[ I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL] [00:00:05] GOOD AFTERNOON. I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER. IT IS NOW 301. I A QUORUM IS PRESENT AT THIS TIME. WE DO HAVE TWO OF OUR COUNSELORS ON THEIR WAY. KARINE VANASSE AND AMANDA CHAVARRIA. OUR. THE MAYOR HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE AND WILL NOT BE HERE [II. EXECUTIVE SESSION] TODAY. THE COUNCIL WILL NOW CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 551. THE MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED ARE AS FOLLOWS. NUMBER ONE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071 REGARDING LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ONE OR MORE ITEMS LISTED ON THIS AGENDA WHERE CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE IS NECESSARY. ITEM TWO DELIBERATION REGARDING THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.072 AND CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE SAME. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. CONSULT WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.072. NUMBER THREE CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 REGARDING THE FIREFLY COVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN AND DETAILED PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO SEEK AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS, AGREEMENTS, OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS, DUTIES, CLAIMS AND LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING OR RELATED TO HINES LAKE TRAVIS LAND TWO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO SARA HOA AND LAKESIDE AT SARA ON LAKE TRAVIS. ITEM NUMBER FIVE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 REGARDING COMPLAINT ASSERTED AGAINST CITY MANAGER KEY WEST TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND OBTAIN DIRECTION AND POSSIBLE AUTHORIZATION OF INVESTIGATION. I'M NUMBER SIX CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 REGARDING COMPLAINT ASSERTED AGAINST CITY COUNCILMAN A BENEFIELD TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION AND POSSIBLE AUTHORIZATION OF INVESTIGATION. ALL RIGHT. AND SO IT IS NOW 304 WETHANK YOU. WE ARE NOW RETURNIG FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE [III. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS] TIME IS 407. AND SO I WILL NOW. GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED. SO REGARDING. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. MAYOR PRO TEM, MAY I SUGGEST IT'S BEEN OUR PRACTICE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU. YES. BRAD, ARE YOU READY TO DO THAT? YES, MA'AM. WALK THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. YEAH. SO TODAY WE FOCUSED SOME TIME ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH WAS DOCUMENTS, AGREEMENTS, ETC. RELATED TO THE HAYNES LAKE TRAVIS AND TO SARAH HOA AND LAKESIDE AT SARAH ON LAKE TRAVIS. AND WE DISCUSSED. THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT OF THE POOL. I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MAY TAKE SOME ACTION ON THAT ITEM. WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AND ISSUES RELATED TO THAT. THE ACTION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO, THAT I THINK YOU MIGHT TAKE. AND THEN WE ALSO DISCUSSED. I, WE DISCUSSED SOME ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY. MANAGER GAVE AN UPDATE ON, ON THOSE STATUS OF THOSE PURSUITS AND NEGOTIATIONS AND. THREE. OH, YES. AND THEN AND THEN WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ITEM NUMBER THREE RELATED TO THE FIREFIGHT COVE, FIREFLY COVE PD. D AND I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF ON THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU BRAD. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IN AGAIN, [00:05:01] NUMBER ONE, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071 REGARDING LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ONE OR MORE ITEMS LISTED ON THIS AGENDA WHERE CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE IS NECESSARY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? NO ACTION. NO ACTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN. WE WILL CONTINUE DELIBERATING ON NUMBER TWO. SO I WILL NOT READ THAT AT THIS TIME. REGARDING ITEM NUMBER THREE. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FIREFLY COVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN AND DETAILED PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. IS THERE AN ACTION MAYOR? I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED AN ACTION, BUT WE DID PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION THAT THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN BACK THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN FURTHER BROUGHT INTO COUNCIL. ONCE PLANNING ZONING IS COMPLETED THAT. THANK YOU. THEN, IN REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION FIVE FIVE, 1.071, CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO SEEK AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS, AGREEMENTS, OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS, DUTIES, CLAIMS AND LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING OR RELATED TO HAYNES LAKE TRAVIS LAND TWO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO SARAH H. O A AND LAKESIDE AT TO SARAH ON LAKE TRAVIS. ARE THERE ANY ACTIONS. MAYOR PRO TEM WE I, I MOVE THAT WE PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEND NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL TO HAYNES RELATED TO THE TESSERA MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. SO THAT DIRECTION HAS BEEN SUPPLIED. MOTION. MOTION. MOTION. OKAY, THEN. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO WITH THAT THE OTHER ITEMS WE WILL BE GOING BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION LATER TODAY. AND WE WILL ADDRESS THEM WHEN WE COME BACK OUT FROM THAT SESSION. AT THIS TIME WE'LL I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. APOLOGIZE. JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. MR. PRINCE, THE THE THE THE ACTION THAT WAS JUST TAKEN. AND THE LETTER WILL GO OUT ON CITY LETTERHEAD FROM MR. WEST AFTER FROM LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEW ON ON THE LETTER. BUT IT'S COMING FROM THE CITY. PERFECT. I'LL FOR THE RECORD I'LL MODIFY MY MOTION TO BE THAT AFTER ATTORNEY REVIEW THAT THE CITY MANAGER SENT OUT THE LETTER, AS MENTIONED. YES, SIR. AND YOU'LL ALSO SECOND. YES. ALL RIGHT. THEN DOES A VOTE STAND? THANK YOU. YEAH. IT'S I DON'T THINK WE NEED MORE. ANOTHER A SECOND VOTE. BUT JUST WANT TO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION TO LET YOU KNOW WHOSE LETTERHEAD IT WAS GOING OUT UNDER. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT. THANK YOU. IF WE CAN ALL RISE AND AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GIVE THE INVOCATION. AND WE HAVE JAX ENGLUND, I BELIEVE, FROM NORTH LAKE. HELLO. HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY. IF YOU GUYS WILL BOW YOUR HEADS WITH ME IN PRAYER. DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY BRINGING US TOGETHER. GOD, I PRAY FOR THE HEALTH OF EVERYONE IN HERE AND THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL. GOD, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WISDOM. GOD, WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD GRANT US WISDOM, CLARITY, AND JUST THE BEST KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO LEAD THIS CITY. WELL GOD, I THANK YOU FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU HAVE PUT IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS. I'M REMINDED OF YOUR WORD AND MICAH SIX EIGHT THAT SAYS THAT. HAS GOD TOLD YOU, OH MAN, WHAT IS GOOD? AND WHAT DOES THE LORD REQUIRE OF YOU? BUT TO DO JUSTICE AND TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER, TO WALK IN KINDNESS AND WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR GOD? LORD, I PRAY THAT THIS MEETING WILL JUST LEAD TO FRUIT GOD, AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT YOU WOULD GRANT US WISDOM ON HOW TO LEAD IN THE BEST WAY. GOD, I THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM. PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE ALL OF US PEACE AND UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CITY AND THE GLORY OF YOUR NAME, THE MIGHTY NAME OF JESUS WE PRAY. AMEN. AMEN. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. AND FOR THE TEXAS FLAG. HONOR TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. THANK YOU. ROBIN, DO I HAVE THE NEXT PROCLAMATION UP HERE? YES. [00:10:04] THANK YOU. SO I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ALREADY AT THE END OF SCHOOL, AND WE HAVE SOME EXCITING ACTIVITIES GOING ON THIS FRIDAY. IS THAT RIGHT? DOCTOR CURREN, THANK YOU. WHILE [VI. PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS] THE PROCLAMATION IS FORTHCOMING, I WILL BE READING THAT. THANK YOU ROBIN. WITH THIS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA PROUDLY RECOGNIZES THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 2026 AND HONORS GRADUATING SENIORS. AND I'M GOING TO SAY REPRESENTED HERE TODAY BY BAILEY BIRD FLU. BIRD FLU. DID I SAY THAT CORRECT, BAILEY. THANK YOU. AIDEN NEAL AND ALEXIS OATS, AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS WHOSE HARD WORK, PERSEVERANCE, LEADERSHIP, AND SPIRIT REFLECT GREAT PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE AND BRING PRIDE TO THE LAGO VISTA COMMUNITY AND SEEING YOU ALL OVER THIS LAST YEAR, WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT, WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON YOU GUYS. I HAPPEN TO KNOW SEVERAL. I HAPPEN TO KNOW YOU GUYS AND WOW, YOU JUST BLOW ME AWAY IN TERMS OF THE PROMISE FOR OUR FUTURE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THIS NOW. PROCLAMATION HONORING THE GRADUATING SENIORS OF THE LAGO VISTA HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 2026. WHEREAS, THE GRADUATING SENIORS OF THE CLASS OF 2026 HAVE DEMONSTRATED RESILIENCE, DETERMINATION AND COMMITMENT THROUGHOUT THEIR ACADEMIC JOURNEY. AND WHEREAS THESE STUDENTS HAVE MET CHALLENGES WITH PERSEVERANCE ADAPTED TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD AND CONTINUE TO STRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE IN THEIR STUDIES, EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, AND SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WHEREAS, THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THESE GRADUATES REFLECT NOT ONLY THEIR INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS, BUT ALSO THE SUPPORT OF FAMILIES, EDUCATORS, MENTORS, AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE GUIDED AND ENCOURAGED THEM ALONG THE WAY. AND WHEREAS THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY IS STRENGTHENED BY THE TALENT, CREATIVITY, AND AMBITION OF THESE YOUNG INDIVIDUALS WHO NOW STAND READY TO PURSUE HIGHER EDUCATION, CAREERS AND SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES. NOW, THEREFORE, I, NORMA OWEN, MAYOR PRO TEM OF LAGO VISTA, DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE THE GRADUATING SENIORS OF THE CLASS OF 2026. I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE, LEADING WITH INTEGRITY, AND CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY TO YOUR COMMUNITIES. MAY YOU CARRY FORWARD THE LESSONS YOU HAVE LEARNED, THE FRIENDSHIPS, FRIENDSHIPS YOU HAVE BUILT, AND THE VALUES YOU HAVE EMBRACED. YOUR JOURNEY IS JUST THE BEGINNING, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT YOU WILL SHAPE A BRIGHT AND PROMISING FUTURE. DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026. THANK YOU. COME ON. I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE HERE TO RECOGNIZE. AND BY THE WAY, IF I CAN JUST SAY REAL QUICK, THESE WONDERFUL SENIORS WERE ALSO ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN SERVING THEIR COMMUNITY IN NUMEROUS WAYS. SO HERE WE GO. THANK YOU. OKAY. YOU GUYS, THANK YOU. WALK ACROSS THE STAGE TO. OKAY, OKAY. WHOOPS. HERE WE GO. AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. CONGRATULATIONS. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU MINDY. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY AGAIN, OUR FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT. THEY ARE AMAZING. AMAZING STUDENTS AND WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL PEOPLE. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS POINT, FORGIVE ME. WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO [VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS] [00:15:01] CITIZEN COMMENTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM ACTING OR DISCUSSING OTHER THAN FACTUAL RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AND SO TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITIZEN COMMENTS PORTION, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT FORMS UP HERE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING DURING CITIZEN COMMENTS AND HAVE NOT GIVEN A FORM, PLEASE DO SO SO THAT WE HAVE RECORD. FORGIVE ME MAKING SURE THAT I'M COVERING ALL OF THE. NOTED. ITEMS. OKAY. WELL, AT THIS AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE I HAVE SOME NOTES ON TWO. I SEE THAT I HAVE ONE, MATTHEW WELDON OKAY. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR. OKAY. I MUST ADMIT, I WAS HOPING I WOULDN'T GO FIRST. LET'S SEE WHAT THE DECORUM WAS. THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL CARD. THANK YOU. MATTHEW. MY PURPOSE IN COMING HERE IS JUST TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, I AM I LIVE IN DISTRICT THREE IN AUSTIN FOR THE POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO-OP. I'M INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR THE BOARD. MATTHEW, I'M GONNA HAVE YOU GO AHEAD. AND AS YOU CONTINUE TALKING, TO BE SURE THAT YOU'RE THERE SO THAT THE PEOPLE ONLINE CAN HEAR YOU AS WELL. I'LL START OVER FOR THEIR BENEFIT. SO MY NAME IS MATTHEW WELDON. I AM COMING HERE JUST TO PRESENT MYSELF AND MEET EVERYONE. LAGO VISTA IS THE LARGEST CITY IN DISTRICT THREE. THE PEDERNALES ELECTRIC CO-OP, WHICH I SHARE WITH YOU. I'M MERELY A MEMBER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. AND SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION AND INVITE PEOPLE TO TO CONTACT ME WITH QUESTIONS, IDEAS AND CONCERNS. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, I'VE DONE A CAREER CYCLE IN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING. MY EDUCATION IS IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING. MY INTEREST IN ENERGY OF ALL TYPES IS LARGELY JUST BEEN SOMETHING I'VE PURSUED IN PARALLEL. I'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THAT PARALLEL INTEREST. I PESTERED MY CITY COUNCIL PERSON IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN ENOUGH THAT I WAS APPOINTED TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND I GOT THE JOY OF SERVING ON THE COMMISSION DURING WINTER STORM URI. BUT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING LEARNING EXPERIENCE. BEING A CUSTOMER OF THE ELECTRIC CO-OP, GETTING QUESTIONS FROM. SERVICE RECIPIENTS IN AUSTIN WHO GOT HAMMERED BY THAT STORM. BUT A LITTLE BACK STORY ON THAT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN ACTUALLY PRODUCED TWICE AS MUCH POWER AS IT WAS ALLOWED TO CONSUME. AND SO THAT JUST REFLECTED A DEFICIENCY IN THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE ERCOT'S REQUEST. SO THAT WAS A DISTRIBUTION NETWORK DEFICIENCY THAT BECAME CLEAR ONLY DURING THAT EVENT, ALTHOUGH IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE EVENT. SO STUFF LIKE THAT HAPPENS, OF COURSE, SERVED CUSTOMERS MUCH BETTER, WAS ABLE TO ROTATE OUTAGE. IT WAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE BY COMPARISON, HOWEVER DID NOT MAKE MONEY. RATE INCREASE HAD TO BE PASSED THROUGH TO US, WHICH IS NOW THAT THAT RIGHT HAS BEEN BEEN DROPPED. AND SO THAT I HAVE I'VE ENJOYED SERVICE IN THE PEDERNALES, I THINK, VERY HIGHLY OF IT. BUT NO UTILITY IS PERFECT. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON INCREASING THE DIVERSITY OF OUR GENERATION BASE. WE HAVE A VERY LONG TERM CONTRACT WITH LCRA THROUGH 2040, BUT THAT CONTRACT DOES ALLOW US TO INVEST IN DIVERSIFIED ENERGY WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY IN KEEPING, AND IT SHOULD BE AN ANNOUNCED OBJECTIVE TO DO THAT, NOT ONLY BECAUSE I THINK IT'LL BE BETTER FOR US IN TERMS OF RATE STABILITY AND BUT ALSO BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, IN 2040, WE'LL BE RENEGOTIATING THAT CONTRACT WITH THEM. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE POISED FOR A CONTINUOUSLY BRIGHTER FUTURE. SO WITH THAT, I WILL THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION, AND I'D INVITE YOU TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, OR IDEAS. AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE MORE RELEVANT. VOTING CONTINUES UNTIL ONLINE THROUGH THE MID JUNE, JUNE 12TH. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT WE RECEIVED ONE FROM MR. PHILLIPS. JARED, WERE YOU HERE TODAY? I THINK HE MAY OR MAY NOT. HE WASN'T SURE AND DIDN'T GIVE ME A CONFIRMATION, BUT DID SEND IN A A REQUEST. ALL RIGHT THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO ON TO MARLENE. FORGIVE ME. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARLENE GUERRERO AND I SERVE AS AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE SIERRA CLUB LONE STAR [00:20:01] CHAPTER. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO INFORM THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA COMMISSIONERS THAT THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD DRAFT 2027 TEXAS STATE WATER PLAN WAS PUBLISHED IN APRIL. THE STATE PLAN, IN A NUTSHELL, REALLY JUST SHAPES HOW TEXAS PREPARES FOR DROUGHT, WHICH IS GUIDED BY MILLIONS OF INVESTMENTS OF DOLLARS THAT IS NEEDED FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENSURING THAT WE TAKE DECISIONS ACROSS THE STATE ABOUT WHICH WATER PROJECTS WILL MOVE FORWARD OVER THE NEXT 50 YEARS. THE STATE PLAN, YOU KNOW, HAS TO GET REEVALUATED, REVIEWED AND WRITTEN EVERY FIVE YEARS. SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU ALL TO TAKE PART OF THE PLAN. I DO WANT TO STATE THAT THE PLAN DOES OUTLINE SOME POSITIVE STRATEGIES. ABOUT 43% OF THE RECOMMENDED WATER STRATEGIES INVOLVE CONSERVATION AND WATER REUSE. THESE APPROACHES ARE, AS WE KNOW, COST EFFECTIVE, SUSTAINABLE, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WORK. LAGO VISTA ITSELF IS INCLUDED IN REGION CASE MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY, SHOWING THAT CONSERVATION IS RECOGNIZED AS A KEY PART OF OUR FUTURE WATER SECURITY. HOWEVER, THE PLAN STILL RELIES HEAVILY ON RESERVOIRS, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR ROUGHLY 36% OF OUR FUTURE SUPPLY STRATEGIES. SO AS WE KNOW, RESERVOIRS ARE LOSING LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER DUE TO, YOU KNOW, EXTENDED DROUGHTS, EVAPORATION, SEDIMENT THAT BUILDS OVER TIME, WHICH THEN KIND OF DESTROYS, RIGHT? OUR KIND OF PRODUCTIVE LAND AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. WE ALSO CANNOT KEEP PLANNING BASED ON REALLY HISTORICAL DROUGHT CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE KIND OF BASED ON THE 1950S. SO AS WE KNOW, TEXAS IS EXPERIENCING FAR MORE DROUGHTS, AND THAT'S HAPPENING ON A REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE SCALE. RAPID POPULATION GROWTH, AS WE'RE SEEING AND WE'RE EXPERIENCING THAT HERE IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PLANNING FOR FUTURE WATER MEANS THAT WE DON'T CONTINUE TO RELY ON HISTORICAL DROUGHT CONDITIONS. SO WITH THAT, I REALLY ENCOURAGE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD NEXT WEEK, MAY 27TH AT 1 P.M. AND YES, PLEASE POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO GET INVOLVED. I THINK THIS IS A CRUCIAL TIME FOR US TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS, GIVEN, YOU KNOW, OUR WATER NEEDS HERE IN THE CITY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT I HAVE DAVID VON LARKIN. HERE TO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S A GOOD STRING OF A LOT OF POSITIVITY, AND I'M. HERE TO STIR THE POT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S TWO WEEKS AGO AT THE VERY, I GUESS NOT VERY LAST ITEM. SECOND TO LAST ITEM. ALSO, I BELIEVE IT WAS DONATED TIME. YES. ARE YOU DONATING YOUR TIME? OKAY. THANK YOU. THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO FOR FOR A COUPLE PROPERTIES FOR A BUILDER NAMED PANDORA TO GO AHEAD AND JUST RESTART THE PROCESS. THERE IS SO MUCH CHAOS AND HECTIC, IMPROPER MANAGEMENT FROM PRIOR STAFF. NO ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY HERE THAT IT WAS IT SEEMED CLEANER TO JUST GO AHEAD AND START IT ALL FROM SCRATCH AND EXPEDITE IT AND MOVE QUICKLY, GIVE THEM THEIR REFUND AND MOVE ON. AND I VOICED THE CONCERN THAT THIS IS NEVER WORKED OUT. FOR THE LAST 20 MONTHS WE'VE TRIED. THIS PROBABLY WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. HERE I AM TWO WEEKS LATER TO SAY, HEY, THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR REFUND AND THERE'S STILL NO PERMIT AND IT'S UNDER REVIEW. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN APPROVED PERMIT AND IT ALREADY PASSED REVIEW. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST A MARIO WAS GOING TO BE HERE, DECIDED TO NOT BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE AGAIN, ANYONE COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN. NOW THERE HAS BEEN SOCIAL MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER, HEY, WHY IS THIS HOUSE STILL HERE? IT'S BEEN LIKE A YEAR. THE PLASTIC FLAPPING IN THE WIND AND IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. AND AS OUR FACEBOOK GROUP DOES, IT SPIRALS INTO A HUGE STORM OF WHY WOULD ANY BUILDERS OUT HERE DO THIS ALL? THEY'RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE. I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY COME OUT HERE JUST TO RUIN OUR COMMUNITY. AND THEN PEOPLE DIG INTO IT. HERE'S THE PEOPLE'S NAMES, HERE'S WHERE THEY ARE. HERE'S WHERE TO FIND THEM. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO DID ALL OF THIS. EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN JUST COME TO CITY COUNCIL RECORDS AND SEE, OR THE STAFF COULD ACTUALLY GO READ THEIR EMAILS AND SEE WHERE THE PRIOR CITY MANAGEMENT SIGNED AND AUTHORIZED. YES, THIS WAS OUR FAULT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND JUST RENEW OR EXTEND YOUR PERMIT, BUT THIS IS GOING TO KEEP SPIRALING BECAUSE THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHATEVER, WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT TO LIST, IT DOES NOT FUNCTION CORRECTLY. AND THEN YOU'RE EXPECT IF WE HAVE A BAND AID FOR A SOLUTION OR FOR A PROBLEM. IT SEEMS GOOD ON PAPER, BUT IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH REALITY. IMMEDIATELY AFTER COUNCIL ENDED, WHICH WAS 11 P.M. OR SOMETHING, WE WERE HERE LATE THE NEXT DAY. THE THE BUILDER SENT IN ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH THE CITY ALREADY HAD BECAUSE HE WAS [00:25:04] ALREADY AN APPROVED PERMIT. THAT'S HOW YOU GOT TO A DRIED END STAGE OF A HOUSE BY HAVING INSPECTIONS AND IT BEING APPROVED. SO HE JUST TOOK ALL OF THAT INFORMATION DOWNLOADED TO HIS COMPUTER AND RE-UPLOADED IT RIGHT BACK TO THE CITY. BUT OF COURSE, OUR WEBSITE HAS CHANGED. SO HE SUBMITTED IT TO DEVELOP A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OR SOME NEW LINK. IT'S NOT HOW IT WAS OVER 20 MONTHS AGO WHEN HE FIRST APPLIED. NO RESPONSE FROM THE CITY. I GET TOLD FROM OTHER CITY STAFF, HEY DAVID, JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW IT'S STILL HAPPENING HERE. HE UPLOADED IT AND RATHER THAN CONTACTING Y'ALL, THEY WERE JUST IN HERE MOCKING, LAUGHING, MAKING FUN OF HIM, SAYING, HA HA. I GUESS HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER WEEK OR SO UNTIL HE FINDS OUT. AND CONVENIENTLY, OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS OUT OF TOWN NOW. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NO ONE NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED HOW THIS WOULD GO DOWN. SO RATHER THAN THE DEFAMATION AND JUST TALKING, SOMEBODY SAYING, WELL, OH, HE'S SO STUPID, HE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE TO UPLOAD IT OR SUBMIT IT, THEY COULD HAVE CALLED ANY OF US. I'M HERE EVERY SINGLE DAY. THEY COULD HAVE JUST BROUGHT IT UP AND SAID I HAD TO BRING IT UP AND SAY, HEY, I HEARD THIS HAPPENED. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHO TOLD EVERYONE FREEZES AND LOOKS. OH. AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T RECORD IT. SOMEONE ELSE DID. SO LET'S LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM FOR SOMEONE ELSE. I GO FILE A PERMIT. HEY, THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY SOMEWHERE TO FILE THIS PERMIT ONLINE. AND ALSO, YOU WANT US TO FILE RIGHT IN PAPER, SUBMIT ONLINE. GO BACK TO THE PAPER, SCAN THE PAPER, SUBMIT THE PAPER, AND HAVE ALL OF IT IN THE RIGHT SPOT. GUYS, THERE'S NO SPOT TO DO THIS. OH, YEAH. WE KNOW THERE WASN'T ACTUALLY A RIGHT SPOT FOR IT TO BE SUBMITTED. WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE ALL THE FILES OVER FOR YOU THOUGH. WHY COULDN'T YOU DO THAT WITH THE LAST PEOPLE THAT YOU JUST SAT THERE MAKING FUN OF? IF YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOWHERE CORRECT TO APPLY IT, AND YOU'RE JUST GOING TO CHANGE THE PERMIT AND MOVE ALL THE PAPERWORK YOURSELF, WHY ARE YOU JUST FILIBUSTERING EVERYTHING NONSTOP? I MEAN, I HAVE A LIST THAT I WON'T GET THROUGH IN SIX MINUTES, BUT THERE ISN'T ANYONE IN STAFF CAN TELL YOU THERE AREN'T CORRECT OPTIONS FOR THE PERMITS THAT ARE NEEDED. YOU. THERE'S A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT WE'RE DOING REPAIRS ON WHICH THE CITY FILIBUSTERED FOR MULTIPLE YEARS, AND IT NEEDS FOUNDATION REPAIR. THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. AND IT'S JUST IT'S ENDLESS. SO AGAIN, A BAND-AID FOR A SOLUTION IS COOL. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR PERMITS. THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR REFUND. AND PEOPLE ARE DEFAMING THEM. THERE'S, AS I MENTIONED, NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHAPTER 245 CONCERNS, WHERE ALL OF THEIR VESTED RIGHTS ARE NOW GOING TO BE STEPPED ON BECAUSE THEY'RE TELLING US, WELL, NOW THE NEW WAY THAT WE DO THESE, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO SEND IT THROUGH A DIFFERENT REVIEW PROCESS. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT A FEW NEW THINGS. THAT'S THE EXACT REASON I SAID THAT ON RECORD TWO WEEKS AGO. IT WAS ALREADY AN APPROVED PERMIT. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? I MEAN, 43 SECONDS. I FIVE PEOPLE THIS WEEK HAVE CALLED ME ABOUT SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT FROM THE CITY OR ARBITRARY DECISIONS. ALL YOU CAN'T HAVE A FENCE IF YOU LIVE NEAR THE GOLF COURSE. YOU CAN'T HAVE A BACK PATIO. OH, YOU MEAN WITHIN A 25 FOOT SETBACK? NO AT ALL. YOU CAN'T PUT A SHED ON YOUR PROPERTY. WHY? WELL, IT HAS TO LOOK LIKE YOUR HOUSE. THAT'S. YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. AND THESE ARE ENDLESS. EVERY SINGLE DAY I GET CALLS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE, WHETHER IT'S UNDERSTAFFED OR JUST YOU CAN'T EXPECT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T GOOD AT THEIR JOB TO TRAIN PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO EITHER LEARN, GET BETTER AT THEIR JOB, OR DO THEIR OWN JOB ANYWAYS, AND IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO FIX ITSELF. YOU CAN KEEP SCRUBBING, SCRUBBING THE TOILET, BUT IF YOU DON'T FLUSH IT, YOUR HANDS ARE COVERED. THANK YOU DAVID. I WILL SPEAK TO I KNOW I SIGNED A CHECK FOR A. FOR SOME OF THE MONEY YESTERDAY, REFUNDS BEING ISSUED AND I CHECKED ON THE PERMIT. THE THE BUILDING PORTION HAS BEEN HAS IS DONE. THEY'RE WAITING ON THE DRAINAGE. THAT IS THE THAT IS THE ONLY HOLD UP AND I ADVISE ASK STAFF TO CONTACT THEM AND SEE WHAT THE HOLD UP IS AND HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM STAFF. SO IF IT'S NOT THERE QUICKLY, I'LL CALL THE ENGINEERING OFFICE MYSELF. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALL THAT WE HAD FOR NON-AGENDA COMMENTS. DO I HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT'S GOING TO COME UP? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE WHO DID COME AND SPEAK TODAY. ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT UP, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE [VIII. CONSENT AGENDA] CONSENT AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PULL, MR. COUNSELOR? BENNEFIELD. YES, MA'AM. I'D LIKE TO PULL NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO. ALL RIGHT. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND READ IN ITEMS [00:30:11] THREE AND FOUR AND ITEM THREE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL CALLED MEETING AND NUMBER FOUR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 7TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I. FOR NUMBER THREE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR I GUESS ON THE CONSENT I CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE FOR BOTH. YES, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR BOTH OF THOSE. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE AND FOUR. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. COUNSELOR CHAVARRIA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE LET ME GO BACK THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS RATIFY ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-05-07-03. [VIII.2. Ratify Ordinance No. 26-05-07-03, rezoning approximately 7.055 acres located at 19708 Boggy Ford Road, legally described as ABS 189, Survey 98, Campbell M. F., and also known as Lot 32, Ranch Cielo, from TR-1 to a Planned Development District pursuant to Chapter 14, Section 10 of the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances. Case No. 25-2905-PDD-REZ.] REZONING APPROXIMATELY 7.055 ACRES, LOCATED AT 19 708 BOGGY FOUR ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A BS189 SURVEY 98 CAMPBELL M F AND ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 32 RANCH CLO FROM TR ONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14, SECTION TEN OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES. CASE NUMBER 25-2905-PDD-REZ. AND SO NOW THAT I'VE READ THAT I BELIEVE. STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THAT? CHARLES. I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION AND STAFF CORRECTED THE ORDINANCES, AS WAS OUTLINED IN THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND BRING UP I HAVE DO HAVE A CARD FROM KEVIN SULLIVAN ON THIS ITEM TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT. AND NO, I HAD NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT OTHER THAN I SENT EVERYBODY AN EMAIL THIS MORNING WITH THE ITEMS THAT WE FELT WERE AT ERROR, AND I JUST CAME HERE. I WASN'T GOING TO PRESENT THOSE TO YOU. I DIDN'T NEED TO READ THOSE BACK TO YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY HAD ANY RELATED TO THOSE ITEMS. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS AT THIS TIME? COUNSELOR BENNEFIELD THANK YOU. I HAVE 13. I GUESS, TALKING POINTS. I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE VERY BASIC AND SOME OF THEM ARE MORE TANGIBLE. YOU LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY. SECTION FOUR ON PAGE 16. LAST SENTENCE NEEDS A SPACE AFTER THE PERIOD IN BETWEEN THE PERIOD AND THE A, THERE'S NO I KNOW THAT DOESN'T CHANGE CONCEPTUALLY WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S JUST GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT. SECTION FOUR, PAGE 16. LAST SENTENCE SAYS SUBMITTED, MEANING THE PERMIT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED. THAT IS NOT FACTUALLY TRUE. THE MOTION ACTUALLY SAID THAT THE PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED. AND I WHEN I PULLED UP THE AGENDA LAST NIGHT ON THE CITY, IT STILL SHOWED SUBMITTED. AND WE HAVE NO ISSUE. WE JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION SO WE KNEW WHAT OUR HURDLE WAS. RIGHT. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT THE PDE WAS UPDATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE TERMS. SO WHAT IT SHOULD READ IS A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SHALL BE ISSUED WITHIN 48 MONTHS AFTER THIS ORDINANCE IS APPROVED, OR THE ORDINANCE EXPIRES AND THE ZONING REVERTS BACK TO TR ONE. THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD. WHAT PAGE DID YOU SAY THAT WAS? SECTION FOUR. PAGE 16. THANK YOU. IT RIGHT NOW SAYS SUBMITTED. WERE AS IT SHOULD BE ISSUED. ORIGINALLY. THE IDEA WAS TO HAVE THIS ISSUED WITHIN 24 MONTHS. THE DEVELOPER ASKED FOR 36. NOT WANTING TO PUT THE SCREWS TO ANYBODY, WE JUST SAID, HEY, LOOK, WE JUST WANT THE PROJECT TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? SO 48 WAS EXTENDED, BUT THE GOAL IS NOT FOR THIS TO BE A 20 YEAR PD WITH NO ACTION ITEM. SO WE WANT THAT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 48 MONTHS. OKAY. SECTION TWO A. [00:35:12] DASH FOUR ON PAGE 18. IT SAYS BOGGY FORD ROAD IS THE ONLY ACCESS POINT FOR THE SITE AND WILL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY STREET ACCESS. SECONDARY ACCESS SHALL BE AND YOU'LL NOTICE SHALL BE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO. IT'S RIGHT NOW ONE, ONE, ONE WORD PROVIDED. IF ACCESS TO LOHMAN FORD ROAD BECOMES AVAILABLE THROUGH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS THAT I THINK ARE VALID THAT WERE SHARED VIA EMAIL THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT IF THEY SAY, HEY, GIVE US $20 MILLION AND YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, AND SO I THINK THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE. I MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HEARING BRAD'S THOUGHTS HERE, BUT MY PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS BOGGY. FORD ROAD IS THE ONLY CURRENT ACCESS POINT FOR THE SITE AND SHALL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY STREET ACCESS. SECONDARY ACCESS TO LOHMAN FORD ROAD SHALL BE PROVIDED IF LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ACCESS BECOMES AVAILABLE THROUGH ADJACENT PROPERTY. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION, EASEMENT AND OTHER LAWFUL ACCESS MECHANISMS. I, I WOULD SAY PUBLIC ACCESS. I THINK IF IT'S IF PUBLIC ACCESS BECOMES, I THINK I, I THINK THE INTENT WAS IF PUBLIC ACCESS BECOMES AVAILABLE. SO I THINK IF WE JUST SAY IF PUBLIC ACCESS BECOMES AVAILABLE, I THINK THAT COVERS IT. AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OKAY. I MEAN, I WOULD JUST PUT IN PUBLIC IN THERE THAT WAY, IT'S CLEAR BECAUSE THAT WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I THINK, OKAY, SECTION F I MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS RESORT HOTEL AND SPA COMPLEX. IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE 42FT ABOVE GRADE. THE. THERE SHOULD BE A. PERIOD. THERE SHALL BE 42FT ABOVE GRADE PERIOD. THE BUILDING SHALL HAVE THE BASE. SECOND COMMENT THERE IS. I DON'T LIKE THE WORD. I THINK IT SHOULD READ. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE 42FT ABOVE GRADE PERIOD. THE BUILDING SHALL HAVE ITS BASE AT 99993AMSL, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED AN OVERALL ELEVATION OF 1030 5AMSL. I THINK IT JUST SAYS IT BETTER. INSTEAD OF SAYING, SHALL NOT EXTEND UP, SHALL IT SAYS, AND EXTEND UP TO 42FT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS NOW AND EXTEND UP TO. I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS. OKAY. I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. COULD YOU SAY IT ONE MORE TIME? I CAN'T TYPE THAT FAST. SORRY. SECTION F1F1. IT SAYS RESORT HOTEL AND SPA COMPLEX. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE 42FT ABOVE GRADE PERIOD. THE BUILDING SHALL HAVE ITS BASE AT 993AMSL AND SHALL NOT EXCEED AN OVERALL ELEVATION OF 1030 5 A.M. S L. I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATION THERE. OKAY. SECTION I'D IRRIGATION ON PAGE 20. I THINK AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER RAISED A GREAT QUESTION. THIS IS JUST MORE A LEGAL OR STAFF CONFIRMATION, WHICH IS. I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE MOTION WAS TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD OR DEVELOP A TRANSMISSION LINE FROM A WATER TREATMENT PLANT OR FROM A POND OVER TO THEIR FACILITY, BUT RATHER IF A TRANSMISSION LINE WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY, THEN THEY WOULD TAP IT, TAP INTO THAT WASTEWATER, TYPE ONE FOR IRRIGATION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE, AND JORDAN DID CLARIFY THAT. I JUST WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL A TRANSMISSION LINE. THAT WAS THAT FAIR TO SAY? BRIAN JORDAN CLARIFIED THAT THAT WOULD NOT APPLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YEAH, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. YEAH, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT TOO. BUT YES, SIR. DEVELOPER ASKED THE QUESTION. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR YES SIR. SECTION I DASH E PLANTING SIZE REQUIREMENTS. SPECIFICALLY THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS I JUST DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S WORDED. IT CURRENTLY SAYS PARKING LIGHT SCREENING. AND THEN IT SAYS EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT WITH FOLIAGE TWO DOWN TO THE GROUND. THAT SENTENCE DOESN'T READ AT ALL. I THINK [00:40:08] WITH THE INTENT OF WHAT WAS TRYING. IT JUST DOESN'T READ RIGHT. WHAT I PROPOSE THAT IT SHOULD READ IS PARKING LOT HEADLIGHT SCREENING. DENSE EVERGREEN SCREENING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT TO REDUCE VEHICLE HEADLIGHT VISIBILITY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. THE SCREENING SHALL BE COMPOSED OF EVERGREEN SHRUBS OR COMPARABLE EVERGREEN PLANTINGS. SPACE TO CREATE A CONTINUOUS VISUAL BUFFER WITH FOLIAGE EXTENDING TO THE TO THE NEAR GROUND LEVEL AND MAINTAINED AT A HEIGHT SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIALLY BLOCK OR DIFFUSE HEADLIGHT GLARE. I THINK THE INTENT IS THE SAME. IT'S JUST MORE CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. MR. BENEFIELD, ON ON THAT ONE, IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT. I THINK THE PARKING LIGHT SCREENING AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT SHOULD BE THE TITLE FOR A NEW SECTION. SO THIS SHOULDN'T BE BURIED UNDER SECTION E, IT SHOULD BECOME ITS OWN SECTION. AND THEN I THINK THAT WILL BE MUCH CLEARER WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST PROPOSED. ABSOLUTELY. I LOVE THAT GREAT SUGGESTION. SECTION J EXTERIOR LIGHTING. IT SAYS ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH LAGO VISTA'S DARK SKIES ORDINANCE IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. JUST A GRAMMATICAL. IT'S MISSING A PERIOD. AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE. I WOULD PREFER THAT SENTENCE TO SAY ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH LAGO VISTA DARK SKIES ORDINANCE AND ANY APPLICABLE CITY LIGHT LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE ANY CHOICE IN THAT MATTER, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT I DON'T EITHER. I JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS WORDED. SURE, I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU VOICED. SECTION K, BUILDING ORIENTATION AND STREET VISIBILITY. ALL LOADING AND UNLOADING AREAS SHALL BE OUT OF THE VIEW FROM BOGGY FORD ROAD. AND THEN IT SAYS DOT T DOT THE DOT T DOT I'M ASSUMING NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOT T DOT REPRESENTS. YEAH. WE DIDN'T EITHER. I'M LOOKING AT HAS IT ALREADY REMOVED. I'M LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ONE THAT'S UPLOADED. DOESN'T HAVE IT AGAIN. I PULLED THIS LAST NIGHT. SO ANYWAY THERE'S A DOT T DOT THERE SECTION L UNDER TRANSPARENCY. THE UNDERLINE THAT'S JUST THIS IS JUST AN UNDERLINING AFTER TRANSPARENCY. THE UNDERLINING EXTENDS TOO FAR. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. THAT WAS JUST GRAMMATICAL. AND THEN THE LAST TWO ON PAGE 26, EXHIBIT B ONE APPEARS TO BE THE ACCURATE EXHIBIT. BUT THEN ON PAGE 29, THE B ONE OCCURS AGAIN AS AN EXHIBIT. BUT THAT APPEARS TO BE A DIFFERENT B ONE. THE WHAT I POINTED OUT WAS THE FIRST B ONE THAT YOU FOUND IN THERE WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE. A TWO WAS THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, AND THEN THAT THAT UPDATED B ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED FURTHER DOWN AND THE OLD ONE TAKEN OUT. YEAH. THE SECOND ONE STILL SHOWS DIFFERENT INCORRECT SQUARE FOOTAGE. CORRECT. SO THAT SECOND B ONE ON 29 I'M GUESSING JUST NEEDS TO COME OUT. CORRECT. AND THE ONE ON PAGE 26 IS THE CORRECT. SO IT NEEDS TO GO WHERE THE OLD ONE IS. AND A TWO NEEDS TO BE PLACED IN THERE. ABSOLUTELY. YEP. AND THEN JORDAN'S NOT HERE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. MAYBE MAYBE THE CITY MANAGER CAN. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM I DID NOT GO THROUGH ALL THE EXHIBITS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY FROM P AND Z, TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE EXHIBITS WERE ACCURATE AND UPDATED AND CORRECT. AND I JUST WANTED CONFIRMATION WE HAD CLARITY OR COMFORT LEVELS THERE. YES. WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IN THE PACKET THAT I REVIEWED, B6, B7, AND B8 WERE ALL MISSING. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THERE IN VERSIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT THEY WERE MISSING IN THE THE PACKET THAT I DOWNLOADED FROM THE CITY WEBSITE, B SIX SEVEN AND EIGHT, B SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT. WE'RE MISSING. AND THE LAST COMMENT I HAD WAS, IS THAT EXHIBIT F ONE? INSTEAD OF BEING AT THE END OF THE EXHIBITS, IT APPEARED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TIA AND THEN AT THE AGAIN AT THE END OF THE T I BELIEVE AND SO MAY WANT TO MOVE THAT BACK UP TO THE END OF THE EXHIBITS AND NOT PLANT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TIA. I KNOW SOME OF THOSE WERE MINOR, BUT MY HOPE IS, IS TO. THIS IS A. I THINK YOU CALLED IT A LEGACY PROJECT. NO LANDMARK. A LANDMARK. YEAH. AND, YOU KNOW, [00:45:04] I JUST WANT THAT TO START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, ALL THE WAY TO YOUR GRAND OPENING THAT EVERYTHING IS JUST DONE. SURE. PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL. AND AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. YEP. THAT'S IT. MR. WONDERFUL. HAVE YOU CAN YOU SEND I ASSUME YOU HAD YOU'RE READING FROM A LIST. CAN YOU SEND I CAN I CAN EMAIL YOU RIGHT NOW. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT WAS QUITE A BIT, BUT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS STATED. SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WELL THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD CLEAN UP THINGS. AND YOU KNOW, FROM BOTH THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND MR. BENEFIELD SIDE, IT FEELS LIKE THAT'S GOTTEN COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT IT ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA WITH THOSE CHANGES IN IT TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT, RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE A FLOOR MOTION TO COVER ALL THOSE THINGS TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT FLOOR MOTION TO CAPTURE. SO AND TO MAKE. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. SO MR. BENEFIELD IS GOING TO EMAIL ME WHAT HE READ OFF. WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GET FIXED. AND THEN WE'LL DO A REVIEW ONE MORE TIME AND PUT IT IN THE PACKET FOR NEXT TIME. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. IT WAS ALL CLEAR UP, CLARIFICATION AND NOTHING THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS HEARTBURN WITH IN WHAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT. THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. WE JUST WANTED SOME CLARITY SO THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY QUESTIONS DOWN THE ROAD. YEAH. YEP. AND I'LL JUST VOLUNTEER MY SERVICES AS YOU'RE PREPARING THE PACKET. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO REVIEW IT, I'M HAPPY TO DO IT PRIOR TO IT BEING PUBLISHED. YEAH. MR. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A PRIVATE EMAIL, BUT I'LL, YES, I, WHEN I GET IT BACK AND I'VE REVIEWED IT, I'LL SEND IT TO YOU THAT WAY. WE BOTH CHECK OFF ON IT. AND THAT WAY WHEN IT COMES BACK TO CONSENT, IT'LL BE CONSENSUAL. YEAH. MR. BENEFIELD AND MR. WEST, I'LL SEND YOU A COPY ONCE WE GET IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING NECESSARY ON THIS? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU COULD. YOU YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO YOU. I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, LINDA. I DO HAVE YOUR THING OVER HERE. THANK YOU. LINDA, SO MY COMMENT CARD PULLING, THIS IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE EXHIBITS. AND SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT, WHICH I THINK YOU ALL HAVE NOTICED, THAT THE EXHIBITS ARE NOT ORDERED SEQUENTIALLY AND THERE ARE EXHIBITS ATTACHED THAT AREN'T CAPTIONED, IDENTIFIED, OR EVEN GIVEN AN EXHIBIT, LETTER OR IDENTIFICATION. AND THEN THERE ARE EXHIBITS MENTIONED IN THE LISTING THAT AREN'T THERE, WHICH ACTUALLY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. SO BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE LISTED AS THERE IF THEY'RE NOT THERE, LIKE FINAL PLAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. AND ALSO THE ALMOST 300 PAGE TIA DEFINITELY SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT THAT'S GOING TO BE RECORDED BECAUSE ALL OF THE EXHIBITS ARE GOING TO BE RECORDED. AND SO TYPICALLY YOU ONLY RECORD LIKE THE THE EXHIBIT FOR THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AN EXHIBIT FOR THE LAND USE. AND THEN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET CARRIED AWAY, THE EXHIBIT FOR THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN. BUT THE OTHER EXHIBITS REALLY DON'T TYPICALLY GET RECORDED, ESPECIALLY THE 300 PAGE TIA. SO I WAS GOING TO ASK, RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH AN EXHIBIT, A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND EXHIBIT B LAND USE PLAN. OBVIOUSLY, THE CORRECTED LAND USE PLAN OR EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, EXHIBIT B ONE LAND USE PLAN AND EXHIBIT B TWO PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN. SO THANK YOU. COUNCIL BENEFIELD. IS THERE ANY WAY YOU COULD SEND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BY EMAIL? I ACTUALLY PRINTED THEM OUT. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE. THAT MAKES IT EASY. THANK YOU. CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD? GO AHEAD, MR. BULLOCK. DO YOU DO YOU DO YOU CONCUR WITH THE TIA NOT BEING INCLUDED? YEAH. WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU DON'T I WOULDN'T TYPICALLY SEE A TIA AS AN EXHIBIT TO A PD AS A, YOU KNOW, A ZONING AMENDMENT THAT'S NOT RECORDED. YES, SIR. YEAH. I AGREE, THE OTHER EXHIBITS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF A DISCRETIONARY CALL, BUT IT'S JUST A BULKY THING. THAT'S CERTAINLY THE TIA IS NOT NECESSARY. MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PRINCE. AND JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, LINDA, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THIS. SO MAYBE YOU CAN COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. THERE'S IN MY VIEW, THERE'S A LOT OF DRAWINGS IN HERE AND I'LL JUST PICK UP ONE. THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, EXHIBIT D-1. THERE'S A LOT OF DRAWINGS THAT ARE INFORMATIVE [00:50:05] AND IN MY MIND HELPFUL, WHICH I THINK SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAN. I WOULD 100% AGREE THAT REMOVING THE, YOU KNOW, 200 WHATEVER PAGES OF TIA FROM THE DOCUMENT, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. BUT DO YOU HAVE REASON WHY SOME OF THESE OTHER EXHIBITS, OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC ONES YOU LISTED ON THIS PAPER, SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED? WELL, THE REASON IS BECAUSE THOSE OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE ALWAYS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, THE TREE PRESERVATION, ETC. THOSE ARE ALWAYS INCLUDED. THE SIGNAGE PLAN. THOSE ARE ALWAYS INCLUDED IN THE IN THE FILE, AND THEY'RE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL, BUT THEY'RE NOT RECORDED ALONG WITH THE ORDINANCE. I MEAN, YOU CAN THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T. BUT THEN, I MEAN, IT'S NOT TYPICAL. AND THEN YOU JUST GET EVERY TIME THAT ORDINANCE IS PRINTED OUT OR HANDED OUT, YOU JUST HAVE THIS BIG BULKY PACKET. AND IT'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT CUSTOMARY. NOT THAT YOU CAN'T, BUT IT'S THOSE THAT STUFF THAT'S ALWAYS, ALWAYS IN THE FILE DOES NOT RECORD IT. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. I PERSONALLY, WHENEVER I'VE GONE TO LOOK BACK AT A PD D HISTORY, I LOOK FOR THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORDINANCE. SO I GUESS MY MY RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF AND COUNCIL CONSENSUS ON DOING THIS OR NOT WOULD BE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THESE PICTURES, JUST NOT INCLUDE THE TIA FOR, FOR JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. AND THEN THEY, THEY HAVE TO BE LIKE RELISTED, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE LISTING OF THE, THE LIST NEEDS TO MATCH WHAT'S INCLUDED. IT'S ALL, YEAH, IT'S ALL SECRETARIAL STUFF THAT JUST HAS TO BE DONE. THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT, I THINK JUST AS AN OFFICIAL, DO I HAVE A MOTION REGARDING TABLING SHARIA? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AGENDA, OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO AND BRING IT BACK ON OUR JUNE 5TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDED CHANGES. TO. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. PRINCE. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. SO IT WILL BE TABLED TO THE JUNE JUNE 5TH MEETING. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. ALL RIGHT. INDULGE ME A LITTLE BIT, EVERYONE. I'M SORRY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 4TH. JUNE 4TH. FIFTH. OKAY. THANK YOU CHARLES, BUT IT'LL DEFINITELY BE ON THE JUNE 5TH MEETING, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT. THANK YOU BRAD. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. IF Y'ALL WILL INDULGE ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE I'M GOING TO GO BECAUSE I KNOW WE POTENTIALLY HAVE PEOPLE HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO 8.3. SO ACTION ITEM [IX.3. Consider, discuss, and take action regarding the award of RFP No. 26-05 for Tree Clearing, Mulching, and Right-of-Way Maintenance Services to South Texas Tree Service and possible additional contractors, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute agreement(s).] NUMBER THREE CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING THE AWARD. RFP NUMBER 26-05 FOR TREE CLEARING, MULCHING AND RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO SOUTH TEXAS TREE SERVICE AND POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTORS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENTS. AND SO ARE YOU READY THERE, VICTOR? IS THAT ON YOU AND ERIC? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES. SO THE RFP WAS PUT TOGETHER FOR AN AS NEEDED SERVICES FOR THE CITY TO NOT JUST DO ONE PARTICULAR JOB. BUT TO DO MULTIPLE JOBS OVER FOUR CATEGORIES DITCHING RW, TRIMMING, CLEARING TREES BY ACRE AND MULCHING TEN PEOPLE, TEN BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND THE ANTICIPATED TASK ORDERS WILL BE COMING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. THIS IS JUST GIVING THE CITY CITY MANAGER THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THE CONTRACTS AND GET THE NUMBERS SOLID. SO WHENEVER WE COME BACK TO COUNCIL, I CAN GIVE YOU A FULL BREAKDOWN OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO DO ALL THE TRIMMING WITHIN THE NEXT PHASES AND SEE WHERE THAT LANDS US WITH THE REST OF THE MONEY FOR BONDS, BIDS WERE EVALUATED USING A SAMPLE TASK ORDER TO COMPARE ALL THE NUMBERS ACCORDINGLY. THE AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT DOES READ AS APPROVING JUST ONE CONTRACTOR, BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE APPROVE A MINIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE JUST TO BALANCE THE WORKFLOW AND THE CONTRACTORS AVAILABILITY. THE LAST ITEM ON HERE WAS THAT THE [00:55:06] LIGO DID REACH OUT AND TO CLARIFY THAT THE CLEARING THE CLEARING FOR OR THE TREE CLEARING BY ACREAGE WAS THE SAME AS THE MULCHING PRICE PER ACRE, SO THAT CLERICAL NUMBER HAS CHANGED AND HAS MOVED THEM UP. BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS STILL THAT THOSE TOP TWO TO MOVE FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT TO I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR VICTOR AT THIS TIME? CHARLES. VICTOR, THIS IS ALL PART OF THE CIP PROJECTS AS FAR AS ROAD REHAB PORTION OF IT. AS I SAID, THE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES, THE RW AND THE DITCH CLEARING, THAT IS, FOR CIP PROJECTS, THE ACREAGE CLEARING THAT COULD BE USED FOR PUBLIC WORKS, FOR MAINTAINING OUR FACILITIES. AND THEN THE MULCHING COULD BE USED AT THE GREEN CENTER FOR TO HELP STREET DEPARTMENT STAFF ACTUALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF BRUSH THAT'S THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COUNSELOR PRINCE AND YOU SAID STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE TOP TWO. JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD YOU MIND NAMING THE TOP TWO? OH, IT'S GOING TO BE LYCO AND SOUTH TEXAS TREE SERVICE. IF THERE IS IF OR IF COUNCIL RECOMMENDS ADDING A THIRD, THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE SYNTHESIS, BUT THEIR NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THE TOP TWO. AND IF I THIS IS AN RFP, BUT IN SOME WAYS IT'S ALMOST AN RFQ KIND OF THING, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S. YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THESE ARE PEOPLE WE VETTED AND DID SOME PRICE CHECKS ON, AND WE WILL USE THEM IN THE FUTURE. PRESUMABLY, CHARLES, IF THE AMOUNT FOR, YOU KNOW, IF THE AMOUNT IS LOW ENOUGH UNDER YOUR SIGNATURE AUTHORITY, THEN YOU WOULD JUST SIGN OFF TO DO A JOB WITH ONE OF THESE TWO GUYS AND YOU WOULD BE SELECTING YOUR CITY STAFF WOULD BE SELECTING WHICH OF THE THE 2 OR 3 THAT ARE ON YOUR APPROVED LIST TONIGHT YOU'D GO WITH. IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THE TASK ORDERS WOULD STILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL. IT WOULD BE A. I MEAN, YES, IF WE HAD AN ABUNDANCE OF MULCH AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT NEEDED HELP WITH THAT, OR IF WE JUST NEED ONE FACILITY CLEARED, THEN THAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT MAY NOT EXCEED WHAT NEEDS TO COME TO STAFF OR WHAT NEEDS TO COME TO COUNCIL. BUT FOR MY PROJECTS FOR DITCHING, I PLAN TO GET WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ALL AT ONCE AND BREAK IT BETWEEN THE TWO CONTRACTORS OR THE ONE SINGLE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN THAT THAT CONTRACT WILL GET APPROVED BY COUNCIL. DO WE HAVE OR. YEAH. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE TOTAL BILL, WHAT WE WOULD END UP SPENDING? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE IN SMALL CHUNKS, BUT ARE WE GOING TO BE WRITING, YOU KNOW, 12 CHECKS THAT ADD TO $210,000 OR 75 CHECKS THAT ADD TO 800,000? I MEAN, HOW BIG IS IT'S MORE OF AN AS NEEDED BASIS. AND I DON'T THINK WE PLAN ON UTILIZING PUBLIC WORKS PLANS ON UTILIZING THIS RIGHT NOW. BUT FOR THE CIP PROJECT, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE CAN ACTUALLY DO WITHIN A SET AMOUNT OF BUDGET VERSUS PUTTING IT ALL INTO A SHEET AND THEN SAYING, HEY, CONTRACTORS BID ON THIS, THE BIDS COME BACK 400,000, WE'LL SAY. AND THEN THAT GETS REJECTED. AND WE THEN HAVE TO REDUCE THE SCOPE AND PICK ON PICK STREETS THAT WE DO. IT'LL BE MUCH EASIER TO GET THE PRICING, PUT THAT INTO A SPREADSHEET, SHOW WHICH STREETS ARE GOING TO COST WHAT, AND THEN TAKE THAT DIRECTION OF IF WE DO THESE ROADS HERE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND X AMOUNT OF MONEY. BUT IF WE PUT MORE INTO IT, WE CAN DO ALL THE ROADS IN PHASE THREE. AND IF YOU GUYS DO GO OUT TO USE THESE COMPANIES TO DO THIS WORK, IT WILL SHOW UP WHERE IN SERVICES THIS WILL SHOW OUT OF CIP OR FOR. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEARING AND THE MULCHING FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, THERE'S SERVICES, THERE'S SUPPLIES, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD IT SHOW UP IN THE FINANCIAL, THE RIGHT OF WAY AND DITCHING FOR THE ROADS WILL BE A CIP PROJECT. THE OTHER WOULD BE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION PROJECTS. UNDERSTAND. BUT EVEN UNDER CIP IT WOULD BE MAYBE THERE'S A NICKEL QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW. IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS SOMETHING. IT WOULD BE. BECAUSE IF YOU. IF YOU DO IT INTERNALLY, THE COST IS MATERIALS AND AND PERSONNEL TIME. IF YOU DO IT WITH THESE GUYS, IT'S NOT GOING TO SHOW UP AS MATERIALS AND PERSONNEL TIME. I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO SHOW UP UNDER SERVICES. YEAH, IT WOULD BE SERVICES. IT'D BE LIKE CONTRACT SERVICES. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SO ALL WITHIN THE CIP BUDGET, BUT SHIFTING HOW IT'S CATEGORIZED. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU SEE IT. YOU GOT TO KEEP IN MIND YOU'VE GOT YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS, WHICH IS ITS OWN BUDGET. YEAH. AND THEN WE HAVE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, WHICH IS THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN ITEMS OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO SOME OF THIS COULD BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COST IS AND ALL. BUT THAT WOULD DETERMINE IF IT COMES OUT OF A. PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET OR IF IT COMES OUT OF THE CIP BUDGET. THAT'S WHAT WILL DETERMINE THAT PART. YEAH, [01:00:06] WE'LL CIP PROJECTS ARE ALL BOND. SO YES, BUT I'M STILL, IF IT'S UNDER THE PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET, THEN IT WILL BE IN SOME DEPARTMENT AND IT MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS MATERIAL. IT MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS SERVICES. OR IF IT'S IN CIP, WE'LL HAVE THAT SAME. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS LYLE CO YOU KNOW, IF WE SPEND MONEY WITH LYLE CO I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD SHOW UP AS A SERVICES EXPENSE. YES. IN WHATEVER DEPARTMENT YOU YOU GUYS ASSIGN IT TO THAT WOULD BE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOT YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE UP HERE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE. FORGIVE ME. DO WE HAVE ANYONE? I DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE. NO. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL COME BACK. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULDN'T MIND HAVING A TOP THREE VERSUS A TOP TWO, JUST DEPENDING ON WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON. SO THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. I THINK WE NAMED A TOP THREE, DIDN'T WE, VICTOR. RIGHT. AND AGAIN, THESE THINGS WOULD COME BACK. YES, THERE IS A TOP THREE, BUT THERE IS QUITE A SIGNIFICANT JUMP BETWEEN THE TOP TWO AND THE TOP. THE THIRD ONE. OKAY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY CONTRACTS OUT THERE AND THEN NOT UTILIZE SOMEBODY AND KIND OF JUST HAVE THEM ON STANDBY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT SAID COUNSELOR BENNEFIELD, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. I HAVE BEEN THE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT, WHERE I GET THESE REQUESTS ALL THE TIME FROM CERTAIN PEOPLE. AND I KNOW FOR A FACT I'M NOT GOING TO EVER GET THAT QUOTE FOR WHATEVER REASON. HOWEVER, ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE THIRD OPTION. THE THIRD COMPANY PERHAPS HAS MORE SPECIALTY SKILLS, MORE THEY'RE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CAPABLE OF HANDLING, HANDLING MORE OF A COMPLEX SITUATION. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE YOU TELL THAT TO THEM SAYING, HEY, LOOK, A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE ROUTINE AND YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO EVER GET THEM. BUT WHEN WE DO GET THESE COMPLEX ONES, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, BUT I'M GOOD WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO THREE, I'M GOOD WITH IT EITHER WAY. YEAH, I, I PERSONALLY LEAN TOWARDS THREE AS WELL. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD, GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. THE ONLY THING I DIDN'T LOVE ABOUT THE WAY THIS ALL WENT IS THAT, AND IT ACKNOWLEDGES IT IN THE PACKET, IS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF I JUST WANT TO READ IT, WHAT IT SAYS HERE, THAT THE PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED IN VARYING FORMATS. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS NECESSARILY THEIR ISSUE. IT WAS PROBABLY THE WAY WE ASKED FOR THE DATA. AND WHAT THAT CREATED IS. YOU HAD TEN DIFFERENT COMPANIES PRODUCING TEN DIFFERENT BIDS, AND THEY WERE ALL PRODUCING IT IN THEIR OWN FORMATS. AND THEN THE CITY HAD TO COME UP WITH A FORMULA, IF YOU WILL, TO TRY TO SEE WHICH ONE OF THESE WAS THE MOST STANDARDIZED. AND BASED ON THAT FORMULA, WE CAME UP WITH NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, THREE, FOUR, ALL THE WAY DOWN. I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE BEING MORE THOROUGH, MORE BEING VERY SPECIFIC ON WHAT WE WANT. SO WHEN WE DO GET THESE TEN QUOTES, EVERYBODY'S COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES IN THE SAME FORMAT. IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. YEAH. IT WAS IT WAS A, THERE WAS A, A BID TAB THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ATTACHED TO IT. IT JUST NEVER GOT UPLOADED WITH THE FINAL THING WITH THE FINAL ONE, AND I DID, I WASN'T THERE FOR THE PRE CONSTRUCTION OR THE PRE BID MEETING, AND I DIDN'T CATCH IT. I DIDN'T GO BACK THROUGH AND LOOK AT BID NET AND VERIFY IT. BUT THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL BID TAB THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH IT. YEAH. BUT I SUPPORT THE THREE AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. WELL DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WELL, DISCUSSION. I I'M STILL JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED. THIS FEELS LIKE A VERY ODD PROCESS TO ME. SO WE'RE NOT APPROVING AN EXPENSE ON A PROJECT. YOU GUYS ARE SIMPLY SAYING YOU CAME IN AND YOU GOT YOU GOT PRICE LISTS FROM PEOPLE. AND SO YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERRED VENDORS BASED ON THE PRICING THAT YOU HEARD. AND SO WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE APPROVING? ARE YOU GOING TO COME BACK AND APPROVE, ASK FOR APPROVAL EVERY TIME THERE'S A PROJECT IN THIS. IN THAT CASE, [01:05:02] THEN WHY WHY DO YOU NEED ANY APPROVAL TONIGHT? I'M JUST IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AN ACTUAL PROJECT. WE'RE SIMPLY APPROVING YOUR LIST OF WHO YOU MAY IN THE FUTURE USE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ARE YOU FINISHED, COUNCIL COUNCILOR VAN NESS? WELL, I GUESS TO ADD TO THAT, MY QUESTION IS WHAT TIME FRAME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IF WE'RE LOOKING TO APPROVE VENDORS WITH THE CIP PROJECTS, THE ONGOING M AND O TYPE WORK, WHAT TIME FRAME THAT WOULD BE MY OTHER CONCERN. SO YES, IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO, I PLAN TO COME BACK WITH A FULL. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING IN RW CLEARING DITCH FOR CIP, AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HELP ME BASICALLY GET A. HOW MANY TREES, HOW MANY, HOW MANY STREETS CAN WE ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF BASED OFF OF NUMBERS? DOING IT THE OTHER WAY CAUSES A LITTLE BIT MORE HEADACHE AND A LOT MORE REDOING OF PROJECTS, OR A LOT MORE BIDDING OUT. AND THE PROCESS TAKES A LOT LONGER. BUT IF I HAVE A LINEAR FOOTAGE OF GETTING, WE CAN DO X AMOUNT OF ROADS. THIS LEAVES X AMOUNT OF ROOM FOR THE DRAINAGE OR FOR THE ENGINEERING. AND THEN THE NEXT RESTRIPING PHASE. I PLAN TO HAVE ALL THREE OF THOSE, BRING THOSE ALL BACK TO COUNCIL, AND THEN GET THOSE APPROVED ALL AT ONCE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS HELPS WITH. SO THIS IS FOR FOR CIP. THIS IS A ONE AND DONE. SO FOR CIP. AFTER YOU FIGURE ALL THAT OUT. AND WE'VE GOT A PLAN FOR WHAT STREETS ARE GOING TO BE CLEARED AND WHAT RIGHT OF WAY WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO OUTSOURCE, ARE YOU PLANNING TO COME BACK AT THAT POINT TO COUNCIL AND SAY, I NEED APPROVAL ON THIS PROJECT? IT'S MOST LIKELY GOING TO GO TO BUDGET. AND THEN FOR PUBLIC WORKS, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUEST NOW THAT THEY HAVE PRICING AND THEY KNOW WHO WE'RE GOING TO BE SELECTING, THEY CAN NOW DO THEIR BUDGET ESTIMATE AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND X AMOUNT TO MAINTAIN THESE FACILITIES. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO OUT AND CLEAR THE LOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S TO MAINTAIN FACILITIES. AND SO I MEAN, GATHERING DATA SO THAT YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY PROJECT YOUR COSTS AND PLAN AROUND STREETS MAKES A TON OF SENSE. AND YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF GATHERING DATA. I'M JUST AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO COME BACK IN AND ASK FOR AN APPROVAL, YOU KNOW, SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE ALL OF THESE STREETS THAT WE NEED TO OUTSOURCE AND WE WANT TO DO IT TO LYLE OR WHOEVER YOU SAY AT THE TIME. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WILL YOU GUYS BE GOING OUT FOR BID AND ASKING OTHER PEOPLE TO COMPETE ON IT OR YOU'LL YOU'LL SAY, NO, THAT'S WHAT TODAY IS ABOUT. TODAY IS ABOUT CHOOSING THOSE CONTRACTORS. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT FOR BIDS FOR PROJECTS. AND WE CAN BREAK IT INTO, SAY WE DO HALF THE ROADS THIS YEAR, BUT WE STILL USE THAT SAME PRICING FOR NEXT YEAR. IT'S ABOUT LOCKING IN THE PRICE. IT JUST SEEMS VERY STRANGE TO ME BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING, IF IT'S OVER, THE CITY MANAGER'S SIGNATURE AUTHORITY, WE'RE GOING TO BE WRITING A BIG CHECK TO TO SOMEBODY. AND WE WILL HAVE HAD PRICING, PRICING LISTS, IF YOU WILL, FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES. BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY DO A JOB, THERE WILL BE NO COMPETITIVE BID ON THAT JOB. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MAYBE COMES BACK TO BRAD, IS THAT IS THAT A NORMAL AND LEGAL WAY OF DOING THESE THINGS, OR DO WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR FOR BID ON THE JOB ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO JUST GETTING PRICING AT ONE POINT AND THEN WRITING THE CHECKS AS WE GO? WELL, THE. TRYING TO WORK ON THAT RIGHT NOW. I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK I MEAN. I'M I'M HESITANT TO OFFER UP AN OPINION. I AN OPINION RIGHT THIS SECOND. I JUST NEED TO REVIEW THESE THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS. I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK I THINK WE'RE WE'RE SKIRTING AN EDGE THERE THAT AS THE CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT WILLING TO GO GO DOWN THIS LINE. I THINK WE'RE GETTING TO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO WALK TOO FINE OF A LINE HERE ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING. AND I I'M A LITTLE LEERY ON THIS ONE. I GUESS MY MY THINKING WELL, BRAD'S FURTHER REVIEWING IT IS I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF DIRECTION SAYING, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF GATHERING DATA. YOU'VE GOT SOME TOP CANDIDATES, YOU CAN USE THAT FOR YOUR [01:10:03] BUDGET AND PLANNING PURPOSES. BUT WHEN IT'S TIME TO WRITE THE BIG CHECKS, GIVE OTHER COMPANIES A CHANCE TO GIVE US AN EVEN BETTER PRICE THAN WHAT THESE GUYS ARE SAYING, YOU KNOW, DO A DO A BID ON IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING HERE THAT I'M MISSING. ERIC, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SO I'M TRYING TO EQUATE THIS TO OUR ENGINEERING ITEMS DO. OKAY. SO THERE'S A SPECIFIC SKILL SET THAT'S PRICED APPROXIMATELY FOR THAT SKILL SET UNDER ENGINEERING. AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE A PROJECT, THEN WE GO BACK TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS PER PROJECT. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? IS THAT AM I EQUATING THAT CORRECTLY? SERVICE. THIS ONE MAINLY JUST LOCKS IN THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT. SO WE DON'T KNOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND YET. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT IT IT ESSENTIALLY QUALIFIES THAT, THAT, THAT STATUTORY KIND OF THING WHERE YOU, YOU DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU GOT THE COMPETITIVE QUOTES AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE PRICE OF THE PROJECT YET, BUT WHEN YOU DO, YOU'VE ALREADY SUFFICED THAT WITH A CONTRACT TO LOCK IN THOSE COMPETITIVE PRICING. SO ESSENTIALLY, WHEN YOU DO KNOW HOW MUCH A PROJECT'S GOING TO COST BY LINEAR FEET OF HOW YOU KNOW OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ROAD, IT'LL BE A COMPETITIVE BID. AND FORGIVE ME, I'M I'M AND THAT WOULD LAST THROUGH 2027. YOU CAN MAKE THE CONTRACT AS LONG AS YOU WANT. OKAY. COUNCIL, I THINK YOU WERE MORE REFERRING TO THE RFQ, RFP PROCESS. RIGHT. AND IN SOME WAYS IT SMELLS LIKE THAT TO ME. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS. AND THIS IS TECHNICALLY NOT A SEALED BID. IT'S A SEALED PROPOSAL. SO. OKAY. AND AND IS THERE A TIME FRAME ON THESE? MAYBE IT'S IN HERE AND I JUST MISSED IT. SO WE DO HAVE TO GIVE US A PROPOSAL. IT'S FOR THE NEXT 12 MONTHS OR THE NEXT 12 YEARS. WE HAVE 150 DAYS TO ESSENTIALLY APPROVE OR NOT. AND THEN WE CAN CONTRACT AND NEGOTIATE HOW LONG THE TERM IS. SO THE PRICE LOCK IS GOOD THROUGH THE 150 DAYS. CORRECT? I SEE. AND THAT ACTUALLY HELPS ME A LOT. I THINK I'M GETTING MORE COMFORTABLE. CHARLES, YOU HAD YOUR CONCERNS. WELL, MY MY CONCERN IS, IS I'VE GOT THREE CONTRACTORS HERE AND OKAY, CONTRACTOR B GETS 75% OF THE WORK AND THEN THE OTHER TWO CONTRACTORS GETS 12% OF THE WORK. I'M AFRAID WE'RE CREATING SOME. AND HONESTLY, I AGREE WITH THAT. IT IS KIND OF RISKY TO GO THAT WAY. BUT YOU COULD ALSO CONTRACTOR BEING PICKED. I'D BE A LOT. YOU COULD ALSO AWARDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PRICING. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT YOU CAN AWARD FOR THE LOWEST ONE FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY COST THE DITCH COST ACRE CLEARING SO YOU CAN AWARD BY CATEGORY IF YOU WANTED TO. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO DO IT JUST BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE PUT IT IN THE PROPOSAL. ALL RIGHT. AND I, OR DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE TO ADD TO THAT? SO THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT DURING PUBLIC WORKS WAS GOING TO USE IT. THE THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO USE CONTRACTORS IS TO HELP THE STAFF CLEAR THE FACILITIES. WE HAVE 22 LIFT STATIONS, THREE TREATMENT PLANTS, CEDAR BREAKS. WE STILL HAVE TO CLEAR. SO YES, COUNCIL PRINCE, TO YOUR COMMENT THAT THIS POTENTIALLY ISN'T OUR CUE TO WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE GIVING US A BETTER PRICE THAT'S REALLY ACCURATE TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE IT, AND WHOEVER GIVES US THE BEST QUALITY, THE BEST PRICING IS PROBABLY THE CONTRACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH. THIS IS FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW WHO THOSE TOP TWO CHOICES ARE, AND WHOEVER GIVES US THE PRICING WHEN WE HAVE THE FACILITIES, WHEN WE HAVE THE RW LINEAR FOOTAGE OR WHATEVER IS WHAT WE DO, THAT'S WHENEVER WE COME BACK AND WE TELL YOU, HERE'S THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE GIVE US THIS AMOUNT, THIS IS THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE PRE-SELECTED, AND THIS IS HIS BID. SO WE HAD TEN CONTRACTORS BEST CHOICES AND THEY DID THE DUE DILIGENCE, GIVE US THE PRICING AND THAT'S IT. SO THEY CAN'T CHANGE IT BECAUSE IF ANYBODY ELSE GOES AND THEY GIVE US, WELL, I CAN DO CHEAPER, BUT THEN WE'RE BREAKING THE LAWS IF THEY SEE THOSE THINGS. SO SO THEN AS I PLAY THROUGH THE SCENARIO IN MY HEAD, YOU LOOK AT A JOB AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE COULD DO IT, BUT WE'RE TAPPED OUT. WE CAN'T DO THIS. WE REALLY NEED TO GET IT DONE. WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT. AND THE PERSON THAT IS ON OUR LIST THAT HAS THE BEST, WE'RE LOCKED INTO THE BEST PRICING FOR RIGHT OF WAY CLEARING IS THIS GUY. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM THIS PROJECT. BUT IF IT'S A BIG ENOUGH PROJECT, BIG ENOUGH CHECK THAT WILL COME IN FRONT OF COUNCIL FOR OUR APPROVAL. CORRECT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE DID CEDAR BREAKS, CEDAR BREAKS. WE REACHED OUT TO MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS. THEY GAVE ME THE BEST PRICING. BUT THEN IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT FOR RW, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THESE PROJECTS OFF THERE. SO THIS IS A THIS IS THE THE ROUTE THAT WAS TAKEN, THE RFP, RFP, EVERYBODY DID THEIR DILIGENCE TOWARD THE AREAS AND DID WHAT [01:15:05] THEY NEEDED TO DO. BUT YES, THAT IS THE CASE BECAUSE WHENEVER I DID THIS FOR CEDAR BREAKS, IT WAS I MET WITH A LOT OF CONTRACTORS, ONLY A FEW SUBMITTED. AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL. AND WE DID CLOSE RFP FOR CEDAR BREAKS BECAUSE IT WAS OVER THE 100,000 AMOUNT. SO INSTEAD OF WASTING ALL THE TIME GOING AROUND, THIS WAS THE PROCESS. YEAH, I SEE, OKAY, I'M GETTING THERE. THANK YOU. YES. ALL RIGHT. AND SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO BRAD SINCE WE'RE KIND OF GOING DOWN THIS ROAD, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE'RE USED TO IN THE PAST. RIGHT. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO? YEAH. SO SO I MEAN, THIS IS A SO THE COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL PROCESS ALLOWS YOU TO LOCK IN PRICES, AS ERNESTO SAID, FOR, YOU KNOW, SERVICES AND SERVICES ARE ARE BROADLY DEFINED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. AND SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF SERVICES THAT THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT RELATES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CIP AND BUT BUT THE SERVICES CAN INCLUDE THE SCOPE AND TYPE OF WORK THAT YOU'RE. THAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE. SO I THINK, I THINK THIS PROCESS FOR THE COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL PROCESS COMPLIES WITH, YOU KNOW, ANY EXPENDITURE THAT'S THAT'S OVER $100,000 HAS TO COME THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, EITHER COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS OR COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS. YOU'VE DONE IT THROUGH THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE USING UTILIZING SERVICES. YOU'RE NOT BUYING A THING. YEAH. SO I THINK GIVEN THAT YOU'VE COMPLIED WITH THAT PROCESS AND AS THEY STATED, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SERVICES THAT IS AMENABLE TO THAT BECAUSE IT JUST DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF TREES YOU'RE MULCHING MAY HAVE IMPACT ON THE PRICE. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T, YOU DON'T KNOW IN ADVANCE, RIGHT? KIND OF THE SCOPE OF THAT TYPE OF THING. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I MEAN, THIS WILL COME BACK TO YOU FOR, I MEAN, BY LAW, IT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR ANYTHING OVER $100,000, BUT OR WHATEVER. I DON'T REMEMBER IF YOU GUYS HAVE SAID A LOWER. WELL, IT WAS THE LEGISLATURE RAISED IT TO 100. SO IT USED TO BE 50. LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THEY RAISED IT TO 100. BUT YOUR ORDINANCES POLICY SAYS 50. I THINK YOUR PURCHASING POLICY SAYS 50. SO YOU'RE PURCHASING POLICY CONTROLS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M IN MY MIND, I'M NOT CLEAR. IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS OR WE SIMPLY SAY, YOU KNOW, GOOD JOB, GUYS. YOU'VE GOT GOOD PLANS. SOUNDS GREAT. GO DO IT THIS WAY. AND IF IT EVER IS OVER 50,000, COME IN AND WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION. NO, I THINK YOU NEED TO. I THINK YOU NEED TO APPROVE IT. SO YOU LOCK IN. THOSE PRICES ARE OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOCKING IN RIGHT NOW. ARE THE COMPETITIVE PRICE PER WATT. HOWEVER THEY'VE MATRIXED IT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOCKING IN AS OPPOSED TO GOING AND DOING THAT LATER WHEN PRICES HAVE INCREASED. AND, AND THEN I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH THIS TO COUNCILOR BENFIELD'S POINT. THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO LOCKING IN THREE OR EVEN MORE. BUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THREE IS A GOOD STOPPING POINT. JUST ONE COMMENT ON THAT. THAT'S WHERE IT KIND OF GETS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY BECAUSE DO WE GO BECAUSE, AS I SAID, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO FROM THE FIRST TWO TO THE THIRD. AND NOW IT COMES INTO, I GIVE THEM X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO DO OR DO I GIVE THEM LINEAR FOOTAGE. AND THAT'S WHY I RECOMMENDED TWO BECAUSE THE CAPACITY OF WHAT THE CIP IS, I CAN SPLIT THE ROAD, SPLIT THE ROADS BASICALLY IN HALF, AND GIVE EACH PERSON HALF. AND THE CONTRACT AMOUNT WOULD BE VERY, VERY SIMILAR. BUT IF I DID THAT WITH A THIRD AND DID IT BY ONE, TWO AND THREE, THAT THIRD PERSON WOULD GET PAID ALMOST THREE TIMES AS MUCH OR TEN TIMES AS MUCH JUST FOR ROW CLEARING. SO SO AT SOMEONE SUGGESTED A MINUTE AGO, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE OF THESE THREE GUYS, IF THE JOB IS A CATEGORY THAT ONE OF THEM HAD THE LOWEST PRICE ON, GO WITH THAT LOWEST PRICE VENDOR. AND SO THAT'S COULD BE 100% OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. CLEARING GOES TO ONE COMPANY. NOW, IF IF THAT COMPANY SAYS, SORRY, WE'RE TAPPED OUT, WE CAN'T GET OUT, GET THERE FOR SIX WEEKS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GO TO PRICE NUMBER TWO. BUT PRICE NUMBER TWO GUY MAY GET ZERO OF THAT BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WASN'T THE LOWEST PRICE BIDDER. WELL, BECAUSE OF AVAILABILITY OR AVAILABILITY. YEAH, REALLY. I THINK IT'S MORE A FUNCTION OF AVAILABILITY GIVEN THIS NATURE OF THIS WORK. YEAH. YEAH. BUT I MEAN IT'S REALLY THEY HAVE FEEL THEY HAVE TEAMS DEPLOYED. SO THAT'S VERY COMMON. THEY NEED TO HAVE THOSE TWO OPTIONS AVAILABILITY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE JOB KIND OF THING. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND SO IF WE CAPTURE THAT IN OUR MOTION THEN WE'RE GOOD. I THINK IF YOU [01:20:01] SORRY I WASN'T ON. I THINK IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU TAKE VICTOR'S RECOMMENDATION AND YOU APPROVE THOSE TWO, THEN YOU'VE LOCKED IT IN FOR THOSE TWO. THEY ARE FROM A PRICE STANDPOINT, VERY SIMILAR. AND IT GIVES STAFF THE OPTION TO. IF IF YOU KNOW, CONTRACTOR A SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FULLY DEPLOYED, THEN YOU GO TO CONTRACTOR B AND YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE THEY CAN DO PART OF IT, SO FORTH. SO IT, IT'S, IT'S JUST LOCKING IN THAT I THINK, I THINK YOU TAKE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS YOU TAKE STAFF'S, YOU FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, APPROVE THOSE TOP TWO BECAUSE THEIR PRICING IS SIMILAR. AND THEN YOU'VE LOCKED IN THE PRICES FOR THOSE TWO. AND THEN STAFF COMES TO YOU DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF WHO CAN, WHO'S AVAILABLE TO PERFORM TASK A, TASK B AND SO FORTH. THEY WILL BRING THOSE CONTRACTS BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL, AND IT'LL BE DEPENDENT UPON WHO'S GOT THE CAPACITY AND WHO'S GOT THE AVAILABILITY AND THE TIME FRAME THAT SOMEBODY MAY HAVE. YEAH, WE CAN DO IT, BUT WE CAN'T START FOR EIGHT WEEKS. YOU KNOW, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW THOSE TYPES OF FACTORS. SO YOU'RE APPROVING THE RFP, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZE ACCEPT THE PRICE PROPOSALS FOR THE TOP TWO OR WHATEVER YOU WANT. BUT THOSE THOSE TWO BIDDERS, THAT'S THAT'S THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR VENICE, WHAT WAS THE ONE AND THEN WHAT WAS THE OTHER VENDOR THAT'S SIMILARLY PRICED. SO TOTAL EVALUATION $7,475 FOR LIGO. AND THEN SOUTH TEXAS TREE SERVICE FOR A TOTAL EVALUATION, 7575. AND THEN FOR SYNTHESIS. TOTAL EVALUATION $21,579.17. AND IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN GIVE YOU THE SPREADSHEET AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE AGENDA PACKET. IT'S IN HERE. THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGED IS TAKING FOR LIGO IS TAKING THAT 2009 50 AND MOVING IT OVER TO MULCHING SERVICES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE WE HAD THE NAMES CORRECT FOR ANY MOTION. OH, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THIS WINE TALKING I'VE ALREADY DONE. MAYOR PRO TEM, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON RFP NUMBER 26-05 TO APPROVE THE TOP TWO COMPANIES THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING. ALCO AND SOUTH TEXAS TREE SERVICE FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE FUTURE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY COUNCILOR PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY, COUNSELOR VAN NESS, THAT'S A SECOND. OKAY. AND ALL APPROVED OR WHO ALL APPROVE, SAY I. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE THANK YOU EVERYBODY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO. [IX.2. Consider, discuss, and take action regarding dormant or inactive Planned Development Districts, associated LUE or utility-capacity commitments, project vesting, and potential amendments to the City’s PDD, project expiration, and dormancy procedures.] ACTION ITEM NUMBER TWO. CONSIDER DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING DORMANT OR INACTIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ASSOCIATED L, U, E OR UTILITY CAPACITY COMMITMENTS. PROJECT VESTING AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S PDD PROJECT. EXPIRATION AND DORMANCY PROCEDURES. AND SO, CHARLES, ARE YOU UP ON THIS ONE? I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN BENEFIELD IS THE ONE THAT COUNCIL I APOLOGIZE COUNCIL. BENEFIELD. YES. YEAH. I HAVE QUITE A BIT OF NOTES HERE, BUT I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO DEFER THOSE. HAD A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION EARLIER. AND I THINK BRAD PROBABLY HAS SOME REALLY GREAT RELEVANT INFORMATION TO BE MORE CLEAR THAN ME. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM WAS JUST TO BEGIN A POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING DORMANT OR INACTIVE PDS, THEIR ASSOCIATED LES, AND THE UTILITY CAPACITY COMMITMENTS, THE PROJECT VESTING, AND WHETHER THE CURRENT CITY'S P, D D EXPIRATION AND DORMANCY PROCEDURES ARE ADEQUATE MOVING FORWARD. SO I THINK IT'S FAIR TO LET BRAD OPINE AND LET MR. WEST OPINE, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'VE HAD SOME PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSIONS. AND THEN I THINK THEY'LL I THINK THEY HAVE A MUCH BETTER HANDLE OF THE DIRECTION THAN I DO. WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH SOME INFORMATION ON, ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. AND FIRST OF ALL, I MEAN, JUST MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT COUNCIL CONSENSUS. I MEAN, SOME OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS CONSENSUS TO GIVE ME THE [01:25:04] AUTHORIZATION TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS OPENLY. BUT YES. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING BOTH YOUR ORDINANCES AND, AND SOME OF THESE I WILL REFER I'LL CALL ELDERLY PDS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. AND I'M GOING TO. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT REALLY ISSUES, I THINK, TO TALK ABOUT. ONE OF THEM IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEM IS, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE EXISTING PDS, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND THEN THE SECONDARY THING IS, WHAT DO YOU WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THERE TO MAKE CHANGES TO YOUR ORDINANCES, YOUR POLICIES, AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE DEALT WITH IN OUR REVIEW OF SOME OF THESE OLD PDS, YOU WILL SEE IN THEM SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO COMMITMENTS OF WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY WITHIN THE WITHIN THE PD ITSELF. I'VE REVIEWED THAT. AND MY PARTNER, ART RODRIGUEZ, WHO DOES A LOT OF UTILITY WORK FOR CITIES. YOU ALL HAVE MET HIM. WE YOU KNOW, WE BOTH REVIEWED THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE MET WITH CHARLES AND JORDAN AND HAD THIS, YOU KNOW, LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. AND I MEAN, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE REFERENCES TO, YOU KNOW, UTILITY COMMITMENTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PD D, WHICH IS JUST A ZONING SPECIALIZED ZONING DISTRICT. THOSE ARE COMMON IN, YOU KNOW, IN RELATION TO, YOU KNOW, PLANNING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. THAT'S THAT'S PERHAPS WHEN PD D I'M SORRY, UTILITIES MIGHT GET LOCKED IN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ZONING, IT'S JUST REALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE TO BE THERE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHY OR HOW THOSE GOT IN THERE. AND IN FACT, WHEN WE LOOK AT YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND YOUR PD D SECTION, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OR EVEN REFERENCE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT FOR THOSE TO BE IN THERE, AT LEAST IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF YOUR, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR PD D SECTIONS LOOK LIKE 20 YEARS AGO. I CAN'T, I CAN'T SAY I CAN'T EASILY GET AHOLD OF THOSE, BUT BUT THERE AREN'T IT'S NOT IN THERE RIGHT NOW. AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE THINGS BE IN THERE. IF I'M IF I MAY, MAYOR PRO TEM SO COUNCILOR PRINCE, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN IS PART OF THE PD PROCESS. IT IS RIGHT. WHICH WOULD SHOW HOW MANY BUILDINGS ARE BEING. YOU KNOW, IN THE CASE OF THE HOTEL, HOW MANY DOORS ARE GOING TO BE THERE, OR IN CASE OF A RESIDENTIAL LIKE FIREFLY, HOW MANY HOMES WILL BE BUILT? RIGHT? YES, SIR. AND SO WITHIN THE PD D DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN, THE INFORMATION OF HOW MANY UNITS OF WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE BUILT AT MAXIMUM RIGHT, IS, IS THAT INFORMATION IS THERE AND IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A PD D THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEN THE REASON THAT THE LUS KEEP COMING UP IS WATER. AND THE ABILITY TO DELIVER WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES IS SO HUGE FOR US AND IS SO MUCH A MASSIVE PART OF OUR INVESTMENT THAT FOR CERTAINLY AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN AWARE, GOING BACK TO MORE THAN MY FIVE YEARS ON COUNCIL, THIS QUESTION OF IF ALL THE DEVELOPERS STARTED BUILDING, ACTUALLY DOING WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THEIR ZONING, IF THEY DID ALL OF THAT, COULD WE GET THE WATER TO THEM? YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT TO DELIVER IT, BUT COULD WE GET THE WATER TO THEM? AND, YOU KNOW, IF THAT HAPPENS, OH MY GOD, WE BETTER, WE'VE GOT TO EXPAND OUR PLANT BECAUSE THEY COULD BUILD ALL THIS. RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE CONTEXT IN MY MIND. THE CONTEXT FOR THIS IS AS WE TRY TO DO CAPACITY PLANNING AT THE CITY LEVEL, THESE PDS, WHICH HAVE THEIR DETAILED CONCEPT PLANS, ARE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION. AND FRANKLY, I'LL SAY THE PLATTED LOTS ACROSS THE CITY, THE THOUSANDS OF PLATTED LOTS ACROSS THE CITY, WHICH COULD BE BUILT ANY DAY, ALSO HAS TO BE FACTORED IN. SO I THINK WE AS A AS A PLANNING BODY, AS A GOVERNING BODY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET OUR HEADS AROUND HOW MUCH CAPACITY DO WE REALLY NEED TO BE PREPARED TO DELIVER BECAUSE IT TAKES YEARS TO GET THAT CAPACITY IN PLACE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE PDS OUT THERE WHO SAY WE MIGHT BUILD 500 UNITS, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER WE HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT OR WHETHER WE DON'T HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT. AND SO THE IDEA OF, OF SORT OF CLARIFYING FOR OURSELVES IN THIS DECISION PROCESS, DO WE HAVE TO PLAN FOR THESE PDS OR ARE THEY REALLY DORMANT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO PLAN FOR THEM? AND THEREFORE, LET'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S CLEAN THE PROCESS UP BY GOING BACK TO A TIER ONE ZONING. THAT TO ME IS THE, IS THE, THE, THE CONTEXT OF, OF THE QUESTION OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. AND I, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. IF, IF THIS IS CLEARLY A PLANNING EXERCISE, WHICH IT SHOULD BE, AND IT'S A GOOD ONE TO, TO PLAN, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE TO LOCK OURSELVES INTO THAT. IF CLEARLY SOME PARTS OF THAT PLAN ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. SO AND WE [01:30:08] CAN JUST UPDATE THOSE PLANS SAYING, OKAY, IN TERMS OF OUR PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE NEXT TEN YEARS, HERE'S THE REVISED PLAN. WE WE KNOW THOSE ARE THOSE ARE NOWHERE NEAR COMPLETE. I GUESS I'M JUST NOT SEEING WHY WE FEEL WE'RE, WE'RE LOCKING OURSELVES IN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANYTHING ELSE. IF IF IN FACT, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I'LL JUST SAY THIS AND THEN TURN IT BACK TO BRAD UNLESS SOME OTHER COUNCILOR HAS. I THINK IT'S REALLY ABOUT REMOVING UNCERTAINTY FROM A COUNCIL PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, AND PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE 500 UNITS AT WIND RANCH? YOU KNOW, DO WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO HAVE WASTEWATER CAPACITY TO HANDLE THOSE UNITS? AND WHAT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF FIREFLY ACTUALLY KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR AND DEVELOPS ALL OF THOSE? AND WHAT ABOUT. AND AND SO I THINK THE AND THIS MY WHOLE TIME ON COUNCIL, WE'VE ASKED STAFF MULTIPLE TIMES AND MULTIPLE FLAVORS. AND MISTER ROBERTS, WHEN HE GETS HIS CHANCE, IS GOING TO CHIME IN ON THIS AS WELL. RIGHT. WE'VE JUST BEEN TRYING TO REMOVE THE UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE STAFF ALWAYS RIGHTLY COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, THERE'S THESE, THESE, ALL OF THESE OUTSTANDING PDS, WHICH, IF THEY ALL HAPPENED, WOULD CREATE THIS HUGE SURGE IN DEMAND. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO JUST BE PUTTING THE JUDGMENT CALL ON IT. COUNCILOR HALL, AS YOU AS YOU SAY. AND I THINK COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, RAISING THIS AS IS PROBABLY THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME NOW IN MY IN MY TERM, WHERE WE'VE TRIED TO RAISE THE. IS THERE A WAY WE CAN REMOVE SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE EQUATION? CHARLES. I'M GOING TO LET CHARLES SPEAK FOR A MINUTE AND THEN I'LL GO TO YOU. COUNCILOR, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY, WHATEVER DAY WE VISITED WITH BRAD AND ART IS PULLING LOUISE OUT OF THE PDS. BUT AT THE TIME THEY APPLIED FOR A PD D, THE DEVELOPER CAN PAY A RESERVATION FEE FOR X NUMBER OF LOUISE, BUT IT STAYS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE AND THOSE EXPIRE EVERY TWO YEARS. SO EVERY TWO YEARS, IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT LOCKED IN AND RESERVED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND PAY ANOTHER FEE. SO THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. LET'S PULL THE LOUISE OUT OF THE PDS AND ART THINK ART EVEN SAID, LET'S GO BACK AND JUST PULL THEM OUT OF ALL OF THE CURRENT PDS. AND YEAH, THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, YOUR ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW FOR THAT. AND SO THE PECULIARITY HERE, OF COURSE, IS THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT L E COMMITMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, UNUSUAL, I'LL SAY. RIGHT. AND SO, SO IN ORDER TO DO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THOSE, THIS IS A TWO PRONGED APPROACH. ONE APPROACH. THE FIRST PART IS GOING TO BE KIND OF AS, AS CHARLES SAYS, KIND OF PULLING THOSE OUT BECAUSE THOSE ARE BEING ALL OF THOSE. YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED UP TO WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS IN A GIVEN PD D, THOSE ARE BEING COUNTED TOWARDS YOUR CAPACITY RIGHT NOW. AND OF COURSE, UNDER TCDC RULES, WHEN YOU HIT CERTAIN PERCENTAGES, THEN YOU MUST BEGIN IN PLANNING AND, YOU KNOW, EXPENDITURES AND SO FORTH. RIGHT? SO, SO, BUT YOU'VE GOT THESE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING OUT THERE FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME WITH NO DEVELOPMENT. SO WHAT YOUR ORDINANCE PROVIDES CURRENTLY IS THAT WHEN, IF, IF YOU, IF THE CITY IS ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A DETAILED PLAN THAT NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, A SQUISHY TERM HERE, BUT WITHIN A SUFFICIENT LENGTH OF TIME TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT DEVELOPMENT IS NOT LIKELY. AND I'M KIND OF PARAPHRASING, BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS. THEN THE CITY OR THE P AND Z OR BOTH, WHOEVER MAY INITIATE CITY INITIATED REZONING OF THOSE PDS. AND AND THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT THAT I MEAN, FOR SOME OF THESE THAT ARE LITERALLY DECADES OLD, IF THERE'S BEEN NO MOVEMENT ON THEM FOR 10 TO 20 YEARS, I THINK WE CAN MAKE A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT THAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED ON THOSE AND AND SET THOSE JUST THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM THAT ARE 15 TO 20 YEARS OLD AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REZONING THOSE PDS. AND EVEN IF ALL YOU DO IS PEEL OUT FROM THOSE PDS, THE LUE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE IN THERE, THAT PROBABLY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN YOU HAVE FREED UP THOSE LOOSE THAT AREN'T BEING COUNTED TOWARDS YOUR CAPACITY RIGHT NOW. OF COURSE, THAT WILL DURING THAT PROCESS, IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH P AND Z. I MEAN, IT'S A REZONING. IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH P AND Z. YOU'VE GOT TO SEND OUT THE 200 FOOT NOTICES. YOU'VE GOT TO DO ALL OF THOSE [01:35:04] THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO REZONE. AND THEN BECAUSE THEY'RE PDS, IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY TO PASS. BUT THAT PROCESS OF AMENDING THOSE PDS TO PULL THOSE OUT IS, IS, IS ONE PRONG OF WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO. AND IF YOU DO THAT, I DON'T WANT TO BUTCHER THE NUMBERS, BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THAT WITH CHARLES AND JORDAN, THAT THAT ADDED UP TO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, OF CAPACITY. CHARLES. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS, 1.6 MILLION. SO THAT'S A LOT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT THAT I THINK, I THINK THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THAT ALMOST LIKE TRIPLES YOUR CAPACITY 1.6 MILLION. WHAT IS THIS GALLONS PER DAY, MILLION GALLONS PER DAY? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MGD. YEAH. SO I MEAN, THAT'S A, THAT, THAT, THAT IF IF ALL FIVE OF THOSE ARE REZONED, AS WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE, THEN THAT WOULD FREE UP. AND THESE SOME OF THESE DON'T HAVE AN ACTIVITY FOR 20 SOME OR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. RIGHT. SO NOW YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF, IF THOSE PDD, THE DEVELOPER CAME FORWARD AND SAY, BUT LOOK HERE, WE REALLY HAVE PROGRESS. OKAY, WELL, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT THAT WOULD. YES, MA'AM. YEAH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP THERE IS IF WE GO AND DO CITY INITIATED REZONING THE LEGAL QUESTION, RIGHT. DO WE GIVE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS ANY KIND OF REASON TO COME BACK AND SUE THE CITY BECAUSE WE'VE ADVERSELY IMPACTED THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY, WHETHER THEY WANT A DEVELOPMENT OR THEY WANT TO SELL IT. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS KIND OF THE EARLIER IDEA AROUND THE PLANNING CONCEPT, RIGHT? UNDERSTANDING WHAT COULD BE COMING DOWN THE PIKE AND IF IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE COURSE OF THIS, CAN YOU DISCUSS HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE FOR CITIES TO SAY NO? PUT THE KIBOSH ON DEVELOPMENT IF WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED PDS, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE ADEQUATE WATER WASTEWATER TO SUPPORT THOSE, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN WHERE SOME CITIES HAVE RUN INTO PROBLEMS OR ALSO BEEN SUBJECT TO LAWSUITS WHEN THEY'VE PUT THE NIX ON DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY SAY WE WON'T HAVE THE WATER RESOURCING THAT CAN CREATE MORE LAWSUITS FOR THE CITY. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO OPINE ON I'D RATHER NOT OPINE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY CAN GET SUED PUBLICLY. SO I'M GOING TO SIDESTEP THAT. GOTCHA. OKAY. WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF YOU WANT. BUT I THINK WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON INSTEAD, I DON'T WANT TO NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION PUBLICLY, BUT WHAT I WHAT I WANT TO ARTICULATE IS A COUPLE OF THINGS. THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS EXACTLY WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IN YOUR ORDINANCES. RIGHT? SO SO ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO COME FORWARD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE UNDER THE ORDINANCES, UNDER THE CURRENT STANDARDS THERE, THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, MOVEMENT TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AND AND HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I MEAN, IF IF THINGS HAVE BEEN DORMANT FOR 20 YEARS, 15, 20 YEARS, IT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY HIGH STANDARD. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO COME FORWARD AND SHOW THOSE THINGS. AND IF THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN 20 YEARS, AS OUR RECORDS INDICATE FOR, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THESE FIVE, I THINK WE CAN I THINK WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CREDIBLY AND REASONABLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE FIVE AND BEGIN THE REZONING PROCESS ON THOSE FIVE. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW ALL OF THOSE WILL TURN OUT. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, AND THOSE ARE ULTIMATELY DISCRETIONARY POLICY DECISIONS. YOU'D HAVE TO APPROVE THE REZONING. BUT ASSUMING YOU DO, AND THAT'S THE BODY, THE WILL OF THE BODY, THEN I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY BEGIN THAT PROCESS AND FREE UP SOME OF THOSE, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE MAYBE HAVE REVERTED TO BANKS, MAYBE THEIR OWNERSHIP IS DIFFERENT. MAYBE THEY'RE NO LONGER, YOU KNOW, THE PLANS HAVE NOT THEY'VE NOT OBVIOUSLY NOT COME TO FRUITION. RIGHT. SO I THINK, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE FIVE, CAN I TELL YOU, YOU'LL NEVER GET SUED? NO, BUT BUT IT'S GOING TO BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THAT THERE IS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THEY DO, WELL, THEN OKAY, THEN IT'S THEN THEN YOU COUNT THEM TOWARDS YOUR CAPACITY. BUT IF THEY CAN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN I THINK THAT WE CAN BEGIN THAT PROCESS AT LEAST ON THOSE FIVE. THE SECOND PRONG THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS A CHANGE TO YOUR ORDINANCES. THAT, NUMBER ONE, MAKE SURE THAT ON A MOVING FORWARD BASIS THAT YOU DO NOT TIE LIEU COMMITMENTS INTO PD ZONING OR ANY KIND OF ZONING THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION OR FOR, FOR THAT TYPE OF THING. THOSE ARE TYPICALLY DONE BY SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND A SERVICE AGREEMENT. LIKE CARL SAID. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A SERVICE AGREEMENT. YOU, YOU, A DEVELOPMENT CAN CAN RESERVE LOUISE AND TIE UP YOUR LOUISE FOR TWO YEARS. THAT'S A COMMON TERM. AND THEN IF, IF, IF THEY WANT TO RESERVE THOSE LIEU CAPACITY, THEN THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT RESERVATION AND WHAT THAT PAYMENT DOES. AND THAT'S A COMMON THING FOR CITIES TO, TO ENACT. AND WHAT THAT PAYMENT DOES IS, IS IF IN FACT, THOSE LOUISE ARE GOING TO BE SPOKEN FOR, THEN THOSE PAYMENTS HELP THE CITY OFFSET THE COST OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK. AND THAT'S A COMMON PRACTICE AMONG CITIES. AND SO WE CAN BRING FORWARD THOSE PROCESSES. THE FIRST PROCESS, THOUGH, THAT WE CAN BEGIN IS TO IS TO BEGIN, YOU KNOW, START THAT DOMINO OF THE [01:40:03] REZONING OF THOSE FIVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND AND IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL, THEN LIKE CHARLES SAID, THAT THAT ADDS UP TO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. AND EVEN IF YOU ONLY GOT HALF OF IT, THAT WOULD STILL BE A RATHER SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LOUISE THAT ARE FREED UP. AND SO WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT DEFERS YOUR NEED TO EXPAND PLANTS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE YOU'RE COUNTING AS CAPACITY STUFF THAT'S NOT REAL. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THAT GOING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. SO I MEAN, THAT'S THAT. AND IT JUST I MEAN, THAT'S THE GIST OF WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S IT'S A THOSE PROCESSES ARE SET FORTH, THAT PROCESS THAT WE'RE DESCRIBING OF THE REZONING AND THAT'S SET FORTH THAT COMES SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NO DEVELOPER BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IN YOUR ORDINANCES FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THAT'S THE PROCESS UNDER WHICH, YOU KNOW, THESE PDS WERE ADOPTED. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND. AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION COUNCIL WANTS, WE CAN BEGIN THAT PROCESS EXPEDITIOUSLY BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT. I DO HAVE I HAVE A COMMENT CARD HERE ON A PUBLIC AND POTENTIALLY ONE WITH MISTER ROBERTS. BUT FIRST I HAVE LINDA AIRED. THERE WERE A LOT OF ORDINANCES REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL TO P AND Z LAST YEAR. P AND Z HAD A GROUP OF THEM ON AN AGENDA IN THE FALL. WHEN WE WENT TO ADDRESS THEM, IT INCLUDED THIS DORMANT PD D ORDINANCE. AT THE TIME, JORDAN HAD JUST STARTED AND SHE SAID TO ME IN A MEETING RIGHT BEFORE THE P AND G MEETING, LINDA, PLEASE, LET'S LET'S DEFER THESE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THEM. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. SO LET'S DEFER THEM. AND I'M LIKE, WELL, DEFER THEM UNTIL WHEN? UNTIL DECEMBER. UNTIL JANUARY. WELL, I'M NOT SURE, BUT UNTIL, UNTIL WE DO THE DIAGNOSTIC. A SITUATION HAS COME UP THIS YEAR WHERE WE HAVE A PD D THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INACTIVE FOR FOUR YEARS, AND THE PROPERTY HAS GONE BACK TO THE LENDER. SO I THOUGHT THIS WAS A PERFECT CASE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. AS FAR AS THE IS, DOES THIS MEET A PD D DORMANCY. AND SO I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD AND AND I'VE GOT EMAILS ON THIS AND EMAIL OF MAY 5TH WHEN I ASKED FOR IT TO BE ON THE MAY AGENDA, YOU SAID I WAS WRITING TO JORDAN. YOU SAID BRAD HAD TO WORK ON THE PARAMETERS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD USE AS DETERMINING FACTORS. BRAD WAS ASKED LAST YEAR TO WORK ON THE PARAMETERS FOR THIS PURPOSE. WE ARE URGED TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER AS IT WAS REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION BY COUNCIL OVER A YEAR AGO. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF BRAD'S WORK PRODUCT? WILL THIS MATTER BE READY FOR CONSIDERATION BY P AND Z IN JUNE? BECAUSE I HAD BEEN TOLD IT COULDN'T BE CONSIDERED BY P AND Z, AND IN MAY AND IN APRIL. SO I WAS TOLD AGAIN, NO, IT COULDN'T BE CONSIDERED BY P AND Z EVEN IN JUNE. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE ATTORNEY COUNSEL PRIVILEGE AND WITH EXECUTIVE SESSION INVOLVED, THAT WAS THE REASON I WAS GIVEN. IT COULDN'T BE CONSIDERED IN JUNE. AND A WEEK LATER IT WAS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AS A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM. SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? HOW IS THIS HOW IS THIS PROCEDURE? WHERE DOES THIS FIT INTO STANDARD PROCEDURE? COUNCIL GIVES IT TO P AND D, P AND Z TRIES TO HANDLE IT. P AND Z IS TOLD YOU CAN'T. IT DOESN'T EVEN ISN'T EVEN TOLD THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO TAKE IT BACK. AND IT JUST APPEARS COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO P AND Z. SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DID HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? I CAN ANSWER THAT. IT'S A FACT BASED QUESTION. SO PLEASE DO THE THE ONLY REASON IT GOT BROUGHT UP IS WE HAD BEEN WE HAD, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY FIREFLY HAS BEEN ON MY MIND. WE WERE JUST TALKING TO ABOUT THE HOTEL. WE HAVE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT UTILITIES, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND TALKING ABOUT CAPACITY AND EXPANSIONS AND WHERE WE'RE AT. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS TOPIC WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BY MR. ROBERTS, AND I WAS GOING THROUGH THE OLD SOME OF THE OLD. DISCUSSION BOARDS, AND I THOUGHT, THIS NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK UP BECAUSE ENOUGH TIME HAS WENT BY. [01:45:05] I HAD NO IDEA ABOUT ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS YOU WERE HAVING BEHIND THE SCENES. WE WERE JUST MAYBE, YOU KNOW, SO SO THAT'S KIND OF MY QUESTION. LIKE, ALL OF THIS IS GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH JORDAN. AND SO JORDAN HAD TO KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE COMING TO COUNCIL DAYS. DAYS. IT WAS POSTED DAYS WHEN THE AGENDA IS BEING PLANNED BY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, DAYS IN ADVANCE. AND THEN I'M TOLD, NO, IT'S ATTORNEY COUNCIL PRIVILEGE EXECUTIVE SESSION INVOLVED. NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT IN JUNE. SO I GUESS I'M. CONCERNED ABOUT STANDARD PROCEDURE BEING UNDERMINED OR. ALL I CAN SAY THANK YOU IS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON MY END THAT WAS NEFARIOUS ABOUT IT. I WAS JUST HOPING TO GET SOME LEGAL AND SOME CONSENSUS FROM STAFF TO SEE IF THIS IS IF WE'RE READY TO TACKLE THIS. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION, AND PART OF THAT EQUATION WOULD BE SENDING IT BACK TO PNC TO FIX IT. SOME OF THEM, WE DON'T NEED TO SEND IT BACK BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SITTING AT BRENDA. THANK YOU. MISS EYRE. I CAN I CAN TELL YOU THE REASON THIS GOT PUT ON THE AGENDA WAS COUNCILMAN BENEFIELD SENT IN THE REQUEST FOR IT TO GO ON THE AGENDA. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM AND JORDAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD AT TELLING ME WHEN THEY TALK TO STAFF AND STUFF. SO THAT'S WHY THIS CAME BACK UP. AND LIKE THEY SAID, IT WILL GO BACK TO PNC NOW, BUT IT JUST GOT BROUGHT BACK UP SO WE COULD GET SOME LEGAL ACTION AND GET MOVING FORWARD. AND SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND COUNSELOR. PAUL ROBERTS, FORMER COUNCILOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM, I APPRECIATE IT. I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA. AND I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT COUNCILMAN BENEFIELD ON HOW HE ORGANIZED THE PACKET FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. HIS HIS COVER SHEET WAS WELL DONE. CAPTURING THE HISTORY AND FACTS OF THE MATTER, AS WELL AS THE IMPROVED SPREADSHEET, IF YOU WILL, OF THE DORMANT PDS. HEARING WHAT BRAD SAID AND AND CHARLES, REGARDING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I'M EXCITED TO HEAR THIS STUFF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED AFTER I, I FINISHED MY TERM ON COUNCIL. SO THAT APPROACH THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE ART AND BRAD BRAINSTORMED ON WITH CHARLES SOUNDS GREAT. BRAD HISTORICALLY REALLY LIKES TO ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND ALWAYS TAKE THE MOST DEFENSIBLE POSITIONS, WHICH IS WONDERFUL. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HEAR THE THE 15 AND 20 YEARS. I WONDER, THOUGH, IF THAT BAR CAN BE LOWERED, MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY TO THE TWO YEARS PER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, BUT AT LEAST A FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS. I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE CONVERSATION ON THAT. AND I'M JUST A QUICK NOTE, BY THE WAY, I REMEMBER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM HALF ON THE UDC WAS TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THAT ORDINANCE, WHICH I DISAGREE WITH THE ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW THE CITY TO INITIATE A REZONING IF PROPERTY HAS BEEN DORMANT FOR TWO YEARS. JUST ANECDOTAL SIDE NOTE THERE, AS FAR AS THE THE, THE RATIONALE AND LOGIC THAT I HEARD DISCUSSED ABOUT FROM COUNCILMAN PRINCE REGARDING OUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY, I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY POINT EVERYBODY BACK TO THE WATER WASTEWATER STUDY THAT FREESE AND NICHOLS DID. THAT POINTS OUT USING A DENOMINATOR OF 2.60, WHICH COMES FROM THE, I THINK, THE LCRA 2.60 PER LUE GIVES YOU YOUR POPULATION COUNT AND THE WATER WASTEWATER MASTER PLANS ARE DESIGNED ONLY FOR CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL OF THESE DORMANT PD ENTITLEMENTS. SO EVERYTHING PLATTED, EVERYTHING ENTITLED, YOU GET TO A POPULATION OF 53000 PEOPLE IN LAGO VISTA. AND THAT STUDY ASSUMES NO ANNEXATION FROM THE ETJ. BUT IF YOU WERE TO ANNEX FROM THE ETJ AT TWO LOUISE PER ACRE OR ONE HALF ACRE LOTS, THAT WOULD BRING IN AN ADDITIONAL 33, 32, 33000 PEOPLE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE LAGO VISTA THAT BIG. NOBODY, AT LEAST THE CITIZENS. MOST CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA DON'T WANT THAT. THAT'S A POPULATION OF 53000. YOU ANNEX 6600 ACRES. THE ETJ AT TWO LUZ PER ACRE GIVES YOU 83 84,000 PEOPLE. THAT'S INSANITY. BUT RIGHT NOW, AT 13000 PEOPLE, I CAN'T IMAGINE 2000 PEOPLE. BUT TO MR. PRINCE'S POINT IN IN I THINK A FEW OTHER PEOPLE MADE THE POINT. WE DO HAVE TO WE HAVE A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THAT CAPACITY TO THESE CONTRACTORS. BUT THERE'S ONE IMPORTANT VARIABLE. WHERE IS THAT WATER GOING TO COME FROM? WE BUY OUR WATER THROUGH THE LCRA RESERVATION. RIGHT. [01:50:06] AND I THINK THE LAST RESERVATION CONTRACT RENEWAL WE DID WAS FOR TEN 000 ACRE FEET. THE POPULATION THAT 10,000 ACRE FEET CAN SUPPORT IS ONLY 3000 PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN WANTING TO INCREASE DENSITY, WHEN YOU HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE ON P AND Z OR OTHER PEOPLE ADVOCATING FOR INCREASING DENSITY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, OR AT LEAST IN TERMS OF PLACE TYPES, HAVING A LOWER ACREAGE OR HIGHER UNITS PER ACRE THAN WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. NOW YOU'RE LOWERING THE BAR FOR DEVELOPERS TO GET OVER, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH CAN ADVERSELY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO SUPPLY WATER AND FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS. SO ANYHOW, LONG STORY SHORT, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA. I LOVE THE CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. BYE BYE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW I WILL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA, I JUST HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ON RESERVATION FEES. I I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANYTHING THAT LIKE THAT BEFORE. OF COURSE, I'M NOT SAYING THAT DOES NOT DOESN'T HAPPEN. BUT HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? AND CONSIDERING THAT FEES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TIED TO ACTUAL SERVICES OR THINGS RENDERED, AND IF THESE SERVICES ACTUALLY DON'T END UP COMING TO FRUITION, DOES THAT ENTITLE THE RESERVATION? YOU KNOW, THE PERSON THAT SUBMITTED THESE RESERVATIONS, IS THAT ENTITLED THEM TO A REFUND? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY EATS OR I MEAN, OR KEEPS AND, AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE SEPARATED OUT? AND YOU SAID THAT THEY COULD BE POTENTIALLY USED TOWARDS FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW ASSESSING A FEE LIKE THAT COULD EVEN BE LEGAL TO DO THAT IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE ALREADY APPROVING THEM. I MEAN, TO DO THAT. I MEAN, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PER METER CHARGE OR LIKE INSULATION FROM PER METER. SO I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. RESERVATION FEES ARE COMMON IN CITIES, AND WHAT THEY DO IS BECAUSE IT TIES UP IN CAPACITY, WHICH WHEN YOU REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL UNDER TC, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF OF, YOU KNOW, EXPANSION AND EVERYTHING THAT THAT ENTAILS THAT THAT IS THOSE FEES ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, SET BY, I MEAN, I'LL, I WILL, I WILL, MY PARTNER ART IS, IS MORE CONVERSANT WITH THEM. HE'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, HE'S DONE THAT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT CITIES. YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY ARE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVATION FEES THAT, THAT ALLOW THOSE LAWS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A SITUATION LIKE YOU HAVE HERE WHERE YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN SITTING ON CAPACITY, THAT'S NEVER ACTUALLY GOING TO BE USED. SO I CAN WE CAN GET YOU A FOLLOW UP MEMO ON THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLES OF ORDINANCES ACROSS FOR CITIES THAT DO THAT, BUT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. OKAY. AND SO AND SO SAY THEY DON'T BUILD WITHIN 2 TO 4 YEARS. DO THESE FEES GO BACK TO, TO. NO, THESE ARE THESE ARE SO SO YOU WHEN TYPICALLY YOU HAVE WHEN WHEN A DEVELOPMENT GETS THE RESERVATION IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS. AND THEN THE IDEA IS YOU DON'T PAY A FEE UP FRONT. YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE YOUR RESERVATION THAT IS TIED TO DEVELOPMENT AND WHATEVER TRIGGERS THAT, RIGHT, YOU HAVE THAT RESERVATION. AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT BEYOND TWO YEARS AS AN EXAMPLE. THEN THOSE FEES ARE PAID TO RESERVE IT FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. SO THAT IS THE THAT IS THE PURPOSE TO EITHER USE IT OR LOSE IT. SO YOU DON'T PAY ADDITIONAL FEES UP FRONT FOR RESERVATION. YOU PAY THOSE ON THE BACK END TO EXTEND THAT RESERVATION. IF DEVELOPMENT TAKES LONGER. TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY OCCURS. I THOUGHT THAT IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, I DID NOT THINK THAT WE COULD USE FEES AS A PENALTY MECHANISM TO. IT'S NOT A PENALTY. THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS NOT A PENALTY MECHANISM. THIS IS TO SET ASIDE CITY CAPACITY THAT TO TO ENSURE THAT IT GETS UTILIZED. SO I MEAN, I, I, LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, I CAN WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH EXAMPLES OF ORDINANCES, BUT I MEAN, THESE ARE THESE ARE THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL OR NEW MECHANISM THAT CITIES EMPLOY. AND I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. SO SORRY, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE FEES WOULD BE TO PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE RESERVING. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO RESERVE THESE 500 LOUISE, [01:55:06] THAT'S FINE. WE CAN DO THAT. BUT JUST UNDERSTAND, EVERY SINGLE YEAR YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASSESSED THIS FEE NOT AS A PENALTY, BUT AS A DEVELOPMENT OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO KEEP THOSE LOUISE ON RESERVE FOR YOU, YOU KNOW. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS. IT'S A IT'S A RESERVATION FEE TOWARDS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE IDEA IS ALWAYS THAT DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR NOT BUILDING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE, THOUGH IF WE'RE, I MEAN, LIKE WE'RE THERE, WE'RE COLLECTING MONIES FOR THESE, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS POTENTIAL BUILD OUT, THAT POTENTIAL BUILD OUT GOES TEN YEARS. THEY NEVER THEY NEVER BUILD. BUT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED THIS MONEY AT THIS POINT. THAT'S, THAT IS THE CHOICE OF A DEVELOPER TO CONTINUE TO RESERVE THAT, THAT ON THE BELIEF THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. WE DON'T CONTROL THE MARKET. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEYOND OUR YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT OUR BUT BUT DEVELOPMENT, PAYING FOR ITSELF IS A POINT OF ORDER. SO THANK YOU. NUMBER ONE, PLEASE LEAN INTO YOUR MIC, NOT AWAY FROM YOUR MIC. I'M SORRY. AND IF COUNCIL WILL RECALL, YOU NEED TO ASK FOR THE FLOOR. RATHER THAN JUST JUMPING IN CONVERSATION, THIS CONVERSATION IS GETTING A LITTLE BACK AND BACK AND FORTH. YES. THANK YOU. IN THE MEANTIME, I THINK, CHARLES, DID YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL? I THINK ONE WAY YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS, IT'S IT'S IT'S A WAY TO KEEP A DEVELOPER. IT'S IT'S TO DISCOURAGE THESE DORMANT PDS LIKE WE'VE GOT NOW THAT'S GOT CAPACITY TIED UP INDEFINITELY. SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT KEEPS FROM TYING UP THE LOO. IT KEEPS US FROM HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE SOONER OR LATER WE'RE GOING TO HIT A MAXIMUM CAPACITY ON OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER. MAYBE IN MY LIFETIME MAY NOT BE IN MY LIFETIME, BUT SOONER OR LATER WE'RE GOING TO HIT A POINT WHERE WE CAN'T SUPPLY ANYMORE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO EXPAND OUR WATER PLANTS. WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO EXPAND WASTEWATER PLANTS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, LIKE MR. ROBERTS STATED, WE'RE ONLY ALLOTTED SO MUCH WATER OUT OF LAKE TRAVIS. ONCE WE HIT THAT, WE DON'T GET TO PULL NO MORE OUT SO THAT THIS IS THEIR WAY OF KEEPING THEM LOCKED IN, AND IT ALSO KEEPS THEM, ENCOURAGES THEM TO, HEY, IF I'M GOING TO DO A 500 LOT SUBDIVISION, I NEED TO GET BUSY, NOT JUST SIT ON A PIECE OF LAND. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT A PUNITIVE MEASURE, BUT IT IS INSTEAD, THE THE CITY INCURS ACTUAL COSTS OF THE NEED TO PLAN FOR AND FUND PLANT EXPANSIONS. WHEN YOUR CAPACITY REACHES CERTAIN LEVELS UNDER THE TKC RULES. SO IT'S NOT PUNITIVE. IT IS IN FACT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT PAYING FOR ITSELF. IF YOU'RE GOING TO COUNT THIS CAPACITY TOWARDS THE COUNTS, TOWARDS T, C, E, Q REQUIREMENTS, THAT KICKS IN THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT TO BEGIN TO STUDY AND EXPAND THE PLANT, THEN, THEN, THEN THAT SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMING IN, THAT CAUSES THE NEED FOR THAT EXPANSION VERSUS HERE. I MEAN, I THINK OVER JUST IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, I'VE HEARD SEVERAL DIFFERENT ESTIMATES OF WHAT YOUR CAPACITY IS OUT. IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AND HOW IT'S CALCULATED. BUT BUT IF WE ARE ABLE TO FREE UP SOME OF THESE THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT BEING USED AND HAVEN'T BEEN USED FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME, AND THERE'S NO PROSPECT THAT THEY WILL BE USED. AND THAT LOWERS YOUR CAPACITY. AND IT LENGTHENS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOUR CURRENT PLANT CAN BE OPERATIONAL BEFORE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PLANT EXPANSION BEGIN, WHICH IS VERY, VERY COSTLY TO THE CITY, AS YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THESE FEES. AND, AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY THEY ARE THEY COUNT TOWARDS AN ACTUAL COST THAT THE CITY WOULD INCUR. COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I'M ACTUALLY IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS. THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FEE STRUCTURES AND HOW IT'S ASSESSED AND HOW IT APPLIES AND HOW IT CAN BE CONSIDERED PUNITIVE. AND SO FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC STANDPOINT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE WERE FAIR, EQUITABLE FEES THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE CHARGING OR EVEN CONSIDERING CHARGING AND HOW IT WILL BE APPLIED. BUT I, I'M ALL FOR GETTING DEVELOPERS IN AND OUT TO COMPLETE PROJECTS. AND HOWEVER, LEGALLY WE CAN DO THAT, I'M ALL FOR IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT I DID ASK ABOUT THE FEES. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. SO YEAH. AND I'M ALL, I'M A GO ON THIS TOO. I APPRECIATE COUNCILOR BENNEFIELD BRINGING IT TO OUR AGENDA, AND I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION TO OF, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY PREVIOUS CITY COUNCILS. SO I'M ALL FOR PURSUING THIS. AND I FEEL LIKE DOING IT THIS WAY ACTUALLY HELPS US GET BETTER DIRECTION PROBABLY TO PNC. RIGHT. SO MORE TARGETED DIRECTION ON HOW WE WANT TO GO. AND FOR PNC CONSIDERATION, I GUESS I WANT TO JUST NOTE I DO HAVE THOSE TWO LEGAL QUESTIONS. [02:00:07] IF WE CAN, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO IF IT'S ALLOWABLE I'D LIKE TO ASK THOSE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T BRING THOSE UP ON ITEM ONE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, SO I THINK I THINK AGAIN, WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND OF THIS REZONING IF I DON'T THINK WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT IF IT WASN'T NUMBER ONE, HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN EXECUTIVE, BUT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD RECOMMEND IF WE DIDN'T. NUMBER ONE, IT'S PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORDINANCES THEMSELVES. AND SO EVERYONE'S ON NOTICE THAT THIS IS A POSSIBILITY, THAT THESE THINGS CAN BE THAT THE PDS CAN BE REZONED, AND THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED TO SHOW IN ORDER TO DO THAT. NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. I MEAN, PERMITS OUGHT TO EXPIRE, RIGHT? THEY SHOULDN'T SIT OUT THERE FOREVER, WHICH IS WHAT YOUR PD D ORDINANCE PROVIDES, RIGHT. DETAILED PLANS AND CONCEPT PLANS LIVE FOREVER UNLESS THEY DON'T. AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BEST PRACTICE. I DON'T SEE THAT IN OTHER CITIES. BUT SO WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER THE RULES UNDER THOSE RULES, RIGHT. SO THAT HELPS MITIGATE AGAINST VESTED RIGHTS CONCERNS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE WE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT THAT SHOW THAT PDS CAN BE CHANGED IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET. AND IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND ARE THESE, YOU KNOW, THAT HAVE BEEN INACTIVE FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. AND IF YOU TAKE THOSE OFF THE BOOKS, JUST THAT JUST THOSE FIVE SIGNIFICANTLY HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON WHAT YOUR CAPACITY, YOU KNOW, IS. AND SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE LOW HANGING FRUIT BASICALLY IS WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE THAT AS. AND, AND COULD WE GET MORE AGGRESSIVE? YOU COULD GET MORE AGGRESSIVE, BUT THE MORE AGGRESSIVE YOU GET, THE SHORTER THE, THE LESS TIME THAT THERE HAS BEEN DORMANCY, THE MORE APT YOU ARE TO FACE A CHALLENGE VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SITTING FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME WITH NO ACTION. SO WE'RE GOING AFTER THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. THAT'S THE IDEA HERE. LET'S GET THE EASY STUFF OUT OF THE WAY FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN TACKLE OTHER STUFF POTENTIALLY. BUT THAT'S THE IDEA. COUNCILOR PRINCE SO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT FIRST, A QUESTION ON THE RESERVATION FEE. SO IF I'M A DEVELOPER, DOES INITIATING THIS RESERVATION FEE APPROACH END UP COSTING MORE IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OR WOULD THE RESERVATION FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, EARN AN IMPACT FEE CREDIT SO THAT THE BOTTOM LINE FOR A TOTAL COST OF DEVELOPMENT IS UNCHANGED? I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON THAT. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOU FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND AND, AND LOOK AT THOSE. I THINK THE RESERVATION FEES ARE SEPARATE FROM IMPACT FEES. IMPACT FEES ARE PAID FOR BASED ON THE THE IMPACT THAT AN IMPACT FEES ARE PAID, TYPICALLY AT DEVELOPMENT AT SOME SOME PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS A RESERVATION FEE. THE IDEA BEHIND A RESERVATION FEE IS THAT IT'S NOT PAID. IT IS PAID IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, THINK OF IT AS THE, THE IT'S ANALOGOUS TO YOUR BUILDING PERMIT FEES THAT HAVE REALLY, WHAT WAS IT CALLED? EXTENSION FEES THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT. YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP. OKAY. WELL, THEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND IN THE. BUT IN THE CASE OF, OF, OF, OF LUIS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A BIG DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CITY'S CAPACITY, AND YOU WANT TO TIE THAT UP, THIS IS A MECHANISM THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THESE THINGS TO BE TIED UP FOR 20 YEARS SO THAT IT, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE TO BEGIN THE UNDER TC RULES, YOU HAVE TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PLANT EXPANSION. BUT WHY, YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS BE BURDENED WITH A PLANT EXPANSION WHEN I'M JUST MAKING THIS UP? BUT WHEN 25% OF THAT CAPACITY ISN'T REAL? I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S UNFAIR TO THE TAXPAYERS, RIGHT? YOU SHOULDN'T THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO ENGAGE IN THAT KIND OF AN EXPENDITURE. IF A CHUNK, WHATEVER THAT IS, OF THAT CAPACITY ISN'T REAL. AND IT AND IT PROHIBITS AND INHIBITS DEVELOPERS WHO ARE COMING IN TODAY WHO ARE READY TO TURN DIRT, RIGHT. YOU WANT TO HELP THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE REALLY GOING TO BE ACTIVE, WHO ARE GOING TO BRING NEW DEVELOPMENT INTO THE CITY. AND SO BY CLEARING OUT STUFF THAT'S BEING RESERVED, YOU KNOW, IT'S RESERVED, BUT NOT ACTUALLY BEING UTILIZED, IT ALLOWS NEW DEVELOPERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY READY TO TURN DIRT TO COME IN AND DO THAT. THANKS. I THINK UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BETTER AS TO DOES THIS RESERVATION FEE APPROACH MATERIALLY INCREASE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF LAGO [02:05:03] VISTA OR NOT? I THINK WOULD BE WOULD BE, WOULD BE HELPFUL. I OKAY, YEAH, I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND AND IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE FEES ARE. AND IT ALSO DEPENDS ON. IT. IT DEPENDS. AND THE REASON IT DEPENDS IS BECAUSE IT MIGHT BEHOOVE A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT TO, TO EXTEND FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, BECAUSE THE MARKET IS SUCH THAT RIGHT. YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING RIGHT NOW ISN'T, ISN'T ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL. BUT WITHIN THAT NEXT TWO YEAR PERIOD, IT IS. AND SO IT BECOMES MUCH MORE ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL. IT'S SO, SO FROM A, FROM AN UPFRONT STANDPOINT, COULD IT, YOU KNOW, INCREASE PERHAPS ON THE BACK END? IT DEPENDS. YEAH. AND THEN FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SOME OF YOU, MAYBE ALL OF YOU RECOGNIZE THIS. WE WE'VE, WE HAVE NOT DONE OUR CAPACITY PLANNING ON AN EXPANSION PLANS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CONCEPT PLANS THAT ARE OUT THERE. RIGHT. I MEAN, IF WE DID THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE OUR CAPACITY ON THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SIDE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PLATTED LOTS IN OLD LAGO VISTA, AND WE HAVE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PDS THAT HAVE DETAILED CONCEPT PLANS. SO WE'VE BEEN APPLYING JUDGMENT ON WHAT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. I WOULD SAY OUR CAPACITY PLANNING HAS BEEN MORE BASED ON, DO WE THINK GROWTH RATE IS GOING TO BE 3% OR 6% OR 8%? AND BASED ON THAT GROWTH RATE, WHEN WILL WE RUN OUT OF WATER? YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T BEEN SAYING HOW LONG DO WE THINK IT'LL TAKE FIREFLY TO, TO FILL UP ALL THE, THE UNITS THAT ARE IN THERE, DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN. SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT TAKING THE FIVE OLDEST OFF OF OUR, OUR MAPS REALLY IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE WAY WE PLAN FOR OUR CAPACITY. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THIS 3%, 6% KIND OF GROWTH, BUT I STILL THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO REMOVE THAT ONE FACTOR OF UNCERTAINTY. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS, BUT I THINK THAT OUR ABILITY TO CAPACITY PLAN IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT. THIS DOESN'T SOLVE THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR CAPACITY PLANNING BY DOING THIS. NEVERTHELESS, I SHOULD DO IT. AND THEN THE THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS UNDER PREVIOUS STAFF, GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS, NOT THE NOT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR WHO WAS HERE FOR A FEW MONTHS, BUT THE ONE BEFORE HIM WHO WAS HERE FOR MANY YEARS WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE LIST. AND I THINK SOME OF THE ONES THAT ARE SHOWN AS BEING INACTIVE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS MAY HAVE SOME ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT CITY BASED ACTIVITY. RIGHT. AND THE ONE THAT I REMEMBER JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS NUMBER ONE ON THIS LIST. LOT EIGHT, THE ISLAND. I THINK TWO YEARS AGO, THEY WERE DOING SOME ENGINEERING, DRILLING CORE SAMPLES ON THEIR LAND, WHICH HAD NO CITY INVOLVEMENT AT ALL. THERE'S NO CITY RECORDS AROUND IT, SO I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY THINK TODAY'S STAFF WOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT. BUT IF WE WENT BACK TO THOSE FOLKS, THEY WOULD SAY, OH YEAH, WE'VE BEEN ACTIVE. WE JUST SPENT, YOU KNOW, $40,000 ON ENGINEERING CORE SAMPLES TO, TO TEST THE, THE LAND A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SO NOT ALL OF THESE MAY, MAY STICK, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD STARTING POINT. UNDERSTOOD. AND THEN, THEN IF NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL GET AN UPDATE TO THIS CHART THAT'S IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET THAT. SO WE HAVE ACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATE OF REAL LAST ACTIVITY, BECAUSE IT'LL BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO BRING THAT FORWARD. EXACTLY. COUNCILOR BENEFIELD THANK YOU. GREAT DISCUSSION. I THINK IF I WAS TO IF THREE GOOD THINGS COULD COME FROM THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK I COULD QUANTIFY IT LIKE THIS. NUMBER ONE, I'D LIKE TO SEE COUNCIL APPROVE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE RIGHT WORD IS SENDING IT BACK TO P AND Z, BUT CERTAINLY IDENTIFYING WHAT SHOULD BE SENT TO P AND Z TO HAVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON ANY ZONING CHANGES. NUMBER TWO, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ORDINANCE REWRITE TO CLEAN THIS UP. AND THEN NUMBER THREE, SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN NUMBER THREE, PERHAPS THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IF THERE IS CONTESTED SCENARIOS LIKE WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, THAT AT LEAST WE CAN START THE SHOT CLOCK ON THESE PEOPLE TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE DEEM AS BEING DORMANT OR NOT DORMANT. THIS IS WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE ACTIVITY. AND TWO YEARS FROM NOW, WE CAN HAVE THEN THIS EXACT SAME DISCUSSION SAYING, HEY, LET'S SEND THESE 3 OR 4 PDS BACK TO P AND Z TO SEE IF THEY'VE MET THOSE NEW ORDINANCE THRESHOLDS. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE THREE THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE IS, YOU KNOW, GET AS MANY AS WE CAN CLEARED UP. AND AS CHARLES AND BRAD SAID, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FREE UP A MILLION PLUS GALLONS PER DAY. THE STICKY, THE STICKY ONES, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE ON A [02:10:03] CASE BY CASE BASIS. PRONG TWO LET'S GET OUR ORDINANCE REWRITTEN. THE APPROPRIATELY AND THEN PRONG THREE IS IN ALL THAT, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A MECHANISM IN THERE THAT CAN START A SHOT CLOCK FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT MIGHT BE CONTESTING THE DORMANCY OF IT, AND THEN MAYBE EVEN FOUR IS IN THAT ORDINANCE REWRITE. WE JUST HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT ALL FUTURE PDS, MUCH LIKE THE HOTEL, HAS TO HAVE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, OR IT AUTOMATICALLY YOU LOSE ANY KIND OF ZONING. SO I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH. AND THEN WE JUST SOLVE THIS. WE DEAL WITH THE 10 OR 12 WE HAVE DANGLING OUT THERE, BUT THEN WE REWRITE THE ORDINANCE SO WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD HAVING THE SAME ISSUE IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. THAT'S THE KIND OF DIRECTION I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT. AND KAREN, YOU HAD A QUESTION THAT YOU WANTED TO GO BACK. DID YOU WANTED TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE YOU MADE A DECISION COMING OUT? OH, NO, I'M ALL FOR THIS. I JUST THINK SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT I'LL HAVE WHEN WE'RE BACK THERE. SO. ALL RIGHT. YES, MA'AM. WELL, WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE MOTION IS. WE PROVIDED A LOT OF DIRECTION TO STAFF, I THINK. I DON'T THINK MOVING ON THE OLDEST OF THESE AND GET THAT GET IT STARTED IN THE PROCESS TO GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING. SO MY RECOMMENDATION, COUNSEL, IS TO UNDERTAKE THE PROCESS OF WE'VE GOT WE'VE WE'VE TARGETED FIVE OF THESE THAT THAT ARE THE, THE OLDEST AND THE E'S THAT LOW HANGING FRUIT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS, GIVEN THE PROCESS THAT'S SET FORTH IN YOUR ORDINANCES, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THE CITY INITIATED OR INITIATED REZONING OCCUR FOR THOSE. FIVE. WE IDENTIFY THEM, YOU KNOW, STAFF WILL BRING THAT FORWARD AND BEGIN THAT PROCESS OF REZONING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. AND THEN AS WE GO FORWARD, WE WILL THEN DRAFT THOSE REZONING. YOU KNOW, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? I MEAN, DO YOU JUST WANT TO PULL OUT THE LOWS OR DO YOU WANT TO DO A SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW OF SOME OF THESE AS WELL? YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S A POLICY DECISION YOU GET TO MAKE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REZONE IT, DO YOU HOW BROAD DO YOU WANT THEM TO BE REZONED? AND SO IT MAY IT MAY BE THAT FOR THIS ONE, IT'S JUST FINE TO PULL OUT THE LOWS. BUT FOR THIS ONE, WE WANT TO HAVE A MORE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW. I, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO PROVIDE YOU, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE YOU A MEMO. THESE ARE THE FIVE. THIS IS WHAT WE THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'LL DO. AND AND THEN JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WANT. AND IT'S A AND, AND THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I, THE ORDINANCE REWRITE I AGREE NEEDS TO HAPPEN. I'LL DEFER TO Y'ALL BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW. SO IF, IF IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT'S GREAT. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT AS A STANDALONE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO THAT TOO. SO THAT MAY BE DIRECTION AS TO THAT. BUT THE FIRST STEP IS THIS REZONING PROCESS. THE CITY INITIATED REZONING OR P AND Z IS THE CASE. MAY BE. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS LIKE THAT. THERE WAS DIRECTION IN TERMS OF WHAT BRAD WAS SAYING. I THINK YOU NEEDED GENERAL DIRECTION FROM US. SORT OF, EXCEPT YOU ASKED YOU ASKED SOME QUESTIONS. JUST KIND OF OPEN IT UP FOR ME. THE DIRECTION WOULD BE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED FIVE THAT ARE REALLY OLD. GO INITIATE THE REZONING TO TR ONE. SO WE RESET THE WHOLE THING, NOT JUST YOU, BUT INITIATE REZONING TO TR ONE SO THAT THE WHOLE P, D, D AND THE CONCEPT PLAN GETS WIPED CLEAN UNLESS THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND PROVES THAT THEY REALLY ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. BUT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WANTED. BUT IF THAT'S, THAT'S EASY, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. RIGHT. OKAY. THE MOTION IS THAT WE ASK STAFF TO INITIATE REZONING FOR THE FIVE OLDEST PROPERTIES I'VE IDENTIFIED TO TR ONE AND FOLLOW THE STANDARD PROCESS ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO COUNSELOR PRINCE HAS STATED A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. COUNSELOR HALL HAS PROVIDED A SECOND. ALL THOSE. SORRY. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. COUNSELOR BENNEFIELD. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD DO THE FIRST FIVE. BUT AFTER WE WERE DONE WITH THE FIRST FIVE, WOULD THERE BE ANY WISDOM? AND THEN LOOKING AT THE NEXT FIVE, I MEAN, WHY I MEAN, WHY STOP AT THE FIRST FIVE? I MEAN, LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT ALL OF THEM, BUT LET'S INITIATE THE FIRST FIVE AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. WE DEAL WITH THOSE AND THEN STAFF CAN THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT FIVE. SO I CAN ANSWER THAT, OKAY, BROADLY, AND THEN I CAN GIVE MORE SPECIFICS IN THE IN THE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BECAUSE THAT GOES TO SOME OF COUNSELOR [02:15:01] VANESSA'S QUESTIONS. THE FIRST FIVE WERE CHOSEN BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART, THERE'S KIND OF A JUMP, RIGHT? YOU GOT VERY, VERY OLD. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT KIND OF A GRAY ZONE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THESE FIRST FIVE, WHY I CALL THEM THE LOW HANGING FRUIT, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUALIZED DISCUSSION WITH THOSE. THE NEXT GROUP, BECAUSE THERE IS A BIG JUMP IN TIME. IT GETS A LOT CLOSER AS OPPOSED TO WE'VE GOT SOME THAT ARE 20, WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE 15 IT GOES FROM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THAT AGE TO FIVE ISH. SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND DISCUSS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES BACK THERE. IS THERE ANY WISDOM IN GIVING COUNCIL DIRECTION TO ALSO CONSIDER REWRITING OUR ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME? I DON'T NEED A MOTION FOR THAT. BUT I MEAN, WE DO RECOMMEND IT. AND IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT AS PART OF YOUR DIAGNOSTIC, YOU KNOW, THE BIG DIAGNOSTIC, OR DO YOU WANT US TO JUST DRAFT A STANDALONE? NOW, I DON'T WANT TO SCREW UP YOUR DIAGNOSTIC. I KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE. SO WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT. MY RECOMMENDATION ON THAT IS LET THEM GO AHEAD AND DRAFT THIS UP SOMETHING SO Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK FROM. OKAY. THAT THAT IS GENERAL STAFF DIRECTION. BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNSELOR PRINCE MADE A MOTION AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HALL AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FROM COUNSELOR BENNEFIELD. BUT THERE WASN'T AN ACT TO REDO, WAS THERE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL RIGHT. GREAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. AND SO JUST TO KEEP THAT SPIRIT GOING RATHER THAN GOING BACK TO THE [IX.1. Consider, discuss, and take action on Ordinance No. 26-05-21-01 for the Unified Fee Schedule with Updates to the Development Services Department Fees] TOP OF THE LIST, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND STAY WITH THE ACTION ITEMS AND GO TO ACTION ITEM 8.1 CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-05-21-01 FOR THE UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE WITH UPDATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES. ALL RIGHT. SO CHARLES, WILL YOU BE STAFF ON THAT ONE? I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. JORDAN DID A GOOD JOB OF PUTTING THAT TOGETHER AND TYING IT ALL BACK. THAT THE FEE SCHEDULE THEY'RE PROPOSING IS ALL BASED OFF OF THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT. SOME OF IT IS SIGNIFICANT INCREASES, BUT LIKE I SAID, SHE'S GOT IT ALL JUSTIFIED ON THE COST AND ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE FEES. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. STAFF IS REVIEWING OTHER FEES THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMING BACK TO COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSELOR PRINCE, ONE KIND OF HIGH LEVEL QUESTION. AND THIS UNFORTUNATELY, MAYBE JORDAN'S THE ONE TO ANSWER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS BOTH A FEE STRUCTURE IN THIS MATERIAL AND A STAFFING PLAN IN THIS MATERIAL. AND SO ARE ARE WE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THIS STAFFING PLAN AS WELL, MR. WEST, OR JUST THE FEE STRUCTURE AND THE STAFFING PLAN WILL COME BACK AS NORMAL BUDGETING PROCESS, STAFFING, STAFFING WILL BE PART OF THE NORMAL BUDGETING PROCESS. THAT IS JUST LONG, LONG RANGE. WE DON'T WE DON'T FORESEE THAT STAFFING LEVELS TO BE HIT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. UNLESS DEVELOPMENT REALLY PICKS UP. WHETHER THERE WERE TWO LEVELS, RIGHT? THERE WAS THE AS I READ IT, THERE WAS SORT OF THE THIS IS WHAT WHAT JORDAN THINKS SHE NEEDS TO DO RIGHT AWAY. AND THEN THIS IS THE LATER EXPANSION AS NEEDED. THAT'S ACCURATE. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSELOR PRINCE. WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THE THE TABLE OF FEES IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX. AND I FRANKLY AM AT A LOSS AS TO HOW TO ANALYZE IT. SO IT KIND OF COMES DOWN TO EITHER TRUST STAFF AND GO WITH IT, OR SPEND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS OF COUNCIL TIME GOING THROUGH EVERY FEE AND UNDERSTANDING. SO I'M PROBABLY GOING TO COME DOWN ON THE FORMER, NOT THE LATTER, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DO IT JUSTICE. WITHOUT, WITHOUT JUST TRUSTING STAFF THAT THEY'VE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK AND WE SHOULD GO WITH IT. SO I'M LEANING TOWARDS TOWARDS APPROVING. ANYONE ELSE. ALL RIGHT, COUNSELOR HALL, I'LL JUST HAVE I HAD THE EXACT SAME QUESTION AS COUNSELOR PRINCE. WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT THIS WONDERING WHY IN THE HECK IS THE STAFFING IN THERE? ARE WE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE STAFFING WHEN WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A FEE SCHEDULE? AND SO SOMEBODY I APPRECIATE [02:20:01] THE EXPLANATION ON THAT. COUNSELOR CHAVARRIA I WILL SAY I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT COUNSELOR PRINCE SAID ABOUT HOW HOW DETAILED IT IS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I DID LOOK AT A COUPLE OF OTHER CITIES AS COMPARISON AND NOTICE THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ON THE MARK ON SOME OF THEM, AND SOME OF THEM ARE A LITTLE OFF. AND WHEN I SAW THE STAFFING PLAN INCLUDED INTO IT, I WAS LIKE, DID SHE DO THIS? BECAUSE SHE WAS TRYING TO SHOW US HOW MANY HOURS OR HOW, WHO WAS GOING TO BE WORKING ON THIS AND HOW THIS FEE STRUCTURE PERTAIN TO THAT? I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS JUST LIKE PUT IN THERE ON ACCIDENT. BUT YEAH, I AGREE. AND FROM WHAT I RECOLLECT WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH JORDAN REGARDING THIS, IS THAT SHOULD THIS FEE STRUCTURE, IT CAN ALWAYS BE ADJUSTED WITHIN WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO. I BELIEVE IF THEY FIND THAT THE IT'S EITHER THE COSTS EXCEED OR IF IT'S NOT RECAPTURING WHAT THEY FEEL IS NECESSARY. SO SHE SAID THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A BREAKDOWN AND MAKES IT A LOT MORE DETAILED THAN THEY'VE EVER HAD IT BEFORE. BUT IN COMPARISON TO SOME OF THE OTHER REPORTS THAT I LOOKED AT, IT'S VERY, VERY SIMILAR. YES. MR. WEST, I WILL SAY THAT WHENEVER THEY FIRST HANDED ME THIS, I DID GO HAVE SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH JORDAN AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS THAT HAD A FEE IN THIS. AND THEY BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THAT COMPARE US TO THE CITIES WITHIN OUR AREA? AND IT KEEPS US RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE. I DID NOT REALIZE HOW BELOW WE WERE UNTIL SHE BROUGHT THIS TO MY ATTENTION. AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS ON STAFFING BECAUSE I SAID, WE'RE NOT FIXING TO HIRE THIS MANY PEOPLE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY. BUT YEAH, I DO THINK SHE'S DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PUTTING IT. AND SHE WAS VERY THOROUGH, AND SHE'S BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION I'VE HAD ON IT. SO I'M CONFIDENT IN THE NUMBERS SHE HAS PUT TOGETHER. WELL, YES. GO AHEAD, COUNCILOR VENICE. YES I AGREE. I THINK BECAUSE WE'VE SHE'S TALKED TO US AT COUNCIL ABOUT THIS A FEW TIMES BEFORE, BUT SHE'S GONE BACK AND I THINK HER AND HER STAFF HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB RATIONALIZING THE FEES, THE CHANGES IN FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES THAT WE WEREN'T PREVIOUSLY COLLECTING AND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AND I THINK IT'S VERY DEFENSIBLE. THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO THIS, AND THE BENCHMARKING, OF COURSE, IS FULLY APPRECIATED AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT TOO OUT OF WHACK COMPARED TO OTHER COMMUNITIES. SO I'M PREPARED TO APPROVE THIS FOR SURE. I THINK IT'S A REAL IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE, BECAUSE AS WE KEEP HEARING, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ADD CLARITY AND BETTER SERVICE DELIVERY AROUND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO THIS IS A GREAT STEP. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT IN TALKING TO HER. I MEAN, WE'VE HAD THIS HERE BEFORE. SHE ACTUALLY DID PUT IN TO THE TABLE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL WHERE WE STOOD AMONGST OTHER CITIES. I THINK THAT THIS WILL REDUCE OUR WORKLOAD GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME FEES THAT WERE BROUGHT BACK INTO LINE THAT ARE DEFINITELY MORE COMPARABLE TO WHAT STAFF TIME IS BEING EXTENDED. SO ANYWAY, I'LL JUST SAY THAT WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COUNCILOR VAN NESS. YES, MA'AM. I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT. WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-05-21-01 FOR THE UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE WITH UPDATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU. AND SO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? CAN I CAN I ADD TO THAT OR DOES THAT NEED TO BE A SECOND BEFORE THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO ADD, THE ONLY THING I THINK COULD BE ADDED IS THAT THE PIECE WILL BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY AND ADOPTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ANNUAL BUDGET TO PROTECT THE. ADDED TO THE TO THE MOTION. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT? YES, I ACCEPT THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN, COUNSELOR HALL, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU GUYS. ALL RIGHT. CELEBRATED WITH THUNDER AND LIGHTNING. ALL RIGHT. WELL SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND AND GO BACK TO THE TOP WHERE WE HAD [VIII.1. Ratify Ordinance No. 26-05-07-04, adopting the amended Rules of Procedure for the City Council, boards, and commissions.] UNDER OUR CONSENT AGENDA RATIFY ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-05-07-04. ADOPTING THE AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO. AGAIN, WOULD WE HAVE THIS UNDER STAFF? WOULD MR. BENNEFIELD. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I SUPPORT THE RULES AND [02:25:01] PROCEDURES AS THEY ARE TODAY. I THINK EVERYBODY ON CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MR. ROBERTS. HE HIGHLIGHTED 10 OR 11 CONCERNS. I FELT LIKE PERSONALLY, ALL OF THE MOST OF THE CONCERNS HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE CURRENT VERSION. SO. I'M NOT HERE NECESSARILY TO ADVOCATE FOR ANY OF THESE THREE THAT I PICKED OUT THAT I FELT LIKE HAD MERIT. NUMBER ONE. HE. MR. ROBERTS MENTIONED THE PUBLIC HEARING SEQUENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHO ENDED UP WATCHING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OR AROUND APRIL 15TH, BUT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNUSUAL SNAFU THAT HAPPENED AT AT THAT MEETING, WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL. AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENTIONAL. IT JUST HAPPENED THIS WAY WHERE MISS AIRD STARTED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IMMEDIATELY HAD BEFORE THERE WAS ANY PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, HAD THE CITY COME UP OR THE PUBLIC DO THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN AFTERWARDS, STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER WERE ABLE TO DO THEIR PRESENTATION, AND IT ADDED A LOT OF CONFUSION AND ADDED A LOT OF WEIRDNESS TO THE MEETING. THERE WAS SOME DISPUTES AMONGST THE CITIZENS ABOUT WANTING TO BE ABLE TO GET UP AND SPEAK A SECOND TIME. AND IT JUST IT JUST WAS A REALLY NOT A GREAT MEETING FROM A COHESIVE PERSPECTIVE. AND SO ONE OF MR. ROBERTS COMMENTS WAS, IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCEDURE ABOUT HOW THERE ARE STAFF COMMENTS. THEN YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU RECEIVE THE PUBLIC INPUT, YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN COUNCIL DELIBERATES AND ACTS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL NEEDS TO BE IN OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES. HE FELT LIKE IT DID. I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH HAVING A QUICK DISCUSSION DURING THIS MEETING. NUMBER TWO, HE MENTIONED CHAIR, CHAIR NEUTRALITY, EXPRESSING THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHOULD TAKE A LESS ACTIVE ROLE IN DEBATE AND SHOULD NOT MAKE A MOTION UNLESS NO OTHER MEMBER DOES. SO THAT USUALLY IS A GUARDRAIL FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND THEN NUMBER THREE, THE I GUESS WE CALL IT THE OLD RULES AND PROCEDURES HAD A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT, WHEREAS THIS NEW RULES AND PROCEDURE HAS A SIMPLE MAJORITY REQUIREMENT. AND HE RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ABOUT REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY TO SUSPEND OR AMEND THE RULES. SO I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THOSE. I JUST THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE A QUICK DISCUSSION. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADD THOSE TO THE CURRENT VERSION. COUNCILOR VENICE YES, I, I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR BENEFIELD ON THOSE. AND THEN I THINK THE THE POINTS MADE ABOUT THE CURRENT LIAISON PROVISIONS THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD CONSIDER REINSTATING. THAT TO ME WOULD BE IMPORTANT AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK WE GIVE ADDITIONAL LEEWAY THERE, WHICH IS INAPPROPRIATE. AND SO ANYWAYS, I FEEL I, I AGREE WITH PULLING IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. INITIALLY, I WAS REALLY READY TO LISTEN TO MORE EXPERIENCED COUNCILORS, WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO PERHAPS SIMPLIFY OR STREAMLINE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE MORE EXPERIENCE. NOW I'VE HAD ON COUNCIL, I'VE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL FORMER COUNCILORS, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES JUST TO GET A WIDE RANGE OF INPUT. AND I FEEL LIKE THESE STILL NEED MORE WORK. SO I KNOW WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO APPROVING THEM. BUT AND MY OTHER THING IS LOOKING AT THESE IN TANDEM WITH THE ETHICS POLICY, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE ETHICS POLICY TO REDUCE THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS TO WEAPONIZE IT. SOME OTHER CHANGES STREAMLINING THAT. I REALLY FEEL LIKE THESE, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE TWO IN TANDEM BECAUSE THEY REFER TO EACH OTHER. SO IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO TAKE A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH AROUND THE TWO DOCUMENTS. AGAIN, NOT TO SLOW ROLL EVERYTHING, BUT NOW THAT I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL LONGER, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE STILL WANT TO KEEP SOME CERTAIN PROVISIONS DOCUMENTED IN THE ROPES AND WITHIN THE ETHICS POLICY. SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, TAKE A STEP BACK. WE WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT AND AND CONTINUE TO WORK THESE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR. SO MR. ROBERTS DIDN'T COPY ME ON HIS NOTE. I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHO ALL HE SENT IT TO. BUT BUT HE AND I HAVE HAD PRETTY STRONGLY DIFFERING OPINIONS ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OVER THE YEARS. SO THAT MAY BE WHY HE DIDN'T COPY ME ON IT, I. I ACTUALLY AM NOT IN FAVOR OF MAKING ANY CHANGES OVER WHAT'S IN THE PACKAGE TODAY. REGARDING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT PLANNING AND ZONING, I'VE ALREADY HAD A COACHING SESSION WITH MISS AIRD ABOUT HOW TYPICALLY WE HAVE DONE THE ORDER AND HOW IT'S PROBABLY [02:30:02] APPROPRIATE TO HAVE STAFF COMMENTS OR OR THE DEVELOPER COMMENTS BEFORE CITIZEN COMMENTS. SO THEY HAVE THE FULL SET OF DATA. AND SHE HADN'T DONE THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK SHE JUST HADN'T THOUGHT THROUGH THE SEQUENCE. SO WE COULD WE COULD PUT THAT IN. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT? I DON'T I DON'T THINK SO. WE DID HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT LIAISONS THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE LIAISONS HAD TOO MUCH INFLUENCE. THE WAY IT GOT REWRITTEN. THE LIAISONS WERE THE ONLY ONE OF SEVEN WHO COULD NOT INTERACT WITH THE BODY. THEY WERE THE LIAISON FOR. THE OTHER SIX HAD PRETTY FREEDOM TO GO TALK AS MUCH AS THEY WANTED. SO I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT NOW IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, RIGHT PLACE TO BE. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE CHANGES. I THINK WHAT WE'VE GOT IN HERE NOW IS GOOD. AS ALSO AS I STATED LAST TIME, WE'VE SPENT TENS AND TENS OF HOURS ON THIS, PROBABLY 100 HOURS OR MORE OF CITY COUNCIL TIME ON THIS IN MY FIVE YEARS. AND I THINK THIS SIMPLIFICATION IS GOOD. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST APPROVE IT AND, AND MOVE ON AND USE, YOU KNOW, USE GOOD BEHAVIOR, NOT TRY TO LITIGATE ALL THE DETAILS. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILOR BENEFIELD BRET, DOES THIS REQUIRE. DOES THIS REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY? BEING THAT IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED LAST TIME, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND AND I'LL DEFER TO MAYBE ROBIN OR SOMEBODY WHO RECALLS THE MOTION, BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE THE MOTION TO WAS TO APPROVE WITH TWO CHANGES. THAT'S CORRECT. THOSE CHANGES WERE, I GUESS, READ INTO THE RECORD OR SENT. AND THEN TONIGHT WAS JUST TO RATIFY THOSE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THE LANGUAGE RIGHT. THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION LAST TIME WAS THAT THOSE RULES OF PROCEDURE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. AND SO WHAT, WHAT AND I, I DID SEE MR. ROBERTS LENGTHY COMMENTS ON, ON, ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE VOTE WAS, BUT I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR SOMETHING. THIS IS THIS, WHICH I GUESS YOU COULD DO BECAUSE THIS IS THIS NEXT MEETING, BUT THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN RAISE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS SOMEONE WHO VOTED FOR IT. SO WHAT YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REOPEN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH I GUESS TECHNICALLY YOU COULD DO, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE MOTION. SO SO TO MY MIND, THOSE RULES WERE ADOPTED LAST TIME, AND THOSE RULES DID AWAY WITH THE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THOUGHT THOSE. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THOUGHT THOSE RULES DID AWAY WITH THE SUPERMAJORITY. SO YOU DON'T NEED A SUPERMAJORITY TO, TO CHANGE THEM. BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT PRIOR VOTE, I THINK IS WOULD PROCEDURALLY BE PROPER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. I DON'T CARE WHAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE PROCEDURAL MECHANISM IS. THANK YOU FOR THAT, BRAD. I DID WANT TO HAVE ONE QUESTION BECAUSE, YES, THIS WAS A RATIFICATION TONIGHT, BUT I WAS QUESTIONING ABOUT THE IMPLICATION, THE ONE CHANGE THAT ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE DID APPROVE THAT EVENING WAS ON 6.05 ON DISCIPLINE. ANY FORMAL CENSURE, DISCIPLINE OR REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL PROCEED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY CHARTER, THE CITY ETHICS ORDINANCE, STATE LAW AND PROPERLY POSTED AGENDA ITEM COULD. THE REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER? I MEAN, I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. CAN THAT MEAN BEYOND JUST REMOVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF? COULD IT BE IN REGARD. COULD THIS MEAN ALSO AS STIPULATED FOR LIAISON ROLES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO. SO THAT THAT THAT SECTION. TALKS ABOUT IT REALLY, REALLY ONLY MEANS TO THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. AND, AND THERE IS THERE ARE REALLY THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN STATE LAW FOR THAT OTHER. I MEAN, I GUESS CRIMINAL, YOU KNOW, I SUPPOSE THERE IS. BUT BUT BUT REALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS UNDER YOUR CHARTER PROVIDES FOR A DISCIPLINARY REMOVAL MECHANISM, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT UP IN FRONT OF ME. BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO A RECALL PROVISION IN YOUR CHARTER AS WELL AS I RECALL, AS I THINK. SO THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS IS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, NOT FROM SOME SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT JUST MEANS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND JUST [02:35:04] TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S A VERY NARROW TYPE OF MECHANISM THAT IS SET FORTH IN YOUR CHARTER. I MEAN, SO IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S UNUSUAL. BUT ANYWAY, OKAY, OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, COUNCILOR PRINCE, FOR THE, FOR, FOR THE RECORD, I'M LOOKING AT THE MINUTES WHICH WE APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER TONIGHT OF THIS ITEM, WHICH WAS FROM TWO WEEKS AGO. AND SO IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BENEFIELD. OH, IT SAID TO ADOPT THE AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE MOVED BY MR. BENEFIELD, SECONDED BY MISS CHAVARRIA, AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY SIX TO NOTHING, WITH MR. SONG BEING NOT PRESENT. SO. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THE MINUTES READ. YEAH. SO I MEAN, I THINK I THINK YOU'VE GOT THE NEW RULES. THEY'VE BEEN ADOPTED. NOW IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN YOU CAN. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE IS I THINK, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, A MOTION TO RECONSIDER SINCE IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED, ANYBODY COULD DO IT SINCE YOU ALL VOTED FOR IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER WHICH WOULD REOPEN THE WHOLE THING. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, GO FOR IT. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILOR, SO DO WE NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE, OR CAN WE JUST SAY THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS OR CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND THAT CAN COME UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM? I MEAN, ARE WE I SUPPOSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS YOU DURING THE COURSE OF THIS YEAR FROM PUTTING AN AGENDA ITEM ON TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. YOU COULD DO THAT. TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM WAS REALLY JUST FOR THE RATIFICATION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY ADOPTED, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT BECAUSE ALL I DID WAS I TOOK THAT LANGUAGE, BUT IN ORDER, I HAD TO CREATE TWO NEW SUBSECTIONS IN ORDER TO ADD THOSE IN. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY SAW IT, THAT I PUT IT WHERE Y'ALL WANTED IT, BUT THAT SUBSTANTIVELY, THAT WAS WHAT YOU ALL APPROVED. AND ONLY THE ONLY CHANGE I MADE WAS TO ADD TO LIKE A 6.5 OR WHATEVER. I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS, WHATEVER I ADDED, THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON TO BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. YOU THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER, SINCE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN RECONSIDER IS UNDER THE UNDER WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? ROSENBERG TYPICALLY RIGHT, IS IT HAS TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND IT HAS TO BE BY SOMEONE WHO VOTED FOR THE MEASURE. SO SO THAT'S THE TECHNICAL WAY TO DO IT IF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT BUT YOU COULD ALSO IN THE FUTURE PUT AN AGENDA ITEM ON SAY, I WANT TO AMEND SECTION 5.5 OR WHATEVER, OR ADD A NEW SECTION OR WHATEVER. YOU COULD DO THAT I DON'T THINK TONIGHT IS THE PROPER MECHANISM TO DO THAT. TONIGHT. YOU COULD REALLY ONLY RECONSIDER THAT PRIOR ADOPTION. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A CITIZEN COMMENT. SO, PAUL ROBERTS, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR. YEAH. THERE YOU GO. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. HEY, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS, BUT THERE'S SOME IMPORTANT CONTEXT THAT I THINK YOU GUYS NEED TO REMEMBER. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ETHICS POLICY A FEW MINUTES AGO UNDER THE CURRENT OUR CURRENT ETHICS POLICY, WHEN THERE'S A VIOLATION OF SOMETHING, IT'S UP TO TWO YEARS UNTIL. SOMEBODY COULD BRING COULD FILE A COMPLAINT UP TO TWO YEARS AFTER THE MATTER HAPPENED. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MENTIONED THE PRIOR THE TWO MEETINGS AGO, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WERE BROKEN, APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN BROKEN BY THE CHAIR ON TWO OCCASIONS IN THE LIAISON A COUPLE OCCASIONS AS WELL. SOMEBODY COULD HOLD THAT OVER THEIR HEAD FOR UP TO TWO YEARS. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THE CURRENT RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDE FOR THE CURRENT ITERATION THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, PROVIDES FOR 30 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE WAY IT'S THE WAY WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT TIES IT TO THE ETHICS POLICY, WHICH IS TWO YEARS. SO IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT TIME FRAME OF 30 DAYS VERSUS TWO YEARS, THEN YOU NEED TO AMEND THE ETHICS POLICY OR AMEND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. TONIGHT, A COUPLE OTHER ITEMS THAT CAME UP OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. OUR CURRENT RULES OF PROCEDURE ALREADY STIPULATE WHAT THE ORDER AGENDA, ORDER FLOW IS WHEN THE PUBLIC, WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO OCCUR, ETC. THAT'S ALREADY SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE. AND WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, IT'S IT'S A MAY IT'S CONDITIONAL. SO THAT MEANS A CHAIR OF A COMMITTEE OR THE [02:40:03] MAYOR OF ANY BODY UP ON THE DAIS. THEY DON'T HAVE THEY CAN DO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WHENEVER THEY WANT. SO IF THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED OUTCOME, THEY CAN MANIPULATE HOW THAT AGENDA UNFOLDS. AS FAR AS RESTRICTIONS ON LIAISONS VERSUS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT IS HIGHER ON THE LIAISON BECAUSE THE LIAISON MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT OR REMOVE. HISTORICALLY, IT'S CHANGED OVER TO NOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. THE THREE LIAISONS FOR THE COMMISSIONS OR THE BOE AND THE BSE AND THE IN THE P AND Z. BUT YOU STILL HAVE SOMEBODY IN A POSITION OF INFLUENCE OVER THESE INDIVIDUALS. THEY ALSO HAVE A BETTER THEY HAVE A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. THEY INTERACT WITH THEM THERE AT THE MEETINGS. SO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THEM UNDER THESE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, A COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL LIAISON, CAN DO WHAT THEY USED TO DO BEFORE I GOT THE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ADMITTED PREVIOUSLY, AND THEY CAN GO BACK TO PUTTING THINGS ON THE AGENDA THAT THEY WANT. SO A LIAISON TO A COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION CAN NOW USE THAT COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION TO PUSH THEIR OWN LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WHICH MIGHT NOT BE A POPULAR AGENDA. OR MAYBE IT IS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LIAISON THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE CHANGED THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, CONTRARY TO SOME DISSENT ON COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, IT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE LIAISON UNDULY INFLUENCING THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY. THEIR JOB IS TO JUST LIAISE. THAT'S IT. I FORGOT SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS I MENTIONED TO YOU GUYS. YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT A HILL. I'M PERSONALLY WANT TO DIE ON ARGUING THIS, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK HISTORICAL CONTEXT YOU GUYS MAY NOT BE AWARE OF. SO I FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND YOU AN EMAIL WITH THESE THESE OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS. AND YOU GUYS DO WITH THEM WHAT YOU WILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS. WE ARE LOOKING AT RATIFYING OUR. WHAT'S ON ON THE AGENDA IS TO RATIFY THE ORDINANCE. DO I HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. BUT JUST TO, I GUESS, ADDRESS KAREN'S CONCERNS REAL QUICK, I THINK IT I THINK YOU BRING UP SOME VALID CONCERNS. AND BECAUSE IT ONLY REQUIRES A MAJORITY NOW TO CHANGE THE RULES, IF THERE IS A DEFICIENCY OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE, AS BRAD INDICATED, WE CAN BRING IT BACK AT ANY POINT IN TIME AND ADD THOSE ADDITIONS, WHICH I THINK YOU BROUGHT UP SOME VALID THINGS. I THINK THEY COULD BE LITIGATED DOWN THE ROAD, BUT FOR TONIGHT, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS APPROVED, GET IT RATIFIED. AND THEN IF THERE ARE SOME THINGS DOWN THE ROAD WE NEED TO BUTTON UP, I WOULD LIKE THAT. SO I, I MOVE TO RATIFY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2605-07-04 AS WRITTEN IN THE PACKET. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY COUNCILOR BENNEFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL MAKE A SECOND. COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA HAS MADE A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION, COUNCILOR VENICE? YEAH. SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I THINK GOING AHEAD AND RATIFYING AND THEN SEEING HOW THESE WORK, RIGHT? GETTING SOME EXPERIENCE WITH THEM, ESPECIALLY FOR SOME OF US WHO, AGAIN, ARE NEW ON COUNCILOR AND DON'T HAVE THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, IS A FINE WAY TO GO AS LONG AS WE LEAVE OUR MINDS OPEN TO POTENTIALLY MAKING ENHANCEMENTS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THEM AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND I WOULD STILL ADVOCATE, LET'S WORK ON THE ETHICS POLICY AS OUR NEXT BOGEY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO BRING UP THAT, ROBIN, OUR CITY SECRETARY DID PUT OUR HAND OUT TODAY. I THINK OUR AGENDA LIST COMING OUT, OR AT LEAST I HAVE ONE HERE UPCOMING IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT AS A STANDING ITEM. OR DO YOU WANT TO BRING THAT FORWARD? COUNCILOR VENICE AS KEEP IT ON THIS POTENTIAL FUTURE ITEM, BUT NOT A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM ON A SPECIFIC MEETING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO DO I HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. KNOCK THESE DOWN. ALL RIGHT. 123. I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW ON OUR WORK SESSION ITEMS. CHARLES, ARE YOU ARE YOU [X.1. Update regarding HB 2844 regarding food trucks.] READY TO SPEAK ON. WORK SESSION ITEM NUMBER ONE? I THINK IT'S JUST AN UPDATE REGARDING HB 2844 REGARDING THE FOOD TRUCKS. NOPE, THAT ONE IS NOT MINE. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME [02:45:01] UP. I BELIEVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE OF THE NEW LAWS THAT WENT INTO EFFECT ON FOOD TRUCKS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE CITIES HAVE UNTIL JULY 1ST TO CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OR BECOME A STATE CONTRACTOR IF THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE PERMITS. IF NOT, THEN THOSE FOOD TRUCKS HAVE TO GET THEIR PERMITS FROM OTHER AREAS. YEAH. SO LET ME PULL UP THAT EMAIL OR LET'S SEE. OOPS, I NEED TO PLUG IN MY COMPUTER BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT TO DIE. SO THE IT WAS CALLED THE FOOD TRUCK FREEDOM BILL. SORRY. WHICH PREEMPTS LOCAL AUTHORITY, YOU KNOW, CITY HEALTH. DEPARTMENTS FROM PROHIBITING OR REGULATING MOBILE FOOD VENDORS IN A MANNER THAT CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW. SO. CITIES CAN REGULATE WHERE AND WHEN THEY OPERATE FIRE CODE, YOU KNOW, ZONING, ALL OF THAT IS STILL IN PLACE AND PERMISSIBLE TO REGULATE. WHAT THEY CAN'T DO IS BARRING A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR FROM OPERATING IN THEIR JURISDICTION. IF THE VENDOR HOLDS A LICENSE. ISSUED BY. THE STATE TO, TO, TO OPERATE. AND YOU CAN. THE CITY CAN I MEAN, YOU CERTAINLY CAN REPEAL OR AMEND YOUR FOOD TRUCK ORDINANCES, BUT I MEAN, AND THAT'S THAT'S FINE. THAT'S CLEAN. HOWEVER, AS OF AS OF JUNE 1ST, THEY BECOME TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW OR REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, PERMIT LOCAL PERMITS. THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO HAVE ONE CENTRALIZED PERMIT ISSUED BY THE STATE, AND THAT IF THEY HAVE IT, THEN THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE. RIGHT. AND SO YOU CERTAINLY CAN AND SHOULD, I SUPPOSE, YOU KNOW, AMEND YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ORDINANCES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PREEMPTED. SO IT KIND OF DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY SAY. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, GO CODE ENFORCE AGAINST A FOOD TRUCK. IF THEY HAVE A STATE PERMIT. AND LET'S SEE, I SAID, I THINK I SAID JUNE 1ST, I THINK IT'S JULY 1ST. AND THEN THE. THE, THE CITIES CAN. CONTRACT WITH THE STATE TO ISSUE THOSE PERMITS, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ISSUED UNDER THOSE STATE GUIDELINES. SO I MEAN, THAT'S IT. I DON'T I MEAN, I THINK YOU'VE GOT THAT ONE FOOD TRUCK PARK. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S NOT A I THINK THIS IS MORE FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS THAT IT IS ANYTHING BECAUSE CITIES WERE REQUIRING THEIR OWN HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS. SO ONE FOOD TRUCK MIGHT HAVE TO GET FIVE DIFFERENT HEALTH INSPECTIONS IN EVERY JURISDICTION IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS TO CLARIFY THAT. BUT LIKE OUR ZONING, IF FOOD TRUCKS ARE ONLY ALLOWED HERE OR HERE, THAT STILL STAYS THAT NONE OF THAT STAYS IN PLACE. SO I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY HAS ANY ANY EFFECT ON US. NO, NO. NO, I IT'S IT'S IT WAS TO ADDRESS EXACTLY WHAT CHARLES SAID. YOU KNOW, ONE FOOD TRUCK WHO GOES TO LAGO VISTA AND THEN ONE WEEKEND THERE AT BEE CAVE, AND THEN THEY'RE IN AUSTIN AND THEY'RE IN WHATEVER IS TO PREVENT THEM FROM HAVING TO GET 5 OR 6 DIFFERENT LICENSES. THAT'S THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS. HEALTH LICENSES, THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ZONING FIRE CODE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO FORTH. THAT'S IT AGAIN. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS A HUGE EFFECT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY REVIEW YOUR CODE AND DRAFT A, A COMPLIANT FOOD TRUCK FREEDOM BILL ORDINANCE FOR YOU. I JUST HAD TO SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. ALL RIGHT. I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CITIZEN COMMENT ON THIS. AND SO I'LL BRING HIM UP. DAVID. MY COMMENT IS BRIEF. IT'S JUST LET'S NOT FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO TRY TO BE THE ONE ENFORCING THE HEALTH INSPECTIONS. OUR DEVELOPMENT OFFICES HAVE ENOUGH TO DO ALREADY. YOU JUST LET THE STATE DO IT. WE'RE NOT. THAT'S NOT A FIGHT WE SHOULD PICK. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT [02:50:04] WAS JUST A WORK SESSION. UNLESS WE HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. NOPE. ALL RIGHT. SO [X.2. Budget Work session.] THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS THE BUDGET WORK SESSION. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL TONIGHT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU I SENT YOU AN EMAIL. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS EARLIER THIS WEEK OR LAST WEEK REGARDING THAT. WE'RE LOOKING AT A SHORTFALL ON OUR AD VALOREM TAX DUE TO VALUATIONS BEING DOWN. SO STAFF'S WORKING THROUGH THAT. WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF NUMBERS IN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE LAST. I SAY WE MOSTLY NICOLE HAS BEEN WORKING ON OUR. PERSONNEL BUDGETS, AND AS I START GOING THROUGH THEM, I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS UNTIL TODAY, AND I KIND OF WISHED I HADN'T ACCOUNTED. BUT THE WAY OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES ARE, THE WAY OUR CURRENT BUDGET IS SPLIT UP, I ACTUALLY HAVE 26 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO BUDGET FOR. SO WHEN YOU SEE THE DRAFT BUDGET, PROBABLY, WHICH SHOULD BE AT THE NEXT MEETING OR THE CALLED WORK SESSION ON A BUDGET, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THOSE DRASTICALLY REDUCED BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH ALL THE 1 TO 1 PERSON DEPARTMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO GROUP THOSE TOGETHER INTO ADMINISTRATION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS. PUBLIC WORKS DOES HAVE SEVERAL AREAS THAT THEY COVER, BUT LIKE WE HAVE SEVERAL THINGS. I MEAN, I'VE GOT THE GOLF DIVIDED INTO TWO INTO TWO AREAS THEY HAVE. AND THEN WHEN I TALKED TO MY GOLF PRO TODAY, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING BUDGETS, HE'S GOT IT DIVIDED INTO THREE DEPARTMENTS IN ONE AREA, WHICH TO ME IT'S GOLF, AIRPORTS, AIRPORT. NOW THE AIRPORT WILL STAY AS ONE PERSON UNLESS Y'ALL DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH IT. AND THE REASON THE AIRPORT IS GOING TO STAY ONE PERSON IS IT IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND AND IT SHOULD STAY. EVERYBODY I'VE TALKED TO SAID WE SHOULD JUST KEEP IT SEPARATE SO WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT BUDGET A LITTLE EASIER. AND I CAN TELL YOU PERSONNEL WISE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE 121 EMPLOYEES CURRENT VACANCIES. I HAVE EIGHT. AND IN THE NEW BUDGET, THERE'S GOING TO BE A REQUEST FOR FIVE NEW POSITIONS. THREE OF THOSE WILL BE GOING INTO PARKS AND RECREATION, BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF EXPANDING THEIR DEAL. AND THEY GOT MORE LAND TO TAKE CARE OF AND STUFF. AND THEN IF COUNCIL GOES ANOTHER ROUTE, THEY MAY HAVE EVEN MORE LAND. BUT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO PUT PARKS AND REC STAFF IN CHARGE OF OUR BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SINCE THEY'RE GOING AROUND. AND ALL THAT KEEPS ME FROM PULLING STREETS, DEPARTMENTS AND UTILITY WORKERS OFF OF WHAT THEY NEED TO BE WORKING ON TO COME IN HERE AND DO MINOR THINGS THAT STAFF AT CITY HALL IS NOT ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THEMSELVES, OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CONTRACTED OUT. SO THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL BE LOOKING AT, THE OTHER POSITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUESTED IS I HAVE TWO BEING REQUESTED, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ONE OF THOSE IS AN SRO POSITION, WHICH I HOPE YOU ALL WILL APPROVE, BECAUSE THAT WILL GIVE US AN SRO AT EVERY CAMPUS, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT IS A SAFETY ISSUE THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. THE OTHER POSITION THEY HAVE ASKED FOR IS A OFFICER SLASH ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, AND THAT PERSON WOULD MAINLY WORK THE DAY SHIFT, BUT THEY WOULD BE TRAINED TO WHERE IF A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER CALLS IN SICK THAT DAY, INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO EVERYTHING ELSE, THEY'RE GOING TO FILL IN AT THE SCHOOL. AND THEN IF THEY'RE NOT CHASING DOGS OR OTHER ANIMALS AROUND, THEY'LL JUST BE AN EXTRA PATROL PERSON OUT ON THE STREET. IS THAT CORRECT, CHIEF? SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD DEAL. OH, AND THEN I HAVE ONE MORE REQUEST. PUBLIC WORKS HAS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL PERSON IN THE STREETS DEPARTMENT. OH, NOW HE'S TELLING ME TO. ALL RIGHT. OH, COME UP HERE AND TELL ME THE TWO. THROW ME IN THERE. I KNOW RIGHT. SO HISTORICALLY, STREET DEPARTMENT KIND OF TAKES CARE OF ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF THE CITY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THEY DO A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. SO PART OF OUR PROGRAM PROGRAM, WHAT WE'RE DOING IN PUBLIC WORKS IS REALLY STRUCTURED STREET DEPARTMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THE RW AND TAKE CARE OF DRAINAGE AS A DRAINAGE AREAS. THAT MEANS CULVERTS, DRAINAGE DITCHES AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO CURRENTLY THEY ONLY HAVE SIX EMPLOYEES. AND WHEN WE ARE ON THE HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS, WE NEED EVERY SINGLE ABLE BODY TO DO TRAFFIC CONTROL WHILE THE OTHER PEOPLE WORK. SO THERE'S TWO ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS [02:55:01] WILL HELP US MAINTAIN THE CULVERTS, CLEAN OUT WHATEVER'S CLOGGED, REPAIR, REPLACE WHATEVER IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO WE'LL HAVE TWO CREWS ON STREET, ON THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND ONE WILL TAKE CARE OF DRAINAGE, ONE RW, MOWING, CUTTING TREES AND SUCH. SO THAT'S WHAT THE TWO PEOPLE ARE REQUESTING. SO SO THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BUDGET WISE. OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER POSITION. AS YOU ALL KNOW OR MAY NOT KNOW, OUR JUDGE. I CALL HIM JUDGE J. I CAN'T. CABALLERO HAS SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION. HIS FINAL DAY IS MAY 31ST, AND UNTIL WE CAN GET A. ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER, I NOMINATE SOMEBODY. Y'ALL GET TO HIRE HIM. SO THE PLAN IS IS TO HAVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, COURT, AND MAYBE 1 OR 2 OTHER PEOPLE SIT IN TO ASSESS THE. OR SIT IN ON THE INTERVIEW PROCESS SO WE CAN COME UP WITH A NAME OR TWO TO RECOMMEND TO Y'ALL TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE OUR NEXT MUNICIPAL JUDGE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF APPLICANTS RIGHT NOW, AND I DO KNOW THAT I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THERE WOULD BE A THIRD ONE COMING IN. SO WE'VE GOT THAT, AND WE HAVE THREE APPLICANTS SO FAR FOR THE HR POSITION, WHICH I AM LOOKING AT. TWO OF THOSE ARE VERY QUALIFIED AND WILL BE SCHEDULING INTERVIEWS FOR THOSE TWO PRETTY QUICK. OUTSIDE OF THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THE BUDGET. SALES TAX IS LOOKING LIKE IT'S GOING TO STAY FLAT. IT MAY SEEM LIKE A 2% INCREASE, BUT RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING AT SALES TAX TO STAY FLAT FOR THE COMING YEAR. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PRINCE. SO A FEW THINGS. I'LL TRY TO WORK THROUGH MY NOTES ON THE SRO CHIEF AND MR. WEST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BOTH ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT ON THE SROS THAT WE HAVE, IT'S BEEN A JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT. RIGHT. AND SO WITH THIS ONE ADDITIONAL SRO BE UNDER THE SAME MODEL WHERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD THE SAME MODEL, I THINK IT'S 75, 25, 71. IS IT 71? YEAH. AND I THINK 71.5. AND THEN THEY DID AWAY WITH THE POSITION WHERE THEY RENEGOTIATED OR GET IT BACK AGAIN. 7071 POINT SOMETHING CHIEF. MAKE SURE YOU IS YOUR BANK IS ON. YES. 71 POINT SOMETHING AND 28 POINT SOMETHING IS THE IS WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS. RIGHT. AND I'LL JUST JUST PONTIFICATE THAT THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO TO US ON COUNCIL WHEN WE FIRST STARTED DOING THIS, WAS THE PERCENTAGE THAT THE SCHOOL WAS PAYING WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT THE SRO WAS ACTUALLY ACTING AS SRO. THAT PERSON, BEING A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE, WOULD ACTUALLY BE WORKING AS A POLICE OFFICER, NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL. AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE BURYING SOME OF THE COSTS. AND SO IF THAT LOGIC STILL HOLDS AND THE 71% SEEMS APPROPRIATE, THEN THAT'S THAT SEEMS FINE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THEN ON THE JUDGE, WILL THERE BE ANY PERIOD OF TIME? I KNOW WE'VE GOT 1 OR 2 ASSISTANT JUDGES THAT WERE CONTRACTED. WILL THERE BE ANY PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE CANNOT HOLD MUNICIPAL COURT IF WE DON'T FILL THIS POSITION, OR ARE WE CONTIGUOUS? WE HAVE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE THAT WILL BE FILLING IN IN JUNE, AND I'M HOPING BY THE END OF JUNE Y'ALL HAVE SELECTED A NEW JUDGE. OKAY, GREAT. ON THE SINCE THIS IS BUDGET WORK SESSION, ONE OF THE THE SCHEDULE THINGS THAT YOU YOU SENT OUT TO US INCLUDED MY REQUEST FOR A POSTMORTEM IN THE JANUARY FEBRUARY TIME FRAME. WE'RE WE'RE LATE MAY I PUBLISHED FOR US ON THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE MY PERSONAL POSTMORTEM. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY OUTLOOK FOR THE CITY TO DO A POSTMORTEM OR IF IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR ME TO JUST PUBLISH ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD WHAT I'VE DONE. IF CITY STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH YOURS. YOURS IS PRETTY ACCURATE. WELL, THEN I WILL POST THAT TO THE THE DISCUSSION BOARD. THE POSTMORTEM THAT I DID, I DON'T KNOW, 2 OR 3 MONTHS AGO AND INVITE COUNCIL TO REVIEW THAT IN PUBLIC AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AS WELL. AND I THINK PROBABLY, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE POSTMORTEM THAT THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS AMONGST COUNCIL OR WITH STAFF, THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT ALSO I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT IS THE CONTENT OF THAT ABOUT WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE FOR FUTURE POSTMORTEMS, OR ARE THERE THINGS MISSING OR THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED? AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF NOT, I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD. AND I KNOW THAT THE [03:00:07] FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE HAD APPROVED AND WORKED THROUGH THE CHART OF ACCOUNTS FROM THAT WERE WORKED OUT THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE. THE ONE THING THAT I WILL JUST BRINGING UP IN I THOUGHT IT WAS A A WONDERFUL AD, WHICH WAS. ARE YOU STILL ABLE TO DO CHARLES THE ZERO AND THE ONE FOR DISCRETIONARY AND NON-DISCRETIONARY? YES. WE'RE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR ERP SOFTWARE NOW. OUR, OUR FINANCE SOFTWARE'S WHAT I CALL IT. WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO ENCODE TEN. AND THEY SAID WITH US GOING TO ENCODE TEN, NOW'S THE PERFECT TIME TO DO THAT. WE ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING SOME BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO YOU WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE SOME MONEY AROUND. WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE BUDGET. WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE SOME MONEY AROUND, SOME LINE ITEMS AROUND. WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL OF THE CIP PROJECTS BACK INTO THE CIP BUDGET INSTEAD OF THEM BEING PAID FOR OUT OF DEPARTMENTS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S THROWING US OFF ON SHOWING THAT WE'RE UNDER BUDGETING OR OVER BUDGETING FOR ITEMS. THAT'S WHAT I'M FINDING IS A LOT OF DISCREPANCY ON, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE ACCURACY IN THE PERSONNEL COSTS NOW THAT WE WE'VE SLOWED SOME OF THE TURNOVER DOWN BECAUSE, GOOD GRIEF, WE HAD A LOT OF TURNOVER FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS HERE. BUT I THINK THAT HAS FINALLY SLOWED DOWN. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BUDGET. I'M GOING TO BRING YOU. WE MIGHT DO 2 OR 3 BUDGETS IN ONE WORKSHOP FOR DEPARTMENT WISE, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO BRING IT TO YOU A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME. I'M GOING TO TRY TO KNOCK SOME OF THE BUDGETS, LIKE HOTEL MOTEL FUND OUT. WE'RE GOING TO KNOCK THAT ONE OUT PRETTY QUICK BECAUSE IT'S A SIMPLE ONE. AVIATION SHOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE ONE TO DO. SOME OF THE LOWER ONES. GENERAL FUND WILL PROBABLY BE THE VERY LAST ONE TO BE DONE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONE THAT'S SO, SO RELIANT ON THE AD VALOREM TAX AND STUFF. SO THE LAST TWO BUDGETS WE WILL DO IS PROBABLY BE UTILITIES AND THEN DO GENERAL FUND. LAST COUNSELOR PRINCE, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. I FORGOT I HAD THIS IN MY NOTES. YOU STATED IN RUNNING THROUGH STATUS, WE HAVE 121 EMPLOYEES AND EIGHT VACANCIES. I'M JUST TRYING TO IF WE FILL THOSE VACANCIES, WE HAVE 129 OR WE HAVE 113 TODAY AND WE GET TO 121. IF WE FILLED THOSE. EIGHT. IF I FILL THOSE VACANCIES, I WOULD BE AT 129 OKAY. THANK YOU. AND 13 OF THOSE, ACTUALLY, 14 OF THOSE ARE PART TIME PEOPLE. SO IT'S KIND OF THROWS THE NUMBER OFF A LITTLE BIT. BUT THAT'S WHY I DID PULL THAT NUMBER OUT SO Y'ALL WOULD KNOW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNSELOR MINNIFIELD MR. WEST, I JUST HAVE A RANDOM QUESTION. YOU HAD MENTIONED, BECAUSE OF THE APPRAISED VALUES OF HOMES, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT LIKE A, A DEFICIT OF MAYBE 700 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS ON OUR TAXES. IS THERE A SO OBVIOUSLY, THE WAY WE MAKE THAT UP IS EITHER THROUGH BUDGET CUTS OR WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, IT DOES. WILL THE STATE ALLOW US TO RAISE THE RATE TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE, OR DOES THE RATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO EXCEED IS THE RATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO EXCEED WHAT WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IN ANY ONE GIVEN YEAR? DO YOU KNOW THAT ANSWER? I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL BE ABLE TO STAY AT THE CURRENT RATE WE'RE AT ON THE I KNOW THE 775 IS GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL, BUT WE DID HAVE SOME COST SAVINGS WHEN WE REFINANCED SOME OF THE BONDS. SO OUR BOND PAYMENTS ARE GOING TO BE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO I DON'T HAVE TO ABSORB THAT WHOLE 170 775. AND THEN I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND SOME OTHER SAVINGS IN AREAS THAT'S JUST HAD LINE ITEMS BUDGETED BUT NOT TOUCHED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS I'M, I'M USING A THREE YEAR AVERAGE ON EVERY LINE ITEM. AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET A LOT MORE STRINGENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE SUPPLIES AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO I, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TOO SOON. I KNOW I'VE ALREADY PUT IT OUT THERE. MY INTENT IS NOT TO RAISE THE CURRENT TAX RATE ABOVE WHAT IT IS, AND ALSO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT AS SOON AS I SAID THAT IT MIGHT COME BACK TO BITE ME. BUT UNTIL WE GET THOSE FINAL NUMBERS ON JULY 25TH, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO SAY, BUT THE STATE WOULD ALLOW US TO GO. WE CAN GO TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AT ANY TIME. IT'S JUST IF WE GO TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS WHEN WE'D HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION. SO. SO WE'LL HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM. YES. BUT THE THE VOTER ONE WOULD ONLY INITIATE AT SO MANY PERCENTS ABOVE THE. NO NEW REVENUE. YES. WHICH RIGHT NOW IS 3%, $0.03. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY, THAT COMPLETELY ANSWERS MY QUESTION, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE SOME PRETTY GREAT NEWS. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST. [03:05:02] I'VE GOT I'VE SHARPENED ALL THE PENCILS AND I'VE TOLD MY STAFF TO SHARPEN THEIR PENCILS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE GOAL. THAT IS, I FELT LIKE YOU HAVE TO SET A GOAL OF WHAT YOU'RE HEADED FOR. AND MY GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN DO NOT RAISE THE TAX, BUT ALWAYS LOOK FOR A WAY TO LOWER THE TAX RATE EACH YEAR. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. WELL GREAT. WELL I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE US INTO THE LAST COUPLE BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO THE SESSION INTO EXECUTIVE [XI. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST] SESSION. SO ANY ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. AND I'LL START DOWN THERE WITH COUNSELOR HALL. OKAY. AND COUNSELOR BENNEFIELD NO. COUNSELOR CHAVARRIA ANY ITEMS OF INTEREST. ALL RIGHT. AND SO COUNSELOR VENICE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSELOR PRINCE I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY. YOU SAID COMMUNITY INTEREST. ARE WE ON ITEM 12 B, WHICH WOULD BE THE ROUTINE REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES? OR IS THIS NO ITEMS HAPPENING AT MY CHURCH KIND OF A THING. THE COMMUNITY INTEREST COMES BEFORE THOSE. YEAH, IT COMES BEFORE THOSE AFTER WORK SESSION AND BEFORE STAFF AND COUNCIL. I'M SORRY. ITEM NUMBER 11. I HAVE NOTHING ON THAT. THANK YOU. AND MY APOLOGIES. I AM NOT GIVING EXACT NUMBERS BECAUSE MY MAYOR'S SCRIPT, THE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ON THE ACTUAL AGENDA. SO I'M HAVING TO LOOK BACK AND FORTH AND MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I'VE GIVEN SOME INCORRECT NUMBERS BEFORE. ALL [XII. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS] RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, LET'S GO BACK TO STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS, WHICH IS THE NEXT ITEM. I BELIEVE THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 12, ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY OF THAT? CHARLES. I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT. AND THIS MIGHT BE UNDER COMMUNITY INTEREST IS MONDAY MORNING IS THE MEMORIAL DAY. THING OUT HERE AT THE VETERANS MEMORIAL? I GET TURNED AROUND IN HERE. SORRY. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF THAT. WHAT WERE THE TIMES AGAIN DAVID? 9 TO 11 9 TO 11. SO. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO COME OUT TO THAT. I THINK ALL OF OUR OTHER STAFF REPORTS, WE'VE PRETTY MUCH COVERED. POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. YOU WILL NOTICE CHIEF JOY'S GOT WESTERN HAT, AND I WOULD SAY 80% OF THE OFFICERS ARE WEARING THOSE HATS NOW. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE REALLY GOOD. OUR GROUP, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'VE DONE IN PUBLIC WORKS IS WE'VE ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED A FLEET SERVICES TO WHERE ALL OF OUR VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLY BEING SERVICED IN-HOUSE. WE'RE NOT TAKING THEM TO OTHER PLACES, WHICH AFTER WE HAD A GOOD MEETING YESTERDAY ON BUDGET AND VEHICLES, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ON SOME STUFF, BUT WE I THINK WE GOT A GOOD PROGRAM GOING THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDING. SO PUBLIC WORKS IS DOING A GREAT JOB. NICOLE'S BEEN DOING A PHENOMENAL JOB OF PULLING NUMBERS FOR ME. AND WITH ALL THE HECTIC STUFF THAT'S BEEN GOING ON LATELY WITH CITY HALL, IT'S BEEN CRAZY. BUT SHE'S STAYED IN THERE, GOTTEN SOME STUFF DONE. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS GETTING A LOT OF THINGS ACCOMPLISHED AND, AND WORKING THROUGH TO GET EVERYTHING LINED OUT. SO ALL IN ALL, I THINK THINGS ARE GOING GOOD AND I HAVE TO REALLY COMMEND DAVID'S GUYS. THEY THEY WORK TIRELESSLY TO GET THINGS DONE. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL NOTICED. WE HAVE SOME NEW TREES PLANTED AS YOU COME IN, TURN IN OFF OF DON DRIVE NEXT TO THE LPOA DEAL. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME NEW TREES PLANTED RIGHT HERE OUTSIDE THE CITY HALL. SO I GUESS THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXPAND CITY HALL THAT DIRECTION SINCE WE JUST PLANTED NEW TREES. BUT THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT. SO. BUT YEAH, OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THINGS ARE STARTING TO FALL TOGETHER. I HATE THAT I'M ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BEHIND ON BUDGET, BUT WE'RE GETTING THERE AND WE WILL BE GETTING THE CHART OF ACCOUNTS STRAIGHTENED OUT, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK. WE HAVE THE DRAFT OF THE CHART OF ACCOUNTS THAT I'LL EMAIL OUT TO ALL OF YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND I SEE THAT JAN IS ALSO GOT A STAFF REPORT FOR THE LIBRARY. YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY. YES. WE HAVE VOTING IN THE LIBRARY MEETING ROOM TUESDAY MORNING OR ALL DAY TUESDAY, ACTUALLY FROM 7 TO 7 IN THE MORNING TO SEVEN IN THE EVENING. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT FOR THE FINAL DAY. THANK YOU JEN, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, I HAD HEARD I'D ALREADY TOLD A FEW PEOPLE AND THEY'RE LINING UP. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CROWD HOPEFULLY. YEAH. THANK YOU. I WILL ADD JEN DIDN'T TELL YOU THEY DID GET A GRANT RECENTLY THAT WILL HELP THEM PAY FOR THE SUMMER READING PROGRAM. IT. YES. IT'S A IT'LL HELP $2,000 FOR AN HEB GRANT. [03:10:01] AND ALSO WE WERE APPROVED FOR E-RATE FUNDING AGAIN THIS YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF 19,000. AND I THINK LIKE $19,060 IN E-RATE DISCOUNTS FOR TO HELP PAY FOR INTERNET USE FOR THE LIBRARY. WOW. AND THAT MAKES AN IMPACT ON THAT BUDGET NUMBER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. JEN. YES, IT WAS ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL, BOARD, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS. AND I WILL START DOWN WITH COUNCILOR HALL. WELL, JUST I A POSITIVE REPORT THAT REVENUE CONTINUES TO BE UP ON FOR THE GOLF COURSE. THE WORK PLAN FOR FOR THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDES WORKING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OUR EDAC, TO FIND ANY WAY TO DRIVE REVENUE FOR THE GOLF COURSE AND LOOKING AT ANY OTHER MEANS OR ACTIVITIES THAT WILL WILL DRIVE ADDITIONAL REVENUE. AND THEN THERE'S CONTINUING CONCERN ABOUT E-BIKES AND DAMAGE DONE ON THE GOLF COURSE. AND AND THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR WILL HAPPEN SOON. BUT DISCUSSION WITH OUR POLICE CHIEF TO, TO SEE WHAT THE THOUGHTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, IDEAS FOR MITIGATING THAT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. THE SOME GOOD REPORTS FROM THE LAGO VISTA WOMEN'S CLUB, $76,000 WAS AWARDED IN 21 SCHOLARSHIPS TO LOCAL SENIOR SENIOR GIRLS, AND ALSO TO SOME COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. THEY'RE HAVING THEIR THEIR DRIVE RIGHT NOW TO FOR FOR RENEWAL, FOR, FOR MEMBERS FOR THE YEAR STARTS JUNE 1ST THROUGH MAY 31ST OF 2027. SO REGISTRATION AND FEES AND RENEWALS ARE DUE NOW. CLUB AND PRAC WILL BE JOINING DOING A JOINT PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND THEY ALSO RECEIVED $3,000 FROM THE LAGO VISTA WOMEN'S CLUB. AND THEY ALSO RECEIVED $950 FROM YAC. I MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT A VERY NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT IS THAT THEY ALSO RECEIVED A $160,000 AWARD FOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT FOR TXDOT ON TXDOT LAND, AND THAT CAME FROM THE GOVERNOR'S COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS. WE WERE CATEGORY FOUR. THIS IS BASICALLY GOING TO BE PROBABLY A LIKE A MONUMENT OR STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ALONG. 1431. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BUILT INSIDE THE CITY. IT'S GOING TO BE ON TXDOT LAND, VERY SIMILAR TO THE MONUMENT WALL THAT WE HAVE RIGHT THERE BY CVS, WHERE IT HAS OUR LAGO VISTA SIGN ON IT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING COMING FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION, FROM THE MARBLE FALLS SIDE. THAT, OF COURSE, IS IN THE IN THE WORKS. HOPEFULLY IT WON'T TAKE 60 YEARS LIKE THIS LAST PROJECT TOOK, BUT WE WERE ONLY ELIGIBLE EVERY FIVE YEARS FOR THIS AWARD. ONCE YOU WIN IT, YOU CAN'T GET IT AGAIN FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. AND SO WE APPLIED LAST YEAR, DIDN'T GET IT, BUT THIS YEAR WE DID GET IT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE COMMENDED. THEY ALSO DID A SIGNIFICANT CLEANUP OVER AT THE SPORTS PARK AND POOL THIS ON MAY 16TH. LOT LOTS OF CLEANUP AROUND THE TREES AND WEEDS AND VINES AND STUFF THAT HAD GROWN UP PRETTY, PRETTY BADLY OVER THERE. BUT WE DID A COUPLE HOURS OUT THERE AND CLEANED ALL THAT UP. BSC THEIR NEXT MEETING IS ON JUNE 3RD. LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. OF COURSE, YOU ALREADY GOT THE UPDATE. I WAS GOING TO UPDATE ON THAT, BUT THEIR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE JULY 13TH AND THE UDC. THEIR NEXT MEETING IS I'M JUST ONE OF THE MEMBERS IS GOING TO BE ON JUNE 5TH. SO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO DOWN THIS WAY. COUNCILOR VENICE. SURE. SO COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA ALREADY MENTIONED THIS, BUT CLUB AND REC AND OUR WONDERFUL PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR DAVID COLLABORATED ON PRIORITIZATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN OUR JUNE 4TH MEETING. BUT I WAS REALLY HAPPY WITH THE PROCESS. WE WERE DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT BOTH BOWDOIN PARK, BOWDOIN POINTE PARK AND DAWN CIRCLE PARK, AND THEN SPECIFIC TO DAWN CIRCLE PARK. LOOK AT A PHASED APPROACH AND WHAT WOULD BE RECOMMEND FOR PRIORITIZATION OF AMENITIES ON IT. AND SO I THINK THEY CAME TOGETHER AND IT'S IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT COLLABORATION AND ALSO DISCUSSED WAYS OF COLLABORATING IN THE FUTURE ON SOME OF OUR PARK OPPORTUNITIES, [03:15:03] WHETHER IT'S PARK DEVELOPMENT OR BEAUTIFICATION AS APPROPRIATE. SO I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. SO STAY TUNED FOR JUNE 4TH MEETING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR PRINCE, FROM PLANNING AND ZONING, THE ONE THING CHAIR AIRD NOTED IN OUR LAST MEETING, SHE WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THE MAY 28TH TRAINING SESSION. MR. WEST, WHICH IS MORE AROUND RULES OF PROCEDURE AND AND OPEN MEETINGS, IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT. SHE HAS APPARENTLY HAD A SPECIFIC REQUEST OUT FOR A WHILE FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS TO GET TRAINING ON LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS. AND SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE REQUEST. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF NEW MEMBERS ON PLANNING AND ZONING. SO I WOULD SAY AS SOON AS WE CAN GET LAND USE FUNDAMENTAL TRAININGS FOR ALL OF PLANNING AND ZONING, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THANK YOU. SO WE'VE GOT A THE JOINT MEETING FOR THE 28TH NEXT WEEK. I SENT OUT THE THE I THINK IT'S BEEN POSTED, THE POWERPOINTS THAT WE'RE PRESENTING. I MEAN, THAT THAT COVERS BASIC P AND Z DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS AND HOW THEY WORK. SO SOME OF THE LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS ARE IN THAT. THEN YOU WOULD SAY, I MEAN, I, I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE IN THE THE PROVIDED MATERIALS. I'M HAPPY TO I DON'T KNOW AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT SHE SHE IS HAS IN HER HEAD. SHE'S NO LONGER HERE IN THE MEETING TONIGHT. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A TRAINING SESSION THAT THEY CALLED LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS. AND IT MAY BE THAT YOU AND I, FOR ONE, WENT THROUGH THAT BACK WHEN I WAS PLANNING AND ZONING PERSON. SO I ASSUME SHE MEANS SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. AND IF THE 528 SESSION IS GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY COVERING THAT, FINE. IF WE NEED TO EXPAND IT, WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. YEAH. I MEAN, I'LL TAKE A LOOK. I MEAN. I CAN I CAN TALK ABOUT LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS ALL DAY LONG AND THAT'S WHAT I DO. SO I MEAN, IF I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE AT THE POWERPOINTS, BUT I THINK, I MEAN, AT LEAST WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A P AND Z AND WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THAT. I MEAN, THAT IS IT. THAT'S WHAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND THAT'S IN THERE. OKAY. IF THEY WANT A MORE ESOTERIC, YOU KNOW, EXPLANATION OF CASE LAW AND STUFF, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT ALL DAY LONG, BUT I DON'T KNOW, I INFERRING THAT THAT MEETING IS FOR COUNCIL AND P AND Z AND BUILDING AND STANDARDS AND BOA. AND SO ONE WOULD POSSIBLY THINK THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE A LOT OF P AND Z SPECIFIC CONTENT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GOT MORE THERE THAN MAYBE WE'VE GOT, I'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT A SPECIFIC P AND Z POWERPOINT THAT IS PNZ TRAINING. THIS IS WHAT YOU DO. THIS IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER. THESE ARE THE ISSUES. THANK YOU. ALL OF THAT. YEAH. AND WE'LL GET THROUGH THAT. AND IF THE CHAIR AIRED OR OTHERS ON P AND Z. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. WE CAN. I ANTICIPATE A VIGOROUS QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION. SO THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF ITEMS. AND ONE WAS THAT THE EDC DID MEET SINCE WE LAST CAME TO COUNCIL. IT WAS A REALLY GOOD SESSION ON, WE HAD A, A GENTLEMAN NAMED TOM MULLINS WHO WAS FROM TYLER AND ACTUALLY WAS INVOLVED WITH A EDC THAT DID GET OFF THE GROUND WITHOUT FUNDING. BECAUSE OF THAT, IT DID GENERATE SOME IDEAS. AND SO THE THE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE EXPLORING THOSE IDEAS TO INCLUDE. WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING COMING UP THIS NEXT TUESDAY AT 130. THANK YOU, CHIEF, FOR THE USE OF THE CONFERENCE ROOM OVER AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ALSO IN THAT WHAT WE LEARNED IS THAT WE WILL WANT TO MOST LIKELY PURSUE HAVING THE EDC, EDC TYPE BE NOT ONLY BE A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, BUT ALSO A 501 C THREE. THAT'S A PRETTY EXTENSIVE PROCESS. SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO GATHER THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER ON NICOLE AND CHARLES OR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO AID US TO DO THAT. LASTLY, THERE WAS A INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THE LAST THE THE SESSION BEFORE WAS PRETTY MUCH A GET TO KNOW YOU AND KIND OF GET ACCLIMATED. THIS LAST ONE I THOUGHT WAS REALLY GOOD. WE HAD ERNEST AND VICTOR COME AND TALK TO US. AND SO AGAIN, IT'S EDUCATING OURSELVES, FINDING OUT WHERE WE STAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS TO ASK, ETC. AND SO AT LEAST TO ME, IT'S BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL IN TERMS OF INSIGHT AND TIMETABLES AND WHERE WE [03:20:03] MIGHT GO AS COUNCIL WITH THAT. I MEAN, IS THERE ANY OTHER NOTABLE ITEMS, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD, COUNCILOR PRINCE. NO. GOOD. OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, I THINK THAT IS IT, RIGHT. EXECUTIVE SESSION. YES. WELL, FOR THE ITEMS OUT HERE. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS TIME IT IS NOW 723. WE WILL RECONVENE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.