[VIII.5. Consider, discuss, and take action authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with MVBA for the collection of delinquent utility accounts.]

ITEM FIVE. CONSIDER DISCUSSING TAKE ACTION. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH MVA FOR THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA HAD ALREADY ASKED A QUESTION. I THINK IT'S FOR CHARLES. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT QUESTION TO STAFF.

IS. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE REVIEWED THIS, AND I DON'T SEE MY STAFF FROM UTILITY BILLING

[00:40:03]

AND COUNSEL. IS NICOLE HERE? CHARLES, IF YOU NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, MY MAIN CONCERN IS IF LEGAL OR IT IS REVIEWED, THE PROVISIONS ABOUT PROPRIETARY DATABASES, ANALYTICS, AND AGGREGATE DATA SHARING. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS RIGHT NOW ABOUT DATA SHARING IN GENERAL. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THAT LIKE, IF THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED AT ALL BY IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS REVIEWED IT THAT CLOSELY YET. I DO KNOW THAT THE ONLY DATA THEY WOULD BE PROVIDED IS THE DATA THAT IS RELATED ONLY TO OUR DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONES THEY WOULD BE ACTUALLY GOING AFTER. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET DATA ON THE OTHER ACCOUNTS. OKAY. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WAS THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR BECAUSE, I MEAN, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS 30% OF A IS BETTER THAN 100% OF NOTHING. SO YEAH, I'M ALL FOR IT. OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ONLY INFORMATION THE CITY WILL BE PROVIDING IS ACCOUNT DATA AND ADDRESS. AND LAST POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION. YES, THAT'S ALL THAT IS, ALL THAT IS SHARED WITH THAT CONTRACT. AND.

SO THE THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT MV BA IS PROHIBITED FROM SHARING OR DISCLOSING ANY SPECIFIC CONFIDENTIAL ACCOUNT OR DEBTOR INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY, INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY EXCEPT AS MAY OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY LAW. SO THEY'RE CONTRACTUALLY PROHIBITED FROM SHARING ANY DATA THAT THEY DO RECEIVE WITH THIRD PARTIES. WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ IN REAL QUICK. ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I HAVE A MOTION FOR MISS MARIA. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR. PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL

[IX.3. Consider, discuss, and take action regarding the purchase of real property pursuant located at 20406 Earhart Lane, Lago Vista, Texas, 78645, PARCELS 1-9 WORLD OF RESORTS GOLF COURSE HIGHLAND LAKE EST SEC 5-18, 32 & ABS 2534 SUR 36 CANTWELL J ACR .9550 (TOTAL 111.6268 ACRES).]

MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE THREE. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT LOCATED AT 20406 ERHART LANE, LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. 78645 PARCELS ONE THROUGH NINE WORLD RESORTS GOLF COURSE, HIGHLAND LAKE ESTABLISHMENT, SEC. FIVE THROUGH 1832 AND A BS2534. SIR 36 CANTWELL, JACR0 .950. TOTAL 111.6268 ACRES. AND I'LL SEND IT TO CHARLES FOR HIS PRESENTATION. OKAY, MAYOR. COUNCIL CITIZENS, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A HOT TOPIC ON SOCIAL MEDIA OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND I'VE JUST GOT A TEXT MESSAGE THAT STILL IS. YOU KNOW, AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL. I DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE FOR THIS WITH THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. CITY HAD ME GET A COMMISSION, AN APPRAISAL, WHICH WE DID. THE APPRAISAL CAME IN. THE PROPERTY IS WORTH APPROXIMATELY ONE, $1.4 MILLION. SO THAT'S HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT. A LETTER OF INTENT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, BUT NO CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED. DESPITE SOME OF THE RUMORS THAT'S OUT THERE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. BECAUSE I CAN'T BUY PROPERTY, ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN. I JUST FACILITATE WHAT THEY ASK ME. WHY IS THIS A I GUESS THE BIG QUESTION IS, IS THIS A BUY OR DON'T BUY SITUATION? I PUT THE PRESENTATION TOGETHER. IT'S A COMBINED PIECE OF PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE ARE ABLE TO GET IT UNDER WHAT IT IS. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON WHY THE CITY WOULD WANT TO PURCHASE THIS. AND YOU KNOW, I CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST, BUT I THINK IN THE LONG RUN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT 20, 30, 40 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN WE NEED MORE LAND FOR EFFLUENT DISPERSAL, THIS IS 111 ACRES THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY GOT EFFLUENT LINES LAID TO THAT WE COULD LAY THAT TO. SO THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG PLUSES TO THAT. I DO STILL HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE TITLE AND ALL THAT, WHICH THAT WOULD ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF WHEN IT GOES TO THE TITLE COMPANY FOR RESEARCH AND STUFF. IF Y'ALL DECIDE TO PURCHASE THIS, WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THERE IS SOME. THINGS IN THE PREVIOUS DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT, THAT SAYS THAT THAT OUR ATTORNEY HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY DO GO PROTECT PERPETUALLY WITH THE LAND, AND THAT IS THAT IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE. AND WE HAVE THE

[00:45:03]

RIGHT TO DISPERSE EFFLUENT AND MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ON THERE THAT USES EFFLUENT. SO IT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S ALREADY PART OF OUR CURRENT PERMIT. IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, WE HAVE PERMISSION TO PUT THE EFFLUENT ON THERE. NOW. NOT CURRENTLY. NO NOT CURRENTLY. I KNOW IT'S NOT CURRENT PART OF OUR CURRENT PERMIT, BUT THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM THAT IS THERE NOW DISPERSED EFFLUENT, CORRECT. OR DID IT NOT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF A PREVIOUS ONE, BUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN OUR CURRENT ONE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET. CHARLES, IF I MAY, ON THAT. AND VICTOR HELP ME IF I GET THIS WRONG. BUT IN OUR I-PASS MEETING, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE I-PASS WAS DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT HE WAS ASSERTING THAT UNDER THE EXISTING 210 PERMIT, THAT EFFLUENT COULD BE DISTRIBUTED ON THAT HIGHLAND LAKE GOLF COURSE. AND SO IT'S NOT PART OF OUR PERMIT. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PATH THAT I THINK IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT ON THAT. SO YOU CAN COME CORRECT THAT OR AMEND IT OR CLARIFY WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE. SO THE LAND HAS. OR IS THIS ON? YEAH. THE LAND HAS THE ABILITY TO DISPERSE EFFLUENT, BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE REGULATION THAT SAYS WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, 1 MILLION OF EFFLUENT. AND THIS IS THE AREA THAT THE CITY HAS TO DISTRIBUTE ON. SO THAT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION. BUT YES, THE 210 PERMIT ALLOWS FOR WATER TO BE OR FOR EFFLUENT TO BE DISTRIBUTED THERE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO DISTRIBUTE ITS EFFLUENT THERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? JUST 210 IS DIFFERENT FROM TEE LABS.

RIGHT. THANK YOU. BUT I MEAN, FOR THE REST OF COUNCIL AND FOR CITIZENS, WHAT'S THE SIMPLE NET OUT? ARE DOES THE CITY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT ON THAT PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL STEPS WOULD BE NEED TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT. I THINK IT HAS THE ABILITY, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 210 PERMIT FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY. YEAH. I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TEN OR THE 210 WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR FOR THAT. I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE A USABLE ACREAGE ANALYSIS. ANOTHER TCEQ REVIEW, AN ENGINEERING TEE LABS THAT'S JUST FOR TEE LAB. OKAY, SO FOR 210 WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION, WE DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTED CLARITY ON WHETHER WE LEGALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPERSE EFFLUENT ON IT. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISPERSE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR US TO DISPERSE THERE. OKAY.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING, AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION GOES, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IN THE COUNCIL PACKET OF THINGS THAT YOU WERE REVIEWING WHEN YOU WERE MAKING THIS DECISION AS TO WHAT THE PERMIT SAYS OR DOESN'T SAY. NO, WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE CURRENT TEE PERMIT. OKAY. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS FOR FUTURE MAYOR. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING TEN, 20, 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

NOT NOT TODAY. I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO IMMEDIATELY. LAY AN IRRIGATION LINES OUT THERE AND START DISPERSING EFFLUENT ON IT. OKAY.

AND MY QUESTION WAS ASKED RIGHT BEFORE THAT IS WE HAD DISCUSSED IF WE COULD HAVE BRAD TALK ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS OF THE DEED. JUST COUNCIL HAVE GIVEN THE APPROVAL TO LET BRAD TALK ABOUT HIS OPINION ON THE DEED. YES, I SEE HEADS NODDING. OKAY, SO TURN THAT ON. WHAT I AM REVIEWING IS A A RECORDED SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED. THIS IS FROM 2019, WHEN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CONVEYED THAT PROPERTY TO AN ENTITY CALLED GHUFRAN LLC. AND, AND, AND WITHIN THAT, THE CONTEXT OF THAT CONVEYANCE THE CITY RETAINED FOR ITSELF. CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. AND THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN THAT CONVEYANCE IS THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED, AS CHARLES MENTIONED, HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE SHALL REMAIN AS AND BE DESIGNATED AS A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE UNLESS A CHANGE IN LAND USE LAND DESIGNATION AND USAGE IS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT PROPERTY CAN'T BE USED AS ANYTHING BUT A GOLF COURSE UNLESS THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT. THE SECOND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS THAT THE PROPERTY. THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA OWNS AND OPERATES A REUSE PIPELINE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HENRY STREET AND HAMILTON STREET, AND THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF EXCESS

[00:50:03]

REUSED WATER THAT IS STORED ON THE PROPERTY. THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY AND TO REPLACE OR MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN WHOLE OR IN PART. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE CITY DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO THE PROPERTY AND PERFORM MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT, BUT OF COURSE, THAT IS ALL ON THE ON THE CITY'S DIME, SO TO SPEAK. AND BUT THE THESE TWO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, SHALL RUN WITH THE PROPERTY IN PERPETUITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF THE CITY. AND ITS SUCCESSORS, HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. AND THEY. SO THOSE WERE THE RESTRICTIONS WITH WHICH THE CITY WAS. I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED BACK IN 2019. THANK YOU. CHARLES, YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YEAH. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY. IT'S 111 ACRES PLUS TOTAL. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET AND ALL THAT'S OUT THERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO CONTRACTS BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY HERE. ONE IS THE 109 ACRES, WHICH IS THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF. AND THEN THERE'S A TWO JUST OVER TWO ACRE TRACT, WHICH IS THE MAINTENANCE BARN AND PUMP STATIONS AND STUFF THAT HOLD THE EFFLUENT AND STUFF. THE CURRENT OWNER SUBDIVIDED THAT OFF. UNBEKNOWNST TO THE CITY UNTIL AFTER AFTER IT WAS ALL DONE. THAT'S WHY THIS IS BROKEN UP INTO TWO, TWO CONTRACTS AT THIS TIME. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S CLEAR. THAT'S WHY THERE'S TWO CONTRACTS, NOT JUST ONE CONTRACT. YOU KNOW, THE APPRAISAL SAYS THAT THE PROPERTY IS WORTH $1.4 MILLION TOTAL. OUR NEGOTIATED PRICE AT THIS TIME IS 1.2. YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS COME UP. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BUY THIS IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT THE EFFLUENT ON THERE? AND, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THAT. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BUY IT? BUT HERE'S THE OTHER CAVEAT THAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT WITH THE WHILE WE HAVE CURRENT REGULATORY USE OF LAND WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS, THAT IS ALLOWED BY STATE STATUTES, STATE STATUTES ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE APPRAISAL, THIS PROPERTY IS HIGHEST, BEST VALUE AS MIXED USE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THIS REMAINS GREENBELT OR PUBLIC LAND, WHATEVER CITY COUNCIL DECIDES WITH IT, THE BEST OPTION WOULD BE TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY TO PREVENT A DEVELOPER FROM BUYING THIS PROPERTY. AND IN THE FUTURE, IF WE LOSE OUR REGULATORY RIGHTS WITH THE CURRENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION OR ANY FUTURE ONES, THERE COULD BE A LOT OF PRESSURE PUT ON THERE TO HAVE THAT PROPERTY REDEVELOPED. THIS WAY, IF IT BELONGS TO US, WE CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT PROPERTY. AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CURRENT COUNCIL HAS NO DESIRE TO DEVELOP THIS, SELL IT TO ANY DEVELOPERS OR ANYTHING LIKE IT'S TO PROTECT THE GREEN BELT AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT FOR THAT, I DO AGREE WITH PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT? YES, SIR. FOR BRAD, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE DEED HAS IN PERPETUITY. WE HAVE THE RIGHT THAT THE COUNCIL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN APPROVE ANY CHANGE OF THE USE OF THIS GOLF COURSE. CAN THE LEGISLATURE COME IN AND STEAL THAT RIGHT AWAY? WELL, I YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO. TO VOID A A PRIVATE PROPERTY, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. WELL, I SAY PRIVATE PROPERTY. PROPERTY. RIGHT. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN. AND WHILE THIS COUNCIL NOBODY ON THIS COUNCIL MAY HAVE ANY DESIRE TO TO CHANGE THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE USAGE AS A GOLF COURSE, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT A FUTURE COUNCIL COULDN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE. SO WHILE WHILE THAT COVENANT DOES RUN WITH THE LAND AND I DON'T THINK CAN BE JUST WIPED AWAY BY THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE I MEAN, CURRENTLY IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY HELD BY A PRIVATE PARTY. NONETHELESS. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION TO CHANGE THAT USAGE, AND THAT CERTAINLY COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BUT SO IF THE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED AND IT IS, FOR EXAMPLE. IF IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE ACQUIRED AND DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN ANY FUTURE CONVEYANCE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY VOTERS. SO THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL IF YOU OWN

[00:55:05]

IT, THERE ARE ADDITIONS AND YOU CHARACTERIZE IT AS PARKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE. I'M NOT SAYING YOU NEED TO OR YOU SHOULD, BUT IF YOU DID, YOU COULD PUT ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS IN EFFECT THAT WOULD REALLY MAINTAIN THE STATUS OF THAT PROPERTY, PROBABLY IN PERPETUITY UNLESS THE VOTERS DECIDED TO APPROVE A SALE. SO THERE'S JUST SOME THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO IF YOU OWN IT, THAT YOU CAN'T DO AS JUST HAVING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. SO THOSE ARE ALL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE UP TO YOU ALL TO DETERMINE. THANK YOU. CHARLES. OKAY. YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY IS YOU CAN SEE FROM THESE PICTURES, THE MAINTENANCE BARN IS IN PRETTY POOR CONDITION. A LOT OF TRASH, A LOT OF CLEANUP. THE THESE PICTURES WERE TAKEN BEFORE. IT HAS GOTTEN ALL GROWN UP AND STUFF AGAIN, BECAUSE THE CITY DID MOW IT THIS PAST YEAR, BECAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN MOWED IN SEVERAL YEARS, AND THERE WAS SOME EXPENSE THERE INCURRED BY THE CITY BECAUSE WE COULD NOT GET THE PROPERTY OWNER TO. GO OUT AND MOW IT OR MAKE THE RECORD DEALS. WE DO HAVE THE OPTION OF PUTTING A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, STAFF HAS HELD OFF ON PUTTING THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL CITY COUNCIL MAKES A FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO PURCHASE IT OR NOT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE KIND OF A WASTE OF LEGAL FEES OR LEGAL FUNDS TO HAVE THEM PUT A LIEN ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE'RE BUYING.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. THIS IS WHERE OUR YOU START TALKING ABOUT CEDAR BREAKS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ARGUMENTS COME UP A LOT, THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH LAND AT CEDAR BREAKS TO CARRY US INTO THE FUTURE. YES, WE HAVE 300 ACRES OUT THERE. BUT WE ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO IRRIGATE 213 ACRES OF THAT LAND SO WE DON'T GET TO IRRIGATE THE WHOLE 300 ACRES OF CEDAR BREAKS. SO WE WILL NEED MORE LAND IN THE FUTURE. AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY LOOKED AT PURCHASING LAND OUTSIDE OF CEDAR BREAKS SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS AT A SIGNIFICANT COST BECAUSE IT'S NOT. CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, AND IT WOULD TAKE QUITE A BIT OF MONEY AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO EXTEND OUT TO IT. AND THAT PRICE BACK THEN WAS SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS. AND I DON'T KNOW, MR. STEWART, WAS THAT IN 2015 OR 17? IN 2015, WE WERE ESTIMATING THAT THE 3 OR 400 ACRES WOULD COST WITH THE PIPELINE TO IT WITHOUT THE PONDS OR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WOULD BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 70.

YEAH, YEAH. SO YOU MAY WANT TO REPEAT THAT FOR FOLKS ONLINE WHO DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF IT. OKAY.

THE STUDY THAT WE DID IN 2015, WE FOUND PROPERTY THAT WAS 7 TO 11 MILES AWAY FROM US. AND WE ESTIMATED THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASE AND TO GET A PUMP STATION BUILT AND MOVED THE PIPELINE TO THE PROPERTY WOULD BE 7 MILLION OR MORE. AND AFTER WE OWNED THE PROPERTY, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RETENTION POND PUMP BUILDINGS WOULD BE IN ADDITION. SO PROBABLY ANOTHER 4 MILLION. SO IT WAS A 11 MILLION TOTAL. OKAY. AND THAT WAS IN 2015, 2015. AND LAND WAS A LOT CHEAPER THEN THAN IT IS NOW. SO AND THIS SLIDE HERE, IT JUST SHOWS THAT THE PROBABILITY OF BEING IRRELEVANT FOR USE OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IS NOT UNTIL 2041 2042. TO AMEND THE TAP, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF ENGINEERING AND ALL. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT ENGINEERING AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT THAT WE NEED IT. THIS. I THINK WE KIND OF GOT OFF ON MY SLIDES HERE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH OUR ATTORNEY.

SO WE DO HAVE SOME ABILITIES. ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. HERE IS A. WHAT FULL, FULL OWNERSHIP ADDS BEYOND EXISTING RIGHTS. IS PERMANENT CONTROL OVER LAND USE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, ABILITY TO PHASE UTILITY, OPEN SPACE, TRAIL, PARK OR MUNICIPAL USES, AVOIDANCE OF FUTURE SELL OR HOLD OUT CONDEMNATION OR SITE LOSS RISK. LONG TERM OPTION VALUE IF GROWTH AND PERMITTING ASSUMPTIONS CHANGE. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BIG ONE. EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW HOW

[01:00:04]

WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT. THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION IN A REAL ESTATE FUND. THAT WAS FROM ANOTHER PURCHASE THE CITY MADE MANY YEARS AGO PRIOR TO MY TIME, AND THEY SOLD, I GUESS WHAT THEY CALL THE OLD, I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER THE HOUSE, THE MANSION OR WHATEVER. WELL, HOUSE. OKAY. SO SO THAT'S AND THAT THAT LAND, SINCE THAT WAS REVENUE DERIVED FROM REAL ESTATE SALE, IT NEEDS TO GO BACK INTO REAL ESTATE. SO THAT'S HOW WE WOULD FUND THIS.

SO THE CITY WOULD NOT NEED TO BORROW ANY MONEY OR ANYTHING TO DO THAT. IF WE PURCHASE IT NOW.

WE MAINTAIN MAXIMUM CONTROL. YOU COULD DO FIRST RIGHT OF RIGHT, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO PRESERVE FUTURE ACCESS. YOU COULD EXPAND EASEMENTS, ACCESS RIGHTS, OR YOU COULD DEFER IT AND TAKE NO ACTION. SO Y'ALL HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS Y'ALL CAN PUT UP HERE. AGAIN, I JUST LAID OUT THE INFORMATION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE A DECISION. I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS MANY TIMES.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS, IS THE WAY THE PREVIOUS SALE WAS DONE OR THE LAST SALE. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME TITLE ISSUES, BUT THAT'S WHY WE GO TO THE TITLE COMPANY TO GET ALL THAT CLEANED UP. AND MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING. SURE. VICTOR JUST SHOWED ME A DOCUMENT THAT I JUST SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME. HE'S EMAILING IT TO ME BECAUSE I LOOKED AT HIS PHONE AND MY EYESIGHT'S NOT THAT GOOD ANYMORE, BUT IT WAS A 2017 EASEMENT DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY APPARENTLY ENTERED. FOR BOTH GOLF COURSES TO USE AS IN ADDITION TO EFFLUENT DISPERSAL FOR FOR UTILITY PURPOSES. SO APPARENTLY IN 2017, THE CITY, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHED THIS, THIS BASICALLY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRETY OF BOTH COURSES. SO IN ADDITION TO, IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY, I JUST GLANCED AT IT BRIEFLY FOR A MOMENT. BUT BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IN ADDITION TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT THE CITY MAINTAINED WHEN IT SOLD THE PROPERTY, THERE IS ALSO LIKELY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER BOTH PROPERTIES THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE USED FOR THAT, BUT ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO IF THE CITY HADN'T HAD AN IDEA TO USE IT FOR, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND OR DO SOMETHING ELSE, PUT DISC GOLF OR TRAILS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T COVER SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES, IT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A 2017 EASEMENT THAT THE CITY. KEPT FOR ITSELF. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. FOR CLARIFICATION. THAT'S AS IF IT THERE'S A WE HAVE THAT EASEMENT FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY OWNING IT. IF WE OWNED IT, WE COULD PUT PARKS, TRAILS, GREEN SPACE ON IT BY RESOLUTION, BY BY REMOVING. THAT IS AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE A THIRD PARTY PRIVATE PARTY STILL OWNS IT. YOU STILL THE CITY WOULD STILL HAVE THAT UTILITY EASEMENT. BUT ALL YOU COULD USE IT FOR WOULD BE THAT UTILITY PURPOSE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT THIS IS A STRATEGIC LAND PURCHASE THAT THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT. AND YES, WE MAY NOT NEED IT UNTIL 2041, BUT THERE'S A SAYING IN MY FAMILY, AND THIS IS THE REASON I'M, I LIKE TO CONSIDER MYSELF A LITTLE BIT OF A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR IS THEY'RE NOT MAKING LAND ANYMORE. AND DEVELOPERS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO COME IN AND WIGGLE AROUND AND GET AS MUCH PROPERTY AS THEY CAN AND GET VARIANCES AND GET THINGS REPEALED. AND I'M VERY MUCH OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEGISLATOR WILL BE GOING AGAIN, GOING IN FAVOR OF PROPERTY OWNERS, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THAT IF A DEVELOPER DOES DECIDE TO BUY THIS, THAT THEY EVENTUALLY WILL STRIP THESE RESTRICTIONS OR DEED RESTRICTIONS AWAY, POTENTIALLY. I'VE SEEN MINERAL RIGHTS STRIPPED AWAY FROM PEOPLE BECAUSE OF, OF, OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS. SO I'M NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS JUST FOR AFFLUENT.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS AS A BIGGER PICTURE. YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY IF WE ARE ABLE TO GO TO TYPE ONE, WOULD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MANY CITIZENS OUT HERE THAT ARE PUSHING FOR GREEN SPACE. WE NEED A COMMUNITY CENTER. WE I MEAN, THIS IS RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS IN IN THE CENTER OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT SEVEN MILES OUT. IT'S NOT GOING TO COST US $11 MILLION TO FIX. MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS THE ANNUAL COST, THE MAINTENANCE COST INFRASTRUCTURE.

[01:05:04]

THERE ARE SOME DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS OUT THERE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. FIRE MITIGATION MANAGEMENT, JUST INSURANCE, YOU KNOW, AND THOSE ARE A FEW OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. BUT I'LL LEAVE COUNCIL AND PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE I'LL MAKE MAKE ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS. MR. BENFIELD, JUST PRIOR TO CITIZENS COMMENT, I WANT TO READ NOT JUST A BLURB OF A. DECEMBER 9TH, 2003 PERMITS FROM THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADDRESSED TO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. RECLAIMED WATER AUTHORIZATION, PAGE TWO.

AUTHORIZATION. TYPE TWO RECLAIMED WATER FROM THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. PERMIT NUMBER 1172-001 TO BE USED FOR IRRIGATION OF MATURE CEDAR TRACK FOR THE GOLDEN CHEEKED WARBLER, MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT AND ON TURFGRASS AT THE HIGHLAND LAKES AND BAR G. CORE GOLF COURSES. RECLAIMED WATER UNDER THIS AUTHORIZATION CANNOT EXCEED THE PERMITTED FLOW RATE UNDER PERMIT NUMBER 11752-001. I BELIEVE THAT EQUATES TO ABOUT.

I BELIEVE IT'S 3.52 ACRE FEET PER YEAR PER ACRE, WHICH EQUALS TO ABOUT 355,000 GALLONS PER DAY. SO. I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT THERE'S COMMENTS IN THIS ROOM THAT SAYS THAT WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO PROPERLY DISPERSE THE RECLAIMED WATER OVER THERE, BECAUSE CLEARLY, OUR 2003 PERMIT SAYS THAT WE DO. OKAY, CHARLES, YOU FINISHING? YEAH. FINISH THAT. JUST MY LAST TWO SLIDES HERE. IS IT NEEDED NOW? NO CURRENT PLANNING POINTS TO CEDAR BREAKS TO THROUGH 1.5 MGD ON THAT IS ON THE CURRENT EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. IS THE PRICE ATTRACTIVE? IT'S $200,000 BELOW THE CITY COMMISSIONED APPRAISAL. HOW IS IT GOING TO BE FUNDED? IT'S GOING TO BE CASH FROM AVAILABLE REAL ESTATE FUNDS. NO BORROWING INTEREST OR DEBT SERVICE. THERE ARE NO KNOWN.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE JUST THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE LOOKED AT THROUGH ALL OF THIS. I YOU KNOW, AS I SAID PERSONALLY, IF WE HAD IF THERE'S A DEED RESTRICTION THAT SAYS IT NEEDS TO REMAIN A GOLF COURSE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF BUILDING ANOTHER GOLF COURSE AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE OUR CURRENT GOLF COURSE NEEDS TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT PAYS FOR ITSELF AND NOT FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT TYPE OF GOLF COURSE IT COULD BE. THERE'S ALREADY DISC GOLF BASKETS OUT THERE. I THINK WE HAVE THE MINIMUM WORK AND ALL STAFF COULD MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, KEEP IT MOWED AND WE COULD UTILIZE THE DISC GOLF, WHICH IS A VERY POPULAR SPORT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, I HAVE DISCOVERED. SO AND IT WOULD BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COULD GO, WALK AND WALK THEIR DOGS AND EXERCISE AND STUFF AND JUST BE A GREEN SPACE. BUT IT'D HELP PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND MAINTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WITH THE ADDED VALUE OF IN THE FUTURE. WE COULD USE IT FOR EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IF IT'S NEEDED, BUT IF WE DO PURCHASE IT DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND OPEN SPACE, THAT GUARANTEES THE CITIZENS WILL ALWAYS HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO IT IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHARLES BEFORE I TAKE IT TO CITIZEN COMMENTS, MR. HALL? JUST ONE COMMENT ABOUT IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF IF, BUT WHEN. WE WILL NEED THAT ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR DISPOSAL AND WITH. WITH DUE RESPECT FOR STAFF, THE THIS THAT STUDY WAS NOT OR THOSE PROJECTIONS WERE NOT PUT TOGETHER BY CERTIFIED ENGINEERS, I YOU KNOW, THE STAFF PRESENTATION MAKES SENSE TO ME, BUT OF COURSE, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER EITHER. AND IF FOR ANY REASON THEY THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE WRONG AND WE NEED THEM BEFORE 15 YEARS, THEN WE COULD FIND OURSELVES IN A REAL BIND. IF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT AVAILABLE TO US AT A REASONABLE PRICE AT THAT TIME. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST A CONSIDERATION. OKAY, I'LL GO TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. I HAVE MR. DAVE STEWART, AND HE'S ALSO GOT AN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES GIVEN TO HIM BY LORI DICK. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WAS GOING TO

[01:10:12]

TALK ABOUT THAT PERMIT THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT. BUT IN ADDITION TO WHAT HE SAID, I HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER HERE THAT SAYS THAT THAT PERMIT WAS STILL CURRENT AS OF TEN DAYS AGO. SO WE HAVE AN ACTIVE 210 DISCHARGE PERMIT OUT THERE. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A MOMENT? THANK YOU SIR. SO IT'S FROM DECEMBER 9TH OF 2003, I THINK. AND AS OF TEN DAYS AGO, IT'S STILL. AND SO THE 210 PERMIT IS A BEST MANAGEMENT. SO IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A CEILING PER SE. ON A 210. IN THE PAST WE'VE PUT SIX ACRE FEET ON PROPERTY IN SECTIONS. IT AVERAGED IT OUT OVER THE WHOLE THING. BEST MANAGEMENT MEANS NO PONDING, NO RUNOFF. SO I HAD TO SCRATCH A LOT OF THIS OUT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ACCURATE LEGAL INFORMATION. SO THE CITY FIRST OWNED LDC ON 424, 2010. IT MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LDC, INCLUDING A TWO MILE CROSS TOWN, TEN INCH HDPE EFFLUENT TRANSMISSION LINE, 560 K EFFLUENT STORAGE TANK, AND AN IRRIGATION PUMP STATION. IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LCRA AND THE CITY OF JONESTOWN, THE CITY OF JONESTOWN ACTUALLY OWNED. ABOUT ONE SIXTH OF THE PUMP BUILDING, AND THE GST STATE TANK THAT WAS SOLD WHEN THEY SOLD THE GOLF COURSE, THE PUMP STATION SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN SOLD. WE SOLD PROPERTY THAT BELONGED TO ANOTHER CITY. THIS IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE LCRA ALSO PAID $100,000 TOWARDS THE COST OF THAT PROJECT, AND PART OF THAT MONEY WAS USED ON THE PUMP STATION AND THE TANK. WHEN THE IDEA ABOUT SELLING THE LDC OR HG HLGC WAS FIRST PROPOSED, I POINTED OUT THAT NONE OF THE CITY'S UTILITY LINES CROSSING THE LDC HAD EASEMENTS. WE DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD NEED ABOUT 50 EASEMENTS COSTING OVER $75,000 TO CREATE. SO THE DECISION WAS TO MAKE ALL THE ACREAGE FOR BOTH HLGC AND LVGC INTO CITY UTILITY EASEMENTS. WE DID SO BY MAKING IT A DEED RESTRICTION ON THE H, L, GC AND GC PLATS. IT FIXED THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY ALSO ASKED ME TO GUESS WHERE WE WERE GOING TO BE RUNNING NEW CITY UTILITY LINES ACROSS THE COURSE. NOW HOW AM I GOING TO KNOW THAT WHAT'S GOING TO BE HERE IN 20 YEARS? WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO SELL THE HLGC IN 2018, I SUGGESTED THAT THE. SAME DEED RESTRICTION METHOD BE USED TO SECURE THE PERPETUAL OF THE GOLF COURSE AS EITHER GOLF COURSE OR A GREEN BELT, AND SECURE THE IRRIGATION RIGHTS. INSTEAD, IT WAS PUT INTO THE 2019. SPECIAL.

WARRANTY DEED. SO IF THE CITY REBUYS DOES GAIN REPOSSESSION OR GETS POSSESSION OF IT AGAIN, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TWO DEED RESTRICTIONS BE ADDED TO BOTH PLATS AND THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S IN THE 2019 AND NOT IN THE 2020. SO. WHEN WE TOOK OVER THE LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE, IT WAS BECAUSE WE NOTICED THEY HADN'T IRRIGATED FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS.

SO WE INVOKED, I DON'T GET THIS SO SCRATCHED UP. WE INVOKED THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE CLAUSE AND TOOK FORCIBLE POSSESSION OF THE PUMP BUILDINGS OVER. WHEN WE GOT THERE, WE FOUND NO POWER METERS. THE ELECTRIC METERS HAD BEEN PULLED, SO WE GOT PECK TO TURN THE POWER BACK ON AN EMERGENCY. THEN WHEN WE WENT TO GO INTO THE BUILDING, NONE OF THE LIGHT BULBS WORKED, SO WE HAD TO PUT BULBS IN IT SO WE COULD SEE WHAT WE WERE DOING. WHEN WE FIRED IT UP, WE HAD ONE PUMP AT EACH STATION, BARELY OPERATIONAL, OPERATING AT ABOUT 50 OR 60% OF CAPACITY. SO WE HAD TO PULL PUMPS OUT, PAY HOTSHOTS TO GET THEM FIXED AND PUT THEM BACK IN FOUR DAYS LATER. ONLY THEN DID WE START EMPTYING OUR PONDS. WE HAVE THE

[01:15:07]

EXACT SAME SITUATION GOING ON WITH THE PUMP STATION AT THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. THE TANK HAS A LEAK ABOUT 16FT OFF THE GROUND. I'M TOLD THAT THE PUMP STATION IS INOPERABLE. THE WAY YOU USE YOUR 210 IS THAT WE HAVE A GOLF COURSE THAT HAS DEFECTIVE IRRIGATION, AND WE HAVE A PORTION OF THE GOLF COURSE THAT IF IT HAD THE WORKINGS ON IT RIGHT NOW, CAN'T IRRIGATE WHILE IT'S BEING REBUILT. SO OUR POLICY WAS DURING WET WEATHER, WE ALWAYS DUMPED WATER ON THE HIGHLANDS COURSE SO WE COULD THE EXCESSIVE RAINWATER TO KEEP OUR PONDS DOWN SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO OVER WATER THE CEDAR TREES. SO IT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE TEE LAPSE, EVEN IF IT IS A 210 A, BECAUSE IT'S YOUR OFF LOAD. THAT'S WHERE YOU GET RID OF YOUR EXTRA. OR IF YOU GET IN A BIND DURING A WET WEATHER EVENT. SO IF WE OWN THE PUMP STATION, WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER GIVEN AWAY THE PUMP STATION, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE DIDN'T OWN 100% OF IT. WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT BACK. IT'S A SHAME WE GOT TO BUY BACK WHAT WE PAID.

THE BILL, THOUGH. THAT SITS IN MY CRAW, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY WAY AROUND IT. SO. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SUPER EL NINO. I THINK THAT PUMP STATION COULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO MANUAL OPERATIONS FAIRLY SIMPLY, PROBABLY IN NO MORE THAN SIX WEEKS, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S BROKE. I BUILT IT, EVERYTHING WAS BRAND NEW WHEN I BROUGHT IT ONLINE. THE BUILDING'S HEAVILY INSULATED. IT'S GOT HARDIE BOARD ON THE INSIDE. IT'S NOT GOING TO NEED ANY BUILDING.

IT'S JUST GOING TO NEED PUMP AND CONTROLS. OKAY. WHEN IF THE GOLF COURSE AND I DON'T HEAR THIS FROM THIS COUNCIL, BUT WE SURVEYED THE PUMP STATION AND THE GST OUT SEPARATELY BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO SELL THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE, WE WERE GOING TO KEEP POSSESSION OF THAT BECAUSE WE FOUND FROM THE LOG OF VISTA GOLF COURSE THAT PRIVATE ENTITIES DO NOT MAINTAIN PUMPING STATIONS EQUIVALENT TO THE WAY THE CITY DOES. AND WE NEED THAT. IF WE NEED TO TURN THAT ON TOMORROW, WE NEED TO KNOW IT'S GOING TO WORK. AND YOU ALL JUST WENT THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY ON THE CEDAR BREAKS BECAUSE THEY STOPPED MAINTENANCE THERE. WELL, THEY DIDN'T JUST STOP MAINTENANCE OUT AT CEDAR BREAKS.

THIS BUILDING GOT NO MAINTENANCE IN THE SAME TIME, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT'S AS BAD OR IT'S GOING TO COST AS MUCH. SO. ON ANOTHER NOTE, I HEAR A LOT ABOUT TYPE ONE WATER.

OKAY, TYPE ONE REUSE. WATER IS NOT MAGIC WATER. IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE APPLICATION RATE FOR THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ON THE TC 305. PERMITTED EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PROPERTY, THE TI LABS.

ALL IT DOES IS GIVE THE CITY A WIDER SELECTION OF LAND AREAS TO DISCHARGE EFFLUENT. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU FILL A FIVE GALLON BUCKET WITH TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO EFFLUENT. AFTER FIVE GALLONS OF EITHER TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO EFFLUENT IS PUT INTO THE FIVE GALLON BUCKET, IT IS. IT WILL OVERFLOW AND YOU NEED TO GO GET ANOTHER BUCKET. MAKING IT TYPE ONE DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN DOUBLE THE APPLICATION RATE. NOW THERE'S ANOTHER ADVANTAGE TO BUYING THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. SOME OF THE LAND OUT THERE AT THE CEDAR BREAKS COULD BE IRRIGATED WITH GROUND IRRIGATION, AND I'M ESTIMATING, AND THESE ARE MY ESTIMATES THAT.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE 3 TO 5 TIMES AS MUCH PIPE, NOT THE SAME SIZE, BUT AS MUCH PIPE AND DITCHES, AND PROBABLY 4 TO 8 TIMES AS MANY IRRIGATION HEAD AND SOLENOID CONTROL VALVES TO PUT A GROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN TO CONTINUE EXPANDING OUR TI LABS. IF WE WANT TO GO UP TO THE 1.5. HOWEVER, IF YOU WERE TO STOP AT YOUR WATER CANNONS, WHICH IS REALLY, REALLY CHEAP FOR BANG FOR THE BUCK, BUT YOU COULD GO WITH A HIGH K VALUE BASIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM OVER AT THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE FOR PROBABLY A QUARTER OF THE COST THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO IRRIGATE THE SAME LAND OUT THERE AT THE CEDAR BREAKS, YOU JUST KICK THAT DOWN THE ROAD TO WHERE, WHEN THEY NEED IT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. BUT YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY WISELY AND GET THE MOST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK BY MOVING THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE AHEAD OF ANY GROUND. IRRIGATION OUT AT CEDAR BREAKS, THEY'LL SAVE THE CITY A HUGE AMOUNT OF

[01:20:06]

MONEY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. STEWART. I HAD ONE QUESTION BASED OFF OF THAT BECAUSE I HAD YOU KNOW, I WAS LCRA SENT ME THAT PREVIOUS GRANT THAT THEY WE HELPED UTILIZE TO BUILD THE STORAGE TANK WITH JONESTOWN AS WELL. MY QUESTION FOR BRAD IS, AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS PART OF THAT IT WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SPREAD EFFLUENT DISPERSAL. DOES THAT ANYTHING DOES THAT DOES THAT HOLD UP OVER TIME? YOU KNOW, WE USE GRANT MONEY. WE GOT MONEY UP THROUGH JONESTOWN OVER TIME THAT'S GOT LOST. IF IT WERE TO BE BOUGHT AND USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE, WOULD THEY BE IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING WITH THE CITY, OWE THAT MONEY BACK WITH JONESTOWN, HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE CITY MAYOR? I'D REALLY WANT TO REVIEW SOME DOCUMENTS BEFORE I COULD OFFER ANY KIND OF YOU KNOW, WHAT I FELT LIKE WOULD BE A RELIABLE OPINION. I'VE NOT SEEN THAT. SO CERTAINLY I'D WANT TO LOOK AT IT. I MEAN, ANYTIME WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT ANYTIME GRANT MONEY IS INVOLVED, YOU NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF OF USES AND EXPENDITURES RELATED TO IT BECAUSE IT COMES WITH THOSE LIMITING FACTORS. BUT BEYOND THAT, I CAN'T REALLY GIVE YOU A MORE DEFINITE OPINION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS.

MAYOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT WAS ON MY WATCH. OKAY, SO LET'S GO WITH THE LCRA GRANT FIRST.

THE LCRA, I THINK WE MADE IT ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE TEN YEAR REPORTING PERIOD BEFORE THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WAS SHUT DOWN. SO BASICALLY, WE HAVE FIVE MORE YEARS OF REPORTS TO DO TO PROVE THAT WE'RE PUTTING EFFLUENT ON THE THE GOLF COURSE, AND WE COMPLETE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT. I UNDERSTAND THAT ERNESTO IS WORKING ON RESOLVING THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS PROBABLY A REAL DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF SPREADING EFFLUENT. BUT WHAT THEY TOLD THE CITY, THE MAYOR AND ME, WAS THAT IF WE FAIL TO COMPLETE THE TEN YEARS APPLICATION AND THEREFORE PROVE THAT WE PUT OUT THE AMOUNT OF EFFLUENT THAT THEY WERE GIVING US CREDIT FOR, THAT THEY WOULD JUST SIMPLY TAKE BACK A PORTION OF THE GRANT. NOW, WITH THE CITY OF LAGO, WITH THE CITY OF JONESTOWN, WHEN THE MAYOR NEGOTIATED THAT CONTRACT WITH THEM IN THE IN THAT CONTRACT, IT STATES THAT FOR THIS ONE IMPROVEMENT, THE CITY OF JONESTOWN HAS THE RIGHT TO PUT AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF EFFLUENT ON THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THE LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE. IT STRICTLY SAID THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. SO. AND I WOULD HAVE TO. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH MY NOTES OR MY CALENDARS TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHEN THAT OCCURRED. BUT THERE IS A CONTRACT. THE GRANT IS SEPARATE FROM THE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, AND THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES. BUT BASICALLY, IF YOU BUY THE COURSE AND WE REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE GROUND STORAGE TANK AND THE PUMP BUILDING, THEN WE'RE BACK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OLD CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF JONESTOWN. SO YOU'RE FIXING SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BROKEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OTHERS WHO EMAILED IN AND ASKED THAT THEY HAVE THEIR COMMENTS READ IN. FIRST ONE I HAVE HERE IS BRANDY LEBLANC. DEAR MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL, DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PURCHASE OF THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE CONTINUE. I'VE COME TO ACCEPT THAT THE CITY MAY ULTIMATELY DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY. WHILE I ORIGINALLY HOPED FOR A DIFFERENT OUTCOME, I REALIZED THAT THE $1.2 MILLION CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THAT CITY MANAGER CHARLES WEST HAS ALREADY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE PURCHASE, EVEN THOUGH THE AGENDA PACKET HE PROVIDED GAVE ALL THE REASONS NOT TO BUY THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE TIME TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU TO VOTE NO, BECAUSE I THINK YOU ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MINDS. INSTEAD, MY FOCUS NOW IS ENSURING THAT THIS PURCHASE IS MADE WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. THE PROPERTY IS RESTORED, MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMITMENTS AS PART OF THE PURCHASE AND PUBLICLY ADOPT THEM THROUGH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OR OTHER FORMAL ACTION. LAND PRESERVATION. COMMIT TO MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT G ONE GOLF COURSE ZONING AND PRESERVE THE LAND AS OPEN SPACE AND GOLF COURSE. ANY FUTURE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ZONING OR PRIMARY USE WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE PUBLIC INPUT BEFORE CONSIDERATION. IMMEDIATE PROPERTY RESTORATION WITHIN THE FIRST 30 TO 60 DAYS AFTER CLOSING, I ASK THAT THE CITY. MO. CAN YOU READ THIS JUST A LITTLE SLOWER? I'M TRYING TO.

SORRY. I'M TRYING TO WRITE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUESTS. I WAS TRYING TO FIT IT IN UNDER THE THREE MINUTES THAT THEY NORMALLY WOULD GET. IT'S GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THAT, BUT MOW THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND ESTABLISH A REGULAR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AND POST THAT SCHEDULE LIKE YOU POST THE TRASH AND RECYCLING SCHEDULE, RESTORE IRRIGATION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO DAMAGE SPRINKLER HEADS, BROKEN LINES, AND DRY AREAS CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND

[01:25:02]

REPAIRED. REMOVE ALL DEAD, HAZARDOUS AND DISEASED TREES. TRIM TREES BORDERING CART PATHS AND WALKING AREAS TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND APPEARANCE. REMOVE ALL EXISTING NO TRESPASSING SIGNS SO RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOW PUBLIC PROPERTY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. AS PUBLIC PROPERTY, THE CITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE SITE SAFE FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.

I ASK THAT CITY REPAIR DAMAGE CART PATHS THAT PRESENT TRIPPING HAZARDS, REPAIR UNSAFE BRIDGES, DRAINAGE CROSSINGS AND OTHER DETERIORATED INFRASTRUCTURE AS NEEDED.

MAINTAIN SAFE WALKING ROUTES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. SANDBAR AND TURF RESTORATION ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING CONCERNS FOR ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS IS THE SEVERE SAMBA SAMBA INFESTATION THAT HAS SPREAD FROM THE NEGLECTED GOLF COURSE INTO SURROUNDING YARDS.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY IMPLEMENT AN AGGRESSIVE SAND ERADICATION PROGRAM USING BOTH PRE AND POST EMERGENT TREATMENTS. CONTINUE TREATMENT UNTIL THE INFESTATION HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. RESTORE HEALTHY TURF BY OVERSEEDING OR SPRIGGING BERMUDA GRASS, WHERE APPROPRIATE TO HELP CROWD OUT INVASIVE WEEDS AND PREVENT FUTURE INFESTATIONS. TREE REPLACEMENT AS DEAD TREES ARE REMOVED, I ASK THAT THE CITY UTILIZE AVAILABLE TREE FUNDS TO REPLACE THEM WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SHADE TREES THAT WILL ENHANCE THE BEAUTY OF THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE THIS PURCHASE REPRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INVESTMENT, AS THE CITY PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH A 90 DAY RESTORATION PLAN, A ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN, A FIVE YEAR MASTER PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY, ESTIMATED BUDGETS FOR RESTORATION AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE. QUARTERLY PUBLIC PROGRESS REPORTS DURING THE FIRST YEAR. ALL THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE SHARED ON THE WEBSITE, NOT JUST AS A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IT SHOULD BE INFORMATION THAT IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE. THESE UPDATES WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS TO SEE HOW TAXPAYER FUNDS ARE BEING INVESTED, AND BUILD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTIES BEING RESPONSIBLY MANAGED. ALTHOUGH OPINIONS DIFFER REGARDING THE PURCHASE ITSELF, I BELIEVE WE ALL SHARE THE SAME GOAL OF SEEING THIS PROPERTY BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE, SAFE AND WELL MAINTAINED ASSET FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND IN THE FUTURE, GOLF COURSE ONCE MORE. ONCE IT BECOMES CITY OWNED LAND, IT SHOULD REFLECT THE PRIDE THAT LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS TAKE IN OUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. I HAVE ANOTHER ONE HERE FROM. MISS LITA. GUY SAYS I OPPOSE THE PURCHASE OF THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. OUR CITY MANAGER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED WE DON'T NEED IT FOR ADDITIONAL AFFLUENT DISPERSAL. HIS QUARTERLY CIP REPORT STATES THE CITY DOES NOT PLAN TO INCREASE CAPACITY AT OUR WASTEWATER PLANT, SO LOGICALLY, MEANING NO INCREASE IN AFFLUENT, WE WOULD LOSE SIGNIFICANT TAX REVENUE, NOT TO MENTION INCREASED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS, WHICH WE HAVEN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET.

AND THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT EVEN PROVIDES REASONS NOT TO DO IT. THIS WASN'T EVEN IN THE BUDGET, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE MORE PRESSING NEEDS REGARDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THIS JUST FEELS LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS. OKAY. A EMAIL FROM STEVEN CRAFT. IF YOU CHECK YOUR EMAIL ON THAT, IT WAS JUST RECEIVED ABOUT 5:00. OKAY. I'M NOT FINDING IF YOU WANT TO READ IT. OKAY. OKAY. FROM STEVEN L CRAFTS RECEIVED AT 5:12 P.M. THE HIGHLAND GOLF ACQUISITION IS FRAUD ON TAXPAYERS AND MUST STOP. WE ARE NOT A REIT OR A REIT. PROTECT YOUR TAXPAYER, STEVEN CRAFT. OKAY, I GOT DUSTIN MARTIN. HOW Y'ALL DOING COUNSEL? MY NAME IS DUSTIN. I LIVE ON HOLE 11 OF THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR THE CITY TO PURCHASE THIS GOLF COURSE, BECAUSE THE CURRENT OPERATOR OBVIOUSLY CANNOT TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF AND IT'D BE NICE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A NICE GREEN SPACE IN THE BACK, WHETHER IT'S A GOLF COURSE OR NOT. SO I'M FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS GOLF COURSE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT I WILL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M THRILLED. I THINK THERE'S A KIND OF A COMMON THEME THAT'S COMING UP HERE. BUT AS FOR THOSE THAT WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, Y'ALL KNOW FIRST AND FOREMOST, MY FOCUS ON MAKING SURE LONG TERM THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS. EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT TO ME, BECAUSE IT ALSO MEANS THE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THIS CITY. RIGHT NOW, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER WE CAN MAKE A RELATIVELY MODEST INVESTMENT TODAY, USING EXISTING FUNDS TO INCREASE OUR WASTEWATER CAPACITY, RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL WE'RE FORCED INTO A MUCH LARGER CAPITAL PROJECT. IF WE GAIN ADDITIONAL CAPACITY WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, IT MAY ALLOW US TO POSTPONE THE NEED FOR A FUTURE BOND ISSUE THAT RIGHT NOW IS

[01:30:04]

ESTIMATED TO BE IN THE RANGE OF 50 TO $20 MILLION. LARGE INFRASTRUCTURES ALSO REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT PLANNING, ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION.

THEY CAN'T BE BUILT OVERNIGHT IF GROWTH AND NEW UTILITY CONNECTIONS INCREASE MORE QUICKLY THAN ANTICIPATED, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES NEEDING ADDITIONAL CAPACITY BEFORE A MAJOR EXPANSION COULD REALISTICALLY BE COMPLETED, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING TO BUY LAND OUTSIDE THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA AND TO CREATE PIPES TO THAT LAND TO MAKE IT USEFUL. IF A SMALLER INVESTMENT TODAY PROVIDES MEANINGFUL ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AND EXTENDS THE LIFE OF OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, THE RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL. IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE TIME FOR THOUGHTFUL PLANNING, REDUCE THE PRESSURE TO ISSUE DEBT PREMATURELY, AND HELP AVOID PLACING UNNECESSARY TAX BURDENS ON OUR RESIDENTS WHILE STILL PREPARING US FOR OUR CITY'S FUTURE. THIS IS CURRENT MONEY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND WHETHER OR NOT I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION OUT ON THE ON FACEBOOK, ETC. AS TO WHAT OUR MOTIVES ARE. OUR MOTIVES ARE TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF LAGO VISTA WHILE MAKING SURE THAT IT IS FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE AND THAT WE CAN FLUSH OUR TOILETS IN THE END TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I AM FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU. MR. PRINCE. SO A NUMBER OF COMMENTS. AND, MR. STEWART, I FOUND SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID TO BE PARTICULARLY HELPFUL. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY LET ME BEFORE THAT, LET ME BACK UP, REWIND ALL THE WAY TO THE BEGINNING. FIRST OF ALL, SAY THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE CHARACTERIZED THIS AS IF THE CITY MANAGER IS KIND OF GONE ROGUE ON, ON PUSHING THIS. THAT IS SO FAR FROM THE REALITY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. CITY MANAGER WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY AND BROUGHT IT TO COUNCIL, SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO WITH IT? AND WE SAID, WELL, WE SHOULD CHECK IT OUT. AND BECAUSE IT WAS A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE, THE STANDARD PRACTICE THAT CITIES EVERYWHERE GO THROUGH IS YOU DON'T YOU DON'T DIVULGE ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT MAKING TO PUBLIC, BECAUSE THEN THE PERSON WHO'S TRYING TO SELL IT TO YOU HAS INSIDE INFORMATION AND CAN, YOU KNOW, PUSH YOU FOR A HIGHER PRICE. SO, SO WE WALKED SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY THROUGH IT. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS IN EXECUTIVE DECISION AND AT EVERY PHASE OF THE, OF THE DECISION, THE DISCUSSION. MISTER, MISTER WEST HAS COME IN AND SAID, HERE'S THE DATA I HAVE AS OF TODAY. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO NOW? AND SO WE PROCEEDED TO THE POINT WE ARE TODAY AND SAID, BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION, BEFORE WE COUNCIL MAKE A DECISION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND LET EVERYBODY WEIGH IN ON IT. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL IN GENERAL, BUT CERTAINLY MISTER WEST IN PARTICULAR, HAS ACTED IN JUST THE RIGHT WAY ON THIS. SO ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN KICKING AROUND HERE IS CAN WE DISTRIBUTE? I THINK WE ON COUNCIL HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE NEED TO DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT ON THIS PROPERTY OR SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY DISTRIBUTING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO IF WE NEED TO DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT ON IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DO WE HAVE TO OWN IT IN ORDER TO DO THAT? AND, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS SOMETHING IT'S KIND OF A GRAY ZONE, RIGHT? YEAH. WE HAVE THESE CONTRACTS, WE HAVE THESE RIGHTS. THERE'S THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS WE COULD DO IT. ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD FROM MR. STEWART IS, YOU KNOW, THE CASE HISTORY SAYS IF THE CITY DOESN'T OWN IT, THE PEOPLE WHO OWN IT DON'T KEEP THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN CONDITION SO THAT WHEN WE NEED IT, IT'S READY TO GO AND WE HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY TO GET THERE. SO, SO, AND I TAKE PRETTY SERIOUSLY WHAT I YOU DIDN'T EXPLICITLY SAY IT, MR. STEWART, BUT I. OR MAYBE YOU DID. YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THE CITY MAKING THIS THIS PURCHASE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD. OKAY. SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT US OWNING IT AND HAVING FREEDOM OF ACTION THAT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY REQUIRE LEGAL ACTION IN ORDER TO, TO, TO TAKE THAT CARRIES SOME WEIGHT. THE, THE, THERE'S A SIDE EFFECT OF US POTENTIALLY OWNING THIS. IT SAYS, OKAY, WELL, MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT UNTIL TEN YEARS OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW ON THIS PROPERTY. WHAT COULD WE DO WITH IT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN? RIGHT. AND SO I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO OUR PARK EXPERT, MISTER MONTGOMERY SCOTT. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS IN HIS TIME THAT HE'S BEEN HERE IS HE'S

[01:35:04]

BEEN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY FOLLOWING THE LAWS ON OUR PARKS. AND, AND FRANKLY, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA HAS BEEN KIND OF FAST AND LOOSE ON, ON, ON THINGS ON THE PARK. AND, AND HE'S, HE'S STRAIGHTENED US OUT ON THESE KIND OF THINGS. AND SO I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, SO IF WE COULD WE USE THIS AS A PARK, AS A TRAIL IN HIS FIRST PASS ANSWER WAS NOT IF WE'RE DISTRIBUTING EFFLUENT, IF YOU'RE DISTRIBUTING TYPE TWO EFFLUENT ON THIS LAND, YOU COULD YOU CAN'T DO A TRAIL. AND SO I SAID, WELL, HOW ARE WE DOING THAT ON THE GOLF COURSE? WELL, IT'S BECAUSE THE GOLF COURSE AT STATE LAW LEVEL HAS AN EXCEPTION. AND THE HOLE, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND HE CAN COME CORRECT ME IN A MINUTE HERE IF I MISTRANSLATED ANY OF THIS. THE WHOLE POINT IS, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T DISTRIBUTE EFFLUENT ON THAT PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WHAT WHAT? WHEN HE AND I FIRST TALKED ABOUT THIS, THERE WERE TWO THINGS THAT THAT HE HADN'T REALIZED. NUMBER ONE WAS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DISTRIBUTING EFFLUENT FOR TEN OR MORE YEARS. WHAT COULD WE DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN? WELL, WE CERTAINLY COULD DO TRAILS ON THAT PROPERTY. AND SO DO WE DO TRAILS FOR TEN YEARS AND SAY, OOPS, TRAILS ARE GOING TO BE SHUT DOWN. NOW WE'RE DOING EFFLUENT. WELL, IF IT'S TYPE ONE EFFLUENT, BY THE TIME WE WANT TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR, THEN THE TRAILS COULD STILL OPERATE, RIGHT? SO I THINK THERE IS A PARKS BENEFIT. AND I WAS LIAISON TO THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A WHILE. AND I KNOW THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HAVE A REALLY LARGE TRAIL. AND A LOT OF CITIZENS HAVE TALKED ABOUT BIKES, EBIKES, AND HIKING. AND SO I THINK THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFIT. THE MOTIVATION, I THINK, FOR EVERYONE ON COUNCIL IS CLEAR THIS IS ABOUT DISTRIBUTING EFFLUENT, BUT I SEE THAT IF WE OWN IT AND WE HAVE A EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION PLAN, WE CAN ALSO USE THIS PROPERTY FOR SOME OTHER PRETTY GOOD, YOU KNOW, LIFE BENEFIT TO OUR TO OUR CITIZENS. ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE BEFORE CLOSING, I SAY BEFORE CLOSING, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY MADE A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT POINT IN MY MIND, AND THAT IS THAT WHILE RIGHT NOW THIS IS ZONED AS GOLF COURSE, ANY CITY COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE COULD, UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS, COULD SAY, OH, WE'RE CHANGING OUR MINDS AND WE'RE GOING TO REZONE IT AS SOMETHING ELSE. RIGHT. AND HOWEVER, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT, THAT IF IN ADDITION TO PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY, THE CITY WERE TO TAKE ACTION TO DESIGNATE IT AS PARKLAND, THEN THAT PUTS IT IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY WHERE A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T, BY A VOTE OF MAJORITY OF SEVEN PEOPLE, CHANGE THE ZONING ON IT.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO A VOTE OF CITIZENS TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON IT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S SOME PRETTY SOLID PROTECTION THAT THIS LAND WON'T GET LATER DEVELOPED. AND SO ALL THOSE THINGS ADDED TOGETHER, I THINK THIS IS THIS IS GOOD USE OF MONEY. IT'S LONG TERM THINKING. IT'S BUILDING A PLAN THAT OUR CITIZENS TEN, 15, 20 YEARS FROM NOW. AND WHOEVER THE CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL ARE AT THAT TIME WILL SAY, THOSE GUYS DID IT RIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR THING. THEY MAY HAVE MADE A LOT OF OTHER MISTAKES BACK THEN IN 2016, BUT THIS ONE THEY GOT RIGHT. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING AHEAD WITH THIS. MR. PENFIELD. THANK YOU. SOME OF MY POINTS ARE JUST FOR SO YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THERE WAS TWO SUBCOMMITTEES THAT WE'VE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME. ONE WAS THE IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION SUBCOMMITTEE, AND THERE'S ALSO AN ACTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE. WE SPEND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I KNOW THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS, LIKE ONE OF THE ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS READ TO ME IS, WHY BUY THE COW WHEN YOU CAN GET THE MILK FOR FREE? AND BASICALLY THE ASSUMPTION WAS, IF WE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS LAND AND WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THE WATER ON THIS LAND, WHY DO WE NEED TO BUY THE WHY DO WE NEED TO BUY THE LAND? SO I JUST HAVE A COUPLE REASONS WHY THAT ARE GOING TO HOPEFULLY DELINEATE FROM SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID. I'M JUST NOT GOING TO REPEAT THEM. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THAT CITY COUNCIL SOMEHOW DID ALL THIS ACTION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I THINK PRINCE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB EXPLAINING THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING THE DEAL, MAKING SURE IT'S TO THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST. AND THEN THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS AMONG CITY COUNCIL THAT BEFORE WE SIGN THE CONTRACT, WE WOULD BRING IT TO THE CITY FOR EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS. AND SO, YES, THERE WAS SOME PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, BUT THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENTION NOT TO INCLUDE THE CITY. IN FACT, EVERYBODY SAID

[01:40:05]

IN THESE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WE DON'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE THIS MEETING. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. BUT AS IT'S BEEN STATED, WE ARE GOING TO NEED THIS LAND.

CURRENT PRODUCTION PREDICTIONS PUT IT AROUND 2040. AS PRINCE MENTIONED, THERE WILL BE A DAY THAT PEOPLE SAY AT LEAST THEY GOT SOMETHING RIGHT. ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED IS WE HAVE A POND ISSUE WHERE WE NEED MORE PONDS AND PONDS ARE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN. AND THIS PROPERTY JUST SO HAPPENED, COMES WITH PONDS ON IT. AND BASED ON SOME OF THE INITIAL FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED IS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO BUILD ANY MORE PONDS. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT OR NESTO CORRECT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT POND CAPACITY FOR US, WHICH IS JUST A HUGE VICTORY, AS MR. STEWART POINTED OUT, IF WE DIDN'T BUY THIS LAND AND WE SAID, HEY, LET'S NOT DO THIS, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT LAND 7 TO 11 MILES AWAY FROM HERE. RIGHT? AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD COST TO BUY LAND 7 TO 11 MILES AWAY, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, RUN A 12 INCH WATER LINE SEVEN MILES OR 11 MILES TO THAT LAND THROUGH THE HILL COUNTRY WOULD BE UNBELIEVABLE IN THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PUT IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN, THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD COST. HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE IS JUST RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF POND 17. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT TRUNK LINE RUNNING OVER THERE. IT'S JUST A VALVE THAT WE HAVE TO OPEN AND IT'S ALREADY IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO IT'S JUST A HUGE VALUE. I ALREADY READ THE PERMIT NUMBER FROM 2003. THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY THAT THE STAFF WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET A NEW PERMIT FOR NEW LAND 10 OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW WOULD BE AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF WORK, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THE PERMIT. IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. IT'S DESIGNATED FOR THIS, FOR THIS LAND. MR. PRINCE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE CONVERSION FROM TYPE TWO TO TYPE ONE. AS WE MAKE THAT CONVERSION, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS LAND UNBELIEVABLY USEFUL FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND I SUPPORT 100%. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE DO IS SEND THIS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND LET'S START HAVING THE CONVERSATION OF GETTING THIS THING REZONED PARK LAND, TO JUST ADD THAT LAYER OF PROTECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT NO DEVELOPMENT CAN EVER OCCUR HERE AND THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, FOR MY WIFE POINTED OUT, FOR A CITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS AND DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF AMENITIES FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO HAVE 111 ACRES WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND WALK THEIR DOGS AND JUST BE AWAY FROM THE CARS IS A REALLY GREAT ASSET. ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. I LOVE THE IDEA OF MAKING SURE NO DEVELOPER CAN EVER CIRCUMVENT.

I MEAN, IF THERE'S ONE THING I KNOW, LAWYERS KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND RULES, AND WE THINK THAT THEY CAN'T EVER DO SOMETHING WITH THIS LAND UNTIL SOMEBODY SHOWS UP ONE DAY AND SAYS, OH, BY THE WAY, I'VE GOT A WORKAROUND. IF WE OWN IT, WE CONTROL IT. IF WE MAKE A MISTAKE, IF IF IT'S DETERMINED FIVE YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE MADE A MISTAKE IN BUYING IT, GUESS WHAT? WE CAN SELL IT. IT'S 111 ACRES OF PRIME PROPERTY THAT COULD BE SOLD IF WE EVER MADE THE MISTAKE. SO I DON'T EVEN LOOK AT IT AS A LOSS. EVEN IF WE MADE A MISTAKE, IT STILL HAS AN INTRINSIC VALUE BECAUSE IT'S 111 ACRES IN THE CENTER OF OUR THE CITY. ONE THING THAT WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME IS THE MONEY BEING USED TO PAY FOR IT IS NOT REVENUE THAT WAS GENERATED FROM TAXES. IT WAS REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF A PROPERTY THAT MUST BE USED TO ACQUIRE NEW PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU ADD ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER, IT JUST IT BECOMES AN ABSOLUTE NO BRAINER PURCHASE. AND I'M COMPLETELY FOR IT 100%.

MR. HALL. WELL, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH ALL THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. AND THIS ONE IS KIND OF A MINOR IN IN COMPARISON, BUT THE PROPERTY IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. WE'VE HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF CITIZENS OR MORE ABOUT THAT. THE CITY'S BEEN FORCED TO MOW IT BECAUSE OF THAT IN THE PAST. AND AND IT'S STILL NOT BEING MAINTAINED. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST FURTHER LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE FUTURE. BUT IT WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY TO HAVE THAT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AS IT SHOULD BE. MR. AVERILL SO WHILE EVERYONE IS

[01:45:07]

STATING THAT THIS MONEY IS ALREADY KIND OF IN OUR COFFERS, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT MAINTAINING RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE, SECURITY, DRAINAGE, LONG TERM PUBLIC PURPOSE USES THAT IS GOING TO BE A COST TO THE CITY. BUT THE TRADE OFF IS SO MUCH MORE. SO THAT'S WHY I AM IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THIS. WITH THE CITY, BENEFITS COMPLETELY OUTWEIGH ANY NEGATIVE RESPONSES I'VE SEEN OR EVEN MISINFORMATION I'VE SEEN FROM FROM MISINFORMED CONSTITUENTS. SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR BRAD. THERE IS IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY MATERIAL DEFECTS TO THIS. WHEN IT COMES BACK FROM TITLE I, I WONDER IF THAT SHOULDN'T COME BACK TO COUNCIL RATHER THAN JUST BE A BLANKET APPROVAL FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AS, AS, AS IT READS NOW, IT SAID THERE'S THERE IS A WAY THAT IT SAYS, LET ME GO BACK UP HERE. MY NOTES. IT SAYS MATERIAL CLOSING MATTERS. SO I WANT MATERIAL TITLE ACCESS, ENVIRONMENTAL OR SAFETY OR SURVEY CONCERNS. I DON'T WANT THOSE REALLY WAIVED WITHOUT COUNCIL BEING INFORMED ABOUT THAT. BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY RESERVATIONS I HAVE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THIS IS YEAH, I THINK I THINK IN CHARLES NODDING HIS HEAD, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT YOUR 30 DAY, RIGHT? YEAH. DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD. AND SO IF ANYTHING COMES BACK AMISS IN YOU KNOW, THEN WE WOULD BRING IT BACK. I MEAN, BEFORE, I MEAN, THERE'S NO QUESTION. YEAH. SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A, IT, IT ULTIMATELY, IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE LIKE ANY OTHER BUYER IS THIS, DO WE WAIVE THIS? DO WE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN EASY ONE TO ANSWER.

RIGHT? THERE WAS A, I THINK THERE WAS SOME, THERE WAS A, SOME ISSUES ABOUT SATISFACTORY OR SATISFYING SOME WAIVERS. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WERE BROUGHT BACK SO THAT THAT'S BASICALLY THE ONLY THING I HAVE LEFT ON THAT. I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE VOICEMAILS AND IN PASSING AND LOWE'S AND BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS, THOSE WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED TO ME IS THAT IF THERE WAS A SECONDARY LIEN OR IF THERE WAS SOME ISSUES WITH OTHER FUNDING OR INTERESTED PARTIES THAT WE WOULD RUN INTO SOME ISSUES. SO YEAH, ANY, ANY, ANY TITLE CONCERNS THAT ARE THAT ARE TURNED UP DURING THE, THE, THE, THE TITLE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK. WHEN IS IT YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE THE 30 DAYS WOULD RUN OUT, RIGHT? YEAH. SO, SO I MEAN IT WOULD BE ON THAT NEXT MEETING. ONE LAST POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT I HAD SEEN SOME MENTION OF WONDERING WHY WE DID NOT HAVE A REAL ESTATE AGENT REPRESENTING US. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THIS PROPERTY. AND A TITLE COMPANY WILL BASICALLY CLEAR UP ANY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING THAT. AND WE DON'T WANT TO. THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE TO BE PAYING 5% TO A REAL ESTATE AGENCY WHEN WE WERE APPROACHED WITH THIS INFORMATION. SO THEY BASICALLY CAME TO US AND SAID, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE GOT GOING ON. IT WASN'T US SAYING, SENDING A REAL ESTATE AGENCY OUT THERE SAYING, HEY, FIND US SOME PROPERTY. IN THAT CASE, YEAH, OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO PAY THAT PERCENTAGE. THERE'S NO WAY WE REALLY NEEDED TO DO THAT IN THIS INSTANCE. SO FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING, WONDERING WHY WE'RE NOT BEING REPRESENTED BY A REAL ESTATE COMPANY, AND THIS IS THE REASON, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT LAST PART. THAT WASN'T MY RECOLLECTION THAT THIS PROJECT WAS BROUGHT TO US. IT WAS THAT IT WAS POSTED PUBLICLY ONLINE, THAT IT WAS FOR SALE. AND CHARLES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU DID READ AND SEE THAT IT WAS FOR SALE, AND THEY HAD DROPPED THE PRICE DOWN TO 1.2 MILLION WHEN IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN 2.4. THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW IT CAME TO THE CITY. DID SOMEBODY ELSE DID MR. CHOI COME DIRECTLY TO THE CITY? I DON'T REMEMBER, I JUST REMEMBER WHEN IT POPPED UP.

I GAVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO EXPLORE THE OPTIONS. OKAY, WELL, YEAH, I GUESS I'LL GO INTO SORT OF MY SPIEL ON IT. I THINK THERE'S TWO MAIN REASONS WHY I OPPOSED THIS PURCHASE. THE FIRST IS TO NOT TALK ABOUT THE POLICY OF THIS AT ALL. IT'S JUST THE PROCESS. YOU KNOW WHAT BROUGHT ME TO RUN FOR COUNCIL? WHEN I FIRST CAME TO LARGO, I CAME TO A MEETING JUST LIKE MANY OF YOU. AND SOME OF THE THINGS I HEARD, I THOUGHT THAT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL. THAT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS VERY VETTED. THAT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS VERY THOUGHT OUT. I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES. I HAVE, AGAIN,

[01:50:01]

A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THIS PROPERTY. I MY RECOLLECTION IS WE SAW IT FOR SALE. WE SAID, HEY, WE GOT THIS REAL ESTATE FUND THAT WE JUST TRIED TO USE TO POSSIBLY LOOK AT THE CASEY BUILDING THAT DIDN'T GO FORWARD. SO WHAT ELSE CAN WE SPEND THIS MONEY ON? AND IT WAS SAID THAT THIS WAS A CHEAPER PRICE THAN WE'D EVER SEEN BEFORE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER ANSWERED WHY TODAY, JULY 16TH, IS THIS AN ACTION ITEM? THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOR SALE FOR MANY YEARS. I THINK IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE FOR SALE. POSSIBLY. I DID ACTUALLY HEAR FROM WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE THE REALTOR FOR MR. TROY. HE WAS NOT HAPPY TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS, BUT HE DID SAY IN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, SIX MONTHS, TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES HAVE COME FORWARD TO TRY TO BUY IT, TO MAKE IT A GOLF COURSE. SO THERE IS INTEREST TO MAKE THIS A GOLF COURSE. BUT THEY COULDN'T GET PAST IS IT WASN'T DISCLOSED TO THEM AT THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY STARTED THE PROCESS THAT THE SECOND PARCEL WAS SOLD TO THE LIMBS. AND SO ONCE THAT PART WAS TOLD THAT, HEY, THIS OTHER PARCELS BEEN SPLIT OFF, THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO COME BACK FROM THAT. SO THEY WERE STILL TRYING TO WORK THAT OUT. THEY HOPED THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO. BUT NOW THE CITY HAS JUMPED IN AND SHOWN INTEREST. AND SO ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES THAT WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING IT AS A GOLF COURSE HAS REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID, IF THE CITY GOES FORWARD AND BUYS THIS, WOULD YOU POSSIBLY TURN RIGHT BACK AROUND AND CONSIDER SELLING IT TO US OR LEASING IT TO US? NOW THAT THAT PROBLEM WITH THE LIMB PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT UP? THE SECOND PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE PROCESS IS TONIGHT, THAT PRESENTATION I DO APPRECIATE, CHARLES, IS THE FIRST PRESENTATION THAT I'VE SEEN ON THIS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HAS ALL BEEN VERY VERBAL. HEY, I WANT TO BUY THE HIGHLAND LAKES COURSE. LET'S LOOK AT DOING IT. SURE. GO AHEAD. DO IT. HERE WE ARE. I LOOK IN THE PACKET TONIGHT. THERE'S NO CONTRACTS. I DON'T KNOW WHO ON THIS COUNCIL HAS READ THE CONTRACTS. I GOT THEM BECAUSE I ASKED FOR THEM, I SAW THEM. THERE WERE MULTIPLE ERRORS THROUGHOUT IT THAT I THINK I ASKED SOME QUESTIONS OF. CHARLES AND BRAD. HAVE WE CORRECTED SOME OF THOSE? I'LL READ YOU A FEW OF THOSE. SO FOR THOSE THAT I THINK IT WAS ALREADY CLARIFIED, THIS IS ACTUALLY TWO PURCHASES. YOU GOT THE PURCHASE OF THE 109 ACRES. THAT'S THE ACTUAL 18 HOLES THEMSELVES. YOU HAVE THE PURCHASE OF THE TWO ACRES THAT'S OWNED BY VANESSA ESPARZA LIM. THAT'S WHERE ACTUALLY ALL THE AFFLUENT INFRASTRUCTURE IS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS, THERE'S AN EXHIBIT A ON BOTH OF THEM. THE EXHIBIT A IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I THINK THEY COPIED OVER THE EXHIBIT A FROM THE 20406 EARHART LANE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE 18 HOLES. BUT IF YOU GO ON TCAD AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS, THERE IS AN ADDRESS FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY FOR THE LIM PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENT PROPERTY ID FOR THAT ON TCAD. THE SURVEY ITSELF ALSO IDENTIFIES IT AS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS. THE SURVEY ITSELF ALSO HAS POTENTIALLY A A ADDRESS ERROR. IT SAYS 0501 EARHART. I THINK IT'S 50501 EARHART, BUT WE CAN CHECK THAT OUT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD AND NOBODY HERE HAS READ THE CONTRACT, IF WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACTS IS ACTUALLY ACCURATE AND THAT WE'RE USING THE PROPER PROPERTY IDS. AND THEN I DID WANT TO ASK BRAD THE QUESTION THAT CHARLES DID ASK. YOU SAID THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH DID THE CURRENT OWNER, MR. CHOI, EVEN LEGALLY GO THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS TO DIVIDE UP THIS PROPERTY? HE CREATED A 2.032 ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS SEPARATED OUT AND ENTERED INTO A SALE WITH THIS PERSON IN MARCH. IS THERE ANY LEGAL CONCERN YOU HAVE WITH THAT PROCESS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO? YOU CAN JUST DIVIDE UP AND SELL IT OUT.

IS THAT GOING TO BE A POTENTIAL TITLE PROBLEM FOR US IN THE FUTURE? WHAT IS THE CHARLES WAS CONCERNED ABOUT? WELL, ULTIMATELY THAT'S A QUESTION THAT TITLE WILL ANSWER AND AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE CITY BE GETTING TITLE TO IF IT CONSUMMATED THIS PURCHASE? AND IT MAY IT MAY COME BACK THAT THAT THERE ARE DEFECTS IN THAT CONVEYANCE. I HAVE NOT I'VE NOT REVIEWED THE THE PRIVATE PARTY CONVEYANCE TO A YOU KNOW THAT THAT I I'VE NOT LOOKED AT THAT. BUT IF THERE ARE IF THAT DOES PUT A CLOUD ON THE TITLE, THEN THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT WOULD COME BACK AND WE WOULD PUT IT BACK ON.

YOU KNOW, IF DEPENDING ON COUNCIL'S ACTION, AN IDEA WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT YOU DO TO MOVE FORWARD. IF THERE WERE A CLOUD ON THAT TITLE, I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY A TITLE COMPANY QUESTION, BUT BUT CERTAINLY IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT, THAT THAT PORTION OF THE TRANSACTION COULD CREATE A CLOUD. AND THEN WHAT YOU DO WITH IT FROM THAT POINT FORWARD WOULD BE UP TO YOU. YOU CAN WAIVE THOSE ISSUES OR YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. YEAH. AND I'M STILL JUST TALKING ABOUT POLICY.

I'M NOT POLICY, JUST THE PROCESS. SO BACK TO THE PROCESS. I STILL DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IT SOUNDS TO ME THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS ENTIRE PURCHASE IS THAT PARCEL. THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS ALL THE AFFLUENT INFRASTRUCTURE. WE COULD HAVE GONE IF WE HAD A REALTOR, WE COULD HAVE A REALTOR ACTUALLY GO AND NEGOTIATE THE PRICE WITH THAT

[01:55:01]

PERSON. WE NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. APPARENTLY, WE LET ALEX CHOI, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE 18 HOLES. HE MADE THAT NEGOTIATION FOR US. THAT'S $485,000 THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE GOT FOR LESS. I THINK WE'RE THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN THAT'S GOING TO BUY THAT PROPERTY. NO ONE'S GOING TO BUY A PROPERTY WITH ALL THE AFFLUENT INFRASTRUCTURE ON IT AND TURN IT INTO ANYTHING ELSE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE DEMAND. I THINK WE COULD HAVE HAD A MUCH STRONGER LEVERAGE POINT THERE. POSSIBLY GOT THAT PORTION FOR LESS, IF THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE DEED, IT WASN'T THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY ANALYSIS FROM MR. FROM FROM BRAD UNTIL TODAY. NOT SAYING THAT BRAD DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING. IT JUST WASN'T REQUESTED TILL THE END. SO AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE A DECISION WAS MADE AT THE BEGINNING. WE'VE GOT THIS MONEY BURNING A HOLE IN OUR POCKET FOR SOME REASON, AND WE WANT TO SPEND IT. WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ON THE HIGHLAND LAKES COURSE. NOW LET'S GO FIND ALL THE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD JUSTIFY THAT WE BOUGHT IT. THAT'S WHAT'S GOTTEN THE CITY INTO TROUBLE YEAR AFTER YEAR. I THINK FOR THIS COUNCIL, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS WILL BE YOUR MANSION, THAT PEOPLE WILL COME BACK SOMEDAY AND SAY, YOU REALLY JUMPED ON SOMETHING WITHOUT THINKING IT THROUGH AND YOU DIDN'T NEED TO. SO NOW I'LL GO TO THE POLICY PART OF IT AGAIN. YOU CAN ALREADY SPREAD THE AFFLUENT ON IT NOW. I MEAN, WE CAN GO IN THERE, WE CAN FIX THE EQUIPMENT, WE CAN DO IT. AT NO POINT IS ANYONE SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO OWN THE PROPERTY. THIS ARGUMENT THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT THE FUTURE ZONING OF IT, THIS CAME UP AFTER THE FACT THAT DECISION TO GO FORWARD, TO HAVE CHARLES GO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM WAS MADE BEFORE I EVER HEARD THAT ARGUMENT. NOW, TO BE FAIR, I WAS ON MY HONEYMOON WHEN I THINK THE FINAL DECISION IN THE BACK WAS MADE TO GO FORWARD AND OFFICIALLY DO IT. SO MAYBE IT WAS SAID DURING THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT I WASN'T THERE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT ARGUMENT UNTIL VERY RECENTLY BECAUSE I THINK CITIZENS HAVE MADE A GOOD A GOOD EFFORT TO GO ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND ASK A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS. AND NOW THESE ARE BEING ANSWERED WHEN THOSE SHOULD BE ANSWERED UP FRONT. IF THIS WAS A PRIVATE ENTITY, IF WE WERE A BUSINESS THAT WAS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND PROPOSED PRIOR TO ALL THIS. IT'S GONE COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, SO THE CITY JUST DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE LEARNING ITS LESSONS. AND SO I THINK FOR THOSE REASONS, I CAN'T VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS. I ALSO AM A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED.

THERE IS A HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE FACEBOOK PAGE WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF ACTIVITY ON IT. THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SPOKE UP AGAINST THIS. A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE COURSE WANT TO SEE IT BE A GOLF COURSE. THEY THINK THAT'S THE BEST EFFORT, BUT THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP HERE TODAY. WE DID GET A LITTLE BIT. I DO APPRECIATE THAT PEOPLE SHOWED UP, BUT I REALLY WISH THAT THE OTHERS DID BECAUSE IT'S MY SENTIMENT. AND FULL DISCLOSURE, I NOW LIVE ON THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE AND THIS WOULD BENEFIT ME. I ACTUALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF IT BEING MODE OF IT BEING TAKEN CARE OF, AND THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT I CAN'T DO IT AND AGREE TO IT IN THIS WAY. AND I THINK THAT IS THE SENTIMENT OF A LOT OF THE OTHERS. I THINK WHAT'S NOT BEEN SAID UP HERE IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST CASE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT THAT THE CITY EVER OWNS IT. THE BEST IS THAT SOME GOLF COURSE COMES OUT HERE, BUYS IT, RUNS IT. WE SPREAD A FLUID ON IT, AND WE DON'T EVER HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT OR KEEP THE COST FOR IT. I STILL HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM STAFF. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS EVERY YEAR TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROPERTY, AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT? WE ALREADY HERE ACROSS THE CITY THAT CODE COMPLIANCE IS A MAJOR ISSUE. THAT PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES IN THE ENTIRE CITY. AND SO NOW THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE THAT OVER. AND ALL THOSE CODE COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS ARE GOING TO BE FROM OUR ACTION OR OUR MISS ACTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE STAFF TO TAKE CARE OF IT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE FOR IT.

AND SO MY ASK IS THAT COUNCIL PAUSES, DOESN'T GO FORWARD THIS RIGHT NOW AND MAYBE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE FACTS AND FIGURE OUT THIS PLAN AND TALK TO SOME MORE CITIZENS. SO, MR. BENNEFIELD, YOU BRING UP SOME VERY GOOD POINTS. THE ONLY ONE THAT I'M GOING TO CORRECT IS YOUR FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE CATEGORIZATION THAT THERE WAS MONEY BURNING IN THE POCKET AND THAT THE ANSWER WAS, NO, LET'S NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE KC BUILDING. WELL, GEEZ, WHERE DO WE SPEND THIS MONEY? LET'S GO BUY THE GOLF COURSE. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION. MR. WEST CAME TO US WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. ONE OF THOSE WAS THE KC BUILDING. ONE OF THOSE WAS THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE, AND ALL OF THOSE WERE PRESENTED AT THE EXACT SAME DAY. AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WAS, IS HE SAID, IN AN ORDER OF PRIORITY, WHICH ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT? AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US VOTED OR I SHOULDN'T SAY VOTED, THAT WAS THE WRONG WORD, SPOKE ABOUT WHAT WAS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR US, AND OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS WAS ENSURING THAT THE DISPERSAL OF OUR AFFLUENT WATER WAS TOP PRIORITY. AND THAT'S WHY AT THAT VERY MOMENT, WE LOOKED AT THIS BEING A VIABLE OPTION. AND THAT WAS BEFORE AND DURING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH KC BUILDING, THERE WAS PROBABILITIES THAT I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO POTENTIALLY BUY BOTH. AND IT WAS ONLY DURING THIS PROCESS DID COUNCIL DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE KC BUILDING, BUT WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GOLF COURSE UP TO THIS POINT. SO I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THAT, THAT THAT THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD

[02:00:01]

$100 IN OUR POCKET AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IT SOMEWHERE. THAT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. BUT I THINK YOUR OTHER POINTS ARE VALID. I THINK THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO SOME OF THOSE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION ON THE VALIDITY OF, YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO, TO MAKE THIS THE OTWELL PROPERTY, I THINK IS A, IS A, AN UNFAIR. I JUST DON'T THINK OF THE COMPARISON IS THE SAME AS HAVING AN AIRBNB OR SOME KIND OF PROPERTY. YEAH. IT'S NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES, BUT I THINK IT'S OUR VERSION OF IT. AND THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A FULL FLEDGED PLAN FOR THIS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DIVE IN AND BUY IT AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT AFTERWARDS. THAT'S WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO ME. AND AS FAR AS THE WE HAVE MONEY BURNING IN OUR HOLE, MAYBE THAT'S A CRASS WAY TO SAY IT, BUT TO MY THOUGHTS WERE I'VE STILL QUESTIONED. AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CHARLES. HOW DID WE EVEN BEGIN WITH THAT LIST FROM THE GET GO? WHY WAS THERE A LIST BROUGHT TO US ABOUT THE KC BUILDING, THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE? BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION IS AND THE TIMING OF THE POLICY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, IT CAME OUT OF LEFT FIELD. TO ME, THIS COUNCIL WASN'T TALKING ABOUT A CITY HALL. THIS COUNCIL WASN'T TALKING ABOUT PURCHASING A GOLF COURSE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW DO WE GET OUR STAFFING CORRECT? HOW DO WE FILL THE CHIEF POSITION? HOW DO WE WORK ON WATER INFRASTRUCTURE? THIS JUST CAME OUT OF NOWHERE. AND IT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT STAFF, MAYBE SOMEBODY CAME ACROSS THE REAL ESTATE FUND AND SAID, HEY, WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS MONEY? AND HERE ARE SOME OPTIONS. OR THE. AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF IT IS MAYBE IT WAS MR. CASEY CAME TO US AND STARTED THAT DISCUSSION AND MADE US START THINKING ABOUT REAL ESTATE THAT MIGHT BE NOW AS I'M TALKING ABOUT IT. YEAH. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THERE WAS CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES ON THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE. WE WERE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT GETTING IT MOWED. WE WERE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PUTTING LIENS ON IT. AND THERE WAS THE WHOLE PROCESS OF THAT DISCUSSION. AND THEN THE COMMENT WAS MADE. I BET YOU WE PROBABLY COULD BUY THIS PRETTY CHEAP RIGHT NOW, CONSIDERING EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS LAND AND THIS IS WHAT IT COULD POSSIBLY OR POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR LONG TERM. AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW THE DIALOG FROM WHAT I REMEMBER BEGAN.

AGAIN, I, I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS AND I AGREE WITH MANY OF YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT COST AND MAINTENANCE AND THINGS BEING A LITTLE BACKWARDS. I, I DO AGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION, BUT I THINK THEY ARE VALID. AND THAT'S WHY THAT MAY BE A BETTER EXPLANATION OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE THIS CAME ON THE TABLE, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY THOUGHTS ON IT EITHER. AND SO BUT YOU KNOW, MISTER ROBERTS ONCE TOLD ME, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE UP HERE AND YOU KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO LOSE THE VOTE, YOU TRY TO DO YOUR BEST TO INFLUENCE HOW IT'S GOING TO GO. SO MY ASK WOULD BE, I STILL THINK THE ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR IF WE OWN IT, IS TO TURN RIGHT BACK AROUND, PUT IT BACK ON THE MARKET, ACTUALLY ADVERTISE IT ON PAGES THAT SELL GOLF COURSES, AND TRY TO GET SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND BUY IT AND TURN IT INTO A GOLF COURSE AS FAST AS THEY CAN, AND GET IT OFF OUR BOOKS AND ALLOW US TO SPREAD A FLUENT ON IT IN PERPETUITY, WHICH THE DEED ALREADY SAYS THAT WE CAN.

SO THAT'S MY HOPE. IF YOU GO FORWARD TO PUT THAT IN THERE, I WILL MAKE THIS STATEMENT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE CITY CANNOT PURCHASE LAND TO TURN AROUND AND RESELL IT. I, I, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. WE NEED TO I'LL NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE ELEMENTS ON THAT.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO HANG ON TO IT FOR HOW MANY. I BELIEVE IT'S THREE YEARS. I THINK IT'S YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT. SO AND THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE PROHIBITION ON THE CITY GETTING IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND FLIP. IT'S JUST. YEAH. SO SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POINT IS, BUT WE MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT NOW, LEASING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAT THOSE PROHIBITIONS WOULD NOT APPLY. WELL, LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE TWO ENTITIES ALREADY INTERESTED IN BUYING IT. SAY WE BOUGHT IT. WE'RE NOT PUTTING IT ON THE MARKET FOR SALE. BUT THEY COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, WE THOUGHT WE WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO BUYING THIS. CAN WE CAN WE MAKE AN OFFER AND BUY IT? ARE YOU ALLOWED TO THEN TAKE SOMEONE'S OFFER AND SAY THERE'S AN INTEREST? OR COULD YOU DO A LEASE TO BUY? LONG TERM LEASE? BUT BUT IF IF A TRANSACTION THAT TRANSFERS TITLE. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO WAIT FOR THAT. OKAY. BUT I'LL I'LL, I'LL GET YOU THAT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION I WISH WOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH WHEN THIS WAS A MORE LEGITIMATE PROPOSAL. I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BRAD. SINCE IT WAS A GOLF COURSE AND THAT'S CONSIDERED RECREATION FACILITIES. I THINK THE PRIOR COUNCIL THAT SOLD IT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW, THAT IT SHOULD HAVE HAD HELD AN ELECTION TO BE ABLE TO SELL THAT PROPERTY. THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. I DON'T I'M NOT GOING TO OFFER AN OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I'LL JUST INDICATE THAT THAT IS A THAT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. SO I KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN TAUGHT THAT ANYTIME PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED AS RECREATION, THE ONLY WAY A CITY CAN SELL IT IS TO HAVE. THROUGH A GENERAL ELECTION BY THE CITIZENS. THE GENERAL RULE

[02:05:05]

IS, IS AS YOU'VE STATED IT, CHARLES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION BEFORE I HAND IT BACK OVER TO FOLKS IS IF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WE SPEAK COULD SAY, HAVE YOU READ THE CONTRACT? I JUST THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW. HAVE YOU READ THE CONTRACT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND APPROVE IT TODAY? MR. BENNEFIELD SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT COMMENT IS I HAVE NOT SEEN THE CONTRACT. I JUST MY VOTE TODAY WOULD BE BASED ON PURCHASING THIS LAND AT A PRESCRIBED PRICE. AND MY FAITH AND TRUST IS IN MR. WEST TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE. IF YOU HAVE SEEN A CONTRACT AND YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES IN THAT CONTRACT THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT BEFOREHAND, I'M TOTALLY AMICABLE TO TABLING THIS AND BRINGING IT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO THAT ANY CONTRACT ISSUES CAN BE CAN BE FIXED, BUT I DON'T THINK THE FORMALITY OF. THE CONTRACTS, LIKE WHETHER THINGS ARE MISSPELLED OR WHATEVER, SHOULD NECESSARILY STOP US FROM PURCHASING A PIECE OF PROPERTY. I THINK THOSE ARE MORE, YOU KNOW, JUST FORMALITIES FOR MR. WEST TO BUTTON UP DURING THE TITLE PROCESS. MAYOR PRO TEM, I WAS GOING TO SAY I WAS GOING TO SAY TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT THAT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE ACTION, THE ACTION CAN BE TO AUTHORIZE US. CITY MANAGER AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO FINALIZE AND FORMALIZE A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF X AND AND THEN TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THOSE BACK TO YOU FOR RATIFICATION OR YOU I DON'T KNOW IF CONSENT AGENDA DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MAYBE CONSENT AGENDA WOULD WORK. I THINK, MR. MAYOR, MR. MAYOR MIGHT NOT WANT THAT ON CONSENT, BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO IT THAT WAY. AND, AND I JUST EMAILED. CHRISTINA, WHO HELPED CHARLES WORK ON THOSE CONTRACTS, TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY, ANY COPY PASTE ERRORS ARE ADDRESSED. SO WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT. BUT COUNT THAT, AS YOU SAY. AND THAT WOULDN'T STOP COUNCIL FROM TAKING ACTION TONIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE, YOU KNOW, PREPARATION AND ULTIMATE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS IN THIS AMOUNT. AND WE BRING THAT BACK TO YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, REVIEW BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A REPORT BACK AT THE END OF THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD ANYWAY. I MEAN, IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE EVERYTHING WAS GOOD AND THIS TRANSACTION WENT THROUGH OR TITLE BROUGHT BACK THESE ISSUES. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU NO MATTER WHAT. IF YOU TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM MOTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, SO TO SPEAK. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT IN THAT. AGAIN, MY INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY WAS REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT 1.2 MILLION NOW VERSUS WHAT WE KNOW.

AND I CAN TELL YOU WILL BE 15 TO 20 MILLION IN THE FUTURE, LET'S SAY, WITHIN A DECADE FROM NOW, IF THE MAINTENANCE ON THIS IS 400 000 A YEAR, THEN THAT'S OVER THE TEN YEARS IS 4 MILLION.

SO MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE 5 MILLION TIED UP IN THIS. WE'RE STILL 10 MILLION TO THE GOOD IN TERMS OF UTILIZING THIS PROPERTY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU DID BRING UP A LOT OF GOOD STUFF THERE, MAYOR. IF WE IF WE COULD IF I FELT CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD SOMEHOW ESTABLISH OUR RIGHTS AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE BUNKED WITH IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD AFFLUENT, THEN I WOULD SAY, YEAH, LET'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S SEE WHAT WHAT HAPPENS AND LET THIS RIDE. BUT I REALLY FEEL THE BEST OPTION FOR US IS TO BUY THE PROPERTY CLEAN. AND IF WE CAN CLEAN UP ANY OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES, WE HAVE IT FOR THREE YEARS TO MAKE SURE ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND STUFF IS DONE. MAYBE WE FIND A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO LEASE IT AND THEN WITHIN FIVE YEARS BUY IT. IN TERMS OF RETURNING IT BACK TO A GOLF COURSE, THAT TO ME WOULD BE THE THE ULTIMATE IN TERMS OF THIS TRANSACTION. AND AS FAR AS ANY MONEY BURNING A HOLE IN MY POCKET RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE NEED EXPANSION FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO SERVE CITIZENS IN THE FUTURE. AND WE ARE FAR FROM IT RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE PATH TO GET THERE, SO ACTUALLY I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE MONEY TO BE USED ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THIS. BUT BEING ABLE TO FLUSH OUR TOILETS IS A HIGH PRIORITY ON OUR RESIDENTS LIST. AND SO THAT'S WHY I AM STILL IN FAVOR OF PURSUING. BUT I DID WANT TO ASK ONE LAST QUESTION. BEING THAT, MAYOR, YOU BROUGHT UP THAT IT'S TWO PARCELS AND WE ARE ONLY AGENDIZED FOR ONE. IT IS IN THE AND THE ADDRESS, CORRECT, ETC.

THE TWO THAT IT IS. BUT THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT,

[02:10:04]

IF THERE'S I FEEL CONFIDENT DOING DUE DILIGENCE, ETC. IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF JUST PRESERVING TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T TURN INTO CONDOS. BUT BEYOND THAT, BEING ABLE TO AGAIN, FLUSH THEIR TOILETS IS ON A HIGH PRIORITY WITHIN THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS. SO THANK YOU. SO, MAYOR, IF YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS THE AGENDA.

YES, PLEASE. SO. WELL, COUNCIL'S CONCURRENCE THAT I CAN GIVE A LEGAL OPINION. OKAY.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I IT IS IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH PARCELS UTILIZE THE SAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS. AND IF THAT IS CORRECT, THEN THEN THIS IS AGENDIZED PROPERLY FOR FOR FOR BOTH PARCELS. MOREOVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TOTAL ACREAGE THAT IS IN THE AGENDA. NOTICE THE 111 POINT. WHATEVER IS, IS, IS THE TWO PARCELS COMBINED. SO THE PUBLIC'S BEEN PUT ON NOTICE OF THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE. YOU KNOW, IDENTIFIED AS A PURCHASE. I THINK OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AS A, YOU KNOW, BELTS AND SUSPENDERS TYPE THING, SINCE THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE COMING BACK ON A FUTURE AGENDA, A FUTURE AGENDA CAN IDENTIFY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND, YOU KNOW, BREAK THEM OUT AS THE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, ONE OF 109 ACRES AND ONE OF TWO ACRES OR WHATEVER THE BREAKDOWN IS, AND THE COUNCIL CAN RATIFY ANY ACTION TAKEN TONIGHT, IF ANY. AND THAT WOULD CURE, YOU KNOW, ANY ISSUES IF I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY. BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY CURE ANY ISSUES. IF THERE ARE, THAT'S A COUNCIL DECISION. IF YOU TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE I OPEN UP TO MOTION, JUST MY LAST REQUEST FOR THOSE MAKING MOTION, IF ANY OF YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANY OF THE PROPOSALS THAT THE CITIZEN WROTE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TOO LATE FOR THAT, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PURCHASE IS THAT PARCEL THAT WE NEVER SPOKE TO OR NEGOTIATED WITH THAT OWNER. MAYBE YOU CAN ASK IF THE CITY WOULD GO BACK AND TRY AND NEGOTIATE WITH THAT OWNER ON THE SECOND PARCEL, AS THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PURCHASE. SO WITH THAT, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. CAN YOU SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, IS THAT YOU'RE WANTING SOMEBODY, THE CITY, TO GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT FOR THE .99, 2.032 ACRES, THE MISS VANESSA ESPARZA YEAH, THE ONE THAT WAS 485,000. CHARLES. IF CHARLES, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, YOU WERE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER, WERE YOU NOT? YES. AND NOT THAT OWNER. NOT THAT OWNER. I DID NOT FIND OUT. IT WAS DIVIDED UP INTO TWO UNTIL AFTER WE GOT WAY INTO THE PROCESS. SO YOU YOU ONLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER OF THE ONE 109, CORRECT? I BELIEVE THE FIRST CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM, IT WAS STILL ALL 111 ACRES. AND HE KEPT MENTIONING THAT HE WAS THINKING OF SELLING OFF THE DEAL. AND HE WAS INFORMED THEN THAT IF HE INTENDED TO SELL THAT OFF, HE HAD TO GET WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INTO A SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. AFTER WE GOT INTO THE CONTRACT PART OF IT, ACTUALLY THE FIRST CONTRACT WAS DONE. AND THEN HE SAYS, OH NO, IT'S GOT TO BE TWO CONTRACTS BECAUSE OF THE OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY BEING SOLD OFF. MR. WEST, THE CONTRACT THAT'S CURRENTLY SIGNED TO SELL THE PROPERTY, HOW LONG ARE THOSE CONTRACTS GOOD FOR? WELL, THE CITY HASN'T SIGNED A CONTRACT. HOW LONG IS THEIR SIGNATURE IS GOOD FOR? I GUESS UNTIL ACTION IS TAKEN ON THEM. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT I DON'T I MEAN IT WOULD IT WOULD REMAIN UNTIL THEY WITHDRAW IT. TYPICALLY. I MEAN ONCE AN OFFER IS OUT THERE. YEAH. I MEAN I, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT PROPOSAL IS THAT IF YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SECOND OWNER AND I GUESS. MR. WEST, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE THE PRICE OF THAT SECOND PROPERTY TO MAYOR HOLMES? THOUGHTS? I MEAN, IS THAT A LOST CAUSE? I'M GONNA GIVE YOU MY HONEST OPINION. I THINK IT'S A LOST CAUSE TO GO BACK. THEY'VE ALREADY SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR THAT AMOUNT. I WOULD FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE FOR THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MIND IF WE GO BACK TO THEM. IT DIDN'T REMIND ME OF ONE MORE THING. I WANT TO MAKE A POINT. SORRY, MR. BENFIELD, BUT. AND THIS WAS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION EARLY ON ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY. DO I HAVE PERMISSION TO TALK ABOUT THE GOLF CART

[02:15:05]

BUILDING FROM COUNCIL? SO JUST MAKE THAT SURE EVERYONE'S AWARE THAT THIS SALE DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT PARCEL. THAT INCLUDES THE THE BUILDING THAT HAS THE GOLF CARTS IN IT, BECAUSE THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION EARLY ON IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT POSSIBLY COULD BECAUSE IT IS ITS OWN TRACT, IT ACTUALLY, WHILE PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO THE HIGHLAND LAKES BAR AND GRILL BUILDING, IT'S ITS OWN SEPARATE TRACT. THERE WAS A TIME WHERE I THINK COUNCIL BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SALE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT IT IS NOT. I WAS AWARE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE REST OF COUNCIL WAS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE. IF YOU WERE ON YOUR HONEYMOON DURING THAT TIME FRAME OR NOT, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT DID COME UP. ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? OH, ARE YOU GOING? CHHABRIA? I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE FORMER HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 1.2 MILLION FROM AVAILABLE REAL ESTATE FUNDS, SUBJECT TO FINAL CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION OF SATISFACTORY TITLE LEGAL ACCESS, EASEMENTS, MATERIALS, SURVEY MATTERS, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND AVAILABLE APPROPRIATION, AND FURTHER DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH AN INITIAL PROPERTY STEWARDSHIP AND FIRE MITIGATION PLAN, INCLUDING ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL. CHAVARRIA. DO I HAVE A SECOND? CAN I ASK, MISS, JUST IF YOU WOULD REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE? SOMETHING ABOUT A PLAN AND COST? YES, THAT WAS A PURPOSEFUL. I WANT A INITIAL PROPERTY STEWARDSHIP AND WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH CITIZENS HAVE MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, AND THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED IT IN THERE. I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT I WAS GOING TO GET A SECOND, BUT I WANTED TO THROW IT OUT THERE WITH INCLUDED ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS SO THE TAXPAYERS WOULD BE AWARE OF HOW MUCH WE ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR, FOR MAINTENANCE. I'M NOT READY TO SECOND THAT. AND I'LL I'LL JUST COMMENT THAT. I THINK WE AS COUNCIL, NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT THE BUDGET OF THAT WOULD BE. I'M COMFORTABLE THAT. I THINK WE CAN GET TO A STATE OF SOME REASONABLE USE AT REASONABLE COST. AND AND SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONTINGENCY ON THE PURCHASE WOULD BE MY PERSONAL OPINION. IF THERE IS NO SECOND ON THAT MOTION, THEN I'M OPEN TO ANOTHER MOTION. MR. BULLOCK, CAN YOU ADVISE A PROPER MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR FINAL REVIEW? YEAH, AND I THINK MR. TREVOR'S MOTION ALMOST GOT THERE. WAS THAT LAST LITTLE PART ABOUT THE ABOUT THE FIRE MITIGATION PART. BUT IF YOU WOULD, IF MISS CHAVARRIA WOULD READ BACK THAT FIRST PART OF THAT MOTION UP UNTIL YOU GET TO THAT PART, BECAUSE I THINK IT COVERED ALMOST ALL OF THAT. THE ISSUE WITH MISS WITH HER MOTION IS IT WAS THE APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL REVIEW. OKAY. YEAH. SO IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU IF THE MOTION STARTED OFF WITH THAT LANGUAGE, THEN IT GOES TO BECAUSE EVERYTHING I STATED, I MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE. IF I JUST DID, I AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE THE CONTRACT. THAT'S NOT APPROVING THE CONTRACT.

THAT'S JUST COMPLETING THE CONTRACT. THE FORMER HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 1.2 MILLION FROM REAL AVAILABLE REAL ESTATE FUNDS, SUBJECT TO THE FINAL CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION OF SATISFACTORY TITLE, LEGAL ACCESS EASEMENTS, MATERIALS, SURVEY MATTERS, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND AVAILABLE APPROPRIATION. WANTING TO. ALMOST. ALMOST THERE. ALMOST. MR. BENFIELD, WHAT YOU YOUR QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS ALREADY THE LANGUAGE FOR THE MOTION. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY FAIR. SO SO I IF THE IDEA OF THE MOTION IS TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO FINALIZE A PURCHASE CONTRACT, NOT TO EXCEED $1.2 MILLION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE HIGHLAND LAKE GOLF COURSE. AND TO BRING THAT BACK TO THE NEXT COUNCIL FOR

[02:20:05]

FINAL AUTHORIZATION, POTENTIAL FINAL AUTHORIZATION, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, THEN WORDS TO THAT EFFECT WOULD WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE.

BUT I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, THAT'S PERFECT. AND THE ONLY OTHER CAVEAT THAT I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO A MOTION THAT I WOULD SUPPORT IS THAT A THE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING BROUGHT BACK FOR FINAL REVIEW, AND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A LOST CAUSE, ADMITTEDLY, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNERS WAS ON THE 109 ACRES. AND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A LOST CAUSE, I STILL THINK IF WE'RE NOT SIGNING THE CONTRACTS TODAY, IT DOES NOT HURT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE SECOND OWNER BEFORE WE SIGN THOSE CONTRACTS SAYING, HEY, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS A LITTLE BIT LOWER. THEY MAY TELL US TO, YOU KNOW, KICK SAND, BUT IT'S AT LEAST WORTH THE ASK, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE PROPERTY OWNER AT ONE IS DICTATING THE PRICE OF PROPERTY OWNER TWO, WHEN REALLY IT'S TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS.

AND WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE WENT TO PROPERTY OWNER NUMBER TWO HAD WE KNOWN IN ADVANCE AND NEGOTIATED THESE DIFFERENTLY OR INDEPENDENTLY, IF YOU WILL. SO, MR. BENNEFIELD, MAYBE ONE WAY TO DO SINCE SINCE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS TO COME BACK A YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY I JUST FOR EVERYONE OUT IN THE AUDIENCE, THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T GENERALLY NEGOTIATE REAL ESTATE PURCHASES IN PUBLIC, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR HANDS. YEAH. AND SO WE KNOW THAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY IS 1.2 MILLION. BUT IF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT YOU AUTHORIZE TONIGHT IS, LET'S SAY 1.1 MILLION, THEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND SAY, LOOK, THIS IS ALL THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED. YEAH. AND SO, I MEAN, WILL IT WORK? I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT. BUT BUT THAT IS A STRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED BY CITY COUNCILS IN THE PAST TO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE AND THIS IS IT NOW, YOU KNOW, WILL IT WORK? I DON'T KNOW, BUT AT LEAST IT IT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED US TO, TO BRING YOU AT THIS POINT IS 1.1. I'VE DONE THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS COME OUT AND SAID, WE KNOW YOU ASKED FOR A MILLION, BUT HERE'S YOUR 750,000 OR WHATEVER. MAYBE YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT, MAYBE YOU DON'T. BUT I MEAN, TO, TO, TO MAYOR SAHM'S POINT. THE THE $400,000 IS REALLY WHO'S GOING TO BUY IT? YOU KNOW, US, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT. OKAY. ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? OKAY, MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE THE CONTRACT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2000 OR 2 0406 ERHART LANE, LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, FOR A TOTAL ACREAGE OF 111.62, WHICH IS TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1.1 MILLION, AND INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO GET A NEW CONTRACT BROUGHT BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT NOT TO EXCEED THAT AMOUNT AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR BENNEFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? WHAT'S THAT? WOULD THAT BE TWO CONTRACTS, ONE FOR EACH OWNER, ONE FOR EACH OWNER? YEAH. TWO CONTRACTS. CORRECT. YEAH. TO BRING THE CONTRACTS BACK. YEAH.

APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR BENNEFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. HALL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. PRINCE? WHAT I'M. YEAH, NO, I THINK THAT'S. I THINK THAT'S FINE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE PLACING A TASK IN FRONT OF THE CITY MANAGER TO GO GET US A BETTER DEAL THAN WHAT WAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT. AND WE'LL SEE SEE IF WE SEE IF THAT WORKS. I THINK IT'S A GOOD. MR. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT ONCE YOU'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOUR HAND ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY, AND YOU'VE ALREADY GOT ONE PARTY SIGNING A CONTRACT, TRYING TO GO BACK ON IT, IT'S KIND OF A BAD FAITH THING FOR OUR CITY TO DO. SO I'M NOT COMFORTABLE DOING THAT, ASKING THEM TO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'VE ALREADY GOT A CONTRACT OUT THERE FOR THIS, IF YOU THINK WE CAN GET A BETTER DEAL, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NEVER LIKE, YOU KNOW, TERRIBLE TO ASK, BUT IT'S KIND OF WEIRD TO ASK AFTER THE FACT. SO EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS, THE WAY THAT AS PRESENTED, I, I AM IN FAVOR OF BRINGING IT BACK ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. SO I GUESS, CHARLES, JUST DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO GET THIS DEAL DONE AND I'LL SUPPORT IT. OKAY. THERE'S NO OTHER

[02:25:04]

COMMENTS. I HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND ON THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. NAY. IT IS APPROVED 5 TO 1. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE ONE.

CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-2217. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS MEMBERS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS COMMISSION. I THINK THIS IS MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR, AS IT HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE PAST, AND I KNOW THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE IS WELL AWARE, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE PRESENT ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS PARAMOUNT. AND OVER THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR, THERE WASN'T A MEETING AND DUPLICATING THAT I WAS TAKING THE TIME TO VET OR AT LEAST ASK. THERE WAS SOME BEGGING INVOLVED IN TRYING TO LOOK FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGAIN, THAT HAD THE KNOW HOW IN ORDER TO BE OF VALUE, IT HAS BECOME QUITE CLEAR OVER THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, ONE WITHOUT A QUORUM. THE SECOND, WE DID HAVE A QUORUM, BUT WE COULD NOT MAKE A.

IN ORDER TO PASS A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WE NEEDED, YOU KNOW, A MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH WOULD BE SIX MEMBERS. AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. AS IT TURNS OUT, WE HAD A A MEMBER PULLED AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE AND HAD TO GO OUT OF STATE ON AND COULD NOT GET OUT OF IT.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE. THIS CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF ONE OF THE FORMER PEOPLE THAT I HAD SPOKE TO EARLY ON, WHICH WAS TOM MONAHAN, AND SO HE STATED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE IN THE EIGHTH PLACE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR. AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER MEMBERS ALSO NOTING THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONDUCT THE CITY BUSINESS. THEY STEPPED UP TO BE ALTERNATES, AND THAT'S ROBIN BURKHART. AND THE OTHER IS PATRICIA. SORRY, PATRICIA, FORGIVE ME IF I MESSED UP YOUR LAST NAME. AND SO I'M ASKING THAT WE APPOINT TOM MONAHAN THIS EVENING TO THE EIGHTH SEAT AND APPOINT PATRICIA AND ROBIN AS ALTERNATES FOR B OF A TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE ANY OF OUR FUTURE ISSUES. QUESTION. MR. JUST CLARIFY. I'M LOOKING ON THE BOARD PAGE RIGHT NOW, AND THE THE EMPTY SEAT IS ONE THAT GOES THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST OF 2027.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHEN YOU SAID MR. MONAHAN WAS WILLING TO SERVE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT'S NOT THE END OF THIS YEAR. IT'S THE END OF NEXT YEAR. NO. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD SERVE UNTIL THE END OF THIS YEAR. THERE IS. WITH ROBIN BURKHART AND PATRICIA STEPPING UP AS ALTERNATES, I. I FELT LIKE THAT THAT WOULD GIVE THEM TIME IN ORDER TO GET UP TO SPEED ON WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THAT POSITION. IN ADDITION, TOM MONAHAN HAS AN EXCEEDINGLY DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE IN REGARD TO THESE ISSUES. AFTER SERVING ON PLANNING AND ZONING FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS. AND SO I WAS OKAY WITH IT BEING A SHORT TERM. HE WOULD RESIGN AT THE END OF THE YEAR. YEAH, AND I WAS JUST CLARIFYING THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S A IT'S A REALLY GOOD PLAN.

SO ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE A PLAN THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, NOTING THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS FOR JANUARY AND BEYOND OF, OF NEXT YEAR.

I'M SORRY IF I, IF I COULD FURTHER GO ALONG. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT WE HAVE IS TO.

WITHIN THE ORDINANCE OF SEPARATION OF COMMISSIONS, WE CAN PROVIDE. TEMPORARILY SOMEONE SITTING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THROUGH A MAJORITY VOTE HERE ON COUNCIL. THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THE TIMING. IN THIS LAST CASE, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO EVOKE THAT BECAUSE THE. THE. WHERE WE FELL SHORT WAS IN THE VERY LITERALLY THE EVENING BEFORE 10:00 AT NIGHT, BEFORE THE NEXT DAY OF THE B OF A. OKAY, THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM, I'LL ASK, IS THERE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? I THINK I HAVE MR. DAVID KING OKAY, HE'S PAST ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. MR. MY ONLY QUESTION

[02:30:02]

IS ON THE ALTERNATES. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE SWITCHED OUT? I WANT TO BE FAIRLY EVEN KEELED ABOUT HOW THE ALTERNATES ARE GOING TO BE ROTATED IN. AND SO IT'S CONSISTENT AND NOT GIVING ANY IMPARTIALITY TO ANY PARTICULAR CASE THAT MIGHT BE PRESENTED TO THE BOA. CHARLES ALTERNATES ARE NOTIFIED JUST LIKE YOUR BOA MEMBERS. AND IF FOR SOME REASON YOU KNOW THAT A BOA MEMBER IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SHOW UP FOR A MEETING, THEN YOU ASK AN ALTERNATE TO THEIR. USUALLY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. THE ALTERNATES USUALLY ATTEND THE MEETINGS, SO IF FOR SOME REASON THEY GET THERE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER YOU NEEDED, THEN THE ALTERNATE WOULD COME FROM THE AUDIENCE AND SIT IN ON THE MEETING. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO. MOVE THAT THE EIGHTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS APPOINTED, MR. TOM MONAHAN, AND ALSO APPOINT ROBIN BURKHART AND PATRICIA SMOG AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE B OF A, RESPECTIVELY, WITH TERMS TO EXPIRE AS PROVIDED BY CITY ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 26, 2217. I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR.

PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COUNCILOR PRINCE? ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED

[IX.2. Consider, discuss, and take action on Ordinance No. 26-07-16-02 to approve a Franchise Agreement with Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC).]

UNANIMOUSLY. I WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE TWO. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-07-16-02 TO APPROVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE.

CHARLES. OH, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON, AND THEN WE SENT IT BACK TO PEC THEY FINALLY SENT IT BACK TO US. SO IT'S IN THE PACKET. SO HOPEFULLY Y'ALL ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. BRING IT TO COUNCIL. DO WE HAVE COMMENTS? COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA? I HAVE A JUST A FEW COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON IT. WHERE FROM WHAT WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GRANTING A BLANKET EXEMPTION FROM CITY PERMITTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES FOR WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, INSTEAD OF A EXPEDITED OR NO FEE PERMIT PROCESS. MY CONCERN IS THAT WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT, HOW DOES PUBLIC KNOW WORKS? KNOW WHEN AND WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY ARE? WHERE, WHERE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IT HAS BEEN CUT? AND WHO DETERMINES WHETHER THE STREET RESTORATIONS, WHEN THEY ARE MAKING THESE CUTS IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT? AND WHAT THE WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE PAYMENT FAILS MONTHS LATER, AND I ALSO HAD SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE FRANCHISE REVENUE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND IF THE 4% IS THE SAME RATE AS OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT, THE 4% IS THE SAME AS THE CURRENT AGREEMENT. AND ANYTIME THEY DO ANY WORK DIGGING OR ANYTHING, THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THE 411 AND AT WHICH TIME WE ARE CONTACTED OR SOMEBODY IS CONTACTED THAT VERIFIES IT'S ALL THERE. I'LL LET ERNEST, I'LL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. STUFF RIGHT NOW IS VERY IS VERY CONFUSING ON THAT. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T CLEAR UP. YEAH. THEY SUBMITTED A PERMIT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR RW.

THEN THE PUBLIC WORKS GETS IT. WE REVIEW IT, WE EVALUATE IT AND THEN WE WE APPROVE OR DENY.

I KNOW THAT'S HOW IT CURRENTLY IS. BUT THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT OH DOES NOT HAVE THAT IN HERE. GOT IT. IT'S ACTUALLY STATES THAT IT'S A IT'S A THERE IS A BLANKET EXEMPTION IN THERE FOR PERMITTING. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO NOTIFY THE WAY THAT IT READS. BASICALLY, THEY'RE NOT NOTIFYING US AT ALL. OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE THEM LIKE IT TO SAY THAT THERE IS. AND THAT WAY, I MEAN, I OF COURSE THERE'S GOING TO BE NO FEE WITH IT. AND, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF JUST IS MORE OF A LIKE INFORMING US RATHER THAN ASKING PERMISSION KIND OF THING. BUT AT LEAST THERE, THE WAY THAT THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS ARE. I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. OKAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CHARLES CAN LOOK AT. YEAH, WE CAN LOOK AT IT. WE CAN GO BACK AND PUT THAT IN THERE AND SEND IT BACK TO PEC AND GO FROM THERE. BECAUSE UNTIL THE NEW AGREEMENTS PUT IN PLACE, THE CURRENT ONE STAYS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN TERMS OF CITIZEN COMMENTS, I HAVE DAVID KING. JUST IN AGREEMENT WITH MISS CHAVARRIA WITHOUT THERE BEING SOME WITH IT BEING A BLANKET OVERSIGHT OR WITHOUT OVERSIGHT. OH MY. AN ISSUE THAT

[02:35:01]