERYONE'S SECOND TIME. ACTUALLY, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN, BUT DEFINITELY HAVE HEARD WHAT THE CITIZENS HAVE HAD TO SAY. I SAW THIS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I THINK YOU ALL ARE REFLECTING A LOT OF WHAT'S BEEN OUT THERE. THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF COMMENTS. I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO MR. AND MR. ROBERTS REQUEST ABOUT PNC, ABOUT SENDING THIS BACK TO THEM TO GET A CONCEPT PLAN AND A DETAILED PLAN AND TALK ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS THE TASK THAT PNC WAS GIVEN? IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. IT WAS SIMPLY JUST, DO YOU RECOMMEND THIS GOES ON TO COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT A CONCEPT PLAN AND SAY, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO SEND WITH A RECOMMENDATION OR NOT? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE PNC PROCESS SO FAR AND WHAT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO GOING FORWARD PER THEIR REQUEST? SO THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IT SAYS THAT PNC HAS TO FORWARD THESE TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL DETERMINATION AND DECISION MAKING. THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. THEY COULD HAVE WITHHELD IT AND NOT SENT IT TO COUNCIL AT ALL AND ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. THEY HAD SEVERAL OPTIONS. THEY COULD HAVE SENT THEM BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND WE COULD HAVE COME BACK. THE CODE JUST SAYS IN ORDER FOR IT TO GET BEFORE COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, PLANNING AND ZONING HAS TO SEND IT. HOWEVER, THAT WAS INTERPRETED THAT THAT'S HOW IT WAS INTERPRETED. BUT THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT OUR CODE OUTLINES. AND SO THEN AS FAR AS US SENDING IT BACK TO THEM AND ASKING FOR THIS MORE DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN, WHAT'S THE WHAT DOES THAT TRIGGER? I KNOW WE HAVE SOME TIMELINES THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW OR WE'RE NOT. OH, OKAY. SO THERE'S NO DEADLINES ON THIS FOR CONSIDERATION. NO. OKAY. AND THEN THE MISS AARON'S COMMENT ABOUT THIS BEING A MINOR PLAT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME A LITTLE BIT MORE THE MINOR PLAT PROCESS VERSUS THE REGULAR PROCESS? WELL, SO I THINK THERE'S SOME WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR PACKET IS WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED AS THEIR CONCEPT PLAN. IT'S WHAT I CONSIDER A CONCEPT PLAN. IT'S VERY DETAILED, BUT IT'S NOT A FULL, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERED CIVIL SET. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A CONCEPT PLAN. SO FROM MY MY BACKGROUND, THAT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. THE SITE PLAN, CONCEPT PLAN, DETAILED PLAN, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE PLAT. THE MINOR PLAT IS JUST CLEANING UP LOT LINES. THEY'RE VACATING SOME EASEMENTS THAT THEY HAD ON THEIR OWN. IT'S UNIFYING THE LOT IN A WAY THAT IT'S CLEAN FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING. THE SITE PLAN OR CONCEPT PLAN OR DETAILED PLAN IS DIFFERENT, AND THAT'S WHAT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. THE PLAT IS SIMPLY JUST CLEANUP, AND IT'S A MINOR PLAT BECAUSE IT FALLS UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF A MINOR PLAT. THEY'RE NOT DOING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON IT. THEY'RE NOT DOING LOT SPLITTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S STATE LAW IS CALLING IT A MINOR PLAT. AND SO IT'S TWO SEPARATE 
          [01:50:05]
THINGS, TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN IN TERMS OF IF WE WERE TO SEND IT BACK AND ASK FOR SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE WORKED ON, HOW DOES THAT PROCESS USUALLY WORK? SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CAN ONLY BE ENTERED WITH PROPERTIES IN THE ETJ. SO IT IS NOT THAT THAT CHAPTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ONLY APPLIES TO ETJ PROPERTIES. NOW, DEEDS ARE PERMISSIBLE FOR IN CITY, RIGHT? BUT TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, YOU CAN'T ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS SUCH IF IT'S IN CITY LIMITS. OKAY. AND THEN MAYOR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP? YEAH. MR. PRINCE, SO I KNOW, MR. BULLOCK, THAT THAT ON A COUPLE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, TURN BACK RANCH AS ONE. AND THE SECOND ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF IS WYNN RANCH, BOTH OF WHICH ARE IN THE CITY. THEY'RE NOT IN THE ETJ. WE WE REQUIRED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE IN PLACE, AND WE REVIEWED THAT IN GREAT DETAIL. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DO THAT WITH US? I MEAN, HE DID, BUT SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON WHAT YOU SAID, BECAUSE WE HAVE DEFINITELY USED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AS A TOOL TO, AS MR. BENEFIELD WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY TO, YOU KNOW, BEST VALUE FOR OUR CITIZENS. I'D HAVE TO GO AND LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS TO, I DON'T KNOW, THEIR PROVENANCE AND THEIR HISTORY, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT UNDER UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE ENTERING WHAT IS TECHNICALLY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THOSE ARE LIMITED TO INITIALLY THE PROPERTY MUST BE IN THE ETJ. NOW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY PROVIDE FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND ONCE IT IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THEN IT CAN THEN YOU KNOW, THE ELEMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLY TO IT SO THAT ANNEXATION TIMELINE CAN BE FAIRLY SHORT. AND I'VE SEEN THAT IN A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, BUT INITIALLY IT JUST UNDER THAT PROCESS IT HAS TO BE IN THE ETJ. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SEE KIND OF WHAT THEIR PROVENANCE IS. I DIDN'T DRAFT THEM, SO I'M, I JUST I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD AND I DON'T RECALL THEM IN THAT GREAT DETAIL. YEAH. TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO ASK YOU TO DO THAT. I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF WHERE THE MAYOR AND OTHERS WERE GOING IS, IS HOW DO WE ENSURE FROM A PROCESS AND A DOCUMENT PERSPECTIVE, THAT WHAT WE ARE AGREEING TO IS SOMETHING THAT IS CONTAINED TO WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH? THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT. 
          THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK MY QUESTION BACK TO COUNCIL WILL BE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT WE'VE HAD A REQUEST THAT IT POSSIBLY GO BACK TO PNC. I'D LIKE TO HEAR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION OF THAT. I THINK MR. MENDEZ IS THE ONE THAT SAID THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. I DON'T THINK IT'S UP FOR DEBATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. I DEFINITELY FEEL THE SENTIMENT TO OF WE DO NEED MORE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO HELP OUR TAX BASE SO THAT THE TAXES AREN'T ALL ON OUR RESIDENTS, AND I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO LOWER OUR TAXES. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINITELY ADMIRABLE, BUT IT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING SO FAR THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON TO FEEL COMFORTABLE. AND THERE'S SOME ISSUES. AND SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE DETAILS BE WORKED OUT WITH PNC, IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE ULTIMATELY Y'ALL WILL DECIDE WHERE WE SEND THIS. MR. I AGREE, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEE THIS GO BACK TO PNC. MY CONCERN WITH I MEAN, IT WAS DEFINITELY NEEDED TO BE REMANDED BACK, BUT MY CONCERN WAS WHY IT WAS SENT TO US TO BEGIN WITH AND WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE JUST BEEN SOMETHING THAT THEY TABLED. I MADE OR MADE A SUGGESTION OR SOMETHING COME BACK. SO IT WAS CONCERNING THAT I SAW THIS ON THE AGENDA WITH THE LITTLE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD ALREADY HAD AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. I DID SHARE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I HAD DONE A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH IN THAT, UNDERSTOOD THAT IT MAY BE A USE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. NOW, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S WHAT WE CAN CALL CONTINGENCIES THAT ARE PUT INTO THESE DEEDS. ALSO WITH TIME LIMITATIONS, EXACTLY LIKE THE PHASING PLAN. THERE'S A LOT OF PD'S NOW, IF THEY'RE NOT BREAKING GROUND WITHIN TWO YEARS, THAT PD IS REVOKED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE THAT WAY THAT THEY CAN JUST BUY THE PLAN AND GET IT APPROVED FOR A CERTAIN HEIGHT VARIANCE, GET ALL THIS TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEN JUST SELL IT TO THE NEXT HIGHEST BIDDER. AND THEN WE GET SOMETHING THAT WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT AND HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH SENDING IT BACK. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, I'D ACTUALLY. MR. ROBERTS, WOULD YOU MIND COMING FORWARD? I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. I WANT TO PUSH YOUR BUTTON. OH, I'M SORRY, I WASN'T AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO I APOLOGIZE. YOU HAD. YOU HAD MADE A COMMENT 
          [01:55:02]
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T PROVIDE A CONCEPT PLAN, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? AND ALSO, IN YOUR PAST EXPERIENCES, YOU'VE BEEN A CHAMPION OF MAKING SURE DEVELOPMENTS FULFILL THEIR LEWD ENTITLEMENTS OR THEY SHOULD LOSE THEM. RIGHT. 
          SO THE LAWS THAT SPEAK TO THE PHASING, THE THE THE CONVERSATION YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IS A GOOD ONE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. TURN BACK WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS AND THAT DID HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ACTUALLY. I TAKE THAT BACK. IT MAY NOT HAVE. 
          LINDA, DO YOU RECALL DID LUNA RIDGE DID. YEAH THEY DID. AND THEN I KNOW WHEN RANCH WAS HALF OF IT WAS IN THE CITY. AND THEN THEY TRIED TO CONSOLIDATE CREATE ONE PD. IT WAS ALL IN THE CITY WHEN WE ANNEXED. RIGHT. SO SO TO TO BRAD'S POINT HE SAID THE CAVEAT HE SAID IS IF IT IF IT INITIALIZES IN THE ETJ THEN IT COMES IN. BUT WE HAVE THIS OTHER PRECEDENT. SO Y'ALL NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT ON PD. I DON'T YOU CAN'T I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PUT A RIDER IN A PD AMANDA. BECAUSE PD IS A TYPE OF ZONING AND YOU CAN'T DO CONTRACT ZONING. SO YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING IN THERE WHERE THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC EXPIRY OR EVEN PHASING, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. BUT IF YOU COULD, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENDORSE THE IDEA, IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER REMINDER IS, MR. PRINCE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OBVIOUS. THE 65FT FROM THE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS WAS APPROVED TONIGHT. THEY COULD LITERALLY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT CONCEPT PLAN SAYS, THEY COULD PUT IT ON THE HIGHEST POINT OF THAT PROPERTY, PERIOD. AND BUT DON'T FORGET TO THERE'S ALSO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF STAFF THAT THEY CAN DO AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FEET IF THEY WANT, OR THEY CAN DO LIKE THE LARKIN OVER AT NATURE'S POINT DID GO 15FT AND THEN COME BACK AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIA. REMEMBER TOO, THAT THERE'S THE GROSS CLOSE PROPERTY THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE 2020 COUNCIL BEFORE I GOT ON RIGHT, LIKE A FEW MONTHS BEFORE I GOT ON. AND THEY APPROVED 300 LOUISE ON 30 ACRES AND FROM A CHINESE INVESTMENT FIRM THAT'S GOING TO HAVE 300 PURE, 100% RENTALS ON THE CORNER OF OF BOGGY FORD IN LOWMAN. SO MY QUESTION IS, DID THEIR TIA ACCOUNT FOR THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT? THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL WANT TO LOOK INTO. AND PERFORMANCE BONDS, I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT TERM PERFORMANCE BOND OR OTHER TYPE OF BOND, BUT I KNOW LIKE WHEN THE MONTECITO PD WAS APPROVED IN 2014, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BOND. THAT WAY, IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY AGREED TO DO IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PD WERE NOT DONE, THEN THERE WAS MONEY IN ESCROW THAT THE CITY COULD THEN TAKE AND FINISH BUILDING THAT STUFF OUT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT I WOULD ASK PNC TO CONSIDER. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? THANK YOU. MAYOR, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. OKAY, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I TO GET TO THAT NEUTRAL LEVEL FOR ME, YOU HAVE TO VET A PROJECT LIKE THIS AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. YOU GOT TO GET IT PERFECT. LIKE MISS SAID, WE'VE GOT I THINK IT WAS YOU THAT SAID WE'VE GOT ONE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS APPROVED. WAS THAT YOU? WE GOT TO GET THIS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING TO APPROVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS. 
          IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SCREW UP A PROJECT LIKE THIS. AND SO I THINK THE MORE EYES THAT WE HAVE ON IT, THE MORE IDEAS THAT WE HAVE LOOKING AT IT AND APPROVING IT AND THE CONCEPT PLANS, ALL THAT STUFF, I THINK MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. SO I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THAT. MISS MENDES. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND ONE THING TOO, I'D LIKE TO ADD, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE TIA, ABOUT THE WATER MODELING. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION COMPLETED AS WELL. IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE TIMING WILL LEND ITSELF TO BEING PART OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT'S GOING BACK TO PNC. AS WE BUILD OUT THE DETAILS ON THIS, I FEEL WE REALLY NEED TO SEE THAT BEFORE WE CAN COME BACK TO COUNCIL AGAIN. SO THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PRINCE, JUST A COMMENT ABOUT THE PROCESS. SO SO WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH PNC, THERE WAS A LOT OF A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PNC MEMBERS ABOUT SORT OF HOW DEEP WERE THEY ALLOWED TO DIVE IN THIS IN THIS CONVERSATION. AND, AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE GUIDANCE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM ON THAT DAY. AND WE'VE GOT AT LEAST A COUPLE OF PNC MEMBERS HERE THAT CAN CAN CORRECT ME IF I MISS THIS WAS YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO A PD. YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO REVIEW THIS CONCEPT THAT IS IN THE PACKAGE, BUT THEY AND THEY ESSENTIALLY WHAT I HEARD, WHAT I TOOK AWAY WAS THEY SAID, WE'RE COUNTING ON COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DETAILS DON'T GO IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT WE'RE BEING TOLD NOT TO ADDRESS THE DETAILS IN OUR RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD TO COUNCIL OR NOT. AND SO YOU'RE NODDING. OKAY. IT WAS APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED. 
          [02:00:02]
AND THAT WAS IT. YEAH. SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AND I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, LET'S LET'S FORMALIZE THE DETAILS IN A REAL CONCEPT PLAN AND LET'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S WHATEVER WE CAN FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, LET'S GET AGREEMENTS IN PLACE. THAT AND I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE THE PHASE DEVELOPMENT. AND BY THE WAY, THE HISTORY ON THE PHASE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE DID OVER THE LAST PROBABLY FIRST TIME 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO WAS WE SAID WE HAVE SO MANY PROPERTIES, MOSTLY PDS, WHERE WE'VE PROMISED LOUISE, AND THEN TEN YEARS LATER, THEY STILL HAVEN'T DEVELOPED ANYTHING. THEY'VE FLIPPED THE PROPERTY THREE TIMES OR WHATEVER. RIGHT. AND SO WE SAID FOR ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WAS IN DISCUSSION BACK 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO, WE SAID, OKAY, YOU'VE GOT TO GET STARTED WITHIN X AMOUNT, YOU'VE GOT TO GET X PERCENT DONE, AND IT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, SO, SO SOME SOME BOUNDARIES GOT TO GET GOING. YOU CAN'T DO IT TOO FAST. 
          YOU CAN'T DO IT TOO SLOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PLAN AT A CITY LEVEL. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT IN ADDITION TO THE, TO THE, TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE CONCEPT OR WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL, WILL ULTIMATELY BE. SO I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF SENDING IT BACK WITH ALL THOSE APPLIED. OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO DO THAT. I'LL COME TO YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, AFTER THIS. BRAD, FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, THIS WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. OBVIOUSLY THE PNC CHAIR IS HERE, THOUGH. DOES SHE JUST HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT THIS ON THE PNC AGENDA AGAIN HEARING WHAT COUNCIL SAYING THEY DO? OKAY. 
          WELL, I TRUST THAT OUR PNC CHAIR'S GETTING GOOD DIRECTION RIGHT NOW. I'M WILLING TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN. THANK YOU. FIRST OFF I'M GOING TO SAY THIS IS INFORMATION AGAIN. JUST INSIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE HERE. YOU KNOW, AS WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD, FIRST, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS IS LAVERNE DEVELOPERS, WHICH IS A LOCAL DEVELOPER. IT IS NOT, ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE WHERE HE'S ENTERING IN AN AGREEMENT WITH INDIGO HOTELS. INDIGO IS NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS INSTANCE. NOW, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I PUSHED FOR VERY LONG, A LONG TIME, AND WE HAVE THE FIRST MEETING COMING UP FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. THE REASON FOR THAT IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. TYPE B CAN ENTER INTO TYPE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN ORDER TO BRING DEVELOPMENT WHERE PEOPLE WANT IT. OKAY, I STATE THAT AND THEN GO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M GOING TO KIND OF BEAT THAT EVERY CHANCE I GET FOR RESIDENTS. 
          PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, WHEN YOU SEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT. 
          YOU WANT TO BE STATE WHERE YOU WANT THINGS. IT'S A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I ACTUALLY DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON MY OWN TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF WAY THAT I COULD BROACH ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WHO WERE SELLING LAND LOCALLY. THE ONLY THING I COULD FIND WAS ONE WHICH WASN'T ENOUGH PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO SWAP OUT FOR WHAT THIS WAS. THE SECOND ONE IS NOT ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, AND SO NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT TWO PLACES, ONE OF THEM NOT ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER ONE WAS NOT. SO THERE'S VERY FEW PLACES RIGHT NOW THAT THIS TYPE OF PROJECT CAN GO IN LAGO VISTA. SO MY, YOU KNOW, TO THE DEGREE THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS THE LEAST IMPACTFUL, THIS IS A LAST CONSIDERATION. WE NEED ANOTHER 40 MILLION IN BONDS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WHEN I SEE PROJECTS LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, FISCAL STABILITY FOR THE CITY IS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN MY MIND, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE WATER, THEN WE DEFINITELY DON'T HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE VIABLE HERE IN THE CITY. SO THAT'S THE LAST PIECE OF IT. IT'S IT'S PRETTY COMPLEX, ETC. BUT I DID WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT WE DO CARE UP HERE, AND WE ARE LOOKING AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND MECHANISMS TO MAKE EVERYTHING WORK. I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAME IN IN 2018. 
          I'M PART OF THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF HAVING A HOUSE RIGHT HERE AND A LOT. AT THE SAME TIME, I'M SAYING, NO, I DON'T WANT ANY MORE HERE. AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP MY HOUSE IN MY OLD AGE AND NOT HAVE SKY HIGH TAXES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE WATER. SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GO ON A RANT, MAYOR. ALL GOOD. CHARLES. YEAH, IF I WOULD RECOMMEND IF COUNCIL IS EVEN CONSIDERING THIS, THERE'S A FEW THINGS I WOULD RECOMMEND. NOT A CONCEPT PLAN, BUT A DETAILED PLAN BECAUSE IT IS VERY DETAILED. THE CONCEPT IS JUST THAT. IT'S JUST A IDEA. 
          NEXT, I WOULD ASK THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE US A LETTER FROM INDIGO OR WHOEVER THE PARENT COMPANY IS, STATING THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE 80 ROOMS, THAT THAT'S THE MINIMUM, OR IF THAT'S PART OF A MARKET FEASIBILITY. AND I WOULD ALSO REQUESTED A COPY OF THE MARKET 
          [02:05:04]
FEASIBILITY AND PRO FORMA BE PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT THIS LOCATION IS JUSTIFIED AND VIABLE SOLUTION. ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE I'VE ADDED. I'LL BE GOOD WITH THAT. MISS AIRD, I THINK MARCH 12TH IS THE ANSWER, BUT WHEN IS THE NEXT PNC MEETING AND WHEN COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE ON THEIR. MARCH 12TH IS THE NEXT PNC MEETING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD GET ON THERE WITH. WE'D HAVE TO HAVE WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT. AND SO I MEAN IT'S GOT TO BE FOR WE'D HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THAT WOULD MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET IT IN THERE. SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET IT IN UNTIL THE APRIL PNC MEETING. 
          YEAH, I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PUBLICIZE THAT. MY. MY REQUEST IS TIME TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE ASKING A LOT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC PUBLICIZE. IT'S NEVER BEEN. SO WE'VE PUBLICIZED IT ALREADY. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PUBLICIZE IT UNLESS WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON IT. JUST THE QUESTION I ASKED I SHOULD HAVE ASKED WAS, WHEN DO Y'ALL WANT TO BRING THIS BACK TO PNC? MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NOT UNTIL EVERYTHING IS IS PUT TOGETHER. THAT'S MY ANSWER TO THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE ENGINEER WOULD NEED TO GET ALL OF THIS STUFF FIGURED OUT. I LOOKED AT THEIR TIA DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEY'RE ON ROUND THREE. SO IT YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE THINGS TAKE TIME AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT TIMELINE IS. OKAY. WELL I THINK WE'LL ASK Y'ALL TO GET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. MAKE SURE THEY HAVE EVERYTHING TOGETHER. AND THEN WHEN THEY DO PNC WILL PUT IT ON AN AGENDA. IF THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTS ON THIS, THEN I CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. OKAY, MOVING ON TO NINE TWO PRESENTATION BY THE 
          [IX.2.Presentation by the Charter Review Committee regarding the proposed rewrite of the City of Lago Vista Charter.]
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PROPOSED REWRITE OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CHARTER. DO I NEED TO BRING STAFF UP FOR THAT ONE, OR DO WE GO STRAIGHT TO THE COMMITTEE? THANK YOU. GO STRAIGHT TO THE COMMITTEE, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE MR. ROBERT OWEN. DO YOU ALL NEED A PRESENTATION CAPABILITIES? I, I SENT YOU ALL THE PRESENTATION THIS MORNING. OKAY. AND FOR THE I DON'T NEED THE PRESENTATION, BUT I DON'T KNOW. MR. WEST WANTS TO DO IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE THAT ARE ONLINE OR NOT. 
          YES. WE ONLY ABOUT THE PROCESS BECAUSE WHEN WE DID THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN JULY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID THAT I LIKE MADE THIS A HAND, I DID THIS HAND OFF TO THE MAYOR AND THEN AND THEN ROBERT DID THE PRESENTATION. SO IF I DON'T HAND IT OFF THEN THAT'S THE FORMAL REPORT. EARLY RESOLUTION. YES. SO OKAY. ANYWAY, SO I'VE ALREADY SAID IT. SO THIS IS OUR FORMAL REPORT AFTER OUR RESOLUTION WHERE WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS WAS FINALLY THIS, THIS WAS THE DRAFT THAT WE WERE WILLING TO TO PRESENT. AND IT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED ON ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO WHO WORKED ON IT FOR A VERY SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME AND MADE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS. AND SO THEIR NAMES ARE ON HERE, TOO, NOT JUST THE CURRENT GROUP. AND SO I REALLY WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT IT'S A WORK OF OF ALL OF US. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL OF YOUR HELP AND ESPECIALLY ROBIN. ROBIN, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK DURING ALL OF THIS. SHE HAD TO DO ZILLIONS OF AGENDAS FOR US. SO THANK YOU TO EVERYONE. AND HERE IS OUR ALL RIGHT OFFICIAL THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I GUESS I LIKED THE SPEED AT WHICH YOU ALL DID IT THE LAST TIME. AND A REMINDER TO COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HASH OVER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS IN HERE TONIGHT. THIS IS THE PRESENTATION. I THINK WE'RE LIKELY TO DO A STANDALONE MEETING WHERE WE DIVE INTO THE CHARTER, AND IT WILL TAKE MULTIPLE MEETINGS. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, MAYOR, I DID STREAMLINE THE PRESENTATION DOWN QUITE A BIT LAST TIME. WE WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL AND HAD VERBIAGE AND ALL THAT, WHICH, FRANKLY, IS IN THE CHARTER, DON'T NEED TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WITH YOU. YOU ALL DO HAVE THE PRESENTATION. YOU HAVE QUOTE UNQUOTE, A RED LINE. I WILL TELL YOU, THE RED LINE IS MORE LIKE A BLOODLINE. IT HAS BEEN REVISED AND REVISED AND REVISED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. SO TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. THERE IS THE ORIGINAL CHARTER MARKED ALL UP WITH A LOT OF COMMENTARY AND RESEARCH AND QUESTIONS BEING ASKED IN THERE, 
          [02:10:03]
SO I'D USE THE RED LINE AS A RESEARCH TOOL, BUT RESPECT THE FACT THAT THIS IS A REWRITE. 
          AND WHILE WE HAD THE BASELINE CHARTER. I PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T TRY TO PUT THE TWO SIDE BY SIDE. SO JUST A BIT OF HISTORY IN THE OVERVIEW. SO WE STARTED THIS IN JANUARY OF 2025. INITIALLY WENT THROUGH AND MADE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND NUMEROUS SCRIBNER AND NON-SUBSTANTIAL EDITS TO THE TO THE EXISTING CHARTER PRESENTED AT IN JUNE OF 2025. AND THEN THE COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO GO BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AND DO IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A COMPLETE REWRITE. SO WE UNDERTOOK THAT REALLY IN EARNEST IN ABOUT AUGUST, STARTED THE REWRITE BY INITIALLY GOING OUT AND LOOKING AT THE CITIES OF SALINA, AUBRY, ROCKPORT. THOSE WERE CHARTERS THAT OUR LEGAL COUNSEL WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE. AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE'S MODEL CHARTER, NINTH EDITION. 
          SO BASICALLY, LINE BY LINE, WE WENT THROUGH ALL FOUR OF THOSE CHARTERS, COMPARED IT TO OURS. 
          WE IDENTIFIED 34 POTENTIAL TOPICS FROM THOSE REVIEWS FOR INCLUSION OR REVISION OF THE CHARTER. SO THEN IN NOVEMBER, WE RESUMED OUR CHARTER IN EARNEST WITH THE LIST OF 34 TOPICS ON A CHEAT SHEET AND WENT THROUGH AGAIN OUR CHARTER LINE BY LINE, STARTING WITH THE WORK THAT WE HAD ALREADY PRESENTED IN JUNE, COUPLED WITH THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE FROM THE OTHER CHARTERS. SO WHAT WE'RE DELIVERING TODAY IS A PROPOSED CHARTER. AT THIS POINT, CRC IS GOING TO CEASE OUR REGULAR MEETINGS, BUT WE STILL ARE ON APPOINTMENT TILL THE END OF THE YEAR. SO IF COUNCIL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WOULD LIKE US TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE OR GET TO TOGETHER, MAKE ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE ALL STILL AVAILABLE VIA A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. SO HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I'VE DISTILLED THIS DOWN TO THE 20 WHAT I CALL HIGHLIGHTS. THERE IS MANY, MANY, MANY MORE IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER ITSELF. BUT FIRST OF ALL, WE KIND OF REORGANIZE STREAMLINE LANGUAGE, REORDERED MANY SECTIONS. WELL, WE TOOK OUT MR. HARRIS'S POINT A LOT OF THE LEGALESE AND TRY TO MAKE IT PLAIN ENGLISH THAT A CITIZEN COULD READ AND MAKE SENSE OF IT, AS OPPOSED TO THE WHEREFORE HEREWITH AND THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, THAT ORDER, IF I MAY. YES, MR. BENSON, WE RECEIVED THIS, BUT CITIZENS HAVE NOT SEEN IT. IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET. I WOULD IF SOMEONE COULD MAKE ME THE PRESENTER ON THE SCREEN. I'M WILLING TO SHARE MY SCREEN SO CITIZENS ONLINE OR CHARLES IF YOU. WHICH ONE'S EASIER. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I WOULD SUGGEST WE PROCEED WHILE HE'S WORKING ON THAT. OKAY. WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN TAP DANCE. 
          COUNCILOR HALL HERE TONIGHT, AREN'T WE? YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, DID YOU? SO, IN ADDITION TO THE THANKS. LINDA MENTIONED, I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILOR HALL, COUNCILOR PRINCE AND THE MAYOR LAST YEAR SUFFERING THROUGH OUR DEBATES, DELIBERATIONS, PASSION, DEBATING ABOUT HYPHENS AND NOT HYPHENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE KIND OF LEVEL OF DETAIL WE GOT INTO. AND I KNOW IT WAS PAINFUL FOR YOU AND YOU DIDN'T THINK WE'D EVER BE HERE TODAY, BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY. WE PUSHED THROUGH, SET A GOAL AND ACHIEVED IT. I ALSO WOULD POINT OUT THAT ON OUR CRC DISCUSSION BOARD, THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH OUT THERE, SPECIFIC ARTICLES, SPECIFIC TOPICS, BOARD OF ETHICS, FOR EXAMPLE, NUMEROUS LINKS TO OTHER CITIES THAT DO IT BY CHARTER, LINKS TO OTHER CITIES THAT DO IT BY ORDINANCE. A LOT OF DELIBERATIONS AND DEBATE BACK AND FORTH AMONGST OURSELVES. THE THE THE CREATION OF THE DISCUSSION BOARD. WHILE SOME FOUND IT TO BE A PAIN, IT WAS ALSO VERY MUCH A BLESSING IN THIS REWRITE PROCESS AND ALLOWED US TO ADVANCE THINGS A LITTLE BIT QUICKER BY HAVING THAT TOOL. SO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT TOOL AVAILABLE TO US. AND IT IS TRANSPARENT, AS MR. DOUGLAS POINTS OUT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT THE EYE CHART UP OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND. I DON'T KNOW IF. AGAIN DIFFICULT TO READ. BUT SLIDE THREE BACK UP. THERE YOU GO. SO FIRST OF ALL IN THE REWRITE WE AGAIN WENT THROUGH REORGANIZE STREAMLINE LANGUAGE GOT RID OF THE LEGALESE. WE FOUND A LOT OF DUPLICATE DUPLICATION AND CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTIONS THAT BASICALLY SAID THE SAME THING OVER AND AGAIN, OR IN DIFFERENT WAYS. THAT ACTUALLY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. 2018 THE VOTERS APPROVED ADDING A TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE CHARTER. IT WASN'T DONE IN 
          [02:15:03]
2018, NOR WAS IT PICKED UP IN 2021. CHARTER YOU HAVE HAS A DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS. WE ALSO ADDED A LIST OF DEFINITIONS ON AND. THE DEFINITIONS THEN ALLOWED US TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT USAGE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT BY REFERENCE, AS OPPOSED TO A MORE VERBOSE VERBOSE AS IN THE PREVIOUS CHARTER. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'RE GETTING TO THE MEAT OF SOME THINGS. BIG KEY THING IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE EXTEND THE COUNCIL TERMS TO THREE YEARS, WHICH THEN WILL REQUIRE MAJORITY VOTES TO WIN ELECTIONS. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE IN JUNE. I WON'T REHASH IT ALL. AND THE REASONS FOR IT, IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY MANDATE FOR EVERYBODY THAT SITS IN THE SEAT, NOT JUST SOMEBODY WHO SLIDES IN A PLURALITY OF A SPLIT VOTE. CONCURRENT WITH THAT, WE ALSO NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THE REWRITE TO PUT IN THE THREE YEAR TERMS OR TO PUT IN TERM LIMITS. AND THE WAY WE WROTE THAT WAS THREE TERMS, CONSECUTIVE ELECTED TERMS AS EITHER THE MAYOR OR THE COUNCIL MEMBER. SO NINE ELECTED YEARS TOTAL. SO IF YOU GET APPOINTED, YOU SERVE A YEAR OR TWO IN AN APPOINTMENT SLOT OR YOU'RE AN APPOINTMENT SLOT, BECAUSE TWO WOULD REQUIRE AN ELECTION, YOU SERVE A URINE APPOINTMENT SLOT OR LESS, THEN THAT WOULDN'T COUNT BUT THREE ELECTED CONSECUTIVE TERMS. SO THEN IF YOU SIT OUT A TERM AND THE VOTERS CHOOSE TO BRING YOU BACK, THEN THEY FULLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT FOR A FOURTH TERM, AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT CONSECUTIVE. ON 3.06. A LOT OF DEBATE BACK AND FORTH AND STAFF INTERACTION, THE ROLE OF COUNCIL, THE ROLE OF THE MAYOR. AND SO AGAIN, WE WROTE IT TO CLEARLY RECOMMEND WHAT THE CHANGED IT FROM THE MAYOR TO BASICALLY THE CITY COUNCIL AND DEFINED WHAT WE EXPECT THE MAYOR'S ROLE TO BE IS BASICALLY CEREMONIAL WITH A FEW EXTRA THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MARTIAL LAW OR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. BUT OVERALL, THE MAYOR IS AN EQUAL ONE OF SEVEN. WE WANT TO REINFORCE AND EMPHASIZE THAT. WE ALSO LOOKED AT A SECTION REGARDING PROHIBITIONS ON THE COUNCIL THAT. SO YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU CAN DO IN 3.06. AND THEN WE HAD A LIST OF PROHIBITIONS BURIED AT 3.23. SO WE WENT AND GRABBED THOSE AND PULLED THEM UP TO 306 AND SAID, BASICALLY THESE ARE YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND THINGS YOU MUST DO AND CAN DO. AND OH, BY THE WAY, HERE'S THE PROHIBITIONS. SO IT TIES TOGETHER NICE AND NEAT. ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. NEXT SLIDE, MR. WEST. SO WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF VERBOSE, COMPLEX CRAZY LANGUAGE IN 3.073.08, 3.09 THAT PERTAIN TO VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE, FORFEITURES, FILLING OF VACANCIES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WE WENT AND BASICALLY LOOKED AT OTHER CHARTERS. AND HOW DID THEY STREAMLINE THAT AND MAKE IT SIMPLE? COMBINE IT ALL INTO ONE. SECTION 3.07 CLARIFIED AGAIN THE ROLES. ONE THING THAT WAS UNIQUE TO OUR CHARTER THAT WE WE RECOMMEND THROWING OUT IS IF THERE IS A CHARTER VIOLATION OR AN ETHICS POLICY VIOLATION. FOR SOME REASON, OUR CHARTER HAS THIS SECRET SQUIRREL EXECUTIVE SESSION. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON UNLESS THE ACCUSED DECIDES TO BRING IT OUT. MOST OF THE OTHER CHARTERS WILL BE LOOKED AT, SAID, HEY, IF YOU GOT A CHARTER VIOLATION, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING OF THAT, THEN IT'S DONE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. THE ACCUSER IS PUBLIC, NAMED CLEAR, AND THE DEFENDANT IS PUBLIC NAMED AND CLEARED. SO WE RECOMMEND BRINGING THAT OUT. 
          ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAD WAS LOOKING AT THE PENALTIES. OUR OLD CHARTER BASICALLY SAID, IF THERE'S A CHARTER VIOLATION OR THERE'S ETHICS ISSUE, YOU EITHER GET CENSURE NOTHING OR DEATH PENALTY REMOVED FROM OFFICE. SO WE INSERTED A FEW OPTIONS, DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE LEGAL OR NOT, WHERE YOU CAN EITHER TAKE AWAY SOMEONE'S VOICE FOR 90 DAYS BY TAKING AWAY THEIR VOTE, OR YOU COULD SUSPEND THEM, TAKE AWAY THEIR VOICE AND THEIR VOTE THAN THEIR PRESENCE FOR UP TO 30 DAYS, AND THEN ADDED LANGUAGE ABOUT SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FILL CERTAIN VACANCIES. THAT'S REQUIRED WITH THREE YEAR TERMS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LEGALLY JUST APPEND SOMEBODY APPOINT SOMEONE TO TWO AND A HALF YEAR TERM THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL ELECTION. MOVING ON TO ARTICLE FOUR, ONE THING WE FOUND IN ARTICLE THREE WAS A LOT OF LANGUAGE SCATTERED INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT ARTICLE THREE PERTAINING TO ORDINANCES. SO WE GRABBED ALL THE ORDINANCES SECTIONS, PULLED THEM ALL OUT AND PUT THEM INTO WHAT'S NEW. 
          ARTICLE FOUR. SO NOW ALL EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO ORDINANCE IS THIS TIGHT, NICE, NEAT, CONSOLIDATED TOGETHER IN ARTICLE FOUR AS AN ORDINANCE ARTICLE, AS OPPOSED TO BEING INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR EXPECTATIONS OR ARTICLE. LET'S 
          [02:20:08]
SEE ITEM NUMBER NINE. YEAH. AGAIN, WITH THREE YEAR TERMS, WE HAVE TO UP FROM PLURALITY TO MAJORITY VOTES AND IMPLEMENT RUNOFFS AS REQUIRED. WE ALSO CONJUNCTION WITH THE THREE YEAR TERMS AND THE TERM LIMITATIONS. WE ALSO LOWER THE THRESHOLD FOR A PETITION FOR RECALL FROM 10 TO 5. SO WE RECOGNIZE THE CITIZENS HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE THREE YEAR TERMS AND BUYER'S REMORSE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE FELT LIKE, OKAY, BETWEEN RECALL AT A LOWER THRESHOLD TO HOLD AND TERM LIMITS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE MAKING IN TERMS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TRADE OFF OR PLUSES TO MAKE THE THREE YEAR TERMS A LITTLE MORE TOLERABLE IN THE MINDS OF THE CITIZENS. OUR CURRENT CHARTER DOESN'T CREATE BY CHARTER THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION THAT DOES THE POA, IT DOES PNC AND THEN OTHER BOARDS. WE RECOMMEND ADDING A SECTION THAT DESIGNATES THAT THERE WILL BE A BSE AND RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF BSE AS QUASI JUDICIAL IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER. WE ALSO SPOKE TO MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO THOSE BODIES. IN TERMS OF A SUBCOMMITTEE, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY ARE FORMALLY DOING OR WILL DO, BUT WE WANTED TO FORMALIZE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT BSC AND PNC AND BOA BE APPOINTED MEMBERS BY A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE LIAISON'S FOR THOSE RESPECTIVE BODIES. ITEM NUMBER 12. LOOKING AT OTHER CHARTERS, WE'RE RECOMMENDING ADDING A BOARD OF ETHICS. MOST CITIES HAVE IT EITHER BY CHARTER OR BY ORDINANCE. THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH, LIKE I SAID EARLIER OUT THERE ON THAT. I THINK, AGAIN, ADDING A BOARD OF ETHICS IS ANOTHER APPETITE POINT FOR THE VOTERS TO CONSIDER WHEN THEY'RE EVALUATING THE THREE YEAR TERMS AND THE PLUSES AND MINUSES THERE. SO AGAIN, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER CITY CHARTERS. WE RECOMMENDED A BOARD OF ETHICS BE ADDED. AND WITH A LITTLE UNIQUE APPOINTMENT PROCESS WHERE EACH COUNCILOR WILL APPOINT A MEMBER TO THAT BODY CONCURRENT WITH THEIR TERM. SO THAT'S HOW WE SURE WE GET DIVERSITY OF AND BASICALLY YOU GUYS REPRESENT THE VOTERS DIRECTLY, WHOEVER'S ON THIS BOARD OF ETHICS REPRESENTING YOU IS INDIRECTLY REPRESENTING THE VOTERS. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT CLARIFYING COUNCIL'S ROLE IN THE BUDGET PROCESS LAST TIME WE LEFT THAT IN. ITEM NUMBER 14, WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE FINANCIAL THINGS IN WHAT IS NOW CHAPTER, ARTICLE NINE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DEALT ALLOWED FOR A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH CITY MANAGER, RECOMMENDED CITY MANAGER BE ABLE TO TRANSFER UNENCUMBERED BALANCES BETWEEN RESTRICTED FUNDS, UNRESTRICTED FUNDS AS OPPOSED TO DEPARTMENTS. SO RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT IF YOU MOVE FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER. AND THAT SEEMS LIKE UNNECESSARY WORK, A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY, LOOSEN THE REINS AND ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER DISCRETION TO MOVE WITHIN A FUND, AS OPPOSED TO LIMITED JUST WITHIN DEPARTMENTS REQUIRE CO BONDS. CO BONDS WILL REQUIRE AN ELECTION EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. EXCEPTIONS. AGAIN, BUILDING UPON THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTIONS RECENTLY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT 79% OF OUR BOND MONIES WERE ISSUED BY CO, ONLY 21% BY GEO GOING BACK TO 2004, 2006. WHATEVER WAS OUR BOND LIST HAS THAT'S THAT'S ABUSE OF THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THE MAYOR IS CORRECT IN WANTING TO REIN THAT IN. THE COMMITTEE AGREES AND RECOMMENDS THAT WE DO THAT. ONE THING THAT WAS A PROCESS PROBLEMATIC IN YOUR LAST BUDGET PROCESS WAS ALLOWING SUPPORTIVE NON-PROFITS WITH TAXPAYER MONIES. DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL EVER WANT TO DO IT OR NOT, BUT WE FELT IT IMPORTANT TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER THAT YOU HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY UNDER VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. IF YOU WANT TO USE TAXPAYER MONEY FOR A NONPROFIT AND YOU CAN DO SO LEGALLY, THE CHARTER SUPPORTS YOU IN THAT ENDEAVOR. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS UPDATING THE CHARTER TO ALLOW FOR GIFTS PERMISSIBLE BY STATE LAW AND THE CITY ETHICS POLICY. IF YOU READ OUR CURRENT CHARTER, IT SAYS NO GIFTS, NO NON-CASH GIFTS DONE, NO GIFTS. OUR ETHICS POLICY SAYS IT VALUE UP TO $50. OUR STATE POLICY STATE LAW SAYS UP TO $50. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET THE CHARTER TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW AND OUR ACTUAL STUFF. DID I SKIP I SKIPPED 17 OH, I DID LITTLE LINE THERE AGAIN. 10.01 RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. 
          [02:25:04]
AGAIN, THAT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY. ANOTHER CHARTER ALIGN THE CHARTER WITH STATE LAW AND OUR ACTUAL PRACTICE AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WITH REGARD TO GIFTS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. AGAIN, THIS WAS RECOMMENDED LAST TIME. WE KEPT THAT IN A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS ONE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE SETTLED LAST NIGHT THAT WE DO WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE ACTUALLY MENTION MOST OTHER A LOT OF OTHER CHARTERS HAVE PROVISION FOR COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN IN THE CHARTER. I MEAN, IF YOU GO OUT AND YOU LOOK AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND I'M SURE MR. BULLOCK, OR CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT 2.1302 SAYS THAT YOU GUYS MAY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEN ALL THE ZONING AND EVERYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECOMES PROBLEMATIC. SO WE FELT IT WAS CRUCIAL AND KEY AND RESPONSIBLE THAT WE MAKE CITY COUNCIL HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN THAT THEN WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY, WE HAVE ONE. ALL OF OUR ZONING, EVERYTHING IS IN LINE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO RADICAL, PRO-DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL DOWN THE LINE FOUR YEARS FROM NOW CAN COME OUT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE EXPENSIVE AND THEY'RE TIME CONSUMING AND THEY'RE A PAIN IN THE. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT BY ORDINANCE. WE'RE GOING TO BAN IT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN THE WILD WEST HERE WITH WITH NO ZONING RULES. SO WE RECOMMEND THAT WE GO AHEAD AND JUST PUT A SIMPLE PARAGRAPH IN THE CHARTER RESPECTING THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY CATCH ALL PARAGRAPH ON RESOLVING CONFLICTS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE CHARTER. TRANSITION TO THREE YEAR TERMS. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS YOU HAVE WHAT WE CALL TWO TWO 2 OR 2 TWO THREE COUNSELORS WITH THE MAYOR. SO YOU HAVE THE TWO COUNSELORS, STAGGERED, OVERLAPPING, MUCH LIKE WE DO NOW WITH THREE COUNSELORS, STAGGERED, OVERLAPPING. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN NOW IS THE MAYOR, AND THE ODD NUMBERED PLACES ARE ALWAYS ELECTED IN AN ODD OFF YEAR ELECTION CYCLE. THEY'RE NEVER CONCURRENT WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION, SO THEY NEVER STAND AT THE SAME TIME, AS, YOU KNOW, AN OFF YEAR OR MIDTERM. AND THEY NEVER STAND WITH THE PRESIDENT. SO EFFECTIVELY, YOU HAVE A LOW TURNOUT, ODD YEAR ELECTION WHERE A MAJORITY OF OUR COUNCIL COULD TURN OVER. SO WE RECOMMEND THAT WE DO KEEP THE STAGGERING. WE KEEP IT TO TWO AND THEN TWO, WITH THE MAYOR BEING THREE OVER A THREE YEAR TERM. IN THAT PROCESS, EVERY PLACE AND THE MAYOR OVER 12 YEARS WILL CYCLE THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL AND MIDTERM. SORRY, PRESIDENTIAL OFF YEAR, MIDTERM OFF YEAR, PRESIDENTIAL. AND SO WE FEEL THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, IS A LITTLE MORE REASONABLE WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING OUR ELECTIONS BE MORE PREDICTABLE AND ALIGNED WITH OUR NATIONAL ELECTIONS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAIL WITH THIS. IT'S AN EYE CHART WE RECOMMENDED BASED UPON WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR. IF THE VOTERS DO APPROVE THIS IN 2026, WE COMMENCE WITH THREE YEAR TERMS IN 2027. THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. THERE IS GOING TO BE THE REQUIREMENT OF A STUTTER STEP IN THERE FOR A FEW PLACES IN ORDER TO GET FROM 2 TO 3 YEAR TERMS AND REMAIN STAGGERED AND OVERLAPPING. SO WE'VE GOT THAT DETAILED BOTH IN THE CHARTER AND IN THESE SLIDES. WE CAN GO INTO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. AND THEN THE SECOND VIEW OF THAT, IF YOU SCROLL ON DOWN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS EYE CHART, THAT DOES IT BY YEAR IN PLACE, SOME PEOPLE FIND THIS VIEW IS A LITTLE MORE HELPFUL WHERE YOU DO IT BY PLACE AND THEN BY YEAR. SO IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION JUST PRESENTED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. AND THEN THE ACTUAL EXHIBIT LANGUAGE FOR ACHIEVING THE STAGGERED THREE YEAR TERMS IS WE PUT IT IN AN EXHIBIT AT THE BACK OF THE CHARTER, SO THAT FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS LANGUAGE WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR REVIEWS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEN THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION IS THINGS THAT CAME UP FROM THE PRIOR COUNCIL Q&A, QUESTIONS THAT WE DOCUMENTED BEFORE I WENT AHEAD AND LEFT IT IN THE PRESENTATION, IN CASE THEY COME UP AGAIN. IF YOU NEED A REFRESHER, THERE ARE NEW COUNCILORS THAT MAYBE WEREN'T EXPOSED TO IT BEFORE. I JUST HAD IT ON HAND, SO WE LEFT IT IN. AND I THINK AT THAT POINT, LIKE I SAID, REMIND YOU THAT WE'RE STILL AVAILABLE. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ■ANYTHING TO HIDE? AD. AD. AD. JAN. EVERYBODY KNOW. JAN. HI, JEN. MARK DOUGLAS OF 
          [02:30:02]
COURSE. EVERYBODY KNOWS LINDA AND JEAN HARRIS. PARTNERS IN CRIME. AND THAT'S IT. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYTHING I CAN ADDRESS? OH, I WILL SAY I GAVE YOU ALL PDFS. THERE IS THE UNDERLYING WORD COPY. I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU WANT TO HAVE IT. I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR VERSION CONTROL THE WORD COPY BE BE SOMEWHAT LIMITED. SO YOU TELL ME WHO YOU WANT TO HAVE IT. AND ALSO I'VE GOT A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT. NOW I'M WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SCRIBE IF THAT HELPS OUR CITY STAFF OR HELPS REDUCE OUR LEGAL FEES. AS YOU GUYS GO THROUGH AND REQUEST EDITS. SO I'M AVAILABLE, OR I'LL MAKE THE WORD COPY AVAILABLE TO WHOEVER WANTS IT. 
          IF YOU CAN SEND ME THE WORD COPY, THEN I'LL FORWARD IT TO THE ATTORNEY. VERY GOOD. YES, CHARLES. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A 2 OR 3 OTHER CITIZENS THAT HELPED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THEM RECOGNIZED ALSO. YES. CHAIRPERSON IDENTIFIED THEM ON THE LETTER, BUT YES, MIKE SLAUGHTER PUT A LOT OF EFFORT AND TIME INTO THIS DURING THE FIRST YEAR, AS DID TRACY PITTS. AND I WILL SAY, TRACY PITTS IS THE ONE WITH THE EAGLE EYE THAT WENT THROUGH OUR EXISTING CHARTER AND FOUND ALL THE SCRIBNER STUFF AND RECOMMENDED THE DEFINITIONS, AND SHE PUT TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK INTO IT. AND WHEN SHE LEFT THE TEAM AND I BECAME THE SCRIBE, I HAD A NEW APPRECIATION FOR TRACY. AND SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR DO YOU WANT WE HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP. 
          I CAN DO THAT ONE FIRST TO. YEAH, YOU CAN DO THAT FIRST. YEAH. MR. PAUL ROBERTS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. HARD TO FOLLOW THAT. GOODNESS. ROB DID A GREAT JOB. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE GUYS. I MEAN THEY REALLY DID DO A GREAT JOB. I HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL PURCHASE PLAQUES FOR EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF PEOPLE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT STUFF AND THEY DESERVE IT. I WENT TO MOST OF THEIR MEETINGS. MR. PRINCE WAS THERE EARLY ON. HE OUTLASTED EVERYBODY AS THE LIAISON THERE. HE DID A GREAT JOB HELPING HIM. AND I MEAN JUST REALLY FABULOUS WORK. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE CHARLES, HE WAS THERE AT ALL THE MEETINGS AS WELL, WHICH I THINK WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THAT AS OPPOSED, YOU KNOW, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THERE, BUT HE CHOSE TO BE THERE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE EVERYTHING THAT HE JUST COVERED, I EVERYTHING. THIS IS A GREAT CHARTER. THIS YOU ALL KNOW ME. I'VE REALLY BEEN ABOUT EMPOWERING THE CITIZENRY HERE IN LAGO VISTA, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO ADJACENT LAND USE. 
          AND THIS IS A CHARTER THAT REALLY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB FOR THE CITIZENS IN LAGO VISTA. 
          BUT THERE IS ONE QUESTION THAT I DO WANT TO ASK BRAD, AND IT'S A LESSON I LEARNED FROM WHEN WE PUT ON THE BALLOT, THE CAP METRO RESOLUTION THAT WAS ON OUR BALLOT SEVERAL YEARS AGO. 
          THE GUIDANCE WE RECEIVED AT THAT TIME FROM AARON SILVEIRA WAS THAT WE WERE NOT. ONCE IT WAS ON THE BALLOT, WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO GO OUT THERE AND ELECTIONEER FOR IT. WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO POLITIC FOR IT AND TAKE A POSITION AS COUNCIL MEMBERS OR STAFF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND THAT'S A TOUGH POSITION TO BE IN, BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS PASSED, I WOULD LIKE BRAD TO CONFIRM IF YOU CAN ADVOCATE FOR THAT OR AGAINST IT. I HOPE YOU CAN ADVOCATE FOR IT IF THAT'S YOUR POSITION. ASSUMING I HAVE COUNCIL CONSENT TO ANSWER A LEGAL QUESTION. YES. SO YEAH, IT WHAT WHAT STATE LAW PROHIBITS IS CALLED ELECTIONEERING. AND YOU MAY NOT USE CITY TIME RESOURCES, MATERIAL EXPENDITURES IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO ANY POLITICAL MEASURE THAT'S ON A BALLOT. NOW, THAT DOESN'T EXTEND TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED SPEECH IN YOUR PERSONAL CAPACITIES. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT ON CITY TIME, ON CITY PROPERTY, USING CITY FUNDS. CITY PROPERTY, PROPERTY, SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS UNDER THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FACEBOOK PAGE. CAN THEY TAKE A POSITION THERE? THERE'S NOT A. AND FURTHER, IF THEY GO TO THEIR PERSONAL PAGE WITH THE SAME TYPE OF COMMENTARY AND THEY ENGAGE PEOPLE ON THE TOPIC, IS THAT PERMISSIBLE? WE'RE GETTING INTO SOME PRETTY DEEP FIRST AMENDMENT WATERS, HOWEVER, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S JUST SURE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS CASE GUIDANCE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT A, YOU KNOW, OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER PLACE ONE FACEBOOK PAGE, BUT IT'S YOUR FACEBOOK PAGE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S GUIDANCE ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE ELECTIONEERING OR NOT IF YOU USE THAT, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, IT'S NOT 
          [02:35:01]
CITY MATERIAL. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE IDENTIFYING YOURSELF, I WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST IT BECAUSE ELECTIONEERING IS IS IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND YOU COULD SUBJECT YOURSELF TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT. SO I THINK THE SAFER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO DO IT IN YOUR PERSONAL CAPACITY, EXERCISING YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WHICH YOU CAN DO. BUT I WOULD AVOID DOING IT IN YOUR CAPACITY AS COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR, SO FORTH. WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION? DID THAT COVER IT? YEAH. ON THIS SIDE OF THE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT'S ALL THE CITIZEN COMMENTS I HAD SIGNED UP. SO I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN PRINCE YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN LAST NIGHT'S CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. THE COMMITTEE DID A FANTASTIC JOB AND ALL ACCOLADES TO THEM. I THINK THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF LOTS OF RECOGNITION. SO THANK THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. ONE THING THAT THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT, WHICH I THINK THEY, AS A COMMITTEE AND I AS A LIAISON, WERE PARTICULARLY PROUD OF. THERE WERE MANY TOPICS WHERE THEY HAD HEATED STRONG DISCUSSION AND DISAGREEMENT, AND WHILE MANY VOTES WERE UNANIMOUS, THERE WERE A GOOD NUMBER THAT WERE NOT UNANIMOUS. RIGHT. AND A SPLIT DECISION. 
          BUT THE VOTE LAST NIGHT TO SAY YES, THIS IS THE WORK PRODUCT THAT WE ARE READY TO SEND TO COUNCIL WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. SO NO ONE, NO ONE VOTED TO SAY I DIDN'T GET MY FAVORITE ONE, 2 OR 3 TOPICS AND THEREFORE I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO SEND THIS TO COUNCIL. I THINK THEY REALLY OPERATED AS A TEAM REALLY, REALLY WELL. AND SO THEN I'LL KIND OF GO BACK TO PART OF WHAT I WAS SAYING THERE. THERE WERE THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT WERE TOUGH DECISIONS THAT WERE SPLIT DECISIONS. RIGHT. AND THERE WERE THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF 3 TO 2 VOTES AFTER REALLY, REALLY LONG DEBATES. AND, AND, AND I CAN THINK OF ONE IN PARTICULAR, WHICH I'M NOT INTENTIONALLY NOT GOING TO NAME. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT AS WE GET INTO MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION, IT MAY BE WORTH US GOING BACK AND, AND AND ASKING THEM TO, TO HIGHLIGHT FOR US, YOU KNOW, WHICH ONES DID YOU THINK WERE THE SLAM DUNK AND WHICH ONES DID YOU YOU WERE IT WAS KIND OF A SPLIT DECISION THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT FOR OUR PROCESS AS WE GET INTO IT. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I COULD, MR. HALL. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE COMMITTEE. I SERVED BRIEFLY AS A LIAISON FOR A FEW OF THE MEETINGS. AND AND I CONFESS, I DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU WOULD GET IT DONE BY NOW, BUT YOU DID. AND SO CONGRATULATIONS ON ON YOUR HARD WORK AND YOUR DEDICATION. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THOSE SPLIT VOTES, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. BUT IN PARTICULAR I'M GOING TO SAY THANK YOU, LINDA, ON ON ONE OF THE ISSUES I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT. AND THAT IS THEM BEING IN THERE. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT WANT IN THERE, BUT I WANT TO SAY THE REASONING BEHIND THAT WAS BECAUSE WE HAVE SENATOR PAUL BETTENCOURT, WHO'S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE HAS BEEN DOING OVER TIME IS TO ERODE ORDINANCES WITHIN CITIES. AND THE REASON THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROTECTED IS BECAUSE I THINK THERE WERE CARVE OUTS IN MR. ROBERTS. CAN LET ME KNOW ABOUT THAT. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT CARVE OUTS ON DENSITY, DENSITY. COUNTY, CITY, 300,000 COUNTY. AND SO GOING THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE, ALTHOUGH. IT IS NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IMMENSE POWER, BUT I DID RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FLUME DO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF BACKUP ON SOME OF THAT IN TERMS OF HELPING TO DEVELOPERS SUCH AS LAVERNE, DEVELOPERS KNOW WHERE WE PREFER TO HAVE ITEMS IN OUR TOWN. AND SO HAVING THESE THINGS IN OUR CHARTER JUST BRINGS BACK THAT IMPORTANCE AND HENCE AN ADDITIONAL TOOL TO KIND OF KEEP BASICALLY UNSOWN NON-STRATEGIC GROWTH FROM HAPPENING IN OUR TOWN. THANK YOU. CAN I SAY ONE THING ABOUT THAT? OH, SURE. SURE. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MIC, PLEASE, MISS LEONARD, I AM NOT AT ALL AGAINST HAVING A COMP PLAN OR NOT AT ALL. THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. IT WAS JUST AGAINST PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER. BUT I FELT LIKE WE DIDN'T NEED IT IN THE CHARTER 
          [02:40:03]
BECAUSE IT WAS SO INTEGRAL AND SO INTEGRATED INTO ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES THAT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY NEED TO SPECIFY IT. BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT PROCESS AGAIN, I THINK A SPECIAL MEETING MAKES SENSE THAT WE DO THIS. AND MY HOPE IS THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CRC MEMBERS COULD BE THERE SO THAT THEY COULD ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. PRINCE HAD BROUGHT UP. I GUESS I KIND OF HAVE TO ASK COUNCIL, WHAT'S THE TIMING ON WHEN WE THINK WE COULD BE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT? AND OBVIOUSLY, DO YOU ALL AGREE THAT WE SHOULD DO IT AS A STANDALONE MEETING, AT LEAST INITIALLY? IF WE START GETTING MORE AND MORE PROGRESS, IT COULD POSSIBLY FIT WITHIN THE NORMAL AGENDA MEETINGS TOO. 
          BUT AT THE BEGINNING IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE ON ITS OWN. MR. YEAH, I AGREE, I DO BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE ON ITS OWN, AT LEAST THE FIRST 1 OR 2, MAYBE EVEN THREE MEETINGS BEFORE WE START PUTTING THINGS ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE THESE ARE GOING TO GO FOR A WHILE. YEAH. I THINK THE HEAD NODDING. OKAY. MAYOR. YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD IT'S PRETTY COMMON FOR THERE TO BE. 
          ANNOUNCE THESE AS SPECIAL MEETINGS AND WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS TO INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO ALSO TREAT IT AS IF ALMOST LIKE A, LIKE A ZONING CHANGE TO PUBLICIZE IT BEYOND JUST THE AGENDA PUBLICATION, TO PUBLICIZE IT IN THE PAPERS AND MEDIA, SOCIAL MEDIA AND WHATNOT, TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR AT LEAST AWARENESS THAT THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED. THAT'S PRETTY COMMON. OKAY. AND THEN YOUR YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT'S ONGOING RIGHT NOW, AND THOSE WILL BE PROVIDED IN THOSE MEETINGS. OR DO YOU GUYS HAVE A DATE WHERE YOU WILL HAVE LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF IT? WE'RE WE'VE BEGUN THE PROCESS OF REVIEW. I THINK OUR PREFERENCE IS GOING TO BE TO PROBABLY. PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON HOW TO PROCEED FROM THERE TO. OKAY. MR. ONE POINT I WAS ACTUALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT ON THAT. ONE WAY WE COULD ACTUALLY GET MORE VOTERS INVOLVED IS BY PUBLICIZING IT. WE HAVE THE NEW NEWSPAPER, AND THIS IS ONE WAY WE CAN GET AROUND ELECTIONEERING BEFORE WE GET IT ON THE BALLOT. THAT WAY WE COULD BRING IT IN AS MUCH, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TO IT AND CHAMPION WHAT WE WANT ON THERE AND GET THEIR OPINION. AND THAT WAY THEY KNOW WHAT'S COMING. SO WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PUTTING IT ACTUALLY ON THE BALLOT, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE ELECTIONEERING ISSUES. 
          OKAY. IF THAT'S IT THEN COUNCIL JUST LOOK OUT FOR MR. BENNEFIELD. THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS COUNCIL'S COMING UP. SORRY. THANK YOU. INSTEAD OF COUNCIL SPENDING A LOT OF TIME IN MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, REHASHING WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY DONE, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO GET COUNCIL'S ADVICE OR GET COUNCIL'S ADVICE ON MAYBE SECTIONS. YOU KNOW, HEY, WE'VE REVIEWED PAGES ONE THROUGH FIVE. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE OUR RECOMMENDATION OF CHANGES. AND, YOU KNOW, ALLOW US TO ALLOW US TO HAVE MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS ON PAGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO SPEND, YOU KNOW, HOURS AND HOURS IN SPECIAL MEETINGS TO COME TO FIND OUT EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOT EVEN NOT EVEN LEGAL OR PRACTICAL OR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE OR, YOU KNOW, SO I WOULD RATHER HAVE A REVIEW FROM LEGAL, THEN BRING IT TO US AND THEN US, YOU KNOW, HAVE A FINAL PRODUCT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY QUESTION WAS. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK, UNTIL WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD BREAK IT OFF INTO SECTIONS LIKE THE CRC DID. SO EVEN IF IT HELPS ON THE LEGAL SIDE, IF WE TAKE IT IN CHUNKS, DOES THAT HELP YOU GUYS OR YOU RATHER JUST DO IT ALL? I THINK I THINK ONCE WE OBTAIN THE THE FULL WORD VERSION AND LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE, I THINK PART OF WHAT MADE IT DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT CHUNKS EARLIER IS TO NOT SEE HOW IT RELATES TO OTHER PARTS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER, BECAUSE IN ISOLATION, ONE PART MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT THEN IF THERE'S IF WE CAN'T, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT CONFLICTS WITH SOMETHING LATER UNTIL WE SEE THE WHOLE THING. SO THAT'S KIND OF BEEN PART OF THE HOLDUP. I THINK INITIALLY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS PROBABLY DO AN INITIAL REVIEW AND GIVE YOU SOME HIGH LEVEL THOUGHTS, AND IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES THAT WE SEE, POINT OUT THOSE. SO, AS MR. BENNEFIELD SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON SOMETHING THAT THAT THE CITY COULDN'T DO IN THE FIRST PLACE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE YET. I JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE WE'VE GIVEN IT AT LEAST A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW TO POINT OUT THINGS. SO, YEAH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MEETING YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT OR HOW WHAT KIND OF A TIME FRAME. I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS, A FEW WEEKS, JUST GIVEN OUR SCHEDULES AND KIND OF THE BREADTH OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IS KIND OF COMPARE IT TO THE OLD CHARTER. WE'RE GOING TO JUST LOOK AT THIS ONE AS AN ITEM. AND THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK THAT WE WILL TAKE MORE TIME AND WE'RE NOT THERE YET, WOULD BE KIND OF THE IDEA OF I COULDN'T TELL YOU RIGHT NOW HOW MANY BALLOT PROPOSITIONS THIS NEW CHARTER 
          [02:45:04]
WOULD BE. WE'LL HAVE TO REALLY PUT OUR HEADS TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S A THAT'S A FAIRLY COMPLEX ISSUE THAT GETS INTO SOME, SOME MINUTIA OF, OF ELECTION LAW. AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A PROPOSITION FOR BALLOT PURPOSES. SO THAT'S DOWN THE LINE. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE READY TO DO THAT UNTIL WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY BEEN VETTED. AND ONCE WE GET THROUGH SOME OF THE MAYBE THE HIGH LEVEL LEGAL ISSUES AND GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU, EITHER FOR WE WANTED TO SAY THIS, WE WANT TO DO THIS. OKAY. IS THERE A LEGAL WAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE WHAT IS WE WANT TO AVOID LEGALESE I UNDERSTAND, BUT SOMETIMES THERE ARE MAGIC WORDS THAT HAVE TO BE USED. SO WE JUST NEED TO DO THAT. YEAH. AND AND I KNOW THERE'S THE DEADLINE TO GET IT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT, BUT WHAT'S AN IDEAL DEADLINE FOR US PRIOR TO THAT. 
          SO THAT WE'RE NOT UP UNTIL THE LAST DAY? I THINK I THINK IF WE'RE WORKING ON THIS THROUGH THE SPRING AND EARLY SUMMER, THE DEADLINE TO FOR TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR THE NOVEMBER BALLOT IS ABOUT MID-AUGUST, AS I RECALL. SO IF WE ARE WORKING ON THIS THROUGH THE REST OF, YOU KNOW, SPRING AND EARLY SUMMER, AND WE ARE IN A POSITION TO GIVE YOU A FINAL PRODUCT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A POSITION TO GIVE YOU BALLOT LANGUAGE, SAY, BY IN THAT MONTH OF JUNE 1ST, MAYBE FIRST MEETING OF JULY, SO THAT WE'RE NOT I DON'T WANT TO BE UP AGAINST, YOU KNOW, THOSE MID-AUGUST DEADLINES. IDEALLY WE COULD BE DONE IN JULY. THAT WAY WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM IN CASE WE NEED IT FOR SOME REASON. OKAY. YEAH. 
          I'VE BEEN HOPING MAYBE SECOND WEEK OF MARCH COULD BE OUR FIRST MEETING, BUT I'LL SEND AN EMAIL TO EVERYBODY. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, UNDER THE NEW ELECTION LAWS, WE'VE GOT TO SEND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE DOWN TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR APPROVAL ALSO. I UNDERSTOOD IT. 
          I'LL TAKE. I'LL TAKE THAT. COULD BE. I'LL HAVE TO. I'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. ROBERT, IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THE MIC. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WHEN WE UNDERTOOK THIS REWRITE, WE TOOK IT AS A COMPLETE REWRITE. WE DIDN'T GIVE CONSIDERATION TO HOW MANY PROPOSITIONS IT WOULD BE BECAUSE WE WERE THINKING A REWRITE IS UP OR DOWN ON THE WHOLE CHARTER. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. WE DIDN'T APPROACH IT AT ALL. WE WERE ASSUMING IT'S ONE PROPOSITION YAY OR NAY AND NOT BREAKING IT UP. SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEAN, IF WE CAN DO IT AS ONE PROPOSITION, CERTAINLY THERE'S FEWER THE PROPOSITIONS, THE EASIER IT IS ON THE VOTERS. BUT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LEGAL STANDARDS THAT GOVERN THAT. AND SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE BOUND BY THOSE. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE ONE OR NOT. I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, IF WE CAN DO IT AS ONE, WE WOULD DO IT AS ONE. BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT PROPOSITIONS, THAT IT INVALIDATES THE ACTION TAKEN. YEAH. OKAY. MR. MANFIELD, THE ONLY CONCERN AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, BUT JUST TO, I GUESS, REINFORCE WHAT MR. OWEN JUST SHARED IS, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL REWRITE HAD WHAT WAS IT LIKE 27 PROPOSITIONS AND IT WAS JUST TOO MANY. RIGHT. AND WHAT I WOULD HATE TO SEE IS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH THIS EFFORT OF DOING A FULL REWRITE, AND THEN WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO 20 PROPOSITIONS. AND THEN WHAT'S EVEN MORE TERRIFYING OF THAT IS IF HALF OF THEM GOT APPROVED, HALF OF THEM DIDN'T GET APPROVED. AND WE HAVE A PARTIAL CHARTER THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE, YOU KNOW? SO IT WAS TRULY MY UNDERSTANDING, OBVIOUSLY FALSELY, THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE PUT ON AS THIS IS OUR NEW CHARTER, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. DO YOU WANT IT, YES OR NO? I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF LIKE PROPOSITION THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS. AND WE COULD BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE PARTIAL APPROVAL AND PARTIAL NOT. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THIS GETS INTO A VERY COMPLEX AREA OF LAW. AND BUT BUT THE GENERAL PROPOSITION IS THAT, THAT A BALLOT PROPOSITION CAN ONLY COVER ONE TOPIC. AND SO COURTS COME DOWN ON DIFFERENT WAYS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A TOPIC. IF CERTAINLY IF WE CAN DO IT AS ONE, WE WILL, OF COURSE, THE THE FLIP SIDE TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT IF IT'S NOT APPROVED, THEN ALL OF THEIR WORK WAS FOR NAUGHT. SO THAT'S THE OTHER. THAT'S THE OTHER CONSIDERATION IS IF IT'S JUST ONE PROPOSITION, IT'S AN UP OR DOWN. AND IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN YOU'RE LEFT WITH WHAT YOU GOT AND EVERYBODY STARTS ALL OVER FROM SCRATCH. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE WORST OUTCOME OR NOT. I NEITHER WOULD BE IDEAL. BUT I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE. YES. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON 
          [XI.1.Consideration and possible action to amend permit fees at the request of Lago Homes for the property located at  21313 Cardinal Avenue, Permit No.11783.]
THAT THEN I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. WE'LL GO DOWN TO ACTION ITEMS AND 11. WE'LL GO TO 11. ONE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO AMEND PERMIT FEES AT THE REQUEST OF LARGO HOMES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21313 CARDINAL AVENUE, PERMIT NUMBER 11783 AND I CAN I CAN HAVE STAFF COME UP FIRST OR WE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. JORDAN. WELL, 
          [02:50:08]
SHE'S COMING UP. BRAD. IT'S SENATE BILL 506. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING REGARDING THE STRUCTURING OF OUR FEES. WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED. ON THE BILLING SIDE OF THINGS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THEY'VE COME UP. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN, MISS MENDES? SO I KNOW WHAT CAME UP IN THE OUR PREVIOUS MEETING IS THAT THIS IDEA OF DUPLICATE FEES. SO COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT. ARE THEY TRULY DUPLICATIVE FEES OR. NO. SO HISTORICALLY, THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN ON AN INVOICE WAS THAT A CERTAIN PORTION OF OUR PERMIT FEES WERE DEDICATED TO THE STREET FUND. IT WAS NOT AN IMPACT FEE. IMPACT FEES ARE COMPLETELY ASSESSED DIFFERENTLY. THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED. IT'S HOW WE INTERNALLY BUDGET THE FEES THAT WE RECEIVE. AGAIN, IMPACT FEES ARE ASSESSED AND FIND COMPLETELY SEPARATE. AND SO IT WAS WHAT ESSENTIALLY EQUATES TO A CLERICAL ERROR ON OUR INVOICING. IT IS NOT A DUPLICATE FEE WHATSOEVER. ALL RIGHT, MR. PRINCE. SO THIS IS A HARD ONE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK AND IT'LL BE HARD FOR YOU TO ANSWER. BUT SO CERTAIN FEES WERE PAID. THE THE DEADLINE FOR THAT PERMIT WAS MISSED AND SO NEW PERMIT HAD TO BE ISSUED. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE WORK THEY THEY FINISHED THE WORK NEEDED PRETTY QUICKLY AFTER THAT INSPECTIONS HAD NOT HAPPENED BECAUSE LEGALLY YOU COULDN'T DO IT RIGHT. DO I HAVE THAT ABOUT RIGHT? TO AN EXTENT. SO IT'S NOT THAT THE PERMIT EXPIRED AND THEY HAD TO PULL A NEW ONE. THEY HAD TO GET A PERMIT EXTENSION. AND THAT EXTENSION, THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED IN OUR FEE SCHEDULE IS THE PERMIT FEE AT THE BEGINNING OF PERMITTING BASICALLY REASSESSED. AND SO IT KEEPS THE PERMIT ACTIVE. IT WAS NEVER AN INACTIVE PERMIT UNTIL THAT FEE WASN'T PAID, AT WHICH POINT WE COULD NO LONGER OPERATE AS STAFF. OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT. THE DEVELOPER HAS TOLD US THAT HE BELIEVES THE WORK IS COMPLETELY DONE, INSPECTION HADN'T HAPPENED YET AND I PRESUME HAS STILL HAS NOT HAPPENED FOR THE LEGAL REASONS YOU EXPLAINED LAST TIME. IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN ASSESS WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE CITY AND HOW MUCH? MAYBE THAT WAS IS REDUCED OVER IF THEY HAD USED THE ENTIRE TIME? YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE TOTAL FEE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, SHOULD WE REDUCE IT BY 10% OR 50% OR 90%? AND I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO TO JUSTIFY A NUMBER TO PICK OUT OF THIN AIR. SO TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD WORK IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICE IS A FEE BASED DEPARTMENT. OUR COST OF SERVICE SHOULD BE OFFSET BY OUR FEES THAT WE CHARGE TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, HOW IT SHOULD TYPICALLY FUNCTION IS THAT OUR RENEWAL FEE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL PERMIT FEE. IT IS THE COST OF OUR SERVICE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH AN EXTENSION, BECAUSE WE DON'T DO IT THAT WAY. WE DON'T HAVE THE CALCULATIONS FOR WHAT THAT ACTUAL FEE OR COST IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE OR HOW WE OFFSET IT. I ALSO DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO REDUCE OR IF IT HAS TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION. BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE AN ACCURATE WAY TO CALCULATE. AND THAT'S WE CAN ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME THAT CAME INTO IT. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME MATH THAT WE CAN CALCULATE ON OURS, BUT I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A SET NUMBER ON WHAT THAT REDUCTION DIFFERENCE IS VERSUS WHAT THE ORIGINAL PERMIT FEE WAS. IT'S A VERY LARGE HOUSE. AND SO EVEN WITH THAT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SKEWED BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE TO BE HONEST. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN BEFORE I GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY, I'LL CALL UP. SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN ACTUALLY KIND OF A LEGAL, BUT UNDERNEATH THE ORDINANCE, WITHIN THE ORDINANCES THAT WOULD OVERSEE THE. IS THERE A. IS THERE A AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO WAIVE PERMIT FEES WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE ITSELF FOR THIS ONE? THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS ORGANIZED, THE RENEWAL PART AND THE RENEWAL FEE IS NOT PART OF THE BUILDING FEE SCHEDULE. AND SO IT'S IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SECTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AUTHORITY IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER THE FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH I THINK DOES ESSENTIALLY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK AS COUNCIL AND BRAD'S WAY BETTER OF A JUDGE ON THIS, I THINK COUNCIL CAN MAKE THAT DECISION BECAUSE IT IS A FEE THAT WE'VE ASSESSED. BUT I, I'M NOT SURE IT SHOULD. IT SHOULD BE UNDER FEE SCHEDULE. 
          [02:55:06]
AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE STRUCTURED AS THE COST OF SERVICE TO DO THAT PROCESS. BUT BECAUSE TODAY IT'S NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THEN I'LL CALL UP MR. RALPH SHARP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL A COUPLE THINGS. SO AND WHAT JORDAN MENTIONED ABOUT ON THE RECEIPT, IT DOES SAY STREET REPAIR FEE 75 OR $0.50 AND PERMIT FEE $0.25 PER SQUARE FOOT. AND THAT'S ALL WE WERE ASKING IS TO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF PAYING THE STREET REPAIR FEE AGAIN, WHICH WE PAID ORIGINALLY AND NEVER HAD ANY MORE DAMAGE TO THE STREET, THAT WE PAY JUST THE $0.25, THE REPAIR FEE. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE IN SECTION 3.110, SECTION K, IT SAYS THAT A MULTI-FAMILY THAT'S 5000FT■S OR MORE. SO A DUPLEX HAS A TWO YEAR PERMIT. THIS HOUSE IS 14,000FT■!S BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE FAMILY. IT HAS THE ONE YEAR. THEN IT CAN OF COURSE BE RENEWED. BUT WHEN YOU DO RENEW THAT FEE, YOU ONLY GET SIX MONTH EXTENSION, NOT A FULL YEAR EXTENSION. BUT WE FINISHED THIS HOUSE IN ABOUT 18 MONTHS. THAT'S WHEN THAT THREE DAYS. I THINK THE QUESTION WAS FROM, FROM MAYOR PRO TEM. I WANT ABOUT THE ABOUT THE WE HAD THE PERMIT OR I'M SORRY. IT WAS IT WAS MR. PRINCE ABOUT YOU KNOW, WE MISSED IT BY THREE DAYS. WE WERE READY FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION. OF COURSE WE MISSED IT BY THAT TIME, AND WE WERE ASKING FOR THAT. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR WE DON'T WANT TO AS I MENTIONED, WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T THINK WE DESERVE TO GET THE WHOLE FEE WAIVED. WE JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PAY THE STREET REPAIR FEE AGAIN, WHICH IT THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR THE 15 YEARS WE'VE BEEN BUILDING OUT HERE. IT'S BEEN $0.50 FOR THE STREET REPAIR, $0.25 FOR THE PERMIT. AND THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT. AND AND UNDERSTANDING NOW THAT THAT WAS WRONG. BUT THAT'S HOW WE ALWAYS DEALT WITH IT. SO COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE PRICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO IF YOU HAD TO PAY BOTH? AND IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THE STREET PORTION. EXACTLY. SO THAT WOULD BE 11. 
          IF WE HAVE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT, IT'S 11,001, 75, 75. SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE PAID THAT TWICE AS OPPOSED TO THE $0.25, WHICH IS 3007, 25, 25. SO IT'S ABOUT A $8,000 DIFFERENCE, $7,500 DIFFERENCE. SO WE ARE MORE THAN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'D HAVE TO PAY THAT 3725, BUT HAVING TO PAY THAT STREET REPAIR FEE OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT, JUST SEEMS. NECESSARY. YEAH. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL AND STAFF. I WILL SAY TO COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WE DID ASK IF THERE WAS A MAJORITY LAST TIME THAT OUR CONSENSUS LAST TIME THAT FELT THAT THEY WERE OPEN TO REDUCING THE FEES AND THERE WAS AND THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT BACK AS AN ACTION ITEM. THAT'S WHY THE LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED TO THAT. IT'S NO LONGER A WAIVED PERMIT FEE. IT IS A WHAT DID WE SAY, AMEND THE FEE. SO, MR. BENNEFIELD, WELL, I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M TOTALLY AGAINST GRANTING THIS, NOT JUST. I'M OBVIOUSLY FOR THIS AS MR. ON THE RECORD, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT I'M GLAD I'M GLAD THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT MY JOKE. AS MR. SHARP POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY HAS INCLUSION FOR 24 MONTHS FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE 5000FT■S OR BIGGER. CERTAINLY THERE'S AN ERROR IN OUR CODE THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR 14,000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES IN A FLOODPLAIN 50FT TALL. 
          THERE SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS. THEY'VE ADDRESSED IT. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS CODIFIED. AND SO REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TIMING ISSUE HERE THAT'S AFFECTING ONE PARTICULAR OR MAYBE TWO PARTICULAR HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE CAUGHT IN A TIMING ISSUE. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A QUESTION OR THERE WAS A CONCERN RAISED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER LAST TIME, IS ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENT, LIKE IF WE IF WE DO THIS FOR YOU OR ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENT? AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS, FIRST OF ALL, NO COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT IT BEING A PRECEDENT. BUT IF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL CAME TO CITY COUNCIL AND SAID, LOOK, I'M BUILDING A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND IT'S GOING TO COST ME, IT'S GOING TO TAKE ME 18 MONTHS, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE THE EXACT SAME FEELING AS I DO TODAY. NOW, IF SOMEBODY CAME TO ME AND SAID, LOOK, WE'RE BUILDING A 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND IT'S JUST WE'VE REALLY JUST BEEN LOLLYGAGGING. AND THIS GUY OVER HERE, HE DID IT HIS IN 18 MONTHS, AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO MINE IN 18. THOSE AREN'T APPLES AND IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME. SO THE OTHER LAST THING THAT I'LL JUST SAY IS THIS 14,000 SQUARE FOOT OR THRESHOLD, THAT YOU'RE BEING HELD TO, TWO OF THOSE FLOORS ARE NOT CONSIDERED LIVABLE. RIGHT. AND SO WHAT'S UNFORTUNATE ABOUT THE SCENARIO THAT THEY'RE IN IS ON A NORMAL HOUSE THAT'S 2000 SQUARE FOOT, 2,100% OF THAT'S LIVABLE SPACE. IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE BEING ASSESSED $0.75 ON 
          [03:00:07]
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH 66% OF IT IS NOT EVEN LIVABLE SPACE. IT'S I THINK, WHAT THE LCRA CONSIDERS IS LIKE GARAGE OR STORAGE OR BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE BATHROOMS, YOU CAN'T HAVE CERTAIN UTILITIES IN THERE. I MEAN, YOU'RE TRULY TALKING ABOUT 66% OF YOUR PROPERTY BEING WASTED AS FAR AS NOT LIVABLE, BUT YET YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE SAME 75%, 75 CENT. 
          SO YOU'RE COMING HERE NOT ASKING FOR A FREEBIE. YOU'RE COMING HERE SAYING, LOOK, I'LL PAY THE $0.25. AND AS MISS, AS JORDAN POINTED OUT, THIS IS A FEE BASED FEE. AND BASED ON MY MEETING WITH MR. WEST THIS WEEK, THE $3,700 OR WHATEVER THE CALCULATION IS, DOES PAY FOR THESE FINAL, FINAL INSPECTIONS. SO IF IF THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR THE INSPECTIONS AND WE'RE FEE BASED, I DON'T SEE HOW WE DON'T APPROVE IT. AND I DON'T SEE HOW ANY FUTURE PRECEDENT IS USED AGAINST US. MR. AVERILL, I'LL AGREE I'M MISSING. MISSING IT BY THREE DAYS IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THINGS HAPPEN, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD COST THE HOMEOWNER $9,000 WHEN 3700 WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE FEE DOWN TO THAT 25%. I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT A ROAD IMPACT FEE, AND Y'ALL HAVE CHANGED THE CLERICAL. AND BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR 15 YEARS AND YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 15 YEARS. AND I'M JUST THINKING HOW MANY DEADLINES Y'ALL HAVE MISSED AND HOW MANY HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALREADY PAID THESE FEES THINKING THAT THEY WERE IMPACT FEES EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T. BUT THAT'S 15 YEARS WORTH OF CLERICAL ERRORS. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO WORD IT, BUT I AGREE THAT WE WE ACCEPT THE REDUCED, REDUCED FEE FOR FOR THIS. I'M GONNA TAKE THAT AS A COMMENT. SO THE MOTION THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS TO. NOT ASSESS THE STREET FEE, BUT DO ASSESS THE WHAT'S WHAT ARE WE CALLING THE OTHER ONE? THAT'S THE RENEWAL. MAYOR, COULD I POSSIBLY MAKE THE MOTION? WOULD YOU BE? YES, I'LL BE OPEN TO THAT. OR, MR. HALL, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO MR. PRINCE MAKING THE MOTION? MR. HALL, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO ME MAKING THIS MOTION? OH, YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT, MR. PRINCE, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT STREET FEES BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS MONEY IS ABOUT. SO I MOVE THAT. WE AMEND THE PERMIT FEE ON PROPERTY. TWO 1313 CARDINAL AVENUE FROM THE EXISTING $11,175 AND CHANGE DOWN TO $3,725 AND CHANGE AS AS QUOTED BY THE THE BUILDER. I DO WANT TO VERIFY JORDAN, HE SAID. THOSE NUMBERS DOES DO THOSE NUMBERS AGREE WITH WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND? SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE CALCULATIONS AND FIGURE ALL OF THAT OUT. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE INSTEAD OF ASSIGNING A NUMBER THAT THE PERMIT FEE BE ASSESSED AT $0.25 A SQUARE FOOT RATHER THAN $0.75 A SQUARE FOOT, WE'LL DO THE CALCULATIONS ON OUR END, AND THANK YOU. I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY THAT THE PERMIT FEE FOR THIS PROPERTY BE REDUCED FROM $0.75 PER SQUARE FOOT TO $0.25 PER SQUARE FOOT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PRINCE. I'LL SECOND. I SECOND FOR MR. HALL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. IT'S UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
          MAYOR PRO TEM BEGINNING. BUT BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANT TO COME BACK AND SAY PART OF THIS IS HEARTBURN FOR ME IN TERMS OF JUST, AGAIN, GOING THROUGH OUR ORDINANCES AND GETTING THIS RIGHT AND JUST KEEPING IT, BECAUSE THESE. DIFFERENT GLITCHES KEEP COMING WITHIN OUR SYSTEM. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SKIP TO A WORKSHOP ITEM BECAUSE I HAVE I SEE MR. SNYDER OVER THERE. 12 
          [XII.2.Discussion to adopt a HOT Fund Policy.]
WORK SESSION. ITEM NUMBER TWO DISCUSSION TO ADOPT A HOT FUND POLICY. AND I WILL ACTUALLY START WITH BRAD, AS WE JUST TOOK EXACTLY WHAT YOU SENT OVER AND PUT IT IN THE PACKET. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A WORKSHOP. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DO IS SEEK COUNCIL'S 
          [03:05:06]
OPINIONS ON WHAT YOU SENT OVER AND SEND YOU BACK SOME FEEDBACK, AND MAYBE WE IMPROVE UPON THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, FOR ME, IT'S THE APPLICATION AND THE REPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME AT SOME POINT, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE HAVE YET. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK CERTAINLY I COULD HAVE I MEAN, I CAN, I CAN PROVIDE YOU A TEMPLATE FOR AN APPLICATION. 
          BUT IF I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO TAILOR IT TO WHAT THE POLICY IS GOING TO BE, BECAUSE IF THE POLICY HAS REQUIREMENTS OR SO FORTH, YOU KNOW, SO ONCE WE GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL ON, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE THIS, WE DON'T LIKE THIS. WHAT WE HAVE, WHICH I, I DID INDEED JUST COPY FROM ONE OF OUR OTHER CITIES JUST AS A TEMPLATE FOR SOMETHING YOU TO START FROM. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD POLICY. ONCE WE GET THAT FEEDBACK, THEN WE'LL KNOW THE PARAMETERS AND WHAT A WHAT AN APPLICATION WOULD, WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND, AND SO IF YOU WEREN'T, IF YOU WERE TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO WHAT'S IN THE PACKET, THEN I CAN GO BACK TO THAT SAME CITY'S APPLICATION AND CUT AND PASTE IT. AND THERE YOU GO. WE'RE DONE. BUT IF YOU MADE SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, YOU WANTED SOMETHING OR YOU DIDN'T WANT SOMETHING, WE'D HAVE TO GO AND TAILOR IT. OKAY. MY INITIAL QUESTIONS THOUGH ON IT, WERE BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU COPIED IT FROM ANOTHER CITY. SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAD TO FIX IN SECTION TWO THE 7% THAT'S IN THERE. AND THEN THERE WAS A SECTION RIGHT AFTER THAT THAT TALKS ABOUT CHARGING 15% OF THE AMOUNT DUE AFTER THE TAX HAS BEEN DELINQUENT FOR ONE COMPLETE FISCAL YEAR QUARTER AND AN INTEREST FEE OF 10%. JUST MAKING SURE THAT ALL LINES UP WITH CURRENT STATE STATUTE AND A BUNCH OF OTHER SECTIONS IN HERE SEEM TO JUST BE REPEATING STATE STATUTE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM IN THE STATE STATUTE ON THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. 
          ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION BEFORE I BRING UP CITIZENS. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, THEN I WILL BRING UP MR. DAVE SNYDER. DAVE SNYDER, 4905 GREEN SHORE CIRCLE. THANK YOU GUYS FOR HAVING ME. DID YOU GUYS READ WHAT I HAD SENT IN? I DID I'M NOT SURE IF ALL COUNCIL HAS IT, SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS GETTING READ ALOUD SO I DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY OF IT. DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT? THERE YOU GO. SO SURE TO ME AD LIB AND I'LL JUST READ THROUGH IT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PRESENT MY CITIZEN COMMENTS. WELL, THIS IS ALL AFTER THE FACT. BASICALLY, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE IN PERSON BECAUSE I WAS AT OUR PRACTICE RANGE GETTING TWO KIDS READY FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. SO I'LL SKIP ALL THAT. I'M GOING TO MOVE RIGHT TO THE MEAT OF IT. I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE HOT FUNDS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS. A FEW MONTHS AGO, WHEN THE CITY WAS ACCEPTING REQUESTS FOR HOT FUNDS FROM OUR LOCAL NONPROFITS, I ADMITTEDLY WAS VERY UNEDUCATED AS TO WHERE THE FUNDS CAME FROM, WHAT THEY WERE TO BE USED FOR, AND WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THEM. I FEEL NOW AS THOUGH I HAVE A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE FUNDS AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE USED, AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE TO THE BUSINESSES THAT RECEIVE THEM, THE CITY ITSELF, AND CONSEQUENTLY OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE CITY. AS WE WORK TOGETHER TO BRING IN GUESTS, CUSTOMERS AND REVENUE FROM OUTSIDE OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD ALL BENEFIT FROM THE DISTRIBUTION USE OF HOT FUNDS. 
          WE'VE HAD OUR ARCHERY RANGE OPEN FOR TWO YEARS NOW. THE SUPPORT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE ISD, THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY GREAT. OUR EVENTS AND LEAGUES HAVE SEEN STEADY GROWTH IN NUMBERS, AND OUR YOUTH TEAMS ARE GETTING NEW KIDS INVOLVED MONTHLY. WE HAVE A SOLID LOCAL FOLLOWING AND STEADILY ATTRACTING ARCHERS FROM ALL OVER THE STATE. SOME OF OUR SIGNATURE TOURNAMENTS WE GET PEOPLE FROM FORT WORTH, HOUSTON, THE EAST PART OF THE STATE, WE GET SAN ANTONIO. I'VE ACTUALLY GOT ARCHERS THAT ARE COMING FROM GEORGETOWN AND BURNET EVERY SUNDAY FOR OUR LEAGUE SHOOTS. THAT SAID, FOR US TO CONTINUE TO GROW, WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS MORE NOW THAN EVER ON MARKETING FOR COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE OF OUR OWN. WE HAVE ONE OF THE BEST RANGES IN THE STATE THE VERY FEW PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT. WE HAVE A VISION AND THE ABILITY TO HOST BIGGER AND BETTER TOURNAMENTS. 
          IDEALLY, THESE TOURNAMENTS WOULD LAST FOR 2 OR 3 DAYS ONCE. ONCE WE REACH A POINT WHERE OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS SEE WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER, THEY'LL BE ASKING US TO HOST THEIR EVENTS. 
          WE'VE ALREADY HELD CORPORATE EVENTS. WE'VE WORKED WITH THE TEXAS YOUTH HUNT PROGRAM. WE'VE DONE WORK WITH BALCONIES NATIONAL PARK. WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO SOME STUFF WITH THE CANDLELIGHT RANCH. WE'VE GOT DOZENS OF IDEAS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY ON TO HOLD EVENTS, WORK TOGETHER TO WHERE WE'RE DOING MULTIPLE THINGS WITH CORPORATIONS, OTHER CITIES, 
          [03:10:01]
BRINGING PEOPLE INTO TOWN AND KEEP THEM HERE FOR AN ENTIRE WEEKEND. WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL TO COUNCIL SOON THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH THE LOCAL COMPANY HERE THAT SPECIALIZES IN HELPING BUSINESSES GROW THROUGH MULTIPLE FORMS OF ADVERTISING. THE PROPOSAL WILL INCLUDE. OUR MAJOR EVENTS ARE EXPECTED NUMBERS, INCLUDING PARTICIPANTS FROM OUT OF TOWN, FINANCIAL IMPACTS AND BENEFITS, AS WELL AS OUR MARKETING PLAN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE CITY, ITS AMENITIES AND ATTRACTIONS. WE WILL COME IN PERSON WHEN IT GETS ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW. MY QUESTION WOULD BE ARE THE HOT FUNDS AVAILABLE NOW TO BUSINESSES THAT SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR REVIEW? IS THERE A POLICY IN PLACE OR PARAMETERS TO FOLLOW PRIOR TO OUR SUBMISSION? WE'RE IN A GOOD POSITION RIGHT NOW TO REALLY EXPAND OUR GROWTH, PARTNER WITH THE CITY ON SPECIAL EVENTS, AND MANY OF OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES SHOULD BENEFIT AS WELL. WE HAVE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A SOLID PROPOSAL FOR USE OF THE HOT FUNDS AND ARE INTENDED TO BE USED. OUR REQUEST WOULD BE TO ASK COUNCIL IF THE POLICY IS NOT IN PLACE YET, TO PLEASE CONSIDER IT IN THE NEAR FUTURE ON OUR AGENDAS. 
          AND FOR RIGHT NOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL, IF YOU LIKE, SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW IT. 
          SO NOW THAT I'M HERE IN PERSON, I'LL QUIT LOOKING AT THAT. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH A COMPANY CALLED 271. THEY ARE DOWN BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING. THAT'S WHERE THEIR OFFICE IS. THEY'RE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER FOR US COMMERCIALS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN FOR OUR SPECIAL EVENTS. WE'VE GOT 3 OR 4 OF THEM GOING THIS YEAR ON TOP OF OUR STATE CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS THAT WE'RE RUNNING. WE DID NOT GET OUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT THAT WE WANTED THIS YEAR. THE ISD WAS GOING TO WORK WITH US. THE CITY WAS GOING TO WORK WITH US. WE DIDN'T GET IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH NUMBERS YET. SO WE'RE GOING TO INVEST IN THIS, IN THIS OUTFIT. WHO CLAIMS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO JUMP THE NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS WE HAVE INTO THE 5000 6000 NUMBER IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THAT COSTS MONEY FOR THAT ADVERTISING. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR IS SOME OF THE HOT FUNDS SO THAT WE CAN PUT IT TOWARDS THAT ADVERTISING. WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THEM IS THIS EVERY TIME WE PUT A COMMERCIAL TOGETHER, WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE HERE IN LAGO VISTA. WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE OTHER AMENITIES. WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT FROM ERIC AND JENNIFER AND EVERYBODY ELSE, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO GEAR UP FOR? DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WALKING TRAILS? DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MOUNTAIN BIKING THAT WE HAVE OUT HERE, THE BIKE RACES, ANY OF THE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE WHERE I CAN SCHEDULE A TOURNAMENT ON OR AROUND THE SAME WEEKEND, WE CAN PULL PEOPLE IN FOR AN ENTIRE WEEKEND. 
          I GOT A LIST OF 100 DEEP THAT I REALLY DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP RIGHT NOW, BUT ONCE I SIT DOWN WITH WITH THE CITY AND WE TALK ABOUT SOME CONJOINT EVENTS, I THINK WE'VE GOT STUFF IN THE CITY THAT WE CAN BRING PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE STATE TO. WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING IT. 
          WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON OUR LOCALS COMING TO THESE EVENTS, AND OUR GOAL IS TO GET OUTSIDE DOLLARS. THE ONLY WAY I'M GOING TO GET MY RANGE TO GROW SO THAT I CAN QUIT WORKING CONSTRUCTION, IS IF I START GETTING SOME OUTSIDE PEOPLE COMING IN, AND A HANDFUL AT A TIME IS GREAT, BUT I WANT THAT TO EXPAND TO WHERE I'M PULLING 50 PEOPLE FROM MARBLE FALLS, 50 PEOPLE FROM LIBERTY HILL. I WANT TO GET THEM FROM ALL OVER THE STATE. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR INTENDED USE WILL BE. WE WANT TO USE THAT MONEY FOR ADVERTISING AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THE CITY ON IT. IF I CAN GET A LIST OF THE AIRBNBS IN TOWN OR A LIST OF THOSE BUSINESSES, I CAN PUT A QR CODE ON THE ADVERTISEMENTS THAT WE RUN. I CAN PUT IT ON MY WEBSITE SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE BOOKING AN EVENT TO COME AND SHOOT AT MY RANGE, THEY'VE GOT IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE WANT THEM TO HIT IN THIS CITY. SO MY GOAL TODAY WAS JUST TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING IN PLACE, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET GOING ON THIS, AND IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS SINCE THE LAST TIME I CAME IN ON A ZOOM, AND EVERYBODY LAUGHED AT ME, BECAUSE WHEN YOU ASKED ME HOW MUCH, I SAID, WELL, THE LAST OUTFIT DOUBLED IT, SO HELL, LET'S DOUBLE IT. BUT THAT DIDN'T GET ME ANYWHERE. SO I'M BACK. WE HAVE A PROPOSAL READY. I'M READY TO COME BACK WITH THOSE GUYS FROM TWO, SEVEN, ONE, TWO. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT MORE IN DEPTH AND FIND OUT WHAT YOU GUYS NEED FROM US TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THANK YOU. YEAH. THE ANSWER THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT A FIRST DRAFT OF A POLICY RIGHT NOW. SO THERE'S NO POLICY IN PLACE. WE'RE STILL NEEDING TO GET AN APPLICATION IN PLACE AND THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE. BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP AND THE MOST PROGRESS WE'VE MADE SINCE WE HAD THOSE FIRST DISCUSSIONS. MISTER ROBERTS, YOU'RE SIGNED UP FOR THIS ONE AS WELL. I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING TO THE ARCHERY TO. I DIDN'T KNOW DAVE WAS TALKING TONIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS AGO WE DID FUND THE ARCHERY RANGE AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT FUNDED AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IF HE CAN BETTER QUALIFY BY MEANS OF THE EFFORTS HE JUST GOT THROUGH. DESCRIBING TO YOU GUYS ON THIS, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ALREADY. IT'S 24081502. IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT, THEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW IT RECONCILES WITH THIS IF IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF IT OR IF IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED, REPLACED, ETC. SO I'LL GIVE THIS TO YOU, BRAD, WHO WANTS IT? OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANKS. THANK YOU. 
          [03:15:07]
YES, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE TO REPLACE IT BECAUSE IT DID PROVIDE ENOUGH GUIDANCE BEFORE. 
          THE ONE I JUST HANDED HIM. IT WAS WE DID IT IN AUGUST OF 24, AND YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT IT WAS. LET'S JUST STRIP IT DOWN TO WHERE IT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE STATUTE ONLY. BUT WE PUT A CARVE OUT IN THERE IN CASE WE WANTED TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE CHAMBER. AND THEN LAST YEAR WE DECIDED, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS PROCESS DIFFERENTLY DURING THE APPLICATION POINT. BUT WE NEVER FOLLOWED UP WITH ANYTHING IN THIS PRODUCT. ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS, I THINK, AN EFFORT TO THAT END. AND I THINK YOU GUYS MAY HAVE JUST FORGOT WE ALREADY HAD SOMETHING ALREADY THERE. SO YEAH. THANK YOU. AND ONE OTHER THING IS I MODELED, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OUR APPLICATION PROCESS OR THAT ORDINANCE, BUT WHEN I PUT THAT ON OUR AGENDA, I EFFECTIVELY MODELED IT AFTER ROCKPORT'S. THANKS, BRAD. YEAH. SO STATE LAW HAS I JUST SENT OUT A TML PAPER TO ALL OF YOU FROM BILL LONGLEY, AND IT SETS FORTH REALLY JUST A VERY BASIC PRIMER ON WHAT CONSTITUTES WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE MONEY. AND NUMBER ONE, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S GOT TO PUT HEADS IN BEDS. AND NUMBER TWO, IT HAS TO FIT WITHIN ONE OF THE NINE NOW NINE CATEGORIES. SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, WHAT YOU ADOPTED IN 2024 HAS GOT SEVEN CATEGORIES. THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OLDER VERSION OF WHAT ARE NOW THE NINE CATEGORIES. SO IT MIRRORS STATE LAW AND THAT'S GREAT. BUT IT'S NOT IN AND OF ITSELF A POLICY. IT IT THESE. YOU'D HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN STATE LAW. SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW YOU CAN DO IT. AND I ASK YOU TO PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE COMMENTARY IN THE TML ARTICLE I JUST SENT OUT, BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND ART ORGANIZATIONS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN THOSE. 
          AND THOSE ARE THOSE ARE TML OPINIONS. SO IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT LAGO VISTA DEALS WITH. THANK YOU. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT GOES BACK TO MY EARLIER POINT. THIS POLICY IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN HOLDING US BACK. IT'S THE APPLICATION AND THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY BEFORE. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M EAGER TO GET TO. THIS POLICY IS MAINLY A REFLECTION OF THE STATE STATUTE. THERE'S NO POLICY THAT WE CAN WRITE THAT WILL EXPAND HOW WE CAN USE THE FUNDS. WE DON'T HAVE THAT CHOICE, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE IT SPELLED OUT THAT THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE APPLICATION. I THINK, AGAIN, THE BIG CONCERN CAME UP THIS YEAR THAT PAST YEAR'S RECIPIENTS DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY SORT OF REPORTING ON HOW THEY SPENT THE MONEY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE BE AT LEAST QUARTERLY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF REPERCUSSIONS IF THEY CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY SPENT THE FUNDS, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK THE NEXT YEAR AND REQUEST FUNDS. 
          SO ANY OTHER COUNCIL THOUGHTS ON THAT? MISS SABRINA, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. I'M WHOLEHEARTEDLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING. BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN BE DONE WITH THESE, THESE FUNDS. WHEN PEOPLE SAY, OH, HOW ARE THEY BRINGING IN REVENUE? AND I WANT PEOPLE THAT ARE APPLYING FOR THIS TO BE VERY MINDFUL THAT IT'S VERY EASY TO GO TO THE COMPTROLLER AND RUN, GET THEM TO RUN REPORTS FOR YOU. YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE WHAT THE GAS STATIONS ARE PULLING, WHAT YOU KNOW, THE INCREASES THAT THEY'RE PAYING IN TAXES. YOU CAN DO IT FOR THE RESTAURANTS TOO. YOU CAN DO MONTHLY REPORTS. 
          SO IT'S EASY TO SHOW AND PROVE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING PEOPLE IN. AND AS LONG AS IT COINCIDES WITH YOUR EVENT AND YOU CAN COMPARE IT YEAR OVER YEAR OR MONTH OVER MONTH, IT'S NOT HARD TO PROVE. YOU JUST GOT TO DO IT AND YOU GOT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH IT. AND IF YOU PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES ONE YEAR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE TOO NICE TO YOU THE NEXT. MAYOR PRO TEM ON. THANK YOU MAYOR. I HAD GONE AHEAD AND DONE A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND ON AN APPLICATION FOR THIS. I SENT IT TO YOU AND CHARLES TO BEGIN WITH, AND BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT IN THERE THAT I THOUGHT NEEDED MAYBE LOOKING OVER, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PLACE THIS DRAFT ON THE COUNCIL FORM FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT EVERYBODY'S EYES ON IT. AND ESPECIALLY HAVING A COUPLE OF CASE STUDIES IS HELPFUL. IN PARTICULAR, THIS THE DRAFT THAT I PUT TOGETHER HAS SPECIFIC REPORTING IN IT. AND SO I THINK MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE COULD TWEAK THIS JUST A LITTLE BIT AND BE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT YOU ARE CONVEYING, MAYOR. AND SO THAT LIKE WE SAID, YOU KNOW, EACH YEAR THERE'S A SET OF METRICS NOW TO. BRAD'S. CONVERSATION IN REGARD TO OUR CHAMBERS. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF EXPLICIT ITEMS WHEN IT CAME TO HOT FUNDS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ARE IN THERE, 
          [03:20:07]
SUCH AS A HOT FUNDS, GO INTO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT. RIGHT. AND SO THAT ALLOWS FOR AUDITING FOR THE CITY AND SUCH LIKE THAT, THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR TRACKING. AND ANYWAY, THIS THE APPLICATION, THE WAY THAT THIS ONE IS DESIGNED IS EDUCATIONAL AS WELL AS AN APPLICATION AS WELL. SO IT LETS THEM KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO DO BY GROUPS, GROUPINGS OF WHO THEY ARE. SO THANK YOU. MR. PRINCE. I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER AND NICOLE, YOU MAY REMEMBER, BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION AT BUDGET TIME, I, I FEEL LIKE WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE BUDGET FOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OUT OF THE HOT FUNDS, BUT WE DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING ELSE IN THE BUDGET. AND THAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GETTING THAT MONEY WAS CONTINGENT ON THEM FOLLOWING ALL THE REPORTING RULES AND ALL THAT STUFF. BUT THERE'S NO MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO TO MR. STEWART'S QUESTION, NOT STUART SNYDER TO THE QUESTION. THERE'S NO MONEY IN THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW, EVEN IF HE QUALIFIES. AND WE THINK IT'S A FANTASTIC PROGRAM. SO IT WOULD MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. SO IT'S A IT'S A NON-TRIVIAL EXERCISE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SOME ACTION ON OUR PART ABOVE AND BEYOND JUST HIM TURNING IN A GREAT APPLICATION. MR. ONE QUESTION TO THAT. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN THE BUDGET, WE STILL ARE RECEIVING HOT FUND REVENUE. SO I'M WONDERING LIKE HOW WHERE THIS REVENUE IS GOING AND IT'S JUST GOING INTO THIS RESERVE, WHY WE COULD NOT DO IT, JUST A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO IT. WE CERTAINLY COULD DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT. I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THERE'S NO MONEY IN THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW THAT NOT THAT THERE'S NOT MONEY IN THE HOT FUND. HOT RESERVE FUND. 
          THERE ABSOLUTELY IS MONEY IN THERE. BUT THERE'S NO MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR FOR ANYBODY OTHER THAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AS OF TODAY. CHARLES. YEAH. THE HOTEL MOTEL MONEY IS COMING IN. 
          WE DIDN'T BUDGET FOR IT ANYTHING OUT OF IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE TO SPEND IT. SO IT'S HARD TO BUDGET EXPENDITURES WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A POLICY TO EXPEND THAT MONEY. NICOLE. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, WHAT DID COME OUT WAS EXACTLY THAT. AND FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS WE WERE GOING TO WORK ON THE POLICY AND IF WE GOT ONE IN PLACE, Y'ALL SPECIFICALLY STATED YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT IF WE FOUND QUALIFYING BUSINESSES. AND THEN ON THE OTHER NOTE, WHEN WE DID FUND THE OTHER NON-PROFITS, IT WAS NOT OUT OF HOT FUNDS. IT WAS OUT OF NON-DEPARTMENTAL, WHICH IS JUST REGULAR GENERAL GENERAL FUND MONEY. SO WE WERE NOT. AND IN THIS BUDGET THERE WAS NO NON-DEPARTMENTAL FUNDS FOR NON-PROFITS. IT WAS AGREED, YES, SIR. BUT WE DIDN'T BREAK ANY STATE LAW WITH OUR HOT MONEY, JUST FYI. YES, MAYOR PRO TEM, SORRY, JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOMETHING WITHIN THE HOT FUND AT THE STATE STATUTE. I NEED TO CLARIFY THIS. THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO EXPEND SO MUCH OF THAT PER YEAR. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? YEAH, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS OFFHAND, BUT YES, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T COLLECT IT AND JUST JUST KEEP IT, KEEP IT FOREVER AND NOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT. AND ITS WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO GENERATE TOURISM AND ENCOURAGE TOURISM. BUT BUT THAT'S AGAIN, THAT IS SEPARATE FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. JUST NEED TO KEEP THOSE TWO THINGS IN MIND. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR ANY OTHER THING. 
          IT'S THAT IT HAS TO HAVE THAT CONNECTION TO TOURISM THAT THAT HEADS IN BEDS LITTLE, YOU KNOW. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S THE BASELINE. SO UNDER THAT PROVISION, IF THE CITY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT LEGALLY QUALIFIES TO GIVE FUNDS TO, THEN DO YOU HAVE TO STOP COLLECTING YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX? DON'T ASK ME THAT QUESTION. YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO GO I. I I THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING IN THE TAX CODE THAT THAT TRIGGERS THAT, BUT I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK IT UP. I'M THE TAX CODE STARTS TO GET PRETTY COMPLEX IN THAT REGARD. AND I'M JUST NOT GOING TO I DON'T WANT TO BE WRONG ON THAT. 
          OKAY. WELL, SOMETHING TO MAYBE LOOK INTO BECAUSE MY HOPE IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GIVEN US SOME SORT OF A POLICY HERE. MAYOR PRO TEM HAS GOT AN APPLICATION DRAFT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS ON DISCUSSION BOARD. I HOPE TO SEE CONVERSATION. I'M GOING TO BRING THIS BACK ON THE FIFTH, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF DECISION ON THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH, WHERE WE CAN HAVE THE POLICY TOGETHER AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO THAT'S THE TIMELINE I WAS 
          [03:25:03]
HOPING FOR. MR. BENEFIELD, QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. BULLOCK. YOU HAD MENTIONED IN THE MEMO THAT WAS POSTED IN THE AGENDA THAT THE CITY HAD REQUESTED A SAMPLE POLICY MICROPHONE. OKAY. 
          MR. BULLOCK, YOU MENTIONED YOU IN THE AGENDA. THERE'S A MEMO OF AN EMAIL THAT WENT TO YOU TO MR. SAM, MAYOR SAM AND MR. WEST, AND IT SAYS THE CITY HAS REQUESTED A SAMPLE HOT FUND POLICY. I DON'T REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, WHO'S THE CITY, LIKE, WHO REQUESTED THIS HOT FUND POLICY REVIEW? WHO REQUESTED THIS MEMO? THE REASON I ASK IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KOBE ALWAYS USED TO SAY IS I ANSWER TO THE FOUR, AND I LIKED THAT COMMENT. YOU KNOW, HE SO I GUESS WHAT I'M REALLY CURIOUS OF IS WHO REQUESTED THE MEMO. AND ARE THERE OTHER MEMOS THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON BECAUSE THIS DATES ALL THE WAY BACK TO DECEMBER 20TH? THIS IS WHEN THAT EMAIL WAS SENT. AND I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S OTHER MEMOS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO WORK ON THAT YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE REST OF COUNCIL. SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF SORT OF THE GENESIS OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE, OTHER THAN EARLIER DISCUSSIONS FROM LAST YEAR, WHEN THE CITY'S EXPENDITURES OF HOT FUNDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF MONIES TO VARIOUS ENTITIES CAME ABOUT. I THINK I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING PROBABLY AND I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION, BUT PROBABLY MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT AROSE OUT OF A COUNCIL MEETING FROM JUST THE GENERAL DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL, THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A HOT FUND POLICY. AND THE WAY, THE WAY SOME OF THESE EXPENDITURES WERE CONCERNING TO ME. SO I THINK THAT'S HOW IT AROSE. BUT I COULD I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF A MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S MY DIM RECOLLECTION. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T REMEMBER IT IN ANSWER. I SO FAR AS I KNOW, I'M, I DON'T THINK I'M WORKING ON ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU ALL HAVE GIVEN ME DIRECTION TO TONIGHT. MY RECOLLECTION WAS WE GAVE HIM GUIDANCE IN THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. HE NEEDS TO COME BACK WITH SOME SAMPLES. I THINK YOU OFFERED THEM. YOU SAID I HAVE SAMPLES OF OTHER CITIES THAT YOU CAN GIVE. AND THIS COUNCIL SAID NEITHER HAD SAID YES. PLEASE GET THOSE. WE HAVE TO GET A POLICY IN PLACE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE WEREN'T HANDING OUT ANY HOT FUNDS DURING THAT BUDGET CYCLE UNTIL WE GOT THERE. THAT THAT COULD THAT COULD BE THE GENESIS OF IT. YOU'VE GOT A BETTER RECOLLECTION THAN I DO. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I HAD FOR BREAKFAST, SO I APOLOGIZE. 
          YOU'VE HAD A BUSY DAY, I KNOW. SIR. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM, THEN I WILL MOVE US. BACK TO THE ACTION ITEMS. AND WE WILL BRING UP ACTION ITEM TWO. 
          [XI.2.Consideration and possible action to approve the City of Lago Vista Strategic Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.]
CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA STRATEGIC WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CHARLES MAYOR COUNCIL. I BELIEVE I POSTED ALL THESE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND SENT COPIES TO Y'ALL INDIVIDUALS FROM THE DEPARTMENT. 
          AND THEN I SENT YOU A DRAFT VERSION OF EVERYTHING COMBINED INTO ONE DOCUMENT, I THINK. 
          HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHARLES MAYOR PRO TEM CHARLES, THANK YOU. AFTER I READ INTO THE DEEP NIGHT AND HAD MY EYES GLAZED OVER, I WAS QUITE IMPRESSED WITH ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PUT FORWARD BY EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS. IN PARTICULAR, I APPRECIATED THAT THERE WERE VERY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES THAT WERE PUT IN, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATED TO REPORTING AND DASHBOARDS. WHAT I REALLY WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT TWO IS WHEN IS STAFF GOING TO SLEEP? NUMBER ONE NO, HOW HOW IN BRINGING THESE ALL TOGETHER, I KNOW YOU'RE IN THE MIDST OF AN UPGRADE ON THE TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS. WHERE WHERE WILL THE REPORTING AND ALL OF THAT DO YOU WILL YOU BE HOSTING THAT? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE PART OF THIS WITHIN THE NEXT 90 DAYS. JUST THAT WITHIN THE NEXT 90 DAYS, WE PLAN ON HAVING THE REPORTS START FLOWING. AND I APOLOGIZE. WOULD THAT BE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AND THE REPORTING SECTION? CHARLES, WHERE WHERE WILL WE FIND THE THE REPORTS ON AN ONGOING BASIS? THEY WILL BE ON THE WEBSITE. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING I'M ALREADY HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS WITH AMANDA THAT WE'RE GOING TO REARRANGE. SOME OF THE STUFF ON THE WEBSITE, MAKE THINGS A LITTLE EASIER TO FIND, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M GETTING LOTS OF COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS THAT IT'S TOUGH TO FIND THINGS ON OUR WEBSITE, SO WE WANT TO STREAMLINE IT AND MAKE IT EASIER TO FIND THINGS, AND THEY'LL PROBABLY BE RIGHT THERE. A BUTTON YOU HIT TO GET THE 
          [03:30:05]
MONTHLY REPORTS AND WEEKLY REPORTS WITH UPDATES. MR. HALL, JUST A QUESTION. I SAW THIS THIS WHOLE WORK PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN CAME FROM THE CITY STAFF, AND OUR CITY MANAGER IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE TIMELINES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT. YES, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT. THE STAFF I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAFF WRITING THEIR STRATEGIC PLANS. THEY COME UP WITH ALL OF THAT ON THEIR OWN, WITH THEIR OWN TIMELINE, SO IT IS UP TO THEM TO MEET THEIR TIMELINES. AND THEN ONE ONE OTHER QUESTION. THERE'S. IN VARIOUS PLACES THERE, IT TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND REPORTING MEETINGS. IT'S NOT ALWAYS WASN'T ALWAYS CLEAR TO ME. YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE OR WHO ATTENDS THOSE. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE THERE'S ONE THAT SAYS LAUNCH A MONTHLY CITY DELIVERY MEETING AND ADAPT TO ONE PAGE. WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT CITY DELIVERY MEETING IS BEING DISCUSSED. AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S THOSE KINDS OF KINDS OF THINGS IN THERE THAT I'M JUST NOT CLEAR ON, YOU KNOW, WHO ATTENDS THAT AND IS THAT A IS THAT JUST A STAFF THING OR, OR IS IT BEING PRESENTED OR COUNCIL BEING INVITED TO THAT OR, OR OR WHAT? WE HAVE CURRENTLY WE ARE HAVING WEEKLY STAFF MEETINGS EVERY TUESDAY MORNING AT 830. COUNCIL IS WELCOME TO ATTEND. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN THREE OF YOU SHOW UP, PLEASE GIVE US PLENTY OF NOTICE. AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS SO WE CAN POST A AGENDA ITEM. BUT YEAH, WE HAVE THAT. AND THEN THE GOING FORWARD, THE EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND COUNCIL MEETING OF THE MONTH, WE WILL GIVE YOU A STRATEGIC, A BREAKDOWN OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. AND IF WE'RE HITTING OUR MARKS OR NOT HITTING OUR MARKS. MR. PRINCE, THIS IS GOOD CHARLES AND STAFF. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I, I READ THE DETAILS OF THE UP FRONT STUFF, YOUR MATERIAL. I DID NOT READ THROUGH THE DETAILS I SCANNED, BUT I DID NOT READ THROUGH THE DETAILS OF ALL THE DEPARTMENT STUFF. I'LL ADMIT THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING TO YOU TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOUR DEPARTMENT LEADS ARE ARE DELIVERING, WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY SAID YOU ARE. AND YOU KNOW I'M LOOKING TO YOU TO DELIVER THE THINGS THAT WERE KIND OF THE UPFRONT MATERIAL, I'LL SAY, WHICH IS WHAT WAS MORE OF THE TOP, TOP LEVEL CITY MANAGER LEVEL VIEW OF THE CITY. SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL GOOD. THE ONLY ONE THING THAT I, THAT I SAW, I DIDN'T SEE IN THERE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE ANNUAL POST MORTEM ON FINANCE. 
          SO IF IT'S IN THERE AND I MISSED IT, SORRY, BUT I DO YOU KNOW, I DO WANT US TO GET TO THE POST MORTEM OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND THAT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE IN THE WORK PLAN. I THINK I WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S ADDED BECAUSE THAT WAS A TOPIC THAT CAME UP AFTER WE HAD DONE THAT DOCUMENT. BUT YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ADDING THAT LIKE I STATE STATED TO Y'ALL ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND ALL, I THINK IT'S GREAT TO DO THE POST MORTEM, BUT LET'S DO IT. ONCE WE GET THE AUDIT BACK AND THE AUDITORS ARE GETTING FAIRLY CLOSE. I THINK FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM EARLIER TODAY. WELL, THAT CONFUSES ME. SO I READ YOUR COMMENT TO SAY THE AUDIT BACK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WE WANT A POST MORTEM ON, WHICH WE GOT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. WE ALREADY HAVE AN AUDIT AUDIT FOR LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, WHICH CLOSED OUT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. A POST MORTEM ON IS THE BUDGET. 
          THE BUDGET. IT CLOSED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025, 2025. YES, THAT'S THE AUDIT THAT IS CURRENTLY ONGOING. DIDN'T WE GET AN AUDIT REPORT FROM THE AUDITOR THAT WAS FOR THE 2425 BUDGET, WHICH ENDED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025, 23, 24 WAS THE ONE THAT IT WAS. IT WAS VERY LATE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CONFUSION IS. I'M REALLY CONFUSED BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING NOW IS THE AUDIT. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHERE AROUND JANUARY OF 2025, ACTUALLY HAPPENED 12 MONTHS LATE. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? NO. HOLD ON, I THINK I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE WE'RE CONFUSED HERE. YEAH. I. I CAN RUN AND GRAB THE DOCUMENT. IT'S ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. IT WAS FOR YEAR END 24. SO IT WAS FOR SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 24. BUT IT WAS EXTREMELY DELAYED. THAT'S WHEN WE HAD STAR LEAVE AND WHEN JAY WAS STILL ON STAFF. YEAH. 
          BECAUSE THAT THAT BUDGET WE RECEIVED, THE AUDIT WE RECEIVED WAS ONE THAT WAS FOR A BUDGET 
          [03:35:04]
THAT WAS COMPLETED BEFORE I EVEN STARTED HERE. OKAY. I'M I'M EXTREMELY SURPRISED AND CONFUSED BY THIS BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE THE AUDIT THAT WE JUST RECEIVED A MONTH OR TWO AGO WAS A YEAR DELAYED OF WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED. THAT'S WASN'T A YEAR. IT WAS. 
          WE DIDN'T GET A AUDIT JUST A MONTH OR TWO AGO, THOUGH, WHEN OUR AUDITOR WAS HERE, WAS BEFORE WE DID THE WE WENT OUT FOR BID. THE AUDITOR LAST STAND UP THERE AM I AM I COMPLETELY WRONG? WHEN WAS THAT DELIVERED? ROUGHLY. WAS THAT AFTER THE LAST ELECTION? I WANT YOU ALL THAT ARE NEW TO COUNCIL. DID THE AUDITOR? WAS THE AUDITOR UP FRONT? MIGHT HAVE BEEN. YEAH, BECAUSE HE WAS WAITING ON ME AND DURBIN TO SIGN OFF ON SOMETHING. WAS IT NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER? WE STILL IT WAS BEFORE THE ELECTION BECAUSE WE STILL HAD. ALL RIGHT. WE STILL HAD DURBIN ON. AND I'M JUST REALLY THAT THAT DOESN'T JIVE WITH MY MEMORY. BUT MY MEMORY IS WRONG, APPARENTLY. YEAH. IT WAS IT WAS EXTREMELY DELAYED. WE WERE VERY LATE IN THAT ONE. BUT THE NEW ONE, THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON IT. GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO BACK TO MY REQUEST. THE AUDIT WHICH IS IN PROCESS NOW AND AND SHOULD BE DONE IN WEEKS OR MONTHS OR SHOULD BE WEEKS. OKAY. 
          YEAH, IT SHOULD BE WEEKS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THERE'S A NEW STATE LAW. IN EFFECT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE AUDITS COMPLETED BY MARCH. IF NOT, WE CAN GET DINGED BY THE AG'S OFFICE. AND I'D RATHER NOT GET THAT LETTER FROM HIM AGAIN. YEAH. AND THEN WE'LL GET A POSTMORTEM AFTER THAT. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. CHIEF, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS I WENT THROUGH YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Y'ALL DID A GREAT JOB. 
          AND AGAIN, I'M ASKING, WHEN ARE Y'ALL SLEEP? BUT IN HERE, OF COURSE, IS, YOU KNOW, GETTING REHIRES AND GETTING UP TO STAFF BECAUSE I KNOW Y'ALL ARE PRETTY SHORT. I BELIEVE IN YOUR DISPATCH ETC. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES THAT ARE ON HERE? ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE STRATEGIC PLAN, SIR? THANK YOU. SURE. I HAVE THIS ON, RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALMOST AT I WAS TELLING CHARLES THE OTHER DAY WE'RE PROBABLY LIKE A MONTH. WE'LL BE FULLY STAFFED, SO. BUT WE STILL HAVE TRAINING TO DO WITH SOME OF THE NEW NEWBIES. A FOLLOW UP ON THAT, MAYOR. THANK YOU. AND CHIEF, BEING THAT I KNOW YOU'RE DOING THIS, THIS RAMP UP AND YOU'VE GOT TO DO TRAINING, SO WILL YOU STILL BE ABLE TO DO THE REPORTING ON THIS OR MAKE MILESTONE MOVEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN? WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IT REALLY, REALLY HARD. YES. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. YEAH I MEAN I THINK MR. PRINCE, YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN SPENDING YEARS TRYING TO GET THE STRATEGIC PLANS TO BE A LITTLE MORE THOROUGH AND NOT BE SO, YOU KNOW, WISHY WASHY, HIGH LEVEL. I THINK WE'VE GOT THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE WE COULD ALL GO THROUGH HERE, PICK A FEW THINGS, BUT GREAT IMPROVEMENT I LIKE IT CHARLES IS IS OKAY WITH IT. YOU KNOW I'M GOOD WITH IT TO GO FORWARD TONIGHT AND I'M OPEN TO A MOTION IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS, SO I'M OPEN TO A MOTION UNLESS. 
          CHARLES, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH. JUST RECEIVED THE HR STRATEGIC PLAN. SO IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE DOCUMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. YES, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA STRATEGIC PLAN WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026, EXCLUDING HR THAT WE WILL BE RECEIVING SHORTLY AND HAVE TO RECONSIDER OR TAKE INTO. I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK, JUST AMEND IT OR HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT MOTION? YOU COULD SAY THAT IT COULD BE ADDED IN. AND THEN TO COVER WHAT MR. PRINCE HAD ASKED IS INCLUDED FOR THE POSTMORTEM. YES, I THEN YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY DEFER THIS TO COUNCIL AND SEE IF HE'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION ON THIS. BECAUSE, BECAUSE, BECAUSE HIS POSTMORTEM IS ALTHOUGH I DO SUPPORT THE POSTMORTEM, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT NOT IN MY WHEELHOUSE. NO WORRIES. CHARLES, SINCE YOU JUST MENTIONED HR, ARE THERE ANY DEPARTMENTS THAT WHOSE PLANS ARE NOT YET SUBMITTED? NO, I THINK HR WAS MY LAST ONE AND SHE'S BEEN BUSY WITH OTHER STUFF, SO I DIDN'T HOLD HER TO THE SAME STANDARD I WAS HOLDING EVERYBODY ELSE TO RIGHT NOW. GOTCHA. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO US, AND THAT WE INSTRUCT CITY STAFF TO BRING THE THE HR PORTION TO US AT A 
          [03:40:07]
FUTURE DATE FOR OUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND ADDING YOUR POST MORTEM INTO THE FINANCE. THANK YOU. AND THE THE POSTMORTEM FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS A FINANCE DELIVERABLE, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THERE BEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. 
          ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO 
          [XI.3.Consideration and possible action to establish a Utility Advisory Committee.]
ACTION. ITEM NUMBER THREE, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO ESTABLISH A UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND I HAVE MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. 
          BASED ON Y'ALL'S DISCUSSION OR THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION THIS LAST TIME, I DID GO AHEAD AND PUT TOGETHER A CHARTER. WITH JUST THIS MINIMAL DETAIL. ET CETERA. ALONG WITH THE FIRST FOUR I'M SORRY, THE FIRST. YES, I BELIEVE IT'S THE FIRST FOUR PEOPLE THAT I WAS RECOMMENDING AND HAVE TALKED TO ON THIS COMMITTEE. THE CHARTER HAS THIS REFERENCED AS A UTILITY ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE, NOT A COMMITTEE COMMITTEE. MAYOR, I DIDN'T KNOW, AND I'LL LEAVE IT TO COUNCIL HERE. I ONLY I GOT THAT UP ON THE BOARD THIS AFTERNOON, SO I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. BUT I TRIED TO DO TRUE TO FORM AND TAKE IN WHAT EVERYBODY HAD ADVISED. LASTLY, IN TERMS OF EXPRESSED INTEREST ON THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IF THERE'S COUNCILORS THAT WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THIS AS ONE OF THE COUNCIL LIAISONS. I HAD IT IN THERE AS THREE. KAREN SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO AND DO WE HAVE ANOTHER? OKAY. AND THE MAYOR. SO WE'LL I'LL JUST NEED TO ADD THAT INTO THE, INTO THE MIX FOR THE, FOR THE CHARTER. AND THEN WE'RE GOOD TO GO. MR. PRINCE, HOW DOES THIS OR DOES IT NOT RELATE TO OUR EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEE, THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE. AND MY REASON FOR ASKING THAT IS STAFF HAD SUGGESTED BEFORE THAT THEY FOUND THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE VERY HELPFUL, AND THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE HAVING THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF THIS THIS COMMITTEE WOULD SUBSUME THAT FUNCTION OR ITS IN ADDITION TO I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT IN MY MIND. I WILL JUST TELL YOU FROM IN MY MIND I HAD THAT THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND WITH SUNSET. SO MY MIND ON THIS WAS MUCH MORE WATER, WASTEWATER HELPING US TO MAYBE BRING IN, YOU KNOW, SOME DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON GETTING TO TYPE ONE. I THINK WE HAVE FABULOUS STAFF HERE, BUT I THINK SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME QUALIFIED EXPERTS AND HISTORIANS, YOU KNOW, TO TALK THROUGH IMPLEMENTING SOME OF THOSE. I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN NOT BEING A WATER AND WASTEWATER EXPERT GOING BETWEEN FREESE AND NICHOLS. REPORT TO WHAT THE REALITY IS ON THE GROUND. HAVING A FEW ADDITIONAL ADVISORY EXPERTS SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO ME. SO I GUESS IN THAT RESPECT IT WOULD BE I. I SAW THIS AS SEPARATE OR JUST MAYBE AT THE SUNSETTING OF THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE. THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS THAT WE HAD, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. MR. PRESIDENT, CAN I ASK THEN, VICTOR, I'LL CALL YOU THE MICROPHONE. SO SO IF YOU'LL COME UP, VICTOR, I WE HAD WE HAD THIS COMMITTEE, THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE, YOU HAD SOME SPECIFIC MY MEMORY, YOU HAD SOME SPECIFIC THINGS COMING UP THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR FOR CONTINUED COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT IN. AND YOU MAY HAVE SPECIFIC THINGS IN MIND. 
          YOU MAY NOT. BUT IN YOUR MIND, DO YOU DO YOU SEE IF IF WE'RE FORMING THIS UTILITY SUBCOMMITTEE TONIGHT IN YOUR MIND, THEN DO WE NO LONGER NEED THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE? OR ARE THERE TWO THINGS WHERE WE SHOULD KEEP BOTH OF THEM GOING ON? WHAT? MAYBE IT'S NOT CLEAR TO YOU, BUT I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. YEAH, I DIDN'T EXPECT TO SPEAK ON THIS. YEAH, RIGHT. 
          [03:45:03]
I'VE KIND OF BARELY READ THROUGH IT. I DON'T SEE THAT THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE IS FULLY DONE YET. AS I SAID, YOU GUYS HAVE KIND OF HELPED ME GO THROUGH A TRANSITION PERIOD FROM THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER TILL NOW. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE MOST BENEFIT ACTUALLY CAME FROM WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS THE COORDINATION OF THIS IS WHAT WAS DONE LAST TIME. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO GO. AND THAT'S WHAT THE YOU GUYS WEREN'T DICTATING DESIGN OR MAKING SMALL ADJUSTMENTS. IT WAS JUST INFORMATIONAL. AND I THINK IF THIS COMMITTEE IS THE SAME WAY, THEN IT CAN BE VERY BENEFICIAL. BUT AS I SAID, I HAVEN'T REALLY READ THROUGH YOUR PROPOSAL OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE REALLY WASN'T EXPECTING TO SPEAK ON IT. 
          YOU MADE A POINT THAT THERE'S STILL SOME CONTINUATION OF WORK FOR THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE AS WELL, SO THERE MAY BE SOME OVERLAP, I GUESS, IN TIME BETWEEN THE TWO, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE. SO IT'S JUST MORE OF THAT COMMITTEE I'M USING TO REPORT TO THAT COMMITTEE, AND THEN THAT COMMITTEE THEN GIVES IT OUT AS A PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. ANYBODY ELSE? VICTOR, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO RUN THIS BY WITH THE SCOPE BY YOU AND ERNESTO. IT IS OUT ON THE COUNCIL FORUM. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WHAT WORKED WITH THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THIS? I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS AS WELL. RIGHT. AS WE PUT THIS IN PLACE, OR AS YOU HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THINGS UP HERE. THANK YOU. IF I MAY, JUST TO TRY TO CLOSE THAT OUT, I THINK WHAT I HEARD THERE IS THAT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS TO BE WRAPPED UP AROUND THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT OF THE IRRIGATION GOLF COURSE, IRRIGATION PROJECT. AND SO THAT SUBCOMMITTEE SEEMS LIKE CERTAINLY SHOULD TAKE THAT TO COMPLETION. I'M, I'M, I'M ALSO INFERRING OR THINKING THAT IT MAY BE TIME FOR THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE ONCE THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT IS DONE TO TO TO BE DONE RATHER THAN HAVING, YOU KNOW, TWO SEPARATE COMMITTEES THAT ARE USING UP STAFF TIME. I'LL SAY ONE MORE THING, AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SOMEBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. I LOOKED AT THIS AS A SHORT TERM AND, AND SPECIFICALLY HAVE, I BELIEVE, A SUNSET CLAUSE IN HERE BECAUSE OF THAT REASON. 
          WE'RE JUST IN A COMPLEX TRANSITION RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF OUR SYSTEM. SO THANK YOU FOR REITERATING THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP, MR. ROBERTS. YOU GOT 30S OKAY. THREE MINUTES. THAT'S FINE. HEY I SUPPORTED I'M READY TO GO. I'M READY TO SEE IT START UP NOW, NOT WAIT. AND BUT I DID WANT TO JUST SAY I DID LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION BOARD TODAY. AND I SAW THAT YOU ADDED A CHARTER. I THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT GUYS. WHEN YOU WHEN WE DO COMMITTEES AD HOC OR OTHERWISE SET UP PARAMETERS THAT WAY, IT'S NOT SOME OPEN ENDED THING. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN YOU TABLE SOMETHING DON'T TABLE IT INDEFINITELY, FIND OUT HOW MUCH STAFF NEEDS, AND THEN SET A SPECIFIC DATE FOR THE ITEM TO COME BACK. WHEN YOU GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF, SET A DATE FOR THEM TO REPORT BACK ON IT. THAT WAY THINGS GET DONE. 
          SO THE CHARTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE. GOOD. AND THAT'S IT. I'M JUST GLAD TO SEE THAT. 
          THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. KING. ALSO SUPER BRIEF. I JUST REALLY OTHER CITIES FIGHT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HISTORIC KNOWLEDGE AND PEOPLE WHO USED TO BE EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY TO GIVE THEIR INPUT. AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE DAVE STEWART TO I MEAN, I CAN CALL HIM AND ASK WHERE LINES WERE 15 YEARS AGO AND HE JUST REMEMBERS THAT STUFF. IT'D BE SILLY NOT TO HAVE THIS. THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO OTHER CITIZENS SIGNED UP. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL, MR. BENNEFIELD. YEAH, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST. I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. TO THINK THAT THE CURRENT SUBCOMMITTEE WAS AN IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE JUST SHOWS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS ACTUALLY DOING. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS AN AFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, WHICH LITERALLY IS OUR WASTEWATER DISTRIBUTION. WHEN WE MET, WE TALKED ABOUT CEDAR BREAKS. WE TALKED ABOUT POND 17. WE TALKED ABOUT POND 14. WE TALKED ABOUT POND TWO. WE TALKED ABOUT TRANSITIONING FROM TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO TO TYPE ONE. I MEAN, IT IS ONE HOLISTIC SYSTEM, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT IT AND SAY, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE GOLF COURSE IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT FROM EVERYTHING THAT WAS WRITTEN IN YOUR MEMO TODAY THAT WAS POSTED WITHOUT ANYBODY HAVING AN 
          [03:50:04]
OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT BEFORE THIS MEETING, EVEN EVEN THOUGH I THINK IT WAS GREAT THAT YOU POSTED IT, CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE NOTICE FOR US TO READ IT. BUT THE POINT IS, AN EMAIL WAS SENT OUT BY VICTOR BACK IN NOVEMBER, SAID THAT THIS COMMITTEE WAS DOING FANTASTIC WORK. YOU HAVE ARGUABLY SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ON THIS COMMITTEE. I REACHED OUT TO MR. DAVE STEWART A MONTH AGO. ASKED IF HE WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT COMMITTEE, HE SAID YES. AND SO WE'RE ONLY EXPANDING ON THE CAPABILITIES OF THAT COMMITTEE. AND I LOOK AT THIS NEW SUBCOMMITTEE WITH NO DISRESPECT AS A STEP BACK, MEANING YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A YEAR'S WORTH OF EXPERIENCE THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY GENERATED. IT'S WORKING, IT'S FUNCTIONING, IT'S FIRING. IT'S IT'S DOING GOOD WORK. IT'S DONE GOOD WORK. IT WILL CONTINUE TO DO GOOD WORK. AND YOU'RE GOING TO REPLACE IT WITH INDIVIDUALS THAT HONESTLY DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE, AS MR. VAUGHAN HAS, THAT MR. PRINCE HAS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO I THINK IT'S A MISTAKE TO DISMANTLE THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND HAVE A SECOND ONE THAT BASICALLY MIRRORS IT. IF SO, ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION AND I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST IT. ALL RIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHARTER FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO REALLY LOOK AT IN TERMS OF THE IRRIGATION. NO, I HAVE NOT BEEN IN IT EVERY DAY. 
          THE ONE THING THAT I DID KNOW, AND I ACTUALLY AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE WHATEVER THIS FUNCTION IS, THE EXPERTISE OF THE CITIZENS THAT SIGNED UP ON THIS. JAY KEENEY IS A FORMER COUNCILMAN WHO ACTUALLY OVERSAW BUDGETS IN COLORADO IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHEN THE TIMING OF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE PUT INTO PLACE. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS IN PLACE, OF COURSE, DAVE STEWART, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THERE WAS AN INVITE FOR HIM TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE. I THINK JIM CASON IS ALREADY ON THAT COMMITTEE, SO I WAS TRYING TO EXPAND OR CONTINUE THE WORK THAT WAS GOING ON THERE. PHIL HENDERSON, THOUGH, WHICH IS A TCE. Q CLASS C GROUNDWATER LICENSED JOURNEYMAN AND ELECTRICIAN, IS ALSO SOMEONE THAT I THINK IS BENEFICIAL. SO AGAIN, I WASN'T IT WAS NOT A DISMISSAL. WHAT I THOUGHT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN, IS THAT WE NEEDED A LITTLE MORE EXPERTISE, IN PARTICULAR, AS IT RELATES TO GOING FROM TYPE TWO TO TYPE ONE. PHIL HENDERSON AND DAVE STEWART IN PARTICULAR. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO THAT OTHER COMMITTEE. SO I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO HOW THIS CAN EVOLVE. I JUST DID NOT WANT IT TO STOP. YOU KNOW, THE EFFORTS IN TERMS OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER, THAT ADVISORY CAPACITY TO DISCONTINUE. MR. PRINCE? YEAH, MAYBE. AND I APPRECIATE MR. BENFIELD'S COMMENT. YOU KNOW, THE THE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST TRANSITION CERTAINLY YOU ARE IDENTIFYING SOME SOME CITIZEN EXPERTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE THAT THAT HE AND I HAVE BEEN ON SO FAR. MAYBE THE CONTINUITY IS MORE ON THE COUNCIL SIDE THAT MR. BENNEFIELD CERTAINLY. AND I HAVE PUT QUITE A BIT OF ENERGY INTO THAT EXISTING AND, AND BUILT SOME, SOME EXPERTISE. SO A, A FLIPPING AND MR. SALM HAS BEEN ON THAT AND VOLUNTEERED TO BE ON THIS ONE. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, MR. BENNEFIELD AND I ARE MORE THE ENGINEERING MINDS ON THE, ON THE, THE THING THERE. SO I GET IT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT MAYBE, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CONTINUITY ON THE COUNCIL SIDE MIGHT, MIGHT MAKE SENSE RATHER THAN A MAJOR CHANGEOVER OF THE, OF THE PARTICIPANTS. SO THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING I'M SENSITIVE TO. YEAH. COUNCILOR VANESSA. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING, WE MAYBE EXPAND THE SCOPE A LITTLE BIT OF THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE, ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER THAT MAYOR PRO TEM HAS PUT TOGETHER, SHE HAD ASKED ME IF I'D BE INTERESTED IN SERVING. I SAID, ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK IS CRITICAL AND SOMETHING I'VE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT JUST AS A CITIZEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT WE'RE WAY BEHIND THE CURVE ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WHATEVER I CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT WE NEED TO DO AND THEN PUTTING TOGETHER THE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND AN ACTUAL PROJECT PLAN, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A LOT OF STRENGTH AS WELL. 
          BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENT ABOUT CONTINUITY AND YOU GUYS HAVE THAT EXPERTISE AS WELL. SO I WOULD ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, BE AN ADVOCATE FOR THAT. SO I TOTAL AGREEMENT. I JUST WANTED TO ADD REAL QUICK THAT I OBVIOUSLY NEVER SAW THESE AS COMPETING SUBCOMMITTEES. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE WAS WINDING DOWN AS THE IRRIGATION 
          [03:55:04]
PROJECT GOES FORWARD, AND HOPEFULLY IS COMPLETED IN THE SPRING, SPRING, SUMMER, FALL. 
          OKAY. ANYWAYS, I THOUGHT IT WAS COMING TO AN END. AND SO THIS WAS A MORE FORMALIZED PROCESS, BUT STILL HAD THE FLEXIBILITY OF BEING A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ISN'T BINDING STAFF'S TIME, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FORMAL COMMITTEE THAT REQUIRES ALL THE POSTINGS AND THE HEARINGS, ETC. 
          AND THEN THIS ONE ACTUALLY NOW COMES WITH A CHARTER, WHICH THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE HAS NO REAL FORMAL STRUCTURE. IT WAS CREATED ON THE DAIS AND WE KIND OF RAN WITH IT. AND SO THIS IS A WAY TO SORT OF SAY, HEY, THAT MODEL WORKED, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO MORE FORMALIZE IT, AND WE HAVE SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE THAT CAN CONTINUE ON BEYOND WHEN THE IRRIGATION PROJECT IS DONE. SO I, I DON'T NEED TO BE ON IT IF OTHERS WANT TO BE ON IT. I JUST SAID THAT I WOULD, MR. CHAVARRIA. I WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE KEEP THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSIVE WORK THAT WE STILL HAVE LEFT OUT AT CEDAR BREAKS, ALONG WITH THE PUMP STATIONS. AND MAYBE IF WE'RE CONCERNED, CONCERNED ABOUT FORMAL PROCESSES, THAT WE EXPAND THE SCOPE AND MAYBE GET THEM, GET THEM A CHARTER TOGETHER. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO BE WORKING ON THIS RIGHT NOW, AND I WOULDN'T, SINCE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS CHARTER JUST YET. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT IT THIS EVENING ANYWAY. MR. HALL, I WILL. I SAW IN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WATER AS WELL AS WASTEWATER AND AND LOOK AT ALL OF OUR PROJECTS AROUND UTILITIES AND WHICH I YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT ALL THESE SYSTEMS THAT NEED REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO, AND THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH HOLISTICALLY, I BELIEVE. AND SO I SAW THIS AS AS AN EXPANSION OF THE IRRIGATION COMMITTEE. 
          AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT COMMITTEE FINISHING ITS WORK. BUT THEN ROLLING THAT INTO LARGER COMMITTEE. SO I DON'T, I DON'T I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS FOR THIS COMMITTEE WITH A, WITH AN EXPANDED PURPOSE. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT'S IT'S NOT. DISCOUNTING WHAT'S BEING DONE AND THE NEED FOR THE IRRIGATION COMMITTEE TO FINISH THAT. MR. BENNEFIELD, I COULD GET BEHIND THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS LAID OUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE EXISTING MEMBERS OF THE EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEE REMAIN IN PLACE, AS IS, AND THEN WE EXPAND ANY ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONALS OR INDIVIDUALS WITH THE KIND OF KIND OF KNOWLEDGE THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE IN THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I WOULD RECOMMEND PERSONALLY, IF WE WERE GOING TO CREATE THIS, THAT MR. PRINCE STAYS ON IT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT MR. SOM STAYS ON IT. I RECOMMEND THAT ALL THE STAFF LIKE VICTOR AND AND MR. WEST AND MR. STEWART GETS ADDED TO IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK TOM MONAHAN STAYS ON IT. I THINK JIM CASON STAYS ON IT. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND THEN IF THERE'S TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A GROUNDWATER LICENSE WITH TC OR THERE'S AN ELECTRICIAN OR A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE JUST ADD THEM TO THAT COMMITTEE. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE, YOU KNOW, TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE TO START A NEW ONE, THAT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IT IS A COMPETING COMMITTEE. IT WOULD LITERALLY BE STARTING COMPLETELY OVER. SO UNDER THAT PRETENSE, I COULD GET BEHIND THIS BECAUSE IT IS WELL WRITTEN, BUT I WOULDN'T DO IT FOR A WHOLE REBOOT. MAYOR PRO TEM. SO THE ONLY REASON I WENT DOWN THIS, BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION, NO ONE BROUGHT UP THAT WE SHOULD EXPAND. SO I'M GOING TO SAY THAT RIGHT NOW I HAVE NO PROBLEM. I THINK THAT'S A FABULOUS IDEA. I THINK WE JUST CONTINUE AND EXPAND THE EFFORTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. I DO HIGHLY RECOMMEND PHIL HENDERSON. JIM CASSON WAS ALREADY THERE. DAVE STEWART WAS ALREADY ON YOUR RADAR. BUT JAY KEENEY ACTUALLY HAS THE FINANCIAL. SIDE OF THIS WHERE THEY'VE GONE THROUGH SOME MAJOR PROJECTS LIKE WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE. SO HE'S BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. AND SO HE WOULD BRING THAT EXPERIENCE BASE AND HOW YOU READ THAT INTO THE CITY FINANCES, THAT WOULD JUST GIVE US ONE MORE I, YOU KNOW, BASE OF EXPERIENCE ON IT. SO I'M OPEN TO THAT. AS LONG AS IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE COULD REDO AND WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT, THAT IS ON THE CURRENT COMMITTEE AND BRING IT BACK TO ME. IT'S JUST KIND OF LIKE SEMANTICS, RIGHT? LIKE SO JUST RENAME THE IRRIGATION COMMITTEE, THE UTILITY COMMITTEE AND KEEP ALL THE SAME PEOPLE. ADD THESE ONES. NOW YOU HAVE A STRUCTURED CHARTER. IT'S THE SAME THING. YEAH I THINK THAT'S GOOD. ONE. 
          THE ONE COMMENT I WOULD ADD IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, MISS ALLEN HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THIS. 
          AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US ON COUNCIL TO SAY, OKAY, WE HAD THREE 
          [04:00:01]
COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE PREVIOUS ONE. WE PROBABLY HAD TO RETAIN TWO OF THE THREE FOR CONTINUITY. 
          AND IF ONE PERSON, YOU KNOW IS WILLING, WILLING TO VOLUNTEER TO BE THE ONE THAT DROPS OUT, THEN MISS OWEN CAN STEP IN. I'M HAPPY TO STEP OFF FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SOLUTION. I THINK THERE'D BE CONTINUITY AND AND THE NEW THINKING THAT MISS OWEN HAS PUT IN GETS APPLIED AS WELL. THE ONLY REASON I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU, MR. SAM, IS I DO THINK THAT YOU'VE DONE GOOD WORK ON THAT COMMITTEE. I'M HAPPY TO STEP OFF AS WELL. 
          BUT I YOU KNOW, YOU YOU DID GO TO. WELL, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. PRINCE, TO INCLUDE MISS OWEN. BUT I ALSO THINK THE THREE INDIVIDUALS ON THERE TODAY PROBABLY HAVE THE MOST KNOWLEDGE OF ANYBODY ELSE ON COUNCIL, JUST BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A YEAR. SO I'M HAPPY TO STEP ASIDE IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR NEW BLOOD AS WELL. BUT I THINK ANYBODY THAT DID STEP ASIDE, IT WOULD COME AS A, I DON'T WANT TO SAY A LOSS BECAUSE WE'RE GAINING, MISS OWEN, BUT IT WOULD LOSE QUITE A BIT OF KNOWLEDGE. AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE. YEAH, WELL, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS, MR. STEWART. DID YOU? YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE GOT MAJOR WATER TRANSMISSION LINES AND, YOU KNOW, THE WATER PLANT ISSUES TO DEAL WITH. SO WHETHER YOU RENAME IT OR HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, JIM CASON'S ALREADY ON IT. BUT THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS WHETHER THIS WAS GOING TO BE A COMMITTEE OR A SUBCOMMITTEE OR WHAT IT SHOULD BE A SUBCOMMITTEE. THE OTHER ONE IS A COMMITTEE, RIGHT? IT WAS A OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE. I THOUGHT THE IRRIGATION WAS A COMMITTEE. I DIDN'T REALIZE, OKAY. AS LONG AS IT'S UP, I'M GOOD WITH IT. YEAH. THANK YOU. WELL, OPEN TO A MOTION. OH. SORRY, VICTOR. 
          SORRY. BEFORE MOTION, I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION. 
          I'M A BIT CONFUSED. I'VE KIND OF HEARD TWO DIFFERENT STORIES WHERE IT'S. WE'RE FOCUSING ON WATER AND WASTEWATER, AND THEN WE'RE GOING INTO FOCUSING ON CERTAIN PROJECTS, SPECIFIC PROJECTS. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING. WILL THIS COMMITTEE BE LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE CIP PROJECT? IS THIS MORE ABOUT SEQUENCING THE CIP PROJECTS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WAS IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT JUST THE GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION, IT WAS SEQUENCING THE WHOLE ENTIRE EFFLUENT PROJECTS, FIGURING OUT WHERE WE CAN MODIFY STUFF. AND IT WASN'T. SO IT WAS DICTATING THE DESIGN. IT WAS MORE JUST TO IMPROVE THE DESIGN. AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST FOCUS TO MAKE THIS VERY SUCCESSFUL. 
          THAT WAS ALL. I AGREE WITH THAT, VICTOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THIS. PROJECT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND ESTABLISH A UTILITY ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE WITH THE FRAMEWORK THAT IS LISTED ON THE CHARTER, BUT WITH THE I WANT TO SAY THERE'S ADDITIONS THAT TO. 
          WEAVE IN THE LEARNINGS FROM THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE. THAT WE ADD THE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AS A CONTINUATION. AND THAT BE. PAUL PRINCE AND ADAM BENEFIELD AND MYSELF. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM. OWEN, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, MR. BENNEFIELD. PLEASE STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. MR. BULLOCK, ON PAGE 67. THIS IS DOCUMENTED AS A DISCUSSION ONLY ITEM. IT IS. IT IS UNDER AS AN AGENDA. BUT IT VERY CLEARLY IN THE TEXT OF IT SAYS THIS IS A DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM. IS THAT IT? IT SAYS AT MULTIPLE TIMES. SO I, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL RIGHT, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DISCUSSION ONLY OR ACTION. I'M LOOKING AT WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE LIVE AGENDA. 
          AND YOU GUYS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, I WANT TO MAKE. BUT THIS IS WHAT I PULLED UP FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR THE CURRENT AGENDA THAT PUBLIC WOULD ACCESS ONLINE AND UNDER 
          [04:05:05]
SECTION 11 THREE, IT SAYS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ESTABLISH A UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNDER THAT SECTION. SO AS LONG AS THAT'S THE AS LONG AS THAT'S THE LIVE AGENDA, THEN YOU CAN TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. AND IF IN THE AGENDA PACKET OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, IT'S DESCRIBED AS DISCUSSION ONLY OR THE STAFF REPORT, THE AGENDA IS WHAT CONTROLS. I'M LOOKING AT THAT THE COVER PAGE AND IT SAYS SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ESTABLISH UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO IT'S WITHIN THE PACKET ITSELF AS WELL, CONSISTENT WITH THE AGENDA ITEM. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE VARIANCES BETWEEN PACKETS AND AGENDAS, BUT FOR TOMA PURPOSES AND ACTION PURPOSES, WHAT COUNTS IS THE AGENDA. THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT THE LAW CONSIDERS. THANK YOU. SO I STILL HAVE A FIRST I STILL HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR BARNES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. CHAVARRIA THIS IS JUST A CLARIFICATION. SO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE I'M SORRY, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU USED FOR THE THE INCLUSION OF THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE, ARE WE ARE WE SAYING THAT THIS IS GOOD, THAT THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE DISSOLVED AND THEN ABSORBED INTO THIS COMMITTEE? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE STATING? YES. AND AS I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, WHAT THIS IS IS UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THIS IS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTUALLY IS WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE HAD ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA GOT CARRIED FORWARD. I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. MAY I SUGGEST THAT WE CONSIDER BRINGING THIS BACK FOR A QUICK. VOTE UNDER THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY? MAYOR, YOU CAN RESCIND YOUR MOTION AND MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AND BRING IT BACK. IS THAT THE WAY TO DO IT? BRAD. YEP. IF THERE HASN'T BEEN A SECOND MISS VANESSA, SHE AGREES. THERE HAS BEEN. THERE'S BEEN A SECOND. THEN. I MEAN, TECHNICALLY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. OKAY. AND THEN BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS JUST REQUESTED AND SO ONCE. BUT YEAH. SO YOU REALLY TECHNICALLY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A SECOND. CAN I SEE IT? CAN THEY AMEND THEIR MOTION TO NOW SAY AS LONG AS THE SECONDER AGREES TO THE AMENDMENT. YEAH. SO LET'S DO THAT AND SEE IF YOU HAVE SECOND. SO STATE YOUR AMENDMENT PLEASE. SECOND AND THAT WE TABLE THIS TO BRING BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO ACCOUNT FOR BRINGING OVER THE HISTORY AND THE AND THE PEOPLE FROM THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE NEXT MEETING, HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND. 
          MISS, DO YOU AGREE TO THAT AMENDMENT? YES, MR. MAYOR, I AGREE. OKAY. SO NOW WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION THERE BEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. 
          ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY TO BE TABLED TO THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU KNOW, I WAS I WAS OKAY. YOU'RE OKAY. YEAH. ITEM NUMBER FOUR 
          [XI.4.Consideration and possible action to create a Mediator-Style Function (position) to Address Citizen Concerns and Complaints.]
CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO CREATE A MEDIATOR STYLE FUNCTION POSITION TO ADDRESS CITY CITIZEN CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS. AND I BELIEVE I HAVE MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN AGAIN ON THIS ONE. I REALLY DIDN'T GET ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE. IT REALLY WAS JUST TO GO AHEAD AND. IN THAT APPROVE SENDING A COUPLE OF OUR CITY STAFF TO THE TRAINING HERE. SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL, LIKE I SAID, HADN'T GOTTEN ANY OTHER FEEDBACK. SO THAT IS STILL WHAT I WOULD PUT FORWARD. CHARLES, DID YOU REALLY NEED ANY SORT OF OFFICIAL ACTION FROM COUNCIL ON THAT? IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A PERSONNEL TRAINING THING TO ME. YEAH, NO, I DON'T NEED OFFICIAL ACTION. IF THAT'S A DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL, WE'LL GET A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TRAINED. THANK YOU, MR. BENNEFIELD. ARE YOU GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO CITIZEN COMMENTS? I THOUGHT WE WERE STILL ASKING MISS OWEN ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I CAN MOVE IT TO GOOD. OKAY. WELL, THEN, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO ARE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DON'T THINK I HAD ANYBODY SIGNED UP ON. THIS IS THE ONE THAT MR. ROBERTS DID NOT PUT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. SO NO CITIZEN COMMENTS. BACK TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH CHARLES OPENING UP THAT TRAINING TO ANY INTERESTED STAFF. MR. BENNEFIELD. YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY I'M AGAINST THIS 
          [04:10:03]
ONE AS WELL. I THINK IT EXPOSES THE CITY TO UNNECESSARY LIABILITY. YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE. I ASKED STAFF HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE LAST YEAR HAVE UTILIZED THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM? THE ANSWER WAS WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER OF ANYBODY UTILIZING IT. WE DON'T EVEN REALLY UNDERSTAND OR KNOW WHAT THE PROGRAM IS. THE THOUGHT OF SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL $1,000 PER PERSON TO GO TO TRAINING FOR 40 HOURS. THAT'S GOING TO COST AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF 40,000 OR $4000, PLUS HOTEL TRAVEL PER DIEM, 40 HOURS OF LOST WAGES. I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $20,000 TO TRAIN FOR INDIVIDUALS TO DO A PROGRAM THAT HASN'T BEEN UTILIZED IN THE CITY THAT MOST LIKELY WILL PUT US UP TO FUTURE LITIGATION AS THESE INDIVIDUALS TRY TO SETTLE CIVIL MATTERS. WE ALREADY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE CITY THAT'S ALREADY DESIGNATED TO DO THIS, AND THAT'S CALLED OUR CITY MANAGER. AND I THINK THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BEING FIELDED OF THIS NATURE CAN CERTAINLY BE HANDLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE HIM, AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS IN OUR CITY THAT WOULD LIKELY SAY OR DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT US AT RISK, COST THE TAXPAYERS $20,000, JUST, IN MY OPINION, UNNECESSARY. SO I LIKE THE IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM IN IN CONCEPT, BUT AS LONG AS MR. RUSSELL HAS THE HORSEPOWER TO DO IT, AND IF WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT BRINGING ON ANOTHER MANAGER, THAT'S GOING TO BE AS MUCH OF HIS BURDEN AS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES STAY ON HIS SHOULDERS. CHARLES. YEAH, I WILL NOTE ALL THE TRAINING IS DONE VIA ZOOM. IT'S DONE ONLINE IN HOUSE. IT'S THREE DAYS, ONE WEEK AND TWO DAYS THE NEXT WEEK. 
          YEAH. MISS VANESSA, AND I GUESS A CONSIDERATION IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM HAS BEEN MARKETED OR ADVERTISED. TO BE HONEST, MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. SO I PRESUME IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT IN THE PROGRAM, THE LARGER PROGRAM THAT MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN DESCRIBED WAS PREVIOUSLY, THEN WE NEED TO DO A BIG MARKETING PUSH AND MAKE PEOPLE AWARE THAT IT'S THERE AND MAYBE HELP STEER PEOPLE INTO IT IF WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING WITH COMPLAINTS. SO JUST A THOUGHT THERE. MR. PRINCE. SO I'LL REEMPHASIZE WHAT I EMPHASIZED WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE THAT I THINK FOR ME, THE BIGGEST GAP IS CITIZENS THAT COME IN AND SAY, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS. IT'S JUST WAY TOO HARD OR I'M TRYING TO DO THIS. IT SEEMS VERY REASONABLE AND I'M PUTTING MY HEAD UP AGAINST SOMEBODY ON ON STAFF. AND THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT? IT HAPPENS A LOT. IT'S OR I SHOULD SAY IT'S A VERY COMMON THING TO HAPPEN. AND FOR ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO HAVE SOMEONE THAT CAN, FROM A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE, BE PERCEIVED AS BEING NEUTRAL AND HELPING THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS TO TRY TO GET THEIR ISSUE RESOLVED. NOW, THEY MAY NOT THEY MAY NOT GET THE OUTCOME THAT THEY WANT, BUT THEY AT LEAST THEY HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S KIND OF DEDICATED AND TRAINED OF HOW TO DEAL WITH A POTENTIALLY VOLATILE SITUATION IN A WAY THAT DEFUZES IT. TO ME, THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS PROGRAM SHOULD BE ABOUT. AND ACTUALLY, WHEN I READ THE IDEA OF KIND OF TYING IT TO THE GOOD NEIGHBOR, THAT MADE ME A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM WAS ALWAYS MORE ABOUT HOW TO HELP CITIZEN TO CITIZEN BE BETTER WITH EACH OTHER. AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CITY'S JOB IS TO, TO DO THAT. AND SO THAT MAY BE IN MY ESTIMATION, THAT MAY BE WHY THE THE GOOD NEIGHBOR MAY BE A MARKETING PROBLEM. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A THING THAT CITIZENS THAT AREN'T GETTING ALONG ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT I NEED IS SOMEONE FROM THE CITY TO HELP ME RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM WITH MY NEIGHBOR. IS IS PROBABLY THIS MAYBE NOT OUR JOB TO DO THAT? BUT I THINK THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DEFINE IT AS THIS IS REALLY ABOUT HELPING CITIZENS INTERACT IN A MORE POSITIVE WAY WITH THE CITY. AND WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT YET, I MEAN, CITIZENS STILL CAN GO TO THE CITY MANAGER AND AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. BUT WHAT IF WHAT IF THEY SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, MAN, I'VE BEEN TRYING IT AND CHARLES IS BUSY AND I GOT HIS AGENDA, BUT WE DIDN'T GET IT RESOLVED AND I CAN'T WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE HAVING ANOTHER FOR MAYBE MORE THAN WE NEED TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. BUT WHETHER IT'S ONE, 2 OR 4, HAVING SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME TRAINING OF HOW TO HANDLE A DIFFICULT SITUATION AND HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF CITY PROCESSES, I THINK IS AS IMPORTANT AS, AS THE, AS THE OTHER, SO THAT THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH SPENDING A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO DO THE TRAINING, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT MAYBE THE SCOPE AND THE AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM 
          [04:15:02]
MIGHT, MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO TO CLEAN UP A LITTLE BIT. I'LL AGREE. AFTER OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING, I ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND I REALLY WAS HAVING A HARD TIME. 
          I GUESS. STOMACHING THE MEDIATOR STYLE FUNCTION, THE TERMINOLOGY, AND WHEN I LOOKED INTO IT, A LOT OF CITIES ACTUALLY USE WHAT THEY CALL VERY SIMILAR TO HOSPITALS, WHICH ARE PATIENT NAVIGATORS, BUT THEY'RE CALLED CIVIC NAVIGATORS AND THEY'RE THEY'RE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, TRAINED IN ALL ASPECTS OF LIKE HOW, HOW, HOW TO AND WHAT. AND THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO A LIAISON AS TO THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. THIS IS WHO YOU TALK TO. THIS IS HOW IT GOES. AND IT REALLY CUTS DOWN ON THAT, YOU KNOW, PROCESS OF OF PEOPLE THAT FEEL LIKE THEY'RE JUST BUT BUT IN THEIR HEADS AGAINST THE WALL NOT GETTING ANYWHERE, OR THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THEY'RE TALKING TO OR THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE THE WEBSITE, YOU KNOW, THEY SEND EMAIL AFTER EMAIL AND JUST NOT GETTING THE RESPONSE BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST PINGING BACK TO THEM. AND IT REALLY JUST COMES DOWN TO EDUCATION, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOU JUST NEED TO INFORM THEM OF WHERE TO GO, WHERE TO LOOK, WHO TO TALK TO. AND THEN WHEN THEY'VE DONE ALL OF THOSE AND THEY'VE STILL HAVEN'T RESOLVED THEIR ISSUES, THAT'S WHEN THEY CAN GO TO THE CITY MANAGER. BUT I THINK PUTTING ALL THAT WORK ON THE CITY MANAGER OR THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IS, IS, IS NOT REALLY THE BEST USE OF, OF OF THEIR TIME. SO WHEN I LOOKED INTO THIS, IT'S VERY MUCH A LIKE A CLERICAL POSITION BASICALLY, BUT WHICH WE HAVE HERE ALREADY. WE COULD DO THE ADDITIONAL TRAINING. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE FOUR. AND I DON'T BELIEVE MAYBE, MAYBE TWO WOULD BE WOULD BE MORE FEASIBLE. BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD CALL THEM MEDIATORS. I THINK WE SHOULD CALL HAVE THEM CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE CIVIC NAVIGATION OR, YOU KNOW, CITY ONE ON ONE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT WHERE WE'RE NOT PUTTING US AT A HUGE LIABILITY. AND IF IT STARTS TO GET INTO THAT LEGAL REALM, THEN WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DEFER IT OUT. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON OR, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T NEED TO BE TALKING ORDINANCES AND POLICIES AND TELLING THEM HOW TO CIRCUMVENT THINGS OR TO. BUT YEAH, I DO DEFINITELY AGREE WITH BENEFIELD. AND IF IT COMES DOWN TO US NEEDING AN OMBUDSMAN, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, CAN GET ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE. AND THERE'S AND THERE'S OMBUDSMAN POSITIONS, BUT THEY THEY FUNCTION COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY AND THEY'RE ALMOST THIRD PARTY. I MEAN THEY'RE THIRD PARTY. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING IN-HOUSE, IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE MORE OF A NAVIGATOR POSITION. THANK YOU, MR. HALL. 
          I JUST HAD A, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF QUESTIONS WHEN I READ THIS. YOU KNOW, WHAT IS WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES AUTHORITY OF THE MEDIATOR. IS THIS REALLY A MEDIATION FUNCTION OR IS IT MORE OF A HELP DESK, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. AND AND HOW TO HOW HOW IS THIS PROCESS WORK WHICH IS NOT DEFINED HERE. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THIS FUNCTION WOULD, WOULD BE CONDUCTED, PERFORMED. AND IN RESPONSIBILITIES. MAYOR PRO TEM YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS GOING DOWN THIS ROAD AGAIN, IT WAS TO GARNER THE INFORMATION BACK TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, BECAUSE AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN HERE, LET ME JUST SAY THAT REALLY QUITE A FEW CITIZENS HAVE MADE COMMENT TO ME THAT THEY FEEL ADVERSARIAL WITH THE CITY AND DID NOT HAVE SOMEONE THAT THEY COULD TALK TO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. YOU KNOW, TRAINING HAS BEEN NOT EMBRACED, YOU KNOW, QUITE A BIT IN THE PAST. AND SO WE NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING. TO ME, IN MY LIGHT. I AGREE TWO PEOPLE WOULD BE GREAT. 
          LOVE THE NAVIGATOR TERMINOLOGY, MAINLY JUST TO HAVE A COUPLE OF TRAINED PEOPLE IN COMMUNICATION HERE WITHIN THE CITY. TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILOR PRINCE, SO THAT WE CAN REDUCE THE ANGST AND AND HAVE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IF I'M NOT GETTING ALONG WITH THIS PERSON, I DO HAVE ANOTHER PERSON THAT MAYBE CAN HELP ME GUIDE THROUGH THIS. YEAH. MISS FINESSE ONE ONE THOUGHT TOO IS WE DO MORE WITH AI IF WE HAVE LIKE AN AI ASSISTED CHAT TOOL, THEN IF SOMEONE GETS AS FAR AS THEY CAN IN THE CHAT, THEN IT CAN KIND OF REFER THEM DIRECTLY TO ONE OF THESE NAVIGATORS. I LOVE THAT TERM TOO, TO GET A LIVE PERSON TO HELP THEM OUT. SO THERE'S A WAY WE CAN INTEGRATE THIS IN A PRETTY SEAMLESS WAY THAT WILL REALLY IMPROVE OUR SERVICE. SO I LOVE THE IDEAS. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT ON THE AI ONE. CHARLES, HOW MUCH HAVE WE LOOKED INTO LIKE NOT, I FORGET THE NAME OF THE ONE CHAT BOT THAT WE CAME UP WITH WHERE YOU ASK IT SOME VERY BASIC QUESTIONS AND IT WOULD SEND YOU TEXT MY GOV OR SOMETHING LIKE 
          [04:20:03]
THAT. BUT NOWADAYS WITH CHATGPT, I MEAN, YOU CAN COME UP WITH PROMPTS THAT WILL BASICALLY TAKE THE FULL CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING FROM THE MEDIATORS. YOU PUT IT INTO THE PROMPT AND SAY, THIS IS MY ROLE. AND THEN WHEN PEOPLE TALK TO IT, IT'S GETTING FEEDBACK LIKE A REAL MEDIATOR WOULD DO. BUT NOT MAYBE A MEDIATOR IS NOT THE GREAT EXAMPLE. THE CIVIC NAVIGATOR. AND IT'S REAL BASIC. HOW MUCH HAVE WE LOOKED INTO INTEGRATING SOMETHING LIKE THAT INTO WHAT WE'RE DOING? THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING RECENTLY, IS TRYING TO FIND IT BECAUSE AT MY LAST CITY, I PUT A A CHATBOT ON THE WEBSITE, AND THE VERY FIRST WEEK IT GOT JACUZZI HITS, PEOPLE TYPING IN DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND ALL BECAUSE THE MORE QUESTIONS YOU GET ASKED, THE MORE IT LEARNS. MR. KING. I'VE BEEN SO ENGROSSED IN THIS THAT I DIDN'T STAND UP TO TALK EARLIER BECAUSE IN MY PERSPECTIVE, I THOUGHT IT WAS OBVIOUS. I APOLOGIZE. THIS HAS BEEN AN ITEM THAT NEEDS ATTENTION, WHETHER IT'S CALLED NAVIGATION OR WHATEVER. THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT EVERYONE UP THERE HAS IDENTIFIED DOES EXIST. EVEN TODAY. I'VE BEEN EXCHANGING EMAILS BACK AND FORTH. IF SOMEONE HAS THE PROPER TRAINING TO DEAL WITH SITUATIONS, NOT AS A MEDIATOR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BUT THEY HAVE THAT CERTIFICATION BECAUSE THAT IS THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE THEY DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE, HEY, YOU CAN'T USE THAT TONE OR ELSE I WILL START TO BLAH BLAH, BLAH. YOU WON'T HAVE PEOPLE MAKING THE MISTAKES OF, WELL, THE WAY I PERSONALLY MY OPINION ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE IS THIS. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE YOU DON'T HAVE VERY SERIOUS LEGAL PROBLEMS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO BUSY. YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HIRE. YOU DON'T HIRE A GENERAL LABORER ON A JOB SITE TO GO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT MENIAL THINGS. SORRY, I'M DOING THIS BACKWARDS. YOU DON'T YOU DON'T ASK THE PROJECT MANAGER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE HAMMERS ARE. THEY'RE GETTING PAID A MUCH HIGHER RATE AND THEY HAVE A MUCH HIGHER RESPONSIBILITY. THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE PROBLEMS. BUT IF YOU CAN HAVE AN ENTRY LEVEL SITUATION THAT RESULTS RESOLVE STUFF SOONER AND MORE SIMPLE. I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS. I MEAN, ON GOOD FAITH, THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE NOT STEPPING FORWARD AND CREATING A SITUATION. AND I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO WALK ON EGGSHELLS AND NOT SAY THE WRONG THING HERE, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY REGULARLY GET THE THE COMBATIVE, EVASIVE RESPONSE OF, WELL, I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW IMPLIES LEGALITY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING WITH YOU IF IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MIGHT LITIGATE. NO ONE'S THREATENING LITIGATION WE'RE BRINGING UP HERE IS A VIOLATION. I THINK THAT CAN YOU LOOK AT IT? AND THEN WHEN NO ONE'S GOING TO LOOK AT IT, BECAUSE THEY EITHER DON'T HAVE THE TIME REALISTICALLY, AND I'M VERY AMICABLE TO THAT KNOWLEDGE. LIKE CHARLES AND JORDAN ARE SUPER SWAMPED WITH FIXING EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW IS A PROBLEM. IF YOU CAN MITIGATE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS AT A MORE SIMPLE WAY, SOMEONE WHO'S CERTIFIED AND WON'T MAKE LEGAL PROBLEMS BY TRYING TO AVOID THEM, I DON'T. I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T DO THIS. I COULD TALK ON THIS FOR LIKE THREE MORE HOURS. I'M NOT TRYING TO. WE DON'T HAVE THREE HOURS FOR THAT. SORRY, BUT I DO APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, BACK TO COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM, I ASK YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO WITH THIS ITEM RIGHT NOW? ACTUALLY, AS A PART OF TRAINING, THIS IS BASICALLY IT IS SOPHISTICATED IN TERMS OF ITS COMMUNICATION TRAINING, BUT IT IS THAT TRAINING. SOUNDS LIKE CHARLES HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE HIM TO REACH OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HERE THAT WOULDN'T MIND BEING CALLED CIVIC NAVIGATORS WITHIN OUR THING WITH THAT PARTICULAR TRAINING, IF IT'S DONE ONLINE. 
          STRAIGHTFORWARD. ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IN TERMS OF CONSENSUS HERE ON COUNCIL TO DO THAT. MR. REDFIELD. YEAH, YOU KNOW, I CAME INTO THIS PRETTY ADAMANTLY AGAINST IT. I DO LIKE SOME OF THE THOUGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED FROM THE DAIS. I LIKE SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGIES. I LIKE WHAT MR. PRINCE SAID, I LIKE WHAT VANESSA SAID. I LIKE WHAT AMANDA HAS SAID. SO I'M MORE AMICABLE TO IT, ESPECIALLY TAKING THE MEDIATOR ASPECT OUT OF IT AND MORE OF A NAVIGATOR. YOU KNOW, IT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENTION BEHIND THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR HAVING THE BUILDERS, RIGHT? IT WAS IT WAS THE ADVOCACY GROUP. IT WASN'T EVER DESIGNED TO SET PRECEDENT OR LAW. IT WAS JUST BEING THERE TO ADVOCATE FOR SOMEBODY. AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT TRAINING FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT CAN HELP ADVOCATE OR. DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO I'M CERTAINLY MORE I'VE CHANGED. THANK YOU. PRINCE. THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS I LIKE THE WAY THIS DISCUSSION HAS GONE A LOT THAT I THINK THAT THAT 
          [04:25:03]
CHARLES, AS YOU, AS YOU WORK WITH WHO SHOULD WHO SHOULD DO THIS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PEOPLE SELECTED ARE PRETTY DEEP IN THE PROCESSES OF THE CITY AND, AND HAVE EXISTING EXPERTISE ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN THEY CAN EITHER KNOW HOW TO ANSWER CITIZENS WHO NEED HELP, OR CITIZENS OR DEVELOPERS FOR THAT MATTER, WHO NEED HELP, OR THEY KNOW WHO TO ASK. RIGHT? SOMETIMES IT'S AS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO KNOWS? YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOURSELF, BUT I THINK IF YOU FACTOR THAT IN, I THINK THEN THEN THAT'LL BE THAT'LL GET US WHERE WE NEED TO GO. THANK YOU. YEAH. MISS VANESSA, SO ONE MORE THING. NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT THE TERMINOLOGY NAVIGATOR DOVETAILS NICELY WITH OUR SAILBOAT LAKE THEME, SO I THINK. GOOD JOB, COUNSELOR CHAVARRIA. SO MY CATCHING CONSENSUS, RIGHT. THIS ISN'T AN ITEM THAT NEEDS ACTION. 
          LIKE CHARLES HAS SOME GUIDANCE TO LOOK INTO SEEING HEADS. NOT OKAY. THEN I AM GOING TO MOVE 
          [XII.1.Budget workshop.]
ON TO WORK SESSION. BACK TO WORK SESSION NUMBER ONE BUDGET WORKSHOP. NICOLE OR MISTER PRINCE? THIS IS KIND OF ONE WHERE WE'VE SAID WE WERE GOING TO PUT THIS ON EVERY COUNCIL MEETING, JUST IN CASE WE HAD SOME BUDGET ITEMS TO DISCUSS. MAYOR CHARLES. YEAH, ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND I MAY HAVE SEEN IT IN AN EMAIL TO ALL OF YOU, A PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR FOR THIS YEAR, IF Y'ALL WOULD KIND OF TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE AND PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT. BUT IT'S BUDGET TIME ALREADY. SO MY DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INSTRUCTED TO START PUTTING THEIR WISH LIST TOGETHER. MR. PRINCE. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'VE FINALLY FOUND THE THE THE AUDIT AND THE COVER LETTER IS DATED APRIL 11TH OF 2025. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN WE RECEIVED IT WAS SOME TIME AFTER IT WAS PRESENTED, JULY 17TH JULY. OKAY. SO IT WAS NOT NEARLY AS LATE AS I THOUGHT. IT WAS DEFINITELY LATE, BUT NOT AS LATE AS I WAS THINKING. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO THINK ON THE BUDGET TOPIC, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD PROPOSED IN OUR KIND OF PROCESS SEQUENCE WAS THAT THE FIRST THING, THE FIRST THING WE SHOULD DO IN OUR BUDGET CYCLE IS COUNCIL SHOULD GIVE SOME SORT OF TOP DOWN GUIDANCE, RIGHT? SO THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAD, ESPECIALLY IN THE BUDGET BEFORE LAST, WAS CITY STAFF BROUGHT IN A BUDGET AND WE SAID THAT IS SO FAR OUT OF REALITY OF WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE. WE GOT TO START FROM SCRATCH. I MEAN, IT WAS REALLY BROKEN. SO THAT'S BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE AHEAD OF TIME. AND SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE TOP LEVEL GUIDANCE, I THINK SHOULD BE SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES, THAT WE'RE AT A VERY LIMITED GROWTH SITUATION WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF GROWTH THAT SUPPORTS ADDITIONAL TAX DOLLARS, RIGHT, FOR PROPERTY TAX. AND WE AS A COUNCIL, I THINK, ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE. IF ANYTHING, MAYBE WE'LL BE LOOKING TO TRY TO REDUCE IT SLIGHTLY OFFSET WITH THE FACT THAT WE KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EXPENSES COMING. SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF IN A SPACE WHERE THE REVENUE YEAR OVER YEAR MIGHT BE FLAT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE UP MUCH, IF ANY. 
          AND SO BUDGET THAT THAT ASSUMES SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT REVENUE FROM LAST YEAR I THINK IS UNREALISTIC. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GET MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN THAT AND SAY THE CITY SHOULD SHOULD ASSUME REVENUE. THAT'S LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD OR WHAT WE WILL HAVE IN THIS, THIS YEAR THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT WOULD BE THAT TOTAL WOULD BE KIND OF FLAT YEAR OVER YEAR. AND WE NEED TO WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE SOME BIG LONG TERM INVESTMENTS WE NEED TO MAKE. AND SO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TIGHTEN THE BELT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL WHERE WE CAN WITHOUT MAKING ANY DRACONIAN CUTS. AND I SAID THIS LAST YEAR, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN THIS YEAR, I DON'T I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR US TO DO STAFF REDUCTIONS, CERTAINLY. BUT YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE NEED TO BE SHARP ON THE PENCIL OR WHATEVER, BUT WE NEED TO BE SHARP ON THE PENCIL EVERYWHERE WE GO. SO I'LL HAVE TO REPEAT THAT WHOLE THING. 
          I'VE BEEN REMINDING EVERYBODY ALL NIGHT LONG, SO FLAT, BASICALLY FLAT. I'LL SUMMARIZE WITH THIS BASICALLY FLAT REVENUE YEAR OVER YEAR. AND WE KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME EXPENSES KIND OF ONE TIME OR UPCOMING BIG EXPENSES. SO WE NEED TO TRY TO TIGHTEN THE BELT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO MANDATE WHAT THAT MEANS AT AN INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT 
          [04:30:02]
LEVEL. YEAH. MISS FINESSE, JUST A QUESTION. YOU'RE THINKING, YOU KNOW, IF WE KEEP ASSUME REVENUES FLAT, WE WANT TO ASSUME EXPENSES ARE FLAT. BUT HOW WOULD YOU FACTOR IN INFLATION, WHICH HAS BEEN A REAL THING THE LAST, GOSH, SO MANY YEARS. BUT IT'S STILL A REAL THING EVEN THIS YEAR GOING INTO THE NEXT YEAR. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND THAT'S ONE REASON WHY, WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE POSTMORTEM OF WHAT WHAT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE YEAR THAT ENDED SEPTEMBER OF 2025, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND OUR SPENDING IN ASSETS AND IN SUPPLIES AND IN SERVICES. RIGHT. BECAUSE SOME OF THAT STUFF'S GOING TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE NEED TO NOT DO SOME OF THE ASSET PURCHASES THAT WE HAD THOUGHT OF DOING? DOES IT MEAN THAT WE WE NEED TO DO SOME THINGS IN-HOUSE INSTEAD OF SERVICES BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT, THAT SOME THINGS WILL GET MORE EXPENSIVE. BUT I DON'T THINK WE AT THE MACRO LEVEL CAN AFFORD TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE DID LAST YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND AND THIS IS ON OPERATING BUDGET IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND A LOT ON CIP, RIGHT? I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY TIGHT ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE. THANK YOU. AND I LIKED HOW WE DID IT LAST YEAR. LIKE, I STILLOPE THAT IT'S A CONSENSUS. WE HAVE EVERY DEPARTMENT GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF YOU START YOUR BUDGET AT 90% OF EITHER WHAT YOU SPENT LAST YEAR OR WHAT IS BUDGETED AT, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, AND THEN YOU CAN GO ABOVE THAT. YOU JUST GOT TO COME HERE WITH YOUR EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS AND TELL US WHY YOU GOT TO GO ABOVE IT. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ROOM THERE TO REDUCE, BUT IF THERE'S NOT, JUST DO A THOROUGH JOB OF EXPLAINING WHAT IT IS. MR. HALL, JUST A QUESTION ON WHETHER WE HAVE ANY FEEL FOR WHAT OUR REVENUE FOR THIS NEXT YEAR MIGHT LOOK LIKE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT CITY THAT THE HOME PRICE, YOU KNOW, THE HOME VALUES HAVE DECREASED IN MANY AREAS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IN TERMS OF PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER THINGS, WHETHER WE HAVE ANY FEEL FOR THAT. BUT I AGREE THAT WE'RE WE WE'RE PROBABLY NOT LIKELY TO INCREASED REVENUE, BUT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY SEE DECREASED. I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE THAT I'M VERY INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THE POSTMORTEM IS GOING TO BE. AFTER SPEAKING WITH A COUPLE OF DEPARTMENTS AS WELL, I, I, I'M UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOME OF THE BUDGET THAT WENT THROUGH LAST YEAR WAS NOT ACTUALLY THEIR INTENDED BUDGET, BUT WAS MODIFIED AFTER THE FACT BEFORE IT GOT SENT TO COUNCIL, BUT IT WAS MODIFIED SO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WERE ACTUALLY NOT. OR SOME OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WERE WERE NOT OKAY WITH THE BUDGET AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO US. SO I AGREE THAT THE 90% I KNOW CHARLES SAYS SEND US YOUR WISH LIST, BUT I DON'T LIKE TO GET PEOPLE'S EXPECTATIONS UP TOO HIGH. I WANT THEM TO BE VERY BASED ON REALITY. AND THE REALITY IS, IS I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE FALLING SHORT. I HOPE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO CUT TAXES THIS YEAR, BUT MAYBE STAY THE SAME. BUT WE'LL HAVE TO BASE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS IT MOVES ALONG. 
          BUT MOVING IN THAT 90% CATEGORY, LIKE A MAYOR, SAM SAID, I THINK IS A VERY GOOD IDEA. I LIKED HOW THAT DID PROGRESS FORWARD LAST YEAR WHEN I WATCHED IT PLAY OUT. MAYOR PRO-TEM. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS UPCOMING IN TERMS OF THE TRANSITION WITH OUR CHART OF ACCOUNTS, IS ADDING A CODE THAT STATES DISCRETIONARY AND NON-DISCRETIONARY. 
          NON-DISCRETIONARY, LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CUTTING SALARIES 10%. RIGHT. AND FOR AN EXAMPLE, LET ME JUST STATE, YOU KNOW, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH ERIC, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, HIS SALARY WAS IT WAS A BASICALLY PEOPLE INTENSIVE. RIGHT. BUT I THINK THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THE NON-DISCRETIONARY. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT READY. NICOLE. RIGHT IN THIS OR CHARLES RIGHT NOW TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT CODE. SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TOMORROW. BUT I THINK DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, EXPLICITLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THAT. DISCRETIONARY. AND WHEN I SAY DISCRETIONARY THAT'S STILL SUPPLIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOU KNOW PAYROLL WE DON'T MESS WITH. AND THEN THAT WAY IT DOES GIVE A PRETTY GOOD TARGET IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU ARE HERE RUNNING THIS BY THE MAYOR FIRST TIME 10% LESS. YOU KNOW LOOKING AT IS THERE YOU KNOW, 10% LESS ON THAT KIND, THOSE KINDS OF ITEMS GOING DOWN THE SAME ROAD THAT YOU WERE GOING DOWN, 
          [04:35:03]
COUNCILOR PRINCE. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY THERE'S NOT ANY ROOM. BUT THEN THEY THEY WOULD BASICALLY STATEWIDE. CHARLES. YEAH. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, THE RECORD, THE BUDGET THAT WAS PRESENTED AND ADOPTED, ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS SEEN IT BEFORE IT WAS PRESENTED. THERE'S A FEW THAT WERE UPSET BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURES THAT THEY HAD REQUESTED, SO THEIR BUDGETS WERE REDUCED. DIDN'T HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP ON THIS ONE, MR. PRINCE. SO, MAYOR PRO TEM, I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS YOU MADE, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THIS, THAT, THAT I THINK IT'S HARD TO PARSE THE DATA BECAUSE OUR CHART OF ACCOUNTS DOESN'T LET US GET THERE. BUT YOUR HUSBAND HAS DONE A NICE JOB OF CREATING A SPREADSHEET THAT THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN PARSE THE DATA ON. 
          RIGHT. AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE UNDERSPENT OUR PAYROLL REQUESTED BUDGET BY QUITE A BIT LAST YEAR. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF POSITIONS THAT DIDN'T GET FILLED? AND I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TO SAY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO FILL EVERY POSITION THAT'S, THAT'S OPEN. YOU KNOW, WE GOT THROUGH LAST YEAR SPENDING A LOT LESS THAN WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO SPEND OR THAT THAT WAS REQUESTED. SO I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF THE THE EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL IS APPROPRIATE TO BE ON THE TABLE FOR, YOU KNOW, COULD WE BUDGET LESS THIS YEAR THAN WE BUDGETED LAST YEAR? BECAUSE BACK TO THE RULE OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR BUDGET SHOULD BE ALIGNED WITH EITHER THE THE LOWER OF WHAT YOU ASKED OR WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SPENT. SO SO THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT ON THE PAYROLL SIDE, EVEN THOUGH I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO BE 100% CLEAR, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE ELIMINATE POSITIONS AND WE WILL NEED TO FILL SOME POSITIONS. THERE WILL BE CRITICAL FILLS FOR SURE. I'M JUST NOT SURE WE NEED TO FILL EVERY POSITION THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO FILL. SO IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU. CHARLES. YES, CHARLES, I BELIEVE NICOLE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. NICOLE. ON A COUPLE OF THOSE ITEMS. WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING THESE THINGS, THINGS LIKE THE PEAK PERCENTAGE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEN I ASK YOU ALL TO KEEP IN MIND. WE'RE ALREADY GETTING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE. WE'RE BASING OUR BUDGET ON THAT. IF WE TALK ABOUT DECREASING THAT, THAT IS MONEY THAT THEN WE ARE LOSING IN OUR GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE DESPERATELY NEEDING THE MONEY. SO ALL OF THESE LITTLE FACTORS, I JUST REQUEST THAT IF YOU ALL ARE ASKING US TO BE VERY TIGHT WITH OUR MONEY, THAT THEN WE'RE ALSO KEEPING IN MIND ALL OF THE REVENUE SOURCES, WHICH ARE VERY MUCH LEVEL RIGHT NOW. WE ARE NOT SEEING ANY INCREASES ON THE STAFFING. WE WERE VERY, VERY LOW. IF YOU REMEMBER, AT AT PRIOR YEAR, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 2526, WE DID CUT POSITIONS, POSITIONS THAT WERE VACANT AT THE TIME. WE DID THE BUDGET FOR 25, 26. WE DID REMOVE THOSE POSITIONS. ANY POSITIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE IN THAT HAD BECOME FILLED, THOSE VACANCIES WE KEPT. 
          BUT ANY VACANCIES AT THAT POINT, WE DID CUT MULTIPLE VACANCIES IN DIFFERENT PLACES ALREADY. SO I WOULD INTERPRET THAT, THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE POSTMORTEM, I SHOULD EXPECT THAT OUR PAYROLL, ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR THAT ENDED SEPTEMBER 2025, OUR PAYROLL ACTUAL EXPENSES SHOULD BE MUCH CLOSER TO THE BUDGET THAT WE DID FOR 2526, RIGHT? WE MAY HAVE UNDERSPENT FOR 2425, BUT FOR 2526 YOU'RE YOU'RE ASSERTING WE'VE KIND OF ALREADY CORRECTED THAT. YES. SO WE DON'T NEED TO CORRECT FOR IT. AGAIN, GOING INTO 2016, WE AGREED AGREED. WE DID CUT SAY FOR EXAMPLE, IN FINANCE BUDGET, WE HAD A FINANCE DIRECTOR, A CFO, WE HAD MULTIPLE AND WE CUT A WHOLE POSITION OUT OF THAT BUDGET. SO WE WE DID ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THOSE AND CUT VACANCIES THAT WERE VACANT AT THAT TIME. OKAY. AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION. ALL RIGHT. SURE. 
          COUNCILOR HALL, WE WILL HAVE A GOOD ESTIMATE OR A ROUGH ESTIMATE ON OUR PROPERTY TAX IN APRIL. WE GET THE PRELIMINARY VALUES IN APRIL. AND TO ADDRESS THE OTHER QUESTION, I CONSTANTLY REVIEW THE CPI REGULARLY TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH INFLATION AND STUFF. AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY MY INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS, I GUESS. I, I WAS ELECTED NOT TO SIT UP 
          [04:40:02]
HERE AND DEFEND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I BELIEVE THERE'S A LOT OF WASTE. STILL, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE CITIZENS AND TRYING TO REDUCE TAXES. SO EVERY TIME I REACH A BUDGET TIME, I'M TRYING TO REDUCE THE BUDGET. I THINK THAT I SEE IT AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS MY DAY JOB AS WELL. WHAT YOU SEE AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL IS EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T EMBRACE THE SAME THINGS THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR ARE. SO THE WAY THEY DO THINGS TODAY, THEY JUST ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THOSE THINGS THE SAME WAY GOING FORWARD. AND THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO KEEP GOING UP. AND WHAT THEY NEED TO REALIZE IS YOU NEED TO BE LOOKING AT OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE THOSE COSTS AND THINGS THAT YOU'RE DOING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SEE HERE AT CITY HALL NOW, THERE STILL ISN'T AN EMBRACE OF USING AI. I SEE A LOT OF MANUAL ENTRY, OF A LOT OF THINGS. THERE'S SO MANY SOLUTIONS OUT THERE. THAT'S WHAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS DOING. THE PUBLIC SECTOR JUST REFUSES TO DO IT. AND IF YOU WERE DOING IT, YOU'D BE CUTTING COSTS. WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT LEGACY SOFTWARE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE FOR DECADES. THERE'S A LOT CHEAPER WAYS TO DO IT NOW. AI IS CHANGING A LOT OF THINGS. THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL WAY TO DO IT. SO MY MESSAGE IS FOR THE CITIZENS, I'M GOING TO SIT UP HERE AND FIGHT AND TRY TO BRING YOUR TAXES DOWN. MAYOR, WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL SOFTWARE TRYING TO CUT IT. ANY SOFTWARE OUT THAT WE DON'T NEED AND USE AN AI QUITE A LOT. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, I WILL MOVE DOWN TO 
          [XIII.STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]
13 STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS. I'M AWARE THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA HAS NOT BEEN GOTTEN TO YET. I'M GOING TO DO THAT LAST. SO WE WILL GO TO NUMBER ONE. ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF. I THINK WE'VE COVERED EVERYTHING I HAD TONIGHT. I WILL GO DOWN TO ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL. I'LL START DOWN THERE WITH MR. HALL. THE. THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. SO IT'S MOVED FORWARD. IT'S. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, MICHAEL THOMAS. AND GRACE IS THE VICE CHAIR. AND SUSIE MUMFORD IS CONTINUING AS SECRETARY. SO THEY. OH, THANK YOU. SO SO ANYWAY, THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD AND WITH ITS. MISSION AND. YOU KNOW I. APPRECIATE YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THAT WORK PLAN FOR 2026. AND SO THAT'S THE NEXT BIG THING ON THEIR AGENDA. ALL RIGHT MR. BENFIELD, MISS CHAVARRIA OKAY. 
          FOR THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. THERE IS NOTHING NEW THERE. NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING IS APRIL 13TH FOR BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS. THE MARCH 4TH MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED AS THERE ARE NO AGENDA ITEMS TO CONSIDER AT THIS TIME. THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IS GOING TO BE APRIL 1ST FOR KEY LARGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL IN PREPARATION FOR THE UPCOMING LA PRIMAVERA CYCLING EVENT. THEY ARE CONDUCTING TWO TRASH PICKUPS ALONG THE COURSE. THE FIRST IS GOING TO PICK. IT'S GOING TO START THIS SATURDAY AT 9 A.M. VOLUNTEERS ARE GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE VALERO STATION AT BOGGY FORD AND LOWMAN. THE SECOND CLEANUP WILL BE HELD THURSDAY THE 26TH, AT 9 A.M. MEETING AT BOWDEN POINT, BOWDEN POINT ONE. NOTE THAT DARCY AND CONNIE HAVE RECRUITED SEVERAL OF THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND ALSO FROM PACK TO PARTICIPATE IN ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERS ARE WELCOME, SO IF YOU KNOW OF ANYONE THAT NEEDS TO GET SOME COMMUNITY SERVICE HOURS IN OR JUST HAS A GOOD HEART, SEND THEM OUR WAY. CONNIE MICHAELS IS IS SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE SHE GOT US LISTED AS AN ACTUAL SUPPORTER THIS YEAR FOR LA PRIMAVERA, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON WE'RE ON THE WEBSITE NOW, AS WELL AS ON THE T SHIRTS, THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCES COMING UP MAY 12TH AND 14TH. IT'S GOING TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY THIS YEAR, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY EVALUATING A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. SORRY. THIS IS THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN RAISED TO MOVE THE ADOPTED SPOT MODEL CURRENTLY IN USE TO A GOLD, SILVER AND BRONZE SPONSORSHIP LEVEL. AND THEY'LL BE BASED ON DONATION AMOUNTS. CURRENTLY, THEIR BUDGET RANGES FROM 75 TO 225 PER SPOT. THEY'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP LEVELS. AT ITS MARCH MEETING, I GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE LAGO VISTA WOMEN'S CLUB AS I'M THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE I GUESS THEY NOMINATED ME OR ASKED ME TO BE THEIR LIAISON EVEN THOUGH IT'S KIND OF AN UNOFFICIAL OR AD HOC. THEY WANTED TO WANTED TO THANK THE CITY FOR, YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP. THEY'VE GOT SOME UPCOMING EVENTS FOR KID FEST. THEY'VE PARTNERED WITH JENNIFER SANDOVAL WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE A DIAPER STATION FOR 
          [04:45:05]
THE PARENTS TO CHANGE THEIR KIDS AND TODDLERS DURING THE EVENT, WHICH THEY'VE NEVER HAD BEFORE, WHICH BEING KID FEST IS A NECESSITY. THEY'VE ALSO THEY'RE FEATURING A CALMING AREA, WHICH IS REALLY, REALLY NICE. THIS YEAR. IT'S FOR KIDS WITH SENSORY PROCESSING DISORDERS, BUT ALSO WANT TO GET OUT AND ENJOY THE AREA. IT'S GOING TO BE A QUIET SPACE. IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED AWAY FROM THE MAIN ACTIVITIES. IT'S GOING TO ALLOW CHILDREN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESET. LOST SIMULATION ENVIRONMENTS INCLUDE BEANBAGS AND CALMING TOOLS, SENSORY SPINNERS AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. THEY WANTED ME TO NOTATE THAT THE GOAL OF THIS ADDITION IS TO PROVIDE FAMILIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN AT THE EVENT WHERE THE SITUATIONS THEY HAVE NEEDED TO LEAVE DUE TO SENSORY OVERLOAD, AND THIS ALLOWS FULL FAMILY PARTICIPATION. THEY WANT TO CONTINUE DEMONSTRATING THOUGHTFUL LEADERSHIP AND STRONG COMMITMENT TO SERVING THE FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WISH TO EXPRESS A THANKS TO THE COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE THEIR LIAISON. MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN. SO I'LL SAY I'LL BE PUTTING MY COMMITTEE OR LIAISON REPORTS ON THE FORUM. I DID THAT ALREADY, AND WHAT I ALSO AM TRYING TO DO IS PUT THE SNIPPET AT THE TOP. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, YOU CAN READ MORE, BUT IF NOT, YOU GET THE GIST AT THE TOP. IN THIS CASE, FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THEY'RE VERY LAST. THERE WASN'T ANY IMMEDIATE ACTION THAT THEY TOOK BESIDE, YOU KNOW, GETTING READY TO GO BE THE EDC AND GETTING READY FOR THAT. BUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTION REGARDING THE GRANTS BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME EDA GRANTS, AND SO DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR POTENTIAL BUDGET FOR THE FUTURE. IN TERMS OF A COOPERATION BETWEEN THE EDC AND THE CITY AND AND HOW THAT CAN PLAY OUT WITH THOSE GRANTS. THERE'S ALSO SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THEY'RE HAVING FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW, MOBILITY, SOME TOURISM POSITIONING. AND DEFINITELY THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE CORRIDOR STUDY THAT'S COMING UP AND ALIGNING ANYTHING WITH THAT. AND REGARDING THE LBUSD, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE DISTRICT IS IN PLANNING MODE. 
          AND I DID WANT TO MENTION THIS BECAUSE WE POTENTIALLY EITHER WANT TO SIT IN IT. I WILL TRY TO BE IF I'M HERE INVOLVED WITH THAT. BUT THEY HAD ALSO THEY'VE GOT A NEW TRUSTEE APPOINTMENT, WHICH WAS BRIAN KOLLER. THEY HAD A CHANGE THERE ON THEIR BOARD. SO IN TERMS OF COUNCIL ACTION, ATTENDING THE MARCH 24TH PUBLIC INPUT SESSION. SO THAT'S NOT JUST COUNCIL. I MEAN THAT'S JUST ANYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY FOR THEIR SESSION. AND WE DO WANT TO THINK ABOUT. 
          I'M PUTTING THIS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE DO WELL WHEN WE WE ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO PROCESS, IDENTIFY ANY CITY STRATEGIC ITEMS THAT INTERSECT WITH THE LBUSD PLANNING. AND THERE IS A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF MONITORING THE SB 11 IMPLICATIONS. THEY DID TALK ABOUT THAT, SHANE, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO MAYBE POTENTIALLY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OR SAFETY COORDINATION. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. MAIN THING FOR ME WAS THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD. WE HAVE WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. 
          I THINK, MR. BULLOCK, YOU EXPRESSED AS YOU HAD BEFORE THAT THAT'S MAYBE NOT AN EXPERTISE THAT YOU'LL HAVE ON THE AVIATION SIDE. AND SO MY TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM YOU, DO YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHERS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT TO REVIEW THAT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THEM TO THEIR NEXT MEETING? OR ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY WANTED TO COME HERE AND THEN TO THEIR NEXT MEETING. I'LL HAVE TO ASK MY PARTNERS IF THEY DO. I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW ANYONE AND IT'S SUCH A SPECIALIZED AREA. I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING INTERNALLY. I LET ME, LET ME REACH OUT TO MY FRISCO PARTNERS AND SEE IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE THAT THEY RECOMMEND, AND I'LL GET YOU A NAME. THANK YOU. AND COUNCIL. IT'S HERE. DID WE NOT LOOK INTO AN AVIATION ATTORNEY AT SOME POINT ON SOMETHING TO GET THEIR OPINION ON EVERYTHING WAS GOING ON? I MEAN, ALL THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE ARB AND THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, I THOUGHT AT ONE POINT WE ENGAGED SOMEBODY, BUT I JUST CAN'T I CAN'T REMEMBER, REMEMBER EVER GOING OUT FOR A FOR AN EXTERNAL ATTORNEY OUTSIDE THE CITY ATTORNEY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL KEEP WORKING ON THAT. MISS VANESSA. YES. SO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE OFF TO A GREAT START ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN BETWEEN SOME OF THE MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS AND DAVID. THEY KIND OF AMASSED A GREAT SELECTION OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE REALLY EXEMPLARY PARKS MASTER PLANS FROM OTHER CITIES, LIKE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR 
          [04:50:04]
SIMILARITIES TO LAGO VISTA. AND SO THEY'VE HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS. THEY'VE GOT A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE MEETING CADENCE. AND I THINK THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. THEY'VE GOT A HAD ALREADY HAD A FRAMEWORK THEY WERE STARTING TO WORK ON LAST YEAR. SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING SOME DRAFTS FROM THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY GETTING A DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL HERE. MAYBE WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH. WE'LL SEE. I KNOW THEY TARGETED MARCH TO GET A LOT OF THE WORK DONE. SO. MR. PRINCE PLANNING AND ZONING. SO JORDAN HAS ESPECIALLY IN THIS LAST WEEKS. BUT IN THE MEETING BEFORE THAT HAS BEEN LEADING THE COMMISSION TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET TO COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN ON THE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP PIECES, ESPECIALLY AND IN FACT, SET UP A PROCESS IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING TO TRY TO GET TO A REALLY HEALTHY DISCUSSION IN A SPECIAL CALL MEETING, WHICH IS ONE WEEK FROM TONIGHT. SO THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING FOCUSED ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ONE WEEK FROM TONIGHT. PLANNING AND ZONING. THERE WAS ALSO IN THIS LAST WEEK'S PLANNING AND ZONING, A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION AND TREE FUNDS WE HAD AS COUNCIL. WE HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED PLANNING AND ZONING TO CONSIDER THREE THINGS. ONE WAS, YOU KNOW, UPDATE THE USE LANGUAGE TO TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, BROADER, MORE GENERAL USE ON PARKS, NOT JUST ON POCKET PARKS, AS IT SAYS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT WAS ONE. SECONDLY, TO CONSIDER, WE WE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER WHETHER A SMALLER DIAMETER TREE SHOULD BE PROTECTED. AND THEN THIRDLY, WE ASKED THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE THE FEES THAT WE HAVE ON TREE MITIGATION FEE IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT AND WHETHER THOSE WERE STILL APPROPRIATE. THERE WAS THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE WHO CAME IN KNOWING THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA AND MADE AN IMPASSIONED CASE FOR WHY WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR TREES AND AND WE NEED TO USE, USE THE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS FOR GOOD THINGS AROUND PARKS AND FUTURE PLANS. I THINK I WAS SURPRISED, AS THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED AS WELL. THERE WAS THERE WAS A STRONG. 
          PUSHBACK OR OR FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS AROUND THE IDEA THAT WHILE WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING TREES ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURING THAT DEVELOPERS ARE NOT NOT REMOVING TREES, YOU KNOW, WILLY NILLY USING MY OWN FRASER, THERE WAS A VERY STRONG FEELING AMONG PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT ONCE A HOUSE IS BUILT, A HOMEOWNER SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE FORCING THEM TO REPLACE TREES. AND SO. SO WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SAID, YEAH, YEAH, WE'D BE FINE WITH CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AROUND AROUND NOT JUST POCKET PARKS, BUT USING MONEY FOR ALL PARKS. BUT WE THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS IN A BIGGER SCOPE AND MAYBE KIND OF CHANGE THINGS IN A BIG WAY AROUND TREE MITIGATION ON ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, POST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND SO IT KIND OF STALLED. TO BE HONEST, THERE WAS NO THERE WAS NO, NO DECISION THAT CAME OUT OF PLANNING AND ZONING. AND SINCE YOU ALL, WE ALL HAD ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER THREE SPECIFIC THINGS AND COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT'S KIND OF HIT A PRETTY BIG PROCEDURAL ROADBLOCK WHERE THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO OPEN A MUCH BIGGER DISCUSSION ON THAT FRONT. AND AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER, OR WE SHOULD TAKE IT TO THE MESSAGE BOARD AND DISCUSS IT SOME OR WHETHER WHETHER WE WANT TO. YOU WANT TO GIVE ME AS LIAISON SOME, SOME SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT TOPIC. WHAT CAN I ADD. YEAH. WE'LL BE WE'LL BE MEETING TUESDAY. DAVID JORDAN, COUNCILOR PRINCE AND MYSELF, JUST TO STRATEGIZE ABOUT HOW WE MAY BE ABLE TO REINTRODUCE IT TO PNC AND HOPEFULLY MAYBE ADVOCATE A MORE STREAMLINED APPROACH. JUST FOCUS IN ON THOSE THREE KEY AREAS THAT THE PARKS AND REC PEOPLE REALLY WANTED TO TRY TO GET PAST AND THEN, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO TO ATTEND OR PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON SOME OF THOSE OTHER THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE MENTIONED. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET IT BACK ON, BACK ON TRACK. MR. I WANT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT THAT YOU TAKE BACK TO PNC BE VERY TREAD VERY LIGHTLY WHEN IT COMES TO TO INDIVIDUAL VERSUS DEVELOPER MITIGATION. AND THAT BECAUSE THAT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO TO LEGAL BECAUSE THAT CAN GET VERY, VERY MESSY ON ON PROPERTY RIGHTS, ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. NOW IF WE WANT PERCENTAGE BASED, THAT'S A THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE 
          [04:55:02]
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. AND THAT COULD BE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AND APPLIED ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. BUT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT INDIVIDUALS VERSUS DEVELOPERS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT COULD BE THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, MOVED INTO ZONING, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING. BUT JUST BE TREAD VERY LIGHTLY THERE. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP TO MR. I THOUGHT WE HAD SAID THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE THING TO WHEN THAT GENTLEMAN CAME HERE ASKING FOR IT, AND JORDAN SAID THERE ARE CITIES THAT DO THIS PERCENTAGE THING. WAS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY CONSIDERED? SO I DID AS A DISCUSSION STARTED, I BROUGHT THAT UP. I SAID WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING, AND I SPECIFICALLY PUT THAT ON THE TABLE FOR THEM TO TO CONSIDER. 
          AND AGAIN, I THE DISCUSSION KIND OF WENT FAR AND WIDE AND NO CONCLUSION AND NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. OKAY. MR. MANFIELD. YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE THIS WAS GIVEN TO PNC BACK IN 2024. YEAH. YOU KNOW MYSELF, RACHEL RICH. IT'S NOT RACHEL RICH ANYMORE. WHAT IS IT? GONZALEZ, RACHEL GONZALEZ AND KATHY KOZA. YOU KNOW, WE THE THREE OF US WORKED TOGETHER FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. AND ANYWAY, AT SOME POINT IT WOULD BE NICE FOR WHATEVER THE RECOMMENDATION IS, YOU KNOW, TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING STALLED OUT. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR THE WHATEVER TO, I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR IT TO COME TO COUNCIL SOON. ONE THING THAT WAS ALWAYS A QUESTION FROM ROY WHEN HE WAS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, WAS ALSO ABOUT THE CLEARCUTTING OF CEDAR TREES, AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE CEDAR TREES, BUT RATHER THE MITIGATION OF DRAINAGE, WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH, YOU KNOW, HOLDING THAT GROUND DOWN. SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF PNC WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, KICK THAT AROUND AND SEE WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GO IN AND CLEAR OUT AS MANY CEDAR TREES AS YOU WANT ON YOUR PROPERTY, BARRING THE STUMP, UNLESS YOU GET A SPECIAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THE STUMP. AND THE PURPOSE OF ALL THAT IS FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES. SO I JUST LIKE TO SEE THEIR OPINION ON THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEIR OPINION. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL 
          [X.CONSENT AGENDA]
RIGHT. WE WILL NOW COME BACK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BRAD BEFORE I DO THIS. I HAVE A UNNAMED CITIZEN RIGHT NOW WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS. CAN I READ IN ALL OF THEM AND THEN ASK HIM? HE'S PROMISED HE COULD DO IT. HE CAN SPEAK ON ALL ITEMS IN THE TWO MINUTES. CAN I READ THEM IN AND HAVE HIM COME IN AND GIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES, ON ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. IF I READ THEM ALL AND. 
          SO I'M SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, I MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ALL THE ITEMS, ALL ON HIS ONE TWO MINUTE FRAME. I'M GOING TO READ THEM ALL IN, AND THEN I'M GOING TO SEE IF I CAN GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND JUST HAVE HIM FINISH THEM OUT AND THEN COME BACK. YES, SIR. BEFORE WE PULL STUFF FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. YES, SIR. OKAY, GREAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. ITEM TEN CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL NOT BE SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. ITEM ONE ACTION REGARDING THE JANUARY 15TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. ITEM TWO ACTION REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. ITEM THREE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 2194. DISSOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY ABSENCE OR DISABILITY. ITEM FIVE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPOINT CODE DIAGNOSTIC SUBCOMMITTEE ITEM SIX CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2602 1901. AMENDING CHAPTER NINE, ARTICLE 9.8, SECTION 9.805 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, ALSO KNOWN AS DUTIES AND POWERS PROVIDING FOR A FINDING OF FACT CLAUSE. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. 
          PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PROVIDING FOR PROJECTS AND TRANSITION CLAUSE. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION PUBLICATION CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN OPEN MEETING CLAUSE. ITEM SEVEN CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ETHICS POLICIES. ITEM EIGHT CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL, SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND MEMBERS. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. I HAVE A CITIZEN SIGNED UP WHO WILL COVER THESE. 
          HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. MR. PAUL ROBERTS, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. ON THE ON THE EDC, I BELIEVE WE RECENTLY MISSED A GRANT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE, SOMETHING I ASKED FOR IN IN ADVOCATED FOR STRONGLY WAS SOME MONEY FOR THAT EDC. SO THEY CAN GO AFTER MATCHING GRANTS. I WOULD ASK Y'ALL TO AGAIN CONSIDER PERHAPS AN AGENDA ITEM SOON, SINCE YOU'RE NOW MOVING INTO THE FORMAL EDC IS HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM TO AMEND THE BUDGET 
          [05:00:02]
AND ALLOCATE SOME MONEY FOR THE EDC SO THEY CAN GO AFTER THESE MATCHING GRANTS. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, GUYS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR ACTION. REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER, I'M GOING TO KIND OF GO OUT ON A LIMB HERE A LITTLE BIT. I KNOW THIS ON THIS ITEM. MY COMMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY TIED DIRECTLY TO IT, BUT CLOSE ENOUGH. I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL COME UP WITH THE CITY AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AT SOME POINT. AND I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER MR. ZENO. I THINK HE'S HIRING FROM IN-HOUSE IS ALWAYS BEST. 
          HE'S GOT MORE TENURE THAN ANY OTHER STAFF IN HERE, AND PLEASE CONSIDER HIM IF Y'ALL EVER SHOULD. Y'ALL GO DOWN THAT ROAD. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE DIAGNOSTIC SUBCOMMITTEE. I WAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE CONSENSUS AROUND THE PROPOSED. 
          WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU, COUNCILOR VAN NESS, FOR PUTTING IT UP THERE. THE CHARTER FOR THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC SUBCOMMITTEE, AND TAKING MY SUGGESTIONS THAT I HAD EMAILED YOU GUYS AND COMING UP WITH THAT AND MAYOR PRO TEM, YOUR SUGGESTED EDITS REGARDING, YOU KNOW, DEFERRING TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE. I THINK THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT AD AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THAT ONE THERE. YOU GUYS MIGHT REMEMBER ONE OF THE ONE OF MY AGENDA ITEMS LAST YEAR WAS TO MAKE IT TO OFFICIATE THE ABILITY OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION THAT WOULD ANYTHING, ANY PROPOSED, ANY AGENDA ITEMS COME FORWARD THAT IF IT'S WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT FIRST AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR PACKET ON PAGE 44. YOU DON'T NEED TO TURN TO IT, BUT THE NEW SECTION FOR DUTIES AND POWERS, YOU HAVE SECTION B THERE, WHICH THE FIRST SENTENCE IN SECTION B REITERATES THAT. 
          AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO CROSS REFERENCE AND MAKE SURE MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE DUPLICATE DUPLICATIVE LANGUAGE HERE ELSEWHERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WE IF WE CODIFIED THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH SECTION WE DID IT IN. DO YOU FOLLOW BLANK STARES? EVERYBODY FOLLOW ME ON THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE SAME THING ITERATED IN DIFFERENT PLACES. OKAY. AND THEN. ON THE RULES, PROCEDURE, ETHICS POLICY AND SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY, YOU GUYS ENJOY YOUR CONVERSATION ON THAT. I'M GOING HOME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. I HAD PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. IF ANYBODY HAD ANY ITEMS TO PULL. MR. BENFIELD, YOU REQUEST THE PULL ITEMS FOR FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT. DO YOU STILL REQUEST TO HAVE THOSE REMOVED? AND I THINK MISS FINESSE, YOU SAID SEVEN AND EIGHT. SO FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT ARE REMOVED. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER OF THE REMAINING THREE ITEMS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE REMOVED? MAYOR JUST A CLARIFICATION ON ITEM NUMBER THREE. THE THE WHAT YOU JUST READ IN SAYS DISSOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE THAT COMMITTEE'S NAME ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE WORD ADVISORY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO MAYBE WE CAN JUST INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION IF WE GET THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WHICH ARE ITEMS ONE, TWO AND THREE WITH THE EDIT. THAT THREE IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES, MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS AS READ IN ONE, TWO AND THREE WITH THE ADDITION OF ADVISORY PLACING IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNDERNEATH THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT, I THINK I COVERED IT. THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM. OWEN, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN PRINCE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST THREE ITEMS ARE APPROVED. AND LITTLE WORD BEFORE THIS. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE 930. WE DON'T HAVE TO COVER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ITEMS. IT GOES I THINK THAT ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND CAN CONTINUE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND BE TABLED TO THE MAY THE MARCH MEETING, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT OUT THERE BEFORE WE GET THERE, IF THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE ALSO BELIEVE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT, BUT I DO THINK THAT FOUR AND FIVE CLEARLY DO. SO I WILL START 
          [X.4.Consideration and possible action regarding the designation of an Acting City Manager in the event of an emergency, absence, or disability.]
ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY ABSENCE OR DISABILITY. MR. BENNEFIELD, YOU PULLED THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. I PULLED THE ITEM BECAUSE IN THE LETTER THAT MR. WEST WROTE ON JANUARY 28TH, 
          [05:05:03]
2026, THE LETTER, IN MY OPINION, IMPLIED LESS OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER, BUT MORE OF AS AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. THERE WAS VERBIAGE IN THE LETTER THAT SAYS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BEING DESIGNATED AS THE CITY'S SECOND IN COMMAND AND SECOND IN COMMAND TRULY IS MORE OF A DISTINCTION OF ACT. INSTEAD OF ACTING, IT'S MORE OF AN ASSISTANT. AND WITH THAT BEING IN PARALLEL WITH OTHER EMAILS THAT WE HAD RECEIVED, I HAD A SIT DOWN MEETING WITH MR. WEST. 
          IT SHOULD BE NOTED ON THE RECORD THAT MR. WEST UPDATED THIS LETTER AND POSTED IT TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD, ESSENTIALLY REMOVING SECOND IN COMMAND AND TIGHTENING, TIGHTENING THE LANGUAGE TO TRULY MEAN AN ACTING CITY MANAGER. AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT DOCUMENT, HE PRODUCED. I'M FINE WITH ERIC ZINO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THAT. SO NOBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY. I'M OPEN TO EMOTION. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE DESIGNATION OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY ABSENCE OR DISABILITY, AND THAT IS ERIC ZINO. AND YOU ARE GOING WITH THE LETTER THAT MR. WEST JUST PUT OUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TODAY. AND I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I AM UTILIZING THE LETTER THAT HE PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TODAY. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. 
          ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. CONSIDERATION. 
          [X.5.Consideration and possible action to appoint code diagnostic sub-committee.]
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPOINT CO-DIAGNOSTICS SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          MR. BENNEFIELD. WELL, MAINLY I WANTED TO PULL IT BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED. YOU POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FEBRUARY 16TH, 346 THAT WE WERE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE FORMATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DIAGNOSTIC SUBCOMMITTEE. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE MINUTES I KNOW I WAS ATTENDING REMOTELY, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT WAS ACTUALLY FORMED. DID I DID I MISS THAT ON THE ON THE AGENDA, I WAS ASKED TO FORM IT AS THE MAYOR, AND THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD MAKE IT UP, AND THEN WE WOULD JUST FORMALIZE IT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. AND SO I PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I THINK, AS WE DISCUSSED. AND THEN WE'RE HERE TO FORMALIZE IT TODAY. OKAY. YEAH. I JUST THE CONFUSION FOR ME WAS THAT IT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN FORMED AND I JUST COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT. 
          BUT THAT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH ANY OF THE MEMBERS THAT YOU RECOMMENDED. THE ONE THING THAT I THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING IS I KNOW THAT COUNCILOR VANESS HAD PUT OUT THERE SORT OF A CHARTER, DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW, OR YOU WANTED TO APPROVE THE FORMATION OF THAT, YOU WANTED TO APPROVE THE MEMBERS OF IT, MAKE THAT FORMAL AND THEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION CONTINUE, OR YOU'D RATHER DO IT ALL TOGETHER? YEAH, I GUESS IT SEEMS LIKE THE CHARTER IS IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE, BUT THERE'S THAT HIGHLIGHTED AREA OF THE LEVEL OF FORMALITY WHICH WE COULD MAYBE KNOCK OUT QUICKLY TONIGHT. BUT IF WE THINK WE NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN ALWAYS FOLLOW UP ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND THEN HAVE THE CHARTER OBVIOUSLY COMPLETE THE CHARTER AND HAVE IT PRESENTED FOR A VOTE IN THE NEXT MEETING. BUT THE MAIN IDEA IS ALLOW THE SUBCOMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT THE TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING, BUT ALSO WE DON'T WANT TO ADD UNNECESSARY BUREAUCRACY, LIKE HAVING OPEN MEETINGS AND HAVING TO ANNOUNCE IT AND AGENDIZE IT AND SO FORTH. WE WANT TO GIVE THOSE GUYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IN A CADENCE THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM. SO THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION IS WHAT LEVEL OF FORMALITY DO YOU GUYS THINK IS APPROPRIATE? SO, MR. PRINCE, WE WE DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT WAS WHY WE DECIDED TO CALL THIS A SUBCOMMITTEE RATHER THAN A COMMITTEE, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SORT OF OUR FORMAL COMMITTEE, ONGOING COMMITTEE RULES, IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT WE'VE RUN THE IRRIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND NOW THE PRESUMABLY THE UTILITY SUBCOMMITTEE. SO SO I GUESS THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION WAS THE CONSENSUS WAS TO STAY ON THE LIGHT SIDE IN TERMS OF FORMAL COMMUNICATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, OUT TO OUT TO THE PUBLIC, AND THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL, AND THAT WOULD BE THE THE KIND OF THE THE PRIMARY METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING TO CITIZENS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS MARIA. I'D LIKE TO SAY I REALLY DID APPRECIATE THE 
          [05:10:02]
QUICK UPDATES THAT YOU THAT YOU PRESENTED AND TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH COUNCILOR AND COUNCIL PRINCE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LANGUAGE ADJUSTMENTS. I THINK AS IT SITS NOW, IT LOOKS VERY, VERY GOOD, EVEN THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION. AND I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY GET IT ALL DONE ALL IN ONE SWOOP. HONESTLY, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO BRING IT BACK UNDER CONSENT, ANOTHER CONSENT AGENDA. BUT BUT WITH THE MEMBERS LISTED AND WITH THE CHARTER DONE, I FEEL LIKE ONE FELL SWOOP WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. MISS BEING A STICKLER FOR THIS STUFF. I'LL GET THAT HIGHLIGHTED AREA OUT OF THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS A MONTHLY REPORTING CADENCE. I'D PUT A QUESTION MARK AROUND THAT. IF YOU THINK MONTHLY IS ADEQUATE SUBCOMMITTEE TO US, I'LL JUST MAKE THOSE QUICK CHANGES AND PUT IT BACK OUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE GOOD TO GO THE NEXT MEETING. SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS ITEM IS ABOUT APPOINTING THE COMMITTEE. THAT'S MORE ABOUT GUIDING THE COMMITTEE. I CAN ALWAYS APPROVE THE COMMITTEE TONIGHT. AND THEN YOUR GUIDANCE APPROVED ON THE NEXT ONE. YES, MR. PRINCE. YEAH, YEAH. TO YOUR POINT, EARLIER TO MR. BENFIELD'S QUESTION, I THINK WE WE WE BY CONSENSUS AGREED WE WANTED TO DO IT AND WE SAID, LET'S BRING IT ON BACK ON ON CONSENT TO FORMALIZE THAT. SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND FORMALIZE FORMING THE COMMITTEE AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN WHETHER IT'S ON CONSENT OR DISCUSSION, DO THE THE PROCEDURAL. OKAY. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR TO APPOINT THE CO-DIAGNOSTICS SUBCOMMITTEE AS DISCUSSED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. DO I HAVE A SECOND? YES, I WILL SECOND, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR VAN NESS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. MOVING 
          [X.6.Consideration and possible action to approve Ordinance No. 26-02-19-01; Amending Chapter 9, Article 9.8, Section 9.805 Of The Code Of Ordinances Also Known As “Duties And Powers”; Providing For A Finding Of Fact Clause; Providing For Severability; Providing For A Repealer; Providing An Effective Date; Providing For A Projects In Transition Clause; Providing For A Codification And Publication Clause And Providing An Open Meetings Clause.]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX. CONSIDERATION. POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2602 1901. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT EVEN ROBIN CHARLES AND I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT, BECAUSE WE HAD TWO ITEMS THAT WERE ON THE LAST AGENDA. THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE. WE KIND OF TALKED THROUGH IT. 
          THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS, BUT THEN WE WENT TO THE NEXT ONE AND WE SAID, WELL, WITH THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC, WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THESE. AND SO WE DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ONE. BUT THIS ONE KIND OF WAS LIKE THAT TOO. BUT WE DID ORIGINALLY SAY PEOPLE SEEM LIKE THEY'RE FINE WITH IT. AND THEN WE SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT ON THE NEXT ONE. SO I THREW IT ON CONSENT JUST TO SEE IF Y'ALL REALLY DID WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. YEAH. AND IF YOU DON'T, THEN ALL WE NEED EITHER TAKE NO ACTION OR WE CAN MOTION TO TABLE IT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER SIX. NUMBER SIX. MAYOR PRO TEM. YEAH, ACTUALLY I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS BASICALLY JUST GIVES US PUTS THE BSC JUST LIKE WE DO THE PLANNING AND ZONING OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT ACTUALLY WAS RELATIVELY SIMPLE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AM I GETTING THAT CORRECT? JORDAN. JUST MAKING SURE. BECAUSE IF THAT IS IT JUST GIVING THEM THE THE THE POWER FOR THOSE PARTICULAR SECTIONS WAS NOT A HUGE ORDEAL. AND WE DID TAKE OUT ESTHETIC. YES. SO THE ESTHETICS WAS THE BIG HOLD UP AT THE LAST MEETING. THERE WAS SOME LEGAL COMPLICATIONS WITH THAT. WE HAVE REMOVED THAT. THERE WERE ALSO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SHALL PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE. IT SAYS THAT THEY SHALL AND I'M TRYING TO GO FROM MEMORY HERE. THEY SHALL REPORT TO COUNCIL OR IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM. AND IT IT DID READ THAT ANY ORDINANCES OR THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CHANGE THAT PERTAINS TO BSE. 
          IT READS THAT THEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE BSC FIRST. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNCIL REALLY WANTS TO PUT THAT IN THERE OR NOT, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND CHANGING THE SHALL TO MAY. MR. BENFIELD. YEAH, THAT WAS MY ONLY REASON FOR BRINGING IT UP. WAS JUST THE SHALL VERSUS THE MAY IT. I DO BELIEVE IN PROCESS AND I DO BELIEVE THINGS SHOULD GO TO THE BSE IN ALL OPPORTUNITIES. IT WAS JUST THE SHOW THAT WAS GETTING TO ME. AND SO IT'S A PRETTY AGAIN, AS MISS OWENS HAD SAID, IT'S VERY IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE. IT ELEVATES IT TO THAT LEVEL. IT WAS THAT HICCUP AND THE ESTHETICS. WE REMOVE. THE ESTHETICS, THE SHALL VERSUS MAY IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION TO CORRECT. MISS. SORRY, I'LL AGREE. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS. I HAD PULLED SIX AS WELL OR WANTED TO PULL SIX, BUT I'M ALSO AT THE POINT WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN OR REALIGNED, I SHOULD SAY, OR MOVED AROUND. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF DOING 
          [05:15:02]
THIS RIGHT NOW IS ACTUALLY NEEDED, OR IF WE COULD JUST TABLE THIS AND WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE REWRITE. I DON'T DON'T REALLY FIND IT TO TO BE VERY I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF TIME, HONESTLY TO, TO TO WORRY ABOUT THAT AND THEN TRY TO THROW IT ONTO THE PDF, GET ON TO THE WEBSITE, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO ACTUALLY CHANGE IT WITHIN ABOUT 2 OR 3 MONTHS. BUT YEAH, I'LL VOTE ON IT EITHER WAY. I'LL JUST SAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. WE'VE DONE MOST OF THE WORK. LET'S JUST APPROVE IT AND MOVE ON. A MOTION. I I'M OPEN TO EMOTION, MAYOR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2602 1901. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SORRY. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGE OF THE SHALL TO THE MAY? YES. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO IN I'LL. SO WHAT IT WOULD BE IS MOVE TO APPROVE THE. I FORGET THE ORDINANCE NUMBER WITH THE MODIFICATION TO 9.8056 SUBSECTION B CHANGING THE FIRST SHALL THEREIN TO MAY WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR PRINCE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST SAID. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. OWEN, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT'S APPROVED 
          [X.7.Consideration and possible action regarding amendments to  the Rules of Procedure and Ethics policies.]
UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. ON TO ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT AGAIN I'M OFFERING. THESE COULD JUST BE TABLED AND WE CAN CONTINUE ON TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD WITH THEM. BUT ITEM SEVEN CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ETHICS POLICY POLICIES. THE POLICIES YOU GUYS HAVE WERE COMPLETE REWRITES THAT I DID. I THINK THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT RED LINES. THERE'S NO RED LINES BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE ANY OF THE PREVIOUS PROCEDURES AND POLICIES. I REWROTE IT, AND THEN I SENT SOME OF IT BRIEFLY BY BRAD THAT SAID, DO THESE MEET THE MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD NEED? HE SAID, YES. AND THE WHOLE POINT OF EACH ONE OF THOSE IS TO REALLY STREAMLINE IT. DON'T GET INTO THE STUFF THAT WE CAN'T LEGALLY BIND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO ANYWAYS, AND IT COULD BE FOUGHT IN COURT AND FOUGHT AT OTHER PLACES. AND THAT WAS REALLY MY WHOLE MEETING BEHIND EITHER ONE OF THOSE. BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON DISCUSSION BOARD. IF THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PUT PROPOSALS OUT THERE, THEN I WOULD PREFER THAT WE TABLE THESE ITEMS. YOU PUT YOUR PROPOSALS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND THEN WE WORKSHOP THEM IN 14 DAYS. MR. BENNEFIELD. I'LL CERTAINLY PUT THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I MEAN, AS A GENERAL RULE, I, I AGREE WITH REDUCING OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, AND I AGREE WITH STREAMLINING AND GETTING THINGS MORE STATE COMPLIANT OR NOT EVEN STATE COMPLIANT, JUST IN LINE WITH STATE LAW. I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES, THOUGH, WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MORE LOCALIZED RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, IF YOU WILL. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS I'LL POST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES, THERE'S NO REGULATIONS ON HOW LONG SOMEBODY CAN SPEAK FROM THE PODIUM. FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER CITIZENS COMMENTS, ALL THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. SO THAT KIND OF BECOMES DISCRETIONARY. AND ONE PERSON MIGHT GET THREE MINUTES, AND THE NEXT PERSON WHO'S ACTUALLY DOING A GOOD JOB MIGHT GET FIVE MINUTES, YOU KNOW? AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE NOT NOT NECESSARILY REGULATORY THINGS IN THERE, BUT JUST THINGS THAT WILL MAKE US BE A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENT. BUT OVERALL, I DO LIKE THE STREAMLINE OF IT, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT. 
          BUT JUST WITH LIKE A FEW GUARDRAILS IN THERE. MR. PRINCE, MISS OWEN HAD POSTED SOME MATERIAL AROUND, I FORGET EVEN THE WORDING OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT WAS THE IDEA OF. CODE OF CONDUCT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT IS IS WORTHY OF INCLUSION HERE SOMEWHERE. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SOME DISCUSSION TO TO HOLD. SO I WOULD SUPPORT TABLING. MY QUESTION ON THE CODE OF CONDUCT WAS I SAW THAT AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. IS THAT OKAY. SO I BRING THAT AS A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM OKAY. WELL THEN WITH THAT, IF I'M OPEN TO A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ONE QUESTION. YEAH. MR. BENFIELD, SO IN THE PROCESS OF DEREGULATING OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, ARE WE TURNING AROUND AND ADDING ANOTHER DOCUMENT OF CONDUCT? I JUST FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT IN ONE GO. AND IT'S JUST HARD TO SAY. I WANT TO STREAMLINE, BUT LET'S ADD A WHOLE NOTHER DOCUMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. I MEAN. I THINK YOU CAN LITERALLY IN ONE WORD OR ONE SENTENCE IN OUR RULES OF REGULATION, SAY THIS 
          [05:20:04]
IS THE LEVEL OF CONDUCT WE EXPECT OUT OF NOT JUST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT EMPLOYEES AND CITIZENS. I DON'T SUPPORT THE CODE OF CONDUCT. I THINK WE'RE ADULTS AND WE ALL KNOW HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE. AND I DON'T NEED IT WRITTEN. AND HOW MANY TIMES YOU WRITE IT OR HOW BIG, HOW SMALL, HOW MANY PLACES IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO MOVE THESE THINGS FORWARD, SO BE IT. MAYOR PRO TEM, THE ONLY REASON I PUT THAT OUT THERE REALLY WASN'T TO ADD ANY MORE RULES. THE CODE OF CONDUCT WAS GENERALLY JUST TO LOOK AT, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY GUARD. TO YOUR POINT, GUARDRAILS OR GUIDELINES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE WORTHY IN THERE. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REVISITED. IT REALLY IS JUST A. HERE'S HERE'S THE DEAL. IT HAS NO PROCEDURAL WEIGHT TO IT OTHER THAN JUST AS GUIDELINES. COUNCILOR, I'D LIKE TO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS CODE OF CONDUCT UNDER THERE, THAT I THINK THAT SOME OF THE WORDING CAN BE PULLED AND PUT UNDER ACTUALLY INTO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND POSSIBLY EVEN INTO THE ETHICS, AND STILL. SO IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE A WHOLE SEPARATE DOCUMENT, BUT WE COULD JUST PULL SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FROM IT, AND IT WOULD, IT WOULD STREAMLINE THINGS AND STILL BE VERY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD STILL, YOU KNOW, GIVE EVERYBODY THEIR, THEIR FREEDOMS TO, TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, BUT WITH, WITH SOME DECORUM, I WOULD SAY. YES, I AGREE, I THINK WE CAN PULL IT ALL PROPAGATED INTO THE TWO DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE. AND AS COUNCILOR PRINCE HAS BEEN REALLY WELL SPOKEN ABOUT, POINTING OUT IS A CITIZENS ARE DEMANDING BETTER OF US AND WANT TO SEE THIS. SO STREAMLINING. I'M ALL FOR IT. TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY TO WEAPONIZE IT OFFER THAT TO. BUT I THINK WE STILL NEED SOME. PROBABLY BOLSTER WHAT'S IN THERE THAT'S CURRENT STREAMLINED VERSION A LITTLE BIT, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SETTING UP APPROPRIATE EXPECTATIONS AND GUARDRAILS. AND I UNDERSTAND I USUALLY TOWARD THE SIDE OF WHAT'S LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE NICE LANGUAGE IN A DOCUMENT IN THE WORLD, BUT IF YOU CAN'T ENFORCE IT OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, IT'S PRETTY USELESS. BUT I STILL THINK IT'S WORTH HAVING A LITTLE BIT EXTRA IN THERE AROUND THE EXPECTED DECORUM AND SO FORTH. SO WE JUST NEED TO BUILD OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN EACH DOCUMENT. BUT I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE. ALL RIGHT. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION ON THIS HOPEFULLY TO TABLE. MAYOR I MOVE THAT WE I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT TO BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE, AS YOU SAID ON MARCH 5TH, I HADN'T READ IN ITEM EIGHT. I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO BE SEVEN. I'M SORRY. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION. 
          WE TABLE ITEM SEVEN I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING. JUST TO THE NEXT MEETING. ALL RIGHT. TO THE NEXT MEETING. IS THAT GOOD WITH YOU? ACCEPT THAT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. ALL 
          [X.8.Consideration and possible action regarding the removal of the City Council social media policy.]
THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THAT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM EIGHT CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE I. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE AGENDA, BECAUSE MY PROPOSAL WAS TO JUST REMOVE THE CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND MOVE THE DISCUSSION ON IT TO CHARLES CITY COUNCIL TRAININGS. BUT AGAIN, LOOKS LIKE WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND I THINK, ADAM, OFFICIALLY YOU'RE THE ONE THAT PULLED THIS ONE. SO, MR. BENNEFIELD, I WON'T BE LONG WINDED BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN MINUTES FOR YOUR 930 DEADLINE. AGAIN, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT THE MINIMIZATION OF THESE TYPES OF RULES AND REGULATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE NOT ENFORCEABLE. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT A A VERY MINIMALISTIC SET OF RULES OR GUIDELINES FROM MR. BULLOCK WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, I IDENTIFIED FOUR AREAS TO HELP AVOID CONFUSION, SUCH AS MODERATION, CONSISTENCY TO AVOID FIRST AMENDMENT EXPOSURE OR UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT, AND THE RETENTION MECHANICS. 
          REDUCING PUBLIC INFORMATION, TOMA VIOLATIONS AND GUARDRAILS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BOARDS. 
          AND THEN IS IT LINKY? LINKY? LINK LINK SPECIFIC LIKE PERSONAL ACCOUNT VERSUS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. I'LL JUST READ A QUOTE FROM MR. MAY. I PROBABLY CAN'T READ THE QUOTE BECAUSE IT WAS PROBABLY A MEMO FROM YOU IN AN EMAIL, SO I WON'T. BUT WHAT IT WHAT IT DOES SAY, IN OTHER WORDS, IS WE CAN'T RELY ON OUR PERSONAL PAGES AS A SAFE HARBOR. AND I THINK IF WE JUST HAD A VERY MINIMALISTIC POLICY THAT SAYS THESE ARE YOUR GUIDELINES, NOT 
          [05:25:05]
EVEN NECESSARILY TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, BUT JUST THESE ARE THE PITFALLS TO WATCH OUT FOR. MAYBE IT'S LESS OF A POLICY AND MORE OF A GUIDELINE, MORE OF A JUST KNOW IF YOU STAY WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS, YOU'RE OKAY. YOU GET OUT OF THESE PARAMETERS AND MAYBE YOU'RE NOT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DO SUPPORT LIKELY THE ELIMINATION OF 99% OF THE POLICY. THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION TO TABLE. MR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AND BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. ONCE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT FURTHER ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM MAYOR PRO TEM. OWEN, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. 
          IT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. AND I THINK THAT MY TABLE IS CLEAR. MY DESK IS CLEAR. IT'S AN OLD HOUSE THING. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.