[X.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. 26-2211 regarding a voluntary annexation petition related to approximately 4.949 acres of land located at 7301 Lohman Ford Road, generally described as Lot 27, Travis Hollow Section Two, into the City of Lago Vista, Texas.]

THAT. WE'LL GO X TWO CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 2211 REGARDING A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PETITION RELATED TO APPROXIMATELY 4.949 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 7301 LOWMAN FORD ROAD, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, TRAVIS HOLLOW, SECTION TWO INTO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. I HAVE JORDAN MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE PROPERTY OWNER, FOR THIS LOCATION. AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE SUN HARDWARE FACILITY. IT'S THAT STORAGE FACILITY THAT'S BACK THERE. THEY'VE BEEN IN THE ETJ. THEY WENT TO EXPAND TRAVIS COUNTY, ESSENTIALLY SAID, HEY, WE LOST YOUR PERMIT. WE CAN'T LET YOU EXPAND BECAUSE YOU'RE NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY STANDARDS. SO COUNTY RECOMMENDED THAT THEY COME TO US AND THEY ANNEX. SO WE'VE HAD A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING WITH THEM. THE INTENT IS TO CONTINUE WITH THE USE THAT THEY HAVE THE STORAGE UNITS. THEY'RE FULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT BEING IN THE CITY MEANS THEY MUST FOLLOW CITY REGULATIONS. THEY'RE SUBJECT TO CITY TAX. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT AT THIS POINT. AND SO THIS RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO START THE PROCESS OF ANNEXATION. THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO IT. SERVICE PLANS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN DECLINED FOR THIS PROJECT. THEY WILL NOT BE NEEDING UTILITIES.

THEY JUST WANT TO EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL DO PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'LL DO THE ORDINANCES. THIS RESOLUTION JUST SAYS WE'RE ACCEPTING YOUR APPLICATION AND WE WANT CITY STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ANNEXATION PROCESS. SO YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT OF THIS PROJECT. IF THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED. OKAY, MISS CHAVARRIA? I HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN, ACTUALLY, WITH THE STORAGE FACILITY BEING NEXT IN. YOU KNOW, YOU SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT NEEDING ANY UTILITIES AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING AN EXPANSION BY ANNEXING IN. WE'RE ACTUALLY OBLIGATED. ARE WE NOT OBLIGATED TO SHOULD THEY NEED TO PUT WATER ON THEIR THEIR PROPERTY? SO WHEN AND IF THEY DO NEED UTILITIES AND THIS WILL BE A PART OF THEIR SERVICE PLAN, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO THE MODELING FOR THOSE PROPOSED LOWS. WE DON'T OUTRIGHT OWE THEM ANYTHING. AT ANY POINT IN TIME THAT COULD OVERTAX OUR SYSTEM. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT KIND OF FACILITIES THEY WOULD NEED, WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE DONE. WE'RE ALREADY TALKING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A HYDRANT ON SITE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A HYDRANT ON SITE. AND SO THERE'S SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT GO INTO THIS, BUT WE'RE NOT COMMITTING ANYTHING TO THEM. IT WOULD BE AT THE TIME THAT THEY NEED IT. WE'RE FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT IS AND IF WE CAN HANDLE AND SUPPORT IT. BUT THEIR STORAGE FACILITY, THEY'RE NOT ADDING BATHROOMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S PUTTING THE BUILDING UP FOR

[00:40:04]

ADDITIONAL UNITS. OKAY, A LITTLE FOLLOW UP ON THAT. IF IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY, WHAT IS TO STATE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY? SO THE REASON THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY IS BECAUSE THE COUNTY LOST THEIR PERMIT FROM, I BELIEVE, 1997, AND BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS NO RECORD OF THE PERMIT EVER BEING ISSUED, WHICH IT'S A WHOLE OTHER MESS THAT WE AS A CITY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN. THEY CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE ADDITIONS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND THE ORIGINAL PAPERWORK.

WOULD WE WOULD WE ACTUALLY DO A INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY CURRENT ON THEIR CODE FOR EVEN MOVING INTO THE CITY? BECAUSE FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN OUT THERE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE. SO IN ORDER FOR US AS A CITY TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR EXPANSIONS AND THINGS, WHAT IS ON SITE TO AN EXTENT HAS TO BE UP TO BUILDING CODE WE CAN'T RESTRICT. AND THIS IS FROM A LEGAL. BRAD MAY HAVE A BETTER IDEA. WE CAN'T RESTRICT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IF THEY ANNEX IN AND WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BUT THERE IS AN ASPECT OF CODE COMPLIANCE THAT WE CAN BRING THEM INTO OUR STANDARDS AS THEY EXPAND THOSE FACILITIES. IT'S STANDARD IN OUR CODE. YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO BY BY BEING IN THE ETJ AND ANNEXING IN, THEY HAVE A VESTED RIGHT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THEY HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE USING THE PROPERTY AS IT HAS BEEN USED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION. BUT AND SO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND WHATNOT WOULD WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S LIKELY TO BE GRANDFATHERED AS WELL. BUT IF THE PURPOSE OF THEM BEING ANNEXED IN IS TO EXPAND, THEN YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO YOUR EXPANSION AND THEREFORE SOME PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING CODES. SO IN THAT WAY, YOU GET THEY ARE REQUIRED TO, YOU KNOW, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE TO BE UP TO EXISTING CODES. AND THE WAY THAT IT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING, HOW IT INTERFACES WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE MAY REQUIRE ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO ALSO BE BROUGHT INTO CURRENT CODE. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY ARE PLANNING ON EXPANDING? IF, YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY'RE BROUGHT INTO US, I MEAN, HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? SO LET ME. SO I BELIEVE IN YOUR PACKETS. THERE IS A. THERE WE GO. SO I KNOW IT'S IN THE IN THE PACKET. I JUST WANTED IT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICLY BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS 300 PAGE PACKET I WANTED. SO ON PAGE 168, YOU'LL SEE AN EXHIBIT OF WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING ON THE SITE. THERE IS A PORTION, I GUESS IT WOULD BE ON THE. WE'RE GOING TO SAY THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL FIVE BY FIVE STORAGE BUILDINGS. THAT'S WHAT'S GETTING FLAGGED BY THE COUNTY. IF THEY ARE TO EXPAND ANYWHERE PAST THEY HAVE TO PULL PERMITS. THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW CITY CODE. THEY CAN'T IMPACT THEIR NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE SETBACKS. WE HAVE BUFFERS. WE HAVE ZONING. THERE ARE THINGS THAT GO INTO THIS THAT WE NOW GET TO MITIGATE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T IMPACT THEIR NEIGHBORS. OKAY. MR. I DON'T THINK I SAW THIS IN THE PACKET FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

WHAT WHAT ZONING WOULD THIS BE AS IT COMES INTO THE CITY? I'M NOT SURE. FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH THAT ANSWER. BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THEIR USE IS EXISTING, WHEN WE ANNEX IT, THEY HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS THEY ARE.

AND STORAGE LIKE THIS IS ALLOWED IN C TWO BUT NOT C ONE, IF I REMEMBER, I BELIEVE SO.

AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE ANNEXATION PROCESS, WE WILL BE PURSUING A ZONING CASE TO GO WITH IT. AND SO ALL OF THESE WILL IN ESSENCE BE CONCURRENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THEIR VESTED RIGHTS, BUT ALSO PROTECTING US AS A CITY AS THEY MOVE FORWARD IN THEIR PROJECT. WITH THE ZONING COMES THE SETBACKS. IT COMES SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT GO INTO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IT ON BOTH SIDES. WE'RE GOING TO GO CONCURRENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR. I'M CLEAR AS THEY COME IN. THEY COME IN WITH A BUNCH OF BUILDINGS FOR STORAGE, SOME OF WHICH FROM FROM THE. YOU POINTED US TO PAGE 168.

LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN SETBACK. RIGHT. SO THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SET OF. EXACTLY. RIGHT. PRESUMABLY IT WOULD COME IN AS A TR ONE. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET REZONED PROBABLY TO C TWO.

YES, SIR. THEN AT THAT POINT, ONCE IT'S ZONED AS C TWO. AND BY THE WAY, I THINK I WANT TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. BUT I THINK C TWO IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION.

BUT AT THAT POINT IF IT WERE ANNEXED AND IF IT WAS BROUGHT IN AS C TWO, THEY COULD CHANGE

[00:45:06]

THEIR MIND OR SELL THE PROPERTY AND SOMEBODY ELSE COULD SAY, GUESS WHAT? WE DON'T WANT TO DO STORAGE. WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THAT IS AC2, C TWO ALLOWED USAGE AND THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. NOW I'LL POINT OUT THAT IN THEORY SOMEBODY COULD DO THAT IN THE COUNTY AS WELL. THEY COULD SAY WELL YOU KNOW. YEAH. CAN'T FIND THE PERMIT FOR ANY OF THIS. WELL TEAR IT ALL DOWN AND WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY ALLOWS. SO TO ME, THIS IS A LOGICAL PROGRESSION TO SAY, LET'S BRING IT IN. IF THEY WANT TO DO MORE STORAGE, YOU KNOW, CLEAN IT UP SO THEY'RE NOT ENCROACHING, THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE RULES. AND IF THEY OR A SUBSEQUENT OWNER DECIDES THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON THERE THAT DOES USE WATER, THEN THAT'S A NEGOTIATION THEY CAN HAVE WITH THE CITY. BUT WE'RE NOT COMMITTING TO ANY WATER OR SEWER USAGE BY DOING THIS ENTITLEMENT. WE DO. I BELIEVE IF WE INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE CITY, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES IF THEY WANT IT. BUT WE HAVE SOME NEGOTIATION ABILITY TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING UNREASONABLE WITH. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE PLAN. AND, AND BUT BUT THEY'RE AT THIS POINT REPRESENTING THAT THEY DON'T WANT THAT OR NEED IT. ONE THING I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IS THAT IS THAT TWO THINGS. ONE OF THEM IS IF THEY'RE ANNEXED IN, THEN ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, ENCROACH INTO A SETBACK OR SOMETHING, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THOSE. THOSE ARE EXISTING NEW STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY. THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS IF, YOU KNOW, TRAVIS COUNTY GETS ITS ACT TOGETHER AND THEY FIND THE PERMIT AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS, THEN THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO OR THEY, AS YOU KNOW, THEY CAN SCRAPE IT AND START OVER. RIGHT.

AND IF IT'S IN THE ETJ, YOU HAVE VERY LIMITED REGULATORY AUTHORITY. AND SOMEWHAT CYNICALLY HERE, I'LL CHIME IN. SOMEONE COULD PUT A GAS STATION THERE IF IT WAS IN THE COUNTY, RIGHT? THAT IS OUR CITIZENS DON'T THAT THAT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE. SO I MEAN, YOU HAVE MORE IF IT IS IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE MORE REGULATORY AUTHORITY BY FAR THAN YOU HAVE IF IT REMAINS IN THE ETJ. AND THE ONLY REASON APPARENTLY THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD IF THEY WANT TO DO IS BECAUSE THE COUNTY CURRENTLY CAN'T FIND A PERMIT. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. YEAH. MISS VANESSA, SO THIS MAY BE A DUMB QUESTION, BUT ANY IDEA WHAT THE AD VALOREM TAXES MIGHT BE FROM THE BUSINESS THAT WOULD ADD INTO OUR TAX BASE? WE CAN DO SOME ROUGH MATH. I, I AM NOT A TAX COLLECTOR OR ASSESSOR. SO WHEN I SAY ROUGH, I GENUINELY MEAN ROUGH. BUT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT NUMBER AFTER THE MEETING. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST SEE IT AS ANOTHER BENEFIT AD VALOREM TAXES. AND THEN AS OUR ATTORNEY SAID, WE HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY MIGHT DO ON THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S A CONSIDERATION. MISS SABRINA.

WELL, JUST ONE ONE MORE COMMENT IN REGARDS TO WATER WITH WITH EXPANSION ALWAYS COMES THE NEED FOR PROBABLY ON SITE MANAGEMENT WITH WHICH WOULD MEAN AN OFFICE, WHICH WOULD MEAN A RESTROOM AND SPACE. SO SAYING THAT WATER WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT NEED TO BE RAN OUT THERE OTHER THAN A, YOU KNOW, FIRE HYDRANT I THINK IS A LITTLE BOLD. SO I JUST WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

IF WE DO GO AND IT DOES EVENTUALLY BECOME C2, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A A LARGER ISSUE OUT THERE. IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOLD AND CONVERTED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT OF COURSE IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF APPROVALS. BUT IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE LIGHTLY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WOULD HELP THEM AND POSSIBLY HELP US WITH TAX, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY TAXES. SO THAT'S THAT WAS MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THEM SAYING THAT THEY DON'T THEY DON'T NEED SERVICES IS IS VERY BOLD ON THEIR ON THEIR PART. AND IF I MAY JUST TO, TO HOPEFULLY QUELL SOME OF THE CONCERN, WE HAVE TO DO A SERVICE PLAN WITH THIS ANNEXATION AND STATE LAW. WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO EVERYBODY FOR THE UTILITY SECTION OF IT.

THERE WILL BE AFTER IT'S RUN THROUGH LEGAL CAVEATS IN THERE THAT SAY, WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT TODAY. WHEN AND IF YOU EVER ASK FOR IT IN THE FUTURE, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS, AND YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU CAN TIE INTO THE SYSTEM. AND THAT'S IT. IT'S STANDARD. IT. BRAD WILL HELP, BUT IT'S THEY CAN'T JUST PUT A SPIGOT IN AND CALL IT A DAY. SO MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU MAYOR.

I JUST WANT TO LET THEY ACTUALLY ARE MY DRY CLEANERS AS WELL. SO I HAPPEN TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THEM. SO ON THIS PROPERTY, THERE IS A BATHROOM AND AN OFFICE AND ALL OF THAT. AND SO THEY CURRENTLY AS I JUST ME GOING UP AND DROPPING OFF SOME DRY CLEANING, I HAVE NOTICED THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN FACILITIES IN PLACE. I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT A WELL AND. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? DISPOSAL. YEAH. SEPTIC. AND SO ANYWAY, AT LEAST AT CURRENT, UNLESS THE HYDRO BEGINS TO GO LOWER AND THEN. YES MA'AM. THEN THERE MAY BE

[00:50:01]

DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF THE SERVICES. SO THANK YOU, MR. BURNS. JUST TO SINCE I ALREADY HAD TCAD OPEN ON HERE ON MY MACHINE, I JUST LOOKED IT UP REAL QUICKLY. AND THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OR APPRAISED VALUE FROM TCAD IS $2.1 MILLION. AND MOST OF THAT IS THE, THE IMPROVEMENT, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT SO MUCH THE LAND, BUT MOST OF THAT IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF BUILDINGS THEY HAVE ON THERE. SO $2.1 MILLION. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF TAXES TO THE CITY. YOU'D HAVE TO DO THE MATH ON THAT. BUT THAT'S THE APPRAISED VALUE. YEAH, IT WAS A GREAT LETTER. I FELT FLATTERED THAT SOMEONE WAS SO EXCITED TO PAY TAXES TO US, AND THEN TO FIND OUT THAT IT'S JUST BECAUSE TRAVIS COUNTY LOST HER PERMIT. AND I WAS LIKE, OH, BUT REALLY, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT KIND AND PATIENT. HE HAS. ANYTIME WE'VE ASKED A QUESTION, HE'S BEEN VERY FORTHRIGHT AND HONEST. I MEAN, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS LIKE, OH, YOU KNOW, OH, WE DO WANT TO BE A PART OF THE CITY. BUT NO, HE HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING WHAT THE INTENT IS. AND HE'S JUST TRYING TO CONTINUE TO GROW HIS BUSINESS. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT AS A CITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR MORE DISCUSSION OR I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. MR. MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 2211 REGARDING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PETITION AT THE LAND LOCATED AT 7301 LOWMAN FORD ROAD. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHIEF. YEAH. SOMEBODY COULD YOU CHECK AND SEE? I HEAR THE CHEERLEADERS OUT THERE. LET'S SEE IF THEY'RE READY. JUST DON'T SCARE THEM.

WHAT THEY DO. WE NEED THEM TO COME IN DURING THE. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'VE GOT MOST OF YOU IN HERE THAT WE CAN. I WANTED TO SEE JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN FIT IN THIS ROOM. I'LL READ A PROCLAMATION TO YOU ALL AND WE'LL COME UP FRONT. I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU ALL, AND THEN WE'LL

[VIII.1. Proclamation Honoring the Lago Vista High School Cheerleading Team.]

TAKE A PICTURE. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SEE WHAT WE DO HERE. CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, HONORING THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING TEAMS ON THEIR OUTSTANDING 2025 2026 COMPETITIVE SEASON. WHEREAS, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA TAKES GREAT PRIDE IN CELEBRATING THE EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR STUDENT ATHLETES WHO REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY WITH EXCELLENCE, DEDICATION, TEAMWORK AND SCHOOL SPIRIT. AND WHEREAS, THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY AND JUNIOR VARSITY CHEERLEADING TEAMS HAVE DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES DURING THE 2025 2026 SEASON THROUGH EXTRAORDINARY COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCES. AND WHEREAS THE VARSITY CHEER TEAM EARNED THE TITLE OF 2026 UI L4D, TWO SPIRIT STATE CHAMPIONS. TYING THE UIL STATE RECORD FOR MOST ALL TIME SPIRIT STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS ACROSS ALL CONFERENCES. WHEREAS, THE VARSITY TEAM CONTINUED ITS OUTSTANDING SUCCESS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BY FINISHING AS 2026 UK LARGE VARSITY GAME DAY. NATIONAL RUNNER UP. SECURING. AND SECURING FIRST PLACE IN THEIR NATIONAL PRELIMINARY GROUP AND ADVANCING DIRECTLY TO FINALS WITHOUT COMPETING IN SEMIFINALS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SCHOOL HISTORY. AND WHEREAS THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR VARSITY CHEER TEAM ACHIEVED AN EXTRAORDINARY MILESTONE IN ITS INAUGURAL COMPETITIVE SEASON BY PLACING FIFTH AT THE 2026 UK JUNIOR VARSITY GAME DAY NATIONAL FINALS, MARKING THE FIRST TIME A JV SQUAD FROM LAGO VISTA COMPETED AT NATIONALS. WOW. AND

[00:55:12]

WHEREAS THESE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REFLECT THE UNWAVERING COMMITMENT, DISCIPLINE, PERSEVERANCE AND TEAMWORK OF THE CHEER ATHLETES, THE DEDICATION AND LEADERSHIP OF THEIR COACHES AND THE STRONG SUPPORT OF THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, CLASSMATES AND SCHOOL COMMUNITY. AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA RECOGNIZES THAT THESE ACHIEVEMENTS NOT ONLY BRING HONOR TO THE ATHLETES AND COACHES, BUT ALSO SERVE TO INSPIRE PRIDE AND UNITY THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY, WE THANK YOU. NOW, THEREFORE, I, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY 19TH, 2020. I THINK, YEAH, I GUESS FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026 IS LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING TEAMS DAY IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA AND EXTEND SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE VARSITY AND JUNIOR VARSITY CHEER TEAMS FOR THEIR EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE. TEAM. HOW SWEET. I'M SORRY IF ANY COACHES OR ANYBODY WANTED TO SAY ANY WORDS. YOU GOT THE MICROPHONE RIGHT HERE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS GREAT HONOR. WE'RE SO, SO HONORED TO BE HERE AND SO THANKFUL FOR ALL OF THE WE HAVE AN AMAZING COMMUNITY. THIS IS VERY, VERY DISTINCT AND HOW MUCH SUPPORT WE RECEIVE AS A CHEERLEADING TEAM FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION, PARENTS, COMMUNITY, EVERYBODY. THIS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT WE HAVE HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU GUYS SO, SO MUCH FOR THE RECOGNITION. WE WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND ANYBODY WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING OR DO YOU WANT TO DO A CHEER. IT'S UP TO YOU. SURE. ONE. WE ALL KNOW. HERE WE GO.

Y'ALL RECORDED IT. THAT'S IT. THAT'S RIGHT. SEE YOU LATER. MOM. THEY. OH, OKAY. GO, GO.

SURE. OH. YES. OH. OF COURSE. THANK YOU ALL. PROUD GRANDPARENTS. RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.

DOES IT SHOW? WELL, THAT'S A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW. SO WE'LL GO ON TO A LESS EXCITING X3

[X.3. Consideration and possible action awarding Irrigation proposal for RFP 26-03 Cedar Breaks Irrigation Repair and authorizing City Manager to Execute Agreement.]

CONSIDERATION. POSSIBLE ACTION AWARDING IRRIGATION PROPOSAL FOR RFP 2603 CEDAR BREAKS IRRIGATION REPAIR AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. I BELIEVE CHARLES HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. YEAH, MAYOR. COUNCIL. AFTER VISITING WITH STAFF, SOME QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ON THIS PROCESS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS ALL BIDS BE REJECTED AND A MORE THOROUGH PLAN BE VETTED, PUT TOGETHER ON BEFORE WE START DOING WORK ON CEDAR BREAKS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN OVERALL PLAN THAT'S PHASED AND MORE IN LINE. I DON'T WANT TO DO A PIECEMEAL JOB OF JUST DOING A LITTLE HERE AND THERE, AND THEN COME TO FIND OUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY OR THAT WAY. AND I DON'T THINK THE SPECS IN THE ORIGINAL BID WERE QUITE WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BE. I HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT JUST PUTTING WIRE ON TOP OF THE GROUND AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND SOME OTHER THINGS WE'VE ALREADY. WE KNOW THAT LIGHTNING STRIKES OUT THERE. THAT'S WHAT THE PUMP HOUSE THAT'S THERE NOW. I WOULD RATHER MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THIS CORRECTLY AND LET'S REVAMP

[01:00:01]

THIS AND MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A GOOD SPEC AND EVERYTHING PUT TOGETHER. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHARLES, MR. PRINCE? JUST I SENT MR. WEST A NOTE EARLIER IN THE DAY ABOUT THE THE FUNDING APPROACH. AND I JUST IT'S PROBABLY WORTH PUTTING THAT ON ON RECORD HERE.

THE ACCOUNT THAT THIS WAS GOING AGAINST IS PUBLISHED IN THE PACKET IS ACTUALLY THE ACCOUNT FOR OUR LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION PROJECT. AND IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, WE ALLOCATED, I BELIEVE, ABOUT $5.5 MILLION FOR THAT PROJECT OUT OF THE C O BOND. AND THAT'S WHAT IS IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR. AND THE AMOUNT THAT CAME IN FOR THE BID FOR THE LAGOON VISTA GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT. AND SO I THINK THAT THE THE STAFF. PLAN WAS TO USE THAT SAME FUNDING MECHANISM TO COVER THIS AS IT IS AN IRRIGATION PROJECT, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL APPROACH FOR STAFF TO TAKE. BUT I THINK THERE'S THERE'S TWO THINGS IN MY MIND IS ONE IS, YOU KNOW, WE ON COUNCIL NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE AND I AM WE NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH COVERING THE COST OF THIS THROUGH THAT ALREADY ALLOCATED IRRIGATION MONEY FROM THE BOND FUND OF 2024 C-O BOND. AND THEN SECONDLY, AS MR. WEST POINTED OUT, THERE ARE SOME SOME DETAILS TO BE CLEANED UP IN THE PROJECT. AND THANKS TO MR. BENEFIELD FOR RAISING A LOT OF REALLY, REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS ON THAT A FEW WEEKS BACK. THANK YOU, MISS JABARI. YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK MOST OF THE CONCERN THAT I HAD WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE THE TICKET NUMBER OR THE ITEM NUMBER, HOW MUCH WAS GOING TO COST? IT WAS DEFINITELY THE SCOPE. SO I WAS GLAD THAT MR. BENEFIELD HAD BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION. AND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DIGGING. AND I KIND OF I ADMITTED THAT I WAS NOT AN IRRIGATION SPECIALIST, BUT ONCE I STARTED ACTUALLY RESEARCHING IT MYSELF, THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS IN THERE THAT WAS CONCERNING, ESPECIALLY THE WIRING ABOVE GROUND. AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE TRENCHED IN AND THAT WAS GOING TO COST A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT MAY BE WORTH IT. SO I AM COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO GET MORE BIDS WITH A JUST A DIFFERENT SCOPE. MISS. SORRY, MISS MENDES. YEAH. THANK YOU.

SO, CHARLES, DO YOU GUYS HAVE AN ESTIMATE KIND OF TIME FRAME OF WHEN YOU WANT TO RESCOPE THIS AND THEN LOOK FOR EITHER NEW BIDS OR COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO DISCUSS A NEW SCOPE? WE HAVE A ERNESTO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE WERE GETTING THE ENGINE. WE WERE. VIKTOR WAS GOING TO GET AN ENGINEER TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, TO GET US A WHOLE FULL SCALE, AND THEN WE WOULD PHASE IT INTO THE APPROPRIATE DEALS AND SCOPE EVERYTHING OUT. CORRECT.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIRST MEETING, WE STARTED WORKING ON IT. SO WE ALREADY KIND OF AHEAD BECAUSE WE KNEW SOMEWHAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE OUTCOME. SO WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON IT.

WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN? SORRY, JUST I GUESS NEW TIME FRAME, RIGHT. FIRST TO RESCOPE REPLAN, BUT THEN ANY SENSE OF HOW MUCH LONGER THIS IS GOING TO TAKE TO GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT DONE? THE SCOPE WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE IT DONE AND, AND WORK WITH PROCUREMENT TO SEND IT OUT FOR REBID. IF THAT'S THE CASE. AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT DEPENDS ON THE BIDDING PROCESS AND WHEN IT GETS APPROVED AND SUCH. BUT I DON'T HAVE A DEFINITE TIMELINE RIGHT NOW. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF WE GO OUT AND REBID AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, RIGHT, WHICH YOU CAN'T FULLY CONTROL, BUT DO YOU SEE IT TAKING LONGER VERSUS WHAT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT PLAN UNDER THE CURRENT BIDS, OR IS SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER? WILL IT BE LONGER BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY? OKAY, DEFINITELY BE LONGER, BUT I THINK WOULD STILL BE OKAY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST ONE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF THE REASONS IN A PREVIOUS, PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING, WE SAID GO AHEAD AND BID THIS OUT VERSUS TRYING TO DO IT IN-HOUSE BECAUSE TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE, TRYING TO GET IT DONE. SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING JUST I MEAN, I AGREE IF WE NEED TO RESCOPE AND GET AN APPROVED PLAN AND BETTER BIDS IN THAT. I'M ALL FOR THAT. I'M JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH LONGER IT WILL TAKE. WE STILL WITHIN TIMELINE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS POTENTIALLY CAN HAVE IT DONE BY THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE GOAL. AND WE'RE STILL MAKING A LOT OF PROGRESS.

WE'RE REALLY PUSHING THE PEDAL TO THE METAL TO GET IT DONE AND OUT AND TAKEN CARE OF. THANK YOU. I WILL ADD THAT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP WAS A MIXTURE OF VALVES AND STUFF IN THERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER CONTROL UNITS WE ARE USING MATCH THE VALVES THAT WE'RE USING SO THAT THEY ARE HITTING HITTING THE PROPER DEALS. MR. BENNEFIELD CAN ELABORATE ON THAT BETTER THAN I CAN, BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION. BUT I JUST THINK OVERALL, WE JUST NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PUTTING THIS PROJECT TOGETHER THAN WHAT WE DID. I COMMEND ERNESTO AND HIM DOING EVERYTHING THEY DID, AND THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO DO IT IN-HOUSE. IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE FOR THEM. IT'S IT'D BE AN OVERLOAD BURDEN. BUT I AT THE SAME TIME, I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A HABIT OF JUST

[01:05:06]

PIECEMEALING PROJECTS LIKE WE DONE IN THE PAST, AND THEN US WIND UP DOWN THE ROAD GOING, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM TODAY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE WE MISS THAT. I WILL CLARIFY ON THE FUNDING. THE ORIGINAL FUNDING WAS 5.5 MILLION FOR THE IRRIGATION PROJECT OR EFFLUENT DISPOSAL, AS I REFER TO IT AT THE GOLF COURSE. THE BID CAME IN AT 3.6 MILLION. WE WERE ASKED TO KEEP IT AT 4 MILLION, JUST SO FOR SOME INCIDENTALS AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE BID PROCESS THAT WE KNOW ARE GOING TO BE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT, WHICH LEFT US 1.5 MILLION IN. ONCE THAT BID WAS AWARDED, I ASKED THAT OF THE REMAINING 1.5 MILLION, THAT 500,000 BE PUT TOWARDS THE CEDAR BREAKS, WHICH THAT'S WHAT ERNESTO AND HIM ARE WORKING WITH. SO THAT'S WHERE THE FUNDING COMES FROM. THERE WAS A LITTLE HICCUP THAT THE SAME LINE ITEM WAS USED. WE'RE GOING TO FIX THAT IN THE CHART OF ACCOUNTS SO THAT CEDAR BREAKS WILL HAVE ITS OWN LINE ITEM IN THE CIP BUDGET. SABRINA, DID YOU. MR. HALL, I THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS JUST THE PROJECT. CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY AS I'M DRIVING UP AND DOWN SARA PARKWAY AND I'M SEEING THE AMOUNT OF FLUID BEING BEING POURED OUT AND KNOWING HOW THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, OVER OVERDOING OF THAT HAS KILLED OR BREAK AREAS IN THE PAST AND CREATED OTHER ISSUES THAT I DO THINK THAT HAD, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TRIED TO TURN THINGS ON MANUALLY OFF AND ON, VERY TIME CONSUMING FOR STAFF AND NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY OF MAKING SURE THE DISPERSAL IS DONE APPROPRIATELY. SO I JUST WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.

EXPEDITIOUSLY TOWARD COMPLETION. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IS WHAT OUR PRIORITIES. SO YEAH, WE WOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO MOVE IT AS FAST AS WE CAN. WE'RE REFINING THE SCOPE TEED UP WITH THE CONCERNS WERE BROUGHT UP AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE WE DELIVER A PRODUCT, A GOOD PRODUCT.

MAYOR PRO TEM SO I THINK THAT CHARLES ANSWERED MY QUESTION. I KNEW THAT WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR NEAR-TERM CIP WELL UP TO FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING. ARE YOU AND VICTOR HAVE BEEN DOING WORKING ON THAT? AND SO THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, THESE FUNDS, IS ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO YOUR OVERALL PROJECTIONS AT THIS POINT WITH THAT 500,000 ALLOCATED. OKAY. I JUST I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT DOUBLE, TRIPLE DIPPING INTO MONEY THAT WAS. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD HERE. I HAVE ACTUALLY PAUL'S LAWN HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I WAS A CONTRACTOR, ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS THAT BID ON THIS SCOPE. AND WE WALKED IT WITH ERNESTO, WALKED THE ENTIRE JOB SITE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE CONFUSION IS OF THE SCOPE, BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT IT NEEDED. I BUILT A COMPANY OVER 25 YEARS REFERRAL ONLY DEBT FREE BY DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY AND NOT TAKING SHORTCUTS AND NOT DOING THINGS HALFWAY. THE SCOPE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AND THE WAY THAT WE WOULD DO THIS PROJECT, IT WOULD WORK. SO WE HAVE MATCHING VALVES, MATCHING CONTROLLERS, WE HAVE GROUNDING PLATES, LIGHTNING RODS. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE ONE CONCERN WE HAD WAS THE WIRE ABOVE GROUND THAT WAS INSTALLED PREVIOUSLY.

SO WHAT WE DID IN OUR PROPOSAL, WHICH NO ONE ELSE DID, WAS PUT ALL THE WIRE IN HALF INCH ELECTRICAL CONDUIT. SO BY DOING THAT, WHICH NOBODY ELSE DID, IT WOULD PREVENT ANIMALS FROM CHEWING ON IT. IT WOULD PREVENT DAMAGE, WEAR AND TEAR FROM BEING IN THE SUN. I THINK THE REASON WHY WIRE WASN'T BURIED IN THE FIRST PLACE OUT THERE IS THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TREE ROOTS. ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TRENCHED THE WIRES AND PIPE TO BEGIN WITH. SO WITH THE WIRE ABOVE GROUND LIKE IT JUST WOULDN'T WORK EXPOSED LIKE THAT.

SO WE PUT IT IN CONDUIT, WHICH IS LIKE THE, THE BEST YOU CAN DO IN THAT, IN THAT SITUATION, IF YOU'RE WANTING THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD CHANGE DIFFERENTLY ON THIS SCOPE, IF YOU CAN TRENCH IT, IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY. I THINK THAT WAS INSTALLED WHEN THE TREES WERE SMALL, WHEN THE LANE WAS PROBABLY MORE CLEAR, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TREE ROOTS THAT ARE OUT THERE TO DIG THROUGH IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. SO UNLESS YOU WANT TO SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY ON THIS PROJECT, THE WAY WE HAVE IT DONE IS THE WAY IT WILL WORK. I HAVE THE

[01:10:03]

BEST INTEREST, THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST IN MIND. WHEN WE WERE BROUGHT OUT TO CEDAR BREAKS, THE FIRST TIME TO FIX THE IRRIGATION RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, WE WERE TOLD, YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU JUST NEED TO GO AHEAD AND REPLACE IT. WELL, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS TAKE PEOPLE'S MONEY THAT I DON'T DESERVE AND I'M NOT GOING TO EARN OR IT'S NOT NEEDED. SO WE DID AN EXPLORATION OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRONG. AND WE JUST FOUND OUT THAT WIRE CONNECTORS AND SOLENOIDS WERE BAD AND ONE CONTROLLER WAS BAD. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING YES TO ■THE SCOPE THAT WAS ASKED OF US, WE SAID, HEY, LET'S FIND SOME SAVINGS AND FIND A WAY TO DO THIS MORE ECONOMICALLY AND NOT GO WAY. LIKE JUST DO EXTRA WORK JUST TO TAKE MONEY, JUST TO DO IT. SO WE SAVED THE CITY TEN, $20,000 JUST IN THAT ONE PROJECT ALONE BY ONLY FIXING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BROKEN. AND NOW IT WORKS JUST FINE. I'M GOING TO PROVIDE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THIS JOB. I'VE BEEN REFERRAL ONLY MY PHONE NUMBER HASN'T CHANGED. I GOT IT WHEN I WAS 16. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS MY WHOLE LIFE. I DON'T DO THIS IN A WAY WHERE I'M NOT GOING TO GET CALLED BACK. VANESSA KNOWS HE CAN CALL ME ANYTIME YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU CALL ME ANYTIME AND WE ARE JUST JOHNNY ON THE SPOT WITH OUR COMPANY. SO IF YOU WANT THIS DONE THE RIGHT WAY WITHOUT A LOT OF EXTRA COST, THE WAY I HAVE IT PROPOSED, IT'S GOING TO WORK. AND IF IT DOESN'T, THEN I GO FIX IT. BUT I'M 100% CONFIDENT THAT THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ABOVE GRADE, IS GOING TO WORK, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE GROUNDING PLATES, ALL THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS FOR LIGHTNING STRIKES. WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING THESE CONSIDERATIONS. MR. PENFIELD, YOU HAD YOU ALL SAID THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP IN THE LAST MEETING. WHAT WERE THOSE CONCERNS? I KNOW YOUR LICENSE OR YOU HAVE A COMPANY. WHAT WERE YOUR CONCERNS WITH MY PROPOSAL? THAT WASN'T CLEAR.

WELL, I DIDN'T RECEIVE YOUR QUOTES UNTIL THIS ■COUNCIL MEETING, SO I WASN'T ACTUALLY ABLE TO LOOK AT IT. I DID SEE IT ON THIS ONE. ONE DISCREPANCY THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED TONIGHT VERSUS WHAT YOUR ACTUAL QUOTE SAYS IS YOU JUST SAID THAT YOUR QUOTE INCLUDED ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ON TOP OF THE GROUND. HOWEVER, PAGE 185 OF YOUR QUOTE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT'S CLASS 315, WHICH IS IRRIGATION HALF INCH TUBING, WHICH IS FAR THINNER AND LESS APPLICABLE. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK OVERALL THERE ARE WITH THE QUOTES. THERE'S NO MENTIONING IN YOUR QUOTE OF GROUNDING PLATES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS ADMIRABLE, BUT IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY DETAILED. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T THINK IT CAN'T BE OVERCOME BY DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT, BUT THE LACK OF DETAIL IN THE QUOTE IS WHAT HAD ME CONCERNED. SO IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU COULD DO IT OR THE OTHER GUY CAN'T DO IT. IT'S JUST THAT IT WASN'T DETAILED. YOU'RE SAYING HERE TONIGHT IT'S ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, BUT YOUR QUOTE SAYS IT'S CLASS 315. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY ISSUE. I CAN, I CAN REREAD THAT AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT. BUT THE. WE WOULD PUT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT. IT IS PRICED FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND THE GROUNDING PLATES ARE JUST SOP. LIKE THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU DO ON A TWO WIRE SYSTEM. SO IF YOU'RE DIGGING A TRENCH, YOU'RE GOING TO DIG AT 18IN. YOU'RE GOING TO WHEN YOU'RE DOING OTHER WORK LIKE THAT'S JUST SOP, THAT'S JUST INCLUDED IN THAT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WIRE IN A VALVE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE WIRE NUTS. WHEN YOU PUT A PROPOSAL ON, YOU DON'T SAY, I'M PUTTING TWO WIRE NUTS ON EACH VALVE. LIKE THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU DO. SO GROUNDING PLATES, IT'S ALL IN THERE.

THAT'S SOP FOR THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM. THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB. THIS IS NOT JUST A REGULAR TWO WIRE SYSTEM. THIS IS MILES OF WIRE. THIS IS MILES OF TRENCHING THROUGH TREE ROOTS, THROUGH CEDAR ROOTS. IT IS A LOT MORE WORK THAN JUST RUNNING IT ON THE GROUND AND PUTTING THE WIRE IN CONDUIT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. IF THIS GETS OPENED BACK UP AND YOU WANT THAT, YOU WILL SPEND MORE MONEY ON THIS PROJECT. I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT, WANTING TO DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY, BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT ANOTHER BID DIDN'T HAVE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND THAT I WOULD JUST NOT DO THE JOB IF THAT WAS THE CASE, LIKE IF I WAS MADE TO PUT WIRE ON THE GROUND, NOT IN CONDUIT, I WOULD WALK AWAY FROM THIS JOB BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW WE WOULD DO IT. SO I ASSURE YOU THIS JOB WOULD BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY, AND IT WOULD WORK WITHOUT A PROBLEM DOING THE WAY THAT I PROPOSED.

AND IF THERE'S A TYPO ON MY ESTIMATE, IT'S ELECTRICAL CONDUIT. I'M NOT PUTTING IT IN WHITE PVC ABOVE GROUND. SO SOP, THIS IS A DIFFICULT JOB THAT WILL BE DONE VERY WELL AND IT'LL BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY THE FIRST TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. MISS

[01:15:02]

CHAVARRIA, I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO SEE IF VANESSA COULD COME UP, AND I WAS GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS, HOW HIS COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT DESCRIPTION, WITH THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OR THE WITH WITH WITH WHAT PAUL JUST, JUST DESCRIBED. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE DESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT IS MILES AND MILES OF WIRE AND, AND ROUTES AND SYSTEM. THAT'S WHY IT WAS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE PROPOSED. WE DIDN'T ASK TO TRENCH IT BECAUSE WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE, INCREASING THE PRICE SIGNIFICANTLY. YEAH. I'M STILL GETTING USED TO THIS. THANK YOU. THAT'S THAT'S BASICALLY MY QUESTION WAS THAT I HAD JUST GOTTEN YOUR PROPOSAL AS WELL TODAY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. SO AND OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT MR. BENNEFIELD DOES ON ON, YOU KNOW, LOOKING FOR GROUNDING PLATES AND SOME OF THAT, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONDUIT. BUT I APPRECIATE, ERNESTO, THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT IT'S JUST KIND OF CONFUSING AS TO WHY THESE OTHER BIDS, YOU KNOW, WERE GOING TO JUST BASICALLY PUT GROUND WIRE ON THE GROUND AND NOT INSULATE IT. YEAH. MR. BANFIELD. SO, BRAD, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU. MANY OF MY QUESTIONS LAST WEEK, I AGREE WITH IS IT PAUL? I AGREE WITH PAUL OR ASSUMED, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT ANYTHING AS AN ASSUMPTION. RIGHT. SO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THE RFP NOR THE QUOTE NEVER MENTIONED GROUNDING PLATES. HOWEVER, IT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD TO HAVE THINGS LIKE THAT IN THERE. SO MY QUESTION BASICALLY WAS, DOES THIS INCLUDE GROUNDING PLATES? RIGHT.

HE SAYS IT DOES. RIGHT. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS YOU KNOW, I HAVE 16 CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE LOWEST BIDDER THOSE 16 CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IF IT MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CITY COUNCIL, US PROCEED FORWARD WITH THAT CONTRACT. IF IT DOESN'T, WE ASK THOSE SAME QUESTIONS TO THE NUMBER TWO BIDDER. IF IT MEETS THOSE SPECIFICATIONS, THEN WE PROCEED FORWARD. IF IT DOESN'T, WE SEND IT OUT TO REBID. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED. YES, SIR. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT ANY BIDS. AND I MEAN, IF THERE ARE IF YOU'VE IDENTIFIED VAGUE ISSUES BECAUSE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA, CERTAINLY IDENTIFYING THEM AND AND COMMITTING THEM TO WRITING WOULD AT THIS STAGE IS APPROPRIATE. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE BID DOCUMENT OR, YOU KNOW, THE BID NOTICE, YOU KNOW, BUT OBTAINING CLARIFICATION IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. AND IF AND IF THEY CAN DO THAT AND COMMIT TO THE PRICE, THEN YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD OR YOU CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. WELL, MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO THE TO THE BIDDERS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CHANGING THE SCOPE IS DID YOUR QUOTE INCLUDE THE GROUNDING PLATES? NO, THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I THINK I THINK OBTAINING THAT CLARIFICATION IS NOT CHANGING THE SCOPE. WHAT YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IS MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE BIDDERS HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INFORMATION, THE BID, THE BID REQUEST, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT SAME INFORMATION.

IF IF WHAT THEY PROVIDE TO THE CITY, IF YOU THINK IS VAGUE OR IT NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION, YOU CAN ASK THAT. YOU CAN ASK THEM FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND THAT'S NOT A CHANGE IN SCOPE. SO JUST TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, I, I THINK OVERALL, THE RFP WAS WELL WRITTEN. THERE WAS JUST SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE MADE THAT WERE NOT CLEAR IN THE, IN THE, IN THE QUOTES THAT WE RECEIVED. AND I PERSONALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AS IS.

IF WE WERE, WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE THOSE CONFIRMATIONS FROM ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS TONIGHT. LIKE, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS YOU HAVE THIS CONTROLLER THAT'S BRAND NEW. YOU'RE REPLACING ALL THE WIRING FROM THAT CONTROLLER TO EVERY VALVE.

YOU'RE REPLACING ALL THE INTERNAL COMPONENTS IN THE VALVE. I MEAN, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A BRAND NEW SYSTEM. OTHER THAN THE PIPE, THE ONLY ISSUES THAT WOULD REMAIN WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE PIPES BURIED IN THE GROUND OR LAYING ON TOP OF THE GROUND. I WOULD NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE DECODERS WOULD WORK WITH THE VALVES. BUT REALLY, OTHER THAN THAT, IT SEEMS SUFFICIENT. I JUST WANT TO SAY JOHN FROM AQUA FLOW IRRIGATION IS ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING, RIGHT? OH, IS HE THE THIRD BIDDER? HE'S THE FIRST BIDDER. THE FIRST. OH, THE LOWEST BIDDER. THE LOWEST. YES. I HAVE A QUESTION, MISS VANESSA. SO I GUESS I'M CONFUSED, BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY CHANGE IN SCOPE TO ME, THAT MEANS YOU'RE EXPANDING THE SCOPE. LIKE YOU WERE MENTIONING, CHARLES, THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE SURE MAYBE YOU TAKE A BIGGER PICTURE OR IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PROJECT

[01:20:04]

THAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO SCOPE AND GET BIDS FOR. AND I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THAT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, IF WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH AND WE JUST NEED CLARIFYING LANGUAGE FROM THE THREE BIDDERS, GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY WHERE WE NEED MORE DETAIL ON THIS. DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT SCOPE? ARE YOU GUYS ADDING ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTO THE PROJECT THAT YOU WANT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THIS FIRST PHASE? CURRENTLY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT SCOPE FOR WHERE I WAS. IT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL ON THE FIRST MEETING, BUT THEN WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BURYING THE PIPE, EXPANDING CEDAR BREAKS FOR A MASTER EXPANSION FOR FOR FUTURE. SO IT'LL BE PHASED OUT. THIS THIS APPROACH WILL ALLOW US TO FIX THIS AREA. AND THEN WHEN CEDAR BREAKS NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED IRRIGATION. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT IN PLACE. INSTEAD OF GOING OUT FOR A REDESIGN, WE ALREADY HAVE IT. SO UNDER CONSTRUCTION IT WILL BE FIXED. FIX THIS AND THEN EXPANSION. THAT WILL BE THE CHANGE OF SCOPE. OKAY. AND YOU FEEL NOW THAT THE TRENCHING IS NEEDED, I GUESS I WANT TO GET COUNCILOR BENFIELD'S SENSE OF THAT TOO. OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE WITH THE KIND OF CONDUIT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, PAUL IS RECOMMENDING THAT INSTEAD HE'S PROPOSING. IS THAT SUFFICIENT CONSIDERING THE GROUND AND THE TERRAIN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE WE WILL WE SPEND WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY TRENCHING AND POTENTIALLY KILL A LOT OF THE CROPS. RIGHT? THE ROOTS. YEAH. WELL, THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION. WE'RE WATERING TREES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CUT THE ROOTS AND KILL THEM BY CUTTING THE ROOTS. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. PRINCE. AND I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AT THIS POINT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE TWO POTENTIAL PATHS WE CAN SAY.

WHAT WAS ORIGINAL BID IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. AND WE HAVE THESE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BIDDERS WHO ALREADY QUOTED WILL DO THESE THINGS WITHIN THEIR CURRENT BID. THAT WOULD BE ONE PATH WE COULD PURSUE, IN WHICH CASE THEN THE LOWEST BIDDER WOULD PRESUMABLY GET THE JOB. IF THEY'RE GOING TO MEET ALL OF THESE THINGS, WHICH WERE NOT CLARIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL QUOTE OR BID, THAT WOULD BE ONE PATH. THE OTHER PATH WOULD BE STAFF HAS DECIDED WE MISS SOME THINGS. WE NEED TO TAKE A BIGGER PICTURE. WE NEED TO REDO THIS WITH SOME ADDITIONAL DIFFERENT SCOPE FROM WHAT WE ALREADY BID. AND WE'RE RESETTING FOR THAT REASON, NOT JUST TO CLARIFY THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH GROUNDING PLATES AND, AND WIRES AND CONDUIT AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. CAN YOU, ERNESTO AND, OR CHARLES, CAN YOU CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, WHICH OF THOSE TWO PATHS YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE, THAT WE TAKE? OR IF I'VE DESCRIBED THE PATHS WRONG, PLEASE FIX IT. NO, I THINK YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT CORRECTLY. YOU KNOW, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH VICTOR AND ERNESTO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPAND CEDAR BREAKS AS WE EXPAND OUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO EXPAND. MY WHOLE THING IS, IS IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WORK NOW, IS THIS WORK GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE PROJECT? I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO IN AND HAVE TO REDO PART OF THIS, BECAUSE WE ARE EXPANDING, SAY, THREE, 4 OR 5 YEARS FROM NOW, WE'RE EXPANDING CEDAR BREAKS. OH, WELL, WE JUST SPENT $150,000 PUTTING IN ALL OF THIS, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXPANSION. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A PLAN THAT COVERS ANY EXPANSION INTO CEDAR BREAKS. SO WHAT WE DO NOW IS COMPATIBLE IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE NOT HAVING TO REDO STUFF, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. AND JUST SO YOU GAVE ALL THE BACKGROUND FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO STEP BACK AND I WOULD REALLY CLEAN IT UP.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE CLEAN IT UP AND MAKE SURE AND, YOU KNOW, THE SCOPE OF WORK MAY STAY THE SAME AS WHAT IT IS. I JUST WOULD LIKE FOR US TO MAKE SURE BEFORE THIS BIDS AWARDED ARE TABLED OR DONE AWAY WITH, IS WE DO HAVE A PLAN MOVING FORWARD. WE'RE NOT JUST DOING SOME REPAIR WORK THAT MIGHT HAVE TO GET REDONE LATER DOWN THE ROAD. HE WANTS TO SPEAK. CONTRACTOR. SURE. I APPRECIATE THOSE CONCERNS WITH THE EXPANSION, THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THIS IS, YOU CAN YOU JUST EXPAND ONTO IT? YOU JUST ADD ON TO IT. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO REPLACE CONTROLLERS, VALVES, PIPE WIRE OR ANYTHING. YOU WOULD JUST TIE INTO IT. IT'S CALLED A TWO WIRE SYSTEM. IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL THINGS I COULD TALK OVER YOUR HEAD ABOUT, BUT IT DOESN'T HELP. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO. THIS IS THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT IS EXPANDABLE. YOU COULD DOUBLE THIS IN SIZE IF YOU WANTED, AND THIS WHOLE SYSTEM WOULD STILL WORK WITHOUT REPLACING ANYTHING OF WHAT WE'VE DONE AND EXPANDING IT.

YOU MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO BURY THE WIRE INSTEAD OF RUNNING IT ON TOP OF THE GROUND, DEPENDING ON THE TERRAIN, BUT THERE IS NO REDOING OF ANYTHING ONCE THIS IS DONE. THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE FIX FOR THIS SYSTEM, THE TRENCHING. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO TRENCH, YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN A CAN OF WORMS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO. THIS TERRAIN IS BARELY DRIVABLE

[01:25:04]

FOR A JEEP IN MOST PLACES. AND TRYING TO GET A GIANT TRENCHER DOWN THERE TO TRENCH THROUGH ROCK AND TREE ROOTS, I COULDN'T THINK OF A WORSE PLACE TO TRENCH AT. WHOEVER INSTALLED IT PROBABLY TOOK WEEKS TO DO IT THE FIRST TIME, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX. AGAIN, YOU JUST ADD ON TO IT WITH THIS TYPE OF TWO WIRE SYSTEM. MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. I ACTUALLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE OTHER GENTLEMAN ON AS WELL. HE WAS THE LOW BIDDER. AND I WILL JUST SAY WE HEARD GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE CITY WORKING WITH YOU. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND BEING INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. WOULD WE BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER? THE OTHER BIDDER? DID YOU SAY HE WAS ONLINE? ERNESTO, JOHN. AND YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS JOHN WITH IRRIGATION. SO, JOHN, YOU'VE HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE AND IN REGARD TO THE CURRENT SCOPE OF WORK WITH SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND THEN THE EXPANSION, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD ADD OR THINK IS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF THE COUNCIL'S INSIGHT? YES, MA'AM. SO WE'RE WILLING TO YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, OUTLINED IN OUR RFP UP TO STANDARD. AS FAR AS THE SURGE PROTECTION. WE WILL WE WILL WE WILL PROVIDE SURGE PROTECTION UP TO MANUFACTURER STANDARDS FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THE GROUND PLATES AND INSTALLING THE GROUND PLATES AND ANY TYPE OF COPPER WIRE FROM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO INSTALL THOSE GROUNDING PLATES FROM 8 TO 10 FOOT, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY, GIVE OR TAKE TO THE GROUNDING PLATES. THEREFORE, WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE COPPER AND EVERYTHING INCLUDED TO GET THE SYSTEM UP TO MANUFACTURER SPECS WITH THE SURGE PROTECTION. OKAY. DOES YOUR BID INCLUDE THE CONDUIT? I'M SORRY, WE CAN'T DO OUR QUESTIONS THERE. I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH YOUR PORTION, IF YOU CAN. THANK YOU. YES. SO OUR BID HAS BEEN A HALF INCH ELECTRICAL UL LISTED SCHEDULE 40 PVC, GRAY ELECTRICAL CONDUIT. REASON WE DECIDED WE CHOSE TO USE THAT OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF UV RATED. AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE ABOVE GROUND, IT'S GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO ALL, YOU KNOW, THE SUN AND DIFFERENT TYPE OF CLIMATES. SO THEREFORE IT GIVES IT MAXIMUM PROTECTION, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, A LONGER TIME FRAME AS FAR AS ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS THE LAST MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE, I, I HAVE A CLARIFICATION SHEET, THAT SHEET THAT I COULD EMAIL OVER TO YOU IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE THAT AS WELL. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I'M WILLING TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU, MR. BANFIELD. WELL, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE ON HIS QUESTION. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, WE HAVE TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO KEEP THIS CURRENT SCOPE AND DOES IT MEET OUR SPECIFICATIONS OR DO WE WANT TO SEND THIS BACK TO AN ENGINEER? I AGREE WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. THIS IS THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT'S VERY EXPANDABLE. IT'S NOT A CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM.

SO I THINK IF THE GOAL IS TO GET THE EXISTING 120 ZONES CONTROLLERS WORKING, I THINK THIS MEETS THAT SPECIFICATION. AND IF THERE'S GOALS TO EXPAND ON IT LONG TERM, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. IT'S FLEXIBLE LIKE THAT. IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR EXPANSION LOOKS LIKE LONG TERM, THEN I AGREE. MAYBE WAITING MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. BUT IF THE GOAL IS TO GET THIS 120 VALVES FUNCTIONAL, I THINK THIS MEETS THAT SPECIFICATION. CHARLES.

MR. COUNCILMAN, SO I'M NOT AN IRRIGATION EXPERT. THAT'S WHY I'M RELYING ON YOU ALL. SO IF WE WERE TO FIX THE 120 HEADS OR WHATEVER IT IS, THEY'RE 120 CANNONS. BUT SAY FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE NEED TO ADD 30 MORE. WE CAN JUST GO TO THE END OF THE SYSTEM, ADD TO IT, AND WE'LL BE GOOD. YES, SIR. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. IF WE CAN GET THE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS THAT MR. BENNEFIELD HAS PUT TOGETHER, ANSWERED AND SATISFACTORY TO THE COUNCIL.

I'M GOOD WITH MOVING FORWARD, THEN. YEAH, I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. SEEMS TO ME LIKE GETTING THE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS OUT TO. AS MR. BENNEFIELD SAID ABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO, WE GET IT TO THE LOW BIDDER AND THEY SAY, YEP, I'M GOING TO DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO BE DONE. AND THE DOLLAR QUOTE I GAVE YOU, I STAND BY IT AND I THINK WE'RE DONE. AND IF NOT, THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT BIDDER AFTER THAT, WHICH I THINK IS SOMETHING STAFF CAN DO. ACTUALLY, WE NEED TO. YEAH. WE QUESTION IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO

[01:30:02]

ALL THREE. YES. CORRECT. YEAH. SO I'LL GET EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. YEAH. YEAH. WHICH IS FINE. BUT I THINK AT THE PRACTICAL REALITY IS THAT WE'RE SAYING WE EXPECT ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE YOUR BID BASED ON THAT. EXACTLY. BUT IT JUST AGAIN, THE ONLY CLARIFICATION WAS TO SEND IT ALL THE SAME, THAT WHATEVER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, PREPARE IT, SEND IT OUT TO THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY, GIVE THEM A DEADLINE TO ANSWER. AND THEN THEY ANSWER WHAT THEIR ANSWER IS AND YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION FROM THERE. THAT'S IT. SO FOLLOW ON QUESTION FOR YOU. AND THIS IS BETWEEN YOU AND ERIC. SO YEAH, THIS IS ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION AT THIS POINT. YES, SIR. THESE BIDDERS CAN SEE WHAT THEIR COMPETITORS BID. THEY'VE BEEN OPENED. YEAH. AND WE WE SEND IT OUT. WE SAY WE'RE CLARIFYING. WE WANT THESE 16 QUESTIONS ANSWERED. AND THEY SAY, OH, ONE OF THEM SAYS, OH YEAH, I'M GOING TO DO ALL THOSE THINGS. AND NOW THAT I BETTER UNDERSTAND IT, I'M GOING TO COME IN AT $20,000 LESS TRYING TO WIN THE BUSINESS. IS THAT OKAY FOR US TO SET UP THAT SITUATION WHERE THEY NOW HAVE SEEN THE PREVIOUS BID FROM THEIR COMPETITORS AND THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET MORE AGGRESSIVE ON THEIR PRICING? NO, I MEAN, THE BIDS, THE BID, THE NUMBERS, THE NUMBER. IF THEY CAN, EITHER THEY CAN EITHER STAND BY IT OR THEY CAN WITHDRAW IT AND SAY, I CAN'T DO IT FOR THAT PRICE. SO WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THEIR PRICE. CORRECT, BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR COMPETITOR'S BID. THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S IT'S IT'S ARE YOU DOES THIS, YOU KNOW, $100,000? I DON'T REMEMBER DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE. DOES THIS $100,000 COVER THESE FIVE THINGS? YES OR NO. YEAH. OKAY. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. BANFIELD. I'M HAPPY TO SEND MY QUESTIONS EITHER TO ERIC OR PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND THEN A FOLLOW UP TO THE BIDDERS BE PUT OUT, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE MAYBE A FINAL DECISION IN TWO WEEKS IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. MISS VANESSA, I'D SAY CUT TO THE CHASE. SEND YOUR QUESTIONS TO ERIC SO HE CAN GET THEM OUT TO THE THREE BIDDERS. AND THAT'LL SAVE SOME TIME, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I HAVE MUCH TO OFFER ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS FAR AS THESE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, LET'S GET THEM OUT TO THE BIDDERS AND GET THIS GOING. THANK YOU. I SEE HEAD NODDING. WELL I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. MR. PRINCE. I I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION. THERE WAS DIRECTION GIVEN TO STAFF AND MR. BENNEFIELD WAS VOLUNTEERED TO HELP IN THAT PROCESS. PERHAPS THE ONLY MOTION WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, SUBJECT TO THE BIDDER AND SUBJECT TO THE BIDDERS PROVIDING THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD, I WOULD I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION. SIR. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOTION HERE ON THIS. WE'RE NOT DOING CITIZEN COMMENTS ANYMORE. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO AS THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING AND ASK STAFF TO BRING BACK THE INFORMATION PER OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT, A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND A SECOND FOR MR. HALL? ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST SAY NAY. IT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL MOVE. RIGHT, ACTUALLY. SINCE I HAVE SOMEONE HERE FOR THIS WORK SESSION ITEM.

[XI.3. Discussion regarding Bowden Park.]

JANICE, I BELIEVE YOU WERE SIGNED UP FOR THE BOWDEN PARK ONE. RIGHT. OKAY, I'LL BRING UP WORK SESSION THREE, DISCUSSION REGARDING BOWDEN PARK. OKAY. MR. WEST, I HAD SENT A POWERPOINT. DID YOU SEND IT TO ME? I SENT IT TO HER. SHE ACTUALLY SENT IT TO ME. AND I DID SEND IT TO YOU. JUST GIVE US A MOMENT TO PLUG IT IN. IF YOU IF YOU HAVE IT IN THE PACKET, I CAN, I CAN DO WITHOUT, BUT. YOU COULD PROBABLY START BECAUSE WE DO HAVE IT IN THE PACKET. OKAY. VERY GOOD. I'M JANICE DIDIER. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF KEEP LAGO VISTA.

BEAUTIFUL. AND I AM HERE THIS EVENING TO TALK WITH YOU OR PRESENT A PROPOSAL FOR AN ART AND GARDEN PATHWAY THROUGH BRAYDEN POINT, INCLUDING A SWING SET. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY SAYING THAT WITH OUR NEW PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR, WITH OUR NEW CITY MANAGER, AND WITH OUR NEW NEWLY FORMED. ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE STILL THE SAME PRAC. I AM REALLY, REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE OF PARKS IN THIS CITY. I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN

[01:35:03]

THE ENTHUSIASM FROM THE CITY LIKE I'M SEEING NOW, AND I'M VERY, VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT AND HAPPY ABOUT IT. AND I FEEL THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE TIME FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ART AND GARDEN WALKWAY THROUGH BODEN POINT. AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT MY POWERPOINT, YOU SEE THE FIRST SLIDE IS ABOUT IN POINT. CIRCA 2002, BOUGHTON POINT WAS DONATED BY HOLLIS BOWDEN, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS 1995. I FOUND A CLIPPING IN THE NEWSPAPER THE OTHER DAY, AN OLD NEWSPAPER IN OUR ARCHIVES ABOUT THE CELEBRATION BY KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL AND THE LAGO VISTA GARDEN CLUB, ABOUT RECEIVING THIS WONDERFUL LAND FROM HOLLIS BOWDEN. SO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IN ABOUT 2002, AND A PICTURE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW. WE HAVE BEEN KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL. AND APPARENTLY THE GARDEN CLUB HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IN OUR NEXT SLIDE, THESE ARE THE BEDS AT BOWDEN POINT. WE HAVE NINE OF THEM. THERE ARE EIGHT SLIDES, BUT ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY HAS TWO BEDS IN IT, THE TWIN BEDS. THESE ARE HAVE BEEN DONE PRIMARILY BY KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL. BUT THERE IS THE HORSESHOE BED THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE'S PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS ONE SHOWS OUR ART SCULPTURES THAT WE HAVE THUS FAR. THESE SCULPTURES WERE DONATED THROUGH KEEP LAGO VISTA. BEAUTIFUL TO KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL TO THE CITY. THE TWO HEART ONES. AND THE BUTTERFLY WAS GIVEN TO US AT A MUCH REDUCED RATE. THEN NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE THE GARDEN BENCHES THAT WE HAVE PLACED AROUND THE PARK. THEY ALSO WERE DONATED BY VARIOUS CIVIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL AT BOWDEN POINT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS OUR PROPOSED PATHWAY THROUGH BOWDEN POINT. I BROUGHT THIS SOMETHING QUITE SIMILAR TO THIS TO Y'ALL ABOUT A YEAR AGO. OF COURSE WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS ON CITY COUNCIL NOW. AND AT THAT TIME THAT WAS BEFORE I BELIEVE DAVID WAS HERE. AND WE WERE BEGINNING TO TALK ABOUT HAVING AN ADA ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY. AND AT THAT POINT WE DID NOT HAVE PLANS FOR THAT. SO WE NOW HAVE DESIGNED AN ADA ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY THROUGH THE PARK. WE HAVE A PROPOSED SWING SET, WHICH IS ALSO ADA ACCESSIBLE, THOUGH IT IS NOT DOESN'T INCLUDE A WHEELCHAIR SWING. HOWEVER, THE SWING SET ITSELF IS ADA ACCESSIBLE. SO IF I'M IN A WHEELCHAIR AND I WANT TO TAKE MY CHILD OR MY GRANDCHILD, I CAN TAKE THEM THERE AND THEY CAN JUMP ON THE SWING. AND IF YOU KNOW IF I'M MOBILE ENOUGH, I CAN TOO. SO THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL. AT THIS POINT, WE ARE HOPING TO EXPAND THE SCULPTURES AT THE PARK. WE HAVE. WE WILL BE RECEIVING A GRANT FROM THE WOMEN'S CLUB TO PUT TOWARDS ANOTHER SCULPTURE, AND WE'RE HOPING FOR MORE IN THE FUTURE. BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE CULMINATION OF THIS PARK THAT THE CITY THAT KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL, EVEN THE GARDEN CLUB HAS BEEN WORKING ON SINCE 1995.

SO WHILE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE AND I HAVE SEEN SOME INCREDIBLE THINGS FROM BRITTANY MCCOY AND HER GROUP, AS FAR AS THE CIVIC CENTER AND THE GREEN SPACE ACROSS THE WAY HERE, LOOKING AT SOME WONDERFUL PLANS FROM PARKS AND RECREATION, LOOKING AT PRCAC, WHO IS WORKING ON COMING UP WITH THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL TO GO THROUGH AND COMPLETE THIS PART OF THE PARK. WE HAVE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF ESTIMATES AND YOU HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE TO YOU. IF THE NEXT SLIDE, I'D KIND OF LIKE TO GO THROUGH THESE RELATIVELY QUICKLY, BUT YOU SEE THAT THE PRICE HAS INCREASED A BIT OVER THE YEAR. PLUS WITH THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY AND THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, THE PRICE HAS GONE UP. I THINK WE WERE LOOKING AT 45 GRAND A YEAR AGO, AND NOW WE'RE

[01:40:05]

AT 75,780. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE ALSO HAVE A SWING SET THAT WE ARE PROPOSING BE PLACED THERE TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USING AND WE'RE HOPING COULD BE REPLACED. THIS ALSO WOULD MEET ALL FEDERAL GUIDELINES. WE HAD TO MOVE IT FROM UNDER THE TREES BECAUSE THE TREES WERE TOO CLOSE TO THE SWING SET, SO WE HAD TO PUT IT IN AN OPEN PLACE.

AND THAT WILL WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT COVERED WITH ITS OWN SHADE SO THAT IT WOULD BE MORE USABLE. SO FOR THE SWING SET, IT'S $31,225.28. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO TO SUM UP, WE HAVE THE ADA COMPLIANT WALKWAY WITH A FOOT BRIDGE. THIS IS APPARENTLY GOING TO BE SOME REALLY COOL FOOTBRIDGE WITH HANDRAILS AND EVERYTHING. THAT QUOTE IS 75,780 AS WELL.

IT'S AN ESTIMATE. AND THE ADDITIONAL SWING SET ACCESS WHICH WAS NOT ON THE ORIGINAL BID. WE'RE ESTIMATING AN ADDITIONAL $3,000. THE COVERED SWING SET AGAIN FOR A TOTAL OF 1000. I'M SORRY, 110,000, $5.28. WE HAVE IN OUR BUDGET PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, $9,000 FOR A FOOTBRIDGE, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT NOW BECAUSE OF THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY. SO WE COME OUT WITH A TOTAL OF $101,000 AND $101,005.28. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH POCKET, BUT APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO OUR PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR, BODEN POINT IS A POCKET PARK. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.767 ACRES, I BELIEVE, WHICH APPARENTLY QUALIFIES AS A POCKET PARK. SO WITH OR WITHOUT POCKET WE WOULD QUALIFY. I BELIEVE THIS WALKWAY ADA ACCESSIBLE WOULD QUALIFY FOR FUNDING THROUGH THE TREE MITIGATION FUND OR WHEREVER ELSE. CITY COUNCIL FEELS THAT THESE FUNDS SHOULD COME FROM.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM, MISS VANESSA. SO THANK THANK YOU JANICE. SO I MEAN, I LIVE NEAR BODEN PARK. I LOVE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE IN THE GARDENING CLUB, HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS TO IMPROVE IT. SO AS YOU KNOW, A BIG PROPONENT OF PARKS AND FINALLY GETTING OFF THE MARK AND APPROVING SOME OF THESE COUPLE OF PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS, ONE, AND THIS IS FOR COUNCIL AS WELL, IS THAT WE'VE GOT A PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THEY'VE EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, SHOULDN'T IT BE COMING THROUGH THEM FIRST, AND THEN THEY CAN WEIGH IT AND POTENTIALLY HELP MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL? I'M JUST GOING TO READ A LETTER THAT THEY ASKED ME TO READ.

GREETINGS. VERY FORMAL. ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8TH, KALEB PUT FORTH AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION TO THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR AN ART WALK AND A TWO DAY SWING SET AT BOWDOIN PARK PARK WAS NOT PRESENTED THE DRAWING OR COST UNTIL THE START OF THE MEETING. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCIL NOT TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GATHER PUBLIC INPUT, REVIEW IT AND TAKE ACTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEE WILL ENDORSE IT. WE PLAN TO HAVE A CALLED MEETING ABOUT IT PRIOR TO COUNCIL'S MEETING ON MAY 7TH, WHERE WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT OUR INPUT. WE BELIEVE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ROLE OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SINCERELY. THE PRAC MEMBERS AND THEY CC ME AND DAVID. SO IT'S A PART PROCESS ISSUE AND HELPING MAKE DECISIONS. AND THEN ALSO I THINK IT'S GOING TO IMPACT FUNDING ISSUES BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT, BOWDOIN PARK, TECHNICALLY, THE POCKET PARK DESIGNATION FITS. WE ALSO HAD A PRESENTATION FROM DAVID ABOUT DAWN CIRCLE AND MIRO 4TH OF JULY PARK WITH THE PHASE, THE DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND WORK ON A PHASE ONE THAT WOULD ALLOW A PHASED APPROACH FOR THAT PARK.

AND PRAC WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. AND SO I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD DISCUSSION GOING ON AT THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE AROUND IS IT A NUMBER ONE, A ZERO SUM GAME IF COUNCIL LOVES THIS IDEA AND WE LOVE THE DAWN CIRCLE PARK IDEA, ARE WE WILLING TO FUND BOTH OUT OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUND, OR IS IT GOING TO HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER? SO THAT'S ONE QUESTION.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO PERFORM THEIR ROLE OF WEIGHING THE TWO OPTIONS AND EVEN PROVIDING INPUT POTENTIALLY INTO BOTH OPTIONS, BUT IN PARTICULAR TO THE DAWN CIRCLE PARK TO WORK WITH DAVID ON BUILDING THAT PHASE ONE IDEA OUT OR CONCEPT OUT, AND THEN MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK

[01:45:02]

TO CITY COUNCIL. SO OBVIOUSLY ME AS LIAISON TO THEM, I WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT COMMITTEE AND ALSO SAY I'M EXCITED. AS JANICE MENTIONED, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING MORE MOMENTUM ON PARKS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE WORK FOR PRAC TO DO NOW, WHICH WE DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE IN THE PAST.

AND AS JANICE MENTIONED, I THINK THEY'RE WORKING VERY HARD ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN ON THAT AND CONCERT WITH DAVID. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL JUST COORDINATING AND COOPERATING TOGETHER. BUT GIVE THAT ADVISORY COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE ITS ROLE, LET THEM TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND LET'S RESPECT THE ROLE THAT THEY HAVE IN THIS KIND OF PROCESS. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS. THANK YOU, MISS JAVERIA. I WANT TO SAY THAT WHILE I AGREE WITH I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT COLLABORATION, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING BETWEEN THESE TWO ENTITIES. I BELIEVE IT'S A COMPETITION NOW FOR FUNDS, AND THAT EACH ONE OF THEM NOW FEELS LIKE THEY'RE COMPETING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, AND THAT K CLUB NOW HAS TO ANSWER TO SEVERAL LEVELS WHERE THE LIAISON POSITION NOW HAS ALMOST BEEN ELIMINATED, WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO GO TO PREK FIRST BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN COME TO COUNCIL. SO I WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY THE ROLE THAT CRACK IS GOING TO HAVE IN OUR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS GOING FORWARD. AND IF THAT IS, IF WE'RE SETTING A NECESSARY PRECEDENT, IF IF WE'RE DOING THIS TO CALEB, IS THAT GOING TO MEAN THAT THE CHAMBER NEEDS TO GO TO EDC FROM NOW ON BEFORE THEY COME TO US? IS THAT GOING TO MEAN OTHER ENTITIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO IRAQ FOR NUMEROUS THINGS? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I JUST WANT THERE TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE ROLE GOING FORWARD IS FOR THAT. NOW THAT IRAQ HAS BECOME MORE INVOLVED IN THE CITY WHERE IT HASN'T BEEN BEFORE, MISS VANESSA, QUICK CORRECTION HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN THE CITY. THE CITY NEVER LISTENED. WE MADE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS BACK IN 2021, INCLUDING DAWN CIRCLE AND MEROE PARK. ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS IN BOWDEN PARK AND CITY COUNCIL NEVER TOOK THOSE UP. THEY WOULD BUDGET $15,000 A YEAR, WHICH IS DAVID HAS INFORMED US IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN A SWING SET FOR $15,000. SO THAT'S REALLY NOT CORRECT. AND I THINK THERE'S A DESIRE TO COORDINATE AND WORK TOGETHER.

KALEB DOES WONDERFUL WORK. SO I'M A FULL SUPPORTER. AND LIKE I SAID, I LOVE BOWDEN PARK, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S IN THE MEDIAN AT DAWN VERSUS IT'S A PARK OPPORTUNITY AND IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. WE'RE TALKING $100,000 PLUS FOR THIS, $100,000 PLUS FOR PHASE ONE OF DAWN CIRCLE AND MIRO 4TH OF JULY PARK. THEN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. SO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN CONSIDERING THAT. AND I THINK BETTER COORDINATION IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. SO. MR. HALL. WELL, I. IN LOOKING AT THIS, I, I'VE BEEN OUT TO BOWDEN POINT AND A NUMBER OF TIMES IT'S, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PARK. MY DIFFICULTY IN, IN ASSESSING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TO APPROVE THIS OR NOT IS FOR ME, IT WAS KIND OF WITHIN WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT. AND SO BECAUSE I'M NOT AWARE OF. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OF THE LIMITED FUNDS FOR THAT KIND OF A PARK. AND YET I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER PARKS WE HAVE, WHAT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, WHAT WHERE ELSE ARE WE LOOKING AT INVESTING FUNDS OR SHOULD BE INVESTING FUNDS? AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, TO HAVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL ASSESSED IN RELATION TO, TO OUR TOTAL PARKS PLAN. MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, DENNIS. BEAUTIFUL WORK. AND I'M GOING TO SAY ON BEHALF OF OUR RESIDENTS THAT COULD PARTAKE FROM IT. THAT'S SO EXCITING. I AM GOING TO SAY, I THINK FOR ME, OF COURSE, THERE'S A FINANCIAL COORDINATION COMPONENT TO IT. I MEAN, I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP STUFF HERE AND THE THE TREE REPLACEMENT FUND, I SEE THAT WE HAD 485,000 COME IN AND 22, 191,500 COME IN AND. 23 AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT KALEB'S VENUE, BUT IN TERMS OF HOURS, WHERE DO WE STAND? I DIDN'T PULL IT UP, PAUL, BEFORE I BEFORE THE MEETING, I THOUGHT I HAD HAD IT, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY NUMBERS FROM THIS YEAR. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, WE WERE AT ABOUT $900,000 IN THE TREE FUND. SO.

SO WITH THAT, I THINK IT IS OUR INTENT GOING, WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE IT JUST SIT THERE WHEN THERE IS THIS WONDERFUL ECOSYSTEM FORMING IN ORDER TO REALLY DO SOME VIBRANT WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY. BUT I DO THINK IT DOES REQUIRE COORDINATION. SO TO COUNCILOR VANESSA'S POINT,

[01:50:05]

YOU KNOW, THE ITEMS THAT WE SAW FROM DAVID AND THEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, I THINK THIS IS A VERY QUICK WAY FOR US TO BRING AN ADA COMPLIANT PIECE, RIGHT? IN THE OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS.

BUT THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, HAVING THIS INCORPORATED INTO THE PRAC OVERALL SCHEMA. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND THE OVERARCHING PLAN. I THINK A LITTLE COMMUNICATION, AT LEAST AT THE FINANCIAL FRONT TO ME IS IN ORDER, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BROADER COMMUNITY. I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH TO DO BOTH. THE PHASE ONE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND THIS AS WELL. BUT THAT DOES TAKE SOME COMMUNICATION. AND REALLY, I THINK THAT OVERARCHING VISION LIES WITH P.WALK RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WHERE I AM.

JANICE, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO BRING THAT. THIS IS MORE OF A CONVERSATION THAN ANYTHING ELSE. LOVE WHAT THIS IS. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO COMPETE TO COMPETE. YEAH. OKAY. AND I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THAT I HAVE BEEN ATTENDING PRACTICE MEETINGS. I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THEM ABOUT THIS FOR SOME TIME NOW, PROBABLY BEFORE YOU WERE YOU WERE THE LIAISON AND PAUL, YOU YOU WERE AT THE OR YOU SAT IN FOR NORMA, I THINK ONE TIME WHEN I SPOKE. SO KALEB HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, ATTENDING THEIR MEETINGS, ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS HAS BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND SOME OF OUR MEETINGS. SO WE ARE WE ARE HAVING THIS BACK AND FORTH. AND I, I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A LEVEL OF COOPERATION BETWEEN US. AND I CERTAINLY, AS I SAY, I'M VERY ENTHUSED ABOUT OUR PARKS PROGRAM GOING INTO THE FUTURE.

AND I KIND OF DON'T WANT TO LOSE WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST AND WHAT'S THERE NOW TO THE HOPE AND THE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE. YES, MICHELLE, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO CALL UP THE SELLERS BECAUSE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM SOME MEMBERS OF PRAC ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD JUST GET THEIR OPINION ON HOW THAT'S AFFECTING THE MORALE OF. SORRY, SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I KNOW THAT THIS IS A TOUCHY SUBJECT FOR ALL OF US. MOST OF YOU KNOW ME. I'M DENISE SELLERS, I AM THE MEDIA PERSON FOR OUR FACEBOOK AND OUR WEBSITE, AND I AM ON FACEBOOK ALL THE TIME. I HATE IT, BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO BE THERE. ONE OTHER PRAC MEMBERS POSTED A POLL ASKING THE CITIZENS WHAT THEY FELT LIKE ABOUT THIS PROGRAM WITH BOWDEN POINT. HE GAVE THEM PART HONESTY, PART OF THE WORDS LEFT OUT A LARGE, LARGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. BUT IT WAS AMAZING BECAUSE OUR CITIZENS MAINLY WERE ON KALEB SIDE. THEY WANT THE PARK. DAN AND I HAVE TAKEN CARE OF BOWDEN POINT BY OURSELVES. AND I'M NOT BRAGGING. I'M SAYING THE FACT WE STARTED IN 2016 AND WE HAVE BUSTED OUR BUNS ON THAT PARK TO MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL. AND THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AS WE'VE GOTTEN OLDER, WE HAVE GOTTEN MORE MEMBERS TO START TAKING OVER THAT PLACE. BUT WHEN WE HAD THE SWING SET, I CAN TESTIFY TO EVERY TIME WE WENT UP THERE, ALMOST EVERY TIME WE WENT UP THERE, THERE WERE CHILDREN ON THAT PLAYGROUND. THERE WERE PEOPLE AT THE PARK.

THEY WERE SITTING DOWN. THEY WERE LOOKING AT STUFF. WHEN THAT SWING SET DISAPPEARED, WE HAD SEVERAL KIDS COME UP TO US AND THEY WERE ALMOST IN TEARS SAYING, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH OUR SWING SET? OUR NEIGHBOR IS TWO YEARS OLD AND HER DADDY TAKES HER UP THERE AND SHE CALLS IT THE HEART PARK. WELL, NOW IT'S THE HEART PARK, BUT SHE HAS NO SWING TO SWING ON.

AND NOW SHE HAS A BABY BROTHER THAT CAN'T GO SWING THERE. THIS IS VERY MUCH USED BY OUR KIDS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND NO ONE THAT WE'VE TALKED TO HAS EVER SAID THEY ARE FRIGHTENED OR SCARED ABOUT ANYTHING WITH THE TRAFFIC OR BEING EXPOSED. THEY'RE ALL 100% LOVING THE PARK. AND I JUST THINK IT'S A SHAME THAT PRAC WOULD TRY TO DOWNGRADE KALEB'S GOOD WORK, BECAUSE LOOK AT OUR HISTORY, ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE CITY WE HAVE

[01:55:05]

COME THROUGH, AND THE GOOD PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME WE'VE COME IN UNDER BUDGET, WE HAVE HAD OUR IN-KIND DONATIONS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THEY'RE JUST PHENOMENAL WHAT PEOPLE ARE GIVING TO US, AND I THINK THEY WILL CONTINUE. WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD IN DONATIONS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE, MAYBE THE START OF A SECOND SCULPTURE TO PUT OUT THERE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE, A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO COME AND A PLACE WHERE THEIR CHILDREN CAN COME AND PLAY, TOO. MISTER PRINCE, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A CLUB VERSUS P DISCUSSION. I THINK THEY'RE BOTH GREAT AND A LOT OF VALUE, A LOT OF DEDICATED CITIZENS TO BOTH, AND DENISE AND DANIEL HAVE DONE GREAT WORK AT THAT PARK OVER THE YEARS. I DO WANT TO CAUTION US COUNCIL THAT. YEAH, I JUST SAID WE LAST I HEARD WE HAD ABOUT $900,000 IN THAT FUND. BUT PROJECTS ARE EXPENSIVE, YOU KNOW, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVID HAS BROUGHT TO US AND, YOU KNOW, HE CAME WHILE I WAS STILL LIAISON TO PRAK, HE JUST BROUGHT KIND OF A REALITY CHECK. AND THE REASON THAT STUFF DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE PAST WITH WITH PARKS WAS FRANKLY, IT STARTED WITH STAFF. STAFF THAT'S NO LONGER HERE. STAFF THAT DIDN'T WANT TO DO THINGS. IT DIDN'T COME TO ASK COUNCIL FOR THINGS AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THE ONLY REASON THERE WAS EVEN A $15,000 POCKET PARK ALLOCATION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WAS BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE DOING BUDGETS, I SAID, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ZERO. WHY DON'T WE AT LEAST PUT IN $15,000? COUNCIL SAID, YEAH, LET'S DO SOMETHING. AND THEN STAFF DIDN'T SPEND IT. AND SO WE NOW HAVE STAFF. THAT IS FANTASTIC. AND YOU KNOW, CALEB'S EXCITED ABOUT IT. PRAC IS EXCITED ABOUT IT. COUNCIL IS EXCITED ABOUT IT. SO WE'RE IN A GREAT PLACE. I DO WANT US TO BE CAUTIOUS THOUGH, THAT $900,000 REALLY CAME FROM TREE MITIGATION. JOB NUMBER ONE IS TO REPLACE THE TREES THAT GOT CUT DOWN. AND SO I DON'T WANT US TO BE THINKING WE'VE GOT $900,000 TO SPEND ON PARKS AND DO NOTHING ABOUT PLANTING TREES, WHICH WAS REALLY THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THAT. SO LET'S, LET'S BE A LITTLE BIT WISE ABOUT THAT. AND THEN I WANTED TO KIND OF GET IN. AND SO, DAVID, I WANT YOUR HELP HERE. I ADA STUFF IS REALLY EXPENSIVE, RIGHT? I GET THAT I HAD A SMALL BUSINESS AND I HAD TO DO SOME ADA THINGS FOR THAT AND IT ADDED UP IN A HURRY.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE WE HAVE TO DO ADA AND WHERE WE MIGHT NOT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON MANY STATE AND FEDERAL PARKS WHERE THERE ARE TRAILS THAT ARE NOT ADA ACCESSIBLE. RIGHT? I'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE PUBLIC BUT ARE NOT ADA ACCESSIBLE. AND, AND I ALSO KNOW WHEN I WAS DOING AS A SMALL BUSINESS, I HAD TO DO SOME ADA THINGS. I HAD KIND OF AN EXCLUSION OR LIMIT, IF YOU WILL, RIGHT, THAT IF I GOT UP TO. AND I THINK AT THE TIME WHEN I WAS DOING IT, IT WAS LIKE IF I GOT UP TO 10% OF THE COST OF MY OVERALL PROJECT, I COULD SAY I SPENT AS MUCH AS I'M AVAILABLE, I'M ALLOWED OR, OR MUST SPEND. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY LIMITATIONS. DO WE ON THIS TRAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD WE SAY THIS IS GOING TO BE A DIRT TRAIL AROUND HERE? WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN AN ADA SWING SET, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE PATH ADA ACCESSIBLE. WHERE ARE WE? I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT EVERY TIME WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, IT BLOOMS INTO THERE ARE ALL OF THESE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND IT GETS REALLY EXPENSIVE. DOES EVERYTHING WE DO HAVE TO BE HAVE TO MEET THIS THIS HIGH BAR? OR CAN SOME OF THE THINGS WE PROVIDE CITIZENS BE NON. ADA.

SURE. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PATH ITSELF. SO NOW YOU ARE BRINGING AN ENTIRELY NEW AMENITY TO A PARK. THAT AMENITY HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE THE LAW BASICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S ABOUT EQUAL ACCESS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY EQUAL EXPERIENCE. SO EVEN AND IT'S NOT JUST THE PATHWAY, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDING SWING SET. THAT SWING SET WOULD NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE. THAT IS VIA THE PATHWAY. IT'S GOT TO GET YOU THERE. THE SURFACING BENEATH THAT HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE, AND THE SWING ITSELF HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE. IT NEED NOT BE A WHEELCHAIR ONE, BUT ONE THAT A CHILD IN A WHEELCHAIR COULD BE TRANSFERRED INTO. USUALLY IT'S AN UPRIGHT SEAT, USUALLY HAS A HARNESS, SO THE CHILD CAN BE HELD UPRIGHT IN IT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE EXISTING AMENITIES ON THE PARKS, YOU HAVE PICNIC TABLES AND YOU HAVE PICNIC BENCHES. THE EXPECTATION IS THAT SOME OF THOSE WOULD ALSO BE ACCESSIBLE AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS CREATED EXPERIENCE FOR PATRONS. YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO SOME PART OF THAT, THAT

[02:00:03]

EXPERIENCE AS WELL. BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S LIKE EXPERIENCE FOR LIKE EXPERIENCE, IT DOESN'T MEAN 100% OF EVERYTHING DEPENDING UPON WHAT IT HARD, HARD TO MAKE. WELL, A TRAIL YOU CAN, YOU CAN SORT OF SPLIT THAT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE, ONE OF THE, THE IMAGES THAT I SHOWED IN THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS HALF OF A TRAIL. THERE WAS HALF OF A CONCRETE TRAIL. BOTH OF THOSE ARE TECHNICALLY ACCESSIBLE, BUT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO MAKE BOTH OF THEM ACCESSIBLE PATHWAYS BECAUSE YOU HAD CREATED A PATHWAY THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. SO AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT EQUAL EXPERIENCE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, THAT SORT OF THING. SO IT ISN'T 100% OF EVERYTHING. BUT AS YOU IMPROVE, YOU DEVELOP, ETC. YOU NOW HAVE TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES WHERE THOSE THINGS EXIST. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, JUST AS WE LOOK OUT HERE, IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT LIBRARY FRIENDS PARK, AS WE START MAKING CHANGES OUT THERE, NONE OF THOSE PATHWAYS ARE ACCESSIBLE. SO AT SOME POINT, IF WE WERE TO MAKE CHANGES, WE'D NEED TO MAKE SOME OF THAT PATHWAY ACCESSIBLE. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE PICNIC TABLES AND BENCHES. SOME OF THOSE TWO WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE ACCESSIBLE. PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ONE, WE'VE DONE THE TAAS SURVEYS AT ALL OF OUR MAJOR FACILITIES, TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. SO WE'RE SAYING WE RECOGNIZE THEIR DEFICIENCIES. SECONDLY, WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS JUST IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS. YOU'VE DONE THE THE PARKING LOT OVER AT SUNSET PARK. WE'VE MADE THE RESTROOMS AND THE PLAYGROUND AND THE PICNIC TABLES, ALL OF THOSE WE'VE MADE ACCESSIBLE. WE CONTINUE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES SO THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T COME IN AND SAY, YOU NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THIS DONE BY THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. BUT AS YOU IMPROVE AND YOU MUST ALWAYS BE IMPROVING, YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU'RE ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES AS THEY COME ALONG. NOW WE'RE TRAILS ARE CONCERNED GETS A LITTLE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NOT AN EXPECTATION, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH TURNBACK CANYON TRAIL, THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY CHALLENGING TO MAKE THAT AN ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY. SO AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPERIENCE FOR EXPERIENCE, SO AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD OUT TRAILS, WE NEED TO CONSIDER INCLUSION IN ACCESS TO TRAILS.

SO TURN BACK CANYON TRAIL MAY NOT DO IT, BUT SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE TO BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE MOBILITY IMPAIRED HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO EXPERIENCES AS THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE SUCH IMPAIRMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST KIND OF WHAT I HEARD IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS MOUNTAIN PARK PATH COULD BE OUR USING THE WRONG WORD TOKEN ADA ACCESSIBLE PATH. AND THAT HELPS US WITH THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, TURN BACK IS NOT AT ALL ADA ACCESSIBLE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY AN OPTION. SO I GUESS MY, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT THAT THAT ALONG WITH MISS VAN S THAT THAT THIS, THE DETAILS OF THIS GET A GET A SOLID DISCUSSION THROUGH P RAC AND THE PRIORITIES OF SPENDING MONEY IN VARIOUS PLACES. AND YOU KNOW, PART OF YOUR PLAN THAT THIS BE PUT ON THE LIST TO ME THIS IS A NEXT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR KIND OF A THING. NOT A NOT A PLAN THAT SHOULD START. IT HAS TO START RIGHT AWAY. I'M VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF GETTING A SWING SET BACK IN THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, PER YOUR GUIDANCE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE AN ADA ACCESSIBLE ONE. SO I THINK SWING SET FOR ME FOR SURE, AND I'D EVEN BE WILLING TO CONSIDER VOTING ON APPROVING THAT THIS YEAR. BUT THE LARGER EXPENSE AROUND THE PATH AND MAKING THAT FULLY ADA ACCESSIBLE FEELS TO ME LIKE MAYBE THAT SHOULD GO, YOU KNOW, GET THE RAC FEEDBACK ON WHERE IT FITS IN THE PRIORITY LIST AND WHEN WE SHOULD SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY ON, ON THIS PARK. BUT, BUT EVEN AS AS YOU TALK COUNCILOR PRINCE ABOUT THE SWING SET, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO IT. SO THERE'S STILL AN ELEMENT OF THE PATHWAY TO THAT PART OF THE PATHWAY, FOR SURE. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH. SO YEAH, JUST ALL OF THOSE THINGS IS CONSIDERATION. YEAH, YEAH. AND SO JUST TO, TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE THERE WAS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN KALEB AND PRAK. I THINK WHERE THIS ONE SORT OF REALLY SORT OF ROSE TO THE TOP IS KALEB B'S PURPOSE REALLY HAS BEEN BEAUTIFICATION WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. NOW YOU'RE ACTUALLY TRANSITIONING TOWARDS PARK DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THERE'S A SORT OF A SENSE OF ENCROACHMENT, AS IT WERE. AND THEN IT'S, WELL, OKAY, WE'VE ONLY GOT X NUMBER OF DOLLARS. WHAT'S THE PRIORITY HERE? AND SO I THINK THAT'S Y. AND I THINK YOU ALL AGREE THAT'S WHY THE THE CONVERSATION IS SO

[02:05:01]

IMPORTANT. AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT IS THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN, BECAUSE THAT REALLY SHOULD BE THE GUIDING DOCUMENT SO THAT LITERALLY THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE WANTING TO GO. YEAH. AND I'LL ALSO SAY, JANICE, I KNOW YOU STARTED ATTENDING THE MEETINGS WHILE I WAS STILL LIAISON, AND I THINK YOU'RE THERE ALL THE TIME. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR PARTICIPATING IN THE, THE JOINT EFFORTS AND WORKING TOGETHER.

YEAH. MISS FINESSE. YEAH. AND I AND JANICE, I APPRECIATE IT TOO, BECAUSE I THINK AS WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION, YOU GUYS DO TREMENDOUS WORK. AND LIKE I SAID, BOWDEN POINTS WHERE I WALK. IT'S PART OF MY WALKS WHEN I HAVE TIME TO WALK. SO I LOVE IT AND I LOVE THE WORK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS. YOU KNOW, I REGRET THAT THAT POST WENT OUT AND MADE YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE YOU'RE FRUSTRATED, AND IT'S LIKE TRYING TO DOWNPLAY OR PUT DOWN THE BEAUTIFUL WORK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE AT THAT PARK. I WAS NOT AWARE THAT POST WAS GOING OUT. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE MOTIVATION FOR IT. GENERALLY, I'M SKEPTICAL OF THOSE TYPES OF POLLS THAT GO OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA BECAUSE YOU'RE NEVER ABLE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH INFORMATION AND CONTEXT. WHEN YOU THEN GIVE PEOPLE MULTIPLE CHOICES OR ASK FOR INPUT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE FULL STORY. SO I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. SO I GENERALLY TEND TO LOOK AT A LOT OF THOSE WITH SKEPTICISM, TO BE HONEST. BUT I THINK GENERALLY YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. I THINK PYREX CONCERN IS DAVID SAID, IS IF IT'S GETTING INTO PARK DEVELOPMENT AND WE KNOW WE'VE GOT A LIMITED SUPPLY OF DOLLARS, THEN LET'S FEED IT THROUGH THE PROCESS LIKE WE SHOULD BE AND GET THE INPUT FROM THAT COMMITTEE. TO HELP INFORM CITY'S CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION. ULTIMATELY, IT'S UP TO COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY, AND I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION TOO, A COUPLE NUMBER ONE IS IF THERE'S THAT APPETITE, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION WAS, IS IT A ZERO SUM GAME? DO WE HAVE TO PICK ONE OR THE OTHER, OR COULD WE POSSIBLY DO BOTH? BOLTON POINT AND THEN THE DAWN CIRCLE PARK? AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS THE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS THEMSELVES, ARE THEY PART OF THE RESERVES WE HAVE AGAINST OUR OUR BOND FUNDING AND SO FORTH, OR DOES THAT SIT SEPARATELY? SO IT IS ACCESSIBLE FOR US TO USE FOR TREE MITIGATION AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY PARK INVESTMENTS? JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. NO, I WILL CLARIFY SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE RECENTLY MADE ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT HOT FUNDS, TREE MITIGATION FUNDS, AND ALL WERE BEING SAVED TO GO AGAINST OUR BONDING CAPACITY AND STUFF.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. THOSE FUNDS ARE TOTALLY IN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. AND I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, AS OF JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, THERE'S $902,177.86 IN THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. I THINK THERE MIGHT STILL BE A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN OUR GENERAL FUND, BUT THAT IS HOW MUCH IS IN THE INVESTMENT ACCOUNT FOR OUR TREE MITIGATION. BUT NO, WE WHENEVER THEY DO OUR BONDING CAPACITY, OUR RESERVES, WE DO NOT COUNT HOT FUNDS, TREE MITIGATION FUNDS, IMPACT FEES, ANY OF THAT. NONE OF THAT IS COUNTED TOWARDS OUR BONDING CAPACITY OR OUR RESERVES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. DAVID, I ACTUALLY HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF YOU COULD COME BACK UP. I ECHO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID. I SUPPORT KALEB. WHAT YOU'VE DONE AT BOILING POINT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ALWAYS BEHIND YOU GUYS FOR GOOD REASON, FOR HOW HARD YOU WORK. AND I TOTALLY SUPPORT THEM AS WELL. I REALLY HOPE THERE ISN'T SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION OF A COMPETITION THERE. I THINK THAT'S JUST A GREAT COLLABORATION. BUT OF THIS FOR THIS PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY.

YEAH, I REALLY HATED WHEN WE TOOK THE SWING SET AWAY. I WISH WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE LEGALLY CREATIVE AND CALLED IT A REPAIR. I THINK IF YOU REPAIR SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPDATE AND BECOME ADA COMPLIANT BECAUSE YOU'RE REPAIRING AN EXISTING AMENITY THAT ALREADY WAS THERE.

BUT SINCE WE'VE REMOVED IT, WE'VE KILLED THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT MY MY MAIN CONCERN IS, AGAIN, I WOULD SUPPORT A SWING SET COMING BACK. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF THE PATH BECAUSE I HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS. I THINK BOUNDING POINT IS A DANGEROUS AREA. I THINK THAT INTERSECTION AT THE POINT IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST INTERSECTIONS WE HAVE IN LAGO VISTA. YOU HAVE TO COMPLETELY TURN AROUND AND LOOK ALL THE WAY BACK TO SEE TRAFFIC COMING 45 MILES AN HOUR AT YOU.

AND I THINK THE RISK FOR SOMEBODY TEXTING AND DRIVING, GOING 45 MILES AN HOUR AND JUST SWERVING RIGHT INTO BOUNDING AND HITTING PEOPLE. I'M NOT TRYING TO ATTRACT MORE PEOPLE THERE AND NOT TO BRING UP A ANOTHER HOT TOPIC, BUT SINCE THE E-BIKE STUFF'S BEEN GOING ON, I SEE A LOT MORE BIKERS COMING THROUGH THERE AND THEY'RE JUMPING IN FRONT OF ME FOR TRAFFIC. I DON'T WANT TO ATTRACT THEM THERE AS WELL. DO YOU HAVE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT A WALKING PATH THAT CLOSE TO A 45 MILE PER HOUR ZONE, WITH NO FENCE OR GUARDRAILS OR CEMENT BLOCKS OR ANYTHING BETWEEN THEM AND THE TRAFFIC? SO ACTUALLY, IT WOULDN'T REALLY FUNCTION ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN A SIDEWALK WOULD. SO IF THERE WERE SIDEWALK LITERALLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, THERE IT, YOU KNOW, THE ASSUMPTION IS THERE MIGHT BE A, YOU KNOW, 2 FOOT OR 3 FOOT GRASS PATH BETWEEN THAT. AND THEY'VE GOT THEY'VE ACCOMMODATED FOR MORE THAN THAT. THE BIGGER ISSUE, BOTH WITH WHERE THE ORIGINAL SWING SET WAS AND WHERE THIS ONE HAS SHIFTED TO, BECAUSE IN SHIFTING THAT LOCATION, IT ACTUALLY

[02:10:01]

MOVES IT CLOSER TO BOTH STREETS BECAUSE IT'S NOW PUSHED FURTHER ALONG A NARROWER STRETCH OF THE PARK ITSELF. SO TRACKS PERSPECTIVE HAS BEEN FROM THE OUTSET. IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN A SWING, WE INSIST YOU PUT IN FENCING. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE, WELL, NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED.

TRUE, BUT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO EVER HAPPEN. AND WHERE YOU CAN PREVENT THAT, YOU'D WANT TO DO THAT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS THIS CONVERSATION HAS GONE ON THAT I'VE COMMUNICATED BOTH TO PRAC AND TO KALEB IS WHILE THE FEDERAL STANDARD ISN'T, YOU MUST HAVE A FENCE THERE. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS IT DOES SAY IS SITE CONSIDERATIONS ARE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. AND THE SECOND OF THOSE SITE CONSIDERATIONS IS WHERE YOU'RE LOCATED IN CONTEXT, IN RELATIONSHIP TO ROADWAYS AND ANY ADJACENT TRAFFIC. SO IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT'S RED FLAGS ALL OVER THE PLACE BECAUSE THE PROXIMITY IS EXTREMELY CLOSE. AND WHILE AT LEAST ON ONE SIDE, THE, THE, THE SPEED RATE IS 35 MILES AN HOUR. HAVING BEEN OUT THERE ENOUGH, LOTS OF FOLKS ARE TRAVELING MUCH FASTER THAN THAT. SO NO, IT ABSOLUTELY IS AT LEAST WHERE THE SWING SET IS CONCERNED, A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN. BUT THE PATH ITSELF FUNCTIONS IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT A SIDEWALK DOES. BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE NOW ENCOURAGING PEOPLE, UNLESS THEY'RE DRIVING TO IT, TO CROSS TO BOWDEN POINT, TO GET THERE. AND SO YOU'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT CROSSING TRAFFIC. SO SURE, THAT'S A CONCERN. IT'S NOT I GUESS IT'S RELATED TO THE PARK, BUT SORT OF HAVE WE EVER LOOKED AT MAYBE THIS FOR FRIENDS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN HERE LONGER. JUST THAT INTERSECTION ALONE. HAVE WE EVER HAD A SAFETY CONSIDERATION OF WHY WE ALLOW SUCH A STEEP ANGLE AT A STOP SIGN? IF THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY TO TO DO THAT INTERSECTION, IT WOULD MAKE BOULTON POINT MORE SAFE. WILL YOU HAVE AN OPTION TO TAKE THAT FIRST LEFT AND THEN GET ON TO BOGGY? I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE'VE EVER HAD ANY SAFETY STUDY OF THAT INTERSECTION BECAUSE IT I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. IF YOU GO BACK PRIOR TO MY TIME ON COUNCIL, THE CITY ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME HAD SORT OF AS PART OF THE LONG TERM VISION THAT THIS WOULD TURN INTO A TRAFFIC CIRCLE. BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE AROUND THAT I'M AWARE OF, OF A TRAFFIC STUDY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND AND NOT ANYTHING THAT'S A SAFETY ANALYSIS OF THAT INTERSECTION, AGAIN, THAT I'M AWARE OF. WELL, I MEAN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TAKING A LONGER LOOK AT THIS. AS PART OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE THE SAFETY OF THAT WHOLE AREA TO BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WANTS THEM TO DISCUSS. MR. BENEFIELD. AS NORMAL, I PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONSENTING VIEW HERE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID FROM THE DAIS. HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY MOVED THE GOALPOSTS FOR CHLOEB. K-A-L-E-B HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PROJECT FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN AROUND. WHEN I WAS LIAISON LAST YEAR, IT WAS ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED. I SAW PLANS OF IT, AND WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT FUNDING OF IT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS. AND IN FACT, THEY PUT THIS FULL PROPOSAL ON THE BUDGET. AND THE BUDGET WAS THE REQUEST WAS AROUND 75, $80,000. AND THE RESPONSE AT THAT TIME WAS, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET YOU THE $40,000, BECAUSE THAT CAN BE APPROVED RIGHT AWAY. AND THEN ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS COME BACK AND PROVIDE A PRESENTATION AND WE'LL, WE'LL SLICE YOU A CHECK FOR THE REMAINING BALANCE AND LET'S GET THIS GOING. I MEAN, WE CAN ALL GO BACK AND WATCH THAT MEETING JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO. RIGHT. AND SO THAT WAS THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO CHLOEB. AND ON THAT THEY WENT OUT IN GOOD FAITH, SECURED THESE QUOTES, MADE THESE DESIGNS, THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD. AND THE RESPONSE TODAY IS, WELL, LET'S GIVE THIS BACK TO PERAK AND LET'S YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. I THINK THAT'S A FINE APPROACH. IT'S JUST COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN PROJECTING TO THEM FOR TWO YEARS. AND IF I'M STANDING IN CALEB'S POSITION, I'M LIKE, GEEZ, I MEAN, JUST LET ME DEAL WITH THIS PROJECT THEN, BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO BE THAT DIFFICULT, THEN LET THEM HANDLE IT, YOU KNOW? SO THAT'S MY FEELING. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'VE MOVED THE GOALPOST. AND THIS WAS A DISCUSSION LAST YEAR. IT WAS ON THEIR BUDGET. WE APPROVED THEM THE 40,000 AND SAID, JUST COME BACK AND DO A PRESENTATION HERE. THEY ARE DOING THAT PRESENTATION AND WE'VE MADE THINGS DEFINITELY DIFFICULT FOR THEM. THE OTHER THING THAT I'LL SAY, AND I, AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE ABOUT THE WE'VE GOT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HERE. AND PART OF

[02:15:04]

THAT WAS A REFERRAL THAT CITY COUNCIL GAVE TO PNC. AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR BRAD HERE, SIR, IS WE GAVE PNC THE RESPONSE. I GUESS THE REFERRAL TO LOOK AT THAT. ORDINANCE AND WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. AND THAT'S BEEN TWO YEARS THAT THEY'VE BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE. AT WHAT POINT CAN CITY COUNCIL JUST DECLARE THAT PNC HAS BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE ON THAT AND JUST TAKE THAT CONTROL OVER THAT REFERRAL? BECAUSE PART OF PART OF US FIGURING OUT THIS TREE MITIGATION IS FIGURING OUT OUR TREE ORDINANCE. AND SO I WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE IN 2024, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN US A REFERRAL. SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE JUST SAY, LOOK, FORGET IT.

WE'LL DEAL WITH IT. I REMIND ME, IS YOUR TREE ORDINANCE MITIGATION ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR ZONING CODE, IS IT NOT? SO I THINK WE'VE I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS. I THINK THE I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT AS WITH ANY ZONING RECOMMENDATION, YOUR CODE PROVIDES THAT ONCE IT'S BEEN ON AN AGENDA AND NO ACTION IS TAKEN, THAT'S THAT'S AS A NO WITHIN THE ZONING CONTEXT, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D HAVE TO GO AND LOOK AT YOUR CODE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, PRECISE SITUATION. BUT I THINK THE CLOSEST ANALOGY THAT I'M AWARE OF IN YOUR CODE RIGHT NOW IS THAT. AND SO CERTAINLY TWO YEARS IS BEEN A WHILE. AND I MEAN, I THINK ANY AND THIS IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON THIS PASSAGE, BUT JUST ANY THE WAY THE LAW IS STRUCTURED, BOTH IN YOUR CODE AND GENERALLY IN THE STATE, IS THAT A, P AND Z CAN'T ACT AS A BOTTLENECK TO THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES OF THE COUNCIL. YOU ARE ULTIMATELY THE DECISION MAKER. SO I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR CODE TO SEE IF IT ADDRESSES THE SPECIFIC SITUATION. BUT I BELIEVE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD. YEAH, I WOULD EITHER A LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD OR HAVE THE MISTER PRINCE APPLY PRESSURE TO P AND Z TO SAY, LOOK, THIS IS A BOTTLENECK.

THIS IS AN ISSUE. IT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S, YOU KNOW, CUTTING OFF FUNDING. AND WE NEED A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. YOU KNOW, 1 OR 1 OF I KNOW IT'S ON THE AGENDA. IT WAS ON THE AGENDA OR YEAH, GO AHEAD. SO I FORGET THE EXACT TIMING, BUT PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS PART OF MY LIAISON UPDATE FROM PLANNING AND ZONING, I REPORTED THAT IN FACT, WE HAD ASKED YOU ALL HAD ASKED THROUGH ME AND THROUGH STAFF TO ASK A PLANNING AND ZONING TO CONSIDER THREE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. ONE IS, SHOULD THE WORD POCKET BE REMOVED FROM THIS USAGE LIMITATION? TWO IS SHOULD THE DIAMETER SIZE, MINIMUM DIAMETER, SIZE FOR PROTECTION OF TREES BE CHANGED AND THREE SHOULD THE. SHOULD THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF REPLACEMENT IN LIEU OF OR FEE IN LIEU OF BE CHANGED. SO THOSE WERE THREE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WE THAT YOU AGREED I SHOULD TAKE TO THEM. WE TOOK THOSE IN AND THE THE DISCUSSION WAS ALL OVER THE MAP. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WAS THEY SAID, HEY, TWO YEARS AGO, WE SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE TREE ORDINANCE, AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS STILL ON PLANNING AND ZONING. I THINK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ARE NO LONGER ON THERE. BUT HE READ OUT THE THE FINDINGS, THE RESULTS OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THERE WERE, I THINK IT WAS LIKE 16 ITEMS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. JORDAN. IT WAS A PRETTY LONG HIGHER THAN THAT, SHE SAYS. IT WAS A VERY LONG LIST. AND, AND, AND I'LL JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE MEMBERS OF OUR CURRENT PLANNING. SO THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THEN THE DISCUSSION WENT ON IN DEPTH TALKING ABOUT THE TREE ORDINANCE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE TREE ORDINANCE. AND SHOULD WE EVEN BE MESSING WITH PEOPLE'S TREES? SHOULD WE BE TELLING SO SO THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS ON PLANNING AND ZONING AS TO WHERE TO GO WITH THAT. AND THEY SPECIFICALLY DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR THREE QUESTIONS THAT WE POSED TO THEM. AND SO THEN I BROUGHT THAT BACK IN LIAISON REPORT AND REPORTED THAT RESULT OF THAT MEETING TO YOU ALL AND SUGGESTED THAT WE JUST GO AHEAD AND PER THE ATTORNEY'S ADVICE, WHEN WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, WE JUST GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THE CODE TO STRIKE THE WORD POCKET WITHOUT RUNNING IT BACK THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AGAIN. AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW, JORDAN, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR CLARIFY OR CORRECT MY MEMORY ON THAT MAYOR AND COUNCIL. NO, MISS PRINCE, YOU'RE PRETTY SPOT ON WITH EVERYTHING UP TO THAT POINT. SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WHEN WE GOT TO THAT POINT, STAFF, AS WE GATHERED FROM THE GIST AND CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD NOTIFIED

[02:20:03]

FOR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH WAS THE HEARING TODAY, IT WENT OUT LAST MONTH WELL IN ADVANCE. WE WERE FULLY PREPARED. THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED. IT HAD BEEN THROUGH LEGAL. EVERYTHING WAS DONE. AND THEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RAISED CONCERNS THAT THEY HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE. AND SO WITH THAT, WE TRIED WITH A SHORTER WINDOW TO GET IT THROUGH TO THE P AND Z, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR NOTICING GOT MESSED UP. AND SO IT GOT PULLED FROM BOTH AGENDAS IN AN OVERABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, THIS SPECIFIC SECTION OF OUR CODE HAS BEEN NOTICED NOW, INCLUDING THESE FOUR TIMES IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, TWO YEARS FOR SOME KIND OF CORRECTION, SOME KIND OF FIX. AND WE STILL HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROGRESS. AND SO WE'VE HAD HISTORICAL NOTICING, WE'VE HAD HISTORICAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE GONE BY THE WAYSIDE OR NOT BEEN ADJUSTED AND WERE AGAIN, KIND OF AT A STANDSTILL POINT. AND SO IF THE DIRECTION AND CONSENSUS IS TO PROCEED WITH JUST COUNCIL, WE WILL NOTICE AND WE WILL BRING IT STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL. IF IT'S TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING, WE WILL NOTICE TO SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING. WE'RE IN THIS WEIRD IN-BETWEEN. AND SO STAFF, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE WE'RE HERE TO HELP AND DO WHAT WE CAN. AND JUST TO HELP CLARIFY, I THINK THE THE QUICK AND EASY IS TO GET POCKET OUT OF THERE, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT IN A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING.

JUST STRIKE THAT. SO THEN IT MAKES THESE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MORE GENERAL PARK OPPORTUNITIES, PARK INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET DONE, AT LEAST THROUGH COUNCIL NOW. BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WHAT'S THE BEST NEXT STEP? BECAUSE THIS THING IS SET IN P AND Z FOR SO LONG. AND THERE'S CLEARLY NO CONSENSUS AS COUNCILOR PRINCE SAID. SO I ALMOST FEEL LIKE MAYBE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IT BACK AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE GOT PROBABLY 4 OR 5 ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT WE ALL AGREE WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND POTENTIALLY UPDATE AND CLEAN UP THE ORDINANCE. SO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL, AND WE FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WORK DIRECTLY WITH STAFF, BECAUSE I KNOW STAFF HAVE HAD DAVID AND JORDAN IN PARTICULAR, HAVE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS TO PRESENT TO PNC TO HELP GUIDE THEIR DISCUSSION. WE JUST AREN'T GETTING GETTING THERE YET. WELL, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IS TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU WANT TO DO THE SIMPLE ONE WORD POCKET, THAT'S SIMPLE. BUT YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR ZONING CODE, YOU THE RECOMMENDATION IS STILL SEND IT THROUGH P AND Z. THEY'VE GOT ONE CRACK AT IT. THEY DON'T TAKE ACTION ON IT. THAT'S A NO. IT COMES BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO THAT CAN'T ACT AS A BOTTLENECK. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A MORE FULSOME, SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT BROADER THINGS, YOU CAN HAVE THAT. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND WE NOTICE THAT NOTICING IS A, YOU KNOW, AN UNFORTUNATE THING, BUT UNAVOIDABLE. GET THAT, GET THAT DONE AND BRING IT BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

THEY'LL EITHER VOTE ON IT OR THEY WON'T. AND IT COMES BACK TO YOU EITHER WAY. YEAH. GOOD POINT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT JORDAN'S DOING NOW, RIGHT. HOPEFULLY GOES TO P AND Z AND MAY COMES TO CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE. AND THEN THAT PART'S DONE. BUT I GUESS THEN THE BIGGER PICTURE OF HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD ON THE OVERALL ORDINANCE IS THE CONCERN. WELL, AND IF I MAY, WE KIND OF HAVE A PLAN ISH FOR A SOLUTION THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION.

AND YOU'LL SEE ON THE TABLE OF CONTENTS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH, WE HAVE REMOVED MITIGATION FROM THE ZONING CODE. OUR ZONING CODE HAS A LOT OF STUFF PACKED INTO IT THAT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE PACKED INTO THERE. AND SO A LOT OF THESE NOTICING ISSUES ARE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE WRONG AREA OF THE CODE. AND SO THROUGH THE REORGANIZATION, WE'VE SEPARATED THOSE OUT. FOR THE BIGGER AMENDMENTS. THERE WON'T BE AS MUCH RIGMAROLE THAT GOES INTO GETTING THESE DONE, BECAUSE IT WILL BE IN THE PROPER SECTION OF THE CODE. WE'VE ALSO FLAGGED AND TAGGED AREAS WHERE DAVID AND I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT CERTAIN THINGS OR WE HAVE CONFLICTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND SO NOT THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE DEALING WITH THOSE CHANGES DIRECTLY, BUT THEY ARE NOTED AS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE ON. I BELIEVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TYPICALLY LIKES TO WORK OFF OF DRAFTS AND NOT PIE IN THE SKY, BIG IDEAS. AND SO IF IT'S REQUESTED, WE AS STAFF CAN DRAFT SOMETHING AND PICK IT APART FROM THERE POST REORGANIZATION PROCESS. BUT I THINK A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS WITH NOTICING AND TRYING TO GET SOME OF THESE THINGS PUSHED OVER THE EDGE IS BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED. WE HAVE EXTRA STEPS. IF IT WAS IN A REGULAR SECTION, IT'S JUST A COUNCIL DECISION. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THROUGH P AND Z, BUT BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR ZONING CHAPTER, WHICH IT SHOULD NOT BE, WE HAVE THAT EXTRA BURDEN OF COMPLIANCE. SO, MR. BANFIELD, THANK YOU, SIR.

JUST GETTING BACK TO THIS, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF FORMING THE COMMITTEE WAS VERY SIMPLE. IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO BE DIFFICULT. IT WAS THAT YOU WILL HAVE HOMEOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS

[02:25:03]

DECIDE THAT IT IS CHEAPER TO CLEARCUT THAN WHAT IT IS TO PAY OUR FINES AND PERMIT FEES.

RIGHT. AND SO THE INTENT OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WAS NOT TO REWRITE THE WHOLE CHAPTER 14.

IT WAS JUST SIMPLY TO SAY, DOES OUR CURRENT FEES OR FINES FOR CUTTING TREES DOWN EQUAL WHAT WE THINK IS FAIR AND REASONABLE, RIGHT? WE HAVE SEEN EXAMPLES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE JUST CAME IN AND SAID, HEY, HERE'S A CHECK FOR $200,000, HAVE A NICE DAY. AND THEY, YOU KNOW, CUT EVERY TREE DOWN ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. HOMEOWNERS, I THINK IT'S $10,000. I CAN GO IN THERE AND SAY, HEY, I'VE GOT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TREES ON MY ENTIRE PROPERTY. THERE'S $10,000 AND I JUST SAVED $50,000 ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS BECAUSE THAT FEE WAS SO LOW. SO REALLY, THE POINT OF THE MEETING WASN'T TO LIKE MAKE THIS A REALLY TWO YEAR LONG DISCUSSION. IT WAS JUST SIMPLY SAY, IS THERE A MINIMUM? IS THERE A MAXIMUM ON OUR FEES? SHOULD WE CLEAR CUT EVEN TREES THAT ARE INCLUDING CEDARS BECAUSE IT LEADS TO EROSION ISSUES? I MEAN, EVERYBODY'S COMPLAINING ABOUT EROSION ISSUES AND ALL THIS DRAINAGE ISSUES, BUT THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF ALL THE DISTURBED SOILS AND ALL THESE TREES THAT ARE JUST BEING MOWED DOWN. AND SHOULD THE DIAMETER OF THESE TREES CHANGE FROM OUR 10 INCH TO 8 INCH OR, I MEAN, WHAT IS A CHARGEABLE TREE? IF WE IF WE COULD JUST MAKE THOSE SIMPLE DECISIONS, RIGHT, WE WOULD HAVE MADE ENOUGH MONEY BETWEEN THE TIME THAT WE SENT THAT OFF TO TODAY, THAT WE COULD JUST HAND KALEB ALL THE MONEY THEY NEED TO MAKE THIS A BEAUTIFUL PARK, RIGHT? I THINK WE COULD GET THIS DONE IN 1 OR 2 MEETINGS AT MOST. I'M FINE SENDING IT TO P AND Z AND HAVING THEM LOOK AT IT IN MAY AND BRING IT BACK IN JUNE. BUT THIS ISN'T A DIFFICULT DISCUSSION. THIS IS. IS THERE A LIMIT ON THE FEES? DO WE CAP IT? DO WE ALLOW CLEAR CUTTING AND DO WE CHANGE THE DIAMETER OF OUR TREES? IT'S REALLY THOSE THREE DECISIONS. COUNCIL.

BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE I THINK VERY INSTRUCTIVE FOR PNC. HOWEVER POINT OF ORDER. I THINK OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS REALLY ABOUT PIN POINT. AND WE'VE KIND OF VEERED OFF. I UNDERSTAND THAT HAS BEARING ON HERE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT BACK A LITTLE BIT. WE CAN WE CAN GET LEGAL THERE. BUT MY ARGUMENT TO THE POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE THAT THIS IS A FUNDING MECHANISM THAT WE'RE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING TO FUND THE VERY SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED. I DON'T SUSTAIN THE POINT OF ORDER. I GET WHERE YOU GUYS ARE TYING IN, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK, CAN WE START LOOPING IT UP? THIS IS A DISCUSSION. I THINK WE'VE GIVEN IT A LOT. I JUST I JUST WANTED TO THANK JANICE FOR THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WITH WHAT WE CAN DO WITH A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COMPARE TO. SO $100,000 IN YOUR HANDS IS WHAT THE CITY COULD DO WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF MAYBE HALF $1 MILLION. SO LOOKING AT WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING WITH THIS $100,000 IS VERY ENCOURAGING. I KNOW THAT THE PROPOSAL FROM DAVID WAS VERY MINIMAL. ONE ONE FOR $100,000. HE WAS ABLE TO GIVE US A SWING SET. HERE YOU ARE. YOU'RE GIVING US BEAUTIFUL PATHWAYS TO TO LOOK AT THE ARTWORK AND THE SCULPTURES OUT THERE. AND IN ADDITION TO AN ADA COMPLIANT SWING. SO I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT YOU ALL PUT IN. AND, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT IN ON THIS. AND SO I HOPE THINGS GO AWAY PRETTY SOON. CAN'T MAKE ANY PROMISES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE KICKED BACK TO PRAGUE. CHARLES. COB, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU ALL.

DID A FANTASTIC JOB. I HATE TO BE THE ONE THAT REIGNS ON EVERYBODY'S PARADE HERE, BUT WITH THIS BEING $100,000 PROJECT, IT WILL HAVE TO GO OUT FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. SO I DON'T WANT TO BE THE BEARER OF BAD NEWS, BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE AN OVERALL PROJECT OF MORE THAN $100,000, IT HAS TO GO OUT FOR BID. JANICE, I YEAH, I WOULD POINT OUT MAYBE WE CAN TAKE A PHASED APPROACH LIKE WE'VE DISCUSSED ON DAWN CIRCLE AND KEEP IT UNDER 100,000. SO THAT'S ONE OPTION. YEAH. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T BREAK UP A YOU CAN'T BREAK UP A PROJECT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE BIDDING PROCESS. I MEAN, IF THERE ARE DISCRETE PROJECTS, THEY'RE DISCRETE PROJECTS, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS REFORMULATE THE PROJECT. SO THERE SEPARATE. SO ANYWAYS, THAT MY, MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS IN THINKING OF TERMS OF THE WALKWAY AS ONE PROJECT AND THE SWING SET AS A SEPARATE PROJECT, THE TOTAL COST JUST I'LL TAKE, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, BUT I JUST NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH, YOU KNOW, IF IT RELATES TO THE SAME OVERALL. I MEAN, THE STATE GETS VERY PICKY ABOUT THAT SORT OF STUFF, SO I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, I TOTALLY GET IT. I'M A COMPLIANCE FORMER COMPLIANCE NERD. MY POINT IS, JUST LIKE JANICE SAID, LET'S TREAT IT AS TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. IF THAT'S GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF A ISSUE. RIGHT.

[02:30:04]

THANK YOU. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE DISCUSSION, IT'S I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE A P REC. CORRECT? SO I NEED TO CONFIRM DAVID MENTIONED THEY MIGHT DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING SO THEY COULD DO A MEETING CADENCE IN ADVANCE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEIR MEETING CADENCES AREN'T OPTIMAL COMPARED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING CADENCES. SO YEAH, SO THAT TODAY THERE'S AN EMAIL THREAD GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND THAT WAS THE FIRST REFERENCE THAT I'VE HEARD TO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. YEAH. I THINK FOR THEM, THEY LAID OUT TWO PRIMARY CONCERNS, WHICH YOU, YOU IDENTIFIED BOTH OF THOSE. SO I MEAN, THAT'S UP TO THEM.

IF THEY WANT TO DO A SPECIAL MEETING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, THEN ANDREW NEED ONLY REACH OUT TO ME AND SAY, LET'S GET IT OUT THERE AND WE POST IT UP AND MOVE FORWARD.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I DON'T AGREE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MR. BANFIELD, THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN THROWING BACK AND FORTH AND THROUGH A LOOP IN A LONG TIME. SO HOPEFULLY THEY DO IT QUICKLY. OKAY, I GOT WE HAVE A CITIZEN ONLINE. I CAN'T READ YOUR NAME. OH. PAUL ROBERTS. SORRY, THE, THE VINEYARD HAT MIGHT HAVE THROWN YOU OFF, MR. MAYOR. SORRY. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEBODY WITH LONG HAIR. I COULD USE MORE OF THAT TOO. HEY, I JUST WANTED TO A COUPLE THINGS. I AGREE WITH THE EMPHASIS THAT MR. THAT COUNCILMAN BENEFIELD WAS PUTTING ON ASSESSING THE ORIGINAL REFERRAL WE DID IN 2025 TO PNC TO LOOK AT THE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PRESERVATION IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT. THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WAS THAT IT WASN'T. CHARLES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING. FOR THE RECORD, THAT THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PRESERVATION AND PARKLAND PRESERVATION, ARE IN DIFFERENT FUNDS AND YOUR PREDECESSOR HAD PREDECESSORS HAD PREVIOUSLY TOLD US THAT THAT MONEY COUNTED TOWARD OUR BOND RATING, OUR OUR RESERVE, OUR RESERVE RATIOS.

AND SO IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT THAT'S NOT IN FACT, THE CASE. AND I HOPE YOU GUYS START SPENDING AND, AND IMPROVING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE OUT HERE WITH AMENITIES LIKE THIS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. SO THIS DISCUSSION WENT FAR AND WIDE. IT WAS ALL RELATED. BUT ON A CLARIFY ON FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE. SO. IT'S ALREADY ON THEIR AGENDA TO SPECIFICALLY CONSIDER THE STRIKING OF THE WORD POCKET FOR USE OF FUNDS. HOWEVER, WE'VE BEEN INFORMED BY THAT POINT QUALIFIES AS A POCKET PARK. AND, AND DAVID AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AT DIFFERENT CITIES, HAD DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, BUT IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE, IN MY VIEW, FOR BOUGHTON POINT TO BE A POCKET PARK. SO I DON'T THINK THAT IS RELATED TO OUR DECISION TONIGHT. GETTING THAT THAT USE OF FUNDS THROUGH THE THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THE THING THAT I DO THINK I HEARD AS CERTAINLY MY PERSPECTIVE, MISS VENICE PERSPECTIVE IS WE DO WANT PERAK TO HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE A GOOD QUALITY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL AND MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS AND, AND, AND OPINE ON WHERE IN THE PRIORITY LIST THIS WOULD BE, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, VERSUS SPENDING ON DAWN CIRCLE OR OTHER POTENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES. AND THEN WITH THEIR OPINION ON WHERE THIS FITS IN THE PRIORITY, WE CAN CERTAINLY THEN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF OUR OF OUR TREE MITIGATION FUNDS DO WE WANT TO SPEND ON PARKS? AND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT A BIG ENOUGH DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE CAN DO THIS PROJECT? BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S REALLY TWO DISTINCT THINGS GOING TO PLANNING AND ZONING. ONE IS THE LIMITED STRIKE POCKET OR NOT, AND A COMPLETELY SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF THIS PROPOSAL FOR WHAT TO DO AT THAT POINT AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON THAT. AND SO UNLESS YOU ALL DISAGREE WITH ME, THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT I'M GOING TO TAKE BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING AS AS THE REQUEST. ARE THEY LOOKING AT VALID POINT OR IS LOOKING? OH I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. YES, YES. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS TOTALLY WRONG.

PLANNING AND ZONING IS THE POCKET QUESTION. PRAC IS THE REVIEW OF THIS DESIGN. THANK YOU. YES THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT ONE. THIS WILL TAKE THE MESSAGE TO PRAC AND I'LL TAKE THE MESSAGE TO. PERFECT. WELL THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. KALEB. DENISE. SURE.

I'M JUST CURIOUS IN THE FUTURE. WELL LET ME GO BACK IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ALWAYS BROUGHT OUR PLANS AND OUR THOUGHTS AND IDEALS BEFORE THE COUNCIL. AND YOU'VE EITHER APPROVED THEM OR

[02:35:02]

WE'VE CHANGED THEM AND YOU'VE APPROVED THEM. NOW WE HAVE PRAC. SO ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO START IN THE FUTURE OR NOW PRAC HAS TO APPROVE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO BEFORE YOU GUYS DO. BUT I'LL TELL YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO PUT A A CLINCH IN US RIGHT. NO THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT AT ALL. I THINK WHAT DAVID HAD POINTED OUT IS WHEN IT MOVES OVER INTO PARK DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE ADDING AMENITIES TO A PARK OR POTENTIALLY CONFIGURING A NEW PARK. THEN PRAC SHOULD HAVE SOME INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATE WITH YOU GUYS ON THAT. BUT OTHERWISE, IF YOU'RE DOING THE GREAT WORK YOU DO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TOP OF DAWN DRIVE, YOU KNOW WHERE THE SIGN IS OR ALL THE OTHER AREAS. THE BEAUTIFICATION THAT YOU'VE DONE THAT SHOULD CONTINUE, YOU KNOW, AS IS. SO OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SINCE WE'RE TALKING, WE'LL

[X.5. Consideration and possible action to approve the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) Fund Policy and Application, and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute related contracts for the use of HOT funds.]

GO ON TO ITEM. ACTION ITEM NUMBER FIVE. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION. APPROVE THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUND POLICY AND APPLICATION. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE RELATED CONTRACTS FOR THE USE OF FUNDS. I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED NOTE FROM THE CHAMBER MIGHT BE RELEVANT THAT I START OUT WITH THIS CITIZEN COMMENT, SO Y'ALL CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS DISCUSSION. ARE YOU ALL GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS FROM ALLISON. SHE I WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR OUR LOCAL NONPROFIT GROUP THAT DO THE WORK, JUST HOST THE EVENTS, BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER IN THE COMMUNITY AND DRIVE TOURISM.

THIS POLICY IS WRITTEN OUT AS THIS POLICY IS WRITTEN OUT, DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM. IT LIMITS THEM REQUIRING 50% MATCH CAP FUNDS, RESTRICTING HOW THEY CAN USE THEIR OWN REVENUE TO GENERATE TAKES AWAY THEIR ABILITY TO SUSTAIN OR GROW. THIS PUTS UP A BARRIER.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGE. REMOVE THIS SECTION. SHE SENT AN EMAIL THEY SAID FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WITH. THE CHAMBER IS REQUESTING REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER. A TOURISM SERVICES AGREEMENT FUNDED THROUGH A FAIR ONGOING SHARE OF THE CITY'S ACCOUNT, WITH THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BASED ON ACTUAL HOT COLLECTIONS, REPORTING TRENDS AND OPERATIONAL NEEDS. REGULAR PAYMENT INSTALLMENTS UNDER ONE ANNUAL CONTRACT AGREEMENT. ONE STREAMLINED REPORTING STRUCTURE FOR ALL CONTRACTED TOURISM WORK ALIGNMENT AND ACCOUNTING AND DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER FOR ALL TOURISM RELATED ACTIVITIES. TIMELY ACCESS TO A CITY HEALTH TOURISM ANALYTICS, INCLUDING PLACER.AI AND OTHER AVAILABLE DATA TO SUPPORT ACCURATE, EFFICIENT REPORTING. CITY ACTION TOWARD A SHORT TERM RENTAL REPORTING ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE, COLLECTION ACCURACY AND LONG TERM TOURISM PLANNING. WHY THIS APPROACH WORKS TOURISM WORK IS YEAR ROUND AND SHOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH A STABLE PARTNER AGREEMENT, NOT TREATED LIKE A ONE TIME GRANT REQUEST, ONE REPORTING STANDARD FOR THE CITY AND CHAMBER AND GRANT APPLICANTS, GRANT APPLICANTS STANDARDIZED ACCOUNTING PRACTICES CREATE TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS. SHARED ACCESS TO ANALYTICS. ENHANCE DATA ACCURACY. REDUCES DUPLICATION OF EFFORT AND SPORTS DRAMA DECISION MAKING. IMPROVE SHORT TERM RENTAL REPORTING.

STRENGTHENS THE INTEGRITY OF COLLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS. THE PROPOSED REPORTING STRUCTURE AND INVOICE AND SUMMARY REPORT COVERING ALL TOURISM SERVICES PERFORMED DURING THE PRIOR REPORTING PERIOD. PAYMENT ISSUED ON A CONSISTENT SCHEDULE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION. ANY CITY GENERATED TOURISM OR EVENT ANALYTICS USED FOR EVALUATION ARE SHARED WITH THE CHAMBER TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT AND ACCURACY. BOTTOM LINE THE CHAMBER IS ASKING FOR A FAIR, STABLE AND WORKABLE TOURISM PARTNER AGREEMENT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. CLEAR FUNDING STRUCTURE ONE REPORTING STRUCTURE, EQUAL STANDARDS AND BETTER DATA SHARING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIZENS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH. I DID GET A NOTE AND IT RELATED TO THE 50% CAP IN A ONE ON ONE MATCH. AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE ITEM I MEANT TO GO BACK TO. AND I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR SECTION. OTHER THAN THAT, I REALLY LIKE THE CURRENT POLICY THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD. THANK YOU. ARIA, I AGREE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BASICALLY ON PAGE 274 ABOUT THE 50% REQUIRING MATCH AND THEN LATER, LATER ON, IT RESTRICTS HOW EVENT REVENUE CAN BE USED. THE COMBINATION OF THAT, THEY WERE SAYING THAT IT COULD BE FINANCIALLY UNREALISTIC FOR NONPROFITS TO HOST ANY OF THESE EVENTS AT ALL BASED OFF OF THAT.

OKAY. CHARLES, I WILL SAY THIS POLICY WAS DRAFTED BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. WE JUST TWEAKED IT A LITTLE BIT. IT COMPLIES WITH THE STATE LAWS. THE CONTRACT. THERE IS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT.

THAT IS, IT WOULD BE A CONTRACT THAT WE WOULD ENTER INTO THE CHAMBER FOR THE TOURISM THING.

THAT DOES HAVE A SET AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD BE PAID EACH MORE EACH MONTH FOR THE TOURISM.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE TWO CONFUSED, BECAUSE I HAVE GOTTEN THEM CONFUSED AND GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS WORK THE LAST FEW WEEKS. YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE 50% CAP, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT ONE ORGANIZATION SHOULD EAT UP ALL THE FUNDS. BUT ALSO, WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT SECTION, THERE WERE SOME LIMITATIONS ON HOW

[02:40:03]

MUCH COULD BE SPENT BY CERTAIN ENTITIES. ISN'T THAT DICTATED IN STATE LAW? LIKE THE STATE SAYS, THAT ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE GOES TO OUR OF CERTAIN PERCENTAGE GOES TO HISTORY OR SOMETHING. THERE'S SOME STUFF IN THERE THAT'S FROM THE STATE. SO THE 15%, THE 15% CAP. THERE ARE THE NINE CATEGORIES, RIGHT. AND ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES IS ARTS AND HUMANITIES. BASICALLY, STATE LAW LIMITS AN EXPENDITURE OF YOUR BUDGET TO 15% FOR THAT ITEM. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT IS, 15% OF IT CAN GO TO THAT. AND SO IF YOU, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF THE THE CHAMBER EATS UP ALL 15%. BECAUSE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS PROMOTING ARTS, THEN SOMEONE ELSE WHO COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, HEY, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS FESTIVAL, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS, WHATEVER. YOU CAN'T DO IT IF IT GOES OVER 15%. SO THAT'S NOT A LAGO VISTA LIMIT.

THAT IS A STATE OF TEXAS LIMIT. IS THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT'S IN THERE? THAT IS THE ONLY OF THE NINE CATEGORIES. THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS A HARD LIMIT ON IT. THERE ARE OTHER LIMITS.

I THINK I DESCRIBED THEM IN A MEMO, SO I'D HAVE TO PULL UP THAT MEMO. BUT BUT THAT'S THE ONLY CATEGORY THAT HAS A HARD LIMIT. BUT BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, FROM A FROM A IF, IF, IF YOU'RE IF, IF WHAT THE CHAMBER OR ANY, ANY ENTITY, IF WHAT ANY ONE ENTITY DOES EATS UP THAT WHOLE 15%, OTHER APPLICANTS, YOU'D HAVE TO DENY THEM IF THAT 15% HAS BEEN EATEN UP. ONCE YOU HIT THAT CAP, YOU'RE DONE AND ANY OTHER EXPENDITURES HAVE TO GO TO THE OTHER CATEGORIES. AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE STATE HAS SET IT UP. AND THEN SINCE YOU WROTE THIS OR HELPED WRITE A LOT OF IT, SORT OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN THERE, I MEAN, ISN'T THAT NOT A FOLLOWING STATE STANDARDS, BUT ALSO BEST STANDARDS THAT PROTECTS THE CITY? YEAH. THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE BASICALLY PULLED FROM STATE LAW. YOU KNOW, THERE THERE ARE I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS MEANT BY STREAMLINED REPORTING OR ONE REPORT, BUT BUT SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE PRE AND POST EVENT REPORTS, THOSE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE COOKING UP. THAT'S JUST THAT IT'S IN THE STATUTE. SO I, I THINK THE POLICY FOLLOW TRACKS THE STATUTE. SO THOSE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE JUST THERE. THEY ARE STATEWIDE, THE LAGO VISTA. THIS POLICY IS NOT SOME OUTLIER. IT'S JUST FOLLOWING STATE LAW. OKAY. YEAH. I'M GOOD WITH THE POLICY. I THINK IT'S BEEN UP FOR REVIEW FOR A BIT. SO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS MR. PRINCE? QUESTION. SO I'M LOOKING AT THANK YOU FOR THE PAGE REFERENCE. I THINK IT WAS THAT SAID IT. SO I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 274, SECTION FIVE POINT 14.1 AND POINT TWO. SO 514 ONE SAYS ALL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR THE PROMOTION OF ARTS ARE LIMITED TO 15%. AND THEN FIVE 14.2 SAYS ALL FUNDING REQUESTS FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND PRESERVATION ARE LIMITED TO 15%.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, NOT JUST THE ONE. SO THE THE ARTS CATEGORY LISTS, I'M TRYING TO PULL IT UP, BUT THE ARTS CATEGORY LISTS A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT FALL WITHIN ARTS. AND SO AND AGAIN, THAT'S IN THE STATUTE. SO IF YOU, IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT, I'LL PULL UP THAT SECTION OF THE STATUTE. HAPPY TO READ IT. LOOKING FOR IT. THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED IN THE DOCUMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES, EACH OF WHICH IS KEPT TO 15%. OKAY. LET ME. YES, SIR. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. YES, SIR. AND THEN KIND OF A RELATED QUESTION. SO ON THE 15% ART, I KNOW, I THINK ESPECIALLY MR. ROBERTS IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS BEEN A BIG ADVOCATE OF US USING HOT FUNDS TO FUND BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS BY CALEB, FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER THIS 15% LIMIT WOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE FUNDING FOR LARGO FEST, WHICH WE'VE BEEN USING HOT FUNDS FOR, AS WELL AS ANY MONEY THAT WE MIGHT GIVE TO CALEB FOR ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES KIND OF A PROJECT. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WE COULD WE COULD BURN THROUGH THAT LIMIT PRETTY QUICKLY. CHARLES. LOGO FEST IS GOING TO FALL MORE UNDER THE TOURISM SIDE OF IT, BECAUSE IT'S BRINGING PEOPLE IN. A LOT OF THE PROJECTS CALEB DOES IS GOING TO FALL UNDER THE ARTS. AND I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A LIMIT ON HISTORY OR HISTORICAL STUFF. AND THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS WE OPERATED A MUSEUM IN

[02:45:02]

ONE OF MY CITIES, AND WE SPENT MORE THAN WHAT WE HAD, AND WE HAD TO PAY SOME OF IT BACK.

YEAH, I'M STILL IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT, I'LL HAVE IT FOR YOU IN A SECOND. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 15% ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. I KNOW THAT GALVESTON DOES THAT. AFTER THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUNDATION GETS A 15%. AND THEN THERE ARE ARTS, ARTS AND THEATER. ARTS DOES ANOTHER 15%. I WILL SAY THAT THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT CALEB AND WHAT THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR, FOR HOT FUNDS, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER FUNDING MECHANISM I WANT TO PUT IN EVERYBODY'S EAR, AND IT COMES UP UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, CHAPTER 51. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN EXPLORE IN THE FUTURE. BUT I WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY THE CONTROLLER AND ALSO BY FRANK ROBBINS AT OUR LAST MEETING, AT OUR LAST DISCUSSION WITH HIM. MAYOR PRO TEM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS THAT DID COME TO MIND FOR BRAD. AND WHILE HE'S HE'S IN THE MIDST OF SOMETHING ELSE, BUT SPECIFICALLY THE 5.13.3 IN TERMS OF THE MATCH OF THE 1 TO 1 MATCH ON APPLICANTS WITH MATCH AT 1 TO 1 OF THE TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED FROM THE CITY.

I BELIEVE, AGAIN, THAT'S UNDER THE STATE LAW, BUT I WANT TO BE SURE. AND THEN NO APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE MORE THAN 50%. THAT'S HIS 5.14 WILL RECEIVE MORE THAN 50% OF THE ALLOWABLE ANNUAL FUNDS. IS THAT INCLUDING CONVENTION VISITORS BUREAU? AM I GETTING IT MIXED UP, CHARLES.

AND COMPLETING THE TWO, IS THAT SEPARATE THAT THAT'S THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH ON 5.14. YEAH. THE CONVENTION OR THE CVB. YEAH. THE TOURISM OR INFORMATION OFFICE WHERE THE VISITOR CENTER.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT. IT WOULD BE ITS OWN DEAL. LIKE IF IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LUMPED INTO THAT. THAT IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT. OKAY. AND THEN LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO JUST VALIDATE THE 1 TO 1 MATCH. ON 5.1, 3.3. I SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT ALREADY. I DID THAT AT THE TOP OF 5.13. IT SAYS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY WAIVED DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS BY COUNCIL. SO IT'S NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER. OKAY. WELL, WHY BRAD'S LOOKING. ANY OTHER ISSUES CONCERNS. MR. BENFIELD, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW. I PUT A FEW QUESTIONS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT WHEN YOU HAVE TIME. OKAY.

SO. YEAH, MOST CITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE 15% ON ARTS, AND THE AG HAS ISSUED SEVERAL OPINIONS ON ARTS RELATED FACILITIES AND EXPENDITURES. THE OPINION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE AG OPINION STATES THAT THE PHRASE PROMOTION OF THE ARTS DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MUNICIPAL HOTEL TAX FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ART FACILITIES, CONSTRUCTION OF THEATER FACILITIES CONSIDERED ALONE IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE. SO IT'S SO THAT'S A CAP. AND DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DO THAT. NOW I'M LOOKING FOR HISTORICAL. LET'S SEE. SORRY, IT'S TAKEN ME A SECOND. I NEED TO SAY MY HOPE IS THAT WE WOULD PASS THIS POLICY TONIGHT. SO I'D SAY WE SHOULD GO THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS. OH, I APOLOGIZE, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A WORK ITEM ONLY I APOLOGIZE. NO WORRIES. THAT SOUNDS LIKE CHARLES ANSWERED YOUR NUMBER ONE AT A TOURISM SERVICES AGREEMENT, I THINK. DID YOU SAY THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE ALREADY CONSIDERING? SEPARATE. YES, SEPARATE. THAT WAS YOUR FIRST COMMENT? YEAH.

[02:50:07]

THE TOURISM CENTER IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT FROM THE FROM THE HOT POLICY. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. I JUST WASN'T SURE. YES. YES SIR. YEAH. THERE'S A DRAFT. FOR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE FOR THE CHAMBER CONTRACT. YES. THERE'S A THERE'S A THERE IS A CONTRACT WITH THE CHAMBER THAT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD ANOTHER I THIS WAS A CONTRACT THAT WE PULLED FROM ANOTHER CITY THAT WE'VE PREPARED THE THE DOLLAR FIGURE IN THERE IS SUBJECT NUMBER ONE TO YOUR SUBJECT TO YOUR DISCRETION. BUT BUT WHATEVER THAT DOLLAR FIGURE IS STILL MUST BE TIED TO THE TOURISM IMPACT THAT THE THAT PARTICULAR CHAMBER PROVIDES.

YOU CAN'T JUST PULL A NUMBER OUT OF THIN AIR. SO AND SPECIFICALLY, THAT CONTRACT THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU WAS ONE THAT WE HAD PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF, I THINK, DENNISON, SO THAT, YOU KNOW. AND WHAT I DID WAS THAT THAT NUMBER THAT WAS IN THERE WAS THE AMOUNT THAT THAT COUNCIL DECIDED TO PROVIDE EACH MONTH TO THAT PARTICULAR CHAMBER, YOU KNOW, THE SAME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT THAT IS BEING SOUGHT HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO FUND X AMOUNT OF YOUR TOURISM PROMOTION. BUT BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE TIED TO THE METRICS OF THE TOURISM PROMOTION. THEY COULDN'T PICK A NUMBER THAT'S OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE TOURISM PROMOTION. SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS BLANK. AND IT'S TO BE DETERMINED WITH APPROPRIATE METRICS. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR NUMBER ONE? MR. OKAY. YOUR OTHER ONE WAS REPLACED WITH COUNCIL DISCRETION, AS I JUST SAID ON THE 5.13, IT DOES SAY THAT COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO WAIVE THAT DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. WOULD THAT COVER YOUR CONCERN ON THAT ONE? WHICH ONE NUMBER. WELL THEY'RE ALL LISTED ONE. BUT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ONE. YES. I COPIED AND PASTED IT. YEAH. IT'S THE APP I THINK. YEAH. REPLACE HARD CAPS WITH COUNCIL DISCRETION. IT SAYS FUNDING LEVELS MAY BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL BASED ON DEMONSTRATED REASONABLY PROJECTED TOURISM 5.13 LOOKS LIKE IT DOES ALLOW THAT DISCRETION. DID YOU DO THE DEFINE WHAT CAN BE COVERED. DID YOU ALREADY DISCUSS THAT? NO. I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF CAPTURED IN BRAD'S DISCUSSION OF IT STILL HAS TO FALL UNDER ALL THE ALLOWABLE CRITERIA FOR OVERALL FUNDS. SO THE. HERE'S THE LIST OF THE 15TH WAS WHAT IS CAPTURED 50%, SORRY. HERE'S WHAT'S CAPPED AT 15% FOR THE ARTS. AND THIS IS. 351 100 AND 1A4 OF THE TAX CODE EXCUSE ME. ENCOURAGEMENT, PROMOTION, IMPROVEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE ARTS, INCLUDING INSTRUMENTAL AND VOCAL MUSIC, DANCE, DRAMA, FOLK ART, CREATIVE WRITING, ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND ALLIED FIELDS, PAINTING, SCULPTURE, MOTION PICTURES, RADIO, TELEVISION, FILM, SOUND RECORDING AND OTHER ARTS RELATED TO THE PRESENTATION, PERFORMANCE, EXECUTION AND EXHIBITION OF THESE MAJOR ART FORMS. SO A MUSIC FESTIVAL, A. YOU KNOW, DANCING, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE STUFF YOU GO TO FOR FESTIVALS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S ALL FALLS WITHIN THE ARTS NOW. HISTORICAL IS SEPARATE. LET ME READ. WELL, LET ME READ YOU WHAT HIS WHAT CONSTITUTES HISTORICAL PROMOTION? HISTORICAL IS HISTORICAL RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES IN MUSEUMS OR ADVERTISING AND CONDUCTING SOLICITATIONS AND PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE TOURISTS AND CONVENTION DELEGATES TO VISIT PRESERVED HISTORICAL SITES OR MUSEUMS AT OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, OR LOCATED ELSEWHERE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OR ITS VICINITY THAT WOULD FREQUENTLY BE FREQUENTED BY TOURISTS AND CONVENTION DELEGATES. SO THAT'S WHAT IT HAS TO ENCOMPASS. AND GET BACK TO ALLOCATION. BRAD. YES, MA'AM. I THINK FURTHERING THAT IS ALSO THE CITY IS LIMITED IN LAW BY THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS IT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR. NO APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE MORE THAN 50% OF THE ALLOWABLE ANNUAL FUNDS. THE CITY MAY CONTRIBUTE. OKAY, I THINK IT I BELIEVE THAT'S A HARD CAP. ALSO, IT COULD BE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

I'M SORRY. I'M JUST WORKING THROUGH THIS DENSE. SO GIVE ME ONE SECOND. SO. 351 101A FOR

[02:55:03]

ARTS CAPPED AT 15%. 351 101A5 HISTORICAL VENUES ALSO CAPPED AT 15%. THOSE ARE SEPARATE 15% NOW, SORRY, I APOLOGIZE I ONE. YES, OKAY. STATE STATUTE. YEAH. ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE IT DIRECTLY FOR THIS, BUT RIGHT BEFORE THOSE TWO STATING 15%, THE 5.1 FOR THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE OR NO APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE MORE THAN 50% OF THE ALLOWABLE ANNUAL FUNDS. SO THAT IS ALSO PART OF STATE STATUTE. IS THAT CORRECT OR NO. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP.

I DON'T RECALL I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.

THAT'S A POLICY. I BELIEVE THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS. MISS AUBREY, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE 15%. AND I'M THIS IS GOING TO BE A LEGAL ISSUE. LEGAL QUESTION.

I'LL TIE IT IN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MUSICAL ENTITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WILL BE SEEKING THESE FUNDS FOR PERFORMANCES. NOW, SINCE THEY ARE VOCAL OR MUSICAL, AND IF WE TIE THEM UP OR TIED IT AT OR TIED THEM UP AT 15%, THAT WOULD BE BASED OFF OF LAST YEAR'S PROJECTIONS OR LAST YEAR'S NUMBERS. WE WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH CAPPED AT LESS THAN $30,000 FOR ANY OF THESE PEOPLE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR. SO MY CONCERN IS, IS IF IF THEY QUALIFY UNDER MULTIPLE CATEGORIES, MEANING NOT JUST FOR ARTS, COULD THEY ALSO SAY, OKAY, I QUALIFIED THIS MUCH FOR THIS MUCH UNDER ARTS, BUT THEN I QUALIFIED FOR THIS MUCH UNDER TOURISM. COULD THAT BE A LIKE A IT'S ALL GOING TO BE TOURISM. BUT BUT BUT LET ME LET ME GO BACK TO THE THE. USES. LET ME GET TO THE USE TABLE. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THOUGH IS YES. SO AND IN FACT, I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS WITH ONE OF MY OTHER CITIES. SO AN ENTITY THEY GOT X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS UNDER THE ARTS, BUT THEY ALSO QUALIFIED UNDER. YEAH. SO FOR I THINK IT WAS A THREE ADVERTISING AND CONDUCTING SOLICITATIONS AND PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS TO ATTRACT TOURISTS. SO IF YOU QUALIFY, IF YOU'RE DOING THAT, THEN SOME OF YOUR MONEY CAN COME IN UNDER A3. AND IF IT'S FOR THIS FESTIVAL, SOME OF YOUR MONEY COMES IN UNDER A4.

AND IF BUT IF IT'S FOR A MUSEUM, SOME OF YOUR MONEY COMES IN UNDER A5. AND SO THAT'S HOW YOU CAN DIVIDE IT UP AND GET ABOVE THE 15% LEGALLY, IF THEY ARE DOING ONE OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AND IT CAN QUALIFY UNDER THAT. SO WHAT IF YOU HAD THE HILL COUNTRY SINGERS SING IN ANY HISTORICAL MUSEUM? I JUST WANTED TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD. SORRY. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I MEAN, AS LONG AS THEY'RE DRAWING IN PEOPLE TO THE MUSEUM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, 15 AND 15.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BRAD. SINCE WE GOT THROUGH THAT, I THINK BACK TO MR. BENFIELD'S QUESTION.

WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TOURISM SERVICE AGREEMENT HE ASKED IN THERE, COULD WE DEFINE WHAT A TSA CAN COVER? AND HE LISTED, YOU KNOW, VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS, TOURISM, MARKETING CAMPAIGNS, WEBSITE, EVENT RECRUITMENT, HOTEL PARTNERSHIPS. IS THAT ALREADY COVERED UNDER STATE LAW? DO WE NEED TO SPELL IT OUT? OR MAYBE IT MIGHT BE SIMPLER JUST TO ASK, COULD YOU, SINCE WE'RE WE ARE GOING TO DO A TSA. COULD YOU JUST. IS THAT CORRECT? COULD YOU JUST DEFINE IT IN THERE? COULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THAT? IT. I BELIEVE I'M LOOKING FOR THE COPY OF THE CONTRACT. I BELIEVE IT DOES. I THINK IT SETS FORTH THE TERMS OF WHAT IT COVERS. LET ME LET ME FIND THAT DOCUMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE MARKETING SERVICES AGREEMENT IS WHAT IT'S CALLED IT. IT IT DEFINES VISITOR CENTER HOSTING AND IT PROVIDES A SPACE FOR TOURISM RELATED MATERIALS. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THIS GOT SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY.

I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T BCC, I TRIED TO, I MUST HAVE MISSED THIS ONE. AND SO IT REQUIRES THE CHAMBER TO USE THEIR FACILITIES AS A VISITOR CENTER AND PROVIDE SPACE FOR TOURISM

[03:00:07]

ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION FOR PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS TO ATTACK TOURIST AND CONVENTION DEVELOPMENTS, DELEGATES OR REGISTRANTS TO THE CITY. THAT IS THE PROVISION THAT IS MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT CHAMBERS PROVIDE WHEN CITIES DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN TOURISM DEPARTMENTS, OR WHEN THEY DO HAVE THEIR OWN TOURISM DEPARTMENTS AND A CHAMBER SUPPLEMENTS IT. SO THEY'RE GETTING THAT MONEY UNDER A3. A3, REMEMBER, DOESN'T HAVE A CAP THAT THAT PERCENTAGE CAP ON IT. SO IT'S JUST TIED TO WHAT CAN YOU ATTRIBUTE TO THEIR EFFORTS, RIGHT? WHAT IS THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS THEIR EFFORTS? IF THEY CAME IN AND DID A SEPARATE EVENT, HISTORICAL PROMOTION OR ARTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THEY COULD GET MONEY UNDER ONE OF THOSE OTHER SECTIONS. SO THAT MONEY THAT'S GOING TOWARDS THE WOULD GO TOWARDS THE CHAMBER UNDER THE SERVICES AGREEMENT, WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS ANY OF THE 15% BECAUSE IT'S ALL UNDER A3. SO YOU'D STILL HAVE THAT FULL 15% FOR THE ARTS, AND YOU STILL HAVE THAT FULL 15% FOR HISTORICAL TO DISTRIBUTE OUT OF THE CHAMBER.

AGAIN, IF THE CHAMBER PUT ON AN ARTS EVENT, WELL, THEN IT COUNTS TOWARDS THE 15%, BUT THAT'D BE ON TOP OF WHAT YOU'RE PAYING THEM FOR THE A3 ACTIVITIES THAT THEY WOULD BE PERFORMING. AND I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS THAT IN OTHER CHAMBER CONTRACTS YOU CAN REFERENCE, BUT YOU DON'T. I MEAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE A CONVENTION CENTER. YOU DON'T. SOME OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES DON'T APPLY HERE. SO WE HAVE TO LIMIT IT TO THE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD APPLY HERE. AND SO SINCE YOU'RE IF YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF THEY FURNISHED FACILITIES FOR CONVENTION DELEGATES, THEY COULD GET MONEY UNDER THAT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPLICABLE. SO I THINK THE ONE THAT'S APPLICABLE IS A3 COUNCIL. BRAD, CAN YOU ALSO GIVE SOME CLARIFICATION ON HOT TAX FUNDING FOR EDC? I WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE CONTROLLER, AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF LEGISLATION THAT PASSED ABOUT THE FUNDING OF EDC IS USING HOT FUNDS. ANYBODY CAN USE ANY ENTITY CAN USE HOT FUNDS. THAT MAKES THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT CONFLATING PURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH TOURISM PROMOTION, IF NOT AN EDC, IF AN EVENT OR SOMETHING THAT AN SEC DOES IS ONLY TIED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, BRINGING IN NEW BUSINESS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T USE HOT FUNDS FOR THAT. IF IT'S JUST BRINGING IN NEW BUSINESS, IT'S BRINGING IN NEW EMPLOYMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT IF AN EDC HOSTS AN EVENT THAT BRINGS IN OVERNIGHT VISITORS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE EVENT, A CONVENTION, SOME, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WOULD FIT WITHIN THAT, THEN YOU COULD USE HOT FUNDS FOR FOR THAT IN THE EDC WOULD APPLY JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ENTITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SOME OF THOSE HOT FUNDS. SO SAY THE EDC DECIDED TO HOLD AN EVENT AND WANTED TO BRING IN, SAY THEY'RE LOOKING FOR BIDDERS TO COME IN FOR A PROJECT OR A POTENTIAL JUST KIND OF LIKE A

[03:05:04]

COLLABORATIVE MEETING. AND WE WERE THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THEY BROUGHT IN TOURISM.

THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDS. THEY, THEY. YES. I MEAN, BASED ON THAT, IF THEY, IF THEY'RE COMING, IF THEY ARE HAVING SOME SORT OF A CONVENTION AND THESE CONVENTIONS ARE GATHERINGS DON'T HAVE TO BE AT A CONVENTION CENTER AS LONG AS THEY COME IN AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BEING HOSTED HERE AND YOU HAVE ALL DAY, TWO DAY EVENT, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS FOR ANY EDC, THEY CAN GET HOT FUNDS. AND SO I KNOW OTHER CITIES EDC'S HAVE, HAVE HELD PROGRAMS LIKE THAT, WHERE THEY'VE HAD INVITEES COME AND, YOU KNOW, THEY SPEND THE NIGHT, YOU GET HOT FUNDS, YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR HOT FUNDS FOR THAT.

I'LL SKIP TO ONE OF THE OTHER ONES OF MR. BANFIELD, I THINK IS JUST EASY FOR US TO SAY.

CLARIFY CONTRACT AUTHORITY. ALL CONTRACTS EXECUTED. CITY MANAGER MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH AND DERIVED FROM COUNCIL APPROVED POLICIES, APPLICATIONS OR AGREEMENTS. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO KNOW THAT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY OUR INTENTION. AND CHARLES, YOU FEEL LIKE IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM TONIGHT, THAT THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? YES. ALL RIGHT. THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAID THAT THE. THERE WAS SOME CONFLICTING LANGUAGE IN THERE WHERE IT SAID IT SHOULD BE COUNCIL. AND THEN THERE WAS A LATER ON THERE WAS A SENTENCE THAT SAID THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY TO ENTER TO AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS.

AND SO THERE WAS JUST THERE WAS JUST SOME AMBIGUITY IN THAT LANGUAGE. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I ADDED THAT THERE. AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY AN ARTIFACT FROM THE PRIOR ONE.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT TO GET TOO FAR OFF TOPIC, BUT YOUR CHARTER HAS A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACTS, BUT IT ALSO HAS A PROVISION THAT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SIGNS CONTRACTS. SO YEAH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, EITHER ONE CAN SIGN THE QUESTION IS MUST BOTH ALWAYS SIGN. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS EVER THE INTENT. BUT IN ANY EVENT THAT'S DEALING WITH THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THAT IS DEALING WITH. SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE SO THAT IT REQUIRES ONE OR THE OTHER, YOU CAN. I THINK THE CLARIFICATION THAT WAS JUST MADE FROM COUNCIL SUFFICIENT, I JUST, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY WELL WRITTEN. THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE AMBIGUITY THERE THAT MADE ME ADD THAT. YES, SIR.

I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION OR DISCUSSION. YES. DID WE HAVE ONE FOR YOU? NO. OKAY. YEAH.

JUST FILL OUT A CARD IF YOU WANT. WE HAVE MARY FEAR. NO. AFTER. AFTER. HI. HI. MY NAME IS MARY FEAR, AND I'M THE VOLUNTEER. HOPE I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS. KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL. AND SO MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE A BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT. AND MR. WEST MADE ME AWARE ABOUT A WEEK AGO THAT WE'RE FUNDED WITH HOT TAX. SO I DID A LITTLE GOOGLING AND I DIDN'T SEE WHERE A BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT IS ELIGIBLE FOR HOT TAX. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. SO I GUESS ONE WORKAROUND IS TO PUT US IN THE BUDGET UNDER MAYBE PARKS AND REC OR SOME LINE ITEM, BUT I'M UNCLEAR IF WE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HOT TAX. AND CHARLES RESPOND TO THAT. YEAH. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR YOU ARE PARTIALLY FUNDED OUT OF HOT TAX, BUT YOU'RE ALSO PARTIALLY FUNDED OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND. OKAY. BECAUSE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES Y'ALL DO DO NOT QUALIFY FOR HOT TECH. SO WE CAN'T USE HOT TAX, BUT LIKE WHERE Y'ALL PUT THE SCULPTURES UP AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT QUALIFIES FOR HOT TAX BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE ARTS. I SEE.

SO WOULD BE WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH EACH, EACH PROJECT IS EVALUATED SEPARATELY. OKAY, MAYBE WE COULD BE MADE AWARE OF WHICH IS WHICH. SO YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS I NEED TO FILL OUT A CARD. OH YEAH, TWO TO THAT POINT, MAYOR. ENTITIES THAT ARE SUPPLIED WITH HOT TAX.

YOU KNOW, THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THOSE FUNDS BE KEPT IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND TRACKED IN CERTAIN WAYS. AND SO THE, THE, THE ALL ENTITIES SHOULD BE KEEPING THOSE FUNDS IN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS AND TRACKING THEIR EXPENDITURES AND PROVIDING ALL OF THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY. WE'LL HELP OUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BUT ULTIMATELY, THE STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT IT IS THE ENTITIES WHO RECEIVE THE FUNDS. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO

[03:10:05]

PROPERLY TRACK AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY. SO WE WILL HELP OUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THEIR OWN BOOKS AND TRACK THAT MONEY. YEAH.

THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S A GOOD REMINDER TO THE ALL THE ENTITIES THAT HAVE RECEIVED FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA IN THE PAST. I WOULD JUST FORGET HOW THAT HAPPENED. IT'S THIS IS GOING TO BE A WHOLE NEW POLICY. AND TO GO FURTHER THAN THAT, THE SENATE HAS PUT IT AS PART OF THEIR INTERIM CHARGES TO REVIEW HOT FUNDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY SPECIFICALLY.

AND RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE RUNNING THIS BANNER THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY AND THAT FUNDS LIKE THIS ARE WHAT THEY'RE GOING AFTER. SO A LOT OF INTERIM CHARGES DON'T TURN INTO BILLS. I BET YOU THAT ONE DOES. AND SO AS WE SIT HERE IN ANOTHER YEAR, WE WILL PROBABLY BE VIEWING NEW STATE LAWS ABOUT RESTRICTING THE FUNDS. MR. BENFIELD MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10.5. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. BENFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. AND THANK YOU, MR. BENFIELD. CHARLES, I WILL LIKE TO CLARIFY. THIS IS JUST THE POLICY. THIS IS NOT THE CONTRACT WITH THE CHAMBER, BECAUSE WE HAVE SENT A DEAL OVER THERE. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM THEM, BUT I BELIEVE I HAVE SHARED THAT WITH ALL OF Y'ALL. IF I HAVEN'T, LET ME KNOW AND I'LL BE GLAD TO SHARE IT AGAIN.

THANK YOU. I'LL GO BACK TO ACTION ITEM. SORRY, ARE YOU HERE FOR A SPECIFIC ITEM? AGENDA ITEM? I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT'S ARE YOU SAYING MR. SAMPSON OKAY, YEAH. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU SIT HERE AND WAIT. IT'S A WORK SESSION ITEM, SO THERE'S NOT AN ACTION TO

[XI.4. Discussion regarding a request for waiver of building permit extension fees totaling $7,008 for a residential construction permit issued for property located at 1307 Robin Trail.]