Mar 05, 2026 City Council

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:09]

I CALL THIS MEETING THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER. IT IS 3 P.M. PLEASE NOTE, WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE EXCEPT MISS CHAVARRIA, WHO IS ONLINE AND WILL BE JOINING US

[II. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS THAT YOU INTEND TO INQUIRE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT? ALE TIME IS 4:02 P.M. THE COUNCIL IS RETURNING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. BRAD, CAN YOU GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE ITEMS WE DISCUSSED THERE? THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF ANY. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS. SO WE WENT INTO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH WAS A DISCUSSION RELATED TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE POTENTIAL ACTION ON THAT LATER ON IN THE MEETING. NUMBER THREE, WHICH WAS THE HR POLICY.

WE ARE MY OFFICE JUST FINISHED A RED LINE OF YOUR HR POLICY. WE WILL BE DISTRIBUTING THAT OUT TO YOU FOR YOUR CONFIDENTIAL REVIEW. IT'S STILL ATTORNEY WORK CLIENT PRODUCT.

WE WILL THEN PUT THAT. I THINK THE IDEA IS TO PUT THAT ON THE NEXT AGENDA FOR MORE FORMAL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION, AFTER YOU ALL HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. AND IN THE MEANTIME, SEND US QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU. AND THAT WAY, THAT DISCUSSION NEXT TIME, WE'LL HAVE THOSE COMMENTS AND WHATNOT INCORPORATED. AND THEN ON NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE THAT CHARLES WILL ANNOUNCE A A PERSONNEL DECISION LATER ON. AND YOU, I UNDERSTAND, MIGHT

[III. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS]

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM THREE CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551 .071 TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY'S EMPLOYMENT LAW SLASH HR ATTORNEY CONCERNING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY ACTION? MAYOR? NO ACTION. THANK YOU. NO ACTION ITEM FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT DUTIES, DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551 .074 ON THE POLICE CHIEF, I WILL ACTUALLY GO TO. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO TO YOU, CHARLES, BEFORE I TAKE A MOTION, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. MAYOR, COUNCIL CITIZENS. THANK YOU. AS YOU ALL KNOW, SHORTLY AFTER I BEGAN WORKING HERE, CHIEF BOSHEARS TURNED IN HIS RESIGNATION AND WENT TO THE BIG CITY OF BRENHAM TO BE THEIR POLICE CHIEF. SO WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF INTERIMS IN THAT PROCESS. WE'VE WENT THROUGH A HIRING PROCESS. WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF WHAT'S IN EXCESS OF 26 APPLICANTS THAT WERE ALL QUALIFIED. WE NARROWED THE APPLICANT POOL DOWN TO SIX. WHEN WE TOOK THAT SIX TO BRING IN FOR INTERVIEWS, THREE OF THEM DECIDED THAT OR TWO OF THEM WITHDREW, AND ONE OF THEM DECIDED THAT THE WORK WAS GOING TO BE TOO MUCH WORK. SO IT LEFT US DOWN TO THREE. AND THOSE THREE CANDIDATES WERE

[00:05:04]

PEOPLE WERE ON THAT PANEL. TWO OF MY CURRENT POLICE OFFICERS WERE ON THAT PANEL, AND A COUNCIL MEMBER AND A CITIZEN, THEY PUT THOSE THREE CANDIDATES THROUGH THE WRINGER, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. AND THEN THEY CAME AND INTERVIEWED WITH ME AND THE MAYOR AND THE EXECUTIVE SESSION CHAMBERS. AND THEN A FEW DAYS LATER, I CALLED THEM ALL BACK TO HAVE THEM COME AGAIN, AND I HAD NARROWED IT DOWN TO TWO. AND I WILL SAY THIS WAS PROBABLY THE HARDEST DECISION I EVER HAD TO MAKE. I REALLY CONTEMPLATED TAKING AND FLIPPING A COIN TO SEE WHO I WOULD PICK OUT OF THE TWO THAT I HAD GOT GOTTEN IT DOWN TO BECAUSE THEIR QUALIFICATIONS WERE THAT WELL. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I CHOSE THE PERSON THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE THE BEST LEADER FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THEY'RE GOING TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND THE NAME THAT I'M BRINGING FORTH THAT I HOPE THAT WILL BE A UNANIMOUS OR DECISION ON THIS SELECTION, IS RON JOY TO SERVE AS OUR NEXT POLICE CHIEF. HE COMES TO US WITH 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HE WORKED HIS WAY UP FROM TROOPER ALL THE WAY UP TO CHIEF, AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY HAD THE POSITION OF CHIEF IN THE HIGHWAY PATROL. I KNEW THEY HAD LIEUTENANTS AND CAPTAINS AND A DIRECTOR, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD CHIEFS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU HE'S GOT A VERY GOOD PLAN AND THINKS HE LIVES HERE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND HE REALLY WANTS TO BE A SERVANT OF THE COMMUNITY. SO I THINK, I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT SELECTION. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW MISTER JOY IS IN THE AUDIENCE. SO IF ANY OF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO SAY I CAN PUT A FACE WITH IT, BUT THAT THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT Y'ALL CONFIRM MY CHOICE OF RON JOY FOR POLICE CHIEF. THANK YOU CHARLES. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL. AND WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MOTION, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN HAVE MISTER JOY COME UP IF HE SO PLEASES OR YOU GUYS WANT TO.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. YES, MAYOR. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR CITY MANAGER TO HIRE RON JOY AS OUR OUR POLICE CHIEF.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FOR MISTER JESS HALL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? MISTER BENNEFIELD? WELL, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. JOY JUST AS A PREFERENCE AS HE COMES UP. YOU KNOW, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEING ON THE PANEL OF SIX. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN MISTER JOY WALKED IN THE ROOM, HE CLEARLY COMMANDED THE ROOM. 32 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 19 YEARS AT COMMAND LEVEL LEADERSHIP. I PARTICULARLY LIKE WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR VISION STATEMENT. YOU SAID, QUOTE, WITH OVER 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, OVER TEN YEARS IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENT AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY MEMBER IN LAGO VISTA, I'M EXCITED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA AND. THE CITY IS HONORED TO HAVE YOU HERE. YOU ARE MORE THAN QUALIFIED. THE DISCUSSION WAS NEVER ABOUT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS. THE DISCUSSION WAS, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL WORKING FOR A SMALL TOWN LIKE US? AND JUST IT'S JUST AN HONOR TO HAVE YOU, SIR, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO IT. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR STATEMENT, BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ANYONE ELSE? IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT, I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE. I LOVE THIS COMMUNITY. I DON'T PLAN ON MOVING. I'VE BEEN HERE TEN YEARS, SO THIS IS OUR HOME. WE'RE VERY ENGAGED IN OUR COMMUNITY AND I LOVE SERVING. I TOLD CHARLES WHEN I INTERVIEWED, I'LL SERVE UNTIL I TAKE MY LAST BREATH IN SOME CAPACITY IN MY WHOLE LIFE. AND I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO SERVE IN A NUMBER OF CAPACITIES ALL ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY AND AND HELP MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND OUR OFFICERS MORE PROFESSIONAL AND AND PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES FOR OUR CITIZENS. THANK YOU. I GUESS I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THAT THE FINAL THREE CANDIDATES WERE SO QUALIFIED, INCLUDING WE HAD TWO FROM OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT WERE LIVING HERE IN LAGO. AND THEN WE HAD OUR OWN ASSISTANT CHIEF WHO'S BEEN SERVING HERE FOR A LONG TIME. I'M GRATEFUL TO ALL THREE OF THEM, BUT VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU. ON HAVING WORKED IN THE STATE FOR A LONG TIME MYSELF. I'VE ASKED AROUND AND EVERYBODY SPEAKS VERY HIGHLY OF YOU. SO LAGO VISTA SHOULD BE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU TAKE THE REINS HERE. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU KAREN. YEAH. AND SIR, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW CONGRATULATIONS. FIRST OFF, BUT ALSO THAT AS YOU CAN HEAR, PROBABLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FULL SUPPORT FROM MISTER WEST AND FROM CITY COUNCIL. WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT

[00:10:04]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELCOME ABOARD. WITH THAT, WE WILL PLEASE RISE, AND WE WILL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US AND TEXAS FLAGS. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. TEXAS. WHEN THE TEXAS WHITE. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. AND PLEASE STAND FOR THAT. WE HAVE AN INVOCATION HERE TODAY. IF YOU WANT TO COME FROM THE MIC RIGHT HERE, I THINK IT'S ON.

COULD I ASK THE POLICE CHIEF TO COME JOIN ME? OH, ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GOING TO PRAY FOR HIM TOO.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. LET'S PRAY. SOVEREIGN LORD, THANK YOU FOR CALLING US HERE TODAY TO TO DO THE BUSINESS THAT YOU'VE CALLED THESE MEN AND WOMEN TO DO. AND, FATHER, WE LIFT UP ESPECIALLY OUR NEW POLICE CHIEF. FATHER, WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD WATCH OVER HIM, PROTECT HIM AND THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE UNDER HIM. GIVE HIM WISDOM AND GUIDANCE TO LEAD US, TO PROTECT US, AND MOST OF ALL, FATHER, PROTECT THESE MEN AND WOMEN. WATCH OVER THEM.

FILL THEM WITH YOUR HOLY SPIRIT EACH DAY. GIVE THEM THE COURAGE TO DO THE JOB YOU'VE CALLED THEM TO DO AND THAT WE'VE CALLED THEM TO DO. AND WE PRAY ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF YOUR SON, JESUS. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. SO NOW LET US PRAY. WE HAVEN'T FINISHED PRAYING YET. SO, HEAVENLY FATHER, WE WE THANK YOU TODAY IN THE SEASON OF LENT FOR SO MANY THINGS THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED. WE WE THANK YOU FOR OUR FAMILIES, OUR OUR WIVES AND HUSBANDS, OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES. WE THANK YOU FOR THE JOBS YOU'VE CALLED US TO DO. AND FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR SO MANY THINGS THAT WE JUST DON'T REMEMBER TO SAY THANKS FOR. WE THANK YOU FOR THE MATERIAL BLESSINGS YOU ALLOW EACH OF US TO ENJOY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF LIVING IN A SAFE COMMUNITY AND A SAFE STATE IN A SAFE COUNTRY, IN THE MIDST OF WORLD WARS AND AND AND VIOLENCE. WE WE ASK YOUR CONTINUED PROTECTION AND, LORD, WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR THESE MEN AND WOMEN YOU'VE CALLED TO SERVE US IN THIS COMMUNITY AS COUNCILPERSONS HERE, WE THANK YOU THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP OF THEIR TIME, EVEN THEIR MONEY AND AND THEIR THEIR EFFORTS TO TO SERVE US. FATHER, WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM WISDOM AND GUIDANCE. AND WE PRAY ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF YOUR OF THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. AMEN. AMEN. AND MAYOR, MAY I SAY THANK YOU TO YOU. WE USED TO DO THIS EVERY TIME THE COUNCIL MET. AND THEN FOR SOME REASON WE GOT AWAY FROM DOING IT. SO THANK YOU. I'M WORKING ON SCHEDULING. THE PASTOR'S OUT HERE. YOU'LL SEE A VARIETY OF WORSHIP STYLES, AND MEN AND WOMEN COME FORWARD. AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY. WE THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND COORDINATING ALL THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS, DAD. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE MOVING ON TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. AND BRIEFLY, WHEN WE CAME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE, INCLUDING MR. AVERY, ONLINE. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS, BUT ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO BRING UP? HEARING NONE. THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. I

[Items X.1 - X.3]

[00:15:01]

NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. WE'LL HEAR NO MORE QUESTIONS. I DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR THIS, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT. HEARING NONE, I WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A MOTION. MR. BENEFIELD. WELL, I WOULD YOU MIND IF I. OH, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION, THEN WE TALK ABOUT IT. NO, SORRY. YEAH, LET'S WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. LET'S OPEN UP DISCUSSION. SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS HOUSE. THEY WENT THROUGH THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS, THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS PROCESS, BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF TOO LOW, THEY EVENTUALLY HAD TO RAISE THE ENTIRE HOUSE TO GET OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS PARTICULAR HOMEOWNER HAS NOT HAD THE RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR BUILDING A HOUSE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THIS PROCESS, THE POOL BEGAN TO HAVE CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS MORE THAN JUST AN EASEMENT RELEASE. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE A BUILDER DISREGARDED OUR ORDINANCES, DISREGARDED OUR RULES WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR NOT, AND BUILT A POOL OUTSIDE OF THE BUILD LINE. AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ABOUT THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT WALL IS INSUFFICIENT. IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL. AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAVE TO BUILD ANOTHER WALL BEHIND THAT WALL TO MAKE IT STRUCTURAL, WHICH MEANS THERE'S GOING TO BE A RETAINING WALL PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT THE POOL IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND. AND SO, YES, THIS WAS PUT ON THE COUNCIL PACKET AS A EASEMENT RELEASE. THE REALITY IS WHAT THIS IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO GRANT AN EASEMENT RELEASE, BECAUSE A BUILDER DISREGARDED OUR RULES, BUILT A SWIMMING POOL OVER THE EASEMENT WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND NOW THEY NEED TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL TO STRUCTURALLY SUPPORT THE SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY LINE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS. AND IS THAT ALL FAIR TO SAY? SO IT IS FAIR TO SAY ABSOLUTELY. THE WHEN THE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED, EVERYTHING WAS WITHIN THEIR SETBACKS AND THEIR EASEMENTS.

EVERYTHING WAS WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN THEY ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED AND STARTED DOING THE DIGGING AND POURING, THEY WERE OFF. WHEN THEY DID IT. IT WAS NOT CAUGHT AT THE TIME. IT WAS FLAGGED BY ANOTHER INSPECTOR DURING FIELD INVESTIGATION. AND SO THAT'S HE'S EXACTLY CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS POINT. THE PLAN SAID ONE THING THEY BUILT TO ANOTHER, AND NOW IT'S EITHER WE ISSUE THE RELEASE AND ALLOW THEM TO PROCEED, OR WE HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY TO MITIGATE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. AND I ASKED THE HOMEOWNER, I SAID, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T GET THIS EASEMENT RELEASED? AND THE ANSWER WAS, IT'S A TEAR OUT. I MEAN, THE POOL GETS REMOVED, RIGHT? NO DIFFERENTLY THAN WHEN THEIR HOUSE WAS BUILT A FOOT AND A HALF TOO LOW. AND IT WAS EITHER YOU TEAR IT DOWN OR YOU LIFT YOUR HOUSE UP. AND THEY WENT THROUGH THAT EXTRAORDINARY, TERRIBLE PROCESS OF HAVING TO DO THAT. AND SO. I THINK THE ANSWER TODAY HAS TO BE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW SOME LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO STOP GIVING SUCH EASY WAY OUTS FOR PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE RULES WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF OUR ORDINANCES. I SAY THAT ON ONE HAND AND ON THE OTHER, I'M INCREDIBLY EMPATHETIC TO THESE POOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WRUNG THROUGH THE WRINGER JUST TRYING TO BUILD THEIR DREAM HOUSE. AND SO IT'S LIKE, DO WE SET THIS? DO WE STOP ALLOWING PEOPLE TO

[00:20:01]

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ULTIMATELY THE HOMEOWNER'S PROBLEM. I MEAN, IT'S THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT, BUT IT REALLY IS THE DEVELOPER AND THE BUILDER'S FAULT AT THIS POINT.

AND IT PUTS EVERYBODY IN A BAD POSITION. IT PUTS A BAD TASTE IN MY MOUTH. IT PUTS A BAD TASTE IN THE NEIGHBORING NEIGHBOR'S MOUTH. I MEAN, THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A FULL RIP OUT. AND THEN MORE CONSTRUCTION AND MORE TRUCKS DOWN THAT SAME STREET IN THAT DRIVEWAY, MONTH TO MONTH AND MONTH OVER MONTH. SO I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND GRANT THIS EASEMENT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO START KEEPING A TALLY ON THESE THESE DEVELOPERS AND POOL BUILDERS FOR SURE. THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. SO WE DO HAVE A CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION LIST THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR A WHILE. IS THIS CONTRACTOR THAT BUILT THIS HOME ON THE LIST? YES THEY ARE AND HAVE WE HAS CITY TAKEN ANY ACTION REGARDING THEIR.

CONTINUED PRESENCE ON THE LIST. SO THERE IS A CAVEAT IN OUR CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT SAYS AFTER THREE MAJOR VIOLATIONS, WE ARE ALLOWED TO KICK THEM OUT OF THE CITY AND THEY CAN SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR TO HAVE IT DENIED OR OVERTURNED. THE PROBLEM IS, OUR CODE DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT A MAJOR VIOLATION IS TO THE EXTENT IN WHICH, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE STAFF ESSENTIALLY KICKING THEM OUT AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HAD YOUR THREE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO COME BACK. AND THERE'S NOT. HISTORICALLY, ESPECIALLY COMING IN ONLY FIVE MONTHS AGO, DOCUMENTATION AND PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT BEEN THE BEST. AND WITH THAT CAVEAT THAT IT'S NOT CLEARLY DEFINED MOVING FORWARD, THERE'S THERE'S A POSITION RIGHT NOW WHERE IT'S WE'RE GETTING PEOPLE AND FLAGGING THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED. BUT UNTIL WE HAVE A DEFINITION AS TO WHAT THAT MAJOR VIOLATION ACTUALLY IS, BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I CONSIDER IT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. IF YOU HAVE YOUR JOBSITES NOT CLEAN, IF YOU'RE PUTTING PEOPLE IN DANGER, WHETHER IT'S THE NEIGHBORS, THE RESIDENT, THE HOMEOWNER, THOSE ARE MAJOR TO ME. BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY CONSIDER WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT TO BE MAJOR. AND SO THERE'S SOME. SOME CAVEATS THERE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FIGURED OUT AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE PROCESSES.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO KICK CONTRACTORS OUT. YEAH. I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE CLEARLY THE NOT BUILDING TO THE PLAN, BUILDING THINGS THAT ARE NOT AT THE ELEVATION THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE, NOT IN THE LOCATION THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE. THAT TO ME TRIVIALLY SEEMS MAJOR. BUT I GET YOUR POINT THAT UNTIL IT'S WRITTEN DOWN, IT'S MAYBE NOT QUITE AS UNAMBIGUOUS, BUT THAT. ANYWAY, THAT SO SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED SOME CLEANUP ALONG THAT FRONT.

BUT THAT IS, IN THEORY, THE PATH TO KEEP BUILDERS FROM DOING THIS KIND OF THING. WE JUST SAY, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO WORK IN THE CITY. TAKE IT. AND BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE REST OF COUNCIL WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THIS, THE PROCESS IS THEY GO BEFORE THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE, AS I RECALL, THEY GO BEFORE THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND SAY, OKAY, WE GOT KICKED OFF THE LIST, BUT WE THINK YOU SHOULD OVERTURN IT AND LET US GET BACK ON THE LIST. AND HERE'S WHY. AND, YOU KNOW, HAT IN HAND, WHATEVER IT IS.

BUT IT BECOMES A CITIZEN COMMISSION DECISION TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE CONVINCED THAT YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET BACK ON THE LIST. IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE GUYS SHOULDN'T BE ON THE LIST, AND WE NEED TO GET THAT FIGURED OUT. WELL, AND I DO BELIEVE THE SAME CONTRACTOR

[00:25:02]

I MEAN, FIRST IT WAS THE, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POOL. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS BUILDER HAS CAUSED ISSUES ACROSS THE CITY. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHY WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLETE DEFINITION OF JUST ABHORRENT, YOU KNOW, DISREGARD FOR OUR ORDINANCES TO BE TAKEN OFF THE LIST HERE. I MEAN, TO ME, THAT SEEMS VERY CUT AND DRY. THAT'S THAT'S ALL I WANT TO VOCALIZE.

BRAD, DID YOU HAVE I JUST, YOU KNOW, THE AGENDA ITEM, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, IS THE EASEMENT RELEASE. I KNOW THAT THIS IS RELATED TO THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO MUCH FURTHER DOWN THAT ROAD OR DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR BUILDER FURTHER IF WE CAN, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT AGENDA UNDER THIS ITEM. MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ 10.3 3405 BOONE INTO THE SAME DISCUSSION? YEAH, THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO. RIGHT? YEAH. I'M SURE. YES. IF I COULD READ THE NEXT TWO ITEMS IN THERE ALSO EASEMENTS. OH YES, SIR. YEAH, YEAH. I'M SORRY. YES, YES.

OKAY. ANY CONSENSUS THERE. YEP. ALL RIGHT. I'LL ALSO READ IN ITEM NUMBER TWO CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 2196 VACATION OF EASEMENT APPLICATION FOR 21301 PIONEER COVE. AND THEN CONSIDERATION ON ITEM THREE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 2197. VACATION EASEMENT APPLICATION FOR 3505 BOONE DRIVE. AND I THINK I HAD A CITIZEN WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE FIRST ITEM. SO I WILL GO TO MR. ROBERTS. THANK YOU. MAYOR, COUNCIL STAFF I ALTERED THE CONTRACTOR LICENSING AND REGISTRATION ORDINANCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF ENSURING THAT WHEN WE HAVE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE NON-COMPLIANT WITH OUR ORDINANCES, WE HAVE A MEANS OF PROTECTING CITIZENS FROM BAD CONTRACTORS SO THAT AFTER REPEATED INSTANCES OF VIOLATIONS OF OUR ORDINANCES, THEY COULD BE HAVE THEIR REGISTRATION PULLED SO THEY COULD NO LONGER DO BUSINESS HERE AND AGGRIEVE OUR CITIZENRY.

AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I'M HEARING FROM THE DAIS RIGHT NOW. THE ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS I DON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME AT THE MOMENT, BUT AS I RECALL, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL CAVEAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO PULL SOMEBODY REGISTRATION.

IT WAS SIMPLY IF THEY VIOLATE OUR ORDINANCES THREE TIMES, THAT'S IT DOESN'T MATTER THE DEGREE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU VIOLATE IT THREE TIMES AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR.

THE ORDINANCE CAN THEY CAN THEN THE DIRECTOR CAN THEN PULL THE REGISTRATION. IF THE IF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY DOESN'T LIKE THAT ACTION BY BY OUR SHERIFF, THE DIRECTOR, THEN THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THAT'S THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM TEN TWO AND TEN THREE? HEARING NOW I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. MY QUESTION IS TO BRAD'S POINT. I KNOW THERE ARE LIMITED ON WHAT THIS SAYS, BUT CAN IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION, CAN THERE BE A REQUEST THAT A REVIEW OF THIS SPECIFIC BUILDER OCCUR, OR CAN THERE BE SOME SORT OF DIRECTION GIVEN TO RECTIFY WHAT'S GOING ON? I THINK STAFF PROBABLY UNDERSTANDS THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE FORMAL ACTION FOR THAT ONE. THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND I'M. WHAT I WILL DO IS PROVIDE A I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN INVOKED SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, SO I'VE NOT REALLY DUG INTO IT. I WILL REVIEW THAT AND PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH A MEMO

[00:30:04]

THE THERE'S A THERE'S A CODE ON THOSE ON THOSE SURVEYS THAT SHOW THAT THOSE LOTS HAD BEEN CONSOLIDATED. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO FLAG. SO IT WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. IT GOT APPROVED, POOL GOT BUILT. AND NOW HERE WE ARE AGAIN IN A SITUATION THAT WE EITHER SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS LOT CONSOLIDATION TO OCCUR, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VIOLATION OF THAT SWIMMING POOL BECAUSE THEY MISLED THE CITY. OR WE HAVE WE'RE FORCED TO COMPLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITIZEN. RIGHT. AND WHAT I'M FEELING IS, IS THERE'S JUST THIS COMPLETE LACK OF DISREGARD FOR OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, OUR. LIKE WHEN WHEN SOMEBODY IS WILLING TO DO THIS, IT MEANS THEY DON'T RESPECT YOU. RIGHT? AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH? SO I AM INCREDIBLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE HOMEOWNERS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE RIGHT NOW. MAYBE I WON'T. JUST KIDDING. THAT'S A JOKE. BUT IT YOU KNOW,

[00:35:04]

AND SO YOU CAN SEE WHO DID WHAT WHEN YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING FROM COMMENTS TO WHEN INSPECTIONS WERE I MEAN, IT'S ALL THERE. SO WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AS WELL. MOTION TO TABLE IS AN OPTION. MR. PRINCE. JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. SO THE THE ITEM TWO AND ITEM THREE ARE BOTH LOT CONSOLIDATIONS. RIGHT. WHERE THE EASEMENT IS THE AREA BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS OWNED BY THE SAME, THE SAME PERSON. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS NOT A LOT CONSOLIDATION. IT'S THE POOL IS BUILT INTO THE EASEMENT IS THE POOL IS THE IS THE POOL IN QUESTION HERE ON ITEM 10.1? IS IT BUILT IN APPROPRIATE LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. I AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE PLANS AND I CAN GO GET DUANE AS WELL, BUT I BELIEVE THE POOL IS ENCROACHING INTO THE EASEMENT. BUT THE SETBACK IS WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO PUT IN THE ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALLS FOR SUPPORT ON THE THE POOL, BUT EVERYTHING WAS BUILT FIVE FEET OFF OF WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE STARTED WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY OUT IN THE FIELD DOING IT. SO NOT ONLY NOT ONLY IF THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS CORRECT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THAT.

BUT IF YOU WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS CORRECT, NOT ONLY DO THEY NEED A VACATING OF THE EASEMENT OR APPROVAL TO TO BUILD WITHIN THE EASEMENT, BUT THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS NOT YET IN PLACE BUT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE PUT IN PLACE. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO VERIFY. BUT IF, COUNSELOR, I MEAN, IF IF THE IF THE IF WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IS THE CASE HERE. YES. IF THAT IF THAT NEW RETAINING WALL IS BUILT IN THE SETBACK OR PROPOSED TO BE BUILT IN THE SETBACK, THEN THE RELEASE OF THE EASEMENT IS ONLY STEP ONE. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME GET A VARIANCE TO TO TO TO BUILD THAT. SO. PERHAPS TABLING PERHAPS TABLING THE EASEMENT RELEASE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION

[00:40:02]

WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO GET THAT? AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IT IS NOT A SELF-INDUCED HARDSHIP AND IT IS NOT PURELY FINANCIAL? THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER CRITERIA, BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT I THINK ARE THE MOST RELEVANT FOR THIS ONE. SO I YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO PREJUDGE THIS AND I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHETHER THEY DO OR DO NOT QUALIFY. BUT THOSE TWO CRITERIA ARE ARE CLEARLY LAID OUT. AND MAYOR, MR. PRINCE, THAT DECISION IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION. IT'S NOT A COUNCIL. THAT IS CORRECT. RIGHT.

SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT. I YOU KNOW, WE COULD POTENTIALLY SIT UP HERE AND SAY HOW WE WOULD WE WOULD VOTE ON IT. I KNOW IN MY MIND HOW I WOULD VOTE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD COME DOWN WITH THAT, THAT DECISION. SO I THINK SINCE THIS IS A SEPARATE THAT IS A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THE VOA.

THE MY RECOMMENDATION, I MEAN, YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE AT LEAST TO TABLE THIS. AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT PROCESS REQUIRES ITS OWN APPLICATION AND SO FORTH. AND PERHAPS THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I'M NOT I'M HEARING ALL OF THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS, BUT BUT AT A MINIMUM, I MEAN, YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT AT A MINIMUM, THERE'S ANOTHER PROCESS THAT THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH. AND SO I ALWAYS LIKE THE CITY TO RETAIN ITS EASEMENTS. YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU DETERMINE YOU REALLY JUST DON'T WANT IT ANYMORE. BUT BUT AGAIN, THAT'S YOUR DECISION. YEAH. I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF TABLING IT, BUT NOT NOT WITH THE INTENT OF BRINGING IT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN IF THERE'S AN ACTION WE NEED TO TAKE THAT IS NEITHER DENYING NOR SAYING WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE TABLING TO ME IMPLIES IT'S GOING TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US. BUT, BUT, BUT TO ME, YOU COULD TABLE IT REDACTION. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BRAD, IS THAT THAT WE DON'T MAKE A DECISION AND WE MAKE IT CLEAR WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION UNLESS THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO PURSUE A VARIANCE AND THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL.

YEAH. SO MY MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TO TABLE IT PENDING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE VOA AND THE VOA GRANTING IT. AND IF THAT NEVER HAPPENS, IT NEVER COMES BACK. I ALSO HAVE OUR INSPECTOR HERE WHO IS MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT THAN I AM. HE'S BEEN OUT ON SITE, ON FIELD. HE'S DONE MEASUREMENTS. SO IF THERE'S SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SITE WISE, HE'S HERE TO WELL, WE JUST HAD THAT DISCUSSION. SO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IS IS THE POOL THAT'S ALREADY BUILT IN THE SETBACK VIOLATING SETBACK. OR WILL THE WALL THAT HAS TO BE BUILT OUTSIDE THE POOL BE IN THE IN THE VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK? THE EDGE OF THE POOL DECKING IS IN THE IS WITHIN FIVE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE CURRENT BUTTER BLOCK WALL RETAINING WALL. THAT'S NOT BUILT TO CODE EITHER. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO BUILD. THE NEXT ONE IS CURRENTLY IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, IN DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AND IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. AND ALSO IN THE SETBACK. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR SETBACK IS? THEIR SETBACK IS 15FT OKAY. SO. THEY'RE TEN FEET INTO THEIR SETBACK. IF THEY'RE FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE THEY'RE TEN FEET INTO THEIR SETBACK ALREADY. OKAY, MISS CHAVARRIA OKAY. SO I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY END THIS ALL TONIGHT AND NOT EVEN HAVE TO SEND IT FOR VARIANCE BY JUST BY JUST DENYING THE EASEMENT. EVEN IF WE EVEN IF THEY APPROVE A VARIANCE. I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS. THAT'S MY OPINION. BUT ALSO WE COULD STOP IT IF WE IF WE VOTE NOT TO APPROVE THIS EASEMENT, THERE'S NO POINT OF THEM ACTUALLY GOING TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO, YOU KNOW, WORK ON THIS NEW RETAINING WALL. THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW,

[00:45:04]

SINCE EVERYONE HAS BEEN DISCUSSING MR. BENEFIELD, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE SWIMMING POOL. CAN YOU JUST SAY TO ME ONE MORE TIME HOW? LIKE HOW MUCH? THE SWIMMING POOL ITSELF, NOT THE WALL, BUT THE ACTUAL SWIMMING POOL IS IN THAT 15 FOOT EASEMENT OR IN THAT 15 FOOT BUILD LINE? THE WHOLE THE WHOLE POOL. THE ENTIRE POOL IS IN THE 15 FOOT. WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE IS FIVE FOOT FROM THE HOUSE. INSTEAD, THEY PUT IT FIVE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M SORRY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. DO HAS A VARIANCE BEEN APPLIED FOR? HAS THAT EVEN COME UP IN CONVERSATIONS IN THIS? NO, MA'AM. I THINK THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THEY WOULD GET THE EASEMENT RELEASED AND BE CLEARED. THANK YOU. THIS IS WHAT MY MOTION IS THAT NO, IT'S NOT MOTION. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE TABLE IT AND GIVE THIS FAMILY AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME SAY THEIR PIECE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD IT FROM OUR INSPECTOR. YOU'VE HEARD IT FROM ME. YOU'VE HEARD IT FROM OTHERS.

BUT MAYBE. MAYBE THERE CRY BECAUSE IT IS A VERY SAD STORY. MIGHT SWAY THE COUNCIL. I WOULD RATHER GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THEIR PIECE RATHER THAN US VOTE JUST YES OR NO TODAY. UNLESS. UNLESS WE WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND SENDING IT OFF TO THE BOA, WHICH I'D BE FINE WITH AS WELL. IT HAS TO GO TO THE BOA REGARDLESS. WELL, IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE, IF WE DENY THE EASEMENT TONIGHT, THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO GO TO THE BOA. WELL, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE THE EASEMENT QUESTION COULD COME BACK AT A FUTURE, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, IT COULD COME BACK, BUT MY, MY, I MEAN, IF WE NEED TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, I'LL ASK YOU TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU TABLE THIS ITEM, SO WE HAVE SOME TIME TO PUT SOME LEGAL REVIEW INTO IT, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO. AND BEFORE THE COUNCIL MAKES ANY KIND OF FORMAL DECISION TONIGHT, MY REQUEST WOULD BE TO TABLE IT. AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHY IF YOU WANT ME TO, BUT WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MR. HALL, I'M READY TO MAKE A I'M READY TO HEAR ONE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26, 21, 95. AND TO CLARIFY FOR THE TABLING SO THAT IT'S NOT UNDER THE TABLE FOREVER. DO YOU WANT TO YOU WANT THE MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL THEY'VE MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE BOA FOR A VARIANCE. AND THE BOA GRANTS IT. YES. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. HALL TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER 20 6-2195 RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 2195. UNTIL THEY APPLY TO THE BOA AND IT'S APPROVED. DO I HAVE A SECOND MAYOR? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE SECONDING. SURE. GIVEN THAT YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT MOTION, THEN YOU'RE NODDING. THEN I WILL SECOND THAT. NO, I I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION BECAUSE THAT WILL BUY US TIME TO DO SOME APPROPRIATE REVIEW AND FOR ME TO REPORT BACK TO YOU. OKAY. THEN I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. HALL. I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. PRINCE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. MR. AVERY IS AN AYE. IT'S APPROVED 6 TO 1. AND I STILL HAVE ITEMS TEN TWO AND TEN THREE. OPEN AND READY FOR MOTIONS. MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYFIELD, I APPROVE. I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 2196. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION, MR. BENEFIELD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 2196. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT, NOTING THAT THAT EQUATES TO ITEM 10.2 ON OUR AGENDA. OKAY. I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. PRINCE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. AND NOW THE ONLY ONE THAT'S OPEN IS 10.3. MAYOR, I WILL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE A RESOLUTION. DASH 26 2197. VACATION OF EASEMENT APPLICATION FOR 3405 BOONE.

ITEM 10.3 ON OUR AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PRINCE TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION,

[00:50:01]

I HAVE A MOTION. MR. BENEFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND HAVE A SECOND FOR MISS MANNIS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY TO TABLE THAT. AND THEN I WILL MOVE DOWN TO WORK.

[X.4. Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution No. 26-2198, a resolution demonstrating City Council support for Fiscal Year 2027 Community Project Funding.]

BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS DID NOT GIVE DIRECTION ON COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING UNTIL LAST WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, AND THE FIRST DEADLINES TO START GETTING THESE APPLICATIONS IN ARE ON MARCH 13TH. AND THEN SOME SUBCOMMITTEES ARE MARCH 20TH.

THIS IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED AT THE END OF 2024. THAT LED TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION, WHERE WE GOT $750,000 THROUGH CONGRESSMAN MCCALL'S OFFICE FOR OUR WASTEWATER. THIS IS JUST A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2027. APPLICATION JUST HAS TO SEE A RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL AND SUPPORT NEEDS TO SEE COMMUNITY SUPPORT, WHICH I'VE ALREADY REACHED OUT TO REPRESENTATIVE TROXCLAIR, SENATOR CAMPBELL AND COMMISSIONER SHAY'S OFFICE TO GET AS WELL AS OUR LOCAL CHAMBER AND OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. I HAVE ABOUT 2530 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS RIGHT NOW, WAITING ON OUR REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE WORKING ON THEIRS AS WELL. THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE DISCUSSION BOARD HAD SOME ENHANCEMENTS TO IT. THOSE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AND YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT IN THE HARD COPY THAT'S UP HERE. BUT ALSO FOR THE CITIZENS. YOU CAN SEE THOSE ADDITIONS ON THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. SO I SEND IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. I DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR THIS UNLESS ANYBODY WANTS TO. OKAY.

MISTER BENNEFIELD, GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. YEAH, MISS. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A NO BRAINER FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I APPRECIATE THE ENHANCEMENTS MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN MADE TO IT.

MAKE IT A STRONGER DOCUMENT. SO I'M ALL IN FAVOR. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26, 2198. I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND, MR. HALL? SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. NOW

[XI.1. Discussion and direction on proposed sequencing of the street resurfacing and drainage planning for future phases.]

I'LL HAND IT TO CHARLES UNTIL VICTOR COMES IN. I'M GONNA LET VICTOR HANDLE THAT. I BELIEVE HE SHOULD BE COMING DOWN THE HALL. THERE HE IS. HELLO AND GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

TONIGHT'S COUNCIL ITEM IS TO DISCUSS THE NEXT PHASE OF STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM AND HOW IT WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THE UPCOMING DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT OR DRAINAGE STUDY.

PHASES ONE AND TWO. OF THE 2024 2026 PROGRAM HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, EXCEPT FOR STRIPING.

AS STAFF BEGINS TO EVALUATE THE NEXT. SORRY, I LOST MY SPOT. YEAH. STAFF BEGINS TO EVALUATE

[00:55:08]

MR. PRINCE, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE OR MAYBE THREE THINGS. SO ONE IS MORE OF A PHILOSOPHICAL I THINK THAT IF A ROAD HAS NO UTILITIES LAID AND THERE'S NO HOMES BUILT ON THAT ROAD, THEN WE SHOULDN'T SPEND MONEY REPAVING THE ROAD. I'M I'M FINE WITH THAT. IF IF A ROAD ALREADY HAS UTILITIES LAID, THEN IT SEEMS LOGICAL TO ME TO MAKE SURE THE ROAD IS IN GOOD ENOUGH SHAPE THAT HOMES CAN BE BUILT THERE, BECAUSE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IS REALLY THE BARRIER TO TO THAT, THAT DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. SO IF UTILITY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OF THOSE. RIGHT. IF THERE'S ANY CASES WHERE THERE'S EXISTING UTILITY WATER SEWER LINES AND THE ROAD IS HAS NOT YET BEEN REPAVED, BUT NO HOMES ON THAT ROAD, I CAN THINK OF ONE RIGHT NOW. DAWN DRIVE RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT OKAY, OKAY. SO IT'S I CAN'T SAY THAT FOR A FACT WITHOUT REEVALUATING ALL THE ROADS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE LAST 6 OR 7 YEARS OF BEING REPAVED. YEAH. OR WITHIN OR OUT OF THAT 2024, 2026 REHAB PROGRAM. YEAH. YEAH.

OKAY. SO ANYWAY, TO ME THAT THE TEMPLATE SHOULD BE IF WE HAVE WATER, SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE STATE OF THE ROAD A BIG BARRIER FOR HOMES BEING BUILT ON THAT. SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE. AND THEN. PROBABLY I'M ON THE FENCE OF AND THERE MAY BE A SMALL NUMBER OF CASES LIKE THIS WHERE WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT THERE, BUT ONE OR MORE HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT ON THAT ROAD. AND THE ACCESS TO THOSE HOMES IS TERRIBLE. AND I THINK THAT I KIND OF COME DOWN ON WE SHOULD IF WE HAVE EXISTING CITIZENS THAT ARE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR HOMES AND THEY DECIDED TO TO DO THEIR OWN WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES TO BUILD ON THERE, I THINK WE SHOULD FIX THE ROAD FOR THEM. SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE THAT'S I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'VE GOT IT IN YOUR PLAN, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD COME DOWN. I'D BE INTERESTED IN OTHERS FEEDBACK AND THEN TWO SPECIFIC INSTANCES. I KNOW THE IT LOOKS LIKE THE THE THIS ROAD. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE ROAD. YOU'LL HELP ME WITH IT IN A MINUTE, BUT IT'S COLORED BLUE FOR PHASE THREE. BUT IT'S THE ROAD TO THE TURN BACK CANYON TRAIL OFF OF BARQUET. DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAME OF THAT ROAD OFF THE TOP OF THE HILL COVE? FOOTHILL COVE? YEAH. I DO THINK WE SHOULD GET FOOTHILL COVE INTO A STATE WHERE IT'S REASONABLE FOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE OUT THERE AND HIKE THE TURN BACK CANYON TRAIL. AND RIGHT NOW, FOOTHILL COVE HAS A SECTION WHERE IT'S KIND OF THE HIGH AND LOW AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE A SPLIT ROAD,

[01:00:02]

IT'S NOT JUST ONE CONTROLS THE OTHER. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A REALLY BAD CONDITION, ROAD AND HIGH SERVICEABILITY. BUT IF IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A NUMBERS GAME AT THE END OF THE DAY AND IT. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS WHERE I'M COMING DOWN IS I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM A SIMPLE WEIGHTING PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME ROADS WHERE ONLY ONE FACTOR IS LIKE, YES, THIS IS THE CONDITION IS AWFUL. AND AND IN MY MIND, IF THE CONDITION IS AWFUL AND THERE ARE HOMES BUILT ON THAT ROAD, WE SHOULD FIX IT JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT A ROAD HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA IN ORDER FOR US TO TO DO THE JOB.

AND WHEN WE DID THE THE CO BOND, WE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE $12 MILLION TO TO FIX OUR ROADS. AND MANY OF THESE ROADS. I KNOW THERE ARE ROADS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND THEY DRIVE THROUGH HORRENDOUS POTHOLES TO GET TO THEIR HOUSE. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S I THINK IT'S IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO, TO FIX THESE KIND OF CORNER CASE CONDITIONS. I DON'T WANT TO THROW MONEY, GOOD MONEY AT SOMETHING STUPID, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK WE SHOULDN'T JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO WATER, SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SHOULD SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY OF THOSE ROADS, CHARLES. I WILL SAY COUNCILOR PRINCE ON AUSTIN BOULEVARD.

IT'S NOT ON THE LIST. BUT I DID REACH OUT TO ERNEST AND JAMES TODAY TO HAVE OUR CITY CREWS DO THAT AND NOT PART OF THE CIP PROGRAM, BUT AS JUST REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. THANK YOU.

AND THAT MAY BE THE RIGHT ANSWER. WHAT I'M WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT THERE MAY BE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE SIX CASES OR 25 CASES, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CORNER CASE CONDITIONS WHERE WHERE I WOULD I WOULD APPRECIATE STAFF JUST SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T MEET THE RULES. AND SO WE'RE THROWING IT OUT. I WOULD PREFER TO ON THE SIDE OF DOING THINGS THAT MAYBE ARE CORNER CASE AND TAKING CARE OF THAT SITUATION FOR, FOR CITIZENS RATHER THAN THROWING THEM OUT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO TO SAVE MONEY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT THE VENDOR COMING OUT TO DO A LOT OF WORK. IT'S ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR DEPLOYMENT COSTS AND GET AS MUCH DONE AS, AS REASONABLE WHEN THEY'RE OUT HERE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO MAYBE ADD A QUALITATIVE OVERLAY TO THE RUBRIC THAT YOU GUYS ARE USING. AND IF YOU HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, I GUESS MAYBE SOME OF THEM CAME THROUGH THE SURVEY. BUT IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, MAYBE WE COULD PROVIDE THOSE IN, GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ANALYZE IT AND SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE. BUT YEAH, I KIND OF AGREE. SOME OF THESE. IT'S TAKEN SUCH A LONG TIME. SO I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A LONG, LONG TIME FOR THEIR ROADS TO BE IMPROVED. SO IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO THINK QUALITATIVELY ABOUT A FEW OF THESE EXAMPLES THAT ARE PRETTY EGREGIOUS. THE OVERALL GOAL IS KIND OF JUST TO DISCUSS SEQUENCING OF IT, NOT TO KIND OF DIG INTO THE MATRIX, AND AT A LATER TIME, I WILL BE PRESENTING THE MATRIX TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. BEFORE WE EVEN BEGIN ANY KIND OF PHASING OR ANY STREET RESURFACING, ANY TYPE. MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU, MAYOR AND VICTOR, AT THAT TIME, OR ACTUALLY, THIS IS A QUESTION IN TERMS OF OUR OBLIGATION.

THIS GOES BACK TO SOME OF THOSE STREETS THAT DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ON IT. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT EVEN IF THERE'S NOT A HOME, THEY ARE TAXPAYERS IN REGARD TO THEIR LAND. AND SO ANYONE TRYING TO GET TO THEIR LOT, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY IN THE CASE OF TRYING TO FIREWISE IT AND SUCH, WHAT IS OUR OBLIGATION IN REGARD TO MAINTAINING ALL STREETS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION? SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, YOU KNOW,

[01:05:04]

I'LL MOVE ON TO 1102. MAYOR, CAN I JUST ASK, DO YOU FEEL LIKE VICTOR, THAT YOU GOT YOU GOT A CONSENSUS DIRECTION? OR ARE YOU STILL UNSURE IF YOU GUYS ARE OKAY WITH ATTACHMENT TWO, THEN YES, I BELIEVE I DO HAVE ENOUGH. IT'S JUST MORE OF FOCUSING ON THE DRAINAGE STUDY PLAN IN THE MEDIATION TIME OF RIGHT NOW. WE'LL ALSO BE WORKING ON THE PHASE THREE ROADS AND GETTING THEM DRIVABLE AND GETTING THEM ALL CLEARED. AND THEN THAT CONTRACT WILL COME TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, EITHER BY SUBMITTING AN RFQ FOR A PRICE PER LINEAR FOOT OF TRIMMING, OR BULK IT UP ALL AT ONCE AND GO OUT EITHER IT'S KIND OF ALL BY ONES OR IN PHASE.

I GUESS THAT'S THE ONLY DIRECTION I WOULD NEED. DO WE WANT TO CAP AN X AMOUNT OF

[01:10:05]

IT'S ALL EVERYTHING THAT I'M IN HERE IS THE BOND. MONEY CAN BE USED FOR IT. AND THE CIP CAP OR THE BUDGET THAT'S IN THE CIP, I'M NOT EXPECTING I'M NOT GOING TO GO PAST THAT WHATSOEVER THIS YEAR. CHARLES, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE GET RFQ FOR PER LINEAR FOOT, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST US, AND THEN Y'ALL CAN COME BACK AND MAKE A DECISION OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO DO X NUMBER OF FEET THIS YEAR AND LET THEM DO IT. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I SEE HEADS NODDING. YEAH. AND THEN AT THAT TIME NOT ONLY WOULD WE BE DECIDING ON HOW MANY, HOW MUCH, WHAT THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT IS, BUT WE WOULD ALSO PRESUMABLY BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT STREETS DON'T GET DONE WITHIN THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. I THINK THERE WAS ONE MORE, BUT NOW I'M BLANKING ON IT. OH PHASES ONE AND TWO. THE PAVING HAS ALL BEEN COMPLETED, BUT THE STREET OR THE RESTRIPING OF CERTAIN ROADS NEED TO BE EVALUATED AND DONE. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ROADS THAT WERE DONE IN THE LAST THREE PHASES, THEY HAVE NO STRIPING EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE. BAQUET BUT THE NEXT PORTION OF THAT WAS GOING BACK AND PUTTING, NOT BLANKET STRIPING, EVERY SINGLE ROAD WITH EVERY, YOU KNOW, WHITE, YELLOW STRIPING, JUST MORE OF WHERE WE HAVE THE SAFETY CONCERNS AND WHERE IT'S NEEDED AT NIGHTTIME. AND THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT THING THAT WOULD COME TO COUNCIL AS WELL. SIMULTANEOUSLY OF THE OTHERS.

[XI.2. Discussion regarding the Interlocal Wholesale Wastewater Agreement with the City of Jonestown.]

DO YOU WANT TO GO FOR IT? WE CAN BOTH GO. AND WE KNOW AS MUCH HISTORY AS YOU DO.

QUESTIONS? THERE IS. I MEAN, WHAT WE HAVE IS STILL PENDING. JONESTOWN HAS SENT US SOMETHING.

THEY'RE EXPECTING US TO HAVE SOME SORT OF RESPONSE. WE'VE KICKED IT AROUND A COUPLE MEETINGS. NOW. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE WANTING TO RESPOND WITH? THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE FOUND? IT STATES THAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR LESSER AMOUNT OF LUIS, AND IT WAS NEVER SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS NEVER SIGNED BY THEIR MAYOR, CORRECT? YEAH. THAT ONE. YEAH. SO YES, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE WE EVEN HAVE IT ON THE COUNCIL MEETING OR IN THE AGENDA PACKET THAT IT WAS SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME. PAUL ANDERSON. NO. BEFORE THAT, LIKE LAST YEAR, LIKE 2019 VERY RECENTLY OR 2024, THE. YEAH, I THINK IT WAS MAYOR OR TIDWELL, BUT IT WAS IT WAS A IT WAS A RECENT ONE. I HAVE THE EMAIL IF YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED IN THAT, BUT IT JUST TRIGGERED. OKAY. WELL, ONE THERE IS THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IT'S REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF LUIS FROM 4 TO 10 OR FROM 15 TO 14. YES. BUT THE ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT ONE WAS FOR FOR 15. BUT NOW IN ATTACHMENT TWO IT'S AT FOR TEN. BUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT WASN'T SIGNED I GUESS, OR I DON'T I'M NOT TOO SURE. THERE'S JUST INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE LUIS. YEAH. FROM, FROM WHAT I COULD UNDERSTAND IS IT GOT APPROVED BY THIS CITY COUNCIL OR NOT Y'ALL. EXACTLY. BUT CITY OF LAGO VISTA APPROVED THE AMENDMENT. IT WENT BACK TO JONESTOWN AND IT NEVER GOT EXECUTED. THEY TRIED TO FIND AN EXECUTED COPY. THEY COULDN'T.

SO THEY BROUGHT IT BACK TO US AS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO TRY TO GET IT ALL CLEANED UP. SO EVERYBODY HAS IT SIGNED. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT WENT FROM 415 TO 410. CORRECT. THE I

[01:15:09]

THE INTENT WAS THAT THEY PAY 150% OR A 50% PREMIUM ON THE AVERAGE CHARGE TO OUR CITIZENS.

DID I GET THAT RIGHT? ONE 2,020% 20% PREMIUM ON TOP OF WHAT OUR AVERAGE. OKAY, WHEREAS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT ACTUALLY WROTE IT WRONG AND SAID THEY WERE GOING TO PAY 20% OF THE AVERAGE, IT SHOULD BE 120% OF THE AVERAGE. SO I THINK THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT, THERE WAS ENOUGH CONFUSION. THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK, HAVE YOU ALL FOUND THE ACTUAL CONTRACT, NOT JUST THESE AMENDMENTS? DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE ACTUAL CONTRACT? YES.

OKAY. NO IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET. SO AND SO IF THAT'S ACCURATE THAT THE THE ACTUAL CONTRACT SAYS THEY'LL BE PAYING 120% OF THE AVERAGE OR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS, AS LONG AS IT EQUATES TO 120% OF THE AVERAGE, THEN I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THE CONTRACT. AND IT COMES DOWN TO CAN WE GO FROM 400 TO 410? AND YOU'VE BROUGHT NEW DATA TONIGHT THAT SAID, WELL, IN THE PAST, A PREVIOUS LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVED GOING FROM 400 TO 415. AND SO ARE YOU ALL WILLING TO GO FROM 400 TO 410? I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY, PRETTY EASY APPROVAL. IF EVERYTHING I SAID IS ACCURATE. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA IN FRONT OF US. I THINK ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK IS THE 100 AND OR THE 20% ABOVE OUR AVERAGE. IS THEIR AVERAGE WAY ABOVE WHAT IS THEIR ACTUAL USES, ABOVE WHAT OUR AVERAGE IS, WHICH I THINK IS THE PROBLEM. CORRECT? THERE IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM THE CONVERSATIONS I WAS HAVING IS WHAT WE'RE CHARGING THEM IS NOT WHAT SOMEBODY HERE WOULD BE PAYING. SO WE REALLY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE CHARGES ON THAT CONTRACT. BUT MR. MR. WEST, DO DO WE HAVE ANY DATA THAT SHOWS THAT WE'RE CHARGING THEM LESS THAN WE SHOULD BE? I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS IS METERED. SO LAST IS BASED OFF OF WATER USAGE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT. AND THAT THAT'S SO WE TAKE CARE OF THE WASTEWATER IN THAT AREA. AND IT'S FED BY JONESTOWN. JONESTOWN ACTUALLY I BELIEVE FROM WHAT I GATHER ON THE MEETING, JONESTOWN ACTUALLY PROVIDED THAT DATA TO THE CITY, AND THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED. OKAY.

WELL, OUR AVERAGE IS I THINK THEY SAID 3000 SOMETHING. AND THE AVERAGE USAGE OF THAT AREA WAS 6000. SO THAT'S ALMOST DOUBLE. SO UNLESS WE ARE CHARGING THEM 200% THEN NO, THEY'RE PAYING LESS FOR WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING. TAKING IN. YEAH. IT BECOMES COMPLICATED RIGHT. BECAUSE WE CHARGE OUR CITIZENS FOR WASTEWATER BASED ON THE USAGE DURING NON-INTENSIVE IRRIGATION TIMES OF YEAR. SO EVEN THOUGH OUR AVERAGE MAY BE 3000 GALLONS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS DURING THE, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR MONTHS. THAT'S OUR AVERAGING. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO GET OUT OF THIS CONUNDRUM, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, MR. WEST, THAT IF WE'RE UNDERCHARGING THEM, THEY'RE NOT CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA. WE SHOULDN'T BE GIVING THEM A GREAT DEAL. THEY SHOULD BE PAYING THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO JUST BE NICE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DEFINE WITH SOME DATA WHAT THAT APPROPRIATE AMOUNT IS. AND I THINK TO FIX THE ISSUE, IT'S JUST CHANGING THE VERBIAGE FROM THE AVERAGE OF LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS TO THE AVERAGE OF THE HOLLOW'S RESIDENTS. OR IF YOU WANT TO DESIGNATE IT TO A CERTAIN AREA, IT JUST SIMPLY PUTTING ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE IN THERE TO REMOVE USING THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA, BUT THE ACTUAL METERED. SO YES, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA IS WINTER AVERAGE IS

[01:20:02]

IT'S THEIR THERE ARE PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANY. BUT THAT WELL I YEAH I KNOW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT OUR CITIZENS WATER USAGE OR ANYTHING TO ANYBODY RIGHT NOW.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. BUT ON THE MACRO LEVEL, I MEAN, YOU ARE I MEAN, THE YOU KNOW, YOUR WINTER AVERAGING IS NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. SO BUT IF THERE'S IS.

I'M NOT I'D HAVE TO I'D HAVE TO ASK MY PARTNER WHO'S THE UTILITY GUY? I JUST DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF THAT I WOULD ASSUME. I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S STILL. SOME LEVEL OF PUBLIC INFORMATION, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW. I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A DEAL WHERE BEFORE WE AGREE TO DO ANY OR BEFORE YOU ALL AGREE, I THINK IT WOULD BE WHO THE CITY TO HAVE A MEETING WITH ART AND KIND OF DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH. AND BECAUSE IF YOU ASK THE QUESTION FOR JONESTOWN, THAT IS THEIR WINTER AVERAGE JONESTOWN AS A WHOLE OR THE HOLLOWS, BECAUSE THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT NUMBER AS WELL. WELL, SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS STILL HAVE MORE WORK TO DO TO FIGURE THIS OUT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GO TO ART AND I'LL, I'LL CHARLES, IF YOU'LL JUST REACH OUT AND WE'LL SET UP AN APPOINTMENT. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BIG THIS ELEPHANT IS. CAN YOU, NICOLE, DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD ABOUT WHAT? I MEAN? IF OUR WINTER AVERAGE IS 3400 GALLONS OR WHATEVER NUMBER DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR MIND? WHAT THE AVERAGE BILLING AMOUNT OF SEWER IS PER CITIZEN? LIKE 400 GALLONS? YEAH. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO THAT OR I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND $54. SO $54 TIMES 400 HOMES IS A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. RIGHT. AND SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE CHANGING THE PERCENTAGE ON TOP OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WENT FROM 120% TO 150%, IT'S IT'S MAYBE $60,000 THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARGUING HERE. SO I'D SAY THAT'S THE SIZE OF, YOU KNOW, ON A, ON A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR BUDGET, WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T SPEND A TON OF STAFF TIME OR IT'S REAL MONEY. SO LET'S GET IT RIGHT. BUT LET'S NOT SPEND A TON OF TIME ON IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT TALKING $1 MILLION HERE. YEAH I BELIEVE THE THEIR BILL IS LIKE 62 TO $65 PER PER HOUSE. AND RIGHT NOW THEY JUST TURNED IN ANOTHER ONE TO ME.

AND THEY ARE UP TO 221 CONNECTIONS. YEAH. OKAY. MISS CHAVARRIA, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I KNOW QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY LIVE OUT IN THE HOLLOWS, AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE THE MAJORITY OF JONESTOWN ON WATER USAGE. THEY USE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WATER OUT THERE. A LOT OF THEM HAVE POOLS AND HAVE MASSIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. SO I THINK IT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO, TO TO TO RESEARCH THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BECAUSE YES, IT MAY BE ONLY $60,000, BUT $60,000, $60,000. AND IF IT ONLY TAKES A CONVERSATION AND MAYBE JUST A VERBIAGE CHANGE OR A LANGUAGE CHANGE SAYING FROM LAGO VISTA TO SAY JUST THE HOLLOWS AND THEY'RE AMENABLE OR AGREEABLE TO THAT, I THINK IT'S WORTH THE EFFORT. MAYOR PRO TEM ERNESTO, DO YOU KNOW, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAVE HAD TO BE ADDED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE HOLLOWS, OTHER THAN THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS? NOTHING MAJOR, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IF IT'S A COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO JUST LOOK AT THE THIS CURRENT CONTRACT WITH LUIS OR THE WHOLE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF JONESTOWN. IF THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS

[01:25:06]

[XI.3. Discussion and update to the Development fee schedule.]

AND SO IN THAT CASE, TAXPAYERS ARE NOT SUBSIDIZING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.

THERE'S A FEW OTHER HIGHLIGHTS IN THERE. WE'VE KEPT IT AT PEER AVERAGE OR BELOW. WE HAVE NOT EXCEEDED PEER AVERAGE. AND PEER WAS NOT ONLY CENTRAL TEXAS, BUT CITIES ACROSS THE STATE THAT ARE OUR SIZE. BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT AUSTIN, WE'RE NOT GEORGETOWN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE THEIR RATES. SO WE DID LOOK OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA FOR CITIES THAT WERE CLOSER TO OUR SIZE TO FIND THAT MEDIAN, WHICH WE HAVE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY FEEDBACK FROM STAFF THAT ANYTHING IS OUTRAGEOUS. THERE WERE A COUPLE THAT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT AND WE'VE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. BUT AGAIN, IT'S ALL UP FOR DEBATE, SO WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS. MISS, NOTICE THERE'S A LOT OF NEW FEES IN HERE. YES I THINK YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU'RE BRINGING US UP TO THE STANDARD YOU SEE ACROSS OTHER CITIES WHERE THEY TYPICALLY CHARGE FOR THESE. SO THE PROBLEM IS AND PART OF THE REASON WE'RE SUBSIDIZING OR BEING SUBSIDIZED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A FEE LINE, STAFF WASN'T CHARGING TO DO THESE THINGS AND TO PROCESS THESE THINGS, OR THEY WERE GETTING CHARGED WRONG, WHETHER IT WAS

[01:30:02]

THE NEXT ONE. YEAH. I GUESS FOR ME. WHAT I JUST NEED TO SEE A LITTLE MORE DATA. SO THERE'S SO MANY NEW FEES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACTUAL DATA FROM YOU ALL AS TO HOW MANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'VE DONE THAT YOU SAY NOW THAT WE HAD TO SUBSIDIZE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE TOTALITY OF IT. AND THEN THERE'S A LOT OF LIKE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT'S THE BEST PROCESS. I'M GUESSING THE DISCUSSION BOARD, MAYBE. BUT YOU KNOW, LITTLE ITEMS LIKE THE MOBILE VENDOR FEE. I'M AWARE OF A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE THIS PAST YEAR THAT WENT INTO EFFECT. THERE'S SOME OTHER PROCESS THAT MOBILE FOOD VENDORS CAN GO THROUGH. I THINK THEY JUST GET THE HEALTH THE COUNTY HEALTH INSPECTION, AND THEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FREE TO DO AS THEY DO. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL EXTENT OF THAT, BUT JUST LITTLE ITEMS LIKE THAT, THAT I'M THERE'S JUST A LOT IN HERE. I NOTICED, LIKE MOST OF THE STR SECTION IS KIND OF UNTOUCHED, BUT MAYBE THAT REMINDS ME THAT WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION TO STILL GO ON WITH THEIR. I THINK CITIZENS WHO ACTUALLY WATCH LOOK AT THIS WILL SEE THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THE GOLF COURSE. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE FEE ON THERE THAT'S BEEN TOUCHED, AND THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS AS TO WHY NONE OF THOSE HAVE GONE UP. IF WE KNOW WE'RE IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE COURSE HERE VERY SHORTLY. ANIMAL CONTROL, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ANIMAL CONTROL ONES IN HERE. I KNOW THAT THE ANIMAL CONTROL IS A BIT UP IN THE AIR FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH THAT. THERE'S DISCUSSIONS OF OUTSOURCING IT.

SO JUST A LOT OF QUESTIONS I HAVE ON INDIVIDUAL ITEM. THAT'S A LOT OF LINE ITEMS TO THROW AT US THAT WILL TICK OFF VARIOUS POCKETS OF CITIZENS IN DIFFERENT WAYS. CHARLES. YEAH, ON THE GOLF, I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. GOLF IS GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN SET OF FEES BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE IN ITS OWN BUDGET. AND ALL THIS COMING YEAR AND HOPE, WELL, IT'S ALREADY HAS ITS OWN BUDGET AND ITS OWN FUND, BUT ANY FEES IN THERE, THOSE FEES NEED TO BE REFLECTIVE OF THAT BUDGET PROCESS. NOT IN THIS ONE. SO THAT'S WHY THAT ONE'S NOT TOUCHED YET. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF RIGHT. WE HAVE A GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ARE THEY GOING TO PLAY A ROLE WHEN THAT COMES UP. AND THEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF PARK RELATED ONES HERE. AND TREE MITIGATION IS OUR IS THAT COMMITTEE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH ON THIS. WHAT'S YOUR HOW ARE YOU FORESEEING THIS PROCESS. GO FORWARD. SO I ALMOST SEE A LOT LIKE OUR CODE REORGANIZATION. IT'S A TWO PART PROCESS. ONE LET'S GET THE FEES ORGANIZED, CENTRALIZED. EVEN THROUGH THE CODIFICATION PROCESS. THEY HAVE CALLED NUMEROUS TIMES SAYING, WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON WITH YOUR FEES? SO WE HAVE TO BRING IT TOGETHER. AND THEN THE FIXING THE CODE REFERENCES THAT ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE, LIKE WITH THE PERMIT RENEWAL, FOR INSTANCE. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE SPECIFIC FEE CATEGORIES, I KNOW I WOULDN'T WANT ANOTHER DEPARTMENT SETTING MY DEPARTMENT FEES. RIGHT. AND SO THOSE NEED TO STAY WITH THE DEPARTMENTS THEY RESIDE IN. BUT IF IT'S IN ONE CONSOLIDATED PLACE, WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE UPDATING. IT'S THE SAME FORMAT. IT'S VERY TYPICAL THAT DEVELOPMENT FEES FOLLOW OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUDGET. AND SO EVERY YEAR WHEN WE ADOPT THE BUDGET, WE SHOULD BE ADOPTING FEES THAT REFLECT THE COST OF SERVICE. AND SO AT LEAST THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IT PROPOSED AND SHAPED OUT IN HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE FROM YEAR TO YEAR. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS AN INCREASE OR A DECREASE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A YEAR THAT WE CAN DECREASE FEES IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE START GETTING PROCESSES DOWN, WHEN WE START GETTING CHECKLISTS, WHEN WE GET BETTER SOFTWARE, MORE TIME UNDER BELTS, OUR TIMES MIGHT GO DOWN. AND SO THE FEES CAN DROP WITH THAT. AND SO TWO STEPS WE HAVE THE GETTING IT ORGANIZED. AND THEN WE HAVE THE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES IN EVERY DEPARTMENT ACROSS THE BOARD. SOME OF OUR FEES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2019. AND SO WE ARE VERY BEHIND ON A LOT OF THINGS. IF EVEN IF THE ORGANIZATION IS ADOPTED AND WE WORK OUT THE FEES LATER, THE POINT OF DOING IT THIS WAY AND REFERENCING IT BY EXHIBIT IS SO THAT WE CAN CHANGE THEM EASIER AND NOT HAVE TO SEND THEM TO CODIFIERS. I JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION BEFORE I MOVE OVER HERE. I AGREE WITH CONSOLIDATING THE FEE SCHEDULE. THAT'S GOOD AND BREAKING IT DOWN SO THEY CAN SEE THE CHANGE

[01:35:01]

IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING, BUT YES, WE ARE. WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO ENGINEERING POSITIONS, ONE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, ONE FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THAT'S BUT THAT'S PART OF THE REORGANIZATION THING. AND IT'S NOT TO REALLY ADD MORE WORK. IT'S TO CUT BACK ON. SORRY FOR NICKELS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO CUT OUT ALL OF THE THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY ENGINEERS THAT WERE HAVING TO USE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING MORE OF THE STUFF IN-HOUSE INSTEAD OF OUTSOURCING IT. OKAY. AND, MAYOR, I'LL JUST ADD IN THE WHEN YOU ARE, WHEN THE CITY IS.

CALCULATING ITS FEE STRUCTURE, THEY CAN EVEN THOUGH EVEN IF THOSE ENGINEERS ARE ON STAFF, RIGHT. THAT STAFF TIME AND EVERYTHING CAN BE PART OF THE CALCULATION OF THOSE FEES. SO IT'S NOT A PURE EXPENSE THAT THE CITY IS TAKING ON THAT IS THAT THAT TYPE OF WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR ITSELF. RIGHT? SO THAT CAN BE PART OF THE FEE STRUCTURE FEE CALCULATION AS WELL, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE AND MOREOVER, I MEAN, FOR THAT MATTER, CITIES, SEVERAL OF MY CITIES HAVE. CODIFIED ORDINANCES THAT PROVIDE THAT. WHEN YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS DOING REVIEWS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STUFF, WE ENTER INTO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS SO THAT THE DEVELOPER PAYS OUR FEES AND THE CITY ISN'T PAYING THOSE FEES FOR THAT REVIEW. SO JUST FYI, YEAH, MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU. FIRST OFF, THIS IS WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU FOR PULLING IT TOGETHER. THAT WILL BE SO MUCH EASIER IN GOING THROUGH THE FEES. SO DO YOU EXPECT BRINGING THE PERSONNEL IN THAT WE NEED? I MEAN I UNDERSTAND AND I'M WITH YOU ON THE CONSISTENCY RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL BE COST NEUTRAL OVERALL? AND THEN I NOTICED THAT AND THAT'S ALWAYS I'M LOOKING AT THE OUTGOING THE END GO. AND SOMETIMES IT IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO USE THIRD PARTY THAN IT IS. EVEN IF THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS THAT GO WITH IT. IN THIS CASE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A IT'S PRETTY SOUND, BUT I NOTICED YOU HAD POSITIONS THAT WERE FULLY RECOVERABLE. SO THAT'S UNDERNEATH THOSE EXPENSES. BUT YOU ALSO HAD THREE THAT WERE PARTIALLY RECOVERABLE. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT. YES. SO DEVELOPMENT RELATED ACTIVITY SHOULD BE OFFSET BY FEES. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT SHOULD NEVER COME AT THE COST TO TAXPAYERS. SO SOME OF OUR PARTIALLY RECOVERABLE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT GO TOWARDS HELPING CODE COMPLIANCE. SO YOU KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING STAFF TRAINING AND EDUCATION.

THAT MAKES THAT POSITION PARTIALLY RECOVERABLE. SAME THING WITH CODE COMPLIANCE. ANY ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE CAN BE OFFSET AND DEVELOPMENT FEES. BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT THEY DO THAT CAN'T BE OFFSET. AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DID WAS CREATE A BUDGET BASED OFF OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF BUDGET MARKET GENERALITIES AND DID HOW MANY HOURS EACH OF THESE THINGS TOOK WITH THE COST OF OPERATION. AND THIS INCLUDES SOME SUPPLIES. POSTAGE CAN GET OFFSET, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND CAME OUT WITH AN OUTPUT BASED OFF OF THE AVERAGE COST OF DOING BUSINESS PER HOUR. AND THAT NUMBER HAS SET OUR FEES IN

[01:40:06]

AND THEN THINGS SLOWED DOWN. AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD HIRED FOR ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING ON THREE YEARS AGO, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO LAY HALF THAT STAFF OFF. RIGHT? SO I THINK WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE TO OUTSOURCE WHENEVER DEVELOPMENT HAS BURSTS. RIGHT. THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS YOU COULD HAVE SET THE THE PRICING HERE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF EXTREMES. YOU COULD HAVE SAID IT BASED ON WHAT IT COSTS US TO DO IT IN-HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE A LOWER NUMBER THAN WHAT IT COSTS US IF WE OUTSOURCE IT, WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF WHAT THE MARKET DEMANDS. AND YOU ACTUALLY SAID IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, WE WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FEES AROUND THE AREA. SO THAT'S A MARKET BASED ANALYSIS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN HERE, HOW DO I PARSE BETWEEN WHAT'S BASED ON WHAT IT COSTS US TO DO IT INTERNALLY? WHAT IS A MARKET ANALYSIS, WHAT IT WOULD COST US IF WE WERE OUTSOURCING IT, OR SOME MIX OF ALL OF THE ABOVE? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE TAKEN THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRYING TO BE A BREAK EVEN, SO THAT WE COLLECT FEES THAT ARE WHAT IT COSTS US, BUT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE WORKLOAD THAT HAPPENS OUT THERE. SO. SO MAYBE YOU CAN TALK THROUGH THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT YOU TOOK HERE. SO TWO PARTS BUILDING THE FEES. WE DIDN'T WE IF WE ASSUMED BRINGING EVERYTHING IN-HOUSE WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THIRD PARTIES AT ALL.

THIS IS BASELINE STAFF TO HANDLE THE OPERATIONS THAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY. AND AGAIN YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE REPORT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT EVERY YEAR WE HAVE TO BRING THIS WITH OUR BUDGET AND SAY, THIS IS WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS. I DON'T SEE ANY CHANGES FROM THIS BASED OFF OF THE BUDGET THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE NEXT YEAR, BUT IT'S A DISCUSSION TO BE HAD. WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THE MARKET ANALYSIS AT ALL. WHAT WE DID WAS IN A TABLE, THERE'S WHAT OUR HOURLY COST IS, HOW MANY HOURS IT COSTS TO DO IT, WHAT THAT IS AND WHERE IT STACKS UP HIGHER OR ABOVE PEER AVERAGE. AND SO IT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S A WAY TO GAUGE IF WE'RE IN TRACK OR WE'RE NOT IN TRACK. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GEORGETOWN. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE $50,000 FOR SOMETHING. AND IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY. SO YOU LOOKED AT COMPARISON CITIES, BUT YOU DIDN'T ADJUST OUR PROPOSED NUMBERS BASED ON THAT? NO, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE. THERE'S A SECOND PART TO THAT. WHAT'S THE COST OF INSOURCING VERSUS OUTSOURCING.

RIGHT. SO IF WE HAD A BURST OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE UNDERCHARGING FEES AND LOSING MONEY ON THAT. POTENTIALLY THE THING. JUST FOR THE MIC, BECAUSE I FORGOT TO TURN IT ON, YOU COULD IN A BURST OF ACTIVITY, WE COULD BE UNDERCHARGING WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS US IF WE HAVE TO OUTSOURCE. AND SO PART OF THE REASON THAT THERE ARE SO MANY MORE NEW LINES ON THE SHEET IS SO THAT WE CAN ACCURATELY TRACK WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE THEY WERE CALLING HISTORICALLY CERTAIN APPLICATIONS THINGS TO CHARGE FEES THAT WEREN'T THAT APPLICATION. AND SO I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW LONG IT HAS TAKEN THEM TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A LINE FOR IT AND WE COULDN'T ACCURATELY CHARGE FOR IT. AND SO MY INTENT AGAIN, VERY METRICS AND NUMBER DRIVEN, WE'RE GOING TO TRACK THAT EVERY LINE THAT WE HAVE IN THIS FEE REPORTING WILL GO OUT. IT'S ON OUR LIST ON OUR STRATEGIC PLAN THIS YEAR TO INCREASE OUR REPORTING. THIS IS PART OF THAT. IF ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE WE CAN ADJUST FEES. THE IN THIS FORMAT, IT'S VERY EASY TO COME MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND SAY THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING. WE NEED TO GO HIGH, LOW. WE NEED TO BRING IN SOMEBODY OR IT'S JUST A BUBBLE. WE'RE GOING TO OUTSOURCE AND WE'LL RIDE IT OUT. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS WE JUST DID THE RFQ FOR GENERAL SERVICES. AND SO NOW WE HAVE REGULATED FEE SCHEDULES FOR

[01:45:03]

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMMENT ON THE GULF SIDE, SINCE I WAS A LIAISON TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A YEAR, I SPENT A LOT OF TIMES HEARING MR. SAUL SAY, ONCE THE IRRIGATION IS IN AND ONCE THE COURSE IS IN BETTER SHAPE THAN WE ABSOLUTELY CAN AND WILL RAISE OUR FEES. SO I'M PRESUMING I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENS. IF IT'S SIX MONTHS FROM NOW OR OR 18 MONTHS FROM NOW, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THAT PROBABLY. BUT I'M EXPECTING THAT WE WILL SEE A COMPLETE REVAMPING OF THE GOLF COURSE FEES. AND THAT'S A MARKET BASED NUMBER. YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT CAN WE CHARGE AND NOT NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM USING OUR COURSE. AND TO BRAD'S POINT AND YOURS, CAN WE SEE THE BACKGROUND DATA WHERE YOU CAN JUSTIFY THE HOURS THAT YOU ALL SPENT ON COSTS? THAT WAY I'M NOT JUST MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT MATCHES UP. AND YEAH, I JUST BROUGHT THE GOLF STUFF TOO. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF LOOK AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAXPAYER. THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AND POINT OUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS. AND I THINK WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE TRANSPARENCY SIDE TOO, IS CERTAINLY WE THINK OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON WHO OWNS ONE LOT WHO'S BUILDING ONE HOUSE? CAN WE SHOW A NUMBER OF IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE PRICE INCREASES THAT YOU'RE SHOWING HERE, THE FEE INCREASES, CAN YOU SHOW THE AVERAGE COST TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILD THAT THIS WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, CURRENTLY, AS IT IS, THEY'RE PAYING THREE FEES. SO THEY PAY AT'S FOR A THIRD PARTY REVIEW. THEY COME TO US, THEY PAY THEIR PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEE, AND THEN WE HIT THEM FOR INSPECTIONS DURING THE BILLING PROCESS. THIS METHOD GOING THIS ROUTE REMOVES ATS ALTOGETHER AND CONSOLIDATES THEIR FEES DOWN. AND SO THEY MAY ACTUALLY SEE A SAVINGS COMPARED TO WHAT'S IN HERE. IF THERE WERE FEES, ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMITS, YOU KNOW YOUR JOE SCHMO THAT WANTS TO GET A FENCE, A LOT OF THOSE CAN BE REDUCED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME TO LOOK AT A SURVEY AND ISSUE A FENCE PERMIT. AND SO YOU'LL SEE ON THERE, SOME HAVE BEEN REDUCED, SOME HAVE BEEN INCREASED JUST BECAUSE OF STAFF TIME. AND SO THERE'S OFFSETS. AND THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE OFFSETS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS AND GET BETTER AT WHAT WE'RE DOING. THAT'S THAT'S ALWAYS THE GOAL. LET'S BE EFFICIENT AND CAPTURE OUR COST. SO WHAT IS IT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN NEXT? NO KIDDING. I CAN ABSOLUTELY SEND THE MATRIX. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BOG DOWN THE PACKET WITH A BUNCH OF BECAUSE IT'S NOT A IT'S A LOT. AND SO WE CAN SEND THAT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHER FEES THAT ARE SET BY STATE LAW, LIKE IMPACT FEES. I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO YEAH, I THINK ALONG WITH THAT, MAYBE PROVIDE SEVERAL SCENARIOS LIKE YOU JUST DID LIKE HERE'S KIND OF REAL, REAL LIFE IMPACT, RIGHT? RESIDENTIAL OR SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT TYPICAL STUFF YOU SEE. SO WE CAN COMPARE. IS IT KIND OF EVEN DO THEY ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY OR IS IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE? IT'S JUST HELPFUL TO SEE REAL WORLD EXAMPLES. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD ITEM TO ADD TO YOUR DISCUSSION BOARD. YES. THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST PLACE TO HAVE THOSE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND REVIEW.

CAN THAT MATRIX GO ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD? IT'S A PRETTY DECENT SIZED EXCEL FILE SO I DON'T KNOW. WE'RE GONNA HOPE FOR THE BEST, BUT IT EVEN CRASHES MY COMPUTER WHEN I TRY TO OPEN IT SOMETIMES, SO. BUT YOU COULD LINK TO IT I THINK, ON THERE AND THEN PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT IT OFFLINE. WE CAN TRY. YEAH. OKAY. MR. HALL, MY QUESTION IS, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE GETTING DOWN INTO INTO THE REAL WEEDS ON SOME OF THIS, ARE THERE SUBCOMMITTEES THAT WE COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOULD APPROPRIATELY REVIEW THAT IF WE WANT THEM TO AND PROVIDE INPUT TO US AND, AND THAT GIVES MORE THOROUGH REVIEW THAN, THAN WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING. YEAH, I THINK REVIEW SOME OF THE COMMITTEES MAKES SENSE TO ME.

[01:50:07]

THERE'S ALSO SOME FEES IN HERE THAT I THAT I WAS HAPPY TO SEE. I SAW THE BACK FLOW PERMIT OR THE INSPECTION FEE. BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE THESE METERS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING THEM, GETTING THEM ANNUALLY INSPECTED LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. AND I'M WONDERING IF WE HAVE THE STAFF THAT IS OVERSEEING THAT AND TRACKING IT. ON THE BACKFLOW INSPECTION SPECIFICALLY. THAT'S THE POINT. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TODAY. THE FEE FOR DOING THE INSPECTION IS COVERING THE STAFF. TIME TO GO OUT THERE AND INSPECT THE BACKFLOW. WE ARE ACCEPTING THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS AT THIS TIME. IT'S AT THE COST OF THE HOMEOWNER TO DO IT, AND PRICING CAN GO ANYWHERE FROM 30 BUCKS TO $200 JUST DEPENDING ON THE CONTRACTOR. AND SO AGAIN CHARGING IT IN HOUSE, WE THEN HAVE A STAFF MEMBER EITHER GET CERTIFIED OR WE HIRE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIED. THEY ARE THEN DOING THE INSPECTIONS. THEY ARE THEN DOING THE ANNUAL. IT'S A BACKFLOW BACKFLOW PREVENTION PROGRAM. WE SHOULD BE DOING IT. AND SO THIS IS THAT STEP TO GET THERE. YEAH. WELL FOR COMPARISON I PAY $150 A YEAR AND IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY. AND MY HOUSE IN GALVESTON AND I HAVE TO I HAVE TO GET AN APPROVED INSPECTOR FROM THE CITY. THERE'S NORMALLY A LIST OF APPROVED INSPECTORS. THAT INSPECTOR COMES OUT, THEY ACCEPT MY FEE, AND THEN THEY SUBMIT THE INSPECTION TO THE CITY ON MY BEHALF AFTER IT PASSES OR FAILS. AND IF IT FAILS, THEN I ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET IT FIXED. BEFORE YOU KNOW THE CITY WILL CUT, CUT, CUT THE WATER OFF TO THAT IRRIGATION SYSTEM. BUT THERE'S A THERE'S.

I MEAN, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE SEEING THE BREAKDOWN. IT'S I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP US CLARIFY A LOT OF THINGS. BUT I WILL SAY THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANT. AND SOME OF THESE PERCENT INCREASES DO CONCERN ME. SO I'LL DEFINITELY BE REVIEWING THIS IN MORE DETAIL AND MAYBE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS FURTHER ALONG THE WAY. AND WE WELCOME QUESTIONS WHETHER IT'S THROUGH EMAIL OR THE DISCUSSION BOARD. WE'RE HERE TO HELP. IF WE CAN'T ANSWER IT, THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB ON THE ANIMAL CONTROL FEES. THAT IS UP IN THE AIR. IF WE KEEP IT WHERE IT'S AT, AGAIN, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS AS IS TODAY. IF WE WANT TO ACCEPT SOME OR ZERO THEM OUT UNTIL WE FIGURE IT OUT, THAT'S FINE AS WELL. IT'S JUST THIS IS THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT. THIS IS WHAT WE DECIDED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD WITH COUNCIL SINCE THAT ONE CAME UP SPECIFICALLY IS I THOUGHT ANIMAL LICENSE WAS A ONE TIME PER PER ANIMAL, NOT YEARLY FEE. IT'S ANNUAL. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, I WAS GOING ALONG THE ANIMAL. I KNOW WE'RE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANIMALS THAT GET LOOSE OR WHATEVER AND BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, OR EVEN RE HOME THEM. SO DOES SOME OF THAT ANALYSIS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. DID IT TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM ONE TO THE OTHER, WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT WOULD BE ESTIMATED PER YEAR? NO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME WE HAVE GOOD CONTRACTS FOR THAT COST PER YEAR AND WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE US, WE'RE REACHING OUT TO TRY TO GET SOME FEEL ON ANIMAL CONTROL, AND IT'S MOSTLY THE POLICE'S CURRENT TASK. BUT THAT WASN'T FACTORED IN HERE. IT WAS AGAIN BASED ON THE HOURLY RATE. SO THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES SOMEBODY TO DEAL WITH A DOG CALL, OR HOW LONG IT TAKES SOMEBODY TO PROCESS THE DOG REGISTRATION AND DO ALL THE PAPERWORK, THAT'S HOW WE BASED THE UPDATES IN HERE. OKAY. SO THIS IS MOVING TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I ASK THE COUNCIL ENGAGE IN IT. EVEN THEN, TO MR. HALL'S POINT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SECTIONS OF THIS, GO TO CERTAIN COMMITTEES, PLEASE PUT THAT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND WE'LL WORK ON HOW TO GET EVERYBODY THAT GIANT FILE THAT YOU HAVE WORK WITH STAN. YEAH, SURE. WE CAN ZIP IT. YEAH. ZIP IT. ALL RIGHT.

[XI.4. Discussion on proposed impact fee by Freese & Nichols.]

[01:55:06]

THE NUMBER ONE REASON IS CHAPTER 395 REQUIRES IT. WE ARE REQUIRED TO UPDATE IMPACT FEES EVERY FIVE YEARS. AND THE LAST ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED DECEMBER 2ND OF 2021. SO WE'RE COMING UP ON THAT FIVE YEAR DEADLINE. YOU CAN UPDATE SOONER THAN FIVE YEARS IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, NOW IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST THREE YEARS SINCE YOUR LAST STUDY AND THEN NO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. ANOTHER REASON WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND UPDATE THESE IS WE HAVE HAD CHANGES TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CIPS, AND I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE FEBRUARY 5TH COUNCIL MEETING. I WAS ONLINE FOR THAT MEETING. I KNOW THERE'S MAYBE SOME COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THE CIPS, BUT WE HAVE HAD CHANGES. AND IF YOUR PROJECT IS NOT ON YOUR IMPACT FEE CIP, YOU CAN'T USE IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR THE PROJECT. SO IF OUR CIP HAS CHANGED AT ALL, IF WE'VE IDENTIFIED ANY NEW PROJECTS, WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR IMPACT FEES TO REPRESENT THOSE NEW PROJECTS.

SO WE ADOPTED THE WATER MASTER PLAN IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, AND THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN JANUARY OF 2024. SO NOT ONLY DO WE NEED TO LEGALLY DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS, WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE REPRESENTING THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. I HAVE A TABLE HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE IT GOT CUT OFF BY THE PRINTER. BUT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THERE WERE SOME CHANGES WITH SENATE BILL 1883 THAT HAVE IMPACTED HOW WE DO IMPACT FEES. A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMELINE FOR NOTICING, AND IT'S JUST REALLY DRUG OUT THE SCHEDULE A LOT LONGER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, THAT THE CITY HAS ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT. SO THOSE THINGS AREN'T REALLY CHANGING THE PROCESS THAT MUCH. IT'S JUST MAKING THE SCHEDULE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. PREVIOUSLY, A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL COULD APPROVE THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. NOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. SO JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT GETTING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND UPDATING THE IMPACT FEES. I'VE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE TIMELINE FOR THIS. THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE HERE IS THAT YOUR PNC COMMITTEE CAN NO LONGER FUNCTION AS YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THAT'S HOW WE HANDLED IT LAST TIME WE HAD PLANNING AND ZONING, AND THEN AS COUNCIL, YOU HAD APPOINTED THEM TO SERVE AS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. NOW, WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE COMMITTEE OF AT LEAST FIVE MEMBERS, AND 50% OF THEM HAVE TO BE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. SO MAKING SURE WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF REPRESENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS DEFINED AS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING. SO WE'LL NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND THEN THEY'LL BE APPOINTED BY YOU AS CITY COUNCIL. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THEIR ROLE, IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY DO, WE MEET WITH THEM THREE SEPARATE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. WE PRESENT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE TEN YEAR WINDOW, LOOKING AT HOW MUCH GROWTH WE'RE PROJECTING OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS. FOR IMPACT FEES, WE PRESENT THE WATER, WASTE WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY CIPS, AND THEN WE PRESENT THE IMPACT FEE CALCULATION. I KNOW THAT MOST OF Y'ALL WERE NOT HERE THE LAST TIME WE DID THE CALCULATION. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

YOU CAN DO A 50% CREDIT THAT GIVES A CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS, OR YOU CAN DO A DETAILED CREDIT ANALYSIS. THE LAST TIME WE STUDIED THIS, WE ORIGINALLY HAD SCOPED TO DO THE 50% CREDIT. WE

[02:00:02]

SO YOU MAY REMEMBER LAST TIME WE HAD TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ROADWAY. FIRST, WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LOO AND CIP, AND THEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPACT FEES. SO THE WATER WASTEWATER THIS TIME IS AN UPDATE AS IT WAS LAST TIME. AND THIS TIME ROADWAY IS THIS ROADWAY IS AN UPDATE. ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPACT FEES.

WE'LL ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUDIT. OKAY. AND I THINK READING THROUGH THE THE BACKGROUND MATERIAL, THERE'S SOME STUFF IN THERE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING GROWTH AND MODELING. AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY REAL NEW DATA OVER WHAT YOU DID. SO THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF REUSE IN THAT SPACE AS WELL. YES. CHARLES. JESSICA, I CAN'T REMEMBER. DIDN'T WE DISCUSS POSSIBLY ADDING DRAINAGE IMPACT FEES? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY AN OPTION. WE DO CONDUCT DRAINAGE STUDIES THE WAY, JUST SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HOW A DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE IS CALCULATED. IT'S BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND IT'S BASED ON DRAINAGE BASINS. AND I, I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY DRAINAGE BASINS YOU HAVE HERE IN THE CITY. DOES ANYONE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS GEORGE HAS BEEN WORKING ON FOR US. RIGHT. I WILL TALK TO GEORGE BECAUSE DRAINAGE FEES, LIKE ROADWAY FEES, ARE CONFINED TO THE BASIN WHERE THEY'RE COLLECTED. SO IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE DRAINAGE BASIN, YOU'LL HAVE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE POT OF MONEY. AND WE'LL DO THE CALCULATION OF THE GROWTH IN THAT AREA AND THE PROJECTS IN THAT AREA. AND THERE WILL BE A FEE CALCULATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC AREA. AND IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME CITIES HAVE FOUR OR 5 OR 6 AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATES JUST LIKE WE HAVE ON ROADWAY. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND ON DRAINAGE. AND IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT, WE CAN ADD THAT. MAYOR PRO TEM OKAY. AND SO COUNCILOR PRINCE, SEE YOU GOING BACK TO WHERE I WAS. SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE INITIAL. IMPACT ANALYSIS

[02:05:01]

SO THOSE DID ALL HAPPEN THE SAME TIME. WE HAD SOME OTHER ROADWAYS SAFETY STUDIES DONE.

AND MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS. BUT THE IMPACT FEE WAS, I THINK, DONE EXACTLY THE SAME TIME AS THE WATER WASTEWATER. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN THE ONLY THING I'M QUESTIONING IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE DID ORIGINALLY DO THAT 50% CREDIT AND THEN WITH COUNCIL DIRECTION WENT BACK IN THE DID THE DETAILED CREDIT ANALYSIS. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROJECT, THE FINAL CONCLUSION WAS DECEMBER 2ND. I THOUGHT THAT WE MADE THAT DECISION AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAD COME TO PRESENT THE INITIAL RATES, BUT THE LEVEL, THE LEVEL OF DETAIL, I DON'T RECALL. YEAH, I'M PRETTY SURE. I THINK THAT WAS THE FINAL DATE. MR. HALL, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO EVALUATE WHETHER THOSE PROPOSED FEES ARE REASONABLE OR NOT. PRESUMABLY FREEZER NICHOLS CAN CAN DO IT.

THIS KIND OF STUDY FOR LESS THAN SOMEBODY ELSE BECAUSE THEY'RE UPDATING. BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING WHEN AT WHAT POINT DO WE ASK FOR FOR OTHER PROPOSALS, WHEN WE HAVE A PROJECT SO THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE WE GET THE THE BEST POSSIBLE FEE? ENGINEERING HAS TO BE QUALIFICATIONS BASED. YOU CAN'T ASK FOR FEE PROPOSALS. BUT YOU COULD ASK FOR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS FROM OTHER ENGINEERS. BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK FOR A FEE TO GO WITH THAT. AND WE WENT THROUGH THIS ON AN UNRELATED PROJECT NOT TOO LONG AGO. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS WITH THIS COUNCIL MAY HAVE BEEN LAST YEAR. THE THE SERVICES PROVIDER ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDER IS SELECTED BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, AND THEN THEY COME BACK WITH WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO DO IT. THE CITY HAS THE OPTION AT THAT POINT TO SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT PAYING THAT MUCH END OF CONTRACT WITH YOU GUYS. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING AND DO A NEW RFQ FOR SEE IF WE WANT TO SELECT SOMEBODY ELSE. BUT BUT YOU DON'T YOU DON'T GO. IT'S NOT LIKE AN RFP PROCESS WHERE YOU GO OUT FOR BID ON THE JOB. YEAH.

BUT STILL UNDERSTANDING THAT THE THE QUESTION IS THE SAME. AT WHAT POINT DO WE DECIDE TO, TO ASK FOR BOTH QUALIFIED PROPOSALS? YEAH, I GUESS ON THE STICKER SHOCK. I JUST SEE IN LIKE TASK A AND D, YOU INCLUDE THE MEETINGS. WOULD YOUR VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE BRING THE COST DOWN AT ALL OR IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN. YEAH WE COULD I MEAN WE COULD LOOK AT VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE. I ALSO I HAVE THE CONTRACT BACK THERE. BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FOUR, THREE COUNCIL MEETINGS. IF WE WANT TO MOVE THAT TO TWO, WE COULD DO THAT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND THAT WAY, WHAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME IS THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE NIGHT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN THE INFORMATION THAT I'M BRINGING TO YOU AND YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A DECISION.

THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE HAVE THESE MEETINGS WITH THE COUNCIL. I DON'T WANT YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, WE'VE NEVER SEEN THIS INFORMATION BEFORE. WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION, AND THEN WE'RE NOT USING OUR TIME EFFICIENTLY. AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE THOSE MEETINGS IN THERE. SO IF WE WANT, IF YOU THINK WE CAN MEET TWICE WITH THE COUNCIL, WE COULD REMOVE ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS. OR WE COULD HAVE THE THIRD MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COULD BE A JOINT WORKSHOP UNDER THE TWO MEETING STRUCTURE. COULD ONE OF THOSE BE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY? SURE. SOMETHING TO DISCUSS. YEAH. I MEAN, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF JESSICA SETTING IT UP OPTIMALLY, RIGHT. THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF MEETINGS I CAN PUT, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF MEETINGS, AND THEN I COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE. SO THAT ISN'T IN THE BASE FEE. WOULD THAT BE PREFERRED? YEAH, THAT THAT MIGHT BE GOOD. I LIKE THAT IDEA. AND THAT MAYBE MOTIVATES WHAT MOTIVATE US AT LEAST TO TO DO OUR HOMEWORK AHEAD OF TIME. AND HOPEFULLY YOU YOU CAN HELP

[02:10:05]

YEAH, I THINK I THINK IT WOULD BE HUGE FOR US TO HAVE A FEW STAFF MEETING. OKAY. IT WOULD HELP US TO HAVE SOME STAFF MEETINGS WITH VICTOR, ERNESTO, MYSELF AND Y'ALL TO GO OVER CIP LIST. OKAY? I MEAN, THEY CAN SPEAK TO YOU RIGHT NOW, I GUESS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE POSSIBLY WORKING ON. OKAY, OKAY. BUT DO YOU ANTICIPATE. RIGHT. IT'S WHAT THEY HAVE NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THE CIP IS GOING TO BE IN THE COMING MONTH OR TWO? YES, YES. OKAY. GIVEN THAT, THEN PERHAPS THE THING IS TO MOVE A LITTLE SLOWER ON THIS TASK AND AND COORDINATE WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS ON THE CIP DISCUSSION SO THAT WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO UPDATE THE BID TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE ON PRICE, THEY HAVEN'T A MORE ACCURATE VERSION OF THE CIP. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD TAKE UP A LOT OF TIME.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I. YEAH, THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO SPEND YOUR TIME ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT CIP. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR SEPARATELY OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM I THINK I'M SORRY AS I'M LISTENING TO THIS AND OKAY. AND I CAN TELL YOU JUST BECAUSE AND WE'VE GOT BOND COUNSEL HERE, I BELIEVE IN TERMS OF PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IS NOT ONLY THE CIP, BUT OUR FUNDING OF ALL THESE INITIATIVES, AND THAT IS HAVING OUR STAFF LOOK AT IT CLOSELY, WHICH I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE. BUT AS WE ARE DOING THIS FROM BEGINNING TO END, HOW LONG DOES IT NORMALLY TAKE? DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING ADOPTED BY DECEMBER 2ND, 2026? THIS IS I MEAN, REALLY YOUR ATTORNEY SHOULD WEIGH IN, BUT I THINK AS LONG AS WE'RE MAKING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO BE WITHIN THE TIMELINE, IT'S OKAY. THE PROCESS TAKES ABOUT 12 MONTHS. IF WE MOVE VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT I'VE OUTLINED IN THIS PRESENTATION, THERE'S ABOUT FOUR MONTHS WHERE WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHERE THE REPORTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, WHERE WE'RE JUST THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN NOW. SO I, WE HAVE TO REALLY GET ALL OF THE WORK DONE IN THE FIRST PART OF THAT PROJECT. AND THEN WE JUST ARE WAITING. AND SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONLY ABOUT 12 MONTHS IF WE MOVE VERY QUICKLY AT THE BEGINNING IS MY ANSWER. YEAH.

I'M SORRY. AND BRAD SHOW GOOD FAITH EFFORT AS SHE IS STATING. SO I'M ASKING YOU NOW IN TERMS OF OUR STATUTES IN CHAPTER 395, IF YOU IT'S 395. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE SPECIFIC QUESTION I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IF WE GO BEYOND THE FIVE YEARS FOR IMPACT FEES, WHAT SHE STATING IS THAT WE HAVE A STATUTE THAT SAYS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AN UPDATED IMPACT FEE THING, THAT WE ALL GO TO JAIL. NO I'M KIDDING. THERE'S NO. AND SO THIS IS GOING TO TAKE 12 MONTHS, WHICH MEANS BASICALLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THAT DEADLINE, YOU KNOW, FROM A YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THE DEADLINE. AND YES, YOU NEED TO BE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT STATUTE. YOU HAVE TO BE MAKING THE CONSISTENT GOOD FAITH EFFORT. BUT IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT POINT, YOU NEED TO GET THE CIP. SO THAT AND IF YOU'RE I'VE HEARD MENTION OF AN RFQ, IF YOU'RE STARTING THIS WHOLE PROCESS OVER THAT NEEDS TO BE ON HYPER DRIVE, BECAUSE WE'RE

[02:15:06]

[XI.5. Discussion regarding the Franchise Agreement with Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC).]

CHARLES. I HAVE PROVIDED YOU ALL THE INFORMATION. IS THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES Y'ALL WANT TO SEE TO THAT BEFORE WE GET A FINAL VERSION PUT TOGETHER AND SENT OVER TO PEC TO GET THEIR COMMENTS BACK. LET ME ASK A QUESTION. YEAH. COUNSELOR. VANESSA, WE HAD THE RED LINE VERSION PREVIOUSLY. IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH THAT RED LINE VERSION? YEAH. I HAVEN'T PUT THE. I WAS WAITING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THE RED LINE VERSION. IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE. OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CHANGES. WELL, WHILE YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO WOULD WISH TO TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.

HEARING NONE. COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU THINK OF ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I ASK THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE TO HAVE THIS RATIFYING THIS AGREEMENT AS AN AGENDA ITEM? I'M SORRY. ACTION ITEM ON THE 19TH. YES. OKAY. YES. MR. BENNEFIELD, HAS THERE EVER BEEN A CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO REDUCE THE FEE FROM 4% TO 2%? THIS CONTRACT IS NOT GOING TO GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL AUGUST OR SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. SO ESSENTIALLY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN OUR BUDGET ALL THE WAY THROUGH AUGUST. SO IF WE WERE GOING TO REDUCE IT TO 2%, I THINK YOU COULD NEGOTIATE THAT NOW. BUT INEVITABLY WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS WE WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES TO OFFSET THAT DELTA. IN OUR BUDGET. RIGHT? SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S THIS LIKE HIDDEN TAX IN OUR PC BILL. SO THE QUESTION IS DO WE LOWER THAT PERCENTAGE AS LOW AS WE CAN SO THAT A UTILITY IS A UTILITY WITH THE LOWEST FEE POSSIBLE AND THEN OFFSET THAT LATER FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY ON OUR TAXES IN SEPTEMBER? OR DO WE KEEP THAT HIDDEN TAX AT 4%. AND THEN WE CAN ALL CLAIM THAT WE DIDN'T RAISE TAXES ON OUR HOMEOWNERS IN SEPTEMBER, CHARLES IS CURRENTLY SET AT 4%. MY RECOMMENDATION IS LEAVE IT AT 4%. THE AMOUNT YOU WOULD SAVE ON THE TAX BILL WOULD JUST BE PENNIES IN MY OPINION. SO I THINK REDUCING IT WOULD BE THE WRONG DIRECTION TO GO. AND I JUST DON'T THINK I THINK IF YOU REDUCED IT, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A DECREASE IN YOUR ELECTRIC BILL. MAYOR PRO TEM, JUST IN TERMS OF A STATEMENT, I THINK, DIDN'T WE HAVE NUMBERS FROM THE LAST TIME OF WHAT WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE? IT WAS A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK IS NICOLE, THAT YOU GAVE US NUMBERS? IF WE WERE THE DIFFERENCE, THERE WAS A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND. RIGHT NOW WE GET ABOUT 500,000 A YEAR. SO YEAH, ABOUT 250, 250 OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I'LL MAINTAIN THAT I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE LEVERAGE IF WE HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL VERSUS NOT. BUT I CAN MAKE MY CASE ON THE BOARD. SO THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOT HEARING ANY MORE DISCUSSION I'M GOING TO BE

[XI.6. Discussion regarding amendments to the Rules of Procedure.]

[02:20:09]

IF YOU ALLOW SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS, THEN THE LAST MOVER HAS THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE. BUT IT JUST GETS SO COMPLICATED. SO I THINK I TEND TO COME DOWN WHERE YOU'RE AT IS LET'S NOT DO SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS, LET'S JUST HAVE A MOTION HAPPENS, LET'S VOTE ON IT. AND YOU KNOW, DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER IS ALWAYS WELCOME TO SAY, I PLAN TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE THIS MOTION. AND THEN THAT MAY ENCOURAGE OTHER COUNCILORS TO VOTE THAT ONE DOWN AND WAIT FOR THE FOLLOWING MOTION. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH TO IT. ON A COMPLETELY SEPARATE TOPIC, ACTUALLY, MAYOR PRO TEM, WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CHARTER, AND YOU ACTUALLY MADE A SUGGESTION THAT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE CODIFY THIS IDEA OF THAT THE LIAISONS FOR OUR THREE COMMISSIONS WORK AS A SUBCOMMITTEE ON ON MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY YOUR SUGGESTION YOU JUST FORGOT TO MENTION AT THAT POINT. AND I THINK THAT'S IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO COUNCIL. WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT HAVING A SINGLE LIAISON FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, BUILDING STANDARDS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT COMMISSION, BUT RATHER HAVE THE TEAM OF THREE MAKE A JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THREE. AND I THINK WE HAD CONSENSUS ON THAT. CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER OR WHETHER NOT. BUT THEY I THINK THEY UNIVERSALLY AGREED ON IT WAS GOOD IDEA TO DO IT. AND SO I GUESS MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IT'S PROBABLY GOOD FOR US TO PUT IT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. IF IT ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING THAT WE AS A BODY DECIDE SHOULD GO INTO THE CHARTER THAT WE PUT FORTH TO CITIZENS, WE CAN POTENTIALLY RELAX IT FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN THE FUTURE. GOOD CATCH. DO ANY CITIZENS WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE. IF THERE IS ANY MORE COUNCIL DISCUSSION, MR. BENNEFIELD. STRUCTURALLY, I AGREE WITH. STREAMLINING THE RULES AND PROCEDURE. SO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY DOES NOT TRUMP THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME CAUTION. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS VERY LENGTHY PROCESS WHERE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WENT THROUGH AND THEY DISSECTED OUR CHARTER. YOU KNOW, TO EVERY WORD AND DOT THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY COME BEFORE US. WE HAVE WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE TIMES THAT THE RULES AND PROCEDURES HAVE SAID THINGS THAT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE CHARTER MAY NOT HAVE. PRIME EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED ON MONDAY NIGHT. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A THERE WAS A SOMETHING THAT THE CHARTER SAID ON HOW WE VOTE, BUT THE RULES AND PROCEDURE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN IT.

SO I ACTUALLY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SENDING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE BACK TO MAYBE LOOK AT OUR RULES AND PROCEDURE AND SAY, LOOK, YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE CHARTER LINE BY LINE, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SCRAP THE MAJORITY OF OUR RULES AND PROCEDURE, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING SOME REALLY IMPORTANT DATA THAT OUR RULES AND PROCEDURE CARRIES THAT MAY BE LEFT OUT IN OUR CHARTER. THAT COULD BE INCLUDED, BECAUSE THEN, THEN WE'RE JUSTIFIED IN GETTING RID OF A LOT OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, BECAUSE THAT DATA WAS INCORPORATED INTO OUR NEW CHARTER. I STILL THINK THERE'S SOME I LIKE FOLLOWING TEXAS STATE LAW. I THINK THAT'S REALLY SMART, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME MEANING MEETING MINUTES THAT ARE MISSING OUT OF THIS. LIKE HOW DO WE HOW LONG DOES A SPEAKER TALK TALK FOR THREE MINUTES. I MEAN, IT'S NOT

[02:25:01]

AND THERE'S HOLES IN THIS RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT NOT ONLY PUT OUR CHARTER AT RISK OF CLARIFICATION, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME PROCEDURAL RISKS THAT WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT THROUGH. SO THOSE ARE MY ONLY CONCERNS. I DO I DO WANT TO STREAMLINE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO LEAVE TOO MANY. I DON'T WANT TO GO SO STREAMLINED THAT WE DON'T HAVE RULES TO LOOK BACK ON AND SAY, WELL, GEEZ, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT NOW? BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S BEEN SCRAPPED. YEAH, I GUESS, AND AGAIN, PROBABLY IT SHOULD BE A NEWBIE, BUT THAT WHOLE IDEA OF CHARTER IS KIND OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, ETHICS POLICY. THOSE ARE MORE AT THE POLICY LEVEL.

AND I'M TRYING TO SUSS OUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER VERSUS WHAT SHOULD BE MORE POLICY ORIENTED DOCUMENTATION. SO I THINK TO COUNCILOR BENFIELD'S POINT, IS THERE ADDITIONAL DETAILED INFORMATION THAT BELONGS IN RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE CHARTER OR VICE VERSA, SHOULD THE CHARTER COVER THESE THINGS? SO I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT FOR MYSELF AND OPERATIONALLY SEE HOW THIS WOULD WORK. SO I JUST HAVE A FEW CONCERNS ALONG THOSE LINES. AND THEN THE OTHER THING WE DISCUSSED THAT BRAD HAD MENTIONED IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF WE WANT TO MAKE SOME TACTICAL CHANGES, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE EGREGIOUS THINGS IN THE ETHICS POLICY, LIKE TWO YEARS TO FILE A COMPLAINT, DO WE MAKE SOME TACTICAL CHANGES NOW, BUT THEN DO THE REST OF THE CHANGES IN TANDEM WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW EVEN BEFORE THE CHARTER'S RATIFIED? IF WE KNOW DIRECTIONALLY, HERE'S WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE CHARTER AFTER CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS IT, THEN WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE COMPLEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, DON'T CONFLICT WITH, IN OTHER WORDS, DECONFLICTING THESE AND MAKING SURE THEY COMPLEMENT AND MAKING SURE POLICY LEVEL STUFF IS AT THE POLICY LEVEL DOCUMENTATION. OKAY, I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYONE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A NEW CHARTER UNTIL NOVEMBER IF YOU HAVE A NEW CHARTER. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW UNTIL NOVEMBER WHAT YOUR CHARTER LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE THE VOTERS GET TO DECIDE THAT NOT, YOU KNOW, FOR NOW. AND MOREOVER, THAT CHARTER THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SINGLE PROPOSITION BY LAW. IT CAN'T BE. SO WE DON'T KNOW. WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL NOVEMBER WHAT YOUR CHARTER LOOKS LIKE. SOME PROPOSITIONS MAY GET APPROVED AND SOME MAY NOT. SO I THINK TRYING TO ANTICIPATE IN ADVANCE OR SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TAILORING RULES OF PROCEDURE TO A CHARTER THAT WE WON'T KNOW IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE FOR ANOTHER NINE MONTHS IS PROBABLY NOT. YOU KNOW, YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE NOW AND THEN. YOU KNOW, LATER ON AFTER YOU HAVE WHAT YOUR NEW CHARTER, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THEN IF YOU NEED TO RETAILER THEM, PERHAPS YOU RETAILER THEM, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT AT THAT TIME. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT THAT NEW CHARTER LOOKS LIKE FOR A WHILE. SO YEAH, I THINK WHAT I WOULD PIGGYBACK ON THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT SAYING YOU'RE LETTING THE PURSUIT OF PERFECTION GET IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS. WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE CURRENT POLICIES HAVE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY THREE MONTHS INTO THIS COUNCIL CONTINUING TO ABIDE BY THESE POLICIES THAT WE KNOW HAVE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS. WE HAVE IMPROVEMENTS HERE. THEY'RE NOT PERFECT, BUT WE HAVE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LAID OUT EARLIER IN THE YEAR THAT WE WOULD ALL BE ABIDING BY ALL YEAR LONG. WHAT'S OCCURRING IS THESE ARE NOW THE MOST FREQUENTED AGENDA ITEMS OF 2026, AND THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ANY CLOSER TO GETTING OUT IN MARCH. SO WE'RE HEADING INTO APRIL. I THINK THESE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ABIDING BY. YOU CAN PERFECT THEM OVER THE YEAR. TO BRAD'S POINT, BY THE TIME WE POSSIBLY HAVE A NEW CHARTER AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT'LL BE TIME TO REVISIT ALL THESE PROCEDURES AGAIN FOR THE 2027 YEAR. SO I JUST KEEP ASKING, LET'S NOT KEEP ABIDING BY THESE CURRENT TERRIBLE POLICIES WE HAVE. LET'S HAVE SOME IMPROVEMENTS WITH THESE ONES, AND THEN LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD. AND IF WE HAVE TO MAKE CORRECTIONS LATER ON, WE CAN. MR. BENNEFIELD WELL, I DISAGREE WITH MR. BULLOCK THERE. I THINK WHAT YOU DO IS YOU MAKE AMENDMENTS, YOU MAKE THE PROPOSALS TO OUR CHARTER THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER. YOU DON'T CHANGE THOSE THINGS ON YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND THEN IF THE CHARTER, IF THOSE SECTIONS GET APPROVED IN THE CHARTER AS WRITTEN, THEN YOU GO BACK AND MAKE THE MAJOR OVERHAULS, YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHAT YOU DON'T DO IS DELETE YOUR ENTIRE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND THEN HOPE ON A DIME THAT THE CHARTER GETS APPROVED. BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T, THEN YOU HAVE MAJOR EXPOSURE. THEN YOU'RE RELYING ON A NEW CITY COUNCIL TO REWRITE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURES

[02:30:02]

I COULD OBVIOUSLY DO THAT MYSELF, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING REMOVED FROM OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES. THAT'S NOT IN THIS CURRENT VERSION. I'VE DONE THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT. I THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL. I'LL JUST CLARIFY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE WERE IN DISAGREEMENT. WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT TRYING TO TAILOR RULES OF PROCEDURE NOW TO A CHARTER THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, IS THAT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS. SO YOU MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE. BUT MY ONLY POINT WAS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT THE CHARTER LOOKS LIKE UNTIL NOVEMBER. SO THAT WAS MY THAT'S MY POINT. MAYOR PRO TEM. SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS COUNCILOR VAN NESS. WHAT I'M GRASPING RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE KNOW, EVEN WITH THE CURRENT CHARTER, THAT WE'VE GOT CHALLENGES WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AGAINST OUR CURRENT CHARTER, ETCETERA. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS OUT ON THE COUNCIL FORUM LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THIS. AND AS FROM WHAT I KNOW, THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH OVER A MONTH'S WORTH OF TIME OF ANY FEEDBACK FOR ANY OF US TO CONSIDER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO. PERHAPS GO AHEAD AND SAY, HOW DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND WRAP THIS UP FOR NOW, OR I TAKE IT, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, THAT POTENTIALLY YOU'RE STATING WAIT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER ELECTION OR, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST THERE'S NOT BEEN MUCH MOVEMENT AND WE'VE GOT SOME CHALLENGES ALREADY IN THERE. THAT IS, IN MY ESTIMATION, IS SOME PRETTY BIG HOLES AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW AGAINST OUR CURRENT CHARTER. SO, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO TRY TO FIX THAT? I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR HAS PUT FORWARD, YES. DOES SIMPLIFY THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. I WILL TELL YOU, THE RESEARCH THAT I DID STATES THAT THAT IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO.

GO WITH A VERY BARE BONES AND THEN PUT GO BACK IN AND PUT ITEMS LIKE I DID WITH ROSENBERG.

ET CETERA. THAT WAS JUST MY WAY OF GOING ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW. BUT EITHER WAY, SOME KIND OF PROCESS HERE SO THAT WE HAVE LIGHT, LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IN MY CASE. AND COULD WE BECAUSE THE RESEARCH COMES UP, ARE THE FELLOW COUNCILORS HERE AMENABLE TO CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION IN BETWEEN TIMES ON THE COUNCIL FORUM, SO THAT WE CAN ALSO DO RESEARCH AND PUT ITEM, YOU KNOW, OUR FEEDBACK BACK? COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA YEAH, I WANT TO KIND OF REITERATE WHAT I DID POST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND I WAS COUNCILOR VANESSA POSTED THE SAME THING. YOU KNOW, I WAS A LITTLE BIT DISMAYED THAT THIS WAS A I KNOW IT WAS A COMPLETE REWRITE. I FEEL LIKE THAT IT WAS USING A LOT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INSTEAD OF ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. AND THAT'S THE REASON WE CAN'T HAVE A RED LINE. I SO I'VE KIND OF PUT THEM, I PUT THEM SIDE BY SIDE AND I'VE AND I'VE DONE BASICALLY WHAT COUNCILOR BENEFIELD HAS SAID TOO. AND I'VE DONE MY OWN COMPARISONS AS WELL. BUT I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO WORK ON IT, BECAUSE I DO FEEL IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT TOO BARE BONES, AND IT DOES GET RID OF A FEW THINGS THAT I FEEL LIKE ARE NECESSARY. AND LIKE AS HE SAID, I'VE SEEN IT WHERE IT'S STRETCHED INTO THE SUMMER. I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT THAT LONG, I SEE IT, I MEAN, I THINK IF WE GIVE IT ANOTHER MONTH OR SO TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH, I DON'T WANT TO RUSH THIS. I WANT IT TO BE RIGHT. I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'LL VOTE ON IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE THAT THAT WE TAKE OUR TIME AND NOT LEAVE ANYTHING OUT. ALL RIGHT. WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE'RE BACK TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD ON THIS TOPIC, AND I ASSUME THE NEXT COUPLE. I GUESS WHAT I'LL REITERATE IS, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE THE

[02:35:03]

THIS IS ALL PURE POLITICS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TRYING TO POLICE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND WE'RE WASTING THE CITIZENS TIME AND THEIR TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SO, MR. BENEFIELD, I TOTALLY AGREE. THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T PARTICIPATED IN THE ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD. I GOT TOO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. BUT LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. YOU HAVE MEMBER A COMES UP FROM THE COMMUNITY. HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THAT PERSON TO SPEAK FOR? IT'S THE IT'S THE MAYOR'S DISCRETION, RIGHT? AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. WELL, RIGHT NOW IT SAYS THREE MINUTES. RIGHT. AND BUT NOW UNDER THE RULES AND PROCEDURE, THERE IS NO DEFINITION. AND SO CITIZEN A MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB. AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER ALLOWS THAT PERSON TO SPEAK FOR FIVE MINUTES, AND THE NEXT PERSON MIGHT BE YELLING AT US, TELLING US WE'RE PIECES OF TRASH AND WE ONLY GIVE THEM 30 30S. RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE THAT KIND OF DISCRETIONARY AVAILABILITY. I THINK CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE A SET TIME REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. IT MIGHT BE THREE MINUTES, IT MIGHT BE FIVE MINUTES, IT MIGHT BE TWO MINUTES. WELL, HOW DO WE DICTATE THAT? JUST ADD IT TO THE DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW.

WELL, I'M LETTING YOU KNOW NOW. THAT'S HOW I FEEL. I THINK THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF RULES. I LIKE THE BARE BONES. I DON'T THINK WE'RE FAR APART. I LIKE THE BARE BONES. I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A FEW THINGS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS FAIRNESS AMONGST ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE HEARINGS. IF I CAN JUST ASK, MAYBE ASK A PROCESS. SORRY, ASK A PROCESS QUESTION, OR MAYBE LET'S MAKE A COMMITMENT. SO IF WE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR EDITS OR ADDITIONS OR WHATNOT, WE GET THEM DONE WITHIN X TIME FRAME, RIGHT? SO THAT WE CAN THEN HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN FULLY DISCUSS AND TAKE AN ACTION ON.

WHAT'S A WHAT'S A REASONABLE TIME FRAME WE DON'T WANT IT TO DRAG OUT. I AGREE, AND I WASN'T I WASN'T TRYING TO SUGGEST WE WAIT UNTIL THE NEW CHARTER IS DONE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S LOOK AT WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME GAPS OR WE'VE GOT SOME CONFLICTION WITH OUR CURRENT CHARTER. EVEN IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS NOW AND MAKE SURE WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THAT. SO AND I WANT TO SUGGEST THIS IS A POLICY DECISION THAT YOU ALL MAKE. I TAKE NO POSITION ON WHAT RULES YOU ADOPT. I DON'T CARE UNLESS THEY'RE JUST BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. BUT BUT I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT TRYING TO TRYING TO TIE IT TO A CHARTER, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHARTER IS GOING TO EVEN LOOK LIKE. AND I JUST WANTED TO. AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE, I GUESS, THE HOPE THAT THE CHARTER, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP LOOKING LIKE, WOULD BE PRESENTED AS ONE QUESTION, ONE BALLOT PROPOSITION TO THE CITIZENS TO VOTE UP OR DOWN.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BY LAW. THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE AND KIND OF GIVE YOU A HEADS UP THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE GOING TO TRY AND KEEP IT AS MINIMAL AS WE CAN, BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW AND WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT. SO WHATEVER GETS WHATEVER VERSION YOU GUYS ULTIMATELY PUT OUT THERE, IT MAY OR MAY NOT END UP LOOKING LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, COME ELECTION DAY. YEAH.

I WANTED TO SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE WE'RE FAR APART. AND TO COUNCILOR VANESSA'S POINT, I THINK THAT IF WE WORK THIS OUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I THINK WE COULD ACTUALLY GET THIS AS A POSSIBLY EVEN PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE FIRST WEEK OF MAYBE EVEN APRIL. I THINK THAT I MEAN, I HAVE PROBABLY ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY 10 OR 15 HOURS.

I'D LIKE TO, LIKE, LOOK INTO IT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH FOR MY FOR MY GUT INSTINCT. BUT I LIKE I LIKE WHERE IT'S GOING. I DO LIKE THAT WE ARE PAIRING IT DOWN. I JUST WANT IT TO BE CONCISE BUT, YOU KNOW, THOROUGH. SO I DON'T THINK, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T THINK WE'RE FAR APART.

I DO LIKE WHERE IT'S GOING. I JUST WANTED. I DON'T WANT TO RUSH IT. BUT I THINK THAT IF WE GET IT ON, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION BOARD A LITTLE BIT MORE AND I'LL PUT ON MY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SEE HOW IT FLIES. AND IF NOT, THEN AT LEAST WE'LL GO FOR A VOTE. MR. HALL. WELL, I'LL JUST COMMENT. LET'S SET A DEADLINE AND, AND AND GET OUR DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN AND AND MEET THAT. YEAH. JUST ONE MORE PROCESS. MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN, YOUR SUGGESTED ADDITIONS OR EDITS? I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE IN THE LATEST VERSION THAT WAS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD THAT IT'S IN THE THE CHAT PART ITSELF. SO I WONDER IF WE CAN UPDATE THE WORKING VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT WITH YOUR EDITS. RIGHT. AND THEN THAT'S OUR LATEST WORKING VERSION. THAT'S WHEN WE ALL WORK OFF OF. SO AND THEN IF ANYONE HAS OTHER SPECIFIC EDITS THEY WANT TO MAKE OR CHANGES OR WHATNOT, IT'S WE'RE WORKING OFF THAT SAME PAGE. BUT YEAH, GET THEM IN AS COUNCIL HALL SAID. LET'S JUST THANK YOU, COUNCILOR VANESSA. I DID MAKE A NOTE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD TO MOVE ON. ALL

[02:40:06]

[IX.1. Open a Public Hearing regarding the issuance of the City's General Obligation Refunding Bonds for debt service savings to taxpayers of the City in an amount not to exceed $14,080.00.]

IT IS NOT ADDING TO YOUR DEBT BURDEN AT ALL. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THOMAS TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS. I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION WHICH I THINK IS MORE FOR YOU. SO THE THREE BONDS THAT WERE REFUNDING HERE, POTENTIALLY TWO OF THEM ARE GENERAL OBLIGATION. ONE IS CO, PER THE NOTES. ARE WE OKAY WITH REFUNDING ALL OF THOSE INCLUDING THE CO UNDER ONE GO.

YES WE DO THAT FREQUENTLY. THAT'S VERY COMMON. GOOD QUESTION. BUT WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME OKAY. YEAH THANKS. SO REAL QUICK. OH YOU ALREADY DID. THAT ONE. OH IT LOOKS LIKE THAT PREVIOUS ONE. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. WELL GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. YES THOMAS HERE WITH T ARENA FINANCIAL CONSULTING. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING US OUT. I'M GOING TO COVER THE FINAL PRICING INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2026. AS BART MENTIONED, WE PRICED THOSE LAST TUESDAY, THE 24TH OF FEBRUARY, AND EVERYTHING WENT REALLY WELL. WE'RE GOING TO COVER THAT TONIGHT AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WILL LEAVE HERE HAPPY. IF EVERYONE'S OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. THIS IS JUST AGAIN, THIS INFORMATION WAS IN THE PRESENTATION FROM JANUARY, BUT THIS WAS A LOOK AT THE OUTSTANDING DEBT SUMMARY OF THE CITY. THE THREE SERIES OF BONDS WHICH WERE FUNDED WITH THE SERIES 2026, ARE CIRCLED THERE IN GREEN. AND SO AFTER THE BONDS CLOSED, THE REFUNDING BONDS CLOSED ON THE 24TH OF MARCH, YOU'LL HAVE 100,000 OUTSTANDING ONE FINAL MATURITY LEFT ON THE 2016, A 495,000 AGAIN ONE FINAL MATURITY LEFT OUTSTANDING ON THE 2015 AND 120,000 ON THE SERIES 2014. AND ALL OF THOSE ARE THE 2027 MATURITY WHICH DID NOT MAKE PRODUCE POSITIVE SAVINGS WHEN LOOKING AT, INCLUDING IN THE REFUNDING. AND SO AND THEY WILL ADD, OF COURSE, ON TOP OF THIS LIST WHENEVER IT CLOSES AGAIN ON THE 24TH OF MARCH. THE NEW GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BOND SERIES 2026. SO. THE NEXT PAGE ON YOUR PRESENTATION, THERE IS AN UPDATE TO WHAT WAS OUR INITIAL ANALYSIS. EXCUSE ME, FROM THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY WHEN WE CAME TO PRESENT WHAT THE REFUNDING LOOKED LIKE, IT WAS JANUARY THE 6TH. AND SO THIS INFORMATION IS ALL AS OF THE FINAL PRICING. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE THE THE TOP PORTION, THERE IS A SUMMARY OF, AGAIN, THE THREE SERIES OF BONDS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE REFUNDING AS MENTIONED, ONE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION AND THEN TWO GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING

[02:45:03]

THE PERCENTAGE ENDED UP BEING 6.18. SO YOU PICKED UP OVER 2% IN SAVINGS. IN THE AVERAGE ANNUAL SAVINGS INCREASED FROM ABOUT 52,000 TO JUST ABOUT 80,000. SO EVERYTHING WORKED OUT IN A REALLY GREAT WAY. YOUR TRUE INTEREST COST OR THE BLENDED INTEREST RATE ON THE BOND IS 2.66% FOR THE THE NEW REFUNDING BOND. AND AGAIN, THE FINAL MATURITY ON THAT IS 2035.

ROLLING UP THOSE FINAL TWO YEARS ON YOUR REFUNDED BONDS INTO THE PREVIOUS YEARS. AND SO WE SHORTENED THE REPAYMENT FROM 12 YEARS TO TEN, SAVE THE TAXPAYERS ABOUT $790,000 IN NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS, OR ABOUT 951,000 IN TRUE GROSS SAVINGS. AND SO, ALL IN ALL, A VERY SUCCESSFUL PRICING. I WOULD SAY THE UNDERWRITERS DID A REALLY GREAT JOB OF SUPPORTING THE TRANSACTION WITH ANY BONDS THAT REMAINED UNSOLD. THEY UNDERWROTE THOSE. AND SO OVERALL VERY PLEASED WITH HOW EVERYTHING WENT. ANY QUESTIONS? MR. PRINCE? SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN PUT THIS IN, IN LAYMAN'S LANGUAGE FOR THE CITIZENS ESPECIALLY. SO WE'RE REFUNDING WHAT YOU THESE THREE DIFFERENT C, ONE C AND TWO GEOS. YES SIR. WHICH ADD UP TO $12.775 MILLION REFUNDING THAT. BUT THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE REFUNDING IS LESS THAN THAT. SO YOU KNOW WHERE WHAT WHERE FROM A, YOU KNOW, AVERAGE CITIZENS PERSPECTIVE, WE USED TO OH 12.775 BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO PAY 11.585. WHY ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT? YES. AND WITHOUT BEING TOO COMPLICATED WITH THE MUNICIPAL BOND, OBVIOUSLY IT COMES AT THE LEVEL OF SAFETY AND SECURITY. SO LIKE A TREASURY BOND WOULD. AND SO THERE'S A PRICE AND A YIELD AND THAT GENERATES PREMIUM. SO IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO PAY YOU MORE THAN $1 FOR YOUR BOND, YOU GENERATE A PREMIUM, WHICH CAN HELP REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT ISSUED, BUT STILL GENERATE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO REFUND THE 12.7 MILLION IN DEBT. SO YOUR BONDS BASED ON YOUR OR EXCUSE ME AA RATING WITH S&P GENERATED ENOUGH PREMIUM TO TO ISSUE ONLY 11.5 MILLION WHILE GENERATING AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO REFUND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 12.7 MILLION. AND SO WE TYPICALLY SEE BONDS IN TEXAS PRICE AT A PREMIUM. AND SO OFTENTIMES WITH THE REFUNDING WE WILL SEE LESS AND REFUND REFUNDING AMOUNT. EXCUSE ME THAN YOU SEE WITH THE REFUNDED TOTAL AMOUNT OKAY. AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS LIKE 1.2 MILLION ROUGHLY. YES SIR. BUT THE NET PRESENT VALUE NET SAVINGS IS LESS THAN THAT 790,000. SO IS IT RIGHT TO THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, THAT BECAUSE OF THE DYNAMIC YOU JUST DESCRIBED, THE BASE AMOUNT IS HIGHER. BUT WE GOT TO PAY INTEREST ON THAT. SO WE LOSE SOME OF THAT 1.2 FOR THE NET TOTAL SAVINGS TO CITIZENS OF 790. YES. AND THEN A PORTION OF IT, ABOUT 200,000 IN TOTAL WAS WAS PAID OUT. PART OF THE PREMIUM WAS PAID OUT IN COST OF ISSUANCE. AND SO THAT PAYS THE UNDERWRITERS WHO OBVIOUSLY MARKET AND SELL THE TRANSACTION. AND THEN ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE OURSELVES, BOND COUNCIL, S&P, THERE WAS TWO S&P INVOICES

[02:50:03]

DISCUSSION ON NINE ONE. OR I CAN MOVE DOWN TO NINE TWO RIGHT NOW ON THIS. WE'RE GOOD. 9.2

[IX.2. Consider and take possible action with respect to an Ordinance Ratifying Ordinance No. 26-01-06-02 Authorizing The Issuance Of City Of Lago Vista, Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds In An Amount Not To Exceed $14,080,000 In One Or More Series; Approving An Official Statement, A Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement, A Bond Purchase Agreement, And An Escrow Agreement As Needed For The Sale Of Bonds; Establishing The Procedures For Selling And Delivering One Or More Series Of The Bonds; Providing For The Approval Of This Ordinance On One Reading Only As Authorized By State Law; And Authorizing Other Matters Relating To The Bonds.]

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR VANESS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. MAYOR. ON THE STAFF, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE NICOLE. SHE'S THE ONE THAT DID MORE OF THE WORK THAN I DID. I THINK CREDIT NEEDS TO GO WHERE CREDIT'S DUE. THANK YOU NICOLE. THANK YOU. NICOLE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

[XI.7. Discussion regarding amendments to the Ethics Policy.]

OR WE CAN ACCEPT THE DISCUSSION AND THE COMMENTS FROM ITEM SIX AND CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE SAME CONCEPT. MR. PRINCE. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO ADD, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO CLOSE THIS OUT SOONER RATHER THAN DRAGGING IT OUT FOR MONTHS. DO ANY CITIZENS WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE BACK TO COUNCIL IF NO MORE. WELL, ONE THING I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD BRING UP AND THIS, I THINK HAS COME UP PREVIOUSLY, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS WEIGHED IN THAT THEY, THEY, THEY THINK WE NEED AN ETHICS COMMISSION. AND I THINK SOMEWHERE ACROSS WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CHARTER, WHAT WE END UP RECOMMENDING FOR TO TAKE

[02:55:07]

I'LL AGREE. I MEAN, FROM WHAT I GATHERED FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, WAS THAT AND I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE INCLUDING, IS THAT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD BE ABLE TO NOMINATE, YOU KNOW, A PICK FOR, FOR AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND I THINK THAT THEY SAID IT WOULD IT WOULD HAPPEN ANNUALLY. AND I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN REALLY POLICE OURSELVES. SO I THINK THAT HAVING AN ETHICS POLICY IS IMPORTANT. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS IMPORTANT. AND I BELIEVE MR. OWEN JUST POPPED ON, AND HE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY IN REGARDS TO HOW THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE KIND OF INTERPRETED THAT. SO BUT I THINK THAT IF WE WERE RUNNING THE RISK THAT IF WE'RE SENDING THIS TO THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, WE MAY NOT HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BEFORE THEN. AND WHO KNOWS? AS BRAD SAID, THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO, YOU KNOW, PIECE BY PIECE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A ONE WAY, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO I THINK GETTING SOMETHING DONE QUICKLY IS, IS I KNOW THAT COUNCIL IS PREFERRING THAT. AND I'M I'M IN AGREEANCE WITH THAT.

I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY GET IT DONE PRETTY QUICKLY AS WELL. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE SEE A DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT MORE. MR. OWEN, DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK? NO, I JUST TURNED ON THE CAMERA IN CASE I WAS ASKED A QUESTION, SINCE, AS THE SPOKESPERSON, SO TO SPEAK, FOR THE COMMITTEE, AND IT'S COME UP A COUPLE TIMES NOW. SO I WAS JUST MAKING MYSELF AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY THIS MORNING. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, IN TERMS OF THE ETHICS POLICY, IN LIGHT OF REALLY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE CHARTER. I HAVE ALSO HEARD, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE ALL LISTENED TO THE SOME OF THE ESPECIALLY THE LATEST SINCE WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE CHARTER REGARDING AN ETHICS COMMISSION. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, JUST A SEPARATE ITEM, OR WOULD THAT POTENTIALLY BE AN A PIECE THAT WE WOULD ADD, AS IN THE ETHICS POLICY, THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ETHICS COMMISSION? I THINK IT WOULD BE SEPARATE.

WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE HAVE THE CHARTER DISCUSSION. I THINK THERE'S A REAL CONFUSION. I'VE WATCHED THOSE MEETINGS, TOO. I THINK WE'RE CONFUSING IT UP HERE, TOO. AND, BRAD, WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. THE STATE HAS A LEGAL DEFINITION OF WHAT ETHICS ARE, WHAT AN ETHICS VIOLATION IS, WHAT I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE TALK ABOUT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CODE OF CONDUCT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BEHAVE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY WORRYING ABOUT IN THE ETHICS POLICY IS HOW ARE YOU MATCHING THAT STATE STATUTE DEFINITION OF ETHICS? IT'S ALREADY SPELLED OUT FOR US OF WHAT AN ETHICS VIOLATION IS.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS BEING DISCUSSED IS BEYOND THAT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S BEHAVIORS. AND I THINK ITEM EIGHT IS THE NEXT ONE WE'RE DISCUSSING IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST TIME WE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT. THAT'S WHAT THAT STUFF COMES INTO PLAY. MR. BENNEFIELD, I AGREE 100%. I IF THERE'S AN ETHICS ISSUE, IT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE IN PLACE FOR. IT'S A STATE LEVEL AGENCY. THESE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. THEY'RE NOT YOUR FOES. THESE ARE AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY THAT WOULD LOOK AT A TRUE ETHICS VIOLATION, AND THEY WOULD RENDER AN ACTUAL VERDICT BASED ON EVIDENCE, NOT BASED ON PERSONALITIES OR INTERNAL CONFLICT. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE HANDLED. AND AGAIN, BEFORE YOU SCRAP YOUR ENTIRE ETHICS POLICY THAT

[03:00:03]

YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO PUT IN A OR I MEAN A ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION JUST TO FOR OUR ETHICS POLICY TO ABIDE BY STATE LAW AND THE WAY THAT THAT WOULD PLAY OUT, I'D BE THAT'D BE FINE.

AND WE CAN MOVE ON. YEAH. MAYOR, I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT. TYPICALLY AND YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, I SUPPOSE. BUT BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S IN THE CHARTER, THEN IT THEN YOU DO WHAT THE VOTERS WANT. BUT TYPICALLY THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSIONS, THEY OPERATE SIMILARLY TO WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, WHICH IS IT DEPENDS ON WHO THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IS AGAINST. IF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IS AGAINST A CITY EMPLOYEE, THEN IT GOES TO CHARLES CITY MANAGER AND THEY MAKE THAT DECISION AND IT MIGHT BE APPEALABLE AND SO FORTH. BUT BUT THAT'S THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IS AGAINST A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THEN YOU COUNCIL IS ITS OWN ADJUDICATOR. MOST ETHICS IRCC, THEY ARE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER FOR ETHICS VIOLATIONS OR ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CITY EMPLOYEES AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY MANAGER, BUT THEY ONLY ARE AN ADVISORY BODY AND THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. AND COUNCIL ULTIMATELY POLICES ITSELF. AND AND THAT'S COMMON BECAUSE TYPICALLY YOU SEE IN CHARTERS THAT COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL IS THE. DETERMINER OF OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF COUNCIL. THE OTHER THING THAT YOU SEE TYPICALLY IN, IN CHARTERS IS FOR INITIATIVE, RECALL AND REFERENDUM. I MEAN THOSE ARE THE MORE. YOU KNOW, RECALL, RIGHT? IS THE IS THE MORE TYPICAL PROCESS. RIGHT. AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT SETS STANDARDS AND IT REQUIRES PETITIONS AND YOU HAVE TO SET A CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF SIGNATURES IN ORDER TO EVEN INITIATE A RECALL. THAT IS THE IT PUTS THAT POLITICAL PROCESS IN PLAY, RIGHT, BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO ULTIMATELY, I MEAN, I THINK EVEN IF YOU EVEN IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND AN ERC, I SAY ERC THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ETHICS REVIEW

[03:05:01]

YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION YOU ARE NOW, WHICH IS THE COUNCIL IS THE FINAL ADJUDICATOR OF THOSE WHEN IT'S AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT'S THE MOST COMMON. YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD REMINDER. WE'LL BRING THAT BACK UP WHEN IT COMES UP ON THE CHARTER PROCESS. IF WE'RE GOOD, THEN I'LL READ IN THE NEXT ONE THAT WE'RE ALREADY SOMEWHAT BLEEDING

[XI.8. Discussion regarding the removal of the City Council Social Media Policy and consideration of adopting a City Council Code of Conduct.]

AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WILL SAY IN TERMS OF THIS, YES, I DID USE SOME HELP WITH CHAT TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT MULTIPLE CITIES IN TERMS OF THEIR CODE OF CONDUCT, AND I WILL REFERENCE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE I'VE PUT THIS OUT THERE IS THAT THE MAYOR OF SAN ANTONIO WAS ACTUALLY CENSORED BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT. SO THAT WAS A REAL LIVE. APPLICATION OF A CODE OF CONDUCT. AND I WANTED TO GO BACK THROUGH AND ACTUALLY REVIEW WHAT SAN ANTONIO HAD, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY AGAINST WHAT I HAD PLACED IN HERE. AGAIN, I HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T. OR AT LEAST I HAVEN'T SEEN A WHOLE LOT OF CONVERSATION IN REGARD TO THIS IN REVIEW, BUT OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO FEEDBACK. THIS IS WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I PUT FORWARD THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL BASED ON WHERE WE WERE GOING IN OUR CONVERSATIONS. SO AND WITH THAT, I OPEN IT UP TO THE COUNCIL COUNSELOR. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. I SEE THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT THE EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL, I GUESS, PROPOSED CODE OF CONDUCT ITSELF, THE ACTUAL CODE. WAS I MISSING THAT? AM I MISSING SOMETHING? I MISSED THAT ATTACHMENT OR WAS IT SEPARATE IN THE DISCUSSION BOARD? I APOLOGIZE VANESSA, I'M SEEING IT. EXHIBIT A WAS FURTHER DOWN, BUT I AM THINKING THAT WE POTENTIALLY NEED TO REPOST THIS FURTHER UP. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS HANG ON JUST A SECOND. ATTACHMENT A SO THE FIRST THREE PAGES WAS THE CODE OF CONDUCT. IT WAS A WAS A CODE OF CONDUCT MORE IN A RESOLUTION FORMAT. AND THEN PAGE FOUR AND FIVE HAD ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS OR INFORMATION. SO IT BY DESIGN I HAD THIS VERY SIMPLISTIC BECAUSE THIS REALLY IS SOMETHING NEW FOR ALL OF US. AND I FELT LIKE WE ALL MIGHT WANT TO DO OUR OWN RESEARCH AND THEREFORE ADD ANY SPECIFIC CLAUSES OR INFORMATION THAT WE FELT IMPORTANT TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH A THING. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. IT LOOKED TO ME MORE LIKE IT WAS DESCRIPTIVE OF A CODE, BUT NOW I SEE WHERE THE. NOW I UNDERSTAND THE WAY YOU'VE WRITTEN IT UP AND I'M FINE WITH IT. I THINK THE THE TROUBLE SOMETIMES WITH CODES IS CAN YOU DEFINE PROFESSIONALISM? CAN YOU DEFINE COURTESY? I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE SUBJECTIVE WITH THOSE THINGS. BUT I LIKE THE IDEA. I THINK COUNCILOR CHHABRIA BROUGHT UP IS IT REALLY ENFORCEABLE? MAYBE LEGALLY, NO. BUT THE SECTION THREE ADDRESSES THAT WE'D USE THE CURRENT TOOLS WE HAVE AT HAND TO TO BASICALLY TRY TO ENSURE DECORUM IN MEETINGS AND HOW WE'RE INTERACTING. SO. YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP. YEAH. YEAH. THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM HEARING NONE, MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH. I MEAN, I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION TABLED INDEFINITELY SO WE CAN GET ON TO REAL BUSINESS. I MEAN, WE'VE SAT HERE AND TALKED ABOUT FOR THREE MONTHS HOW WE WANT TO GET RID OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. WE WANT TO GET RID OF THE ETHICS POLICY. WE WANT TO GET RID OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. OH, BY THE WAY, LET'S INTRODUCE A NEW CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY THAT'S UNENFORCEABLE. IT CAN'T BE. I MEAN, IT'S JUST LET'S GET TO THE REAL WORK OF THE CITY. IF WE'RE GOING TO STREAMLINE OUR OUR CODES AND OUR ETHICS, LET'S LET'S STOP TRYING TO STREAMLINE IT AND THEN TURN AROUND AND HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM THAT SPECIFICALLY HAS A CODE OF CONDUCT THAT'S UNENFORCEABLE. EITHER EITHER WE KEEP WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AND WE MOVE ON, OR WE DON'T HAVE IT AT ALL. BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT PASSION. COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, I AGAIN, WILL SAY IN SAN ANTONIO, THE

[03:10:02]

THAT WAS SOMETHING IN REAL LIFE, ALTHOUGH IT IT IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, AN A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF SOMETHING THAT IS A REMOVAL. IT DEFINITELY HAD WITHIN IT, AS YOU WERE SAYING, THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US IN ORDER TO IN AT LEAST HAVE A REPERCUSSION OF THIS, IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SIMPLIFYING OUR CODES. AND THERE IS A CONCERN, I MEAN, I REALLY JUST DID THIS AS AN EXERCISE. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE A CODE OF CONDUCT IF IT'S NOT FULLY ENFORCEABLE. I DON'T THINK IT IS NEEDED. BUT I DID WATCH IN REAL TIME WHERE A MAYOR HAD SIGNIFICANT REPERCUSSIONS BECAUSE OF ACTING BADLY, REAL LIFE SCENARIO. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH MERIT OR REVISITING. BUT I AM OPEN TO WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL THINKS. MISS CHAVARRIA WAS MR. NAVARRO? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THERE IS A METHOD FOR REMEDY HERE, AND I WOULD WOULD IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILOR OWEN THAT MAYOR ORTIZ, SHE WAS CENSORED FOR BASICALLY WHAT, WHAT EQUATED TO WORKPLACE VIOLENCE. BUT REALLY IT WAS LATERAL VIOLENCE, AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT AND NOT NOT PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE, BUT VERBALLY AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A REMEDY. SO I BELIEVE THAT ONCE WE YOU CAN PUT THAT INTO THAT, THAT POLICY, A REMEDY IN THERE, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, LAID OUT. AND I THINK THAT WE COULD PROBABLY CONSOLIDATE THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY ALL AND THE CONDUCT POLICY ALL IN ONE. I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS TO BE TWO SEPARATE POLICIES. I THINK WE COULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT CONCISE, BRING IT TO BRING IT INTO COUNCIL. BENFIELD'S POINT. YES, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR MONTHS, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE REQUIRING IT OF US. I GET EMAILS DAILY, I GET TELEPHONE CALLS DAILY AND TEXT DAILY ABOUT ABOUT OUR BEHAVIOR OR PUBLIC PERCEPTION. SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE ADDRESSED. AND YES, IT DOES NEED TO BE PROBABLY CONSOLIDATED. AND I WOULD I WOULD SUPPORT PUTTING THAT ALL UNDER ONE CODE OF CONDUCT, SOCIAL MEDIA. YEAH. AND THE WAY THAT WE HANDLE OURSELVES ON THE DAIS. THAT'S I'M COMPLETE.

THANK YOU. COUNSELOR. VANESSA. YEAH. SO I WAS GOING TO I'LL JUST ECHO COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA.

I'VE I'VE HEARD IT FROM PEOPLE TOO. AND WE'VE EVEN HEARD IT PRESENTED TO US HERE BY FELLOW CITIZENS IN COUNCIL MEETINGS. SO THAT IDEA OF DECORUM, COUNCILOR PRINCE DID A REALLY GOOD, I THINK, DISCUSSION BOARD POST A SERIES OF POSTS ON THIS. IT'S BEING DEMANDED BY OUR CONSTITUENCY, SO WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN IT. IF IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE ETHICS POLICY, BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIMIT THAT TO WHAT'S LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER STATE LAW, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. I GUESS MY WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ENFORCEABILITY UP TO CENSURE BY, YOU KNOW, THIS BODY AGAINST A MEMBER WHO'S BEHAVING BADLY, THEN LET'S GET IT INTO THE CODE OF CONDUCT. MY CONCERN ABOUT IT WAS IT'S A NICE PIECE OF PAPER, AND WE ALL HOPE WE ABIDE BY IT. BUT IF WE HAVE NO REMEDY OR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURAL, LIKE I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS DEBATE OR WHATNOT, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE POWERFUL. MOST OF THE TIME I THINK WE'LL ABIDE BY THIS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONES WHO DON'T ABIDE BY IT ARE THE ONES WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF REMEDY. OTHERWISE IT'S TOOTHLESS. AND SO I JUST WANT TO AVOID THAT. WHAT I WOULD JUST ADD, AND I KNOW THAT YOU AND MISS AND MR. HALL ARE NEW TO COUNCIL. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TRY TO CREATE THESE POLICIES THAT HAVE SOME SORT OF MECHANISM WHERE YOU THINK YOU CAN GO AFTER THEM, IT JUST GETS WEAPONIZED AND IT BECOMES SUBJECTIVE OF, CAN YOU GET FOUR PEOPLE UP HERE TO SAY WHAT THEY DID BREAKS THAT CODE OF ORDINANCE, WHETHER IT ACTUALLY REALLY DID. AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO EVOLVE OVER TIME FROM THIS COUNCIL TO THE NEXT. I GET THREE COUNCILS FROM NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW DEFINITION OF HOW THEY DECIDE THAT THAT CODE OF CONDUCT IS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO GET AWAY FROM. AND AND WHILE THAT MAYOR IN SAN ANTONIO HAD ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST HER, SHE STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TURN AROUND AND SUE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BASED ON WHAT SHE PERCEIVES THAT TO BE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO AVOID HERE IN LAGO VISTA, IS CONTINUOUSLY SEEING THESE POLICIES WEAPONIZED, AND THEN PUT THE CITY IN A LITIGATION CONCERN. AND THIS KIND OF BACKSLIDES TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT, AWAY FROM EVERYTHING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST FEW POLICIES. SO THE SOLUTION THAT I WOULD SAY IS YOU HAD ALREADY TALKED ABOUT TAKING THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND MAKING IT PART OF CHARLES'S TRAINING. I WOULD SAY TAKE YOUR CODE OF CONDUCT, MAKE IT A PART OF HIS

[03:15:02]

YOU IN A LITTLE BIT OF THE GUESTS BEHIND YOU? OKAY? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. AT THE MOMENT, IT'S NOT. YES, IT IS WHAT IT IS. OKAY. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING.

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THE DEBATE OF WHAT AND WHERE YOU SHOULD HAVE THESE TYPES OF RULES CODIFIED, INCLUDING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. BUT I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY, AND I THINK THIS COULD BE PART OF YOUR DISCUSSION, IS THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THE THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE MEETING IS, BY DEFINITION, UNDER THE RULES OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE THE ARBITRATOR OF OF THE CONVERSATION, IT IS THE CHAIR AND IT IS YOUR ROLE AS THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING OR THE COMMITTEE OR THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE BAD CONDUCT IMMEDIATELY ON THE DAIS BY CALLING THEM OUT OF ORDER. AND IF PEOPLE DISAGREE, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO OVERRULE YOU. HAVE A PROCESS IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS RIGHT NOW TO DEAL WITH THIS STUFF IN THE MOMENT. AND THAT ABILITY EXISTS FOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE MEETING TO EJECT THAT PERSON FROM THE MEETING, IF SO DESIRED.

WELL, NOT SO DESIRED, BUT IF THE INFECTION IS GRIEVOUS ENOUGH UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. SO CONSIDER THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR CONVERSATION, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. IF THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, I CAN GO TO THE NEXT

[XI.9. Discussion regarding the Charter review process, including scheduling, and anticipated timelines.]

SOONER THAN I THOUGHT. IT'S NOT BAD. CHARLES. KNOW ONCE WE START GETTING THOSE COMMENTS BACK, I'LL I'LL BE STARTING. I'M LOOKING AT CALENDAR DATES NOW BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME TRAINING SCHEDULED AND OTHER WORKSHOPS. SO WE'LL WE'LL MAKE THAT AS PART OF ONE OF THOSE TRAININGS. AND AS SOON AS WE START GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM BRAD, YOU KNOW, WAS IT YOUR THINKING THAT WE WOULD START ONE OF OUR FIRST MEETINGS IN MARCH, OR DO YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO WAIT TILL APRIL? I'M GONNA SAY WE PROBABLY WAIT TILL APRIL ON THAT, BUT I DO THINK THAT IN MARCH WE WE NEED TO START WORKING AND TRYING TO GET SOME OF OUR TRAINING IN AND GETTING SOME THINGS LINED OUT. SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE APRIL 2ND AND APRIL 16TH. ARE THE REGULAR MEETINGS IN APRIL. IF COUNCIL COULD WEIGH IN ON ANY OF THOSE WEEKS IN BETWEEN OR AFTER THOSE, THAT MIGHT WORK, I THINK. I'M NOT SURE. MAYBE WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME SPRING BREAK SCHEDULES OR NOT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE US GET STARTED ON ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS EARLIER IN APRIL THAN LATER. MISS VANESSA. WELL, SCHEDULE WISE, I KNOW I'M PRESENTING AT A CONFERENCE THE WEEK OF APRIL 5TH, SO THAT WEEK I WOULD NOT BE HERE AND PROBABLY NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE VIA, YOU KNOW, EVEN REMOTELY GIVEN OUR SCHEDULE. SO IT'S JUST ONE ISSUE I WOULD HAVE, OKAY, MAYBE THE WEEK OF THE 20TH OR 27TH.

YEAH, YEAH, I'LL JUST OF APRIL OF APRIL 4TH. I'M SORRY TO DO A STANDALONE. OUR FIRST CHARTER REVIEW MEETING. OKAY. YEAH. WELL YEAH WE CAN HAVE WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS TO YOU. WELL IN ADVANCE OF THAT. THAT'S THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. OKAY. MR. THIRD THURSDAY OF THE MONTH IS ALWAYS PLANNING AND ZONING. RIGHT. SO IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THE WEEK YOU JUST DESCRIBED WOULD IF IT

[03:20:03]

YOU KNOW, WE REALLY HUNG UP ON THAT. ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS WHERE IF THE LAW ALLOWS, DO WE WANT TO FUND NON-PROFITS? AND SO THAT WAS ONE WHERE THEY THEY HAD A CLOSE VOTE ON THAT ONE.

AND THEN EXTENDING TO THREE YEAR TERMS. SO THE TWO YEAR VERSUS THREE YEAR TERMS WENT BACK AND FORTH, AND THERE WERE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR HOLDING THE TWO YEAR TERMS. AND THERE WERE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS. BUT THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE. AND I THINK IN THEIR FINAL, MR. OWEN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS. I THINK IN THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION IN THE DOCUMENT, IT DOES HAVE THE THREE YEAR TERMS, BUT IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE. YEAH HE'S NODDING. YEAH. AND THEN ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS CLOSE IN VOTE WAS ON THE POWER OF INITIATIVE. AND I'LL GROUP THESE TWO TOGETHER. POWER OF INITIATIVE AND POWER OF REFERENDUM. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THOSE TO BE PASSED. AND SO I THINK THE NUMBERS WERE GENERALLY REDUCED TO A LOWER NUMBER. BUT IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE. THERE WAS KIND OF A SPLIT DECISION ON THOSE. AND THEN ONE THAT WAS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL PUBLICATION AND POSTING OF ORDINANCES AND HOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE. AND THEN ANOTHER ONE KIND OF RELATED TO THIS. IF IT'S THREE YEAR TERMS, HOW WOULD WE TRANSITION FROM TWO YEAR TO THREE YEAR TERMS? AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS OUT THERE, AND I THINK WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON THAT. AND THEN LASTLY, TERM LIMITS. AND SO AND I'LL TRY TO GET THE SEQUENCE OF THIS RIGHT IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, WHEN THEY HAD A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED, THAT THEY WANTED US TO CHANGE IN THE CHARTER AS A RULE, THEY SAID, WE THINK THREE YEAR TERMS ARE THE RIGHT THING, AND WE THINK TERM LIMITS ARE THE RIGHT THING.

IN FACT, IT WAS, AS I ALREADY SAID, KIND OF A SPLIT VOTE ON THE TWO YEAR VERSUS THREE YEAR.

BUT TERM LIMITS, I THINK, WERE UNANIMOUS. HOWEVER, IN THEIR INITIAL PASS, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT CHANGING FROM TWO YEAR TO THREE YEAR TERMS AND PUTTING TERM LIMITS IN AT THE SAME TIME MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PLAN. ULTIMATELY, WITH THE COMPLETE CHARTER REWRITE, THEY PUT BOTH OF THEM IN A THREE YEAR TERM AND TERM LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE DETAIL THAT HE'S POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION, AND I THINK THAT'S ALL GOOD BACKGROUND READING MATERIAL, BECAUSE I WOULD HOPE THAT FOR THE MOST PART, WE SHOULDN'T SPEND A TON OF TIME ON THINGS THAT THEY STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THEM.

BUT I HOPE WE DON'T SPEND A TON OF TIME DEBATING THINGS THAT THEY'VE MADE STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS ON. FOCUS OUR ENERGY ON THINGS WHERE IT WAS HARDER FOR THEM TO COME TO CONSENSUS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON. SO WE SCHEDULED THE FIRST MEETING. ARE WE GOING TO BREAK IT INTO CHUNKS LIKE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DID, OR DO YOU JUST THINK WE JUST TAKE IT FROM BEGINNING TO END AND GO AS FAR AS WE CAN EACH MEETING? YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT WHAT WORKED REALLY WELL IN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS THE CHAIR SAID, WE'RE WORKING ON ARTICLE ONE AND TWO TONIGHT. RIGHT. AND THEN WHEN THEY GOT TO ARTICLE THREE, THAT'S THERE'S A TON OF MEAT IN ARTICLE THREE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW, THEY PROBABLY SPENT FOUR,

[03:25:01]

YOU KNOW, LET'S LET'S AGREE ON ARTICLE TWO, SECTION THREE. AND IT'S JUST KIND OF WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT THAT THAT WAS A THAT WAS A SUCCESSFUL MODEL. THEY SPENT A LONG TIME ON IT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ALL THE TYPOS AND CLARIFICATIONS AND CLEANUP. I HOPE THAT WE CAN ACCEPT SOME OF THAT. I'LL SAY GRUNT WORK THAT THEY DID ON OUR BEHALF. JUST ACCEPT IT AND NOT NOT SPEND TIME REVISITING THAT PORTION OF IT, BUT REVISITING REALLY THE MEATY ITEMS. WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? I'D LIKE THAT TOO. AND THEN WE COULD SPLIT IT UP THE SAME WAY IN THE DISCUSSION BOARD, SO THAT YOU COULD BE KNOCKING OUT EACH SECTION IN ITS OWN POSTING. YEAH. AND THEN I WOULD REALLY HOPE WE COULD JUST ACCEPT SOME OF THE GRUNT WORK. MR. BANFIELD. I THINK WE LOOK AT ALL OF IT. I MEAN, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE SEEN RECOMMENDATIONS COME FROM A PANEL OF SEVEN FROM PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT THEN THE CITY COUNCIL DID THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT MEETING. I DO AGREE, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE LIKELY DID A LOT OF THE GRUNT WORK, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO REHASH, REHASH EVERYTHING. BUT I'M ALSO NOT GOING TO JUST SIMPLY SAY BECAUSE IT WAS 5 TO 0, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOOD TO GO. BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF BREAKING IT UP, SPLITTING IT UP, TACKLING THE MOST IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, SECTION THREE, WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF MEAT, OBVIOUSLY, THAT MIGHT RENDER 1 OR 2 MEETINGS ON OUR PART, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HASH THINGS OUT THE WAY THEY DID. MR. HALL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT THEY SPENT A, A TON OF OF WORK AND IN MANY, MANY MEETINGS GOING THROUGH ALL THIS. CERTAINLY WE DON'T WANT TO REPLICATE THAT PROCESS. SO, SO WHAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN WHERE, WHERE WE, THERE'S A UNANIMOUS OPINION OR, YOU KNOW, A STRONG MAJORITY OPINION ON THEIR, THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND IF WE CAN. UNLESS WE HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THOSE, WE CAN ACCEPT THOSE. AND THEN AGAIN, AS COUNCILOR KRATZ WAS SUGGESTING, LOOK AT THOSE WHERE, WHERE THERE WAS STRONG DEBATE. AND WE MAY HAVE SOME STRONG FEELINGS, PROS AND CONS. AND SO SPEND OUR TIME ON THOSE THINGS. MR. I THINK YOU'RE STILL ON MUTE. SHE LOOKS UNMUTED. YEAH.

YOU YOU APPEAR UNMUTED, BUT WE'RE NOT HEARING YOU. COULD IT BE MR. OWEN? COULD YOU TALK REAL QUICK JUST TO SEE IF IT'S ON OUR END? OH I'M SORRY. YES. IT'S ME. I JUST MUTED IN CASE I WAS WALKING. NO NO. SO WE CAN HEAR YOU I JUST WE CAN'T HEAR COUNCIL. ARE YOU. HAVING SOMEBODY SECRET. OKAY. NOT NOTHING YET. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT I HEAR IS SO WORK WITH CHARLES TO LOOK AT THE COMMITTEE SCHEDULES. WE'LL LOOK AT THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IN APRIL, SEE IF WE CAN FIND A CONSENSUS ON THAT. I'LL SEND IT OUT TO EVERYBODY. TRY TO FIND A DATE. MR. AUBREY, IF YOU WANT TO EMAIL ME REAL QUICK OR SOMETHING, I CAN READ IT OUT.

WHATEVER YOUR COMMENT WAS. I MEAN, JUST SO COUNCIL KNOWS. CAN YOU NOT HEAR US? I'M SORRY.

MR. SO IF YOU WANT TO EMAIL ME YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR COMMENT REAL QUICK, I COULD READ IT OUT LOUD. IT'S UP TO YOU. I GUESS SHE'S DOING IT AND THEN WE'LL BREAK IT DOWN BY ARTICLE. I'LL PROPOSE OR CHARLES, WE'LL WE'LL WORK AND PROPOSE A SCHEDULE. YEAH, WE CAN SEE HER COMMENTS.

OKAY. YEAH. WE LOGGED IN AND PULLED OUT THE COMMENT BOX FOR THIS LONG GAME. RIGHT ON. CHECK.

[03:30:08]

ONE THING I WOULD FIND HELPFUL, BRAD, IS WE OBVIOUSLY MISTAKENLY HAD BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DO A COMPLETE REWRITE, THAT WOULD BE ONE BALLOT MEASURE.

AND SO I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT YOUR ANALYSIS SAYS, YOU KNOW, IS WHAT WE HAVE GOING TO RESULT IN FOUR BALLOT MEASURES OR 37, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S THAT IS A THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE ACTIVELY, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON. AND I YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE PREFERENCE IS TO HAVE AS FEW AS POSSIBLE. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN IF IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SET OUT IN THE PROPOSALS, THEN YOU CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE THING.

RIGHT. SO I DON'T HAVE YET A NUMBER FOR YOU. I JUST I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS YET, BUT BUT I THINK BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M GOING TO JUST TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT BEHOOVES ANYBODY TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND THEN HAVE SOMETHING CHALLENGED AND THROWN OUT. BUT WE I MEAN, I'M FULLY AWARE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, THE DESIRE AND WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO GET IT, AS YOU KNOW, AS FEW PROPOSITIONS AS POSSIBLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS WHAT WE THINK WE HAVE TO DO UNDER THE LAW. YEAH, OF COURSE, APPROPRIATELY SO. AND I THINK THAT POTENTIALLY LEADS US INTO SCENARIOS WHERE WE HAVE CONTINGENT BALLOT PROPOSITIONS.

RIGHT. THAT BALLOT PROPOSITION F ONLY MAKES SENSE IF BALLOT PROPOSITION G IS ALSO APPROVED.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE HAD THAT SITUATION WITH CAPMETRO VOTE AND AND USE OF THE TAX FUNDS. AND YOU KNOW REMEMBER THERE'S SOME NEW LEGISLATION THERE. YOU CAN'T HAVE CONTRADICTORY BALLOT PROPOSITIONS. RIGHT. THAT'S PROHIBITED UNDER A NEW STATE LAW. SO I'LL HAVE TO. BUT IF I CAN CLARIFY, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT CONTRADICTORY BALLOT PROPOSITIONS. I'M WORRIED ABOUT A BALLOT PROPOSITION THAT REALLY FROM A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE AND FROM OUR CHARTER REVIEW PERSPECTIVE AND POTENTIALLY FROM COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE, ONLY MAKES SENSE IF BOTH GET APPROVED, WHERE WE SAY IF G DOESN'T GET APPROVED, WE WOULD NOT WANT TO DO F RIGHT, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO DO BOTH OF THEM. SO I UNDERSTAND AND I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT NEW LAW ADDRESSES THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE OR HOW IT'S BEING INTERPRETED, YET I KNOW THAT THERE'S THE PROHIBITION ON CONTRADICTORY. SO AND I ALSO KNOW THAT THAT. BALLOT PROPOSITIONS CAN BE SUBMITTED TO IT'S NOT REQUIRED. AND THIS WAS THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY CHARLES LAST TIME. BALLOT PROPOSITIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. AND THEN THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S MISLEADING AND SO FORTH. AND SO I THINK WHILE THE INITIAL. YOU KNOW, PROVIDING THAT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS, IS DISCRETIONARY, IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S DETERMINATION. IF THEY DETERMINE THAT IT'S CONFUSING, IF YOU DON'T DO IT, YOU RUN THE RISK OF THE SECRETARY. IF SOMEBODY SAYING AFTER THE FACT THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SO BUT AND I DON'T KNOW YET, I HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE IT'S BRAND NEW. THE TURNAROUND TIME ON THAT IS SO THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING WE NEED TO FACTOR INTO OUR CONSIDERATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SENDING THESE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE BECAUSE IT PROBABLY IS A GOOD IDEA ONCE IT'S BEEN BLESSED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGES. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT TURNAROUND TIME IS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INVESTIGATE AS WELL. WHAT I READ, THEY CLAIM THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IT TURNED AROUND IN SEVEN DAYS. WOW. GOOD, GOOD I, I DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK

[03:35:04]

COUNCILOR CHARTER CHALLENGES COMMON THING. DOES IT HAPPEN A LOT? NO, NO, NO, THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT COMMON. BUT BUT. NO, THEY'RE NOT COMMON. BUT BUT WE WANT I MEAN YOU WANT TO AVOID IT. SO I THINK I THINK THAT HAVING THE SPECTER OF, OF, OF THAT KIND OF LITIGATION, WHICH WOULD GO ON FOR SOME TIME, IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO AVOID. SO WE DO WANT TO THINK ABOUT SUBMISSION OF PROPOSITIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BECAUSE ONCE THEY'VE GOT THAT, YOU KNOW, BLESSING, THEN I THINK WE'VE WE'VE SHIELDED OURSELVES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BUT THAT IS JUST ONE MORE ADDITIONAL STEP WE HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE. SO ONE MORE DUMB QUESTION. IF CAN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHARTER ITSELF BE CHANGED TO MITIGATE, LIKE TO HELP REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS OR MITIGATE THAT CONCERN OR. NO, IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF WHAT IT'S COVERING AND THAT THAT'S HOW SEPARATION OCCURS. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE LAW ON PROPOSITIONS IS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ONE SUBJECT. YOU MAY ONLY HAVE ONE SUBJECT PER PROPOSITION. NOW HOW WHAT'S A SUBJECT. RIGHT. AND IT BECOMES KIND OF DEFINITIONAL. RIGHT.

AND SO I THINK I THINK PROBABLY WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW MANY CHAPTERS DOES YOUR CHARTER HAVE.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS. BUT BUT IF YOU TRY AND PACK TOO MUCH INTO ONE CHAPTER THEN YOU KNOW. RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT. BUT THAT'S I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT. BUT AGAIN, WE NEED TO PARSE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. WE STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU. MR. PRINCE. YEAH, JUST A SUGGESTION, MISS CHAVARRIA. YOU MIGHT TRY REBOOTING YOUR COMPUTER AND REJOINING. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP. I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE'S EATING. THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I WILL MOVE ON TO

[XI.10. Budget workshop.]

OKAY. IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT AT THIS POINT THAT MISS OWEN POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO REMIND ME, WAS IT THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE THREAD? IS THAT WHERE IT WAS? SHE POSTED MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND AND THAT TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE BUDGET PROCESS AND ALSO REITERATED SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS, THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE THOUGHTS ON ON WHAT THAT REVIEW, POST MORTEM REVIEW FROM LAST YEAR'S RESULTS SHOULD CONTAIN AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT INCLUDED THE KIND OF THE BREAKDOWN BY FUNCTIONAL SPENDING WITHIN EACH OF THE BIG MAJOR AREAS. RIGHT. SO FOR

[03:40:05]

THERE'S PAYROLL AND BENEFITS. THERE'S SERVICES. THERE'S O&M, THERE'S SUPPLIES AND THERE'S ASSETS. I THINK I GOT ALL OF THEM THERE. AND SO WHAT WE ASKED IS FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AND TELL US ACROSS ALL, FOR EXAMPLE, ACROSS ALL OF THE GENERAL FUND, WHAT WAS SPENT ON PERSONNEL AND BENEFITS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE CAN SEE THE TOTAL SPENDING FOR THE HR DEPARTMENT AND THE, YOU KNOW, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ETC. BUT BUT WE CAN'T PARSE IT BY TYPE OF SPENDING. AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS, WHICH WILL BE A NON-TRIVIAL TASK FOR STAFF TO DO. BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE REVIEW FOR COUNCIL DATA AND FOR CITIZEN INFORMATION AS WELL. YEAH. BEGINNING NEXT YEAR I HOPE TO HAVE THIS SET AS LIKE THE FIRST ITEM AT THE JANUARY MEETING OF EACH YEAR. SO IT'S KIND OF A STANDING POLICY THAT WE KNOW THAT FIRST MEETING BECAUSE BY THEN WE'VE GOT THE YEAR CLOSED OUT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR. OKAY. LOOKING FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS. MOVING ON TO ITEM

[XI.11. Discussion and possible future direction concerning vexatious complainants.]

AGAIN, THE ORIGIN OF THIS IS TO TRY TO PREVENT THE OTHER SIDE OF THESE COMPLAINTS IS THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO MAYBE ABUSED THE CODE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM BY JUST REPEATEDLY FILING CODE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THEIR NEIGHBOR AND JUST HARASSING THEM. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST THAT? IT'S REALLY HARD BECAUSE THERE'S A TON OF PROTECTIONS. BRAD AND HIS TEAM SENT ME A NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH IT, AND I THINK IT CAME DOWN TO THE LAST THING YOU SAID TO ME, BRAD, WAS REQUIRING SWORN COMPLAINTS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST THING YOU COULD DO TO DETER MORE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS IF IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO I IF I DIDN'T, I'M HAPPY TO SEE BCC. I THINK I TRY TO BCC EVERYBODY ON THESE THINGS. IF I, IF I FAIL TO DO THAT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL DO THAT. WHAT I DID WAS I ASKED THE QUESTION WAS WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? AND I ASKED SENT OUT A FIRM WIDE EMAIL. AND I GOT BACK A FEW DIFFERENT POLICIES AND THEY WERE ALL IN ETHICS POLICIES AND SO FORTH ON, YOU KNOW, HOW TO DEAL WITH THE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT. AND SO I SIMPLY PUT THE LINKS TO THOSE POLICIES THAT I WAS PROVIDED AND SENT THEM BACK. AND. BUT THE, THE ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS IN MY FIRM MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE MOST EFFECTIVE THING BEING, YOU KNOW, MAKING THEM SWORN COMPLAINTS, BECAUSE THAT PUTS THE PERSON WHO'S MAKING THE COMPLAINT IN SOME LEGAL JEOPARDY IF THEY ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL AND SO FORTH.

AND SO, I MEAN, AND I SHARE THAT VIEW, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE DETERRENT THAT YOU COULD HAVE. AND I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO STIR ANYTHING UP. BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AT LEAST YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT YOUR ETHICS POLICY AND MAYBE LEAN IT DOWN. THESE ISSUES OF VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANTS WOULD ONLY BE, YOU KNOW, BALLOON IT BACK OUT. SO AGAIN, YOUR TOTAL TOTALLY YOUR CALL DOESN'T MATTER TO ME, BUT IT'S KIND OF GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, IT SEEMS LIKE WAS THE DIRECTION THAT MOST CITIES TAKE BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL LEGAL MATTER, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU DO WITH WHAT WE WOULD THINK OF AS VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT, BECAUSE THE THING THAT COMES TO MY MIND IS, YOU KNOW, TEXAS LIKE ANTI-SLAPP PROTECTIONS, WHICH PROVIDE ROBUST PROTECTIONS BROADER THAN FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. AND SO IF YOU PUNISH SOMEONE FOR PETITIONING THE GOVERNMENT, THEN YOU CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE. AND THERE'S ALL KINDS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A VERY, VERY DRACONIAN. PUNISHMENTS IF IF THAT'S FOUND TO BE TRUE. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THAT. WE HAVE TO BE WE HAVE TO NOT SET UP BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. AND THAT'S JUST SO I, I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THAT, YOU HAVE TO PROCEED VERY CAREFULLY. AND THIS WAS ALWAYS, TO ME, MORE ABOUT NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR, NOT CITIZEN TO GOVERNMENT. AND JUST BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A NUMBER, A HANDFUL OF CITIZENS WHO SAY, WE GOT SOMEBODY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO IS JUST MAKING OUR LIVES MISERABLE, CALLING CODE COMPLIANCE ALL THE TIME, THEY COME OVER, THERE'S NO PROBLEM, BUT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP CALLING AND KEEP DOING IT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION, LIKE HOW DO YOU PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS WHAT YOU'VE OFFERED TODAY IS THE ANSWER EITHER. I THOUGHT I'D HEAR FROM COUNSEL IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS. YEAH. IS THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON

[03:45:03]

PERSON THAT MOVED IN FAIRLY BRAND NEW, HAD A SHIPPING CONTAINER IN THE FRONT YARD, BUILT A CHICKEN WIRE FENCE AROUND HIS HOUSE. THERE'S A TON OF STORAGE IN HIS FRONT YARD.

HE'S GOT KAYAKS AND BOAT TRAILERS PARKED ON THE ON THE DIRT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT? TWO DAYS LATER, I GET AN EMAIL BACK THAT SAID NO CODE VIOLATIONS FOUND. WAIT A MINUTE.

BY THE STANDARDS OF THIS ORDINANCE, I'M TWO STRIKES AWAY FROM BEING BANNED FROM TALKING ABOUT THIS ANYMORE. AND I GUARANTEE YOU THERE WAS A LOT OF CODE VIOLATIONS TO BE FOUND.

IT'S JUST OUR CITY CHOSE TO NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THAT'S THE REALITY. HAD NOTHING TO DO.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE CODE VIOLATIONS, I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO CODE VIOLATIONS FOUND YET. I CAN LOOK AT TEN OF THEM. ARE CHICKEN WIRE FENCES ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA ALL OF A SUDDEN, OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE WROUGHT IRON FENCE IF THEY'RE FORWARD FACING? I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOATS HAD TO BE PARKED ON IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OR SOME KIND OF IMPROVED STRUCTURE. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU COULDN'T STORE THINGS OUTSIDE. I THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T HAVE CONEX BOXES ON THE DRIVEWAY. SO TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO CODE VIOLATIONS FOUND. SO I JUST FIND IT ENTIRELY DOUBLE STANDARD TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMIT THE CODE VIOLATIONS ACCOUNTABLE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HOLD THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE COMPLAINTS ACCOUNTABLE. I THINK IT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS POLICY IN PLACE, YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE A GOOD PROGRAM IN PLACE SO THAT THE ENTIRE CITY IS NOT IN CODE COMPLIANT VIOLATION. YEAH. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS ORDINANCE IS PROPOSED IS ALREADY OFF THE TABLE. I'M SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS. I'M SAYING THAT YOU DO HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST GOING TO CALL AND HARASS THEIR NEIGHBORS 15 TIMES, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. AND MY MY ASK TO THE COUNCIL IS THIS ISN'T A SOLUTION. I'M NOT SURE IF WHAT BRAD PROVIDED IS A SOLUTION THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DO, BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY IDEAS ON HOW DO YOU PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM HARASSING THEIR NEIGHBORS? DO WE HAVE THAT PROBLEM? I'VE GOT AT LEAST 4 OR 5 PEOPLE IN MY INBOX THAT THAT'S GOING ON, THAT PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME I'M ABOUT TO MOVE OUT OF LAGO VISTA BECAUSE YOU GUYS CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT ME FROM MY NEIGHBOR. YEAH. MISS CHAVARRIA, Y'ALL HEAR ME NOW? YEP. EXCELLENT. OKAY, SO, SHANE, I HAD THE SAME ISSUE. I'VE HEARD IT NUMEROUS TIMES. AND TO YOUR POINT, ADAM, WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS NOT A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT. YOURS IS ABSOLUTELY SUBSTANTIATED. AND YOU CAN DOCUMENT THAT BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND JUST PULLING UP AN ORDINANCE AND PROVING IT, THE THE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT ARE ONES THAT ARE REALLY BASED WITHOUT MERIT. AND IT'S JUST THEY'RE MALICIOUS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE THEY'RE REPETITIVE. THEY'RE MALICIOUS. AND SOME OF IT IS, I BELIEVE, A HUGE MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM BY SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLING OUR CODE CODE COMPLIANCE AND OUR ENFORCEMENT.

AND I AGREE, YOU KNOW, YOUR YOUR SITUATION PROBABLY WAS NOT HANDLED APPROPRIATELY. AND THAT SENSE I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD REFILE AND MAYBE EVEN OFFER TO MEET THE COMPLIANCE OFFICER OUT THERE AND MAYBE DO A LITTLE EDUCATION ON HIM TO SHOW HIM EXACTLY WHAT ORDINANCES ARE. I KNOW THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB, BUT SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS, WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO PUT FORTH MORE EFFORT THAN WE WOULD LIKE. BUT JUST TO SHANE'S POINT, I, I THINK THAT THE WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS IF A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT IS KEEPS GETTING LODGED, THERE'S GOT TO BE A POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY MAYBE NOT MAYBE A SWORN TESTIMONY, BUT I MEAN, MAYBE A STATEMENT OF FACT OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT IS TO TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR HERE.

AND I HAVE HEARD IT TOO. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE JUST WANT TO MOVE OUT. THEY'RE THEY'RE TIRED OF IT. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT RING CAMERAS OR THEY'VE GOT INTERNAL CAMERAS TO PROVE THAT THEIR DOGS WERE NOT OUTSIDE BARKING. WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE THEY WERE HOME WHEN IT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, WHEN THESE COMPLAINTS WENT OUT. SO REALLY IS GOTTEN TO BE A

[03:50:05]

TYPICALLY EATING A PROTEIN BAR. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE WAY THAT I MEAN, SOME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE HERE THAT IS MULTI FACETED. SO SOME OF IT COMES DOWN TO ENFORCEMENT. I MEAN YOU KNOW TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT I MEAN I'M NOT SURE WHY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE SAYING NO, YOU KNOW NO VALET. WELL THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT'S YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S A, THAT'S A THAT'S AT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LEVEL WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, BUT ONCE A, ONCE A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN MADE, IT'S, IT'S ALSO COMMON TO NOT HAVE THE, THE COMPLAINANT WANT TO GO FORWARD. AND IF THE CODE OFFICER HAS CAN CAN MAKE THE CASE BASED ON THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS OR THE EVIDENCE OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THE CASE GOES FORWARD WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT. THERE'S THIS COMMON MISCONCEPTION THAT THE COMPLAINANT GETS TO PULL THE PLUG ON A PROSECUTION, AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. SO I THINK, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER FOR YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO FILE A SWORN COMPLAINT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A CODE INVESTIGATION COME OUT.

BUT IT NECESSARILY I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER PHONE CALLS AND BE RESPONSIVE AND ALL THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS WORKS IN PRACTICE IS IT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, BUT I THINK. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN FORCE SOMEONE TO COME INTO COURT THE WAY THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. BUT BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO. MAYBE SOME POLICY THAT THAT, THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU AS A COMPLAINANT, YOU'VE CALLED US OUT X NUMBER OF TIMES BECAUSE IT'S ALSO A WASTE OF CITY RESOURCES AND TIME AND MONEY. SO IF YOU'VE CALLED US OUT X NUMBER OF TIMES AND WE'VE OBSERVED NOTHING, THEN IF YOU CALL US OUT FOR THE SAME THING ON THE SAME ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND FILE A SWORN COMPLAINT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT TRIGGERS THEM TO COME IN. I, YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT'S A VERY IT'S A IT'S A DIFFICULT PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE YOU JUST LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT POTENTIALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, COMING INTO GOVERNMENT AND ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATION AND SO FORTH. YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. AND SO, SO IT'S IT'S A IT'S A MULTIFACETED PROBLEM. THERE'S NO EASY ANSWER, FOLKS. YEAH, I THINK I THINK I CAN FIX THIS WITH POLICY. I THINK I CAN FIX IT WITH POLICY. I'M GOING TO SET SOME POLICY GUIDELINES OUT FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IF THEY LIKE. IF MR. BENEFIELD FILES A COMPLAINT AND THEY SEND HIM A LETTER, NO VIOLATION FOUND, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RIDE IT OUT. WELL, WHY WAS THERE NO VIOLATION FOUND AND MAKE THEM DOCUMENT IT? THAT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION I CAN SEE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I MEAN, I AGREE, SO IF THERE ARE SO ON THE ONE HAND TO ADDRESS HIS POINT, EXPLAINING WHY THERE WERE NO VIOLATIONS WHEN IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE. AND THE FLIP SIDE EXPLAINING WHEN WE WERE CALLED OUT FOR X, Y AND Z AND WE THERE'S NOTHING HERE, THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING HERE TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. THE INVESTIGATION TURNS UP NOTHING. AND YOU KEEP GETTING CALLED OUT FOR THE SAME THING. THEN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN,

[03:55:05]

COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA YEAH. SO CIVIC NAVIGATORS, SO I AGREE, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD REQUEST A I THINK AN EVIDENCE IS IMPORTANT. I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WILL SAY THAT THEY COULDN'T GET TO THEIR PHONE IN TIME TO RECORD THE REVVING OF AN ENGINE OR THE FACT THAT THEY'RE OPERATING A BUSINESS OUT OF THEIR GARAGE. BUT I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ON THE COMPLAINANT TO AN EXTENT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT TO MR. BULLARD'S POINT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU'VE MADE THREE COMPLAINTS OR TWO COMPLAINTS AND THEY'VE BEEN UNFOUNDED, THEY'VE BEEN DOCUMENTED TO BE UNFOUNDED. I THINK YOUR THIRD COMPLAINT OF THE SAME EXACT THING TO ABOUT THE SAME EXACT PERSON SHOULD SHOULD BE THEN BE A SWORN STATEMENT AND AND REQUIRE EVIDENCE. SO MAYBE MAYBE SET THE INITIAL BAR A LITTLE LOWER.

BUT IF IT'S FOUND TO BE, YOU KNOW, AS IT PROGRESSES, THEN THEN THE BURDEN BECOMES ON THEM.

I WOULD BELIEVE. COUNCILMAN BRAD, SO CAN A CITY JUST STOP GOING OUT ON THESE COMPLAINTS? IF YOU'VE HAD FOUR OR 5 OR 6 OF THE SAME, THAT PROVED TO BE UNFOUNDED. CAN THE CITY NOT GO OUT OR IS THERE LEGAL LIABILITY IF WE DON'T GO OUT? EVERYONE GOING, I GOT MY ANSWER. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S MY LEGAL OPINION. I IT'S IT'S. IT. I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT AS A POLICY. YOU KNOW, I'LL TELL YOU THAT I DON'T THINK I THINK YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, BUT BUT BECAUSE THEN, I MEAN, YOU TALK ABOUT SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, IT JUST IT CASCADES INTO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND WE WANT TO IT'S IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AN ISSUE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S.

BUT BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S AN ISSUE THAT IS OVERWHELMING THE CITY BUDGET EITHER. SO, YOU KNOW, GETTING TO A POINT WHERE IT YOU KNOW WHO THESE FOLKS ARE, RIGHT? PROBABLY AFTER GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW WHO THESE SERIAL COMPLAINANTS ARE AND YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN YOU CAN START TO IMPOSE THESE BY POLICY, YOU KNOW, ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP MAKING THIS COMPLAINT NOW, YOU KNOW, I'LL BRING THE SWORN STATEMENT WITH ME OR WHATEVER. WELL, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO, TO, TO PUT THEM ON THE SPOT. AND I THINK THAT'S JUST THE BEST YOU CAN DO. AND BECAUSE THEY STILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT CHARLES THINKS HE CAN

[04:00:05]

SO, I MEAN, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS IS PRETTY COMPLEX BECAUSE YOU START GETTING INTO THE RIGHTS IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON ANY ISSUES THAT YOU MAY HAVE. BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF A TRACKING SYSTEM AND SOMETHING WHERE WE HAVE THINGS ON LINE WHERE THEY'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO GO THROUGH AND SHOW SOME EVIDENCE, MAY SLOW IT DOWN POTENTIALLY. AND JUST REMEMBER, FOLKS, I MEAN, IT IS IT IS A CRIME TO MAKE FALSE GOVERNMENT REPORTS. RIGHT. SO THERE IS I MEAN THAT IS AN OPTION RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. SO WHETHER, HOW HOW MUCH OF THAT THE DA ACTUALLY WANTS TO TAKE UP. YOU KNOW. BUT I MEAN, JUST BEAR IN MIND, I MEAN, THAT TRACKING SYSTEM. THAT'S THAT'S SOME OF WHAT THAT IS FOR. SO AT SOME POINT IF IT BECOMES EGREGIOUS ENOUGH, I MEAN THAT'S THAT'S AN OPTION WHETHER OR NOT THE DA WILL DO ANYTHING WITH IT, I CAN'T SAY. BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT CAN HAPPEN AT SOME POINT.

WELL, I DO KNOW WE GOT A WE'VE GOT A NEW SYSTEM THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING ONLINE SOON CALLED SEECLICKFIX. AND I'M HOPING MORE PEOPLE WILL USE THAT TO FILE THEIR COMPLAINTS BECAUSE IT WILL TRACK. AND IF THEY DON'T GET AN ANSWER OR THERE'S NOT A RESPONSE THAT'S SUITABLE IN THERE, THEN IT ESCALATES UP AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND EVENTUALLY IT'LL GET TO ME IF THINGS ARE NOT BEING RESOLVED. SO IT'LL BE A BETTER TRACKING SYSTEM FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. I THINK YOU HAVE A HAND UP. OH, OKAY. I HAVE A CITIZEN, I THINK, ON THERE. I CAN'T READ WHAT YOUR NAME IS. IT'S ALI BENEFIELD. OH, THERE WE GO. ALI, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE YOUR COMMENTS, JUST A THOUGHT. IS THAT I THINK A LOT OF TIMES THE REALLY SERIAL COMPLAINERS ARE. IT'S TO MISS CIAVARELLA'S POINT. KIND OF IT'S A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, MAYBE. AND THEY FEEL EMBOLDENED TO COMPLAIN. GIVING THEM A DAY IN COURT WOULD BE LIKE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF OUTLIERS OF THE SYSTEM. CODE COMPLIANCE FOR VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS WOULD BE SOMEBODY COMPLAINS, YOU COME OUT, YOU EDUCATE, THEY FIX IT. BUT I THINK THE ONES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ARE THE ONES WHO JUST KIND OF NITPICK AT THEIR NEIGHBORS. SO THE IDEA OF A SWORN STATEMENT, THE IDEA OF GETTING TO GO TO A COURTHOUSE IS PROBABLY LIKE WHAT THEY WANT THEIR DAY IN COURT. SO I THINK MAYBE TO MR. WEST'S POINT, THERE IS PROBABLY A MECHANISM IN THERE WITH A POLICY, AND IT MIGHT BE MORE MENTAL HEALTH, IT MIGHT BE MORE PD GOES OUT AND SITS DOWN AND CHATS WITH THESE

[04:05:02]

JUST A THOUGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. I'LL I'LL AGREE WITH THAT. AND ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ANYTHING THAT WE POST ONLINE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT LEGAL DISCLAIMER ON THERE ABOUT FALSE COMPLAINTS BEING TO A, TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, BEING B BEING ILLEGAL. I THINK JUST THROWING THAT IN THERE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD BOLD IT, THROW IT, YOU KNOW, UNDERLINE IT, HIGHLIGHT IT HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. BUT I THINK JUST I THINK PEOPLE JUST THINK THAT THEY CAN JUST COMPLAIN TO COMPLAIN. AND, AND IF THEY IF YOU THROW THAT LEGAL PORTION IN THERE, SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE A DETERRENT. IT SHOULDN'T BE IF YOU'RE BEING TRUTHFUL, BUT IT CAN BE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING MALICIOUS COMPLAINTS. SO AND TO HER POINT, YES, MOST OF THESE PEOPLE, THEY JUST WANT TO BE SEEN AND HEARD AND TALKED TO, AND MOST OF THE TIME IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS ACTUALLY DOING. IT'S MOSTLY AN INTERNAL ISSUE. THEY FELT WOKE UP A CERTAIN KIND OF WAY, OR THEY WENT TO BED A CERTAIN KIND OF WAY. BUT IF THEY GOT THEIR THEIR DAY IN COURT, AND EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE OUTCOME THEY WANTED, AT LEAST THEY FELT SEEN AND HEARD. AND AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY TO ENTERTAIN THAT, BUT IT'S ONLY A FEW OF THEM THAT ARE DOING IT. BUT IT'S THE FEW THAT ARE COSTING US CITY RESOURCES. SO SENDING OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE DAY AFTER DAY, WEEK AFTER WEEK, IT'S A REALLY A WASTE OF TIME. SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO LIMIT IT AND WE NEED TO AND NOT NOT JUST IGNORE THIS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS. SO I WOULD I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH I'LL PUT SOMETHING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I THINK THERE'S SOME ALREADY. THERE'S SOME POLICY OUT THERE ALREADY THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY LOOK TO ADOPT. BUT I MEAN, I'M SURE IT COULD BE ANOTHER WORK SESSION ITEM, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT TOO MUCH WORK ON THIS.

WE HAVE OTHER CITY BUSINESS TO GET TO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM

[XII. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

I'LL START WITH CHARLES. I THINK ANYTHING I'VE INCLUDED THAT I'VE KEPT YOU ALL INFORMED.

AND IF NOT, I'VE PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I WILL NOTE THAT NICOLE'S JUST ABOUT GOT US CAUGHT UP WITH ALL OF OUR FINANCIALS. I THINK SHE'S UP THROUGH DECEMBER IS WHAT SHE TOLD ME DECEMBER 5TH. YEAH. SO WE'RE MOVING ALONG. WE'RE GOING TO GET IT TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S OUT THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS. SHE'S GETTING THERE. THAT'S ALL I GOT. ANY DEPARTMENTS WHO WANTED TO DO A REPORT? OKAY. AND I'LL MOVE ON TO COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS.

START WITH MR. HALL. NO NEW REPORTS. IT'S OUR LAST COMMITTEE OR OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING, SO. OKAY, MR. BENFIELD, NOT A LIAISON REPORT. I WENT AND MET WITH THE CITY MANAGER AT JONESTOWN THIS MORNING. TRACY PAVLENKO, VINKA. VINCA. VINCA. JUST TALKING TO HER ABOUT THEIR SDR PROGRAM. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF UNIQUE THINGS. AFTER THAT MEETING, I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH JORDAN, KIND OF ABOUT SOME OF HER THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING. AND SO I PRESENTED TO MR. BULLOCK, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. SPECIFICALLY, THEY HAVE WHAT'S CALLED AN OVERLAY.

AND IN THIS OVERLAY, IF YOU REMEMBER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID A RECOMMENDATION MANY, MANY A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS JUST KIND OF DETERMINED BY THE PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY THAT IT JUST WASN'T POSSIBLE. AND SO THE QUESTION BASICALLY WAS, IS HOW IS JONESTOWN DOING THIS? THESE CORRIDORS OF CERTAIN AREAS THAT CAN OR CANNOT HAVE STRS, AND HOW IS THAT LEGAL OR IS IT NOT LEGAL? IS IT AN OLD ORDINANCE THAT JUST HASN'T BEEN CHALLENGED, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY PERMISSIBLE? AND SO I'VE PRESENTED THIS TO MR. BULLOCK TO KIND OF DIVE INTO JUST A LITTLE BIT, NOT TOO EXTENSIVELY, JUST TO SEE WHAT THE LEGALITY OF IT IS. MY INTENTION IS TO BRING THIS FORWARD AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT OUR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TO SEE IF THERE IS INTEREST IN HAVING WHAT'S CALLED AN OVERLAY CORRIDOR. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IS THERE WOULD BE AREAS OF TOWN THAT COULD HAVE CERTAIN TYPES OF STRS AND OTHER AREAS OF TOWN THAT WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS AND OR CITY COUNCIL LOOKING FOR JUST A VERY BARE BONES, BASIC STRUCTURED, YOU

[04:10:05]

THANK YOU MAYOR. OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE THAT I WENT AHEAD AND PUT ON TO THE COUNCIL FORUM. THE ONLY THING BASED ON TONIGHT, AFTER WE WERE LISTENING TO THE IMPACT FEES, I JUST WANT TO DRAW EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. THERE WAS A CAPITAL PLANNING STRUCTURE THAT WE ALL DISCUSSED IN THERE, AND THAT WAS TO FIND IF THERE'S A WAY TO ORGANIZE.

POOR NICOLE, I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO SLEEP OVER THIS YEAR, BUT WE WANTED IT BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE AREAS, WHICH WAS PLANNED RECAPITALIZATION, YOU KNOW, BY EACH UNIT. SO THE LIFE CYCLE REPLACEMENT, THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO, UNPLANNED REPAIRS. WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT POTENTIALLY THAT IN THE BUDGET WE'D LIKE TO ESTABLISH A 200,000 ANNUAL CONTINGENCY FOR UNPLANNED REPAIRS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE THAT'S KIND OF BEEN THE THE NUMBER. WE ASKED CHARLES ABOUT THAT, BUT WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT CLOSELY. AND LASTLY, THE CAPITAL EXPANSION, WHICH TO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT ACTUALLY IS RELEVANT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPACT FEES. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE NEED TO BE CHARGING, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD. SO JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT THE EDC, WE DID HAVE A MEETING THE OTHER DAY WITH MR. ZINO IN THERE AND CHARLES WEST AND THE MAYOR, IN TERMS OF JUST LEARNING WHERE OUR GUARDRAILS ARE IN LAUNCHING THE EDC, WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO, I DID WE HAD THE TMF REPRESENTATIVE THAT COULD TALK TO US ABOUT THE EDC. GOOD NEWS WAS HE SAID, THANK YOU. Y'ALL ARE QUITE A BIT FURTHER THAN I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE IN TERMS OF YOUR SOPHISTICATION HERE. SO THAT WAS NICE TO HEAR. THAT FIRST MEETING IS MARCH 17TH. THE REASON THAT WE PUT OUR EDC MEETING MARCH 17TH IS SO THAT THE GRANT, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT WRITER CAN COME AND SHE WILL BE SPEAKING TO THE EDC, AS WELL AS DOING A PRESENTATION FOR COUNCIL THAT SAME WEEK. SO JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THAT WAS FORTHCOMING. THANK YOU MAYOR. BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST I'VE, I'VE REQUESTED FOR SOMEONE FROM MY OFFICE TO BE PRESENT FOR LEGAL AT THAT MEETING. I CAN'T THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY LOCKHART CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND MY QUESTION IS IF

[04:15:05]

I ALSO REVIEWED THEIR MAP AND NOTED THAT IT WAS MISSING. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LAY OUT WHERE YOU HAVE PARKS AND WHERE YOU HAVE RECREATIONAL AREAS NEXT TO THE WATER AS WELL. THEY HAD NOTHING FROM THE VPOA, SO I SENT THEM BACK ALL THE INFORMATION AND ALL THE PARKS.

ALSO, THEY HAD NOTHING LISTED FOR THE ISLAND AND THE ISLAND WAS SHOWN AS EITHER ABANDONED OR UNKNOWN. AND IT SAID MAYBE THERE'S 30 PEOPLE THERE TODAY. AND I CORRECTED THEM ON THAT.

AND I SHOWED THEM TWO PICTURES FROM THE LAST THREE FLOODS, WHERE THE ISLAND IS ALMOST COMPLETELY UNDERWATER, AND LET THEM KNOW THAT IN THE SUMMERTIME WE DO HAVE MORE TOURISM HERE IN LAGOS. SO YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT THE ISLAND. YOU MAYBE HAVE DOZENS OR MORE USING THE BOAT RAMPS. SO THEY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT WHERE TO PUT THESE SIRENS. SO REALLY KEEPING UP AFTER THEM. THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD DID MENTION TO ME THAT I, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE CITIES THAT KEEPS HAGGLING ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP UP ON THAT. THE OTHER THING, JUST A THANK YOU TO THE ESD.

THEY GAVE ME A TOUR OF EACH OF THE FIRE STATIONS HERE IN THE AREA, EVEN OVER NEAR THE FLAT CREEK WINERY. IT WAS REALLY GREAT TO GO SEE THOSE FACILITIES. THEY'RE SO WELL ORGANIZED. I MEAN, EACH ONE WE WENT INTO, IT COULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY WERE ALL, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE ORGANIZED ORGANIZING AND COUNTING EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING. AND THEY'RE JUST SO STRUCTURED, REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND THE RESOURCES THAT THEY HAVE. AND I JUST LET THEM KNOW IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE COULD BE COORDINATING OR WORKING WITH THEM TO PLEASE LET US KNOW. CHARLES. NO, I THINK I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING. I WILL STATE I BELIEVE IT'S NEXT WEEK. STATE OF THE CITY. STATE OF THE CITY. I GET A DRY RUN AT IT TOMORROW ON MY OWN WITH THE LVPI BOARD AT THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS. RETREAT COUNSELOR, VANESSA. NOTHING NEW FROM PRAC, ALTHOUGH COUNSELOR PRINCE IS GOING TO UPDATE ON SOMETHING. WE'RE WORKING WITH JORDAN AND DAVID ON RELATED TO P AND P AND Z. I'LL ALSO BE THERE AT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING JUST FOR PART OF THE MEETING, BUT I'M GOING TO SIT BACK AND LISTEN. SINCE I'M RECENTLY OFF THE BOARD, I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA. CHARLES WILL BE THE BELLE OF THE BALL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. I'M SUPER HAPPY YOU'RE GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, CONTINUING TO CULTIVATE THAT RELATIONSHIP AND DEVELOP IT SO CRITICAL. SO THANKS FOR ATTENDING THAT. COUNSELOR.

PRINCE. SO ON THE THE ITEM THAT COUNSELOR VANESSA TEED UP, YOU ALL WILL RECALL THAT SOMETIME BACK WE ASKED PLANNING AND ZONING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TREE ORDINANCE. THEY HAD HAD A TREE ORDINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT STARTED EVEN BEFORE WE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT IT GOING WAY BACK INTO, I THINK, EARLY LAST YEAR, COUNCIL REMINDING YOU, COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THREE THINGS. ONE IS UNDER THE USE OF FUNDS OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS.

WERE THEY OKAY WITH STRIKING THE WORD POCKETS SO THAT IT WOULD BE JUST USED FOR PARKS, NOT POCKET PARKS? THAT WAS ONE REQUEST WE HAD FOR THEM TO CONSIDER THAT. SECONDLY, CONSIDER WHETHER THE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF PROTECTED TREES SHOULD CHANGE, AND THIRDLY,

[04:20:06]

NOTHING GOT ACCOMPLISHED. AND SO WHAT COUNCILOR VENICE AND I, IN FOLLOW UP DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, ARE RECOMMENDING IS THAT WE TAKE ONE OF TWO PATHS. WE EITHER AS COUNCIL, JUST INITIATE A CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE TO STRIKE THE WORD POCKET. KEEP IT VERY SIMPLE. WE CAN DO THAT, I THINK, WITHOUT EVEN RUNNING IT BACK BY PLANNING AND ZONING. IF I UNDERSTAND OUR PROCESS CORRECTLY, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. OR IF YOU FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO RUN THAT ONE WORD, CHANGE BACK BY BY PLANNING AND ZONING, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. BUT WE'D LIKE TO TO GET THAT GOING. AND THE REASON FOR MY SENSE OF URGENCY AROUND THAT IS KNOWING WHAT WHAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PARKS AS WE GO INTO THIS BUDGET PLANNING CYCLE. ARE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PARK USE OR NOT? AND I SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT COUNCIL SESSION, JUST HAVE A ORDINANCE CHANGE. AND THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT BRAD HAD HELPED US WITH. IT'S A TEXTUAL CHANGE I THINK IS THE THE THING. SO IT'S A TEXTUAL CHANGE TO THAT ORDINANCE TO SIMPLY REMOVE THE WORD POCKET AND LET LET PLANNING AND ZONING HAVE FURTHER DEBATE ON THE FEES AND THE SIZE OF TREE PROTECTION. AND THEY HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OWNERS AND WHETHER WE SHOULD BE POLICING CURRENT OWNERS OCCUPYING THEIR HOMES. SO THEY WANT TO DO A FAR, DEEP AND WIDE CONVERSATION AS A COMMISSION.

THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT A REAL LIMITED SCOPE THING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, BY CONSENSUS, I'M HOPING WE CAN JUST PUT THAT ON COUNCIL FOR ACTUAL DECISION ON THAT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OUT. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. THAT CAPTURE IT. OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA. UNLESS ANYBODY. MISS CHAVARRIA. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO CHIME BACK IN ON WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. SHANE, I GOT TO MEET WITH ASHLEY MORGAN, THE NEWLY APPOINTED TEXAS WATER BOARD DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, TODAY. AND SHE WAS ACTUALLY. YOU SAID SHE USES LAGO VISTA AS AN EXAMPLE IN A LOT OF HER MEETINGS. AND SHE SHE SAYS THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE VERY FEW SMALL TOWNS THAT SHE SAYS, SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE AND THAT YOU ARE THAT SHE WAS VERY FRUSTRATED WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AND WAS GLAD THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN AT AT THE MEETING THIS PAST WEEK TO GET THINGS CLARIFIED FOR THEM AND UNDERWAY. SO AND SHE WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH WITH SCOTT GALLOWAY AND WAS, YOU KNOW, WE EXCHANGED CONTACT INFORMATION AND I THINK THAT WAS A A GOOD STARTING POINT TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING. SHE DID SAY THAT AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE COMING UP THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE NOT ONLY ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE THE OUTREACH SPECIALISTS OUT THERE, BUT THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO TIE UP ANY LOOSE ENDS GOING, YOU KNOW, OR MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR ADVICE. AND OF COURSE, THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT CONVERSATION GOING. AND SHE SAID, JUST KEEP JUST KEEP ON IT. AND SHE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH CENTRAL TEXAS WATER WATER COALITION AND ALSO WITH LCRA. OF COURSE, SHE SAID THAT THEY'RE A THORN IN HER SIDE AS WELL. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY GOOD JOB, BECAUSE SHE HAD HAD REALLY POSITIVE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT LAGO VISTA AND JUST OUR ADVOCACY THAT'S HAPPENING. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, IF NOTHING ELSE, AND I WILL ADJOURN THIS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.