[IX.2. Approval of Resolution No. 26-2221, A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Lago Vista, Texas, Authorizing The Release Of A Four-Foot Portion Of A Fifteen-Foot Public Utility And Drainage Easement Adjacent And Parallel To The Rear Boundary Line Of Lot 9033, Highland Lakes Estates, Section Nine, According To The Map Or Plat Of Record In Volume 51, Page 78, Plat Records Of Travis County, Texas And Located At 3607 Bunyan Circle, Lago Vista, Texas]

UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL BRING UP ITEM TWO FIRST. SO THIS WAS APPROVAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-2221. A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL LAGO VISTA AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A FOUR FOOT PORTION OF 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. ADJACENT PARALLEL TO REAR BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 9023 HIND LAKES ESTATES. BRINGING THIS ITEM OFF TO HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION, THE CITY HAS HAD SOME CONFUSION OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO ABOUT HAVING TO DO VARIANCES IN THESE APPROVALS. FOR POOLS, THIS IS RELATED TO A POOL AS IS WITH A PUBLIC UTILITY. STAFF HAVE COME FORWARD WITH A SOLUTION TO HELP US WITH SOME OF THIS POOL ISSUE, AND I WANTED TO GET CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION TO STAFF. IF I CAN FIND THE CORRECT DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL GAVE ME. I DON'T KNOW WHERE I PUT IT. BUT ANYWAYS, IT'S CHAPTER 14 WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS. THERE WAS LANGUAGE CHANGE IN 2024 THAT WE WISH HAD INCLUDED THE WORD POOL, THAT IT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE TO GO FOR APPROVAL.

THROUGH THE SETBACKS, STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT CURRENTLY THE END OF THAT LANGUAGE ACTUALLY SAYS OR SIMILAR STRUCTURES. ALL I NEED TONIGHT FROM COUNCIL IS ONE. DO YOU AGREE TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION? THE SIMILAR STRUCTURES INCLUDES A POOL AND IF DOING SO, YOU WILL HELP CLEAR UP A LONG PATH. FOR A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO ARE CURRENTLY SEEKING VARIANCES FOR POOLS. AND THEN SECOND, I'M ASKING FOR THE LONG TERM FIX SO THAT IT'S CLEAR TO FUTURE COUNCILS. CAN YOU GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING THIS CHANGE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SO THAT THEY CAN INSERT THAT ONE WORD POOL, AND WE CAN HAVE A LONG TERM FIX TO THIS ISSUE? MR. PRINCE, I CONCUR WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WITH ONE ONE SLIGHT VARIATION, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE REFER TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF THE ONE POOL AND WHETHER THEY THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL BASED ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. DOES THE REST OF COUNCIL, IN CONSENSUS OF THAT SEE HEADS NODDING, HEADS NODDING ONLINE? OKAY, THAT'S ALL I WANTED. SO DOES STAFF FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE GOOD DIRECTION ON THAT? PERFECT.

WELL, THEN I WILL COME BACK TO THIS ITEM AND SORRY FOR GIVING A HEART ATTACK TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY THAT THIS MIGHT NOT GO FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION ON ITEM NINE TWO. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ACTION ITEM 9.2 APPROVING THE SETBACK.

I HAVE A MOTION. MR. BENEFIEL, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM THE MAYOR.

PRO TEM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL

[IX.3. Approval of Resolution No. 26-2222, A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Lago Vista, Texas, Authorizing The Release Of One Five-Foot Public Utility And Drainage Easement Adjacent And Parallel To The Rear Boundary Line Of Lots 1 And 2 And Two Five-Foot Public Utility And Drainage Easements On Each Side Of The Common Lot Line Between Lots 1 And 2, Block P, Section 3, Phase 4, Lago Vista Subdivision According To The Map Or Plat Of Record In Volume 32, Page 7, Plat Records Of Travis County, Texas Located At 20907 Round Up Trail, Lago Vista, Texas; And The Release Of One Five-Foot Public Utility And Drainage Easement Adjacent And Parallel To The Rear Boundary Line Of Lot 51 Block P, Section 3, Phase 4, Lago Vista Subdivision According To The Map Or Plat Of Record In Volume 32, Page 7, Plat Records Of Travis County, Texas Located At 6513 Shady Lane, Lago Vista, Texas]

MOVE TO ITEM NINE THREE. I THINK THAT WAS COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. YES. YES, MAYOR. THE ONLY REASON I PULLED THAT IS BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT CONSOLIDATION, QUITE A LARGE LOT CONSOLIDATION, AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, ANY INTENTION FOR A POOL TO BE PLACED ON THIS PROPERTY. BUT I THE LOCATION OF IT AND THE WAY THAT THIS LOT IS ACTUALLY SITUATED, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S INTENT OR IF WE'RE EVEN ALLOWED TO ASK THE

[00:35:05]

APPLICANT'S INTENT FOR LOT CONSOLIDATION. I DON'T KNOW WHO THE STAFF PERSON IS ON THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT DO WE HAVE THE OWNER HERE FOR THIS ONE? MR. PRINCE, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT THEY DID AN APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT POOL. AND SO IT'S IT'S REALLY NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO ASK THEM WHAT THEY MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE. SO I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT'S NOT NOT RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION MYSELF. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WANTING TO KNOW. JUST, YOU KNOW, INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOT AND THIS, THIS CORNER AREA. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY IF THEY DO WANT TO PUT A POOL IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PERMIT PROCESS. ABSOLUTELY.

MEET ALL THE RULES ACCORDINGLY. OKAY. FOR NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON MY PART UNLESS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTED TO WEIGH IN, BUT I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. AS IT READS, I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE FROM COUNCILOR SAVARINO A SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT A SECOND FROM MR. PRINCE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. DID WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM REMOVED? WE JUST DID 2 OR 3. OKAY. IS THE CHAMBER READY? I KNOW WE HAD TALKED ABOUT 5 P.M. IT'S 440. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. NEXT WE'LL GO TO ITEM TEN. ONE

[X.1. Discussion and possible action regarding an agreement between the City of Lago Vista and the Chamber of Commerce, including HOT Fund reimbursement.]

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INCLUDING HOT FUND REIMBURSEMENT. I DON'T THINK I HAVE A STAFF MEMBER FOR THIS ONE. SO THIS IS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE THE CHAMBER SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT, PASSED THAT ON TO STAFF AND THE ATTORNEY. THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME SAID THAT HE NEEDED MORE GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL AND REQUESTED THAT THIS BE PUT ON THE AGENDA. SO IT WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA, AND WE HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS IN THE PACKET. AS YOU GUYS COUNCIL IS AWARE, THE PACKET WAS CHANGED THIS MORNING. WE DID RECEIVE A DEMAND LETTER FROM THE CHAMBER TO REMOVE SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE PACKET THAT WAS DONE. AND THAT'S WHY YOU NO LONGER SEE THOSE IN YOUR PACKET HERE TODAY. I JUST GET THAT ALL DOWN. ALL RIGHT. SO I GUESS WE'LL GO TO YOUR GIVING A PRESENTATION FOR THE CHAMBER. YES. AND ALSO I'M HERE TO GET YOUR INPUT. MY NAME IS SOPHIA PLATT. I'VE BEEN RETAINED BY THE CHAMBER. AND NORTH LAKE CHAMBER HAS EXPRESSED AN ONGOING CONTINUING INTEREST TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE TOURISM AND VISITOR CENTER THROUGH THEIR OFFICE IN THE KC BUILDING. MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT A YEAR AGO IT WAS APPROVED, AND SO A DRAFT WAS SENT BACK IN APRIL, AND THIS WAS BEFORE THERE WAS A PERSON NAMED CHARLES WHO QUIT WORKING FOR THE CITY. RED LINES WERE PROPOSED AND SENT BACK TO YOU, AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK. SO WE DON'T KNOW IF OUR RED LINES WERE APPROVED. BUT WE DO WANT TO CONTINUE THAT PARTNERSHIP AND PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL, BEFORE I GO TO CITIZEN COMMENTS, I DO HAVE A FEW CITIZENS SIGNED UP. SO WE MAY GO TO CITIZEN COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AFTER THAT. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FIRST UP, I HAD NICK. HELLO. SO I REPRESENT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FROM THE ACCOUNTING SIDE. BASICALLY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NORTH LAKE, TRAVIS CHAMBERS. YEAH. SO, SO I, I, I DO THE BOOKS AND CONDUCT THE BOOKS. I'VE DONE MY ANALYSIS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO WE DID REVAMP THE CHART OF ACCOUNTS, THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED, THE, THE OVERSIGHTS, THE REVIEW PROCESS AND WHATNOT. SO MAKING SURE IT'S MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT, MUCH MORE HOW YOU SAY YOU CAN BASICALLY EXPRESS A STORY FROM THE BOOKS. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE HAVE A PROCESS PUT IN PLACE. IF THERE'S ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU NEED, WE CAN PROVIDE AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE THIS NEXT ONE WAS SOPHIA POWELL, BUT THAT WAS WHO JUST SPOKE TO US. SO THAT'S JUST AN ONGOING ONE. CORRECT? OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT I WAS ASKED TO READ IN. THIS. FIRST ONE IS FROM HINES MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ITS VISITOR CENTER, BUT ALSO ABOUT SOME LARGER, SOMETHING LARGER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMUNITY IT SERVES. CHAMBER PROVIDES AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE

[00:40:02]

TO LAGO VISTA BUSINESS COMMUNITY. IT PROMOTES OUR BUSINESSES, WELCOMES VISITORS, CONNECTS PEOPLE AND PROVIDES SOMETHING GOVERNMENT CANNOT EASILY MANUFACTURE. A NETWORK OF PEOPLE PERSONALLY INVESTED IN THE SUCCESS OF THIS COMMUNITY. UNFORTUNATELY, LAGO VISTA HAS DEVELOPED A GOVERNMENTAL CULTURE THAT TOO OFTEN SEEMS TO FAVOR ACTING INDEPENDENTLY RATHER THAN COOPERATING WITH THE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY WILLING TO HELP. I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, AND I SUSPECT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL COULD COME UP WITH MORE IF YOU PUT YOUR MIND TO IT. WE JUST DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANTIAL REWRITE OF THE CITY'S RULING RULES GOVERNING MOBILE FOOD VENDORS. DID ANYONE FROM THE CITY ENGAGE THE CHAMBER BEFORE DRAFTING THOSE CHANGES? DID ANYONE SAY YOU REPRESENT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY? HELP US TALK TO THE EXISTING FOOD TRUCK OPERATORS. HELP US IDENTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS AND PEOPLE WITH PROJECTS ALREADY IN DEVELOPMENT. HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW THESE REGULATIONS WILL WORK IN THE REAL WORLD. THAT IS WHAT THE CHAMBER IS THERE FOR. USE THEM.

EXPAND THE BRAIN. TRUST. GOOD GOVERNMENT DOESN'T MEAN THAT 5 OR 10 PEOPLE INSIDE CITY HALL HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. GOOD GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE CITY HALL WITH KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, CONTACTS, AND A WILLINGNESS TO HELP. AND IT ISN'T JUST A CHAMBER. LOOK AT THE ELBOW. THE ELBOW OWNS AND OPERATES PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES, REPRESENTS A HUGE PORTION OF THIS COMMUNITY, AND HAS RESOURCES AND INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE. THE CITY AND LV HAVE OVERLAPPING INTERESTS IN PARKS, TRAILS, ACCESS, RECREATION, E-BIKE ISSUES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES. WHY WOULDN'T WE ROUTINELY BRING THEM TO THE TABLE? LOOK TO SARA. CITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CREATED A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE CITY, THE DEVELOPER, THE HOA PUBLIC, PARKLAND TRAILS, THE POOL AND PAVILION, PUBLIC ACCESS AND LONG TERM MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. THOSE DECISIONS CAN AFFECT HOMEOWNERS FOR DECADES, AND AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO ORIGINALLY NEGOTIATED THEM ARE GONE, WHY WOULDN'T AN ORGANIZATION THAT ULTIMATELY HAS TO LIVE WITH THOSE DECISIONS BE AT THE TABLE FROM THE BEGINNING? AND THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE CHAMBER. IF WE ARE WRITING AN ORDINANCE REGULATING BUSINESSES, WHY ISN'T THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ONE OF THE FIRST PHONE CALLS WE MAKE? WHY DO WE SO OFTEN TREAT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF THE PROCESS AND AT A PUBLIC HEARING, RATHER THAN AT THE BEGINNING, WHEN WE'RE DECIDING WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SOLVE. I SAW ANOTHER EXAMPLE INVOLVING BICYCLE AND E-BIKE SAFETY. I WAS THERE WHEN THE CHAMBER AND OTHERS OFFERED TO HELP WITH A BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION TRAINING. ALLISON IN PARTICULAR, OFFERED ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT. SHE COORDINATED WITH A LOCAL BICYCLE SHOP, MOBILE SERVICE VENDORS, OTHER BUSINESSES, THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF COMMUNITY COOPERATION WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE. YET RECENTLY, I UNDERSTAND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HELD A BICYCLE RELATED EVENT, DID NOT INVITE SOME OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HELPED BEGIN THAT INITIATIVE. WHY? THAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP I WANT BETWEEN LAGO VISTA AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AS BUSINESSES, AS POLICE DEPARTMENTS, YOUNG PEOPLE. IT'S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, IT'S RESIDENTS, AND IT'S COUNCIL. THE CHAMBER AND VISITOR CENTER CAN HELP CREATE THAT RELATIONSHIP. WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM. THANK YOU.

HEINZ. GRETHER. NEXT ONE. THIS IS WENDY AND AND GUIDO DEL REY, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL. WE ARE RIDING AS LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS, LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS AND MEMBERS OF THE NORTH LAKE TRAVIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR THE CHAMBER AND ITS CONTINUED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, PARTICULARLY ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING VISITOR AND TOURISM SERVICES. WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING IN PERSON. HOWEVER, TODAY HAPPENS TO BE THE DAY WE ARE MOVING OUR BUSINESS FROM AUSTIN TO OUR NEW LOCATION IN JONESTOWN. IN A WAY, THE TIMING FEELS FITTING. OUR CONNECTION TO THE NORTH LAKE TRAVIS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY IS BOTH PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL. WE RECENTLY SOLD OUR HOME IN JONESTOWN, CHOSE TO MAKE LAGO VISTA OUR HOME. NOW WE ARE RELOCATING OUR LONG ESTABLISHED BUSINESS FROM AUSTIN TO THE NORTH SHORE. THESE DECISIONS REFLECT OUR CONFIDENCE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND OUR DESIRE TO INVEST HERE FOR A LONG TERM.

ONE FACTOR IN THAT DECISION WAS THE STRONG CHAMBER PRESENCE WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER THE PAST YEAR. WE HAVE INCREASED ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES TO CONNECT IN A GENUINE EFFORT TO STRENGTHEN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. WE RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS ARE PROPERLY SPENT, DOCUMENTED, ACCOUNTED FOR THROUGH WENDY'S PREVIOUS WORK IN LOCAL STATE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING FUND ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION. WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ALSO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING THE CHAMBER'S GENERAL OPERATIONS FROM VISITOR AND TOURISM SERVICES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING. IN OUR VIEW, THE CHAMBER IS PARTICULARLY WELL SUITED TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES BECAUSE OF MUCH OF THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THE CHAMBER HAS AN ESTABLISHED PRESENCE THROUGH THE NORTH SHORE AND DIRECT FAMILIARITY WITH THE BUSINESSES, EVENTS AND EXPERIENCES AVAILABLE TO VISITORS.

SUPPORTING THE CHAMBER'S VISITOR AND TOURISM SERVICE ALLOWS HOT FUNDS TO BUILD UPON AN EXISTING NETWORK ALREADY SERVING THE AREA, WHILE PROMOTING LAGO VISTA AS PART OF THE BROADER NORTH SHORE EXPERIENCE, WE HOPE COUNCIL WILL WORK WITH THE CHAMBER TO RESOLVE ELIGIBLE OUTSTANDING REIMBURSEMENTS AND ESTABLISH CLEAR EXPECTATIONS GOING FORWARD. AS BUSINESS OWNERS, WE UNDERSTAND THE STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIPS SOMETIMES REQUIRE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS AND COURSE CORRECTIONS. WE BELIEVE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER IS WORTH THAT EFFORT. WE CHOSE LAGO VISTA AS A COMMUNITY WHERE WE WANT TO LIVE IN THE NORTH SHORE IS A PLACE WHERE WE WANT TO INVEST OUR BUSINESS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCIL TO SUPPORT AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS THE CHAMBER TO CONTINUE PROVIDING MEANINGFUL VISITOR AND TOURISM SERVICES FOR LAGO VISTA, WHILE ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. SINCERELY, WENDY AND GUIDO DEL RAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MR. I'LL KEEP IT REAL BRIEF. I THINK THAT HISTORICALLY WE'VE UNDERUTILIZED THE COMBINATION OF VISITOR CENTER AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND IF ANYTHING, THE ONLY CONTENTION I'VE FOUND IS THE ACCOUNTING AND METRICS, WHICH PREVIOUSLY WERE ABYSSAL AT BEST. SO I HOPE THAT THERE'S A DIALOG TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE SHORTFALLS ARE, WHAT EXACTLY IS NEEDED. AND AS WE FINALLY ARE USING OUR HOT

[00:45:05]

TAXES CORRECTLY, HOT FUNDS CORRECTLY, WE CAN BUILD THOSE KPIS OF HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO SEE THINGS RECORDED. HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO SEE FINANCES AND AUDITS DONE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS ONLY GOING TO AFFECT THE VISITOR CENTER. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN USE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO USE THESE, AND KIND OF MAKE UP FOR HOW WE FUMBLED THIS BALL IN THE LAST PRIOR YEARS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL. OKAY. I CAN WELL, YOU KNOW HOW MY OPINION IS. IT'S ALWAYS UNPOPULAR. I TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE CHAMBER. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANY OTHER WAY. I THINK IF YOU GO BACK AND REWIND THE CLOCK TO THIS DISCUSSION LAST YEAR, THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE CHAMBER WAS REALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR. IT WAS A THE WAY THAT WE WERE FUNDING THE CHAMBER WAS NOT ACCURATE. OKAY. WE PREVIOUSLY WERE ALLOCATING, I THINK IT WAS $50,000 TO THE WHAT WAS IT, 48,000, $48,000. AND BASICALLY THAT $48,000 WAS JUST HANDED OUT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS. EQUALLY. AND WHAT WE LEARNED FROM COUNCIL IS THAT THAT'S NOT RIGHT, THAT THE FUNDS THAT WE GIVE HAVE TO BE HOT QUALIFIED, MEANING THE FUNDS HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING VISITORS AND TOURISTS HERE IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA.

RIGHT. AND SO IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT THAT MEETING, I VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID, HEY, LET'S NOT MAKE THE BUDGET 48,000, MAKE IT A HUNDRED THOUSAND, I DON'T CARE. BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WAS RUNNING THE CHAMBER IS I WOULD HAVE AN EVENT EVERY SINGLE MONTH, AND I WOULD HAVE BALLOONS AND I WOULD HAVE BEER AND I WOULD HAVE RACES AND I WOULD DO I WOULD HAVE AN EVENT EVERY MONTH AND I WOULD BRING PEOPLE TO THE, TO THE, TO THE CITY. AND WE WOULD LAUGH AND WE WOULD JOKE, AND YOU COULD SUBMIT ALL THESE RECEIPTS AND YOU'D GET THIS $100,000 AND EVERYBODY WOULD BE GREAT, RIGHT? BUT SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE INCREASED EVENT IN THE CITY, RIGHT? THE SAME STATUS QUO. BUT YET WE WANT THE BUDGET TO GO FROM 48,000 TO 100,000. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, IN MY OPINION. RIGHT. THE THE MONEY HAS TO BE TIED TO TOURISM. AND WHAT I SEE THIS PARTICULAR EXPENSE IS THAT THERE'S BEEN THIS NARRATIVE CHANGE FROM HOT FUNDS TO THE VISITOR CENTER, BECAUSE THE VISITOR CENTER IS THIS VERY LIKE THIS BEAST THAT, OH, WE CAN THROW IN RENT AND WE CAN THROW IN TRIPS TO SONIC AND WE CAN THROW THIS IN THERE AND WE CAN THROW THIS IN THERE. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S THIS REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR $61,000. BUT YET THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA HAS NOT RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THOSE HOT FUNDS. AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS IN THREE DIFFERENT RESPECTS. THE CHAMBER DOES THREE THINGS. THEY A REPRESENT THE BUSINESSES, WHICH IS REALLY WHO SPOKE FOR YOU TONIGHT OR THE BUSINESSES THAT YOU REPRESENT THAT PAY THE DUES. NUMBER TWO, THE VISITOR CENTER. AND THEN NUMBER THREE, THERE'S THE EVENTS, RIGHT? WELL, REALLY WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE HOT FUNDS GOING IS NOT $100,000 FOR A VISITOR CENTER. IF THAT'S THE CASE, LET'S DO AWAY WITH THE VISITOR CENTER. LET'S NOT EVEN HAVE A VISITOR CENTER. IT'S NOT BRINGING $100,000 WORTH OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. BRING THE VISITOR CENTER TO THE CITY. LET GOOGLE DO THE VISITOR CENTER. BUT THE $100,000 WAS DESIGNED TO BE ALLOCATED FOR EVENTS. RIGHT. AND SO AND I'LL FURTHER SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. THERE HAS BEEN A NARRATIVE THAT SOMEHOW THE CITY INAPPROPRIATELY PUT THIS AGENDA ON THE ON THE ON THE IN THE PACKET, AN EMAIL WAS SENT REQUESTING THESE FUNDS. IT WAS NOT SENT AS A DRAFT. IT WAS NOT SENT AS A. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DIALOG. IT SAYS WE WOULD LIKE TO BE REIMBURSED. AND HERE'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT REIMBURSEMENT. AND IT WAS NEARLY. IT WAS 12 OR 13. AGENDA 12 OR 13 ATTACHMENTS SPANNING 100 PAGES. RIGHT. AND AS IT WAS POINTED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, HAD THE CITY GIVEN THE $61,000 YOU. THE CHAMBER WOULD NOT HAVE SAID, OH, DON'T, DON'T, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY. THAT WAS JUST A DRAFT REQUEST, RIGHT? THIS WAS A REQUEST. AND IN THAT REQUEST WAS PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION JUSTIFICATIONS. AND THEY WERE NONE OF WHICH EVENTS ALLOCATED. AND I'LL JUST

[00:50:04]

SAY ONE MORE THING. IN THIS REQUEST, THERE WERE THINGS LIKE DAVE'S TACOS AND SONIC AND OTHER TYPES OF EXPENDITURES. I'LL REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IN 2024, COUNCIL USED TO HAVE LUNCH BROUGHT IN FOR US. AND YOU KNOW WHY WE STOPPED THAT PRACTICE? COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE SHOWING UP STARVING. THEY WOULD COME FROM WORK, THEY WOULD SHOW UP TO CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY WOULD ATTEND THESE MEETINGS FOR TEN HOURS. AND THE COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION TO STOP THAT $20 PRACTICE. WHY? BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS THE MONEY WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW. YEAH, WE'RE OVER HERE EATING CHIPS, RIGHT? WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW THAT WE WERE WASTING THE MONEY. BUT YET WE GET THIS EXPENDITURE REQUEST AND WE SEE ALL THESE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR $25 SONIC RUNS AND $50 DAVE TACOS. THAT'S NOT THE WAY YOU SPEND HOT FUNDS. THAT DIDN'T BENEFIT OUR AIRBNBS, THAT DIDN'T BENEFIT OUR BUSINESSES. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT $100,000 WAS DESIGNED. SO I TAKE OFFENSE TO IT. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE 61,000. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY MET THE THRESHOLD OF THE HOT FUNDS. AND I'LL JUST SAY ONE LAST THING. THAT WAS NOT THE MAYOR'S JUSTIFICATION FOR PUTTING THIS ON. IT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL COUNSEL THAT SAID, LET'S PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THAT CAME ON ON AUGUST 17TH. AND AS A RESPONSE TO THAT EMAIL, THE MAYOR SAID, OKAY, LET'S PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. I JUST WANT TO BE TOTALLY CLEAR HOW IT ENDED UP HERE. THANK YOU, MR. BROWNFIELD. YEAH, JUST SPEAK TO THE ONE OF THE ITEMS I DO BACK TO WHAT YOU STARTED WITH WAS THE AGREEMENT. I DO THINK THAT WHAT IS MAKING THIS RELATIONSHIP DIFFICULT AND MAKING THIS WHOLE COMPLICATED IS THE ADDITION OF THE VISITOR CENTER. AND I THINK IF WE REMOVE THE VISITOR CENTER PORTION OF THIS, IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR THE CITY STILL STILL SUPPORTS THE CHAMBER. WE STILL SUPPORT YOU WITH HOT FUNDS. WE JUST WANT IT ALL TO BE EVENT BASED. WE WANT IT TO BE TOURISM BASED. THAT IS A SIMPLER PROCESS. THIS VISITOR CENTER IS ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SALARY TO SLIDE IN THEIR ELECTRICITY COSTS. TO SLIDE IN THERE LIKE LIKE. MR. BENEFIELD POINTED OUT SOME QUESTIONABLE TRIPS THAT WHILE MAYBE THEY CAN QUALIFY UNDER HOT FUNDS WITH THE RIGHT EXPLANATION, IT ISN'T A GREAT LOOK TO THE CITIZENS.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING FOR. AND TO HIS POINT, WE ALL HAVE TO OPERATE AS CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER THIS NOTION THAT EVEN IF IT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, WE ARE TO AVOID IT. AND I THINK THAT EVERYBODY HERE WORKS REALLY HARD TO DO THAT. SO WE'RE ASKING THE CHAMBER TO DO THE SAME. SO I GUESS I'D SUMMARIZE THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE AGREEMENT, TO ME, THIS AGREEMENT WAS MOSTLY ABOUT A VISITOR CENTER. I SAY WE REMOVE THE VISITOR CENTER PORTION FROM IT. THE CHAMBER. YOU STILL HAVE YOUR FACILITY, PEOPLE STILL GO THERE. TO THE BUSINESSES THAT WROTE AND SUPPORT THIS. THE CHAMBER IS YOUR BIGGEST CHEERLEADER. THEY DO A GREAT JOB OF SUPPORTING THE LOCAL BUSINESSES. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. THE VISITOR CENTER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PORTION OF WHAT THEY DO, THE VISITOR CENTER TO TO GIVE PEOPLE SOME HISTORY. I HAVE IT WRITTEN RIGHT HERE IN 1984, IS WHEN IT WAS ADDED TO THE STATUTE FOR HOT FUNDS IN 1984, VISITOR CENTERS WERE A BIGGER THING. PEOPLE WOULD PULL INTO A TOWN. YOU DIDN'T HAVE ONE OF THESE. YOU STOP AT THE VISITOR CENTER, YOU GRAB THE BROCHURES, YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU FIND OUT WHAT'S IN TOWN THAT ISN'T WHAT'S GOING ON ANYMORE. VISITORS COME TO TOWN, THEY HAVE A CELL PHONE. THEY CAN FIND EVERYTHING THEY NEED. NOW, IF THEY WANT TO GO LEARN ABOUT LOCAL BUSINESSES IN THE TOWN, STILL GO TO THE CHAMBER, STILL GO LEARN ABOUT THOSE BUSINESSES. BUT THE CITY DOESN'T NEED TO SPEND MONEY ON A VISITOR CENTER. I HAVE VERY FEW TRUE TOURISTS ARE COMING IN TOWN SEEKING OUT A VISITOR CENTER, AND THE CITY IS PAYING FOR IT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN PUT MAPS ONLINE, WE CAN PUT BROCHURES ONLINE. WE HAVE A FULLY FUNDED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE WITH THE CITY. THEY CAN TAKE ON SOME OF THOSE DUTIES TO HELP FOLKS OUT WHEN THEY COME TO TOWN. AND THAT WAY THE CHAMBER CAN FOCUS ON SUPPORTING BUSINESSES AND SUPPORTING THESE EVENTS. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR, ONE OF THE OBSERVERS IS THAT I'VE HAD IS THAT THE CHAMBER DID GO FROM THE ORIGINAL EVENTS AS COUNCILOR BENEFIELD ORIGINALLY MOTIONED AND INTO THE VISITOR VISITOR CENTER SPACE. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD THERE WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION, I BELIEVE, BETWEEN OUR TWO ENTITIES, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ROLES THAT WE BOTH WOULD PLAY GOING FORWARD. SO WHAT I WOULD ASK OR SUGGEST IS THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, POTENTIALLY, THAT WE DO HAVE SOME KIND OF MEETING OR STRATEGIC SESSION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PLANNING OUT OUR EVENTS SO THAT IT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THE ROLES THAT WE PLAY AND THAT WE CAN HELP BETTER SUPPORT THE CHAMBER AND THE INITIATIVES THAT THEY ARE PUTTING FORWARD FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE VISITORS BUREAU

[00:55:03]

DID COME OUT OF. DID NOT COME FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. AND SO I THINK, AGAIN, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT WE REALLY DID NOT HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION. AND SO WITHOUT THAT, IT IS DIFFICULT IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND SUBSTANTIATE THE FUNDS THAT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THOSE PARTICULAR SERVICES. THAT IS A DIFFERENT CONTRACT. THAT WAS PART OF THE OTHER CHALLENGES I BELIEVE WE HAD, BECAUSE WE HAD THE APPLICATION FOR THE EVENTS AND WE HAD THERE IS A SEPARATE AND A VERY DISTINCT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR A VISITOR'S BUREAU. SO I JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO STATE, I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT I DO GIVE THE CHAMBER KUDOS IN TERMS OF. THEY'VE COME A LONG WAY IN TERMS OF THEIR DOCUMENTATION.

THEY HAVE TRIED REALLY HARD. SO NOW IN AT THE SAME TIME, THE CITY HAS BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT AS WELL. IT'S BEEN A LONG LEARNING PROCESS AMONGST US BOTH. AND SO NOW HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME BACK TOGETHER AND GO AHEAD AND THROUGH A PLANNING PROCESS, PULL US ALL BACK TOGETHER INTO A UNIFIED EFFORT. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I DID SEE THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN THE STATUTES WERE JUST LIKE, THE CITY GOES THROUGH A BUDGETING PROCESS. WE ALLOCATE FUNDS TOWARD THAT BUDGET. IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THAT BUDGET, THEN WE HAVE TO DO AMENDMENTS, ALL OF THAT. IN TRANSPARENCY. THE SAME THING APPLIES WITH ANY PUBLIC FUNDS THAT WE GIVE TO ANY ORGANIZATION OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. THAT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS OR WELL UNDERSTOOD PROCESS OUTSIDE THE CITY REALM. I THINK, AGAIN, A PLANNING SESSION WOULD HELP TO BRIDGE THAT GAP. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I GUESS I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. I MEAN, I HAVE I WAS JUST THIS PAST WEEK THAT WAS MY VIDEO, BUT THERE WAS A MEETING BETWEEN STAFF AND THE CHAMBER AND THE STAFF WALKED THROUGH HOW THEY WANT THINGS SUBMITTED. THAT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THEM SAY THOSE VERY THINGS. I THINK WE'VE BEEN CLEAR FROM OUR END, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT COMING CLEAR FROM WHERE YOU'RE LISTENING FROM, BUT WE'VE SAID THAT THERE ARE A SET NUMBER OF CATEGORIES WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT SAYS THIS IS WHAT QUALIFIES FOR PURCHASES. WE'RE ASKING YOU ON. EACH OF YOUR REIMBURSEMENTS ACTUALLY STATE THAT THIS QUALIFIES PER THIS STATUTE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE QUALIFYING UNDER, AND WE'VE ASKED FOR FURTHER REASONING IN THE REIMBURSEMENT THAT WE SAW. IT SAID AMAZON 30 DIFFERENT TIMES.

IT JUST SAID AMAZON EVENT SUPPLIES. AND WE'VE SAID THAT'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. YOU CAN BUY ANYTHING IN THE WORLD ON AMAZON. I CAN'T PROVE AS A CITY THAT I'M GIVING YOU TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR A QUALIFYING PURCHASE. WHEN YOU'RE GIVING ME THAT VAGUE OF A DESCRIPTION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS CONFUSION OF YOUR CHAMBER THAT ALSO COVERS JONESTOWN AND JOINT VENTURE. AND WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT WE PAY THE MOST MONEY. WE KNOW THAT JONESTOWN PAYS THE SECOND MOST, AND THEN WE VENTURE. BUT THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE A DIVISION OF HOW THESE THINGS ARE BEING BROKEN UP. AND WHEN WE SEE THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO US HOW YOU'RE BREAKING THAT UP. AND SO AS WE HAVE THESE FUTURE PLANNING DISCUSSIONS, I THINK PART OF THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE IS THAT EACH OF THOSE THREE COMMUNITIES NEEDS TO HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE OTHER ONE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF WE'RE GIVING TAXPAYER FUNDS, THERE'S NOT ANY I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS. I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO KNOW FOR SURE. THERE'S NO DOUBLE DIPPING, THAT YOU AREN'T CHARGING US $20 FOR A CHATGPT PROGRAM AND YOU'RE CHARGING JONESTOWN FOR THE SAME ONE. I THINK ALL THREE OF US NEED TO HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHAT WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR. BUT I THINK, AGAIN, IT BECOMES MUCH SIMPLER IF WE REMOVE THE VISITOR CENTER FROM THIS. THIS BECOMES STRICTLY ABOUT HOT FUND EVENTS.

YOU CAN STILL BE GRANTED UP TO 100,000, AND I'M KEY TO UP TO 100,000. THAT'S NOT JUST LIKE WE SAID LAST YEAR. THAT'S NOT A GUARANTEE OF $100,000. THAT'S YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO QUALIFY UP TO 100,000. SO AS FAR AS IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT, I WOULD SUGGEST TAKE THE VISITOR CENTER OFF THE TABLE, FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS THAT WE'RE WILLING TO REIMBURSE UP TO. AND WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO PUT IN PLACE SO WE CAN FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS. WE CAN WORK WITH THE CHAMBER TO BE MORE CLEAR AND HAVE MORE EXAMPLES. MR. BENEFIEL, I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE AN EMAIL FROM MR. BULLOCK. I WON'T READ IT VERBATIM, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT'S PRIVILEGED. IT JUST BASICALLY SAYS THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL. AND I'M SAYING THIS IN, IN JUST TO TO MISS OWEN'S COMMENTS THAT THE CHAMBER KEEPS SUBMITTING THE SAME INFORMATION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, EXPECTING A REIMBURSEMENT WHEN THEIR OWN RECORDS DESIGNATE ONLY A PORTION OF WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY REQUESTING FOR TO BE TOURISM BASED. RIGHT. SO THIS

[01:00:01]

IS THE INFORMATION WE'RE RECEIVING. THIS IS THE COUNCIL WE'RE GETTING. AND THEN TO ADD INJURY TO INSULT THE THE VERY RECORDS THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED TO JUSTIFY THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST ARE NOW BEING ASKED TO BE REMOVED FROM PUBLIC RECORD. SO THAT TRANSPARENCY CAN'T BE GIVEN TO THE CITIZENS. RIGHT. I CAN READ THE LETTER FROM YOUR ATTORNEY, AND I SURE, I DRAFTED THAT LETTER, AND I WAS VERY CLEAR AND VERY FRIENDLY, LETTING YOU KNOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN NDA EXECUTED. OH THANK YOU. AND IN HONOR OF THAT AGREEMENT, WE REQUESTED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS BE REDACTED BECAUSE INFORMATION THAT WAS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL ACCIDENTALLY WAS TRANSMITTED IN THAT SUBMISSION. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT PAGES DID YOU ASK TO HAVE OMITTED FROM THE PACKET? 127 AND WHAT PAGES HAD THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS? IT WAS ON AT LEAST 108 AND A FEW OTHER PLACES. SO ALL THE ALL THE RECORDS THAT YOU WERE ASKING THAT JUSTIFIED THE 61,000 WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PACKET. CORRECT. WE HAD TO REQUEST THOSE SPECIFIC PAGES TO HONOR THE NDAI UNDERSTAND, BUT BUT THOSE BUT THOSE PAGES REPRESENTED THE REQUEST ACCEPTED FROM THE OPEN RECORDS ACT. AND I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE. I'M SIMPLY ASKING THAT WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE. SO I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED A YEAR AGO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER DO WANT TO HAVE A PARTNERSHIP OF SOME KIND, OF COURSE, AND THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE ROLES OF THE PARTIES WITH A WRITTEN AGREEMENT. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SEEKING. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DRAFT THAT WAS SENT TO US AND THAT WE REDLINED AND SENT BACK TO THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY FEEDBACK.

SO ON THAT COMPONENT OF IT, I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH YOU TO COME UP WITH A DRAFT THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO BOTH SIDES. AND THEN ON A SEPARATE NOTE, WHICH, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT IS ONE COMPONENT, ANOTHER COMPONENT IS THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE PAST. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS NOTEBOOK THAT I'M HOLDING RIGHT HERE IS A COMPLETE COPY OF EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY, AND I WOULD LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH ANY MISSING INFORMATION AND CLARIFY AND SUPPLEMENT ANY CLARIFICATIONS OR ANY FURTHER INFORMATION THAT THE CITY NEEDS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE HOT FUNDS.

WELL, JUST TO FINALIZE MY POINT THEN, AND I THINK YOU'VE MADE IT, IS IN ORDER FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE EVER APPROVING ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE 100% TRANSPARENCY WITH THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA. ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE, REGARDLESS OF THOSE LEVELS OF TRANSPARENCY, WE'RE COVERED WITH OR WITHOUT AN NDA. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE AGENDA ITEM BROUGHT BEFORE US IS TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE, THE APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT FOR $61,000, WHICH I CANNOT SUPPORT BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR THOSE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PACKET AND NOT JUST REMOVE DESTROYED SO THAT NOBODY SHOULD EVER HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS EVER AGAIN. SO HOW CAN I PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO THE APPROVAL? AND THEN, NUMBER TWO, ON THE OPERATING AGREEMENT, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO GET THERE TONIGHT. BUT I DO AGREE WITH MAYOR SHANE THAT IF WE REMOVE THE VISITOR CENTER FROM THE EQUATION, IT DOES MAKE THIS ENTIRE APPROVAL PROCESS MUCH EASIER, MEANING I UNDERSTAND VISITOR CENTERS CAN BE AN APPROVED BASED REIMBURSEMENT.

HOWEVER, THAT BECOMES A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE IN MY OPINION, WITH SALARIES AND EATING OUT AND UTILITIES. AND YOU KNOW, WHICH PORTION POINT VENTURES PAYING FOR VERSUS WHAT IS JONESTOWN PAYING FOR, WHICH IS LAGO VISTA. SO IF WE JUST TAKE THAT ELEMENT OUT OF THE EQUATION AND MAKE IT ON EVENTS, THEN IT REALLY BECOMES VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY DID WANT THAT PARTNERSHIP AND DID WANT TO WORK TOGETHER. AND THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT, BOTH FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE BUSINESSES, AND I PRESUMABLY ALSO FROM THE CITY. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN TRANSITION THAT HAPPENS CONSTANTLY. EVERYTHING CHANGES.

MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE TWO SIDES DO WANT TO WORK TOGETHER. WE NEED TO IRON OUT THE DETAILS. AND BECAUSE I CAME IN YESTERDAY, AS YOU SAW FROM THE DATE OF THE REQUEST AND SAW THIS INFORMATION AND SAW THE LEGAL IMPLICATION, AND I DID NOT WANT MY CLIENT TO BE SUED, I SAID, WE NEED TO IMMEDIATELY REDACT THIS. AND SO WE DID. AND THAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THE REQUEST. THERE WAS NO SUBTERFUGE AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO NOT HAVE TRANSPARENCY. I REVIEWED THE INFORMATION, AND IT BECAME CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME THAT WE IMMEDIATELY HAD TO TAKE ACTION TO REMOVE IT. WE CAN SUPPLEMENT IT AND PRODUCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT INDICATE ANY VIOLATION OF THAT NDA. THAT'S FINE, AND WE ARE ON

[01:05:02]

BOARD. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, AND I WOULD ASK HUMBLY THAT THE CITY NOT VOTE TO REJECT EITHER THE CONTRACT OR THE REIMBURSEMENT AND ALLOW US THE TIME TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND SUPPLEMENT AS IS NECESSARY SO THAT ALL PARTIES AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS 100% TRANSPARENCY AND THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE CODE TO THE LETTER. MR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CITY IS NOT A PARTY TO YOUR NDA, WE'RE A THIRD PARTY. WE ACTUALLY HAD ABSOLUTELY EVERY RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THAT INFORMATION PUBLIC. AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS ACTUALLY STILL PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S OPEN TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, AND ANYONE CAN FIND THAT BY USING WAYBACK MACHINE AND PULLING THAT INFORMATION, WHICH WAS POINTED OUT TO ME ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO OR TWO HOURS AGO. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE NDA, THE CITY IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE NDA BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A PARTY TO THAT NDA. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE REPORTING WAS DONE AFTER GOING OVER IT AS WELL. REGARDING VISITOR CENTER AND EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ALSO, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ADVERTISING EXPENSES VERSUS MARKETING EXPENSES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE DOUBLE DIPPING HERE. I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ACTUAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR IT. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO APPROVING THE AMOUNT. I JUST WANT SOME MORE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT'S BEING SPENT AND WHERE. AND THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ON HERE. AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHY IT WAS ASKED TO BE PULLED, BECAUSE HONESTLY, IF I HAD SUBMITTED THIS, I WOULD BE EMBARRASSED. I WOULD NOT WANT ANY OF THESE OTHER SOME OF THESE EXPENSES TO BE PUBLIC.

BUT FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CLEAR THIS UP. ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE, AND I AM A PART OF THE TEAM NOW, AND I'M WILLING TO COOPERATE AND PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT IS NEEDED SO THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN REACH THAT POINT. AND YOU SAID THAT THE CHAMBER IS WILLING TO SUPPLEMENT THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST THAT CAME IN. DO THEY INTEND TO SUBMIT ANYTHING IN A ANY TIME FRAME ON THAT? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS WORK HERE BECAUSE I'M BRAND NEW. SO WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOU IN MY OFFICE? A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IS 30 DAYS. THAT'S IN THAT PACKAGE. WE DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THAT BINDER. IT IS ALREADY ALL DONE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. I MEAN, I AM GOING TO ASK FOR AN ACTION TONIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE. WHAT I ASKED COUNCIL EARLIER TODAY IS WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THIS MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH AT A FINAL BUDGET, OR WE'LL GIVE OUR FINAL DIRECTION OF A FINAL BUDGET. AND THIS IS A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. SO I NEED CLARITY FROM THE COUNCIL ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

THAT DOESN'T IMPACT YOUR CURRENT REIMBURSEMENT, BUT GOING FORWARD, IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, AND I AM GOING TO ASK FOR AN ACTION TONIGHT TO NO LONGER FUND THE VISITOR CENTER PORTION OF IT AND TO GO STRICTLY EVENTS. WOULD YOU MIND IF I SAID A WORD? LET ME GO TO MR. BENNEFIELD FIRST. YEAH, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT, BUT I, I AGREE, THAT'S THE ACTION I'D LIKE TO SEE TONIGHT IS THAT IF THE CITY IS GOING TO WORK WITH THE CHAMBER ON A REIMBURSEMENT THAT WE DO THAT, BUT THAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE SOLELY BASED ON EVENTS AND HOT, FUN REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED OR UTILIZED IN LAGO VISTA. AND SO, I MEAN, AFTER JUSTIN TALKS, THAT'S THAT'S LIKELY THE MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. OKAY. JUSTIN. THANK YOU COUNCIL, I APPRECIATE IT. I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED BY THE CHARACTER CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REPORTS. WE ACTUALLY KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY DAVE'S TACOS AND SONIC TWO, BECAUSE WE'VE BROKEN DOWN EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION FROM OUR BANK STATEMENTS AND TRIED TO OPEN UP IN TRANSPARENCY IN A WAY THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED. IT'S NOT OFF THE TABLE TO SAY THAT IF WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS OR WE'RE, YOU KNOW, SUPPLEMENTING AN EVENT, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FEED THEM DAVE'S TACOS OR A SONIC DRINK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THAT TO PUT IT OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FROM HOT FUNDS FOR THEIR LUNCH OR FOR THEIR DRINKS IS, IS A FALSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. A PART OF THIS TOO, IS THAT WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS. WE'VE SAID THIS OVER AND OVER. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WORK SESSIONS. A LOT OF THIS IS PROVIDING TO YOU TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T. YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAY, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FITS IN THIS LANE. ALLOW US THE CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN OURSELVES, TO PUT IT TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE AND TO, TO PRESENT TO YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE

[01:10:04]

THE CHAMBER'S TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE TRYING TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY, OUR BUSINESS OWNERS, AND TRYING TO INCREASE THE FOOT TRAFFIC THAT COMES IN HERE OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA CODE THROUGH THE VISITOR CENTER. WHEN YOU ELIMINATE THE VISITOR CENTER FROM THE EQUATION IN A CITY THE SIZE, IT MAKES IT VERY HARD TO SURVIVE AS AS A CHAMBER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A SHELL. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T APPROPRIATE OR COMPLIANT. IT MEANS THAT IT'S A SERVICE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THAT QUALIFIES FOR THESE FUNDS. SO WE SEE DAY IN AND DAY OUT PEOPLE COMING IN, CALLING. WE ACTUALLY WERE JUST LAUGHING YESTERDAY BECAUSE WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE COME IN WHEN I WAS THERE, LEAVE MESSAGES, I'M COMING TO YOUR TOWN. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. TO YOUR POINT, YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE IS A NEW DIGITAL MEDIA PEOPLE CAN GET ON THEIR PHONES. I THINK SOME SAID THAT IT'S A IT'S AN AGE OLD THING, VISITOR CENTERS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T GO IN THERE. THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY DO, ESPECIALLY IN A LAKE COMMUNITY LIKE THIS, MAYBE IF YOU'RE LANDLOCKED AND YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT TO COME SEE. BUT LAGO VISTA IS EXTREMELY BLESSED WITH THE RESOURCES AND THE BUSINESSES THAT WE HAVE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME SEE. SO I THINK THAT HAVING A CENTRAL PLACE THAT'S ALSO TIED INTO OUR OUR CHAMBER IS ACTUALLY A HUGE VALUE ADD. I THINK IF YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME IN DAY IN AND DAY OUT OR THE BUSINESSES, THEY SEE THE VALUE THAT'S THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW, TO DISCREDIT IT. IT'S REALLY HEARTBREAKING TO ME REALLY, BECAUSE I SEE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING IN DAY IN AND DAY OUT, WAY BEYOND WHAT'S REPORTED. WE'VE DONE NOTHING BUT TRY TO BE COMPLIANT, WORK THROUGH THE RULES, DO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, SEEK COUNSEL. THLA PUT IN A LETTER THAT SUBSTANTIATED A LOT OF OUR REQUESTS. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE POINT TOWARDS THE. THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, THE THE EFFORT THAT WE'VE PUT IN TO GETTING THE APPROPRIATE COUNCIL AND OVER A YEAR OF WORKING THROUGH THIS, THAT IT'S EITHER IGNORED THE TARGETS MOVING OR IT'S BEING DISCREDITED SO THAT THE CITY CAN DEVELOP SOMETHING THEMSELVES IN THIS LANE. SO THAT'S JUST THE FEW WORDS I WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO COME BACK. THANK YOU. MISS JUSTIN, I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING METRICS ON THE VISITOR CENTER. HOW ARE Y'ALL LOGGING DAILY, DAILY FOOT TRAFFIC? IS THERE A QR CODE THAT PEOPLE ARE SIGNING? IS THERE A SIGN IN SHEET? ARE Y'ALL TRACKING CALLS INCOMING? HOW IS THAT CALCULATED? ACTUALLY, I THINK ALLISON, HEATHER PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT TO THAT, BUT IT IS WE DO HAVE SOME NEW PROCESSES AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO EVOLVE WITH THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE CAN USE TO BE ABLE TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION. THERE'S QUITE A FEW EXTRA LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ON OUR BEHALF THAT WERE CHOSEN NOT TO BE READ, THAT I DID HAND YOU AND WERE EMAILED AND ASKED TO BE READ.

SOME OF THEM DO EXPLAIN HOW WE DO TRACK THAT. HEATHER IS IN THE VISITOR CENTER. OFTEN I AM THERE, WE ARE TRADING OFF. WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER FULL TIME STAFF AND WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS THERE. WE HAVE CAMERAS THAT ARE TRACKING THIS. WE ARE HAVE CALL LOGS OUT. WE ARE ANSWERING CALLS. WE DO HAVE A SPREADSHEET THAT IS A DAILY SPREADSHEET ON EMAILS, WALK INS AND CALLS. SO IT IS BEING TRACKED AND ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN PULLED AND PUT INTO A REPORT AND HAS HISTORICALLY ALWAYS BEEN ACCEPTED. AND WE HAVE EMBELLISHED AND MADE LIKE, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS, ADDED TO THAT AND MADE IT A BIGGER REPORT. AND YOU DO HAVE THAT IN THERE FROM CHELSEA, FROM HER TIME DURING THESE TWO QUARTERS. SO ON THAT NOTE, I WOULD SAY THAT POTENTIALLY THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER ARE VERY MUCH LIKE PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY. WE COULD GO GREAT TOGETHER, AND I WOULD LOVE TO DEVELOP THE DETAILS OF THAT PARTNERSHIP IN A STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION AS EARLY AS IT IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU, EXCEPT FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY. I'M IN COURT. MR. PRINCE. YEAH. SO I APPRECIATE, JUSTIN, YOUR STATEMENTS THERE. AND I THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED. IT SOUNDS PRETTY NEGATIVE TONIGHT, TO BE HONEST. RIGHT. BUT THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD. BUT THIS COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR AND SUPPORT FOR THE CHAMBER. AND ON THE ONE HAND, IF I WAS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE FENCE, I'D SAY, YOU KNOW, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S A FETCH A ROCK EXERCISE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THE RIGHT DATA TO THE CITY.

[01:15:01]

WHAT I HEAR FROM CITY STAFF IS WE JUST KEEP GETTING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER, AND IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CLEARLY A COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN THERE SOMEWHERE. SO THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT YES, IS THERE A DESIRE TO HAVE A PARTNERSHIP AND WORK TOGETHER AND DO SOMETHING? YES. I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT THERE THERE'S CLEARLY AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, A FEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO HAVE PRETTY STRONG BIAS AGAINST A VISITOR CENTER. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE VISITOR CENTER LOOKS LIKE IT'S BECOME A MAJOR PART OF THE BUSINESS PLAN OF THE CHAMBER AT THIS POINT. AND SO I, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, ONE OF TWO THINGS NEEDS TO HAPPEN. EITHER THE CHAMBER NEEDS TO CONVINCE THE THE SKEPTICS ON COUNCIL OF WHY A VISITOR CENTER MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR USE OF FUNDS OR THE CHAMBER NEEDS TO MOVE ON AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO. WE'RE GOING TO STOP ASKING FOR MONEY FOR THE VISITOR CENTER. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE EVENT BASED, AS WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION MYSELF EITHER WAY, BUT I DO I DO KNOW THIS, THAT WE DID SAY LAST YEAR, IF YOU GUYS CAN BRING IN THE RIGHT DOCUMENTATION AND SHOW THAT IT MEETS THE HOT FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR EVENT THINGS, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO WRITE CHECKS UP TO $100,000 AND I COULD SEE US. WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE THE BUDGET DISCUSSION. WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, BUT I COULD SEE US SAYING WE'RE FINE WITH THE SAME SITUATION. YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH WITH JUSTIFICATIONS THAT GET TO $100,000, LET'S DO IT AGAIN AND HOPEFULLY DO IT BETTER NEXT YEAR THAN IT HAPPENED THIS LAST YEAR. BUT I DO THINK THE GIANT ROCK THAT I'M HEARING HERE IS VISITOR CENTER OR NO VISITOR CENTER. THAT'S A STRATEGIC QUESTION. THAT CHAMBER HAS MADE A DIFFERENT ASSUMPTION ON THAN THIS CITY COUNCIL HAS HAS ASSUMED. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DIALOG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN IRON THIS OUT, IF YOU WILL. MR. BROWNFIELD, ONE MORE THING. I'M SORRY. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE A VISITOR CENTER BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN THIS DIRECTION FOR THE LAST YEAR AND HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE OPENED ONE AND IT'S OPERATING, WE MIGHT NOT SURVIVE.

SO IT'S IT'S A DEATH SHOT TO THE CHAMBER TO NOT HAVE THE VISITOR CENTER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SERVICES AND COMPLIANCE AND WORK WITH YOU GUYS TO DO THAT. I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS, IS THAT IT'S AN ARROW THROUGH THE HEART OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE IN LAGO VISTA.

ALSO APRIL. IT WAS LAID OUT IN THE IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU READ THROUGH. TWO TRACK SYSTEM CITY ACTUALLY IS THE ONE THAT PRESENTED THE CONTRACT TO US TO ENGAGE IN THE VISITOR CENTER.

SO TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDERNEATH US IS JUST ANOTHER MOVING TARGET. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE HAD A CARROT PUT IN FRONT OF US. WE'VE HAD A DETRIMENTAL OR A DETRIMENTAL ALLIANCE WITH YOU GUYS. AFTER THE 100,000 WAS PRODUCED, WE HAD GREAT CONVERSATIONS SAYING THAT SHOW US THESE METRICS. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU AND TO HAVE IT PULLED OUT AND JUST DECIDE TONIGHT THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE ANYMORE. THAT'S A DEATH SHOT. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. MAY I POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE NOW ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE, SO MAYBE WE CAN GET THROUGH THESE COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS SWIFTLY. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, SO I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF IF COUNCIL'S READY. BUT I WILL SAY ONE THING, THAT THE CITY HAS PAID $38,000 TO DATE, WHICH IS WHAT, 80% OR 90% OF YOUR REGULAR BUDGET. I MEAN, SO IF IF HISTORICALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 1997, IF HISTORICALLY THE CITY REIMBURSED OR GAVE $48,000, THE CITY HAS PAID 38,000 TO DATE. AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT THAT WE'VE GIVEN $0. IT'S JUST WE HAVEN'T FUNDED THE FULL 100 000 PER THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST IN THIS PACKET, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TIED TO EVENTS. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WE HAVE PAID A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND WHAT THAT WENT TO, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I RAISED THE SAME CONCERNS BACK WHEN THAT MONEY WAS RELEASED.

BUT BEFORE THAT, THE REQUEST AT THAT TIME, WE WERE ADVISED FROM COUNCIL THAT THAT CHECK SHOULDN'T GO OUT. AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CHECK TO GO OUT. BUT YET THE CHECK WENT OUT ANYWAY. AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN SAYING, HEY, WELL, WE GOT THE $38,000 CHECK LAST TIME. LET'S GO FOR THE FULL 61,000 THIS TIME TO GET US TO 100 000. AND THE HEARTBURN IS, IS THAT THE 38,000? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS USED FOR, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THE $61,000 REQUEST THAT'S IN THIS PACKET, UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM APPEARS

[01:20:06]

TO BE MOSTLY GEARED TOWARDS THE VISITOR CENTER. AND SO IF THIS AGENDA ITEM WAS HERE TODAY THAT SAYS, HEY, LET'S FUND THE CHAMBER, $100,000 FOR THE VISITOR CENTER, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD DO THAT. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR YOUR HEARTBURN AND A LITTLE TIME TO DO THAT. WELL, HERE'S MY MOTION REAL QUICK. I WANTED TO SPEAK TO JUSTIN'S POINT ABOUT THE THE VISITOR CENTER. AND I WANT TO SAY, ACTUALLY, THIS IS FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT USE THE CHAMBER. PER THE LAW, THE VISITOR CENTER IS ONLY TO DISTRIBUTE OR DISSEMINATE INFORMATION TO TOURISTS, TOURISTS ONLY. SO IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS AND YOU WENT INTO THE CHAMBER AND YOU DID ANYTHING, YOU WERE NOT A PART OF THE VISITOR CENTER. IF YOU'RE A LOCAL AND YOU WENT INTO THE VISITOR CENTER AND DID ANYTHING, THE CHAMBER, YOU WERE NOT A PART OF THE VISITOR CENTER. SO I WANTED TO BE CLEAR TO OTHERS, WHEN THEY TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A DEATH BLOW TO THE CHAMBER, THE VISITOR CENTER IS ONLY TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO TOURISTS PER THE LAW. SO IF YOU ARE NOT A TOURIST AND YOU ARE IN THERE, YOU ARE NOT A PART OF THE VISITOR CENTER. AND SO I JUST DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHAMBER. WHEN THEY TELL YOU THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF YOUR BUSINESS IS DISSEMINATING INFORMATION TO TOURISTS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT. AND FOR THE RECORD, THE FRONT DOOR TO THE CHAMBER AND THE FRONT DOOR TO THE VISITOR CENTER ARE THE SAME FRONT DOOR.

ALL RIGHT, MR. BENNEFIELD, I'M SORRY. I DID SEE COUNCILOR VANESSA. HER HAND UP, AND I MISSED HER. YEAH. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I'M. I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE VOTING ON A MOTION OR THE. I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE MOTION IS, BUT I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN SUGGESTED IS THAT IT FEELS LIKE. AND THIS ALLUDES TO THE QUESTION I ASKED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL. TO ME, IT FEELS LIKE WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGIC PLAN WITH THE CHAMBER TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER AND WHAT THE CITY IS WILLING TO SUPPORT IN TERMS OF CHAMBER ACTIVITIES, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, CHAMBER GETS FUNDING FROM ITS MEMBERS AS WELL THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MORE ORIENTED TOWARD LOCAL BUSINESSES AND SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES. WHEREAS THIS WHOLE HOT FUNDS DISCUSSION IS AROUND BRINGING IN TOURISTS INTO TOWN AND DOLLARS AND SPENDS INTO TOWN. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK. I WILL SAY THAT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I DON'T APPRECIATE, I GUESS, THE CHAMBER'S DEPICTION OF HOW THE COUNCIL HAS ACTED. AS WE'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, WE'VE ASKED FOR THE PROPER PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR HOT FUNDS REIMBURSEMENT, AND CITY STAFF ARE TELLING US THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. THE CHAMBER HAS DONE A TON OF WORK IN TERMS OF IMPROVING THEIR FINANCIALS AND DOCUMENTATION, BUT WE'RE STILL NOT THERE YET. SO I THINK TACTICALLY FOR THIS YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON PROPER REIMBURSEMENT AND FOLLOWING THOSE PROPER PROCEDURES. BUT IF WE'RE TAKING ANY ACTION ORIENTED TO THE COMING FISCAL YEAR, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO FUND ANY PORTION OF THE VISITOR CENTER. I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE BENEFITS THAT WE GET FROM THAT, AND THAT COMES FROM BETTER STRATEGIC PLANNING WITH THE CHAMBER. I KNOW WE HAVE THE BUDGET EXIGENCY NOW AND WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF UP TO 100,000 WE DID THIS YEAR TO HAVE THAT LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET. SO IT'S PROVIDED FOR. THAT'S NO GUARANTEE THE CHAMBER WOULD GET ALL THAT MONEY, BUT I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE IN MAKING A DECISION NOW BECAUSE I FEEL I WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING. SEEMS TO BE THAT ACTION THAT'S BEEN MISSING. THANK YOU. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. WELL, BEFORE I SAY I WAS I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING EARLIER TODAY AND I FORGOT. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT THE PRINCE SAID EARLIER. I THOUGHT YOUR COMMENTS WERE SPOT ON. AND I ACTUALLY THINK WHAT KAREN JUST SAID WAS, WAS VERY GOOD AS WELL. WITH ALL THAT SAID, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOCATED 30 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THE CHAMBER, MY MOTION IS THAT ANY FUNDING REQUESTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2026 MUST BE BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS, NOT VISITOR CENTER RELATED, AND MY MOTION WOULD FURTHER ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO WORK WITH THE CHAMBER'S COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH A WORKING FORMAL AGREEMENT THAT OUTLINES ANY FUTURE RELATIONSHIP ON HOW FUNDING WILL OCCUR AND WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP LOOKS LIKE. BEFORE I ASK FOR A SECOND, MY CLARIFICATION SO I DON'T HAVE TO ASK TWO OF Y'ALL IS, DO WE WANT TO GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO COUNCIL AS TO WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP WILL BE? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO IS IT'S EVENT BASED. YEAH. SO WE'VE ALREADY PAID, I THINK OVER $38,000. SO AS DISCUSSIONS OCCUR WITH THIS 61,000, THAT ANY REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT 61,000 HAS TO BE EXCLUSIVELY EVENT BASED. THEN AS WE COME TO A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAMBER THAT ANY FUTURE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE NOT ONLY

[01:25:05]

LAID OUT, BUT EVENT BASED. SO I'M CONFUSED. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM APRIL WAS THAT THERE WAS THIS TWO TRACK SYSTEM PROPOSED OR DISCUSSED OF HAVING ONE ONE TRACK, LET'S SAY TRACK TWO IS FOR EVENTS SPECIFICALLY, AND THEN TRACK ONE WOULD BE FOR TOURISM SLASH VISITOR CENTER.

IS THAT OFF THE TABLE? IS THAT WHAT YOUR MOTION IS SAYING? YES. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THAT MIGHT CLARIFY THE QUESTION? YEAH. YOU YOU SAID IN YOUR MOTION ANY EXPENSES IN CALENDAR YEAR 26. CITY OPERATES ON FISCAL YEARS WHICH ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH CALENDAR YEARS.

ARE YOU SAYING ANY EXPENSES THROUGH THE END OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE THE END OF SEPTEMBER THIS MONTH? YEAH, THE $61,762.63 FROM 2025 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2026, THAT THE REMAINING 61,000 HAS TO BE EVENT BASED. AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING WE ALREADY GAVE 38,000 FOR VISITOR $38,000 TO THE CHAMBER WITHOUT TRUE JUSTIFICATIONS. THE REASON I'M CONFUSED IS BECAUSE THE DRAFT I APOLOGIZE, WE'RE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MOTION HERE DISCUSSING THE PUBLIC PORTION. SO I HAVE OPEN RIGHT NOW. ARE WE IN DISCUSSION WITH MR. PRINCE? DID THAT ANSWER A QUESTION? YES, IT CLARIFIED MY QUESTION. I THINK, MISS VANESSA.

OKAY. COUNCILOR. VANESSA. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO IF I IF WE BROKE THIS INTO TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS, I COULD PROBABLY SUPPORT, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND I'M OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGNATION THAT ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE REIMBURSED HAS TO BE FOR EVENTS. SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I'M JUST AS I EXPRESSED BEFORE, I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF SAYING ABSOLUTELY NO FUNDING FROM THE CITY FOR THE VISITOR CENTER UNTIL WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO ENGAGE IN MORE STRATEGIC PLANNING. AND TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT IN HIS MOTION COMING UP WITH A ROBUST AGREEMENT AS A RESULT OF THAT STRATEGIC PLAN ON WHAT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO SUPPORT AND FUND. SO JUST MY COMMENT. I'LL BE A NAY ON THIS, UNLESS WE COULD BREAK THIS INTO TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, BECAUSE I WOULD VOTE FOR THE FIRST PART OF COUNCILOR BENFIELD'S MOTION. OKAY, MR. HALL, I SUPPORT MISS VANESSA'S PROPOSED SEPARATION OF THOSE TWO AGREEMENTS FOR THE SAME REASON. I THINK THE CHAMBER DOES PROVIDE A VARIETY OF SERVICES THAT ARE BENEFICIAL TO THIS COMMUNITY, TO THE CITY, TO TO OUR SHORT TERM RENTALS, TO OUR BUSINESSES. AND ALL OF THOSE, OF COURSE, ARE REIMBURSEMENT HAVE TO FIT INTO THE DEFINED AND QUALIFIED FUNDING CATEGORIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THOSE TO SEE IF SOME OF THOSE MIGHT IN FACT, BE FUNDED THROUGH, YOU KNOW, SOME SOME AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, WHETHER THAT BE A VISITOR'S CENTER OR OTHERWISE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M A STRONG PROPONENT OF, OF MARKETING AND, AND PROMOTING OUR CITY AND WOULD LOVE TO, TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW THE CHAMBER ACCOMPLISHES THAT, HOW THEY PROPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, HOW THEY WOULD DOCUMENT THE COSTS RELATED TO THAT AND JUSTIFY THAT ON A VERY CONSERVATIVE BASIS. AND SO, SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION WITH THE CHAMBER TOWARD THAT PURPOSE. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY, NAY, NAY. ALL RIGHT. IT FAILS. 4 TO 3. ALL RIGHT. I'M OPEN TO STILL OPEN TO A MOTION. MAYOR. MR. BENFIELD, I MOVE THAT. THE CHAMBER AND THE CITY. DISCUSS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE $61,762.63. AND THAT THAT REIMBURSEMENT BE BASED SOLELY ON QUALIFYING EVENT EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. THAT'S MOTION ONE.

WE CAN VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. MR. BENFIELD. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. DO I HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. I BELIEVE IT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, MAYOR? MR. BENFIELD, I MOVE THAT WE INSTRUCT THE CITY COUNCIL TO

[01:30:06]

WORK WITH THE CHAMBER'S COUNSEL TO COME UP WITH A FORMAL AGREEMENT ON ANY AND ALL FUTURE HOT FUNDS PAID, AND SOME OF THAT GUIDANCE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON WHAT CAN AND CANNOT QUALIFY FOR THOSE HOT FUNDS. THE AGREEMENT SHOULD FOCUS ON THOSE EXPENSES BEING SPECIFIC TO LAGO VISTA, MEANING A JUST A GENERAL AMAZON STATEMENT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT. AND THEN COMING BACK AND PRESENTING THAT FORMAL AGREEMENT FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. BEFORE YOU GET A SECOND, COULD I ADD TO THAT THAT WE SET A TIME ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING? CAN THIS OCCUR IN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, 14 DAYS, SEVEN DAYS, WHATEVER YOU THINK, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? I MEAN, I CAN BEGIN WORKING ON THIS TOMORROW. SO, I MEAN, WE, WE CAN Y'ALL MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS. WE CAN CERTAINLY AT LEAST HAVE AN UPDATE FOR YOU BY YOUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IF NOT AN AGREEMENT BY THAT POINT, BUT TO THE TO THE MOTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE JUST FOR THE 2627 FISCAL YEAR, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YEAH, I, I IN THAT MOTION, I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, AT A MINIMUM, AN UPDATE, IF NOT A FULL AGREEMENT BY THE 17TH, AN UPDATE BY THE 17TH, AND A CODIFIED AGREEMENT BY OCTOBER 1ST. UNDERSTOOD. I HAVE A MOTION. MR. BENEFIEL, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE OF THE EDC, THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES THAT THE CITY AND THE CHAMBER CAN INTERACT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. I JUST WANTED TO ENSURE WHAT I WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT TONIGHT ARE HOT FUNDS SPECIFICALLY. AND AS WE'RE TRYING TO NAVIGATE THIS, THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE ANY ACTIVITIES THAT COULD HAPPEN IN TERMS OF PARTNERSHIPS IN REGARD TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION INITIATIVES, TYPE B ACTIVITIES, GRANTS, ETC. GOING FORWARD. AND I WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T PUT OURSELVES INTO A INTO A PLACE WITH THAT AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE CHAMBER HOT FUNDS ONLY JUST BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S OTHER FUTURE POTENTIAL TO MAYBE OVERCOME OR BRING VALUE TO THE CITY BEYOND THE VISITOR BUREAU IN ORDER TO HELP. BOTH THE CHAMBER AND THE CITY MOVE FORWARD. JUST A COMMENT. THANK YOU. JUST ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION I MENTIONED EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'LL BRING IT UP HERE. AGAIN. THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS BRINGING THIS ISSUE ABOUT VISITOR CENTERS AND HOT FUNDS UP IN TWO WEEKS. AT THEIR HEARING, I TALKED TO OUR LOCAL CENTER. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF IT. SO THERE'S A GREAT POSSIBILITY WE CAN SPEND ALL THIS TIME TALKING ABOUT IT. AND BY MAY OF 2027, THE THE LOOPHOLE OF HAVING A VISITOR CENTER BE FUNDED THROUGH HOT FUNDS COULD BE GONE. SO I JUST WANT THAT TO BE NOTIFIED, MR. PRINCE. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO WANT TO CLARIFY IN THE MOTION. I DIDN'T HEAR MR. BENFIELD UNLESS I MISSED IN THE CONTRACT, THAT YOU'RE INSTRUCTING CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH THEIR ATTORNEY ON. I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING YOU GIVE ANY GUIDANCE ON WHETHER THAT CONTRACT SHOULD EXCLUDE OR INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT A VISITOR'S CENTER. YEAH, I LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL. IT. I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED AS FAR, YOU KNOW, TO TO KAREN'S AND VANESSA'S POINT AND TO JUSTIN'S POINT, NOBODY WANTS TO PUT A DAGGER THROUGH THE HEART OF THE CHAMBER. SO I THINK ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT AND CONSIDERED AND LOOK WHAT'S LEGALLY ALLOWABLE. AND HOPEFULLY COUNSEL CAN COME BACK WITH THE MOST PURE AGREEMENT POSSIBLE.

MAYBE IT'S LINKED TO A PERCENTAGE SAYING, HEY, WE CAN FUND SO MUCH OF THE VISITOR CENTER UP TO A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WE REFUND IN EVENTS SO THAT WE DON'T END UP SPENDING $100,000 FOR AN EVENT CENTER OR FOR A VISITOR CENTER, THAT MAYBE THERE'S SOME KIND OF METRICS IN THERE THAT COULD BE DERIVED. THANK YOU. AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE THE REQUEST WAS FOR THEM TO COME BACK TO US IN TWO WEEKS WITH SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY UPDATED. AND I THINK THAT'S A KEY, KEY HINGE POINT. AND SO WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY YOU EXPLICITLY LEFT IT OUT OF YOUR MOTION SO THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT COMES BACK IN FRONT OF US IN TWO WEEKS MIGHT, AT THE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION, STILL HAVE ALLOWANCES FOR VISITOR CENTER IN THERE? ABSOLUTELY. CAN I MAKE A QUICK COMMENT? NO ONE HAS MENTIONED

[01:35:03]

YET, BUT WE DID REDO ALL OF THIS AFTER IT WAS ASKED LAST WEEK. AND IT IS IN HERE, SO IT'S READY. WE CAN SIT DOWN TONIGHT OR TOMORROW, AND EVERYTHING IS CODED EXACTLY TO THE HOT TAX. WE'RE WE HAVE THIS REIMBURSEMENT ASK IS A IS A PERCENTAGE OF A MUCH LARGER EXPENSE. AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE ASKING TO COVER LUNCHES. WE DON'T EVER HAVE TIME TO EAT LUNCHES. THIS IS IT'S INSULTING THAT THAT KEEPS BEING BROUGHT UP. AND SO IT IS ALL IN HERE.

WE HAVE REDONE IT. THIS IS LIKE, THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN ASKED OF US, AND IT HAS TAKEN US MONTHS TO PREPARE. YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE REVISED STUFF. IT. BUT IT IS DONE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS KNOWN. AND WE DID HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE ATTORNEY SAYING OUR TIME IS WORTH SOMETHING AND THAT IS 100% REIMBURSABLE. AND HIS SUPPORT LETTER IS IN THIS PACKET AS WELL. AND YOU HAVE SEEN THAT. AND THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE WERE TOLD BY BRAD WAS NOT REIMBURSABLE, AND WE WANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE TWO OF THEM JUST TO DISCUSS. AND HE SAID HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN WITH THE ATTORNEY UNLESS HE WAS MADE TO DO SO BY COUNCIL. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE OUR ATTORNEY, THE ATTORNEY WHO GOVERNS THE TAX CODE AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO SIT DOWN SO WE CAN MAKE SURE ALL OF THIS IS LEGAL. WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN AND BEING TOLD, OKAY, WORK ON THIS CONTRACT, AND THEN EVERYTHING IMPLODES WITH HAVING A CITY MANAGER AND THEN, OH, ACTUALLY, NO, YOU SHOULD FILL OUT THIS EVENT APPLICATION. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT WHEN THE TARGET IS MOVING SO MUCH AND WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR THIS MUCH DOCUMENTATION FOR A QUARTERLY REPORT, IT'S, IT'S EXHAUSTING. AND LIKE WHEN SOMETHING HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED, AND THEN THE NEXT TIME WE SUBMIT THE EXACT SAME THING AND THEN IT'S NOT ACCEPTED, LIKE YOU CAN SEE THE CONFUSION THERE. SO WE ARE TRYING, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. WE HAVE OVERLY LIKE TRYING TO SHOW YOU EVERY, EVERY LINE ITEM AND HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH ANY OF YOU ON IT.

AND I JUST WANT TO BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO AT LEAST SHOW YOU WHAT THE VISITOR CENTER IS WORTH AND WHAT WE ARE DOING. BECAUSE HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE JUST BECAUSE ALL OF YOU ARE NOT WALKING IN THERE EVERY DAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT DOING THE WORK WE'RE SAYING WE'RE DOING. SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT. IT IS HERE, HAPPY TO MEET TOMORROW MORNING. AND A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WOULD DEFINE THE ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE TWO SIDES. SO. I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO THE DISCUSSION IS THAT ART DID GIVE US A LITTLE OVERVIEW OF THE RED LINES THAT CAME IN. MY INITIAL TAKE WAS I WOULDN'T ACCEPT ANY ONE OF THE RED LINES THAT CAME IN. I DID NOT DRAFT THE RED LINES. I AM NEW TO THE SCENE AND I. SO JUST FOR THE PARAMETERS OF IT IN THIS RED LINE, ONE OF THE THINGS WAS THEY WANTED A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT. WE'RE NOT DOING MULTIYEAR AGREEMENTS ON HIGH FUNDS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I MEAN, THIS IS ME SPEAKING. I GUESS I NEED COUNCIL TO NOD THEIR HEADS OR NOT. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.

THERE WAS OTHER STUFF IN THERE THAT WOULD REMOVE INDEMNITY FROM YOU GUYS. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO. I REALLY WOULD KIND OF JUST START FRESH, REALLY. I THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY LEANING CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT THAT BRAD PROVIDED. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT HAD IT HAD TYPOS IN IT, I GET IT. HE NEEDS TO FIX TYPOS.

TYPOS. WE DO NOT LIVE IN GRAYSON COUNTY. MY NAME IS NOT SPELLED THAT WAY, BUT IT HONESTLY, SOME OF IT WAS GREAT. IT SAID YOU WERE GOING TO REIMBURSE US MONTHLY FOR OUR RENTAL AND OUR RENT, OUR OPERATIONAL COSTS. AND I MEAN, LIKE A LOT OF THAT WOULD. SURE, WE WOULD LOVE THAT I. BUT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING I COULD SIGN IN THAT STATE. THERE WAS SO MUCH WRONG WITH IT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH IT AND MAKE THOSE CHANGES. SO, I MEAN, AT LEAST LET US SIT DOWN AND TRY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. WE'VE TRIED. AND JUST WHICH IS IN THE LAST MOTION THAT ARE IS APPROVED, YOUR ATTORNEY IS GOING TO SIT WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT. ALTHOUGH IF YOU LISTEN TO MR. BENFIELD'S MOTION, SOME OF THESE THINGS, I THINK THAT YOU ARE ASKING TO BE QUALIFIED, ARE NOT GOING TO BE QUALIFIED FOR THE PREVIOUS REIMBURSEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY DO QUALIFY UNDER THE CITY OF LAGO, VISTA GETS TO DECIDE WHERE WE GIVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS OUT FOR. SO YOU CAN GO TO 15 OTHER CITIES AND YOU CAN REVIEW IT WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE GET TO DECIDE WHAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE HANDING OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR, AND WE ARE EAGER TO SIT DOWN AND DRAFT TERMS THAT HOPEFULLY ARE SATISFACTORY TO BOTH SIDES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A FLOURISHING PARTNERSHIP. OKAY. RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. NAY. IT IS APPROVED. 6

[01:40:04]

TO 1. I DID. I DON'T APPROVE TO HAVING ANY CONTRACT THAT HAS ANY VISITOR CENTER LANGUAGE IN IT. WELL WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. CORRECT. I JUST MY OPPOSITION IS TO DEMONSTRATE ON THE RECORD THAT THAT'S WHY I WOULD BE A. NO, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ABOUT A VISITOR CENTER IN THERE, BUT I'M ON THE LOSING SIDE OF IT. YEAH. I SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH. BRING IT

[VIII.1. Open a Public Hearing to consider, discuss, and take action on an ordinance of the City of Lago Vista, Texas, amending the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances by removing mobile food vendor and mobile food establishment regulations from Article 4; amending Article 14.200, Exhibit A, “Zoning Ordinance,” Section 6, by adding Section 6-110, “Mobile Food Vendors”; amending Article 14.200, Exhibit A, Part IV, Table B, “Table of Allowed Uses for Zoning,” by adding “Mobile Food Vendor” and “Mobile Food Vendor Park” as use classifications; providing findings of fact; providing for attachments; providing for repealer; providing for severability; providing for codification; providing for a penalty; and providing an effective date.]

BACK TO US. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM EIGHT ONE, OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REMOVING MOBILE FOOD VENDOR AND MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS FROM ARTICLE FOUR. AMENDING ARTICLE 14.200 EXHIBIT A ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION SIX BY ADDING SECTION 63110 MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, AMENDING ARTICLE 14.200. EXHIBIT A PART FOUR. TABLE B TABLE OF ALLOWED USES REZONING BY ADDING MOBILE FOOD VENDORS AND MOBILE FOOD VENDOR PARK AS USE CLASSIFICATIONS, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND PROVIDING FOR ATTACHMENTS. PROVIDING FOR REPEALER.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT I HAD ASKED TO BE PUT ON THERE ACTUALLY BEFORE I WENT ON MY HONEYMOON. I APOLOGIZE FOR DUMPING THAT ON Y'ALL. THERE WAS A PUBLIC COMMENT ON IT EARLIER. THE REASON THIS HAS COME UP IS STATE LAW HAS BEEN PASSED, AND WE HAD A CERTAIN DATE TO UPDATE OUR CODE, AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET IT DONE IN TIME. AND I HOPE THAT WE ARE THAT WAS THE ORIGINATION OF THIS. AND WE HAD STAFF WORK ON THIS TO PUT US IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW. JORDAN WAS THE ONE THAT WORKED ON IT.

SHE'S NO LONGER HERE, SO I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE A STAFF PERSON TO DISCUSS IT. SO WITHOUT A STAFF UPDATE, I WILL JUST OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS IF THERE ARE ANY. SO IF I AS AS LIAISON TO PNC, I WAS THERE WHEN THE DISCUSSION HAPPENED.

AND AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE GIST OF THE DISCUSSION WAS THIS IS WHAT STATE LAW WE HAVE NOT WE HAVE NOT HAD APPROPRIATE ORDINANCES IN PLACE. AND NOW THE STATE LAW HAS HAS OPENED LICENSING. WE'VE USED LICENSING AS THE METHOD FOR CONTROLLING WHERE THESE FOOD TRUCKS GO. AND NOW THAT THAT'S NO LONGER IN OUR PURVIEW, WE NEED TO ACTUALLY SAY, WHERE ARE THE LOCATIONS WHERE THESE LOOK, THE FOOD TRUCKS CAN GO. AND AS I RECALL, IN PLANNING AND ZONING, REALLY THE ONLY QUESTION THAT HAD BEEN FLOATED WAS SHOULD THEY BE UP AT THE AIRPORT OR NOT? AND WHO'S THE CHAIR OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND IS ALSO ON THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD? LET US KNOW THAT NOBODY FROM THE THE THE AIRPORT POA CAME BACK AND SAID, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE FOOD TRUCKS UP HERE. SO I THINK IT'S NOT IN THERE IS MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT IT WAS IT WAS A PRETTY, PRETTY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD DISCUSSION AND PLANNING AND ZONING. THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. AND WITH THAT, AT 5:45 P.M. I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HENRY. OKAY. I THINK I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE ITEM? THIS IS ON THE MOBILE FOOD VENDORS ITEM. SORRY. OKAY. I AGREE WITH YOU. I GET EXCITED TO. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NOBODY UP ONLINE. OKAY THEN WITH THAT, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:46 P.M. OKAY, COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. MAYOR PRO TEM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY REGARDING THE AIRPORT, WE HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL JULY 4TH EVENT THAT HAD SOME MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS THERE. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUING. THAT WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS A WONDERFUL EVENT. AND SO I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT WE WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. YEAH, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION TO SAY TO INCLUDE THE AIRPORT AND APPROVED LOCATIONS.

COUNSELOR. VENICE. YES. SO I JUST A QUESTION AND MAYBE TO ASSUAGE SOME CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME, BUT WITH THE CHANGE, WITH THE ORDINANCE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PUT A FOOD TRUCK CAN'T JUST DO IT RIGHT. THE APPROVAL OF A FOOD TRUCK ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG SALEM AND FORD ROAD WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH. THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH FOR APPROVAL. WOULD BE THE ART.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ UP ON THIS NEW LAW, WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS NOW? SORRY. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW WAS THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID MAKE IT EASIER FOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS TO BE IN DIFFERENT PLACES. IF YOU GO AND GET YOUR FOOD LICENSE FROM THE COUNTY, IT OPENED THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT MORE. THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, THE THE INTENT OF THE LAW WAS TO MAKE IT EASIER, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING FOOD VENDORS THAT NEEDED TO GET A LICENSE IN LAGO

[01:45:03]

VISTA AND THEN, YOU KNOW, UP TO CEDAR PARK AND HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR AT EACH OF THEM, IT WAS TO PROVIDE A UNITY OF STANDARD STANDARDS FOR THEM. THANK YOU. SO LET ME FOLLOW UP BECAUSE WHEN JORDAN PRESENTED THIS TO US BEFORE AND WE DISCUSSED IT ON COUNCIL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS STANDARDIZING AROUND THE FOOD SAFETY REGULATIONS SO IT WOULD TAKE THE CITY OUT OF THAT ASPECT OF IT AND STANDARDIZE THAT AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE VENDORS. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL LOCATION, LIKE SOMEONE SAYS, OH, I'M GOING TO OPEN A FOOD TRUCK COURT AND PUT FOOD TRUCKS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROPERTY AT THE TOP OF DAWN DRIVE IN LOWMAN FORD, THE WORD IS HE WANTS TO OPEN A FOOD TRUCK COURT THERE. SHOULDN'T THAT STILL BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION UPON IF WE WANT TO ALLOW THAT? SO THAT'S ABSOLUTELY YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I MEAN, SO THE AS FAR AS FROM A FOOD SAFETY STANDPOINT, THEY'VE GONE FROM INDIVIDUAL REGULATION TO KIND OF STATEWIDE REGULATION, BUT YOU STILL HAVE ABSOLUTE ZONING CAPABILITIES TO DETERMINE WHERE THOSE WHERE THEY BELONG IN THE CITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I'VE HAD THAT CONCERN EXPRESSED AS WELL TO ME. MR. PRINCE. AND SO THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT OF WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE. SO THE CITY IS VENICE HAS NOT HAD ZONING RESTRICTIONS AROUND MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS. THE ONLY WAY THE CITY PREVENTED SOMEONE FROM PUTTING A FOOD TRUCK ON THEIR DRIVEWAY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE WAS BY SAYING, YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A PERMIT. BUT NOW THE STATE HAS SAID CITIES CAN'T DO PERMITS.

AND SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO UPDATE OUR ZONING SO THAT THE TRUCKS WILL ONLY APPEAR IN PLACES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE. SO WE WERE KIND OF IN A BACK DOOR WAY. THE CITY HAS BEEN USING PERMITTING AS THE WAY TO EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE A ZONING METHODOLOGY AROUND WHERE THESE FOOD TRUCKS WENT. AND SO, SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE NEED IT. BECAUSE NOW IT'S, IT'S THE, THE, THE, THE DOOR IS WIDE OPEN. IT FOOD TRUCKS. WITHOUT THIS CHANGE, FOOD TRUCKS COULD GO ANYWHERE. I COULD PUT ONE ON MY DRIVEWAY. AND I THINK THE AIRPORT THING, MISS OWEN, WAS REALLY ABOUT. RIGHT NOW THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC ZONING TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND HANGAR PROPERTIES. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THOSE BE ALLOWED TO ALSO HAVE FOOD TRUCKS? AND I THINK THAT DID NOT GET ADDED IN THIS ORDINANCE. I HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT MAYBE ON SOME OF THE OTHER PUBLIC PARTS OF THE AIRPORT THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, WHETHER THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE OR NOT. SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME THERE IS SOME PROPERTY UP THERE THAT THE CITY OWNS. AND OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I CAN'T REMEMBER EVEN HOW IT'S SHOWN, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT RESIDENTIAL. IS IT RRA? I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK THROUGH THE. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE.

YEAH. THE RESIDENTIAL HANGAR PROPERTIES. SO IS THAT WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM WOULD YOU BE PROPOSING THAT R A ALLOW MOBILE FOOD VENDORS. IS THE PROPERTY THAT WAS USED FOR THE EVENT? RRA AS WELL. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF THE RUNWAY AREA, YOU KNOW, AND BUT IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO BE CLOSER TO THE PARKING AREA OR THE THE CITY LOTS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MINIMAL. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PARSE THAT OUT. IF NOT, THEN YES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. I CAN SEE US GOING ONE OF TWO DIRECTIONS. WE CAN WE CAN PASS WHAT'S IN THE PACKET TONIGHT AND THEN MAYBE COME BACK AND AMEND IT WITH AIRPORT. OR WE CAN SAY, LET'S LET'S TABLE IT. AND IF WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR IN THE ROOM, SHE COULD PROBABLY ANSWER IT FOR US. IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED FROM THE TIMING PERSPECTIVE.

RIGHT. BUT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO COME BACK TO IT AFTER APPROVE, COME BACK TO AMEND IT IF NEEDED. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT AS, AS, AS IT READS IN, BUT ALSO THAT WE DO FOLLOW DO CIRCLE BACK BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO PRECLUDE OUR WANT TO RULE OUT JUST THE AIRPORT. I MEAN, THERE'S ALSO CITY OWNED PROPERTY THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE EVENTS THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO TAILOR THE LANGUAGE AROUND.

WHEN WE HAD OUR FALL EVENT LAST YEAR OR EVEN OUR CHRISTMAS EVENT, WE HAD FOOD VENDORS RIGHT HERE ON CITY PROPERTY IN FRONT OF CITY HALL. SO WE WOULD NEED TO POSSIBLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MAYBE BROADENING THAT LANGUAGE UP A BIT RIGHT NOW. YES, THEY'RE MOSTLY JUST OVER IN THE FOOD PARK AREA, BUT THE WAY THE LANGUAGE READS NOW IS THEY COULD BE ANYWHERE. AND

[01:50:03]

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS AND THEN CIRCLE BACK AND SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING ON, ON SPECIFIED LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL ON CITY PROPERTY. MR. TURNER, THIS IS WHY WE NEED A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. OKAY. THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION. OH, SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM. NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. WELL, THEN I MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THAT. OKAY. TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-09-03-01 FOR THE FOOD VENDORS, WITH THE ADDITION THAT THIS DOES GET REFERRED TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE FUTURE TO ACCOMMODATE POTENTIALLY AIRPORT PROPERTIES OR THE CITY PROPERTIES OR OTHER AREAS THAT MAY BE USED FOR EVENTS. I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND. FROM COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. STAFF.

WAS THAT CLEAR? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM WILL BE TEN TWO CLUB. THANKS FOR BEING PATIENT.

[X.2. Discussion and possible action regarding approval to reallocate up to $20,600.00 in current FY 2026 fiscal year funding for Bowden Point art pieces, the placement of a sculpture purchased through donations and grants to KLVB, and clarification of Keep Lago Vista Beautiful’s status within the City of Lago Vista’s organizational structure.]

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL TO REALLOCATE UP TO $20,600 IN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2026. FISCAL YEAR FUNDING FOR BATTEN POINT ART PIECES. THE PLACEMENT OF A SCULPTURE PURCHASED THROUGH DONATIONS AND GRANTS TO KTVB AND CLARIFICATION KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL STATUS WITHIN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.

ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO HAVE NICOLE COME UP TO TALK TO THIS. FIRST POINT, THE QUESTION I SENT YOU, WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD IN THEIR CURRENTLY ALLOCATED BUDGET. AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT THIS 20,600 NUMBER FROM, I THINK. OR MAYBE IT WAS IN THE PACKET I GAVE THE NUMBER. SO I'LL LET YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THEY HAVE IN CURRENT FUNDS AND HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO MOVE THAT AROUND, AND HOW IT DOESN'T TAKE A BUDGET AMENDMENT. YES. SO COLBY IS ACTUALLY THE ONES WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AND ASKED TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS. LAST YEAR, WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL WAS VERY DISTINCTIVE. WHICH AREAS AND WHICH SECTIONS THEY WANTED TO PUT MONEY INTO AND WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUY, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IN OUR BUDGET.

IT IS ONE SPECIFIC LINE THAT SAYS IT'S, YOU KNOW, MONEY TO K L, V B, SO THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR MORE MONEY NECESSARILY. SO IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT TAKES A FULL BUDGET AMENDMENT TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. HOWEVER, AS WE'VE LEARNED AND WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN OUR OWN BUDGET WORKSHOP ABOUT REALLOCATING UNENCUMBERED FUNDS AND DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WITH THE MONEY THAT COUNCIL AGREED UPON. THIS IS JUST FALLING WITHIN THAT NATURE. THEY ARE ASKING TO MOVE FUNDS FROM ONE PROJECT OR ONE PURCHASE INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THEY'VE SUBMITTED THEIR PICTURES. THEY SUBMITTED EVERYTHING ONLINE. THEY CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS AND JUST FOLLOWING WHAT THEY SUBMIT ON A MONTHLY BASIS, THEIR BUDGET, THEY HAVE IT OUTLINED WITH EVERY PROJECT, HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO SPEND EACH MONTH, WHAT THEY'VE SPENT OUT OF THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT OR LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY, AND THEN WHAT IS REMAINING IN THAT BALANCE. SO I JUST VERIFIED WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY PAID THEM YEAR TO DATE, WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, WHERE THAT THOSE FUNDS CAME FROM AND WHERE THEY'RE SUGGESTING TO USE THE FUNDS FROM HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN DISBURSED. SO THAT IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS, AND IT'S JUST UP TO COUNCIL TO AGREE TO REALLOCATE THE UNENCUMBERED FUNDS. THANK YOU. DO WE WANT CALEB TO GIVE ANY SORT OF DISCUSSION ON THESE ART PIECES SAYING YES. THE ONLY CLARIFICATION I NEED FROM YOU ALL IS, YOU KNOW. THE ONE, THERE'S A DEER OR WHATEVER IS ALL THIS. SO I SAW THESE OTHER PIECES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AND THEN IT SAYS, THE SECOND ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE A PIECE OF SCULPTURE AT THE CORNER OF LOHMAN AND BOGGY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS ALL WITHIN THE SAME REALLOCATION OF FUNDS, OR THERE'S A REALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE BOUGHTON POINT. OKAY, OKAY. YES. THE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS IS IS FOR SCULPTURES AT BOUGHTON POINT, INTERACTIVE SCULPTURES AND THE SCULPTURE AT LOHMAN AND BOGGY IS A GIFT FROM KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL FROM DONATIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM CITIZENS AND FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN IN THE CITY TO ENHANCE OUR ART AND PUBLIC SPACES. PROGRAMING. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL? MR. PRINCE, I WOULD JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT THE THE HABIT OF CALEB EVERY YEAR HAS BEEN TO COME IN AND SAY, WE WANT THIS, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, EVERY YEAR, $35,000 OR 48, WHATEVER IT IS, AND THEN COME IN WITH VERY SPECIFIC PROJECTS, SAY THESE ARE THE THREE OR 4 OR 6 PROJECTS WE WANT TO SPEND THAT

[01:55:04]

MONEY ON. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN REALLY GOOD TO PLAN AND, AND TELL US EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FOR, FOR OUR MONEY. AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THEY'RE SIMPLY COMING BACK AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE GOT A BETTER PLAN. YOU WANT TO IF I COULD CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU. SOME OF THESE FUNDS WERE DESIGNATED FOR WORK AT WHAT'S GOING TO BE HOPEFULLY, THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, A NEW CITY PARK. AND WE WERE ASKED SPECIFICALLY NOT TO DO THAT. BECAUSE OF PLANNING FOR THAT PARK, THAT OUR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO DO SOME BEAUTIFICATION WITH THE PLANTS THAT WERE THERE WOULD KIND OF BE A WASTE BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO BE REDONE. ACCORDING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO THAT WAS PART OF THE FUNDING THERE. AND THE OTHER WAS FOR SOME THINGS THAT WE ENDED UP NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR BECAUSE OF IN-KIND DONATIONS FROM BUSINESSES. SO THE NEW THE PARK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AT AT DAWN CIRCLE. YES, YES, THE DAWN CIRCLE. BUT BUT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS AT FOUNTAIN POINT. RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. WE'RE LEAVING DAWN CIRCLE PARK TO. SO I THINK WHERE I WAS GOING IS STILL RELEVANT THEN. THANK YOU JANICE, THAT THAT THEY HAD A PLAN AND THEY'RE COMING BACK AND SAY, WE THINK WE GOT A LITTLE BETTER PLAN OR ONE WE LIKE BETTER. HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO AT THAT POINT INSTEAD. AND THAT SEEMS FINE WITH ME. IT'S MONEY THAT WE HAD ALREADY ALLOCATED, AND THEY JUST WANT TO SPEND IT ON SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE PROJECT. YEAH. MR. MINNIFIELD, AND JUST A CLARIFICATION TO CALEB, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION POINT MAYBE A MONTH AGO THAT YOU GUYS WERE WANTING TO LIKE, PUT ART PIECES ALONG THE WALKING TRAIL AT BOWDEN FOR LIKE PICTURE OPPORTUNITIES, WEDDINGS, STUFF LIKE THAT. YES. DO THESE HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO THAT OR IS THAT A SEPARATE? OH, THEY WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE A RELEVANCE TO THAT. YOU KNOW, IF, IF IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS EVER A WALKING TRAIL THERE, THESE PIECES WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE RIGHT ALONG THE WALKING TRAIL, BUT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THEIR VISIBLE FROM THERE, THOUGH, WE DO NOT NEED THE WALKING TRAIL TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS. YES, YES. I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION IS, AND I PUT IT IN AN EMAIL, I JUST, YOU KNOW, PERAK HAS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PEOPLE, THEY PUT OUT THEIR IDEAS.

PEOPLE COME, THEY TALK ABOUT THEM. YOU KNOW, THESE ART PIECES. ARE THE PUBLIC GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY LIKE, THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T WANT. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT ANYTHING OUT THERE FOR, FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN CALEB, TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT. WE DON'T AT THIS POINT HAVE PLANS TO DO THAT, BUT OUR MEETINGS ARE ALL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE IS INVITED TO OUR MEETINGS. WE HAVE MEMBERS FROM ALL OVER THE COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE I WOULD HOPE, KNOW WHEN AND WHERE OUR MEETINGS ARE BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITES. SO WE HAVE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT. WHEN ARE THE MEETINGS AND WHERE ARE THEY AT? THE MEETINGS ARE THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH, AND THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM AT 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON. WE HAVE QUARTERLY MEETINGS AT 6:00 IN THE EVENING TO ACCOMMODATE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AVAILABLE DURING THE DAY. SO WE HAVE THOSE IN IN JANUARY AND QUARTERLY FROM JANUARY. I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND COUNT ON MY FINGERS. THANK YOU. ALSO, I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE THAT JANICE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ACCOMMODATING WHEN PEOPLE HAVE WANTED TO JOIN BY ZOOM. MOST OF THE TIME IT'S. SO THERE'S BEEN A FEW TECHNICAL HICCUPS, BUT MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE ABLE TO GET IT SQUARED AWAY FOR PEOPLE. YEAH. SO IT'S SO, AND BELIEVE ME THAT EVERYBODY EXPRESSES THEIR OPINION OPENLY AT CLUB MEETINGS. SO EVEN EVEN NONMEMBERS, YOU'LL SEE PEOPLE COME IN JUST STRAIGHT FROM THE LIBRARY. I'LL WALK BY AND EITHER COMPLIMENT, CRITIQUE OR CRITICIZE WORK. AND SO NOBODY'S ASHAMED TO GIVE THEIR OPINION, EITHER ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR IN PERSON AT THE MEETINGS. AND THE WORK Y'ALL DID IS INCREDIBLE. I ACTUALLY TOOK A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY THIS PAST WEEKEND WITH MY DAUGHTERS OUT THERE AT THE POINT, SO IT WAS GORGEOUS.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR NICOLE AND ART. DO YOU NEED AN OFFICIAL ACTION AND A VOTE FROM COUNCIL, OR CAN A CONSENSUS OF WE'RE FINE WITH REALLOCATING THESE FUNDS? OKAY, I FEEL LIKE.

[02:00:04]

MR. BENFIELD. FOR ME, IT'S MUCH LESS ABOUT WHAT'S BEING ASKED. IT'S OFTEN ABOUT HOW IT'S BEING ASKED. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS FLOCK. YOU KNOW, WE FOUND OUT YEARS LATER FROM DAVID THAT WE HAD FLOCK, AND IT WAS INSTITUTED WITHOUT COUNCIL'S KNOWLEDGE. WE FOUND OUT LAST WEEK ABOUT THE SYNERGY CONTRACT THAT WE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST GENERALLY AM AGAINST THINGS THAT I THINK ARE HIDDEN OR DECEPTIVE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO JUST TO ECHO PRINCE'S COMMENTS, I LOVE HOW TRANSPARENT CLEVE IS. I LOVE THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, REALLOCATING THESE FUNDS FOR SOMETHING GREAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS OR NOT, BUT MARBLE FALLS HAS A VERY SIMILAR SETUP. YES, I DO, I'VE BEEN THERE AND I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO ADMIT, I, I'M SURE I'M ON FACEBOOK SOMEWHERE IF SOMEBODY'S MAKING FUN OF ME BECAUSE I, I WAS PLAYING ON THEM FOR TEN, 15 MINUTES. I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE QUITE AN ENJOYMENT THING. AND BILLY GOAT OR WILLY GOAT IS A FANTASTIC PROVIDER OF HIGH QUALITY COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE MANUFACTURER. THEY'RE ALL TOP QUALITY. SO THE WAY YOU'RE GOING ABOUT THIS AND THE QUALITY MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING AND, AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY, I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT IT. SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE JUST NOT JUST WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT HOW YOU WENT ABOUT DOING IT. THANK YOU.

THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. I AGREE. SO DO I HEAD NODS THAT THERE'S CONSENSUS OF THIS REALLOCATION FOR THIS FIRST PART OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. I SEE YOU ONLINE. YEP, YEP.

HERE. OKAY. OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT. SO THE SECOND ONE WAS THE REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE A PIECE OF SCULPTURE AT THE CORNER OF LOWMAN FORD AND BOGGY FORD. THEY'RE JUST SEEKING OUR PERMISSION TO ACCEPT THE DONATION, I BELIEVE. AND IT'S A IT'S THE DEER. AND IT'S AT THAT PARK THAT'S AT THE CORNER THERE IN FRONT OF CHEVRON. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY. GIVE ME ANOTHER ONE IF YOU JUST NOD YOUR HEADS. BUT, MR. BENNEFIELD, THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I WOULD GIVE IS PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, MR. ROBERTS DONATED LIKE A SWING SET OVER THERE FOR BOUNDING POINT. AND I THINK THAT WAS VERY WELL USED, VERY WELL LIKED AND APPRECIATED. HOWEVER, PARKS KIND OF INDICATED THAT THE WAY IT WAS STRUCTURED AND INSTALLED WASN'T FULLY COMPLIANT. AND SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE LOST THAT SWING SET, NOT BECAUSE IT WASN'T LIKED OR USED, BUT JUST FROM A COMPLIANCE PURPOSE. MY ONLY ADVICE IS I LOVE THIS, OBVIOUSLY, BUT JUST MAKE SURE HOWEVER IT'S INSTALLED, THAT IT'S DONE TO A LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE SO THAT THERE'S NO FUTURE ISSUES. THAT'S MY CLARIFICATION ON THAT. IS Y'ALL GOING TO INSTALL IT BEFORE YOU DONATE IT, RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT THE CITY THAT'S INSTALLING IT. THE ARTIST WILL BE INSTALLING IT. OKAY, OKAY. COUNCIL. GOOD WITH ACCEPTING THIS DONATION. LET'S SEE EVERYBODY. OKAY, SO, MR. MAYOR, FOR ACCEPTING A DONATION, THAT SHOULD BE A MOTION. OKAY. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER. MAYOR, MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE DEER SCULPTURE DONATION TO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA FROM LAGO VISTA. BEAUTIFUL. TO BE INSTALLED BY THE ARTIST. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL TO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. I'LL SECOND. OH, MR. BENNEFIELD BEAT Y'ALL. MR. HALL. SORRY. MR. HALL, SECOND TO THAT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'M SURE EVEN THOUGH I MADE THE MOTION, I WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO.

AND I THINK ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA HAD CAME OUT AND SAID, WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE COULD HAVE MOSAIC DEER ALL OVER LAGO VISTA? AND I THINK THIS IS ONE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. HUTTO HAS HIPPOS. WHY DON'T WE HAVE OUR MOSAIC DEER? THANK YOU FOR HELPING US SEE THIS FORWARD HEARING. NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. UNDER THE THIRD PART OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, MAYBE THE MORE DIFFICULT ONE IS CLARIFYING. CALEB IS REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF THEIR CITY STATUS. SO IN THE AGENDA PACKET SAID, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO CITY WEBSITE, CALEB WAS ESTABLISHED BY PROCLAMATION 92 AS A COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. BASED ON THE RESEARCH, THOSE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DIGITIZED BUT SHOULD BE IN OUR ARCHIVES.

UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CALEB IS NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY. CALEB HAS LONG USED THE CITY'S TAX EXEMPT NUMBER FOR PURCHASES, BUT WE ARE NOW PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY. I THINK I SHARED WITH COUNCIL BEFORE I KIND OF TURNED IT BACK ON. CALEB, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION WHAT YOU WANT TO BE. WE'VE HAD SOME GUIDANCE ON THE OPTIONS, BUT I THINK

[02:05:03]

ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR ORGANIZATION AND YOUR DECISION. CERTAINLY YOU'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK, BUT I'D LOVE TO HEAR MORE FROM YOU ALL. SINCE I SUBMITTED THIS LETTER, I HAVE NOT REALLY AND GOT SOME INPUT. I HAVE NOT REALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE MEMBERSHIP. THIS IS GOING TO BE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS COMING MEETING. I, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO IN. THIS IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE AT ALL. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK OF CALEB OR OF BECOMING A 501 C THREE. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT IN THE PAST, MAINLY BECAUSE WE'RE JUST KIND OF A RAGTAG BUNCH OF VOLUNTEERS. AND THAT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY BIG COMMITMENT TO BE DEALING WITH IT, ALL THAT STUFF. SO WE HAVEN'T EVER REALLY DONE THAT. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD REALLY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE MEMBERSHIP, AND WE WOULD REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND DECIDE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO CONTINUE TO FUNCTION IN THE CITY? AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO DO. IN THE PAST, I GUESS IT'S BEEN RATHER, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF WE DO WORK FOR THE CITY AND THEREFORE WE ARE REIMBURSED FOR THAT. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I REALLY, IN SENDING AND SUBMITTING THAT LETTER WAS LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY, FROM PEOPLE WHO KNOW THESE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I JUST I DON'T KNOW. MR. BUTTERFIELD. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY HAVE LEGAL OPINE ON THIS. THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, MONEY TRANSACTIONS, REIMBURSEMENTS. CAN YOU, WITH CONSENT OF COUNSEL, GIVE US SOME LEGAL GUIDANCE HERE? WELL, YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT, COUNCILMAN, THERE IS SOME DIFFICULTY, I BELIEVE, WITH THE NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND WHAT IT AND AND WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY'RE UTILIZING THE CITY FUNDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT AUDITING REQUIREMENTS IF THEY'RE PART OF THE CITY VERSUS IF THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY, WE'VE GOT CONSTITUTIONAL, UNJUST ENRICHMENT RULES. IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE PART OF THE CITY OR THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY. AND, AND WHEN GRANTING MAKING THESE SORTS OF GRANTS TO THEM, IT DOES MAKE THE JOB OF DETERMINING PUBLIC PURPOSE A LOT EASIER WHEN THERE ARE WHEN THEY ARE A 501 C THREE, BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A DESIGNATION BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT THEY ARE THEY ARE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. NOW, IF THEY'RE IF IT'S A AN ASSOCIATION, RAGTAG OR OTHERWISE, IT MAY. THERE ARE JUST A FEW. THERE ARE MANY MORE LEGAL STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO THOSE TYPES OF GRANTS AND DONATION PURPOSES THAT WE NEED TO THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF AND LANDMINES THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO AVOID. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. SO SO WHAT I HEAR, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET A CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. BUT WHAT I DIGEST HIM SAYING IS, YES, THERE'S PROBABLY A MECHANISM IF WE WANT TO STAY THE WAY IT IS, BUT THE LEGAL HURDLES ARE MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND MORE DIFFICULT, AND THAT IF IT IF YOU DID GO TO A 501 C THREE, THAT IT PROBABLY CLEANS THE PROCESS UP AND IT ALLOWS US TO INTERACT WITH THE ORGANIZATION A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENT AND A LITTLE BIT MORE COHESIVE TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE. OKAY, OKAY. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES.

THAT'S A BETTER NON LEGALESE WAY TO SAY IT, COUNSELOR. SO I WILL SAY THAT THAT I HAD INQUIRED AS TO IF I WAS ALLOWED TO HELP YOU FILE FOR A FIVE, YOU KNOW, FILE THE PROPER PAPERWORK. GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS YEAH, SURE. WHY NOT? BUT THEN MR. ZENO CHIMED IN AND SAID, HEY, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR. THEY NEED HELP FILLING THIS OUT. WE CAN HELP THEM FILL IT OUT. NOW, I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LEGAL AND TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR IT, BUT IT'S ALL IN THE LONG RUN. SO MUCH BETTER. SO WHICHEVER WAY YOU DECIDE, CALEB DECIDES WE STILL WANT TO KEEP THE PARTNERSHIP GOING FOR THE BENEFITS THAT CALEB GIVES THE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, INSURMOUNTABLE. I MEAN, WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU. I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF ENTITIES THAT ARE TEXAS KEEP

[02:10:04]

TEXAS BEAUTIFUL AFFILIATES THAT ARE 501 C AND I MEAN, KEEP LOOKING. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT AUSTIN THAT'S DOING IT. SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE MUCH, MUCH BIGGER CITIES. AND YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, TAX SHELTERS AND THEY'RE DOING ALL SORTS OF PAPERWORK AND STUFF THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO DO. MARY IS AN AMAZING BOOKKEEPER. AND THE WAY THAT Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY DONE Y'ALL'S PAPERWORK AND THE WAY THAT Y'ALL HAVE SUBMITTED AS FAR SURPASSES ANYTHING THAT THE IRS IS GOING TO REQUIRE. SO IF THAT IS THE HURDLE, DON'T BE SCARED. THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY, VERY GOOD THING IF YOU WANT TO LOOK INTO IT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO SWAY YOU EITHER WAY. I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE THAT IT MAY SOUND SCARY, BUT IN THE LONG RUN, MANY, MANY CITIES OR KEEP TEXAS AFFILIATES DECIDE TO GO THIS ROUTE. MARY IS EXCEPTIONAL, BUT OUR BOOKKEEPING BEGAN BEFORE MARY. ABSOLUTELY. IF WE CAN KEEP THIS, KEEP IT ROLLING.

JUST JUST KEEPING THE WAY THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING IT AND THE RECEIPTS AND EVERYTHING, YOU WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM MEETING THE QUALIFICATIONS OR ANY TYPE OF AUDITS. SPRINTS. I'LL GO A LITTLE STRONGER. SO I APPARENTLY, CALEB, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WAY BACK IN TIME, WAS NAMED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY A MAYORAL PROCLAMATION. CLEARLY YOU ALL ARE NOT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. YOU DON'T SAY, HEY, CITY, YOU OUGHT TO MOW THIS GRASS. YOU OUGHT TO PULL THESE WEEDS. YOU OUGHT TO PLANT THESE FLOWERS. YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT.

SO YOU'RE YOU'RE A COMMITTEE THAT IS NOT ADVISING THE CITY. SO THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT PHRASE.

I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING UP HERE, THAT IT'S IT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR YOU ALL TO BECOME A 501 C THREE. IT REALLY SIMPLIFIES THE INTERACTION WITH THE CITY. IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE CITY TO HELP YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BENEFITING THE CITY. SO I, I THINK I WOULD ACTUALLY WANT TO SWAY YOU TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO, TO DO THAT. AND I APPRECIATE MISS CHAVARRIA SAYING IT'S NOT THAT HARD. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE I CAN HELP YOU WORK THROUGH THE PAPERWORK. PEOPLE, PEOPLE KEEP TELLING US IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

AND MR. ZINO, POINTING OUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS CERTAINLY THERE TO HELP YOU AS WELL. BENEFICIAL TO MR. BENFIELD, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR LEGAL. THE CLUB PROPOSED A WALKING TRAIL, AND I THINK THEIR PROPOSALS RANGE BETWEEN 40 AND $80,000.

AND BECAUSE OF THEIR ENTITY STATUS, I THINK THE ADVICE WAS, IS TO HAVE THE CITY PUT OUT SOME RFQS. THOSE QUOTES CAME OUT BETWEEN 100 AND 20 AND EXCESS OF $200,000. MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THEY WERE A 501 C THREE, COULD THEY HAVE EMBARKED OR COULD THEY EMBARK ON THAT PROJECT INDEPENDENTLY SO THAT WE COULD ALLOW THEM TO GO BACK AND DO THAT PROJECT THEMSELVES? AND THAT ALONE WOULD SAVE THE TAXPAYERS EASILY 40 TO $100,000. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE ANSWER THAT ALL COUNCILS LOVE TO HEAR. IT DEPENDS. SO IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. IT REALLY IS DRIVEN BY THE TYPE OF PROJECT, THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, THE COST OF THE PROJECT, THAT KIND OF THING. SO, YOU KNOW, WILL, WILL, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT, THE WALKING TRAIL, WE'VE GOT FEDERAL LAW, ADA REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

AND, AND SO IT, IT REALLY IS VERY DEPENDENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IT HELPS IF THERE'S A 501 C THREE THAT WE CAN TRY TO, THAT WE CAN TRY TO PARTNER WITH WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THAT. SO I, I WILL, I WILL SAY ALL THAT BY SAYING WE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD, WE WOULD DEFINITELY DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO GET THERE. IT JUST, IT REALLY JUST DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT, THE PROJECT. BUT ASSUMING THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THOSE NATURES OF THE PROJECT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE CLUB WOULD BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND SELECT THEIR OWN CONTRACTORS, PERFORM THE PROJECT AND MAKE SURE IT'S DONE TO COMPLIANCE AND ULTIMATELY BE FUNDED FOR THE PROJECT WHERE THEY, THEY, WE WOULD FUND THEM AND THEN THEY WOULD FUND THE CONTRACTOR. AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHETHER WHERE IT IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING WHAT'S BEING IMPLICATED. IS IT ALL ON CITY PROPERTY? IS IT NOT? AND, AND THEN AND THEN WE'VE GOT SOME PROCUREMENT ISSUES THAT WE'VE GOT TO HURDLES THAT WE'VE GOT TO THAT WE'VE GOT TO JUMP THROUGH AS WELL. SO ALL THAT SAID IS POSSIBLY. YES. AND IT WOULD IT WOULD BE, I MEAN, A VERY BENEFICIAL PROJECT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO OCCUR. AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY TRY TO FIND A WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST THINK FROM EXAMPLES LIKE THAT WHERE NOT ONLY WOULD IT PUT COB IN

[02:15:06]

CONTROL OF THE PROJECT, BUT IT REALLY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE THE CITY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, OVERCOME ALL THOSE HURDLES BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO DIRECTLY TO PEOPLE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, LIKE THE PERSON THAT YOU HAD LINED OUT FOR THE CONCRETE, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS DOING IT AT COST OR BELOW COST OR WHATEVER.

WHEREAS WHEN WE WENT TO GO DO IT, EVERYBODY WANTED A LITTLE BIT MORE, A LITTLE BIT MORE, INCLUDING OUR GUY. YEAH. SO ANYWAY, OKAY, HOPEFULLY THAT HELPED. YES, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE. YOU'RE WELCOME. YOUR THOUGHTS, YOUR INPUT. I WILL TAKE IT BACK TO OUR GROUP. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT? MR. SPEAKING AS MYSELF OR SECRETARY OF THE EDC, I WILL GLADLY GIVE YOU A GUIDE ON HOW TO SET THAT UP. AND YOU CAN TEXT ME WHENEVER IT. IT IS HARD AND IT IS EASY, BUT I ALSO URGE YOU TO DO IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM TEN THREE. I'M SORRY, IS THERE SOMEONE. OH, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I SIMPLY WANTED TO GIVE JANET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INFORMATION.

AND THAT IS THERE IS A EASIER DESIGNATION OR AN EASIER PATH TO A 501 C THREE. IF THE 501 C OR THE ORGANIZATION IS TYPICALLY UNDER 5000 A YEAR IN DONATIONS, IT'S CALLED A 501 C THREE EASY UNIT AGAIN, AS MR. ZENO OR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ZENO HAS SAID THAT THE EDC CAN HELP WITH THAT UNTIL THAT TIME, POTENTIALLY FOR THE FUTURE BUDGET. ONE OF THE ITEMS, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE CAN EASILY SUPPORT CLUB IS BY ACTUALLY JUST SETTING UP A PURE PURCHASING PATH FOR THE DESIGNATED FUNDS OR ITEMS THROUGH THE PUBLIC WORKS OR WHEREVER THE CONNECTION RESIDES, THE BUDGET ITEM RESIDES. THEN IT'S A STRAIGHT PURCHASE OFF THE CITY, AND THEN THE CLUB CAN TAKE THOSE ITEMS AND PLACE THEM AS THEY DO AND MAKE OUR GARDENS BEAUTIFUL. SO THAT WAS JUST THE OTHER ITEM THAT I WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE AS WE TRY TO FIND OUR WAY, YOU KNOW, TO, TO KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL, DOING WHAT THEY DO BEST. THANK YOU. OKAY.

[X.3. Discussion and possible action regarding next steps for a proposed park at 21003 Dawn Drive, including initiating the re-zoning process.]

THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM TEN THREE DISCUSSION. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING NEXT STEPS FOR A PROPOSED PARK AT 21003 DON DRIVE, INCLUDING INITIATING THE REZONING PROCESS. I HAD THIS PUT ON HERE BECAUSE I KNOW COUNCILOR VAN NESS IS A SUPPORTER OF THIS PROJECT. SHE ASKED THAT IT BE INCLUDED IN THE CIP. AND IN THAT DISCUSSION, I THINK LINDA HAD EMAILED, AS WE CONTINUE TO POTENTIALLY PUT FUNDING TOWARDS THIS, THE REZONING HAS NOT OCCURRED. IT IS STILL LISTED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO CITY PARK. THAT PROCESS NEEDS TO BEGIN AND THE REASON WHY THAT PROCESS NEEDS TO BEGIN. WE ALSO RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM SOME OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT ARE NEARBY, AND I THINK WE HAD THIS PRESENTATION BEFORE. THERE IS AN EASEMENT ISSUE THAT WASN'T SETTLED. THE CITY HAS NOT WORKED ON THAT SINCE WE HAD THAT MEETING. IT'S STILL AN ISSUE, WHICH IS WHY A DISCUSSION ON DO WE NEED TO INITIATE THIS REZONING PROCESS AT THIS TIME, OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR? MR. BRANT YEAH, I, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME AND I'M LIKE, WAIT, IT HAPPENED. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? BUT THEN AS I ACTUALLY READ THE DETAILS, WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT CHANGED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, NOT A CHANGE TO THE ZONING. AND SO OUR PROCESS HAD BEEN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, STEP ONE IS CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THEN STEP TWO WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE ZONING. AND WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT EARLIER TODAY ABOUT AN INSTANCE WHERE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING WAS CHANGED IN THE SAME MEETING.

AND, AND OUR, OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAID THAT'S ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS THEY'RE DONE IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE. SO UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS CASE, THE ZONING NEVER HAPPENED, BUT IT SHOULD BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THIS EASEMENT QUESTION WITH THE NEIGHBORS NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT. AND I'LL JUST SAY, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY'VE HAD SOME KIND OF HISTORICAL ACCESS THAT THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY IS NOT LEGALLY AVAILABLE TO THEM.

AND SO I THINK THE CITY MAY NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GRANT THEM AN EASEMENT THAT THEY CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE, OR MAYBE SELL THEM A LITTLE STRIP OF LAND THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S COMPLICATED BY THOSE EXISTING

[02:20:02]

BUILDINGS AND THE ACCESS THAT THEY NEED TO GET INTO THEIR GARAGES AND SAFE, SAFE ACCESS SO THAT IT ENDS UP BEING A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED ZONING CHANGE THAN YOU MIGHT EXPECT.

THEY ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT AS WELL. IF WE WANT TO GO TO THAT PART. CAN I? I THINK THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE REZONING AND THAT EASEMENT ISSUE. AND I'M TRYING TO RECALL WHETHER BRAD SAID WE COULD WORK ON BOTH CONCURRENTLY OR DO WE DO THE ZONING FIRST AND THEN THE EASEMENT ISSUE OR VICE VERSA? SORRY, I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER THE ORDER THAT HE THOUGHT OR HE THOUGHT WE COULD WORK ON BOTH CONCURRENTLY. I'LL ASK OUR WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BEST ORDER YOU CAN WORK ON BOTH. CONCURRENTLY, THE. BUT THE. THE CHANGE TO THE ZONE, THE CHANGE TO THE ZONING SHOULD BE THE LAST ITEM THAT'S APPROVED. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOULD BE AMENDED FIRST AND THEN THE ZONING. YES, SIR.

AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE. THE QUESTION NOW IS, CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EASEMENT CHANGES AT THE SAME TIME AS WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZONING CHANGES ON EASEMENT CHANGES ON A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY? YES, YOU CAN HAVE THAT AT THE CONCURRENTLY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF DAVID IS STILL THERE, BUT I KNOW HE HAD WHEN HE PRESENTED SOME OF THE IDEAS FOR DON CIRCLE PARK. IS HE STILL THERE? NO, NO, HE'S NOT OKAY. ANYWAYS, WHEN WE HAD LOOKED AT IT BECAUSE WE HAD WALKED THAT PARK BEFORE, SO WE WERE AWARE THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO WE'D HAVE TO DO SOMETHING FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS THERE TO MAKE SURE THEY STILL HAD ACCESS IN, AND IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT ROOM TO, YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN A DRIVEWAY FOR THEM GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE GARAGE AREA. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, THE, HOW THE CITY WOULD HANDLE THAT. I THINK THE EASEMENT WAS, I THINK THE QUICKEST WAY VERSUS TRYING TO CUT OFF AND SELL A PARCEL TO THE LANDOWNERS THERE, THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS, AND THEN JUST WHATEVER FENCING OR POSTING CABLE WOULD NEED TO BE RUN ALONG, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT TO THAT DRIVEWAY TO MAKE IT CLEAR, DELINEATE THE PARK FROM THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THANK YOU THAT I CAN GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND THE FIRST ONES ARE JANET, BOAZ AND MIKE BOAZ.

PRETTY MUCH. YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED OUR QUESTIONS. WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET AN UPDATE WHERE WE WERE WITH THE EASEMENTS AND YEAH, AND YEAH, WE'RE FINE WITH THE PARK. WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A PARK THERE. JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TALK WITH SOMEBODY AND SEE WHERE, HOW MUCH LAND WE CAN HAVE OR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET. AND YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS WILL GO, GO FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE ENRIQUE. YES. NOW GOT THE RIGHT FORMULA. HEY.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, I'M ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE PROPERTY. AND I THINK LOGISTICALLY, THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO FOR THE EASEMENTS IS ACTUALLY HAVE A WE, YOU KNOW, GET A SURVEY OF THE, OF THE PARK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ACTUAL SURVEY OF THAT PROPERTY, WE MIGHT HAVE A PLAT, BUT NOT A SURVEY. THE OTHER THING IS MANY YEARS AGO. STEWART HERE. YEAH.

DAVE. AT ONE POINT THEY WERE PUTTING SOME WATER OR SEWER LINES ON MY PROPERTY. AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF MY SURVEY STAKES WERE REMOVED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WE NEED TO GET A SURVEY IS FIRST OF ALL, SO WE CAN START FIGURING OUT WHERE THE EASEMENTS OR WHERE TO PUT THE EASEMENTS, BUT ALSO TO MARK MY PROPERTIES AS WELL. ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF LAGO LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL, I'D PROBABLY BE VERY AGAINST THIS. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE AN ASSET THAT'S KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL, AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE INVOLVED, THEY'VE GOT ME 100%. THANK YOU, MR. STEWART. OUT. SO SOMETIME BACK IN THE 90S, THE SKY ROOM AND THE CITY DID A JOINT PAVING PRODUCT PROJECT WHERE YOU COULD NOT TELL WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS. THEN THINGS STARTED TO GO A LITTLE SOUTH. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE SECOND OVERLAY IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT THE CITY DID IT ON ITS OWN AND THE SKY ROOM. BUT THAT WAS AFTER THE FALLOUT ABOUT 13 YEARS AGO. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM COMES FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, WHO ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT CHECKING THAT IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND ALLOWED THE GARAGE DOORS TO BE BUILT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE GARAGE FOR THESE GUYS. SO

[02:25:05]

THE SOLUTION OF SELLING THEM AN EASEMENT? I'LL SUPPORT IT 100%. WE USED TO HAVE A GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SKY ROOM, AND IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. THE OTHER THING I WOULD BRING YOU IS YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE ONE EASEMENT. THERE IS A PUE CENTERED ON THOSE TELEPHONE POLES, WHICH INVOLVES MALL BELL. I THINK I GOT THEM ALL BELL RELEASED, BUT IT STILL HAS CABLE TV AND IT STILL HAS PEC ON IT. SO YOU HAVE THERE'S TWO EASEMENT ISSUES THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THE SECOND EASEMENT IS GOING TO AFFECT THE PARK WITH A WASHROOM WALKING PATH. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. I MEAN FOR ME I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE EASEMENT ISSUE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, SOONER THAN LATER. BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR Y'ALL IS, OR I GUESS FOR ART AS WELL, IF WE'RE SELLING AN EASEMENT TO THEM, IT HAS TO BE AT THE MARKET RATE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS YET.

THE STAFF HAVE AN IDEA. ARE YOU ALL AWARE THAT IT'LL BE INVOLVED WITH PURCHASING ONE? WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PURCHASE IT. OKAY. I'VE GOT EASEMENT ON MY SEVERAL PROPERTIES THERE. IT'S JUST A JOINT AGREEMENT WHERE WE BOTH. YEAH. IF YOU COULD COME TO THE MIC. SORRY. YES. NOT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO SELL AN EASEMENT. YOU CAN ASSIGN IT.

YOU CAN IT CAN BE AS LONG AS AN EASEMENT CAN BE MAINTAINED BY BOTH PARTIES. BUT THERE'S REALLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE ANY MONEY INVOLVED BECAUSE IT'S AN EASEMENT. IT'S YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SELLING A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE. OKAY. IS THAT ACCURATE? IT IS AN EASEMENT IS AN INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE AND I NEED TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TRANSACTION. AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WAIT UNTIL BRAD GETS BACK FOR HIM TO. HE PROBABLY HAS MORE INFO ON IT THAN ME, BUT WE CAN YOU CAN LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, ABANDONMENT OF, I'M SORRY, ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS OR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS. HOWEVER, IF WE ARE OR JUST EXTINGUISH OR EXTINGUISH OUR RIGHTS TO AN EASEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE AS WELL. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CONVEYING OR TRANSFERRING A SIGNING, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. THE QUESTION TO BE WAS, IF WE'RE ASSIGNING IT, THAT IS A TRANSFER IN REAL PROPERTY, WHICH FOR WHICH THAT DOES HAVE VALUE. OKAY. I'D JUST LIKE WHATEVER WE DECIDE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONVEYED BACK TO THESE OWNERS OF WHAT IS THE EXACT PROCESS. MR. O'BRIEN.

YEAH. MY CONCERN IS I'VE RUN INTO THIS ISSUE BEFORE, AND IT IS CONSIDERED A PUBLIC PUBLIC INTEREST. YEAH. SO IT'S IT'S CONSIDERED A GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, WHICH IS PROHIBITED. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME CITIES HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, AND IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND IT'S CAUSED A BIG, BIG HEADACHE. AND SO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE NOW IS, IS CONVEYED IT AT MARKET VALUE.

AND UNLESS THERE WAS A CLEAR PUBLIC BENEFIT, PUBLIC BENEFIT, NOT PRIVATE OWNER BENEFIT, PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT COULD BE WAIVED. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, AFTER RESEARCHING THE PROPERTY AND REALIZING THAT THAT THE PROPER PERMITS WEREN'T, YOU KNOW, GIVEN AND THE UNFORTUNATELY, THEY THEY DID GET THESE GARAGE DOORS BUILT ON THE WRONG SIDE, APPARENTLY. I UNDERSTAND THEY'VE BEEN ENJOYING THAT BENEFIT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S NOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO UTILIZE OUR PUBLIC CITY SPACE, WE CAN'T DO SO WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHING ON, ON THEIR ABILITY TO PULL INTO THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY. SO THERE, I WOULD SAY THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS AND HOW MUCH WE CAN CONVEY AND HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY NEEDED VERSUS WHAT THEY THINK THEY NEED. I MEAN, BECAUSE THEY, THEY PULL IN QUITE, QUITE A BIT LENGTH. I BELIEVE YOU'LL HAVE TRAILERS AND STUFF THAT YOU'LL PULL IN THERE. SO IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE, YOU KNOW, PULLING A CAR OR AN SUV IN THERE. I MEAN, THEY'RE BACKING IN TRAILERS AND SUCH. SO, BUT YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME ISSUE WITH THAT ABOUT CONVEYING PUBLIC. YEAH. GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS. CORRECT. YEAH. IF YOU COULD COME TO THE MIC, COULD YOU COME UP TO THE MIC INITIALLY? BACK IN THE BEGINNING, THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE AN ENTRANCE IN THIS AREA. SO THEY CAME ONTO OUR PROPERTY TO GET TO THE WATER PLANT. SO WE ACTUALLY GAVE YOU ALL THE FIRST EASEMENT RIGHT AWAY TO YOU. SO KIND OF GOES BOTH WAYS. THANK YOU. JUST ANY DIRECTION OR MOTION FROM COUNCIL, MR. PRINCE, WHAT I'M, WHAT I THINK IS

[02:30:01]

APPROPRIATE IS THAT THAT WE DIRECT CITY STAFF TO INITIATE THE REZONING AND THAT THAT REZONING PROCESS NEEDS TO ACCOUNT FOR EASEMENTS AS THAT WILL SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBOR. AND THEN WE'LL NEED COUNCIL GUIDANCE ON WHETHER THAT LEGALLY HAS TO BE A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION OR WHETHER THOSE EASEMENTS CAN BE CAN BE GIVEN WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE TO THE NEIGHBOR. SO THAT'S THAT'S A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION, MR. PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND FROM THE MAYOR? PRO TEM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT.

[XI.1. Budget Work Session – Discussion and possible action regarding matters related to the proposed City budget, including the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and departmental decision packages.]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 11. WORK SESSION ONE BUDGET WORK SESSION DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CITY BUDGET, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, CIP AND DEPARTMENTAL DECISION PACKAGES. I BELIEVE MR. PRINCE HAS A PRESENTATION THAT HE WAS GOING TO LEAD OFF WITH. DID YOU WANT TO SHARE THAT FROM YOUR COMPUTER OR I'LL DO I'LL DO THAT. SO ERIC, I'M GOING TO I'M ON THE GO TO MEETING ALREADY.

I'LL HAVE TO. HERE WE GO. YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE I WANT. AND, MR. PRINCE, IT'S YOUR MEETING FOR A FEW MOMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'LL SAY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT CITY STAFF DID POST THIS.

SO IF YOU GO TO THE FINANCE WEB PAGE, THE BUDGET LINK, THERE'S THERE'S A LINK FOR THIS PRESENTATION THAT'S OUT THERE. SO IT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN ADDITION TO ME SHOWING IT HERE.

IT'S NOT IN TONIGHT'S PACKET. AND, AND ROBERT OWEN AND I, WHO WERE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE, THE CITY FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE. AND WE HAD A MEETING ON TUESDAY, AND IT SEEMED CLEAR TO ME THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WAS DESPERATELY NEEDED. AND SO I ASKED ROBERT ON TUESDAY IF HE WOULD COLLABORATE WITH ME TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER. AND SO THIS WAS DONE ON PRETTY SHORT NOTICE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE REASON I DIDN'T SHAVE FOR TONIGHT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT ANYWAY, HE AND I DID IT. I DID SEND A COPY OUT TO THE REST OF THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE AND SAID, AM I ARE YOU OKAY WITH ME PRESENTING THIS? AND CAN WE POST IT TO THE CITY WEB PAGE? AND SO, SO THAT HAPPENED, BUT IT HAS BEEN DONE BY MR. OWEN AND MYSELF, NOT REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY ANY CITY STAFF OR CITY COUNCIL. BUT LET ME LET ME JUST SO THERE'S 20 SLIDES IN HERE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE 20 SLIDES. I WILL BLAST THROUGH THEM. SO YOU CAN SEE KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. MY HOPE AND INTENT IS THAT THAT AS WE FINALIZE THE BUDGET, THAT THIS WILL BE CLEANED UP AND BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND SOMETHING THAT'S EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE. SO A BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET THAT WE ARE SOON TO APPROVE, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, AND THE GENERAL FUND, THE REVENUE IS ABOUT 13.2 MILLION, WHICH IS 2.8% HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGETED REVENUE. AND BY THE WAY, THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS BUILT INTO THAT. BUT ONE IMPORTANT ONE IS THAT IS ASSUMING THAT NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED YET BY COUNCIL, WE HAVE CLEARLY SAID IT WON'T BE HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT WE HAVE NOT YET LOCKED IN THE NO NEW REVENUE. BUT FOR THIS PURPOSE OF THIS, IT ASSUMES NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE ON THE EXPENSIVE SIDE OF GENERAL FUND, IT'S 13.0 MILLION, WHICH IS UP 1.2% VERSUS LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE IS CURRENTLY SITTING ABOUT $200,000 HIGHER THAN THE EXPENSES. WE WILL LATER TONIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE, QUOTE, DECISION PACKAGE ITEMS WHERE COUNCIL MAY SAY, YEP, THAT'S IMPORTANT. LET'S DO IT. WE HAVE $200,000 AVAILABLE TO FUND THOSE DECISION PACKAGES AS OF THE THE BUDGET THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT. AND NOW IF COUNCIL DECIDES WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN $200,000 WORTH OF DECISION PACKAGES, WE CANNOT INCREASE THE TAX RATE OVER WHAT'S ALREADY IN HERE. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE'RE LOCKED IN BY STATE LAW AT THIS POINT. BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE COULD MOVE MONEY OUT OF OUT OF THE RESERVE FUND. FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD SAY, OH, THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT AND DO SOME TRADE OFF OF PROJECTS. THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS THAT WE COULD DO. WE COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF THE THE TREE MITIGATION FUND AND APPLY THAT TO PARKS TO FREE UP SOME MONEY. SO THERE'S THINGS WE COULD DO IF THE THE EXPENSES EXCEED THE 13.2 MILLION. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW ON THE UTILITY FUND. AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME GRAPHS IN A MINUTE. UTILITY FUND, UNFORTUNATELY, IS REALLY CONFUSING. AND THE REASON FOR