[1:47] Good

[1:50] . No point

[2:03] Good evening

[2:04] everyone. Thank you

[2:05] all for

[2:05] being here with

[2:06] us tonight. Uh

[2:07] ,

[2:07] we're going to open

[2:07] the

[2:08] meeting

[2:08] with our pledge

[2:09] to the

[2:09] us and

[2:10] the

[2:10] Texas

[2:10] flag. Uh, if

[2:11] you

[2:12] would stand

[2:12] and please

[2:13] remain

[2:14] standing following for a

[2:14] moment

[2:15] of silence

[2:16] . She

[2:17] joined me

[2:18] . I

[2:19] pledge allegiance to

[2:20] the fire

[2:21] of the United States

[2:22] of

[2:23] America

[2:23] and to

[2:24] the Republic for which

[2:25] it stands

[2:26] , our

[2:27] nation

[2:28] undercom

[2:30] indivisible with liberty

[2:30] and

[2:30] justice

[2:30] for all

[2:32] . On

[2:32] the

[2:33] Texas

[2:34] flag

[2:35] , a pleasure with this to

[2:37] the Texas

[2:37] one

[2:38] state

[2:39] 101

[2:39] and

[2:40] indivisible

[3:02] . Thank you. You MAY

[3:02] be seated

[3:08] Once again, welcome

[3:08] to the

[3:10] regular meeting of the

[3:11] Flugerville City Council on

[3:12] this

[3:13] FEBRUARY 10th

[3:13] . We

[3:13] appreciate you being

[3:14] here. Uh

[3:15] ,

[3:15] the

[3:17] first item

[3:17] , uh, or rather

[3:18] the next item on

[3:19] our

[3:19] agenda is

[3:20] public comment. I

[3:20] have

[3:21] received

[3:21] no

[3:22] forms

[3:23] indicating anyone

[3:24] wishing to speak? Is there

[3:24] anyone in

[3:26] the public wishing to

[3:27] make public comment

[3:28] . On

[3:28] general

[3:29] items at this time

[3:33] . He's got to

[3:34] Yeah

[3:35] , come on forward

[3:35] You can

[3:36] take the

[3:37] podium. Uh, you'll

[3:38] have

[3:38] , uh, let me

[3:40] let

[3:40] me read

[3:40] the

[3:41] , uh, the legalese

[3:41] in

[3:42] accordance with the

[3:42] Texas

[3:43] Attorney General opinion

[3:44] , any

[3:44] public comment that is made on

[3:45] an item that is not on

[3:46] the

[3:47] published final agenda, will

[3:47] only be heard by

[3:48] the

[3:48] counsel

[3:49] .

[3:49] No

[3:50] formal action, discussion

[3:50] ,

[3:51] deliberation, or

[3:51] comment will

[3:52] be made by the

[3:53] city council.

[3:53] Each

[3:54] person providing public

[3:54] comment

[3:55] will be

[3:55] limited to

[3:56] 3

[3:57] minutes. Um, just so you know

[3:57] ,

[3:58] we're

[3:58] not

[3:59] allowed

[3:59] to respond

[4:00] or

[4:00] deliberate, but

[4:01] we'd be

[4:02] uh

[4:02] delighted to hear

[4:03] you

[4:03] . Ok

[4:04] ,

[4:05] great. Uh

[4:05] , good evening. My

[4:05] name

[4:06] is Joseph Brown. I live in

[4:06] the

[4:08] , uh, Greenridge community

[4:09] over here in, uh, Flugerville.

[4:09] Um

[4:12] I'm called, uh, come up here

[4:13] today to, uh

[4:13] , to

[4:14] follow up on

[4:16] the road

[4:16] conditions in

[4:16] our

[4:17] community

[4:18] , uh, extremely

[4:20] , um,

[4:20] pertaining to

[4:20] Cheyenne Valley

[4:21] and Gets School

[4:22] Road with

[4:22] the

[4:23] light there to see

[4:23] what the

[4:25] progress is but they

[4:25] haven't

[4:26] talked to MR. Evan

[4:26] , I

[4:27] , I think

[4:28] he's over here today. Uh

[4:28] , I

[4:28] don't see him

[4:30] . And see how

[4:30] that's, um

[4:32] , progressed

[4:32] . Also

[4:34] the city

[4:34] of Brooklynville

[4:35] has

[4:36] come in

[4:36] and painted

[4:38] . The

[4:38] fluorescent type

[4:39] of stripes

[4:40] , uh

[4:40] for the rope

[4:41] , uh, walkways for

[4:42] the children

[4:43] . And

[4:43] everybody to

[4:45] get across the

[4:45] uh new blacktop

[4:46] because

[4:47] the new

[4:47] blacktop had

[4:48] destroyed all

[4:48] that

[4:49] before

[4:49] , but

[4:50] it's not completely finished

[4:50] and

[4:51] it's not

[4:52] finished on

[4:52] the

[4:52] main

[4:54] thoroughfare roads

[4:55] , which

[4:55] is

[4:56] Boon

[4:56] Valley

[4:57] and Cheyenne

[4:58] Valley, which is the most

[4:59] dangerous roads in the

[5:01] community because everyone uses

[5:02] that as a thoroughfare that cut

[5:03] through to outside

[5:04] the huddle

[5:04] and

[5:04] to Penley Park

[5:06] . And they go

[5:08] extremely fast and it's

[5:08] very

[5:08] dangerous

[5:10] because then both

[5:11] those roads have bus stops

[5:12] It's

[5:12] also where the

[5:14] park is for the

[5:14] children

[5:15] . In

[5:15] that

[5:16] area

[5:16] , uh, in

[5:17] our area

[5:17] . Um

[5:19] according to

[5:21] , um,

[5:21] the

[5:23] highway.Dot.Gov. Let me

[5:24] read this very quick

[5:27] . Uh

[5:28] , a

[5:28] driver MAY not

[5:30] see

[5:30] or be aware

[5:31] of

[5:32] conditions within

[5:32] the

[5:33] corridor and MAY drive at a

[5:33] speed

[5:34] that

[5:34] feels

[5:35] res

[5:36] respon

[5:37] reasonable for themselves, but

[5:38] MAY

[5:39] not be

[5:39] for

[5:39] other users of

[5:40] the

[5:40] system

[5:41] , especially

[5:42] vulnerable rope

[5:42] users

[5:43] ,

[5:44] including children and seniors

[5:45] .

[5:45] A

[5:46] driver traveling at

[5:46] 30 mph

[5:48] .

[5:49] Who hits

[5:51] a pedestrian as

[5:51] a

[5:52] 45%

[5:52] chance

[5:53] of killing

[5:54] or

[5:55] seriously

[5:55] injuring. Them

[5:57] . At

[5:57] 20 miles an

[5:58] hour

[6:00] that

[6:00] chances

[6:01] dropped down

[6:02] to 5%

[6:03] . So

[6:04] that

[6:04] road of Cheyenne

[6:06] Valley and Boone Valley, both

[6:06] at

[6:07] 35 miles an hour

[6:08] . They have

[6:09] a

[6:09] park there

[6:10] . We

[6:11] have Emily

[6:11] crossing the street

[6:12] . We

[6:13] have

[6:13] women. I see them all

[6:14] the

[6:15] time

[6:15] ,

[6:16] uh, next to the park, trying to

[6:16] get

[6:17] their cribs out

[6:18] walkers out

[6:19] there's no parking

[6:20] . So you got

[6:22] cars going by

[6:22] at

[6:22] extreme speeds

[6:23] I, I hate

[6:24] to

[6:24] say 60 miles an

[6:24] hour or

[6:25] more

[6:26] sometimes coming

[6:26] down

[6:27] the hill to get out

[6:28] , out

[6:29] of the community, get to the

[6:29] other side of Gatta School

[6:30] Road

[6:31] Um, they have bus

[6:31] stops there.

[6:32] I see

[6:33] children catch the

[6:33] bus

[6:34] there every

[6:35] morning. And

[6:35] we

[6:36] just need more safety

[6:36] for

[6:38] the

[6:38] pedestrians in

[6:39] our community

[6:40] .

[6:40] And everything. Uh, that's all

[6:41] I have

[6:42] . Thanks

[6:42] . Thank you.

[6:43] Thank you

[6:44] . I imagine, uh, I do

[6:45] see Evan back there. I imagine

[6:47] he'll be happy to have a

[6:47] conversation

[6:48] with you

[6:49] , uh, as

[6:49] the

[6:50] evening progresses. Uh

[6:50] , is

[6:50] there anyone

[6:51] else

[6:51] here wishing

[6:52] to

[6:52] speak

[6:53] during public comment

[6:54] .

[6:54] All

[6:55] right

[6:56] , before we move

[6:56] into

[6:58] presentations, I did want to

[6:59] pull one item up

[7:00] from our

[7:00] , uh,

[7:01] later in our agenda, it

[7:02] was

[7:02] also on our

[7:03] work

[7:03] session agenda

[7:04] I

[7:04] wanted to

[7:05] what

[7:05] my agenda

[7:06] go

[7:06] .

[7:07] Make sure that uh we get

[7:08] through that

[7:09] quickly because we

[7:09] MAY have some people in

[7:10] attendance

[7:11] who

[7:11] will

[7:12] leave

[7:12] immediately following that

[7:13] . So

[7:13] I'm going

[7:14] to open

[7:16] , uh, item 8d,

[7:17] uh, that is an open

[7:18] , the

[7:18] open

[7:19] session

[7:19] item discuss

[7:20] and

[7:21] consider action regarding case

[7:21] number one

[7:25] , colon

[7:26] 24-cb-00914-8da

[7:27] Impactway llc

[7:27] ,

[7:27] the

[7:28] Flugerville

[7:28] Community

[7:29] Development Corporation in the

[7:30] city

[7:30] of Flutterville

[7:30] , pending

[7:31] in

[7:31] the western

[7:32] District

[7:32] of

[7:32] Texas

[7:33] , Austin Division

[7:34] . Mr

[7:34] .

[7:35] Mayor, will you accept

[7:36] the

[7:37] motion? The floor is

[7:38] yours

[7:38] . Uh

[7:38] ,

[7:39] MR. Mayor, I

[7:39] move

[7:41] that we

[7:41] , uh,

[7:42] immediately

[7:44] , uh, defund

[7:45] , uh,

[7:45] all

[7:48] , uh, pcdc funding for the

[7:48] legal

[7:49] department for

[7:49] their

[7:50] legal counsel

[7:50] . Be

[7:53] . I have

[7:53] a

[7:54] motion in 2nd

[7:55] , uh, from David

[7:55] and Rudy

[8:16] . Uh

[8:17] , motion fails

[8:21] Thank you, David. Uh

[8:23] , we

[8:23] will

[8:24] return to item

[8:26] number 4. I have

[8:26] a couple of

[8:27] proclamations to

[8:27] make

[8:28] . I will

[8:29] , uh, move to the

[8:29] podium

[8:37] . So

[8:37] ok

[8:44] . Thank you all

[8:45] for being here

[8:45] with us tonight.

[8:46] This is the mayor's

[8:47] proclamation

[8:48] declaring

[8:48] FEBRUARY

[8:49] 2026 is Black History

[8:50] Month in

[8:51] the city of Flugerville

[8:51] . Uh

[8:52] ,

[8:53] Black History Month

[8:53] , uh, was

[8:54] originally

[8:55] Black

[8:55] History Week

[8:55] ,

[8:56] but

[8:57] in

[8:57] 1976

[8:58] was

[8:58] expanded

[8:59] to

[8:59] recognize the entire month.

[9:00] It's now

[9:00] celebrated all

[9:01] over

[9:02] North

[9:02] America

[9:02] . During this

[9:03] month

[9:04] , we celebrate

[9:04] that

[9:05] many

[9:05] achievements

[9:06] and

[9:06] contributions

[9:07] have

[9:07] been made

[9:08] by our black

[9:09] or

[9:09] African

[9:09] American

[9:10] community

[9:10] .

[9:11] Black History Month is a

[9:11] time

[9:11] where

[9:11] all

[9:12] Americans

[9:13] are

[9:13] encouraged

[9:13] to

[9:14] reflect

[9:14] on

[9:15] past

[9:16] successes

[9:16] and challenges

[9:16] of

[9:17] black

[9:18] communities and look to

[9:18] the

[9:19] future to

[9:19] ensure

[9:20] freedom

[9:20] ,

[9:21] equity

[9:22] , and inclusion persist

[9:22] in

[9:22] this

[9:23] great nation. So

[9:24] I

[9:24] hereby proclaim

[9:25] FEBRUARY

[9:26] 2026

[9:27] as Black

[9:27] History Month

[9:28] in the

[9:28] city

[9:29] of Flugerville

[9:31] , uh, Bobby

[9:31] ,

[9:31] Bobby make

[9:32] it here. Uh, we're

[9:34] gonna have

[9:35] , uh, Bobby Mack

[9:36] , um,

[9:36] accept

[9:37] this proclamation

[9:37] . We'll

[9:38] make sure that

[9:38] she gets

[9:38] it

[9:39] .

[9:40] Bobby owns one of

[9:40] our

[9:41] restaurants here in

[9:42] town, and

[9:42] we were

[9:43] very

[9:43] fortunate

[9:44] to have

[9:45] the

[9:45] food here for

[9:45] the

[9:46] council

[9:46] catered

[9:46] by

[9:48] them tonight in

[9:48] an

[9:49] effort to

[9:49] show

[9:50] our support

[9:50] to

[9:51] our

[9:51] black

[9:52] community and those

[9:53] all important

[9:53] black owned

[9:54] businesses

[9:54] . Thank you

[9:56] . Can

[9:57] we

[9:58] clap

[10:02] ? Away

[10:03] Is

[10:03] that

[10:04] way

[10:07] ? Ok

[10:07] ok,

[10:08] ok. We'll, uh

[10:09] we'll

[10:09] , we'll make

[10:10] sure she gets it

[10:11] . We'll see if

[10:12] we can get a photo here in a

[10:13] few minutes. Do I have

[10:13] another

[10:14] one here? There it is

[10:16] . All

[10:17] right. Uh, I have a second

[10:19] proclamation to make. This is

[10:20] ,

[10:21] uh, item 4b. Uh

[10:21] , earlier

[10:23] , uh in

[10:23] our

[10:24] work session, we had

[10:25] a

[10:25] presentation of

[10:26] our

[10:26] engineering

[10:26] department

[10:27] , uh, and

[10:28] I do want

[10:28] to

[10:28] clarify that our

[10:29] engineers

[10:30] do not

[10:31] drive trains

[10:32] , so they

[10:32] ,

[10:33] they

[10:33] , they

[10:34] design and

[10:34] build

[10:35] some amazing

[10:36] , uh,

[10:37] infrastructure here in the, in

[10:37] our

[10:38] city

[10:39] . So

[10:40] engineers use

[10:40] their training

[10:41] and specialized

[10:42] skills

[10:42] in creative

[10:42] and

[10:44] innovative ways to

[10:44] fulfill

[10:45] society's needs

[10:46] . Engineering

[10:46] has been called

[10:48] the

[10:48] invisible

[10:49] profession

[10:50] everything around

[10:50] us

[10:51] and everything we use

[10:52] every day

[10:52] has

[10:53] been engineered

[10:54] in one way

[10:55] or another

[10:55] . Engineering

[10:56] Week

[10:57] promotes recognition of the

[10:58] importance of

[10:59] a

[11:00] technical

[11:00] education and a high level

[11:01] of

[11:01] math, science, and

[11:03] technology

[11:03] literacy. It

[11:04] also motivates

[11:04] youth to

[11:06] pursue

[11:06] engineering

[11:07] careers. So

[11:08] I

[11:09] proclaim

[11:09] FEBRUARY

[11:09] 22nd

[11:10] to

[11:10] the 28th

[11:11] as engineers

[11:11] Week in the city

[11:13] of

[11:13] Flutterville. Uh, we

[11:14] have

[11:14] Jeff

[11:15] Dunsworth, our

[11:15] city

[11:15] engineer

[11:16] and assistant director

[11:17] of

[11:18] utility engineering, here to

[11:18] accept

[11:19] the

[11:20] proclamation. Jeff

[11:20] ,

[11:20] would you like to

[11:21] come forward

[11:22] ?

[11:22] Invite all my

[11:23] fellow engineers

[11:23] to

[11:23] come with me

[11:24] . Absolutely

[11:26] .

[11:26] The more

[11:26] , more

[11:27] engineers means

[11:28] more fun, right

[11:38] ? All

[11:40] right get

[11:40] a nice photo

[11:44] . Let's get it

[11:46] .

[11:47] We'll be

[11:48] You

[11:48] you got a

[11:49] little

[11:49] more, ok

[11:52] . And everyone's just

[11:54] it's like

[11:54] ok

[11:56] . Right

[11:58] And

[11:58] then

[11:59] vertical

[12:00] so

[12:00] on cold

[12:02] . Thank you.

[12:03] All

[12:04] right

[12:16] . Well, we think

[12:18] we

[12:18] are CPAs are

[12:19] financial

[12:19] engineers

[12:20] of uh

[12:23] . Counsel, this

[12:23] brings us to the reading of

[12:25] our

[12:26] consent agenda. Uh, I

[12:27] would ask

[12:27] if there are

[12:28] any

[12:28] items wishing

[12:28] to

[12:29] be

[12:30] pulled from the

[12:30] consent

[12:30] agenda. Yes

[12:32] , MR. Mayor, I'd

[12:32] like to pull

[12:34] item

[12:34] 5b as

[12:35] in

[12:35] boy

[12:36] and

[12:36] item

[12:37] 5d as

[12:38] in dog

[12:39] , uh,

[12:40] Baker and Delta

[12:41] and I'd

[12:41] like

[12:42] to

[12:42] pull

[12:43] 5c

[12:45] . 5c as

[12:45] in

[12:46] Charlie

[12:46] , uh,

[12:47] what

[12:47] , what does

[12:47] that leave

[12:49] ? One

[12:49] This

[12:49] was a

[12:51] short one

[12:51] . Uh

[12:52] ,

[12:52] Trista, would you

[12:52] , uh, would

[12:53] you call

[12:54] our

[12:54] consent agenda, I

[12:54] suppose

[12:55] . Absolutely

[12:57] . Item

[12:57] 5b 5c

[12:59] and 5d have

[12:59] been pulled, um,

[13:00] which

[13:01] means the

[13:01] remaining item

[13:01] of

[13:02] 5a MAY be

[13:02] acted upon

[13:04] . A move

[13:05] to approve the

[13:06] consent agenda,

[13:06] such as it is

[13:07] , the

[13:08] minutes

[13:09] second. All right, I have a

[13:10] motion from David

[13:10] andsea

[13:11] for

[13:11] Jonathan

[13:13] . Uh

[13:14] , we

[13:15] have two

[13:15] members absent from

[13:16] the

[13:17] council

[13:17] Deus

[13:22] . Uh

[13:23] , that

[13:24] passes

[13:24] unanimously of those

[13:26] present

[13:26] .

[13:26] That takes

[13:26] us

[13:28] to

[13:28] item 6

[13:30] , uh, 6a

[13:31] is discussing consider

[13:32] action

[13:33] regarding appointments to the

[13:33] finance and budget

[13:35] . Committee.

[13:36] Uh, we

[13:37] do

[13:37] have

[13:39] 3 vacancies on

[13:40] this committee with

[13:40] terms

[13:42] ending

[13:43] in 2026. I believe

[13:43] we

[13:44] have

[13:46] 5

[13:46] applicants here with

[13:47] us

[13:47] today

[13:49] , uh, traditionally

[13:50] . Uh,

[13:50] we would call

[13:51] these applicants

[13:53] up to

[13:54] introduce themselves

[13:55] . The

[13:55] first on my

[13:56] list

[13:57] is m

[13:57] ak Brewer

[13:58] She has expressed a

[14:00] desire

[14:00] to

[14:01] not approach unless there are

[14:02] any questions that would be

[14:03] required of her

[14:06] . I really want

[14:07] to ask

[14:08] Caesar's

[14:09] questions since

[14:09] he's not here

[14:13] . MISS Burke, if

[14:14] you come, would you be

[14:15] , would

[14:15] be, would you be willing to

[14:16] entertain one

[14:17] question

[14:18] ? One

[14:20] question

[14:22] ? Oh

[14:29] . Evening

[14:29] , it's

[14:30] being mayor and councilor

[14:31] . Yes

[14:31] ,

[14:31] MR. How MAY I

[14:32] help

[14:33] you? Uh, so

[14:34] this is the

[14:34] , the

[14:35] question that

[14:36] COUNCILMAN

[14:37] Rui's

[14:38] traditionally

[14:38] asks

[14:41] , um, why do you want

[14:41] to

[14:41] serve

[14:42] on

[14:42] this

[14:42] committee

[14:43] instead

[14:43] of all of

[14:44] the

[14:45] other committees,

[14:45] boards

[14:46] , and commissions that

[14:47] this

[14:47] will be

[14:47] a

[14:48] flugervill house

[14:48] I wish

[14:49] I didn't

[14:49] know

[14:50] you

[14:50] personally because no one else

[14:51] will catch

[14:52] the joke, but

[14:52] what I

[14:53] will say is

[14:54] , I'll

[14:55] make it short

[14:56] and sweet, but you know, just

[14:56] in

[14:58] general

[14:58] , representation

[15:00] as

[15:00] a

[15:01] citizen, I'd like to know where

[15:01] my tax

[15:02] dollars are going

[15:04] . And

[15:05] ultimately, as a citizen, how

[15:05] I

[15:06] can support

[15:07] all the

[15:09] let's be

[15:09] honest, with all the things

[15:10] that's going on

[15:11] . Within

[15:12] our

[15:12] city

[15:14] , meaning

[15:14] the

[15:15] um the

[15:15] citizen's response

[15:16] . To

[15:16] the

[15:17] management, to

[15:18] the leadership.

[15:19] A lot of it deals

[15:19] with our

[15:20] budget

[15:20] . So

[15:21] I want to see how I

[15:23] can contribute to supporting

[15:24] that council as well as

[15:25] supporting our

[15:25] citizens and

[15:26] understanding

[15:27] um as best you

[15:28] can for a policy, per law, per

[15:28] statute

[15:30] . How

[15:30] we

[15:31] assistant can

[15:32] support and

[15:33] understand without

[15:33] giving up too

[15:34] much

[15:34] um

[15:35] confidential information that

[15:35] you

[15:37] guys have and aren't

[15:37] willing to share. I think

[15:39] that

[15:39] citizens don't always

[15:40] understand there's certain

[15:41] things you can and

[15:41] cannot tell

[15:42] us

[15:43] . Thank you, ma'am

[15:43] . You

[15:44] understand? 2

[15:46] more questions

[15:46] .

[15:46] No

[15:48] ,. Thank you

[15:48] for volunteering

[15:51] This holiday. I'm

[15:52] going around

[15:52] MR. Coffin. I'm good, thank you

[15:54] Mr

[15:55] .. We're good

[15:57] . Uh

[15:57] , our next

[15:59] ,

[15:59] uh, applicant is

[16:01] , uh, Ronald

[16:01] Citron

[16:04] . Is Ronald here with us

[16:05] this evening

[16:06] ? I received

[16:07] a

[16:08] message that

[16:08] he's running

[16:10] late.

[16:10] Um

[16:11] . So

[16:12] maybe we

[16:12] can circle back

[16:13] if he's still here at the end.

[16:13] We

[16:15] , we'll see if we can make

[16:15] that happen. All right

[16:17] . Uh, I

[16:17] have Ms

[16:18] . Carla Carroll

[16:21] . Carla,

[16:22] if you would come forward. Sure

[16:26] And

[16:28] Thank

[16:29] you for being

[16:30] here

[16:30] with us

[16:31] tonight. Yes, sir

[16:31] .

[16:31] Would you

[16:32] , would you care to

[16:33] quickly introduce yourself and

[16:34] obviously there's

[16:34] one question

[16:35] that it sounds like we'll be

[16:36] asking everyone why this

[16:38] Um

[16:39] , I

[16:40] have lived here

[16:40] in Flugerville

[16:42] for, let's see

[16:42] , since '07, I am

[16:44] the founder of the Zeus and

[16:44] Luna Pit

[16:46] Ford Foundation. We

[16:47] donate our dogs

[16:48] to veterans

[16:49] . Um

[16:50] I

[16:51] have

[16:51] a long

[16:51] history of

[16:52] accounting

[16:52] . I've

[16:53] been an

[16:53] accountant for

[16:54] 30 years

[16:55] I have

[16:56] been a

[16:57] budget analyst at Space

[16:58] Naval Warfare. I

[16:59] have

[16:59] a

[17:00] bachelor's in accounting, a

[17:01] master's

[17:02] in public

[17:02] administration, and the masters

[17:02] in

[17:04] Business Administration, and

[17:05] I'm working on my doctorate

[17:06] in

[17:07] business leadership

[17:07] . Um

[17:08] , I'm

[17:09] also

[17:09] currently a

[17:11] uh project

[17:12] controls analyst

[17:13] for aeco

[17:13] . I

[17:14] work

[17:15] in

[17:16] app

[17:16] Environmental

[17:18] Protection

[17:18] Planning, and

[17:19] I am

[17:20] super with

[17:22] project management

[17:25] .

[17:25] Next

[17:29] . Well

[17:30] , yeah

[17:31] , I'm gonna

[17:32] cancel. I'm

[17:32] gonna

[17:33] ask

[17:33] uh

[17:34] COUNCILMAN Marro's question,

[17:34] because he's still

[17:36] getting

[17:36] uh

[17:37] the the

[17:39] backup speed

[17:40] . Why

[17:40] this

[17:41] committee as opposed to any of

[17:43] the other committees, boards,

[17:43] or

[17:44] commissions that the city

[17:44] of

[17:45] Flugerville has. Well, i

[17:47] live

[17:48] here. Uh

[17:48] , I live in

[17:48] Highland

[17:49] Park

[17:50] North and

[17:51] I have

[17:51] seen

[17:52] it

[17:52] grow immensely

[17:53] . We used to

[17:53] have

[17:54] cows come

[17:54] across

[17:55] our backyard

[17:55] and now there's

[17:56] , you know

[17:57] , a

[17:57] lot of business es

[17:58] and so on

[17:58] and

[17:58] so forth

[17:59] , and

[18:01] . Because of

[18:01] what my

[18:01] personal

[18:03] goal is

[18:04] . After

[18:05] I graduate with a doctorate

[18:07] . Um

[18:08] I'm more curious and want to

[18:08] learn more about

[18:10] how

[18:10] their

[18:10] finances go and so on and

[18:12] so

[18:12] forth. So

[18:13] my

[18:13] goal is I want to

[18:13] go

[18:14] to Congress and help them

[18:14] fix the

[18:15] va. That's

[18:15] why I'm

[18:15] getting

[18:16] all

[18:17] the degrees

[18:17] , but

[18:17] I

[18:17] need

[18:19] to

[18:19] learn

[18:19] and see

[18:20] what's

[18:20] going

[18:21] on in

[18:21] my own city

[18:22] . So

[18:23] why

[18:23] not? Uh

[18:24] , like I said, I

[18:24] have

[18:26] project management skills

[18:28] . You

[18:28] know

[18:30] , so I'm here, I'm here to

[18:31] help learn

[18:32] and

[18:35] volunteer my

[18:35] time

[18:38] Thank you

[18:39] , ma'am. Mhm. All

[18:40] right, ma'am. I, I was curious.

[18:40] I

[18:41] was

[18:41] reading

[18:41] your

[18:42] application and it you

[18:43] uh

[18:44] mentioned

[18:44] uh transparency in no

[18:44] way

[18:45] , shape

[18:46] or form should any

[18:46] member of the

[18:47] finance committee

[18:48] or

[18:48] council

[18:48] members

[18:49] asked

[18:49] for

[18:49] information

[18:50] and

[18:50] be sidelined

[18:50] .

[18:51] What what do you mean by that

[18:53] ?

[18:53] If

[18:54] i

[18:55] ask

[18:55] for

[18:55] or anybody in

[18:56] the

[18:57] public asks for

[19:00] uh, most people

[19:00] don't know, they can

[19:01] go online

[19:02] and download

[19:04] . Your

[19:04] financials

[19:05] .

[19:06] So if we can point that out to

[19:08] people, that

[19:08] would be

[19:09] a

[19:09] big

[19:09] help

[19:10] . I know that there's a lot

[19:11] of people who don't know that

[19:13] They're not aware that you can

[19:13] pull

[19:15] down financials. That's

[19:16] what I mean by transparency, by

[19:16] letting

[19:17] them know, hey, look,

[19:17] you can

[19:18] go online

[19:19] and download

[19:19] all

[19:20] the all

[19:20] all

[19:20] the

[19:21] transcripts

[19:22] and where the money is going

[19:23] and so on and

[19:24] so forth

[19:24] from

[19:25] previous years and

[19:26] this current

[19:26] year

[19:27] . Uh

[19:27] , you

[19:29] also said, or was

[19:29] it, um

[19:35] , everyone has

[19:36] a

[19:37] right

[19:37] to

[19:38] learn. Yes. Um

[19:38] , yeah

[19:38] , obviously

[19:39] there

[19:39] are no

[19:40] dumb questions. Um

[19:41] what do you mean by

[19:42] everyone

[19:42] has a right

[19:42] to learn

[19:43] . Everybody

[19:43] in the city

[19:44] has a

[19:44] right

[19:45] to

[19:45] learn what's going

[19:46] on. If

[19:46] they

[19:47] have a

[19:47] question

[19:49] , let's answer.

[19:49] If they

[19:49] have something that

[19:50] they need

[19:51] to

[19:51] be answered

[19:51] . And

[19:53] we don't have the answer for it

[19:54] Let them know

[19:55] , we'll get back

[19:56] to you. That's

[19:56] my

[19:56] biggest

[19:57] thing

[19:58] is I

[19:59] answer emails right away.

[19:59] Hey

[20:00] , I got

[20:00] your message. I'll

[20:01] get back to you

[20:02] . Let them know

[20:03] that you're working on it, and

[20:03] if you don't know

[20:04] the answer

[20:04] ,

[20:05] figure it

[20:05] out or

[20:06] leave them

[20:07] someone else who does

[20:09] . That's

[20:09] what I mean by

[20:09] learning.

[20:10] Everybody has

[20:12] a right to learn

[20:12] .

[20:13] Everybody who lives here has

[20:13] a

[20:13] right to

[20:14] learn what's going on

[20:14] in the city

[20:16] you

[20:16] know, guide

[20:16] them to the

[20:18] right

[20:18] places. So

[20:20] .

[20:20] I'm curious if that

[20:21] conveys

[20:22] a

[20:22] requirement of

[20:23] other

[20:23] individuals

[20:23] to

[20:25] teach

[20:25] because

[20:25] learning is

[20:27] , is individual,

[20:27] right? Well, yes

[20:28] and no

[20:29] . So

[20:29] if

[20:30] that person is

[20:31] willing to learn

[20:32] point them in the

[20:33] right

[20:34] direction. If you read

[20:35] case

[20:36] study, blah blah blah blah blah

[20:38] Here's the website to it

[20:40] .

[20:40] That's teaching them

[20:43] So

[20:43] just

[20:43] guiding people to where they

[20:44] need to go

[20:45] . All right

[20:45] Uh

[20:47] , any

[20:47] ,

[20:48] any other questions

[20:50] ? Uh, for

[20:50] Carla

[20:52] ? Um

[20:52] , thank you for. Yes,

[20:53] sir

[20:54] . For answering our

[20:55] questions. Uh, we have

[20:56] , uh,

[20:56] Scott

[20:57] , uh, Stiefferman

[20:58] , I

[20:59] believe. Steer

[21:00] or

[21:01] tier Stifer,

[21:01] ok

[21:03] . So

[21:04] you're in a German town

[21:04] and

[21:06] in Germany, German

[21:06] they

[21:06] pronounce

[21:06] the second I

[21:07] went

[21:08] with it

[21:08] , but

[21:09] Stiferman, thank

[21:09] you

[21:10] for being here with us

[21:10] today

[21:11] . Uh, well

[21:12] , I'm very

[21:13] interested in the position

[21:14] simply because I'd like

[21:14] to be

[21:15] able to

[21:15] provide

[21:17] some

[21:17] citizen-based review and audit

[21:19] of

[21:19] the

[21:20] uh budget

[21:21] and finances

[21:22] ,

[21:22] um, I've had a

[21:23] very

[21:23] good

[21:24] understanding and

[21:24] working

[21:25] with

[21:26] uh multiple parties on

[21:27] the

[21:28] team

[21:29] regarding questions and

[21:29] answer

[21:30] type sessions

[21:31] , but I

[21:31] , I

[21:32] hope

[21:33] elicit um

[21:34] deeper dives into

[21:34] some

[21:35] of

[21:35] these

[21:35] financial

[21:36] concerns or some

[21:37] of these

[21:38] issues that have

[21:38] been brought

[21:38] up over

[21:39] the

[21:39] past

[21:40] , so

[21:40] I

[21:41] welcome

[21:42] Jonathan, for example

[21:43] , and his

[21:45] prompt

[21:46] response and

[21:46] his

[21:48] summary

[21:49] of

[21:49] current environments as well

[21:51] as other team

[21:51] members

[21:51] that

[21:51] have

[21:52] contributed

[21:53] not

[21:54] only review

[21:55] and

[21:55] audit type roles or

[21:56] type

[21:56] concerns

[21:57] . So I don't have

[21:58] a

[21:58] formal

[22:00] um financial

[22:00] or audit

[22:01] background, but

[22:02] . I

[22:02] hope to say

[22:03] i'm able

[22:04] to ask the

[22:05] right

[22:05] questions that elicit

[22:06] the right

[22:07] responses

[22:10] . And to team

[22:11] up on

[22:12] the teaching concept. I started

[22:12] out

[22:13] my career as

[22:13] a

[22:14] Microsoft

[22:16] product trainer, so one of my

[22:16] big things was a lot

[22:17] of

[22:18] people

[22:18] asking for a

[22:19] highlight this

[22:19] stuff

[22:20] I need

[22:21] to study for,

[22:21] highlight the stuff I

[22:22] need to

[22:23] review in one of my

[22:24] uh,

[22:25] long-standing statement is

[22:25] learn how to learn, don't learn

[22:26] how

[22:26] to

[22:27] memorize

[22:27] . So I follow in

[22:29] that same truth of

[22:30] teaching

[22:31] ,

[22:32] not necessarily by the book

[22:32] ,

[22:32] but

[22:33] by the

[22:34] end goal and the

[22:36] what it takes to maybe get

[22:36] there

[22:39] Uh

[22:40] , David, did you have a

[22:41] question

[22:41] ? I

[22:42] , I think

[22:43] he

[22:43] answered it before I could ask

[22:44] him

[22:45] , ok

[22:45] ? It's always nice to

[22:46] have other people

[22:49] go first

[22:49] ,

[22:49] counsel

[22:50] , are questions for Mr

[22:52] .

[22:52] Steerman? Not for me

[22:56] Good. Well

[22:56] thank you

[22:58] very much

[22:59] . Uh, and

[22:59] then I have

[23:01] , uh, Jonathan, uh,

[23:01] Reich

[23:03] . Did I get that one right

[23:05] Yes. All right. That one is

[23:06] German

[23:07] . Ok

[23:07] . Another German

[23:08] ,

[23:08] yeah

[23:10] , um, counsel, MR. Mayor,

[23:10] it's good to see you again

[23:12] . Um

[23:12] ,

[23:13] I was before

[23:14] you guys in

[23:14] DECEMBER

[23:15] , uh, expressing my

[23:15] interest in this committee

[23:16] , and

[23:17] I'm glad to be back

[23:17] , um, to

[23:18] remind you

[23:18] of

[23:19] my background

[23:19] , um

[23:20] I grew up

[23:21] in Flugerville from

[23:21] 7

[23:22] to 18 before I

[23:23] moved away

[23:23] from

[23:24] college, when I did

[23:24] my

[23:25] bachelor's

[23:25] in finance and

[23:26] my

[23:26] master's in

[23:27] product development

[23:28] Um

[23:28] , I've

[23:29] spent

[23:30] my career as

[23:30] a

[23:30] consultant and then

[23:32] most

[23:32] recently helping a small long

[23:33] firm mountain

[23:34] Caldwell startup.

[23:34] Um

[23:35] , so

[23:35] I

[23:37] have a little bit of

[23:37] experience in Excel if you

[23:38] could say

[23:39] , and um I

[23:39] would love

[23:40] to

[23:40] apply

[23:41] that

[23:41] to Flugerville

[23:42] and help out as part of

[23:42] this

[23:43] committee

[23:44] . Um, you know, one of

[23:45] the things that I've

[23:45] heard

[23:46] expressed, I

[23:46] think

[23:47] , by everyone

[23:48] here

[23:48] is

[23:49] the

[23:50] transparency and

[23:51] um

[23:52] helping citizens understand the

[23:52] budget is a

[23:53] really

[23:53] high

[23:54] priority. That's something

[23:54] that

[23:55] I

[23:55] noticed as well

[23:55] when

[23:56] I

[23:56] was

[23:57] ,

[23:57] um, you know, helping

[23:58] with the

[23:59] ,

[23:59] uh, the, the runoff campaign

[24:00] for for Doug

[24:01] , um, when I was

[24:02] speaking with

[24:03] people

[24:04] who

[24:04] were

[24:06] um were leaning towards Pat

[24:07] McCorry, one of the

[24:08] things, one

[24:09] of the things that really

[24:09] resonated with

[24:10] his campaign

[24:10] was

[24:11] the fact that

[24:11] he touched

[24:12] on

[24:13] budget

[24:13] transparency

[24:14] and on some

[24:14] of the

[24:15] auditing. Um

[24:15] , so I think

[24:15] that's a

[24:16] really important

[24:17] piece

[24:17] of

[24:18] this

[24:18] committee that

[24:19] it

[24:19] sounds like all of us

[24:20] would be

[24:20] on

[24:20] board

[24:21] with

[24:21] and

[24:21] um that's

[24:22] something that I, you know,

[24:23] I've talked with

[24:23] Melody about a

[24:23] little bit

[24:24] . I'd

[24:25] love to

[24:25] um see

[24:25] how

[24:26] we can make

[24:26] the budget just

[24:27] more accessible to people and

[24:28] because of my

[24:29] background in not

[24:29] just finance

[24:30] and technology, I

[24:31] think I'm positioned to do that

[24:31] So thank you

[24:33] . Thank you. I'm

[24:34] curious

[24:35] , Jonathan

[24:35] , um, because

[24:36] one of the things we often talk

[24:38] about is that

[24:38] , um

[24:40] , frankly

[24:40] , if

[24:40] anybody wants to access the

[24:41] budget

[24:41] , they

[24:42] have access to, we

[24:42] have it online, we

[24:43] have

[24:43] available to that

[24:44] . But

[24:46] to you

[24:47] ,

[24:47] it

[24:48] appears that it

[24:49] MAY be

[24:49] more

[24:50] opaque

[24:51] than

[24:51] we think

[24:51] . What

[24:51] are

[24:52] ideas that you have in

[24:53] mind

[24:54] where we can make it

[24:54] so

[24:55] either

[24:56] more relative because you know

[24:56] ,

[24:57] data's never been the issue

[24:57] ,

[24:58] right? Like

[24:58] people

[24:58] have data

[24:59] and everything

[25:00] , but

[25:01] actionable

[25:01] dating and be able to do

[25:02] that

[25:02] is

[25:02] always been

[25:03] something that's

[25:04] remained to it. So how do we

[25:04] make it

[25:05] more relatable for

[25:06] people to

[25:07] better to

[25:07] ascertain

[25:08] and understand what's

[25:08] going on.

[25:08] That's

[25:09] a

[25:09] great

[25:10] question

[25:10] . I

[25:11] think

[25:11] really it's

[25:11] it's more

[25:12] than just having the

[25:12] data like

[25:13] you said, it's about

[25:14] being able

[25:14] to tell a story with

[25:15] the

[25:15] data

[25:16] and having avenu

[25:16] es for the

[25:17] public to be able to access

[25:17] that

[25:18] and understand not just

[25:18] the numbers on the screen

[25:19] because

[25:20] the reality is most

[25:21] people won't be able to

[25:21] understand the numbers

[25:22] it's

[25:23] like just

[25:23] by themselves

[25:24] . It's

[25:25] making sure

[25:25] they understand,

[25:26] you know, if

[25:27] we can

[25:27] provide

[25:27] them with the

[25:28] reasoning

[25:28] behind

[25:28] why

[25:29] we made

[25:29] a

[25:30] certain decision.

[25:30] Um, the

[25:31] story that

[25:31] went

[25:31] into

[25:32] that

[25:33] , maybe as much

[25:33] as we can

[25:34] highlight those things for

[25:35] people, I think that

[25:35] would

[25:36] help

[25:36] them understand to be more

[25:37] connected to the city

[25:37] of

[25:38] Flugerville

[25:38] . Um

[25:39] , and I think

[25:40] that's something that we can do

[25:43] Any other questions for

[25:44] Jonathan

[25:45] Thank

[25:47] you

[25:47] . Thank you

[25:48] for being here. Uh, did

[25:49] , uh,

[25:50] Ronald make it in

[25:54] ? Yes sir

[26:01] All

[26:01] right

[26:02] , council members

[26:02] , we

[26:03] have

[26:03] up

[26:03] to

[26:05] 3 positions

[26:05] to appoint.

[26:06] Uh, I do want to

[26:07] clarify

[26:07] , uh,

[26:08] Jonathan, I think our

[26:09] last time

[26:10] there were

[26:11] concerns about

[26:12] your

[26:13] voter registration still

[26:14] being

[26:14] in

[26:15] Collin County

[26:15] , uh, and I

[26:16] understand you

[26:17] have

[26:18] submitted

[26:18] to

[26:19] ensure

[26:19] that your

[26:19] voter

[26:20] registration

[26:20] was transferred to

[26:21] Travis County

[26:24] . If

[26:25] , uh, if he

[26:26] were selected, we would need

[26:26] to

[26:26] ensure that

[26:28] it is

[26:28] effective

[26:29] upon

[26:30] confirmation

[26:31] of

[26:32] the

[26:33] transfer. Yes, he, he

[26:33] is

[26:35] eligible. He

[26:35] is eligible. Very

[26:36] well. Ok

[26:37] . Awesome

[26:37] . Thank

[26:37] you.

[26:38] Glad to hear it

[26:40] Travis County's

[26:40] better in la

[26:42] , Jonathan

[26:44] . Uh

[26:44] ,

[26:44] with that counsel, as

[26:45] I was

[26:46] saying

[26:46] , uh, up

[26:47] to

[26:48] 3

[26:48] vacancies

[26:49] on

[26:50] this

[26:51] board the next one

[26:52] . We

[26:53] need at least one in order for

[26:53] them to

[26:55] make quorum so that

[26:55] they can

[26:56] hold meetings

[26:57] , which I

[26:58] think is is the goal of

[26:58] this

[26:58] item

[27:02] . I'm going

[27:04] to ask

[27:04] for

[27:04] your

[27:04] top

[27:06] 12, or 3

[27:07] , I'm gonna

[27:08] .

[27:09] Actually go, uh, yeah, let's

[27:11] see, Jonathan

[27:11] , your top

[27:13] 12 or 3

[27:13] Sure

[27:15] , uh, let's say Jonathan

[27:16] Reich and ak Brewer at the top

[27:16] of

[27:17] mine. Ok

[27:18] . Uh, Caesar

[27:19] , I

[27:19] had

[27:20] ak

[27:20] and Jonathan. All right

[27:22] , Kim

[27:22] Kimberly. I

[27:23] had Jonathan

[27:24] . All

[27:24] right, Rudy

[27:26] Uh

[27:27] , I would have

[27:27] been a parrot now

[27:30] , aka Jonathan

[27:31] All

[27:34] um, Melody

[27:34] . Aka

[27:36] Scott

[27:36] and

[27:36] Carol, Carlo, sorry

[27:37] . I'm sorry,

[27:38] that

[27:38] was

[27:40] ak and Carla

[27:42] . All

[27:42] right, and

[27:43] , uh, David? Uh

[27:47] . At

[27:48] the risk of uh

[27:49] being

[27:50] a parent

[27:51] .

[27:52] Uh, I'm just gonna

[27:53] echo

[27:54] Melody's 3

[27:56] . Aka Carla and

[27:56] Scott

[27:57] Yes

[27:58] . And then mine

[27:59] would

[28:01] be ak

[28:01] uh Jonathan and Ronald

[28:03] . Uh

[28:03] , I

[28:03] believe that

[28:04] gives

[28:05] us

[28:05] ak7

[28:07] Ronald 1

[28:08] , Carla 2

[28:10] , Scott 2

[28:11] ,

[28:12] Jonathan 5

[28:12] . Uh, based

[28:14] on that

[28:14] ,

[28:14] I would

[28:15] recommend that

[28:16] we

[28:17] appoint ak and Jonathan

[28:18] . And it

[28:19] seems like that

[28:19] is

[28:20] the

[28:21] the

[28:21] threshold. All right. I've got

[28:21] a

[28:23] motion from

[28:23] Caesar

[28:24] , second

[28:24] from Rudy

[28:26] . I don't know why I

[28:28] did deuces. Oh, hold on, that's

[28:30] that's pdf. I'm gonna get back

[28:32] to my screen

[28:32] . Oh

[28:44] Uh

[28:45] , motion

[28:46] passes unanimously. Uh

[28:47] , thank

[28:48] you for that. I'm

[28:48] going to

[28:49] . So

[28:50] I did have

[28:50] a

[28:51] question because

[28:51] in

[28:52] the past, you

[28:53] guys

[28:53] have

[28:53] expressed

[28:54] that its mom wasn't

[28:55] here

[28:56] , that they

[28:57] couldn't have a

[28:57] vote

[28:58] , um, for that we

[28:59] or

[28:59] at

[29:00] least that was

[29:01] my

[29:02] impression of

[29:03] the operation

[29:04] . So if

[29:04] we have

[29:06] another vacancy and

[29:06] that's not

[29:07] the

[29:08] rule

[29:08] , then I

[29:09] , I would, I

[29:10] think it's good

[29:11] to fill

[29:11] the

[29:11] entire committee if

[29:12] we can.

[29:13] Would you like

[29:13] to make another

[29:13] motion

[29:15] ? That time? Um

[29:17] I

[29:17] , I will

[29:18] I will

[29:19] say I don't

[29:20] believe the

[29:21] absence is

[29:22] a

[29:22] disqualifier. I

[29:22] will say when

[29:23] I was

[29:24] first

[29:24] appointed

[29:24] to

[29:25] pcbc

[29:26] in

[29:27] 2009

[29:28] that

[29:28] uh someone who

[29:29] was not

[29:29] present

[29:30] was

[29:30] also

[29:31] appointed, um

[29:31] . But

[29:33] , uh

[29:33] it

[29:34] is

[29:35] ok and it seemed like

[29:36] there

[29:37] was a

[29:37] something was said

[29:38] about it the, the

[29:39] last

[29:40] time we,

[29:40] we just, we just tend

[29:41] not

[29:42] to

[29:42] .

[29:42] We like, we

[29:44] we like for people

[29:44] to

[29:45] , to

[29:46] present themselves, um

[29:47] but it is, it is not

[29:48] a

[29:49] requirement

[29:49] , especially if

[29:50] council

[29:51] members

[29:51] are familiar

[29:53] with the individual

[29:54] . If for

[29:54] example, if

[29:55] there's someone

[29:56] who

[29:56] you um

[29:58] had

[29:59] recruited who wasn't

[30:00] able to make it, you're welcome

[30:01] to speak on their behalf

[30:02] . Uh

[30:04] ,

[30:04] but is

[30:05] this

[30:06] a

[30:07] council's

[30:07] prerogative on who we

[30:08] appoint

[30:09] to boards and

[30:09] commissions. Yeah

[30:11] If if the

[30:12] emergency happens,

[30:12] we've done, we've done

[30:13] it

[30:14] . We

[30:16] can bring that

[30:16] whoever

[30:18] we

[30:18] could

[30:19] ok, well, I'd like to make a

[30:21] motion to

[30:21] give

[30:23] um this new

[30:23] information

[30:25] to

[30:26] uh recommend

[30:26] Ronald

[30:27] as the

[30:27] , the final

[30:27] position

[30:30] . For the finance and

[30:30] budget. I have a motion

[30:32] from

[30:33] Melody, I have a second from

[30:33] David

[30:39] . Hm

[30:41] I'm sorry. Did I say

[30:41] the right name

[30:43] ? So

[30:43] would you,

[30:44] yeah, in in

[30:45] interest of

[30:45] further

[30:46] discussion, uh, Melody

[30:47] , you

[30:48] seem to know Ronald, you've

[30:49] mentioned that he was

[30:50] , uh, not

[30:50] here with

[30:50] you, uh

[30:52] convey

[30:53] , um,

[30:53] his

[30:54] qualifications for us

[30:55] . Well

[30:57] he had applied before, so

[30:57] I had

[30:58] just reached out to

[30:58] him and

[30:59] said, hey, we're going to be

[31:00] having another thing

[31:01] , so do

[31:01] you

[31:02] want to

[31:03] reapply

[31:04] and, um, and

[31:04] here

[31:08] he is

[31:08] . There he

[31:08] is

[31:10] . Ryan

[31:10] Ronald

[31:10] , lots

[31:11] of questions for

[31:13] you now

[31:14] . Oh, no, no, no

[31:14] , no, no

[31:15] no, no, no

[31:15] , no

[31:17] , no,, your ears

[31:17] must have

[31:17] been burning

[31:18] , right?

[31:18] We come to

[31:19] the podium

[31:19] . I'm

[31:19] sorry

[31:20] , Ronald

[31:20] last to

[31:21] arrive

[31:22] .

[31:22] Thank you for showing up

[31:23] . Uh

[31:23] ,

[31:24] we were

[31:24] , we were

[31:24] just

[31:25] discussing the, uh, the ap

[31:26] point ment s we've made two

[31:26] of

[31:26] the

[31:28] 3 appointments. Um, the,

[31:29] the other was going

[31:30] to remain

[31:30] vacant, but we would

[31:31] love

[31:31] to

[31:32] be

[31:33] introduced to you if you would

[31:33] uh tell us who

[31:34] you

[31:35] are

[31:35] . You

[31:36] unfortunately don't have the

[31:37] benefit of hearing

[31:38] the

[31:38] questions that

[31:39] were asked

[31:40] before you, but one of those

[31:41] would be

[31:41] why this

[31:42] board and

[31:42] not

[31:42] something

[31:43] else

[31:44] , uh, and

[31:44] take it

[31:45] away

[31:45] . Ok

[31:46] ? A

[31:46] little background

[31:47] on myself

[31:48] . I've

[31:48] done some work

[31:49] .

[31:49] I've

[31:49] , uh, my

[31:50] entire career

[31:50] has

[31:50] been

[31:51] , uh, with the

[31:51] public

[31:52] sector

[31:52] , uh, so I

[31:53] helped

[31:53] Travis

[31:54] County build

[31:54] the internal

[31:55] audit

[31:55] department

[31:55] . Um

[31:56] , I

[31:56] also worked

[31:57] for Travis County at the

[31:58] auditor's office

[31:59] , um, I

[31:59] have a

[32:00] few certifications like

[32:02] certified

[32:03] um internal auditors

[32:04] build it on

[32:05] on

[32:05] parts expand

[32:06] on

[32:07] that

[32:07] . Um

[32:09] , they needed

[32:09] some

[32:10] internal auditors and a

[32:11] lot

[32:11] of

[32:11] really

[32:12] we

[32:13] uh were able to

[32:13] catch

[32:14] some stuff actually

[32:15] , but um

[32:15] .

[32:16] They didn't have internal

[32:16] auditors

[32:18] , so it's

[32:18] , uh, it's me

[32:19] and

[32:20] one other person

[32:20] . Yes

[32:20] , and

[32:22] ,

[32:23] um, he still works there and

[32:23] I'm

[32:24] , um

[32:25] . It's

[32:27] grown to 3, but

[32:27] I've since left. That was like

[32:29] 8

[32:29] years ago. Um

[32:29] , we built it

[32:30] from the ground

[32:31] up though,

[32:31] reading uh

[32:33] the books

[32:33] , and

[32:34] we

[32:34] ,

[32:34] um, put

[32:35] the

[32:36] charters together

[32:36] and everything

[32:38] , um, so we built

[32:39] it from the ground up

[32:40] and it

[32:40] was, it was good, lots

[32:41] of data

[32:41] analysis and

[32:42] stuff like that

[32:42] .

[32:43] So

[32:45] , uh, well, I mean, I've

[32:45] always cared about the

[32:46] government. I live here

[32:47] . I've

[32:47] raised a family here. We've

[32:48] been raising

[32:49] a

[32:49] family here,

[32:50] love it. I want to cut and I

[32:50] want

[32:51] to

[32:51] contribute this way

[32:52] because I mean, I, you

[32:53] know

[32:54] ,

[32:54] understand accounting. I have

[32:55] a

[32:56] master's degree in

[32:56] accounting,

[32:56] um

[32:58] . And

[32:59] , um, so that's

[33:00] why fab

[33:01] when it came up, I saw that it

[33:01] was vacant. I

[33:02] , I figured, why

[33:03] not, you know, this is a good

[33:03] way to

[33:05] volunteer. I had

[33:05] once

[33:05] ,

[33:06] uh, sat

[33:07] on the, um

[33:09] I

[33:09] always

[33:10] want to say ethics to

[33:12] uh uh the

[33:12] equity

[33:13] , um, uh, board

[33:13] . I

[33:14] did

[33:14] that about 6

[33:14] years ago as well.

[33:15] Um, that was

[33:16] a

[33:16] good experience.

[33:17] Uh, I do apologize

[33:18] for being

[33:18] late

[33:19] , um, that you, you want

[33:20] showed

[33:21] up just you, you

[33:21] have

[33:22] .

[33:23] Someone you need to thank, you

[33:24] bring it

[33:25] , yeah

[33:26] , I mean, well

[33:26] ,

[33:26] she's been like I

[33:27] just happened

[33:28] to check my emails, so

[33:30] . So I

[33:30] , I

[33:30] I, I mean

[33:31] , my

[33:32] question would be

[33:32] for this, is that

[33:34] so you

[33:34] you I

[33:35] don't want to put words in your

[33:35] mouth

[33:36] , but from what I heard

[33:37] you say is that you had

[33:39] your

[33:39] experiences being an auditor

[33:40] .

[33:41] You helped create

[33:41] the

[33:42] internal

[33:44] audit department across County

[33:45] now build it up

[33:45] with

[33:45] somebody

[33:46] because of your

[33:46] skill

[33:47] sets and

[33:48] ,

[33:49] um, prior experience and

[33:50] build

[33:50] it from the ground floor

[33:52] . What

[33:52] do you

[33:53] see here that you

[33:54] think

[33:55] that you can either

[33:56] , um,

[33:57] improve on

[33:57] or Delta

[33:57] points or

[33:58] you know

[33:59] , or

[33:59] frankly

[34:00] , um, that

[34:01] you

[34:01] see

[34:02] is necessary for us

[34:03] to

[34:03] take it to

[34:04] another level when

[34:05] it comes to what we do

[34:06] at

[34:06] financing gear. Sure

[34:08] , um, I

[34:08] think

[34:09] , um, I

[34:10] don't, you know, I

[34:11] haven't

[34:11] been paying

[34:11] as

[34:12] close

[34:13] attention to

[34:13] what is

[34:13] happening

[34:14] with finance and

[34:14] audit and

[34:15] budget. I

[34:15] do

[34:16] understand um

[34:18] city

[34:20] financial statements or annual

[34:20] budgets, right

[34:21] ? Um working for

[34:22] consultants as well. I've done

[34:22] that

[34:23] for

[34:24] various

[34:24] little

[34:24] small

[34:24] cities across

[34:26] the

[34:26] us

[34:26] here

[34:26] , for

[34:27] instance

[34:28] , I

[34:28] think

[34:29] uh the new

[34:30] city

[34:31] council being brought up

[34:31] next

[34:31] to heb

[34:32] , you know

[34:33] , I

[34:33] remember that being

[34:34] part of

[34:34] a

[34:35] capital

[34:36] improvement program,

[34:36] maybe

[34:37] 56 years ago

[34:37] , and, and,

[34:38] you know, it is

[34:38] coming

[34:38] up and

[34:39] um I've

[34:40] been watching, you know

[34:41] parks come up

[34:41] as well

[34:42] . So I

[34:42] know the city's

[34:44] growing, I just

[34:44] wanna, you know

[34:46] , uh, see where

[34:46] the money's, I mean, that's

[34:47] what it is

[34:48] , right

[34:48] , the

[34:49] taxpayers' money is uh

[34:51] . Right,

[34:52] we're all

[34:53] servants entrusted

[34:53] with the

[34:54] taxpayer's money and

[34:54] make

[34:55] sure it

[34:55] gets

[34:55] spent

[34:56] appropriately, right, so I

[34:58] don't think that, you know,

[34:58] you're going to

[34:58] get

[35:00] anything

[35:00] very

[35:01] unique from

[35:02] me

[35:02] other than

[35:03] my experience in

[35:04] looking

[35:04] at

[35:05] documents, having

[35:06] to

[35:06] interpret

[35:07] them very quickly

[35:07] , and, you

[35:09] know, understand what's going

[35:09] on. Um

[35:11] , I, I, I am

[35:11] a

[35:11] pf

[35:11] 101

[35:12] graduate, so

[35:13] I did, you know,

[35:14] at one point, know a little

[35:15] bit

[35:16] more paid more

[35:16] closer attention

[35:17] you know, my kids

[35:17] were a

[35:18] little

[35:18] younger

[35:20] . Um, but I'd love to

[35:20] serve in

[35:22] whatever

[35:22] capacity I

[35:23] can really just

[35:23] fab I

[35:24] guess

[35:25] makes the

[35:25] most

[35:25] sense. Ok

[35:25] . I

[35:26] thank

[35:26] you for

[35:27] , for

[35:27] bringing

[35:28] your skills forward. I see

[35:29] on

[35:29] your

[35:30] resume

[35:31] your uh you have a

[35:32] certification in

[35:32] risk

[35:32] management

[35:33] assurance. Uh

[35:33] ,

[35:34] you're

[35:34] certified

[35:34] government

[35:35] auditing

[35:36] professional

[35:36] certified

[35:37] Information

[35:38] Systems Auditor

[35:39] , uh

[35:39] and cia

[35:40] different

[35:40] cia

[35:41] certified

[35:43] internal auditor. Where, where

[35:44] did you get

[35:44] your

[35:44] master's

[35:45] degree at, by the

[35:45] oh, I

[35:47] don't

[35:47] know if I can

[35:48] say because I, I

[35:48] get a lot of

[35:49] , I didn't

[35:49] know how

[35:52] you want to be able to get

[35:52] this

[35:53] position

[35:54] , right? We're on the

[35:54] same page

[35:55] here

[35:56] . I mean

[35:56] ,

[35:57] diversity, right? There we

[35:58] go

[35:58] ,

[35:59] there we go. We

[35:59] , we want

[35:59] like,

[36:00] no

[36:00] , but I

[36:01] didn't know

[36:01] about

[36:01] like

[36:02] school Spirit or whatever,

[36:02] but I

[36:03] have

[36:03] gotten

[36:04] heat

[36:04] on

[36:05] many

[36:05] Auss

[36:05] about

[36:06] that. I

[36:06] do live

[36:07] in

[36:07] Austin. I

[36:08] , uh, got

[36:08] it from

[36:10] Texas a&m

[36:10] . That's where I got

[36:10] my

[36:11] , uh, master's degree

[36:11] . Thank

[36:12] you change my

[36:14] It

[36:14] was online. I

[36:15] didn't hear

[36:16] any

[36:16] bos

[36:17] or what.

[36:17] There you

[36:19] go. All right. Any

[36:19] ,

[36:19] any other

[36:20] questions for

[36:21] , uh, uh

[36:21] for MR. Mr

[36:23] . Centrom

[36:23] . So thank

[36:24] you for coming

[36:25] All right, we

[36:26] already have a motion on the

[36:26] table

[36:28] , uh, so I

[36:28] will start that

[36:28] boat. Yeah

[36:29] so

[36:32] This

[36:33] is why we

[36:34] like people in

[36:35] person. Finance

[36:35] and

[36:36] budget

[36:37] . The vote is

[36:37] unanimous. I'm so sorry

[36:39] , guys

[36:39] .

[36:39] I went to the

[36:39] old

[36:41] building and

[36:41] then, so

[36:42] I'm so

[36:42] sorry. That's

[36:43] all right. Thank you

[36:44] . You

[36:44] , you

[36:44] were

[36:46] successful

[36:46] . All

[36:46] right

[36:47] ,

[36:47] wonderful

[36:48] . He's like, can I go

[36:48] home

[36:50] now? That

[36:50] , that's all,

[36:51] that's all you need to be here

[36:52] for. Now you should visit with

[36:53] the other people who got

[36:53] appointed

[36:54] to the

[36:54] board. Well,

[36:55] he doesn't know who they are

[36:57] yet

[36:57] . I know

[36:59] . I'm

[36:59] gonna go back

[37:00] and reopen

[37:02] . Item

[37:03] 4a because I

[37:04] believe we have some

[37:04] , uh, some

[37:05] individuals

[37:06] uh, in

[37:07] the audience

[37:08] with the

[37:09] uh Bobby Mack

[37:13] . We

[37:13] have

[37:15] this presentation for you. Do

[37:15] you, do you want to say any

[37:16] words

[37:17] ? You don't

[37:18] have to. I can

[37:21] I

[37:22] Well

[37:22] will, I

[37:22] will

[37:23] just

[37:24] reiterate

[37:24] , uh, how important it

[37:25] is, uh

[37:26] . Uh, in Black History

[37:27] Month that we

[37:28] support our, our

[37:29] local businesses

[37:30] , uh,

[37:30] especially

[37:31] , um, those like

[37:32] uh

[37:33] your restaurant, which serves

[37:34] .

[37:35] I, I'm sorry

[37:35] , your

[37:35] junior

[37:36] taters are

[37:37] enough for

[37:38] 33 meals.

[37:38] But

[37:40] , uh, yeah

[37:40] , definitely

[37:41] excited for you to be here

[37:42] .

[37:42] We've got this

[37:42] , uh, if

[37:43] we could

[37:43] get in

[37:44] front of the flags,

[37:44] we'll get

[37:45] a photo

[37:45] of you

[37:46] accepting this

[37:47] probation

[37:53] . So

[37:53] you appreciate

[37:55] and get

[37:55] ok

[37:58] . Ok

[37:58] ok

[38:04] . Why

[38:07] you pay

[38:16] . Remember

[38:17] ,

[38:18] y'all all get

[38:18] a

[38:20] hero's discount

[38:23] All

[38:24] right

[38:25] . Thank you for that

[38:25] .

[38:25] Um, very excited

[38:27] . I know, uh,

[38:27] there must be some, some

[38:28] weather delays

[38:29] with showing up

[38:29] late. Not

[38:30] our first one

[38:31] Uh

[38:31] ,

[38:32] this brings us

[38:33] to item 7. This

[38:34] is public hearings

[38:36] and

[38:36] ordinances

[38:38] . Item 7a

[38:40] conduct

[38:40] a

[38:41] public hearing and consider

[38:41] approving an ordinance

[38:42] on first

[38:43] reading with the caption read

[38:44] in an ordinance of the city

[38:44] of

[38:45] Flutterville, Texas, amending

[38:46] the City of Flutterville

[38:47] , Texas

[38:47] Code of Ordinances

[38:48] , Chapter 92

[38:49] ,

[38:50] adding Articles 3

[38:50] and

[38:50] 4

[38:50] regarding

[38:51] the

[38:52] quasi-judicial

[38:52] enforcement of health and

[38:53] safety ordinances

[38:54] , creating

[38:54] a

[38:55] building

[38:55] and Standards

[38:56] commission

[38:57] in accordance with

[38:57] Chapter

[38:57] 54 of

[38:58] the Local

[38:59] Government

[39:00] Code

[39:00] subsection

[39:01] subchapter c

[39:01] to

[39:02] meet

[39:03] local

[39:04] conditions and

[39:04] the

[39:05] authority

[39:05] regarding

[39:06] the

[39:06] substandard

[39:07] building

[39:07] for

[39:08] 214 of the

[39:08] local

[39:09] government code

[39:09] , providing that

[39:10] this or

[39:10] d in ance shall

[39:10] be

[39:11] cumulative

[39:11] , repealing

[39:11] all

[39:12] ordinances to the extent that

[39:12] they are

[39:14] in conflict

[39:14] , providing

[39:16] for

[39:16] severability

[39:17] and providing

[39:17] an

[39:18] effective

[39:19] date

[39:19] . Looks like

[39:21] we have Mr

[39:22] . Polanco here

[39:23] to

[39:24] present

[39:24] . Good

[39:24] evening

[39:25] , Mayor

[39:25] council

[39:26] , uh, Robert Fluco

[39:26] ,

[39:26] building official

[39:27] for

[39:28] City

[39:28] Flugerville

[39:28] , uh, I'm gonna be

[39:29] your host for

[39:30] the

[39:30] next

[39:30] 4

[39:31] items

[39:32] ,

[39:33] uh, before we

[39:33] get

[39:34] into

[39:34] the

[39:35] ordinances, specifically

[39:36] themselves, I'd like

[39:36] to give

[39:37] you a

[39:37] general

[39:38] overview of

[39:39] what

[39:39] my intent

[39:40] was

[39:40] for

[39:41] one's a

[39:41] one's

[39:42] a correction of

[39:43] an oversight

[39:43] from

[39:44] an adoption

[39:44] a couple of

[39:45] years ago, but

[39:46] the other three

[39:46] .

[39:47] What

[39:47] my

[39:48] intent was uh

[39:50] upgrading

[39:50] these ordinances

[39:52] . To

[39:52] the

[39:52] city

[39:53] with a

[39:53] clear

[39:54] legally

[39:55] defensible

[39:55] ordinances to address

[39:57] nuisances

[39:58] unsafe structures

[39:59] and

[40:00] related

[40:00] violations more effectively

[40:01] .

[40:02] The revisions

[40:03] aligned

[40:03] local

[40:04] regulations with

[40:04] state

[40:06] statutes

[40:06] established

[40:08] objective standards

[40:08] and create

[40:09] consistent

[40:09] procedures

[40:11] for notification

[40:11] ,

[40:11] enforcement, and hearings

[40:14] . When

[40:15] I started

[40:15] I was

[40:17] given

[40:17] the

[40:17] privilege of

[40:18] taking over

[40:20] the

[40:21] uh

[40:22] code compliance

[40:22] division and uh

[40:24] AUGUST

[40:24] of last year

[40:26] and when I

[40:26] started delving

[40:27] into

[40:27] the

[40:29] ordinances themselves, um

[40:31] started finding some things

[40:31] that were

[40:33] not overtly wrong,

[40:33] but a little bit concerning,

[40:34] and

[40:35] some of

[40:35] the

[40:35] statutory

[40:36] construction

[40:37] . Was a bit

[40:39] I

[40:40] wouldn't say lacking

[40:40] , but

[40:41] needed

[40:41] to

[40:42] be spruced up a

[40:42] little bit

[40:44] . Basic statutory

[40:45] construction and the way

[40:46] that

[40:46] thing that

[40:47] I've

[40:47] structured them

[40:48] are basically

[40:49] you have

[40:49] your

[40:50] definitions first

[40:51] that define

[40:52] the terms to be used

[40:52] inside of

[40:54] that ordinance. Description

[40:54] of

[40:55] the offenses

[40:56] . The authority

[40:57] to

[40:58] enforce

[41:00] . The

[41:00] all-important

[41:01] notification procedures

[41:02] , means

[41:03] of appeal, and then penalties

[41:06] .

[41:07] Our first one that we're

[41:07] coming

[41:07] to

[41:09] . Let's see

[41:11] . So

[41:12] this

[41:12] is

[41:13] the

[41:14] creation of the

[41:14] substandard or

[41:14] of

[41:16] the correct building

[41:17] Standards Commission. This is

[41:17] the

[41:18] building

[41:18] and

[41:18] Standards

[41:19] Commission

[41:21] . This previously did

[41:21] not exist and

[41:22] came

[41:22] about

[41:23] in

[41:23] part due

[41:24] to

[41:25] our

[41:26] um dealings

[41:26] with a

[41:27] home that

[41:27] was

[41:28] burned

[41:28] pretty severely

[41:29] . It

[41:30] was not

[41:30] able to

[41:31] be restored

[41:31] , uh, it

[41:32] kind of

[41:32] fell into disrepair

[41:34] .

[41:35] For a good 2

[41:36] a little

[41:36] bit over

[41:37] 2

[41:38] years. We

[41:39] didn't have a

[41:39] real

[41:41] good mechanism of how to deal

[41:41] with it

[41:43] . We were

[41:44] sending

[41:44] notifications to

[41:45] the

[41:45] homeowner

[41:46] under

[41:46] various

[41:48] ordinances

[41:49] , um,

[41:49] none of them really

[41:50] applied

[41:51] really well. We do

[41:52] have the

[41:52] means in

[41:53] the

[41:53] international

[41:55] property maintenance code and

[41:55] the International

[41:56] existing

[41:57] building code. But

[42:00] the venue

[42:01] to

[42:02] hear the, the case

[42:04] was not here

[42:06] We've never had a building in

[42:07] Standards commission here

[42:07] before

[42:08] . We

[42:09] initially

[42:10] notified

[42:11] the property owner of the

[42:11] offenses. We thought we

[42:12] could

[42:13] take them

[42:13] through our city

[42:15] municipal court

[42:15] , our legal said

[42:16] that's

[42:17] not the

[42:17] proper venue, so

[42:17] we had to go to

[42:18] district court

[42:20] .

[42:21] In district court

[42:21] , it

[42:22] took us

[42:24] 7

[42:24] months to get through

[42:25] district

[42:26] court. We finally got

[42:26] the

[42:26] judgment

[42:28] . And

[42:28] we're looking to

[42:29] try

[42:30] to avoid going down that

[42:31] route if

[42:31] possible

[42:33] . District

[42:33] court will always be available

[42:34] in the event

[42:34] of

[42:35] an appeal

[42:35] , but

[42:36] we'd like to handle it

[42:37] at the

[42:37] local

[42:38] level first

[42:38] . So

[42:39] the

[42:39] building

[42:40] and Standards

[42:40] Commission will

[42:41] provide

[42:41] a

[42:42] structured impartial venue to

[42:44] hear evidence

[42:44] , make

[42:44] findings of

[42:45] fact

[42:46] . And

[42:47] issue orders related

[42:48] to

[42:49] substandard buildings

[42:49] ,

[42:49] reducing the need for

[42:51] immediate

[42:51] escalation to that district

[42:52] court

[42:53] . The

[42:55] commission processes

[42:56] insurers, property owners

[42:58] receive proper notice

[42:58] . The

[42:59] opportunity to

[43:00] be heard

[43:00] . And

[43:01] clear timelines

[43:02] for

[43:02] compliance,

[43:03] repairs, or appeals

[43:05] .

[43:05] Strengthening fairness in legal

[43:06] defense stability

[43:07] . The

[43:08] commission hearings

[43:09] are

[43:09] typically faster and more

[43:11] efficient. Hopefully the

[43:11] district

[43:13] court

[43:14] litigation

[43:14] allowing dangerous conditions

[43:15] to be addressed in

[43:15] a

[43:16] more

[43:16] timely manner

[43:18] . Handling cases

[43:19] locally

[43:20] minimizes reliance on

[43:20] outside

[43:21] legal proceedings,

[43:21] lowering

[43:23] costs for the city

[43:23] while still

[43:23] preserving the

[43:24] right

[43:24] to

[43:25] do

[43:25] to

[43:26] judicial

[43:27] appeal

[43:27] when necessary

[43:28] . The

[43:29] commission

[43:29] can order repair

[43:31] securing

[43:32] ,

[43:32] vacation

[43:34] or demolition based on

[43:34] the

[43:36] specific circumstances of

[43:37] the case

[43:38] . Allowing solutions

[43:39] that are proportionate

[43:40] and

[43:41] tailored rather than a one size

[43:41] fits all

[43:43] . Uh

[43:44] , formal commission

[43:45] process demonstrates the

[43:46] enforcement actions or

[43:48] evidence-based, deliberate, and

[43:48] reviewed by

[43:49] an

[43:50] independent body

[43:50] hopefully improving public

[43:52] trust

[43:52] and compliance. You're

[43:53] gonna make sure you

[43:54] get these

[43:54] right

[43:55] , especially when you're

[43:56] talking

[43:56] about

[43:56] personal property

[43:57] You don't want to end up in

[43:58] a

[43:59] takings claim, so you

[43:59] wanna

[44:00] make sure it goes to

[44:01] the

[44:01] right

[44:02] process, and that is

[44:03] the

[44:03] purpose

[44:04] of creating

[44:04] this

[44:05] article

[44:05] for under

[44:06] Chapter 92

[44:06] of

[44:07] our ordinances

[44:08] . Happy day in

[44:08] there

[44:09] . Any

[44:10] questions on this

[44:10] particular one? This is

[44:11] , this

[44:12] one's a little bit of a two

[44:12] part

[44:14] . But

[44:15] this is the first

[44:15] part of it

[44:15] , Article 4

[44:17] . Yeah

[44:17] , I

[44:17] have

[44:18] , I

[44:19] have

[44:19] several

[44:19] questions

[44:20] about

[44:21] this

[44:22] . The

[44:24] there are a

[44:24] number of areas

[44:25] where this

[44:25] seems

[44:26] to

[44:27] be different from some

[44:28] of the

[44:28] other

[44:28] city boards

[44:30] and

[44:30] commissions, and I'm

[44:31] uh

[44:32] uh

[44:35] some

[44:35] of these

[44:37] are better, some

[44:37] of

[44:37] these are

[44:39] . Arguably

[44:41] , uh, but

[44:42] they're, they're

[44:43] not

[44:44] uniform in

[44:44] the sense that they're not like

[44:46] other boards and commissions

[44:47] .

[44:48] For instance, at

[44:48] the at

[44:49] the

[44:49] beginning when you

[44:50] talk about

[44:51] the compositional terms, you've

[44:51] got

[44:53] staggered members, we've

[44:53] got alternate

[44:55] . Um, those things

[44:55] are, are not

[44:57] uh we don't have

[44:58] alternates on all of the boards

[44:59] and missions, but we have on,

[45:00] on

[45:00] a number of them

[45:02] . Um

[45:02] , that

[45:02] seems, uh

[45:04] , within the realm of

[45:04] the

[45:06] things that we do. But

[45:07] there's a, there's a thing at

[45:08] the end of the

[45:10] second paragraph

[45:11] 92.16. The

[45:12] city

[45:13] council MAY

[45:13] remove a

[45:13] member

[45:15] for cause

[45:15] set

[45:16] out in a written charge and as

[45:16] determined

[45:17] by the

[45:17] city

[45:17] council

[45:18] after a public

[45:18] hearing if

[45:20] requested by the

[45:20] member on the

[45:20] charge

[45:22] . I'm

[45:24] not

[45:25] aware of any

[45:25] other

[45:26] uh city board

[45:26] or

[45:27] commission that

[45:28] has language

[45:29] like that

[45:29] . Uh

[45:31] , are you aware of

[45:31] any other

[45:33] , uh, flugerville City

[45:34] boards are commissioned that

[45:35] have similar language. I not,

[45:36] sir. Would

[45:37] you

[45:37] recommend that

[45:38] we adopt

[45:39] language like that and

[45:40] the other uh uh for our other

[45:41] boards and commission

[45:42] . That's

[45:42] a

[45:43] policy question and

[45:44] I

[45:44] say

[45:44] yes

[45:44] .

[45:45] Yeah, that's, I mean

[45:46] , that's,

[45:47] yeah

[45:47] , that, you know

[45:47] , should we

[45:48] do that

[45:49] ? I'm

[45:49] , I'm

[45:49] asking

[45:51] the

[45:52] witness, do you think that that

[45:52] would be

[45:53] a

[45:53] good policy decision

[45:54] I think that's above my

[45:55] pay

[45:56] grade, I

[45:57] would agree

[45:58] . Um, on

[45:59] the

[46:00] , uh, so then, what is

[46:01] the

[46:01] reason to

[46:02] have

[46:02] this

[46:03] language

[46:03] here, that

[46:03] if it's not

[46:05] , if it,

[46:05] like who

[46:05] drafted this

[46:06] up and

[46:07] and it was

[46:08] it considered I'm

[46:08] guessing

[46:09] what

[46:09] somebody

[46:09] drafted

[46:10] this

[46:10] is what

[46:11] best

[46:12] practices

[46:12] are

[46:12] and they

[46:14] haven't gone back and

[46:14] looked at all

[46:15] the other boards

[46:15] and commissions

[46:16] , so

[46:16] consequently, what you

[46:17] got is

[46:18] what

[46:19] would, am I

[46:19] correct

[46:20] Well

[46:20] ,

[46:21] the

[46:21] , the language I'm sorry, I

[46:22] couldn't

[46:23] hear. Right

[46:23] , we

[46:23] didn't

[46:24] go

[46:25] test it to the other ones

[46:25] .

[46:26] We're happy to do so. Well,

[46:26] where, where did

[46:27] the language

[46:27] come

[46:28] from

[46:30] ? Former

[46:30] Attorney

[46:32] Attorney. I don't know

[46:32] . We

[46:32] didn't add

[46:34] to this the other

[46:34] items, yeah

[46:35] , that's what I

[46:36] . Um

[46:37] ,

[46:37] that makes sense

[46:38] . And the, the

[46:39] next section

[46:41] , uh, you've got

[46:42] ,

[46:43] uh, uh, a

[46:43] quorum

[46:44] requirement of

[46:45] a

[46:45] minimum

[46:46] of

[46:46] 4

[46:47] , rather than

[46:48] ,

[46:48] than a than

[46:48] a

[46:49] majority

[46:49] . Again,

[46:50] I'm

[46:50] I'm not aware of

[46:52] any other

[46:52] board

[46:54] or commission in

[46:54] the city

[46:54] that has a

[46:56] , a

[46:56] requirement

[46:57] that

[46:57] high

[46:59] . What's going on there

[47:00] Pretty important

[47:01] You

[47:01] want to

[47:02] hear

[47:03] , you want to have

[47:03] the

[47:03] most

[47:04] people there to hear

[47:06] this thing

[47:06] because you're dealing

[47:07] with

[47:08] private property. This

[47:08] is

[47:09] potentially

[47:09] a

[47:10] takings claim

[47:11] . So

[47:11] representation

[47:12] is pretty we

[47:12] want

[47:13] to

[47:13] avoid takings claim

[47:15] .

[47:15] But even the Board of

[47:17] Adjustment, which is the only

[47:18] thing that can

[47:19] overrule the

[47:19] city council. It doesn't have

[47:20] an 80%

[47:21] . Uh

[47:22] foreign requirement

[47:24] I don't think it

[47:25] has

[47:26] an 80%

[47:26] .

[47:26] Has close to

[47:27] an

[47:28] 80%

[47:30] vacancy

[47:30] rate

[47:32] . There is sometimes

[47:33] that

[47:33] problem

[47:34] , but so

[47:35] that means it

[47:36] could quorum

[47:37] requirement that's

[47:37] out of line with with all of

[47:38] our other boards

[47:39] and

[47:39] commissions

[47:41] . This

[47:41] does seem

[47:42] like something that would I'm

[47:44] not sure necessitate a

[47:44] higher

[47:45] threshold

[47:46] . Don't, I'm not sure

[47:46] the other

[47:48] boards have

[47:48] the

[47:49] ability to

[47:51] remove

[47:51] private

[47:52] property from

[47:52] an individual

[47:53] either. Requirement

[47:55] Typically,

[47:55] the Board of

[47:55] Adjustment was

[47:57] just to settle

[47:57] an

[47:58] appeal to

[47:59] a

[48:00] decision made by

[48:01] an official,

[48:02] but not to

[48:02] take

[48:03] something from

[48:03] you

[48:05] . Apparent apparently

[48:06] the

[48:07] corparment's the same as

[48:07] the

[48:07] boa

[48:08] . Oh, is it

[48:09] , is it? I'm

[48:10] told

[48:11] it's

[48:11] statutory

[48:13] , 75%

[48:13] . The

[48:13] zba

[48:13] board is

[48:15] , yeah

[48:15] , I'm not

[48:15] , I'm

[48:16] not sure about

[48:16] this

[48:18] one

[48:18] . So

[48:18] both

[48:19] of

[48:20] our

[48:21] quasi-judicial

[48:21] boards

[48:22] that have

[48:23] the same

[48:23] structure sense

[48:24] makes sense

[48:25] yeah makes sense

[48:25] makes sense

[48:26] yeah. There's also a

[48:27] that

[48:28] I'm

[48:29] getting told by myself

[48:31] . There's

[48:31] a, a

[48:33] a

[48:33] bit down here at

[48:34] the

[48:34] this

[48:35] last

[48:36] section

[48:36] about uh the

[48:37] the uh

[48:38] the

[48:38] proceedings

[48:40] have

[48:40] to

[48:40] reflect the

[48:41] member's vote. Ok

[48:42] ,

[48:42] that's fine

[48:43] . Failure

[48:44] , uh,

[48:45] absence

[48:45] , that's fine

[48:47] . Failure

[48:47] to vote on each question, but

[48:48] we don't

[48:49] have a

[48:50] why

[48:50] would

[48:51] somebody fail to vote

[48:52] ? Normally

[48:55] the the

[48:55] the

[48:56] uh the

[48:57] failure to

[48:57] vote on boards and

[48:58] commissions

[48:58] that's just if you're

[48:59] if

[48:59] you're

[48:59] recused

[49:00] under

[49:01] the

[49:01] city relic

[49:01] or

[49:02] if

[49:03] you're absent

[49:03] . Right, but if

[49:03] you're

[49:04] , if

[49:05] you're there, you

[49:05] have to

[49:06] vote unless

[49:07] you've got

[49:07] a

[49:08] uh, uh, a

[49:09] , uh

[49:10] uh

[49:12] conflict a

[49:12] conflict of interest, a

[49:14] material conflict of interest,

[49:15] not just a

[49:16] not

[49:16] typically taking

[49:17] an abstention vote, I guess

[49:19] ,

[49:20] right? Additionally that

[49:21] wouldn't be allowed. Um

[49:23] , um,

[49:23] but again

[49:25] , not like what we

[49:26] have on the, on the

[49:26] other ones

[49:27] .

[49:27] Uh, and

[49:28] I'm

[49:28] wondering because

[49:29] ,

[49:30] you know, it does have, as you

[49:30] point out

[49:32] , uh, the

[49:33] ability to

[49:33] affect

[49:34] people's property rights

[49:35] ? Do we

[49:35] need to

[49:36] , um

[49:39] uh limit

[49:39] ,

[49:40] uh, membership on

[49:41] , on this. Do

[49:41] we need to say

[49:42] only

[49:43] lawyers can

[49:44] serve on this committee

[49:45] . Um

[49:45] ,

[49:46] you know, uh

[49:48] , Now

[49:48] , of

[49:48] course,

[49:48] you know, a

[49:50] , a justice of

[49:50] peace

[49:50] or, or

[49:51] , or

[49:52] a municipal judge

[49:53] doesn't have to be a lawyer

[49:54] ,

[49:54] but all they can

[49:55] do is, you

[49:55] know

[49:57] , classy misdemeanors. They

[49:57] what they

[49:57] can't

[49:58] do

[49:59] is

[49:59] , you know

[50:00] affect

[50:00] the title to your

[50:01] property

[50:02] . Uh

[50:02] , or, you

[50:03] know

[50:03] ,

[50:04] potentially

[50:04] . You

[50:05] know

[50:06] , shut

[50:06] down your property

[50:08] or demolish

[50:09] your property. That's a, that's

[50:10] a

[50:10] level of

[50:12] authority, uh, that

[50:13] we don't

[50:15] customarily

[50:17] grant

[50:17] non-judicial officials. So

[50:20] I'm

[50:20] wondering

[50:22] uh if we need

[50:22] to add

[50:22] an additional

[50:24] limitation there

[50:26] .

[50:26] I mean

[50:27] , that's

[50:28] qualifications

[50:29] of members, that's a question

[50:29] to us

[50:30] as

[50:33] as

[50:35] part of to the best

[50:35] of your knowledge

[50:36] , is

[50:37] this like

[50:38] barely standard

[50:40] , pretty

[50:40] standard across the state

[50:41] . Yes

[50:41] ,

[50:42] sir. So let's

[50:42] let's, let's

[50:44] ,

[50:44] let's

[50:44] , let's

[50:45] recall why this,

[50:45] this

[50:46] is even

[50:46] being brought up,

[50:47] and this is where I got to

[50:48] give

[50:48] staff a lot

[50:49] of

[50:49] credit

[50:50] because

[50:51] we did

[50:51] not have

[50:51] a

[50:52] mechanism

[50:52] in

[50:53] place

[50:54] . Before

[50:55] this, um

[50:55] . A

[50:57] for

[50:58] several years, we have dealt

[50:58] with

[50:58] the

[51:00] dilapidated, burnt

[51:00] out

[51:01] house that has

[51:02] been a um

[51:03] how

[51:03] do

[51:03] I

[51:04] ? Como

[51:06] Sidi

[51:06] pariah

[51:07] on

[51:09] and, you

[51:10] know, and it, and you know,

[51:10] even as

[51:11] this

[51:11] counsel

[51:12] who we

[51:12] ,

[51:12] we've gone and

[51:13] had

[51:14] this

[51:14] conversation through the years

[51:15] about

[51:15] what to

[51:16] do with

[51:16] that

[51:17] home

[51:17] We had

[51:17] no

[51:18] mechanisms

[51:18] in

[51:19] place

[51:19] .

[51:19] So

[51:20] I

[51:21] applaud staff

[51:21] for looking

[51:21] at, ok

[51:23] , what are, you know, the

[51:24] industry standards, where are

[51:24] the

[51:26] best

[51:27] applicable conditions

[51:27] ,

[51:28] um, clauses

[51:28] , everything else

[51:29] that

[51:29] goes with

[51:29] this to

[51:30] make

[51:30] this happen

[51:31] right here

[51:32] . And I

[51:34] think that part of it is that

[51:35] you're asking questions about,

[51:35] hey, why this threshold and

[51:36] everything else from there? And

[51:37] we understand that because it's

[51:37] it's

[51:38] what the

[51:38] industry

[51:38] standards comes with that

[51:39] .

[51:39] Additionally

[51:40] , you ask, well,

[51:41] wait a minute, we have some

[51:42] clauses here that we don't have

[51:43] in other

[51:43] commissions

[51:44] , which

[51:44] makes us

[51:45] go look back at, hey

[51:45] ,

[51:45] we

[51:46] should probably have that

[51:46] clause

[51:47] and some

[51:47] other

[51:48] conditions too. We regarded

[51:49] some stuff that happened

[51:49] from

[51:50] there

[51:50] . I think

[51:50] this

[51:51] is great

[51:51] . I

[51:51] think

[51:52] it

[51:52] makes sense

[51:53] . I

[51:53] also

[51:54] understand your questions

[51:54] , but

[51:55] I think, I mean, I don't

[51:55] , I,

[51:56] and

[51:56] , and

[51:57] you asked the

[51:57] one

[51:57] question

[51:58] about

[51:58] putting lawyers

[51:59] on there

[51:59] . I don't think you

[52:00] need to

[52:00] go

[52:01] on there

[52:01] . I

[52:02] think

[52:02] it's, you

[52:02] know

[52:03] , it's fine the

[52:03] way it is

[52:04] . I don't know, I

[52:05] think it's better

[52:05] without

[52:05] lawyers. Well

[52:07] , I'd

[52:08] lawyers who,

[52:08] who know the

[52:09] explicit

[52:10] law MAY,

[52:10] MAY, um

[52:13] . Uh not consider

[52:14] uh

[52:15] other

[52:15] compassionate reasons to.

[52:16] Um

[52:17] . Rule a

[52:17] certain

[52:19] way. Well, I

[52:19] have to

[52:19] say

[52:20] that the many

[52:21] , many

[52:22] justices of the peace that

[52:23] I

[52:23] have dealt

[52:23] with

[52:24] , uh, my

[52:25] two

[52:26] favorites were not lawyers.

[52:27] There you

[52:27] go

[52:28] . Thank you

[52:28] for

[52:28] your

[52:29] agreement

[52:32] . But

[52:32] also

[52:33] justices of the peace don't

[52:34] have the

[52:35] the power that

[52:37] we're

[52:38] , we're investing in

[52:38] this

[52:38] commission

[52:39] . David, do you have

[52:39] any, any

[52:40] other

[52:40] questions

[52:43] ? Yeah

[52:44] ,

[52:44] and we

[52:44] , uh, really

[52:46] , uh, touched

[52:46] on this, and

[52:47] we have, we have

[52:48] had

[52:49] this

[52:50] one instance with this

[52:51] one building and it was

[52:53] 2 years

[52:55] 2.5 years

[52:55] , maybe 3 now

[52:57] . Uh

[52:57] ,

[52:57] start

[52:58] to

[52:58] finish, um

[53:01] but it's,

[53:02] you know, uh, obviously that

[53:04] was one problem and it was, you

[53:05] know, for

[53:06] the

[53:06] people

[53:07] immediately around that, there

[53:08] was a, you know

[53:09] , ongoing

[53:09] issue

[53:09] ,

[53:10] but is this

[53:10] is

[53:11] this

[53:11] something

[53:12] that we run into

[53:12] a

[53:13] lot? Is

[53:13] this

[53:14] a solution

[53:15] in search of a

[53:15] problem, or is

[53:17] this

[53:18] a solution

[53:18] to

[53:18] a

[53:19] regularly

[53:20] ongoing

[53:20] problem.

[53:20] I think that

[53:22] you want to

[53:22] have

[53:23] something you don't need it and

[53:23] needs something you don't have

[53:24] it

[53:25] . I would

[53:26] I'd like to hear

[53:27] the answer

[53:31] . What I'm shocked

[53:31] at

[53:31] here in the city of Flugerville

[53:32] is

[53:33] how many

[53:33] houses

[53:33] get struck

[53:34] by lightning

[53:35] . Fires

[53:36] . You'd

[53:37] be

[53:38] surprised, especially

[53:38] in the

[53:39] on

[53:40] the eastern part of

[53:41] the South

[53:42] .

[53:42] It, it happens

[53:43] a lot

[53:43] . Now

[53:44] this

[53:44] particular

[53:45] fire was

[53:45] not caused

[53:45] by

[53:46] a

[53:47] lightning strike, and that

[53:47] was part

[53:49] of the

[53:49] issue as

[53:49] to why

[53:50] it's

[53:51] remained in the state

[53:51] it's

[53:52] in, it was

[53:53] an

[53:53] ongoing

[53:54] investigation and other things

[53:54] like that, but

[53:55] um

[53:59] , yeah

[53:59] , you

[54:00] could have you could

[54:01] burn the

[54:01] potential of having more

[54:02] of

[54:02] these and

[54:03] ironically

[54:04] , this was

[54:04] in

[54:05] a

[54:05] newer section of town

[54:07] .

[54:07] There's older sections of town

[54:08] that have

[54:09] some

[54:09] dilapidated

[54:10] structures that we've dealt

[54:10] with in the

[54:11] past from

[54:11] the

[54:12] code

[54:14] compliance perspective

[54:14] . Luckily

[54:15] they've come

[54:16] into compliance

[54:17] .

[54:17] With a

[54:18] lot

[54:18] of handholding and

[54:20] working

[54:21] with them in time, but

[54:23] it

[54:23] , it'll happen

[54:25] It'll

[54:25] definitely happen

[54:27] How often? I

[54:28] mean, is this a once in

[54:29] a

[54:30] decade problem? Is this a

[54:30] once

[54:32] every 6 months

[54:33] problem

[54:33] ? No

[54:33] , I'd

[54:33] say

[54:35] . Once every

[54:37] 23 years, I

[54:39] would imagine, where I came

[54:39] from my

[54:41] previous municipality

[54:42] of a city of

[54:43] 5000

[54:45] . I

[54:46] probably

[54:46] had 3

[54:48] structures that were

[54:48] taken care of in that 10-year

[54:50] time period, so

[54:52] . When

[54:52] you scale

[54:53] that up to the size

[54:54] of

[54:54] Flugerville

[54:55] , I imagine it's

[54:55] going to happen more

[54:57] . Is your,

[54:58] is your expectation that we

[54:59] will staff

[54:59] this

[55:01] with

[55:02] uh board

[55:02] members

[55:03] , uh, consistently, or

[55:04] will this be more like, I'm

[55:04] gonna say the, the

[55:05] Board

[55:06] of

[55:06] Adjustment and

[55:06] the

[55:08] personnel

[55:08] appeal board

[55:08] that

[55:10] we appoint

[55:11] about the time that

[55:11] it's

[55:11] necessary

[55:13] . It's preferable that

[55:14] they're at

[55:14] least

[55:15] on board

[55:15] they're briefed, they

[55:17] know what

[55:17] their duties areeducated and

[55:18] trained and their limitations

[55:19] .

[55:19] They're

[55:20] trained, but

[55:21] the hope

[55:22] is that you never see

[55:22] them

[55:22] again

[55:24] . And

[55:24] I know

[55:26] , uh, one

[55:26] of

[55:26] my, my

[55:26] big

[55:27] motivations on this

[55:28] .

[55:28] I know going through the

[55:29] process, I was

[55:30] , I

[55:30] think a

[55:31] , a

[55:31] lone no vote

[55:32] on on

[55:33] going

[55:33] through

[55:34] a process on a

[55:35] particular structure in

[55:35] the

[55:36] past. Uh, and

[55:37] my

[55:37] reason

[55:38] was

[55:38] because we did

[55:39] not have

[55:39] the

[55:40] building

[55:40] uh and

[55:41] Standards

[55:43] Commission. Without

[55:43] it

[55:44] , we bore

[55:45] the citizens board

[55:46] the

[55:46] expense

[55:47] of going to

[55:48] district

[55:49] court

[55:49] ,

[55:49] whereas with this

[55:50] in

[55:51] place

[55:51] , um,

[55:51] that

[55:54] , uh, that

[55:54] burden will be

[55:55] on the

[55:57] structure and not on

[55:58] the

[55:58] citizens. I think

[55:59] it serves a

[56:00] very important

[56:00] purpose for

[56:02] us

[56:02] in in equity

[56:04] . Well

[56:05] , if anybody

[56:05] goes to the

[56:06] district court,

[56:07] both sides are going to have to

[56:07] bear their

[56:09] own expenses

[56:11] . If it

[56:12] gets to that point

[56:13] , but this

[56:14] helps avoid that point and puts

[56:14] expenses

[56:15] . I

[56:16] , I am under the

[56:18] impression that uh we can

[56:18] reclaim expenses

[56:20] . With

[56:20] this in

[56:20] place. In

[56:22] my experience, I

[56:23] think this is a good tool

[56:23] to

[56:24] have because it

[56:25] leads to

[56:26] education

[56:29] More

[56:29] compliance

[56:30] because people will see this,

[56:30] that this

[56:31] is a

[56:32] tool that Mr

[56:32] .

[56:32] Kuanco has and

[56:33] I

[56:34] think

[56:34] it leads

[56:34] I mean, again, I think

[56:36] it helps

[56:36] Another chill in

[56:38] I, I

[56:38] have

[56:38] some

[56:39] questions. Melody

[56:40] , Yes

[56:41] , I just

[56:41] wanted to

[56:43] understand

[56:44] if um

[56:45] you

[56:45] know, I know this was during

[56:47] the commission, but there was a

[56:47] lot of um

[56:50] information about the

[56:51] rules

[56:51] and

[56:52] and

[56:52] what's considered

[56:52] you know

[56:53] , all

[56:54] the definitions

[56:54] .

[56:55] So

[56:56] are all

[56:56] of

[56:57] these

[56:57] requirements

[56:58] already

[56:58] in our

[56:59] code and we're just

[57:00] putting it

[57:00] under

[57:01] this commission, or

[57:01] are

[57:01] these

[57:02] new

[57:03] requirements and new

[57:04] guidelines that

[57:05] don't currently

[57:05] exist

[57:06] . The second part

[57:06] of this

[57:06] ordinance

[57:07] . Yeah

[57:08] , just when it

[57:08] when it's

[57:09] talking about, you

[57:10] know, what

[57:10] the standards

[57:11] , you

[57:12] know

[57:12] , what's dilapidated,

[57:13] what's, you

[57:14] know, you know

[57:14] ,

[57:14] occupied

[57:15] , unoccupied, you know

[57:16] ,

[57:16] and like all

[57:17] the requirements

[57:17] that people would, you know

[57:18] ,

[57:19] would have

[57:19] to follow

[57:21] , um, it

[57:21] ,

[57:21] are

[57:21] those

[57:22] already

[57:23] existing

[57:23] somewhere and we're

[57:23] just

[57:24] codifying them

[57:24] here

[57:25] under the

[57:26] the authority of

[57:27] the commission

[57:27] or are

[57:28] these

[57:28] all

[57:29] new

[57:29] requirements

[57:30] that

[57:31] don't exist

[57:31] .

[57:32] They exist in a couple

[57:32] of

[57:33] different places. They're

[57:34] kind

[57:34] of in

[57:35] the

[57:36] public

[57:36] nuisances

[57:36] section

[57:37] , and

[57:37] they're also in

[57:38] the Internation Property

[57:39] Maintenance code

[57:39] So

[57:41] this second

[57:41] section of this ordinance will

[57:42] just

[57:43] codify them and give

[57:43] it

[57:44] a

[57:44] more

[57:45] concise place for them

[57:46] to

[57:47] to reference

[57:48] and

[57:48] for the

[57:48] code

[57:49] enforcement

[57:50] officer, should

[57:50] they come upon a

[57:51] case like this

[57:51] they

[57:52] can

[57:53] directly reference

[57:53] this

[57:54] ordinance rather

[57:55] than the

[57:56] international property

[57:57] maintenance code. There is a

[57:59] a

[57:59] section in there

[58:00] that does

[58:00] allow us

[58:01] to

[58:02] use

[58:02] other codes

[58:03] as

[58:04] adopted by the city

[58:04] of

[58:04] Louisville

[58:06] because most of

[58:06] these are dealing

[58:06] with

[58:07] the

[58:07] structure itself

[58:08] , but

[58:08] you're

[58:09] also going to be

[58:09] dealing

[58:10] with

[58:11] the wiring on

[58:11] the premises

[58:12] ,

[58:13] mechanical

[58:13] hvac

[58:15] and

[58:15] possibly

[58:16] the plumbing as well

[58:17] . So

[58:17] that

[58:18] clause is put

[58:19] in there to be

[58:20] able to reference

[58:20] those codes

[58:20] as

[58:21] well

[58:22] for consideration as

[58:22] a

[58:23] dilapidated

[58:24] structure

[58:24] . One of

[58:24] the things

[58:25] I appreciated that

[58:25] I

[58:26] saw in here

[58:26] too

[58:27] is

[58:27] there is

[58:29] seems like a decent amount

[58:30] of

[58:31] flexibility that the commission

[58:32] has in

[58:33] terms

[58:34] of assessing

[58:34] what

[58:35] needs to be done

[58:35] , the

[58:36] timelines

[58:37] so

[58:37] I I I

[58:38] like that

[58:39] they also

[58:40] have

[58:40] an option, right? It's not

[58:41] just a

[58:41] cut

[58:42] and

[58:43] dry thing

[58:43] , um,

[58:43] in

[58:44] terms

[58:45] of

[58:45] timeline

[58:46] requesting

[58:47] uh progress reports from the

[58:47] owners

[58:48] , etc. That I think

[58:49] gives

[58:49] it a good

[58:50] amount

[58:51] of rigor and a

[58:51] lot of

[58:52] opportunity

[58:53] for the

[58:53] property

[58:54] owner to um

[58:55] be

[58:56] actively engaged and

[58:56] participate

[58:58] . One of the

[58:59] other

[59:00] questions

[59:00] I have

[59:00] , uh, again

[59:01] ,

[59:02] we're talking

[59:02] about

[59:03] property

[59:03] rights

[59:04] and lawyers and all of

[59:05] that sort

[59:05] of business. Um

[59:07] the

[59:07] ,

[59:07] there's

[59:09] a commission which is

[59:09] obviously the

[59:11] quasi judiciary

[59:13] ,

[59:14] uh, enforcement

[59:14] arm

[59:15] . Who's

[59:16] going to

[59:16] bring the cases

[59:17] ? Would

[59:18] would, uh

[59:21] , citizens be able to

[59:22] bring the cases

[59:22] , or

[59:23] would the

[59:23] city

[59:24] attorney bring the

[59:25] case

[59:25] ?

[59:25] How would

[59:26] that

[59:27] presentation be

[59:27] done

[59:29] ? It is done

[59:30] by myself as

[59:31] the

[59:32] billing official, as

[59:32] it

[59:32] says

[59:33] in

[59:34] section

[59:34] , the role of

[59:35] the building

[59:36] official

[59:36] in 92.20.

[59:37] The

[59:37] building official of

[59:38] the

[59:38] city shall

[59:39] be authority

[59:39] to

[59:41] present all cases before the

[59:42] commission. It would just be

[59:42] like a prosecutor

[59:43] . So

[59:45] we

[59:46] get a

[59:46] complaint. House

[59:47] is dilapidated

[59:48] we go out and do

[59:48] the inspection

[59:50] We determine

[59:50] , I'll

[59:51] determine

[59:52] whether I believe

[59:52] it is

[59:53] . If

[59:53] we

[59:53] do not

[59:54] get

[59:55] compliance, that's

[59:55] when

[59:56] it then

[59:57] we call

[59:57] the

[59:58] commission

[59:58] . We present

[59:59] the

[59:59] evidence. We send

[1:00:00] the

[1:00:00] notification

[1:00:01] . We

[1:00:02] , there's

[1:00:03] several other

[1:00:03] process and

[1:00:05] notification before it ever

[1:00:06] gets to the commission where we

[1:00:06] try to

[1:00:07] work out with the

[1:00:08] homeowner, hey

[1:00:08] , let's

[1:00:09] address

[1:00:10] this thing

[1:00:10] . If

[1:00:10] they

[1:00:11] fail

[1:00:12] to

[1:00:12] comply, they don't

[1:00:12] meet

[1:00:13] timelines

[1:00:14] , they ignore us

[1:00:15] . Then

[1:00:15] we

[1:00:16] call

[1:00:17] it

[1:00:17] the

[1:00:17] uh Building

[1:00:18] and

[1:00:19] Standards Commission. They

[1:00:20] get

[1:00:21] notification for

[1:00:21] that

[1:00:22] hearing.

[1:00:22] They can choose

[1:00:23] to show

[1:00:23] up

[1:00:24] and

[1:00:26] show

[1:00:26] evidence contrary to my

[1:00:27] claims

[1:00:28] . That

[1:00:28] it's not

[1:00:29] a

[1:00:30] dilapidated or

[1:00:31] dangerous

[1:00:31] structure

[1:00:32] , and

[1:00:32] uh, the board

[1:00:33] makes a decision at that point

[1:00:34] .

[1:00:35] How to move forward with it

[1:00:36] .

[1:00:37] Now you talked about

[1:00:38] , uh, about

[1:00:39] notice here. I noticed in the

[1:00:39] ,

[1:00:40] in the

[1:00:41] section

[1:00:41] about

[1:00:41] notices

[1:00:42] hearing. It talks about

[1:00:44] uh

[1:00:45] personal delivery

[1:00:46] , certified

[1:00:46] mail

[1:00:48] , um, signature

[1:00:49] confirmation service. There was

[1:00:49] nothing in there

[1:00:50] about

[1:00:51] electronic

[1:00:53] . Uh the service

[1:00:54] . Uh

[1:00:55] email or not found that to be

[1:00:56] standard

[1:00:57] in

[1:00:57] state law

[1:00:58] . It's

[1:00:58] always going to

[1:00:59] be

[1:00:59] male

[1:01:00] or

[1:01:00] posting

[1:01:01] directly on the

[1:01:02] property or personal, giving it

[1:01:04] to them personally

[1:01:05] . I've

[1:01:06] never

[1:01:07] seen anything with regards to

[1:01:09] electronic notifications and

[1:01:09] who would that, would that

[1:01:10] service

[1:01:10] be

[1:01:11] done

[1:01:11] by

[1:01:11] a constable?

[1:01:12] Would that service

[1:01:13] be done by a

[1:01:14] city official? Would the

[1:01:15] service be

[1:01:16] done

[1:01:16] by a

[1:01:17] private

[1:01:18] process server? How would that

[1:01:18] be done

[1:01:20] ? Mail

[1:01:21] obviously by mail

[1:01:22] certified

[1:01:23] mail certified return

[1:01:23] receipt

[1:01:25] . Uh, signature

[1:01:26] requested

[1:01:27] , posting directly on

[1:01:28] the property by myself or

[1:01:28] one

[1:01:29] of the

[1:01:30] codeforcement officers

[1:01:31] .

[1:01:32] Hopefully by that time we've

[1:01:32] identified

[1:01:33] and

[1:01:33] maybe

[1:01:34] made

[1:01:34] contact

[1:01:36] with the

[1:01:36] individual,

[1:01:36] the homeowner

[1:01:38] . And

[1:01:38] it

[1:01:38] , it

[1:01:40] doesn't have to be all three.

[1:01:40] We

[1:01:41] , we really

[1:01:42] like it to be

[1:01:43] . In

[1:01:43] fact

[1:01:44] , we always hit at

[1:01:45] least 2

[1:01:45] .

[1:01:46] It's always going to be mail

[1:01:47] and we'll always post on the

[1:01:48] property

[1:01:49] . If

[1:01:49] we

[1:01:49] can

[1:01:50] make

[1:01:50] contact with

[1:01:51] the individual,

[1:01:52] we'll also give it to them

[1:01:52] personally, but no

[1:01:53] , it will not

[1:01:54] be

[1:01:54] a constable or

[1:01:56] sheriff or

[1:01:57] police officer. It will be

[1:01:57] ourselves. Ok

[1:01:59] . So

[1:02:00] if I

[1:02:01] understand correctly

[1:02:01] the

[1:02:03] initial steps of

[1:02:04] um notifying

[1:02:04] a

[1:02:05] violation through

[1:02:05] code

[1:02:06] enforcement

[1:02:07] will still occur

[1:02:08] and then this

[1:02:08] is just that

[1:02:09] then

[1:02:10] this instead of going straight

[1:02:10] to court, this is

[1:02:12] the

[1:02:12] intermediary

[1:02:13] , the intermediate

[1:02:14] step on that. This

[1:02:15] is a last

[1:02:15] resort. This is like

[1:02:16] the

[1:02:17] nuclear option, you

[1:02:18] know

[1:02:19] . Put

[1:02:19] this on. From the moment they

[1:02:21] receive a

[1:02:21] , uh, a notification

[1:02:22] at the time

[1:02:23] it

[1:02:23] goes before

[1:02:24] this

[1:02:24] commission. What do

[1:02:25] you

[1:02:26] estimate that time frame to be

[1:02:27] ?

[1:02:28] It varies based on

[1:02:28] the

[1:02:29] communication we're having

[1:02:30] ,

[1:02:31] whether they're willing to work

[1:02:32] with us

[1:02:33] on

[1:02:33] average a lot of

[1:02:33] nuance

[1:02:34] to the

[1:02:35] , the

[1:02:36] time

[1:02:37] limitation The limitation

[1:02:38] initial, the

[1:02:38] very first

[1:02:39] , the

[1:02:40] initial notice

[1:02:40] of

[1:02:41] violation

[1:02:41] typically gives

[1:02:42] 10

[1:02:42] to

[1:02:42] 15 days

[1:02:44] to make contact with us

[1:02:44] . Now

[1:02:45] we

[1:02:45] obviously know

[1:02:46] you

[1:02:46] cannot

[1:02:47] correct the entire

[1:02:48] thing

[1:02:48] in

[1:02:49] that amount of time. It's just

[1:02:50] get a hold of us

[1:02:52] Let's start

[1:02:53] working this out, see how we

[1:02:53] can get

[1:02:54] it fixed

[1:02:55] . Now

[1:02:57] that's

[1:02:57] when

[1:02:58] it

[1:02:58] becomes nuanced at

[1:02:59] that

[1:02:59] point, whether they're working

[1:03:00] with us

[1:03:01] , whether

[1:03:02] they're

[1:03:02] ignoring

[1:03:02] us, you know

[1:03:04] . It's

[1:03:05] just not

[1:03:06] something you

[1:03:07] want to,

[1:03:07] yeah

[1:03:08] , I'm

[1:03:08] thinking of the, the

[1:03:09] house that

[1:03:10] , uh, um

[1:03:11] . Let's say

[1:03:12] congressman

[1:03:13] , COUNCILMAN Mateer,

[1:03:14] uh, mentioned

[1:03:15] , uh, I think you

[1:03:16] know which one he's talking

[1:03:16] about. I don't want to

[1:03:17] say it

[1:03:17] out here

[1:03:18] , but, um

[1:03:20] . Let's say

[1:03:20] that that particular home

[1:03:22] . You

[1:03:22] ,

[1:03:22] you gave them

[1:03:24] the

[1:03:24] notification.

[1:03:25] We know that

[1:03:26] that owner gave us

[1:03:27] a lot

[1:03:27] of difficulty

[1:03:28] . How long

[1:03:29] do you think something like

[1:03:29] that would

[1:03:30] have taken before it

[1:03:31] goes to the commission

[1:03:34] . We'll

[1:03:35] do

[1:03:36] first-round notifications

[1:03:37] .

[1:03:38] They're just ignoring us

[1:03:38] . We'll

[1:03:39] try again. We'll do

[1:03:40] a 2nd

[1:03:40] round

[1:03:40] We'll do

[1:03:41] another posting on

[1:03:42] the

[1:03:42] property. We keep

[1:03:43] trying to

[1:03:43] track them down

[1:03:44] , maybe

[1:03:45] 3 or

[1:03:45] 4

[1:03:45] months

[1:03:46] . Ok

[1:03:47] . That's

[1:03:47] more like

[1:03:47] a

[1:03:48] 90

[1:03:48] day thing

[1:03:49] instead of

[1:03:49] a

[1:03:49] 3-year

[1:03:50] thing. I just want to be

[1:03:50] able to give

[1:03:52] , uh, the

[1:03:52] appli or

[1:03:53] the, uh, I wanna

[1:03:53] make sure

[1:03:55] they've got plenty of time

[1:03:55] to

[1:03:56] even come talk to

[1:03:56] us

[1:03:57] and

[1:03:58] and

[1:03:58] state

[1:03:58] their case

[1:03:59] and everything

[1:03:59] else

[1:03:59] . So that

[1:04:00] . That

[1:04:01] sounds fair

[1:04:01] to me. One of

[1:04:02] the other things

[1:04:03] about noticing here, you've got

[1:04:03] a

[1:04:05] , a requirement that the

[1:04:05] notice be

[1:04:07] published in a

[1:04:07] newspaper of

[1:04:07] general

[1:04:08] circulation

[1:04:09] in

[1:04:09] the

[1:04:10] municipality

[1:04:10] Um

[1:04:11] , I mean

[1:04:11] , those

[1:04:14] , uh, that

[1:04:14] kind

[1:04:15] of language

[1:04:15] and statutes

[1:04:15] .

[1:04:16] You know, goes back

[1:04:16] to

[1:04:16] the

[1:04:18] 18th

[1:04:18] century, uh, and

[1:04:19] it was, you

[1:04:19] know

[1:04:21] , a reasonable thing to do

[1:04:21] in a time

[1:04:23] when the only way to

[1:04:23] get notice to

[1:04:25] people was public

[1:04:25] notice was

[1:04:26] through newspapers,

[1:04:26] but

[1:04:28] um I'm

[1:04:29] wondering is

[1:04:29] , is

[1:04:30] that required

[1:04:31] by the

[1:04:31] state

[1:04:32] statute that you have to have

[1:04:32] that newspaper

[1:04:33] notice

[1:04:34] ? You

[1:04:34] , you

[1:04:35] know, you know the answer

[1:04:36] to

[1:04:36] that. Well, I was, I was

[1:04:36] hoping

[1:04:37] that

[1:04:39] the legislature has moved

[1:04:39] into

[1:04:39] the 21st

[1:04:41] century. You, you

[1:04:41] you know, you know

[1:04:42] our

[1:04:43] legislatures still have

[1:04:43] not

[1:04:44] changed that

[1:04:45] . So

[1:04:45] , uh, I'm

[1:04:48] wondering if it might be

[1:04:48] also

[1:04:48] ,

[1:04:48] I mean

[1:04:50] , more realistic because

[1:04:50] nobody reads

[1:04:52] newspapers

[1:04:52] anymore

[1:04:53] uh, to

[1:04:54] have

[1:04:54] a

[1:04:54] requirement to to

[1:04:55] put

[1:04:55] a notice about

[1:04:56] this kind

[1:04:57] of

[1:04:57] thing on

[1:04:57] the

[1:04:59] city

[1:04:59] website

[1:05:00] , uh,

[1:05:00] because that, I think, is

[1:05:01] much

[1:05:02] more likely for people to

[1:05:03] , to

[1:05:04] ,

[1:05:05] uh, to find out what's the

[1:05:05] city

[1:05:06] doing? Well, we'll just go to

[1:05:07] the city website to find out

[1:05:07] what

[1:05:08] the

[1:05:09] city's doing

[1:05:09] , rather

[1:05:10] than

[1:05:11] a newspaper

[1:05:11] . I mean

[1:05:11] ,

[1:05:11] what's

[1:05:12] up, you

[1:05:12] know, kids

[1:05:13] today

[1:05:13] they don't know what

[1:05:14] a

[1:05:15] newspaper is

[1:05:15] . Um

[1:05:16] , they'd be

[1:05:16] more

[1:05:17] of

[1:05:17] a

[1:05:17] policy decision. I

[1:05:18] don't know if there's

[1:05:19] , well

[1:05:19] ,

[1:05:19] should that be part of

[1:05:21] the

[1:05:21] this

[1:05:22] uh of

[1:05:22] this

[1:05:23] notice section

[1:05:23] . I

[1:05:24] mean, that is a

[1:05:25] policy question

[1:05:26] I would, I would ask uh who

[1:05:28] the

[1:05:28] intended

[1:05:29] , uh, recipient, uh,

[1:05:29] the

[1:05:31] , the intended audience of

[1:05:32] that

[1:05:33] hosting is because I think

[1:05:35] the purpose of

[1:05:36] the newspaper

[1:05:36] posting is

[1:05:37] once

[1:05:37] again, you know

[1:05:38] noticed

[1:05:38] by publication

[1:05:40] . Trying

[1:05:40] to reach

[1:05:41] the

[1:05:41] owner

[1:05:42] of

[1:05:42] that

[1:05:44] nuisance. And I don't know that

[1:05:46] it

[1:05:47] really makes a, I don't know

[1:05:48] that the owner of

[1:05:49] the nuisance

[1:05:49] is going to notice it on

[1:05:50] the

[1:05:51] website and not the

[1:05:53] . Newspaper.

[1:05:53] No

[1:05:53] , but the

[1:05:55] , uh, nobody's going

[1:05:56] to see it in the newspaper

[1:05:58] , and

[1:05:58] uh you know

[1:05:59] , maybe

[1:06:00] one of the

[1:06:00] ,

[1:06:00] the

[1:06:01] , the

[1:06:02] owners

[1:06:02] of

[1:06:02] that

[1:06:03] nuisance. You know

[1:06:04] , has a, a

[1:06:04] friend or

[1:06:05] relative who

[1:06:06] you

[1:06:07] know

[1:06:07] lives in

[1:06:08] town and

[1:06:08] might and

[1:06:09] says

[1:06:09] , Hey, look at

[1:06:10] the

[1:06:11] and say,

[1:06:12] hey. I think

[1:06:13] they're both going

[1:06:14] to be obscure like because

[1:06:14] where

[1:06:15] would you put it

[1:06:16] on the

[1:06:16] ,

[1:06:16] I think

[1:06:17] we conform

[1:06:18] to

[1:06:18] this,

[1:06:19] yeah, I was like, I mean

[1:06:20] ,

[1:06:20] conform to the set

[1:06:21] and I feel

[1:06:21] like we've had this

[1:06:22] conversation

[1:06:22] where then we have

[1:06:22] a

[1:06:23] debate about

[1:06:24] the

[1:06:25] radio versus

[1:06:25] yeah

[1:06:26] , it

[1:06:27] was

[1:06:27] feel

[1:06:28] well

[1:06:29] , this

[1:06:29] also

[1:06:30] does say

[1:06:30] if

[1:06:31] personal

[1:06:32] service cannot be obtained

[1:06:33] . So

[1:06:33] this

[1:06:34] was

[1:06:34] only

[1:06:35] Yeah

[1:06:36] , we

[1:06:36] , so

[1:06:37] Robert

[1:06:37] , you, you feel

[1:06:38] comfortable in, in, in this

[1:06:38] , in

[1:06:39] this, the

[1:06:41] language that's being

[1:06:41] proposed right now, correct?

[1:06:42] The

[1:06:42] general newspaper

[1:06:43] requirement is and

[1:06:44] that's

[1:06:45] mandatory regardless of what

[1:06:46] their services is obtained

[1:06:46] in

[1:06:47] another way

[1:06:47] . And

[1:06:48] , and also

[1:06:49] to

[1:06:50] be

[1:06:50] clear that

[1:06:50] you went ahead

[1:06:51] and you looked at what

[1:06:52] the

[1:06:53] industry

[1:06:54] requirements were,

[1:06:54] what they were looking at, what

[1:06:55] the

[1:06:56] , you know

[1:06:56] , regarding

[1:06:57] the

[1:06:59] applicable conditions here and

[1:06:59] give it

[1:07:00] enough

[1:07:00] time deviation

[1:07:01] because you want to make

[1:07:02] sure

[1:07:03] that they

[1:07:03] do have

[1:07:04] due process

[1:07:04] if possible

[1:07:05] , correct

[1:07:05] ? If i

[1:07:06] recall

[1:07:07] correctly, you're

[1:07:07] also,

[1:07:08] isn't there a

[1:07:08] licensure where

[1:07:09] you're one of 900

[1:07:10] people in the

[1:07:10] entire world

[1:07:11] has

[1:07:12] a

[1:07:12] license

[1:07:12] regarding, um, is

[1:07:14] it

[1:07:14] building

[1:07:15] expertise or what is it exactly

[1:07:15] ? Uh

[1:07:16] master

[1:07:16] code professional.

[1:07:17] Ok

[1:07:17] , master

[1:07:19] . So 100 in the

[1:07:20] entire world. Did you, did

[1:07:21] you

[1:07:21] recently teach a

[1:07:22] class

[1:07:22] on this

[1:07:23] ?

[1:07:24] I taught a class, no, I was

[1:07:25] teaching yesterday

[1:07:25] in

[1:07:26] Houston

[1:07:26] on some

[1:07:27] other

[1:07:28] code issues but

[1:07:28] uh so you teach

[1:07:29] about code

[1:07:30] issues and

[1:07:31] code enforcement for

[1:07:32] other

[1:07:32] people. Correct

[1:07:32] , that's

[1:07:33] ,

[1:07:33] I've been

[1:07:34] at Codenport

[1:07:34] . That's

[1:07:35] how I got

[1:07:35] involved in

[1:07:36] uh

[1:07:37] municipal government. I was

[1:07:37] code

[1:07:38] enforcement officer

[1:07:39] first

[1:07:39] .

[1:07:39] I've been, I've been a

[1:07:40] code

[1:07:40] enforcement officer

[1:07:41] for

[1:07:41] 18

[1:07:42] years. Oh

[1:07:43] , yeah. All right.

[1:07:43] Mayor

[1:07:43] , I

[1:07:44] feel comfortable about

[1:07:46] the difference. So to

[1:07:46] , uh, to

[1:07:46] remind

[1:07:47] the public

[1:07:48] this is a

[1:07:49] public hearing on

[1:07:50] the creation

[1:07:51] of the building

[1:07:51] and

[1:07:52] Standards

[1:07:52] Commission, and I would ask

[1:07:53] if

[1:07:54] there's anyone in the public

[1:07:55] wishing to make comment on

[1:07:55] this

[1:07:55] particular item

[1:07:59] . There are most

[1:08:00] you could post

[1:08:01] public comment

[1:08:01] .

[1:08:02] I have a motion

[1:08:03] from Caesar and

[1:08:04] a second from Kim and Rudy at

[1:08:04] the same time

[1:08:06] . Let

[1:08:07] you choose

[1:08:10] Kim

[1:08:17] . That

[1:08:18] closes the

[1:08:19] public

[1:08:19] hearing. Motion to put 7a is

[1:08:20] presented. So I have a question

[1:08:25] Um, I have a motion. Did I have

[1:08:26] a second? I

[1:08:26] , I did, yeah. All

[1:08:27] right, I have

[1:08:28] a motion from

[1:08:29] Rudy and second from

[1:08:29] Jonathan

[1:08:31] further

[1:08:32] discussion. Um, back

[1:08:32] to

[1:08:33] the

[1:08:33] item

[1:08:34] under

[1:08:35] 92.17 rules

[1:08:35] of

[1:08:36] procedure about

[1:08:36] the failure

[1:08:37] to

[1:08:38] vote

[1:08:38] . Um

[1:08:39] , are we

[1:08:40] saying that

[1:08:40] this

[1:08:42] commission someone could

[1:08:43] abstain for a reason other

[1:08:43] than

[1:08:44] conflict of interest

[1:08:53] . Robert,

[1:08:54] can you, can you

[1:08:55] clarify for me

[1:08:55] ? So we've got a

[1:08:57] uh a 4 out

[1:08:57] of

[1:08:58] 5 required for quorum

[1:09:00] . If 4

[1:09:01] of

[1:09:01] those

[1:09:02] show up

[1:09:02] , then 3 are

[1:09:02] required in

[1:09:04] order

[1:09:04] to

[1:09:04] pass

[1:09:05] something. Um

[1:09:09] . Right. And one

[1:09:10] of

[1:09:11] them

[1:09:11] outstands because we're

[1:09:12] talking

[1:09:14] about 92.17 rules of

[1:09:14] procedure. Yeah, the

[1:09:16] , the final

[1:09:16] I read it, it's not

[1:09:18] that they

[1:09:18] it's just

[1:09:20] the minutes of the

[1:09:21] meetings are public

[1:09:22] records of

[1:09:22] the building and

[1:09:23] Standards

[1:09:25] Commission's examinations

[1:09:25] ,

[1:09:25] official actions

[1:09:26] , and

[1:09:27] other

[1:09:27] proceedings

[1:09:28] , and

[1:09:29] shall reflect

[1:09:29] each

[1:09:30] member's vote

[1:09:31] , absence

[1:09:31] , or

[1:09:32] failure to vote on

[1:09:32] each

[1:09:32] question

[1:09:33] . It's not saying you

[1:09:34] have to

[1:09:34] vote

[1:09:35] . It's just saying

[1:09:36] that the minutes are going to

[1:09:38] reflect whatever that member

[1:09:39] did. It's not saying they

[1:09:40] had

[1:09:41] to

[1:09:41] , but yeah

[1:09:43] , typically our

[1:09:43] ,

[1:09:43] our statutory

[1:09:44] requirement is

[1:09:45] that

[1:09:45] you

[1:09:46] , we

[1:09:46] don't abstain

[1:09:46] , but

[1:09:47] if you happen to step away, we

[1:09:48] had a couple

[1:09:49] of folks away from

[1:09:49] the

[1:09:50] , the dais when

[1:09:51] , uh, when we

[1:09:52] took a vote, I would

[1:09:52] imagine

[1:09:53] the

[1:09:54] minutes would

[1:09:54] reflect

[1:09:55] that

[1:09:55] they were not

[1:09:56] in their seat at

[1:09:57] the time

[1:09:57] , as opposed

[1:09:58] to

[1:09:58] absinthe

[1:09:59] . Whether that's the

[1:09:59] same

[1:10:00] thing

[1:10:01] . Our attorney, well,

[1:10:01] I think that's why you have

[1:10:03] the

[1:10:03] alternates right here

[1:10:05] , is that

[1:10:05] you're going to have a lot

[1:10:06] enough time to figure

[1:10:07] out who's

[1:10:07] got a

[1:10:08] conflict and and if that

[1:10:08] person's got a complic

[1:10:09] , they're

[1:10:10] not going to show up for the

[1:10:10] meeting. It's it's going to

[1:10:12] be

[1:10:12] probably one

[1:10:12] item and you're

[1:10:13] going to get an

[1:10:14] alternate in

[1:10:14] there

[1:10:15] . Excellent. All right,

[1:10:16] feel comfortable with that

[1:10:17] . All

[1:10:17] right

[1:10:26] . Uh

[1:10:28] , motion

[1:10:28] passes 61.

[1:10:28] Thanks

[1:10:30] , Robert. Thanks. Well,

[1:10:30] Robert's not

[1:10:31] done though. I

[1:10:32] don't know if you want to take

[1:10:33] a seat while I read this

[1:10:34] . Uh

[1:10:34] ,

[1:10:35] conduct a public hearing. This

[1:10:35] is

[1:10:37] item 7b. Conduct a public

[1:10:38] hearing and consider approving

[1:10:38] an

[1:10:39] ordinance on first reading

[1:10:39] with caption reading an

[1:10:40] ordinance

[1:10:41] of the city of

[1:10:42] Flugerville, Texas

[1:10:43] , adopting

[1:10:44] regulations related to

[1:10:44] junked

[1:10:44] vehicles as a

[1:10:46] public

[1:10:46] nuisance

[1:10:46] ,

[1:10:47] providing for the

[1:10:48] abatement and

[1:10:48] removal of

[1:10:49] junked vehicles,

[1:10:50] providing for

[1:10:50] the notice

[1:10:50] ,

[1:10:50] hearing

[1:10:51] , and

[1:10:52] enforcement

[1:10:53] ,

[1:10:53] providing penalties

[1:10:54] , repealing

[1:10:55] conflicting provisions,

[1:10:55] providing

[1:10:56] a

[1:10:56] severability clause

[1:10:57] and

[1:10:58] providing

[1:10:58] an

[1:10:59] effective date

[1:10:59] Uh

[1:11:00] , Robert, you're

[1:11:01] , uh, you're

[1:11:01] with

[1:11:01] us again

[1:11:02] . Ok

[1:11:03] As

[1:11:04] stated on

[1:11:04] the screen, the origins

[1:11:06] has not

[1:11:06] been updated

[1:11:06] since

[1:11:08] 2006, and I

[1:11:09] think the, the

[1:11:09] thing

[1:11:11] that

[1:11:11] triggered or that caught

[1:11:12] my

[1:11:13] attention

[1:11:14] mostly was

[1:11:15] the fact

[1:11:15] that the

[1:11:16] current

[1:11:16] ordinance does

[1:11:16] not

[1:11:18] include

[1:11:19] unregistered or

[1:11:20] more properly put

[1:11:22] , expired

[1:11:22] license or does

[1:11:23] not display as

[1:11:24] part of the

[1:11:25] definition of a

[1:11:25] junk vehicle

[1:11:27] . What

[1:11:27] you have

[1:11:28] to

[1:11:28] understand with

[1:11:29] junk vehicles,

[1:11:29] again

[1:11:30] , it's

[1:11:31] a takings

[1:11:33] . These

[1:11:33] are not the

[1:11:33] abandoned vehicles

[1:11:34] you see on the side

[1:11:35] of

[1:11:35] the

[1:11:35] road

[1:11:36] that

[1:11:37] typically pd

[1:11:38] will tag toe

[1:11:40] store

[1:11:42] , and

[1:11:42] either sale or get

[1:11:43] back to the

[1:11:45] . To the owners

[1:11:46] When

[1:11:47] you tow a

[1:11:47] junk vehicle

[1:11:49] that

[1:11:49] vehicle's done

[1:11:51] . It has to be

[1:11:51] demolished

[1:11:51] . It can

[1:11:53] no longer

[1:11:53] be

[1:11:54] resold

[1:11:55] . It it's, it's gonna

[1:11:56] be

[1:11:56] crushed. It's taken

[1:11:57] off

[1:11:58] the

[1:11:58] dmv

[1:11:58] records. We send

[1:12:00] in

[1:12:00] the

[1:12:00] vin

[1:12:00] numbers and

[1:12:02] it's done. So we

[1:12:03] want to make

[1:12:03] sure that

[1:12:05] the

[1:12:05] uh

[1:12:06] definition is in

[1:12:07] accordance

[1:12:07] with

[1:12:08] state law

[1:12:08] with regards to

[1:12:08] that

[1:12:11] . The

[1:12:11] notification

[1:12:12] provisions have also

[1:12:13] been

[1:12:14] revised to better align with

[1:12:14] state statutes

[1:12:16] , replacing the

[1:12:16] current truncated description

[1:12:17] of

[1:12:18] the process

[1:12:19] Here

[1:12:20] in

[1:12:20] quest

[1:12:20] process is

[1:12:21] separated

[1:12:22] into

[1:12:23] proposed

[1:12:23] section 9306

[1:12:24] and

[1:12:25] includes the

[1:12:26] defined timeline

[1:12:26] for

[1:12:27] submitting a request

[1:12:27] .

[1:12:28] Currently no timeline is given

[1:12:30] .

[1:12:30] The proposed

[1:12:31] section 9037,

[1:12:32] conduct of hearing

[1:12:33] was added

[1:12:34] to

[1:12:34] clarify timelines

[1:12:36] for

[1:12:36] hearings

[1:12:36] and

[1:12:37] address situations where

[1:12:38] the vehicle

[1:12:39] is relocated but

[1:12:39] remains

[1:12:40] a

[1:12:40] nuisance

[1:12:41] . That's

[1:12:42] you've cited

[1:12:42] at

[1:12:43] one address

[1:12:44] pops

[1:12:44] up

[1:12:45] somewhere else. It's

[1:12:46] the

[1:12:46] same

[1:12:46] vehicle

[1:12:47] . They're

[1:12:47] just

[1:12:48] moving it around

[1:12:50] . And

[1:12:50] specify

[1:12:51] required information

[1:12:51] to

[1:12:52] be

[1:12:52] included in an order for

[1:12:52] removal

[1:12:54] . The

[1:12:55] statement of

[1:12:56] the

[1:12:57] current

[1:12:57] section

[1:12:58] 9303c requiring

[1:12:59] a

[1:12:59] public hearing prior

[1:13:00] to

[1:13:01] removal of

[1:13:01] a

[1:13:02] vehicle

[1:13:02] or

[1:13:03] vehicles part of

[1:13:03] public

[1:13:04] nuisance has

[1:13:04] been

[1:13:05] removed, so

[1:13:06] no

[1:13:06] longer do we need a hearing

[1:13:07] for that

[1:13:08] ? You

[1:13:08] can

[1:13:08] get a

[1:13:09] , before

[1:13:10] we enter

[1:13:12] this

[1:13:12] is specifically

[1:13:13] for those on private property

[1:13:14] ,

[1:13:15] pd deals with the ones that are

[1:13:15] on the

[1:13:16] right of ways

[1:13:17] . We would

[1:13:17] still

[1:13:19] need to go get a

[1:13:19] court

[1:13:19] order to be able to enter the

[1:13:20] property

[1:13:21] . In order, unless

[1:13:23] the

[1:13:23] owner gives us

[1:13:24] permission and

[1:13:24] we're taking it

[1:13:26] . As part of

[1:13:26] a

[1:13:27] compliance agreement

[1:13:30] .

[1:13:30] Provisions of the current code

[1:13:31] allowing for the

[1:13:32] sale and lean

[1:13:33] of a junk vehicle are

[1:13:35] no

[1:13:35] good.

[1:13:35] As I said

[1:13:37] , once you, once

[1:13:38] you've told this thing as

[1:13:39] a

[1:13:39] junk vehicle, you

[1:13:40] cannot

[1:13:41] resell

[1:13:42] it, can't file a lien on it

[1:13:43] .

[1:13:44] The authority is not found in

[1:13:44] state

[1:13:46] statute and has

[1:13:46] been

[1:13:46] removed

[1:13:48] . And authority to

[1:13:51] enforced provisions in

[1:13:51] 19,310,

[1:13:52] violation

[1:13:52] of penalties

[1:13:53] , 9311

[1:13:54] have also been added

[1:13:55] . Again

[1:13:57] ,

[1:13:57] abandoned vehicles are still

[1:13:58] able to be

[1:14:01] um, enforced by

[1:14:01] pd

[1:14:02] under

[1:14:02] Texas

[1:14:04] Transportation Code

[1:14:05] Chapter 683

[1:14:06] um

[1:14:08] one

[1:14:08] other note

[1:14:10] ,

[1:14:11] antique vehicles in the current

[1:14:11] code

[1:14:13] of ordinances lists them

[1:14:13] as

[1:14:14] 35 years

[1:14:15] in accordance with

[1:14:16] state statute, it should be

[1:14:17] 225

[1:14:17] years

[1:14:20] . So

[1:14:20] , so this is

[1:14:21] a cleanup

[1:14:22] Cleanup

[1:14:24] and

[1:14:24] better

[1:14:25] statutory

[1:14:25] construction

[1:14:26] . Yeah

[1:14:26] , I believe

[1:14:27] we used to refer

[1:14:28] to

[1:14:28] them

[1:14:29] as

[1:14:30] undrivable vehicles

[1:14:31] , always

[1:14:31] considered

[1:14:32] an

[1:14:33] undrivable

[1:14:33] vehicle to be one that

[1:14:33] can't

[1:14:34] legally be driven

[1:14:35] as opposed to

[1:14:36] one that can't be driven under

[1:14:36] its own

[1:14:37] power

[1:14:39] , but this uh um

[1:14:40] this certainly cleans that up

[1:14:41] and

[1:14:42] makes it much more

[1:14:42] explicit

[1:14:43] so there's no need

[1:14:44] for

[1:14:44] interpretation. Uh, counsel, do

[1:14:45] you

[1:14:45] have questions? I

[1:14:46] was going

[1:14:47] to say thank you. I know one of

[1:14:49] the

[1:14:49] reasons we looked at

[1:14:50] this

[1:14:50] years

[1:14:51] ago was

[1:14:51] what happened in

[1:14:52] historic colored

[1:14:52] edition

[1:14:53] . There

[1:14:53] were so

[1:14:54] many

[1:14:54] junk

[1:14:55] vehicles all

[1:14:56] over the place

[1:14:56] over there

[1:14:57] . It

[1:14:57] was repugnant

[1:14:58] to say

[1:14:58] the least

[1:14:58] ,

[1:14:59] and for folks who are going

[1:14:59] to

[1:15:00] Saint Mary's and then

[1:15:01] , you know

[1:15:02] dealing with the cemeteries

[1:15:03] out

[1:15:03] there

[1:15:03] . It, it

[1:15:04] was a

[1:15:05] hard to

[1:15:05] get

[1:15:05] that

[1:15:05] cleaned

[1:15:06] up

[1:15:06] and

[1:15:07] so

[1:15:07] I'm just

[1:15:08] glad

[1:15:08] we

[1:15:09] got something

[1:15:09] now where

[1:15:10] we won't have to have that

[1:15:10] anywhere in part of the

[1:15:11] city

[1:15:11] again

[1:15:12] . So I'm glad we won't

[1:15:12] have a

[1:15:14] junked

[1:15:14] aircraft either.

[1:15:14] So

[1:15:15] of

[1:15:16] course

[1:15:16] , all vehicles I

[1:15:17] saw that definition

[1:15:18] in

[1:15:18] here

[1:15:19] watercraft, yeah

[1:15:21] , I

[1:15:21] know

[1:15:21] the

[1:15:21] spirit of

[1:15:23] this

[1:15:23] is, it

[1:15:23] , it's

[1:15:24] dead on. I mean

[1:15:25] , I agree with

[1:15:25] it

[1:15:26] . Let's say

[1:15:27] , because it

[1:15:28] happens, some people turn their

[1:15:30] old vehicles into art in their

[1:15:31] yard or

[1:15:32] they

[1:15:32] have

[1:15:32] big

[1:15:33] properties like

[1:15:34] the, you know,

[1:15:35] the Austin had to do something

[1:15:35] like

[1:15:37] that

[1:15:37] , yeah

[1:15:37] , or

[1:15:38] a

[1:15:39] or a oh

[1:15:39] my GOD, people have tractors in

[1:15:40] their front yard

[1:15:41] . It's

[1:15:42] undrivable

[1:15:42] . They

[1:15:43] have plants

[1:15:44] and everything else all around

[1:15:44] it and it's part of

[1:15:46] the

[1:15:47] landscaping. Where, where does

[1:15:48] that

[1:15:48] fall? I mean

[1:15:48] , is if

[1:15:49] it's,

[1:15:49] if

[1:15:50] it's

[1:15:50] not

[1:15:51] really hurting

[1:15:52] anybody, does it

[1:15:52] ? Fall

[1:15:53] under

[1:15:53] common sense? We're not going

[1:15:53] to mess

[1:15:54] with

[1:15:55] them, or how does

[1:15:55] that fall

[1:15:56] ? Well

[1:15:57] , define

[1:15:59] hurting

[1:15:59] anybody. Well, I

[1:15:59] guess that's,

[1:16:00] that's actually

[1:16:01] one of the

[1:16:02] things we took out of

[1:16:02] the

[1:16:03] public

[1:16:04] nuisance

[1:16:04] ordinance was,

[1:16:05] I, I'll read it to you

[1:16:06] guys

[1:16:06] here in a bit because

[1:16:07] it was a

[1:16:08] very subjective clause, you

[1:16:08] know, that

[1:16:09] didn't apply, but

[1:16:10] to

[1:16:11] answer your question

[1:16:12] , it's

[1:16:13] going to be a situation by

[1:16:13] situation

[1:16:15] . I think in that

[1:16:15] particular

[1:16:17] case

[1:16:17] , I

[1:16:18] would defer

[1:16:18] that to court

[1:16:19] and

[1:16:20] have a judge

[1:16:20] make a

[1:16:22] ruling on it

[1:16:22] . Tractors

[1:16:22] were

[1:16:23] never

[1:16:24] licensed, so it's, I

[1:16:25] don't, I don't think

[1:16:26] that'd be.

[1:16:26] No, I think of

[1:16:29] , uh, there's

[1:16:30] one

[1:16:31] company in Austin that had

[1:16:31] a

[1:16:31] uh

[1:16:31] drunker

[1:16:32] that they

[1:16:33] had plants

[1:16:34] and everything in and the

[1:16:34] city

[1:16:35] did make, oh it was in San

[1:16:36] Marcus and they had to move it

[1:16:37] to or one of the

[1:16:38] two. It was in

[1:16:39] one city and they had to move

[1:16:39] it to

[1:16:40] another

[1:16:40] . It was, it

[1:16:41] wasn't too

[1:16:41] bad looking. I

[1:16:42] mean

[1:16:42] ,

[1:16:43] they decorated it nice

[1:16:44] , but

[1:16:45] yeah

[1:16:45] , I see some of

[1:16:45] this as

[1:16:46] I'm

[1:16:46] driving

[1:16:47] around

[1:16:47] Huddo and some

[1:16:48] of these

[1:16:48] other properties

[1:16:49] and

[1:16:49] so

[1:16:50] , um, some

[1:16:50] of these

[1:16:51] more

[1:16:51] urban areas

[1:16:52] , but

[1:16:52] I just wanted

[1:16:52] to

[1:16:53] c lar

[1:16:53] ify that. Thank you.

[1:16:54] Thank you. Uh so

[1:16:55] , I

[1:16:55] , yeah, I

[1:16:56] thank you for

[1:16:57] , uh, looking

[1:16:58] through this and doing a

[1:16:58] , a

[1:17:00] cleanup and bringing it into

[1:17:01] compliance with the

[1:17:02] state

[1:17:02] laws

[1:17:03] you've mentioned

[1:17:04] , um, I

[1:17:04] had a,

[1:17:05] a couple

[1:17:05] of

[1:17:06] questions

[1:17:07] . Um

[1:17:08] , do

[1:17:08] we have

[1:17:09] , uh, just wondering, do

[1:17:10] is

[1:17:10] , is this

[1:17:11] a big

[1:17:12] issue that we

[1:17:12] have with

[1:17:13] junked vehicles

[1:17:13] . Um,

[1:17:13] let

[1:17:14] me, um, there

[1:17:14] was

[1:17:14] some

[1:17:15] discussion right now

[1:17:16] . I mean,

[1:17:16] so I don't know

[1:17:17] if that was

[1:17:17] ,

[1:17:17] that

[1:17:18] is the

[1:17:18] situation

[1:17:19] that

[1:17:20] was

[1:17:20] addressed

[1:17:21] , but

[1:17:21] like ongoing

[1:17:22] . I

[1:17:22] ,

[1:17:23] I'm just curious cause I don't,

[1:17:23] I don't really know

[1:17:25] . It

[1:17:25] is

[1:17:25] ongoing, and

[1:17:25] there are quite a

[1:17:26] few

[1:17:27] , but there

[1:17:27] are still

[1:17:28] some

[1:17:28] limitations of what

[1:17:29] we can

[1:17:29] do,

[1:17:29] even with

[1:17:30] this cleanup

[1:17:30] , you

[1:17:30] know

[1:17:32] . You can't, it's got to be

[1:17:34] seen from the right of way.

[1:17:34] That's the

[1:17:36] biggest

[1:17:36] thing with

[1:17:36] pretty much any

[1:17:37] code violation

[1:17:38] .

[1:17:39] Or a majority of them

[1:17:40] And

[1:17:40] you

[1:17:41] can't you've got

[1:17:43] to use the

[1:17:43] naked eye

[1:17:45] . So

[1:17:45] I, if

[1:17:45] I'm looking

[1:17:46] for this

[1:17:47] unregistered plate or

[1:17:50] .

[1:17:50] Uh sticker in the window, i

[1:17:52] can't use my Zoom

[1:17:52] on

[1:17:52] my

[1:17:52] phone

[1:17:53] to

[1:17:54] zoom in on it because

[1:17:54] I

[1:17:56] wear

[1:17:56] glasses as it is, so I, if I

[1:17:57] can't see it

[1:17:58] , you know, I

[1:17:59] , I

[1:18:00] can't artificially

[1:18:01] you

[1:18:01] know

[1:18:01] ,

[1:18:02] zoom into it and

[1:18:03] try

[1:18:03] to

[1:18:03] identify it as such

[1:18:05] . So

[1:18:05] there's

[1:18:05] still

[1:18:06] some limitations

[1:18:08] . There's

[1:18:10] things in state

[1:18:10] law

[1:18:11] that are

[1:18:13] silly, but they're in

[1:18:14] there

[1:18:14] like they

[1:18:15] can screen it with

[1:18:15] a

[1:18:17] rapidly

[1:18:17] growing

[1:18:19] shrub

[1:18:19] . That's

[1:18:19] everyone's favorite

[1:18:21] . How

[1:18:21] long

[1:18:22] it takes that

[1:18:24] shrub to grow

[1:18:24] ,

[1:18:24] who knows, but

[1:18:25] they, they can

[1:18:26] do it, and

[1:18:26] there's

[1:18:26] no

[1:18:28] defined,

[1:18:28] you know, it doesn't have to be

[1:18:29] this high, it doesn't have to

[1:18:30] be

[1:18:31] fully screening it

[1:18:31] , but

[1:18:32] there's ways they can come

[1:18:33] into

[1:18:34] compliance. Again, we're

[1:18:34] just

[1:18:35] trying, we're not

[1:18:35] trying to

[1:18:36] be

[1:18:36] punitive

[1:18:37] , uh, we're

[1:18:38] just trying

[1:18:39] to get

[1:18:39] clean things

[1:18:39] up. They

[1:18:40] can move it

[1:18:40] . Out

[1:18:41] of

[1:18:41] the

[1:18:42] public

[1:18:42] view You

[1:18:42] can tarp it

[1:18:46] that

[1:18:47] in

[1:18:47] itself becomes another issue

[1:18:48] because you know

[1:18:48] those things,

[1:18:49] weather, and then they start

[1:18:49] blowing and

[1:18:50] they look worse

[1:18:51] than the vehicle did just by

[1:18:53] sitting there by itself. So

[1:18:53] , Oh

[1:18:54] you

[1:18:55] can tarp it

[1:18:56] You

[1:18:57] can. Oh

[1:18:57] , ok

[1:18:58] Were it from

[1:18:59] public

[1:18:59] view, you

[1:19:00] know

[1:19:00] . Hmm

[1:19:01] , ok

[1:19:02] . Um, I did have

[1:19:02] one

[1:19:04] other question because it

[1:19:05] mentioned the cost

[1:19:06] of

[1:19:06] disposal,

[1:19:07] and then

[1:19:07] there's fines

[1:19:08] and

[1:19:08] whatnot

[1:19:09] , um, and

[1:19:09] since

[1:19:10] this is

[1:19:11] a vehicle, I was

[1:19:12] just wondering

[1:19:13] how

[1:19:13] our fines

[1:19:14] and cost

[1:19:14] of

[1:19:14] removal

[1:19:15] , um

[1:19:17] collected or is

[1:19:18] there like a, I don't know

[1:19:19] if

[1:19:20] there, because the

[1:19:22] other

[1:19:22] um

[1:19:22] item mentioned the liens

[1:19:23] against the property

[1:19:24] , and I

[1:19:25] just, it does, it's

[1:19:26] silent

[1:19:26] about that

[1:19:27] , so I was just

[1:19:27] wondering

[1:19:31] . Um

[1:19:33] , 93.13

[1:19:33] for the

[1:19:33] ,

[1:19:34] the cost, and

[1:19:36] then 93.11

[1:19:36] for

[1:19:37] penalties

[1:19:38] . Yeah

[1:19:38] , you

[1:19:38] did

[1:19:38] mention that

[1:19:40] you can't place a

[1:19:41] lien on the vehicle because the

[1:19:43] vehicle is gone. Yeah

[1:19:44] . So

[1:19:45] these

[1:19:45] are

[1:19:47] administrative fines

[1:19:47] .

[1:19:48] They'll be

[1:19:49] administrative fines

[1:19:49] imposed by

[1:19:50] the

[1:19:51] court

[1:19:51] . Um and

[1:19:52] and imposed

[1:19:53] on

[1:19:54] the vehicle

[1:19:54] owner

[1:19:54] , the property owner

[1:19:58] .

[1:19:58] Property owner

[1:19:58] , property owner

[1:19:59] is always

[1:20:00] responsible for what

[1:20:00] goes on

[1:20:01] property right

[1:20:02] it's

[1:20:03] their vehicle or not

[1:20:03] . Um

[1:20:06] All

[1:20:07] right, did

[1:20:07] that answer your

[1:20:08] question, Melody

[1:20:09] ? Yeah, so I

[1:20:09] , I

[1:20:10] appreciate, um

[1:20:12] , the detail that

[1:20:13] you provided about what

[1:20:13] you

[1:20:14] changed and and

[1:20:14] and this

[1:20:16] ordinance from what exists. So

[1:20:16] thank you

[1:20:17] for

[1:20:18] that. Any other

[1:20:19] questions? I have a couple of

[1:20:21] questions. I want to

[1:20:24] echo

[1:20:24] the

[1:20:24] appreciation for

[1:20:25] the

[1:20:26] thoroughness, both

[1:20:27] the

[1:20:27] COUNCILMAN And Councilor Ryan

[1:20:28] .

[1:20:28] Of uh

[1:20:31] expressed. I

[1:20:31] think that's

[1:20:32] a, a, you know, you've done a

[1:20:33] really good

[1:20:34] job in terms of

[1:20:34] the

[1:20:35] mechanics of putting this whole

[1:20:35] thing together

[1:20:36] . Um

[1:20:38] so I have a

[1:20:38] ,

[1:20:39] a

[1:20:41] , uh, a hypothetical, um

[1:20:41] . And

[1:20:42] it's

[1:20:43] not

[1:20:43] particularly

[1:20:44] hypothetical

[1:20:45] . Um, so you

[1:20:46] have a

[1:20:47] uh, driveway

[1:20:48] , uh, that

[1:20:48] has 4

[1:20:49] cars

[1:20:50] . The

[1:20:51] two that

[1:20:52] are nearest

[1:20:52] to

[1:20:52] the

[1:20:53] garage in

[1:20:54] the

[1:20:54] driveway are

[1:20:55] clearly undrivable

[1:20:57] Flat tires

[1:20:59] you know

[1:20:59] , uh,

[1:21:00] license plate

[1:21:01] from another

[1:21:01] state from

[1:21:02] another

[1:21:03] decade

[1:21:03] , um,

[1:21:03] but there

[1:21:04] are

[1:21:04] two

[1:21:05] operational

[1:21:06] cars behind them

[1:21:06] . And

[1:21:08] those two

[1:21:09] operational cars

[1:21:10] , uh, you know

[1:21:10] ,

[1:21:11] move periodically

[1:21:12] and and uh

[1:21:13] .

[1:21:13] Uh when they're

[1:21:14] in

[1:21:15] the driveway

[1:21:16] of course they're screening the

[1:21:17] view, but when

[1:21:17] the two

[1:21:18] operational cars

[1:21:19] are gone

[1:21:19] ,

[1:21:20] you've got these

[1:21:24] So

[1:21:24] , is

[1:21:24] your

[1:21:25] question, can

[1:21:26] you temporarily,

[1:21:27] can you screen with a

[1:21:28] temporary

[1:21:29] obstacle? Right, and

[1:21:30] , uh, also

[1:21:30] ,

[1:21:31] and then the

[1:21:33] matching question

[1:21:33] is, are these going to

[1:21:35] be

[1:21:35] completely

[1:21:37] complete

[1:21:37] complaint-driven, or are they

[1:21:38] going to be

[1:21:40] uh, is this going

[1:21:40] to be something where we're

[1:21:41] going to have

[1:21:42] people

[1:21:44] driving

[1:21:44] through the neighborhoods

[1:21:45] definitely get both and we

[1:21:46] .

[1:21:47] Most definitely stepped up the

[1:21:49] proactive enforcement of the

[1:21:50] lot of our ordinances

[1:21:51] . Summer

[1:21:52] ,

[1:21:53] so what

[1:21:53] happens in, in

[1:21:54] this

[1:21:55] hypothetical, it's not

[1:21:56] very

[1:21:57] hypothetical hypothetical

[1:21:57] . We

[1:21:58] just continue to

[1:21:59] monitor it

[1:22:00] till we can

[1:22:00] correctly

[1:22:01] identify

[1:22:02] it as such

[1:22:02] . Take

[1:22:02] the pictures

[1:22:03] at

[1:22:04] the time

[1:22:04] , hopefully

[1:22:05] when

[1:22:06] the

[1:22:06] operable vehicles are

[1:22:08] . Say,

[1:22:09] removed or out of the

[1:22:09] way and

[1:22:11] then we can identify it at

[1:22:11] that

[1:22:12] point. Now

[1:22:13] in

[1:22:13] this in this

[1:22:14] particular instance

[1:22:15] , maybe

[1:22:16] been

[1:22:16] more than

[1:22:18] a decade

[1:22:18] where

[1:22:18] those

[1:22:19] vehicles have been there

[1:22:20] . In

[1:22:21] the driveway

[1:22:22] not moving. So

[1:22:23] this sounds like

[1:22:24] a

[1:22:24] uh

[1:22:25] complaint-driven enforcement.

[1:22:25] It's

[1:22:27] just

[1:22:27] , I'm

[1:22:27] not making a

[1:22:28] complaint

[1:22:29] . I'm just, you know,

[1:22:30] can

[1:22:32] a citizen

[1:22:33] . Can

[1:22:33] the

[1:22:34] citizen

[1:22:34] take

[1:22:34] a picture

[1:22:35] of

[1:22:36] when it's

[1:22:36] not

[1:22:36] blocking

[1:22:37] to submit it

[1:22:38] or do you

[1:22:38] is

[1:22:39] that sufficient or

[1:22:40] do you

[1:22:40] have

[1:22:41] to physically see it on

[1:22:42] ,

[1:22:43] um, visual, I mean

[1:22:43] , a

[1:22:44] physical

[1:22:44] inspection. We

[1:22:45] have

[1:22:46] a

[1:22:46] policy on

[1:22:49] citizen photographs. We use

[1:22:50] them to

[1:22:51] help identify things,

[1:22:52] but we could use them in any

[1:22:53] sort

[1:22:54] of prosecution

[1:22:55] . The

[1:22:56] officer, the code enforcement

[1:22:58] .

[1:22:59] Code compliance officer has to

[1:22:59] witness

[1:23:00] the

[1:23:01] offense

[1:23:01] because

[1:23:01] they could be called

[1:23:02] to testify

[1:23:03] to those facts

[1:23:05] and findings

[1:23:06] . If

[1:23:07] they didn't take the picture,

[1:23:08] they can't testify to that

[1:23:09] . So

[1:23:10] ,

[1:23:10] So

[1:23:12] if you can see it from

[1:23:12] a

[1:23:13] certain point of view

[1:23:13] that

[1:23:14] there's flat tires and whatnot.

[1:23:14] I, I'm

[1:23:16] just wondering you

[1:23:17] mentioned earlier it has to be

[1:23:17] seen from the

[1:23:18] right of

[1:23:18] way

[1:23:19] without any assistance

[1:23:20] , so

[1:23:20] you

[1:23:21] can't be

[1:23:21] sure

[1:23:22] if

[1:23:23] that person

[1:23:23] was, you know, from

[1:23:24] their

[1:23:24] window or

[1:23:25] on

[1:23:26] private property

[1:23:26] or if

[1:23:26] they used

[1:23:27] their

[1:23:27] Zoom, so

[1:23:28] yeah, it

[1:23:28] would

[1:23:30] be

[1:23:30] that

[1:23:30] such

[1:23:31] information would be

[1:23:31] useful in

[1:23:32] helping

[1:23:32] to

[1:23:33] identify

[1:23:33] and create

[1:23:34] the complaint, but

[1:23:35] not

[1:23:35] in

[1:23:36] the

[1:23:37] enforcement at least it gives

[1:23:37] us, ok

[1:23:38] , I'm looking

[1:23:38] for

[1:23:39] a

[1:23:39] red

[1:23:39] vehicle

[1:23:40] at

[1:23:41] this location. Mhm

[1:23:42] Helps us

[1:23:43] narrow them down

[1:23:43] . So

[1:23:44] melody

[1:23:45] , we've

[1:23:45] had folks

[1:23:46] who've

[1:23:46] had

[1:23:48] even one property

[1:23:48] . Off of

[1:23:48] Coy lane that

[1:23:50] had hundreds

[1:23:50] ,

[1:23:51] hundreds

[1:23:52] . Of

[1:23:54] these vehicles on

[1:23:55] the property

[1:23:57] , but they could

[1:23:57] not be seen

[1:23:59] . Yeah

[1:24:01] . So

[1:24:01] it

[1:24:01] wasn't

[1:24:02] until someone else bought

[1:24:03] the

[1:24:03] property

[1:24:04] . And

[1:24:06] removed

[1:24:06] those

[1:24:08] hundreds

[1:24:08] of vehicles do we

[1:24:10] even

[1:24:10] know that was existed over

[1:24:11] there. We

[1:24:12] have another place on

[1:24:13] uh, near

[1:24:15] , um, Emmanuel, that's

[1:24:16] that's the next one

[1:24:17] , so we have

[1:24:17] to play something manual on

[1:24:18] Wells

[1:24:20] branch where

[1:24:20] lots

[1:24:21] of

[1:24:21] projects

[1:24:22] , and somebody

[1:24:24] how did,

[1:24:24] how, how do we put it

[1:24:26] , um

[1:24:28] . I'm

[1:24:28] not gonna say threatened

[1:24:30] . But

[1:24:30] stated that if we

[1:24:31] wouldn't

[1:24:31] allow for a

[1:24:33] rezoning to happen

[1:24:33] ,

[1:24:34] it would continue to house

[1:24:35] . A

[1:24:35] lot of

[1:24:37] junker vehicles

[1:24:39] . There

[1:24:40] there, ok. Any other

[1:24:41] , uh,

[1:24:42] questions from counsel. Uh,

[1:24:42] David, was that

[1:24:44] that was your

[1:24:44] too? That was my 2. Thank you

[1:24:45] very

[1:24:46] much

[1:24:46] . Excellent job. All

[1:24:47] right

[1:24:47] , uh, and

[1:24:48] to remind the

[1:24:49] public, this is

[1:24:49] a public

[1:24:50] hearing

[1:24:51] . Is

[1:24:51] there anyone

[1:24:51] from

[1:24:52] the

[1:24:53] public wishing to speak

[1:24:53] on

[1:24:54] this topic

[1:24:56] . Looks like I've

[1:24:57] got

[1:24:58] someone interested in speaking

[1:24:58] on the topic

[1:25:00] . All right

[1:25:00] ok

[1:25:02] . I

[1:25:03] think she's gonna speak

[1:25:04] against

[1:25:05] it

[1:25:07] . Ms

[1:25:09] . Dunbar

[1:25:09] Crespo. Have

[1:25:09] you

[1:25:10] had

[1:25:11] stepped forward and

[1:25:11] introduce yourself? Yes,

[1:25:12] fitting

[1:25:13] and

[1:25:13] marrying council

[1:25:14] city manager. My name is Ursha

[1:25:16] Dunbar Crestha. I am

[1:25:16] a Hoville

[1:25:16] resident

[1:25:18] . And I really have

[1:25:19] a

[1:25:20] clarification question more

[1:25:21] than anything else

[1:25:23] . In

[1:25:23] the

[1:25:25] definitions under

[1:25:25] paragraph

[1:25:26] 93.01

[1:25:27] . It

[1:25:29] allows a vehicle

[1:25:29] , an

[1:25:30] additional

[1:25:31] 24 hours for

[1:25:31] a

[1:25:32] vehicle before

[1:25:33] it's defined

[1:25:33] as

[1:25:34] inoperable

[1:25:36] . And also the

[1:25:36] number

[1:25:36] of

[1:25:38] days changed from

[1:25:38] 14

[1:25:39] days

[1:25:40] to

[1:25:40] 30 days

[1:25:41] . So we do have

[1:25:42] a

[1:25:42] problem

[1:25:43] with

[1:25:43] inoperable

[1:25:45] vehicles in the city of

[1:25:45] Flugville, so I

[1:25:46] was

[1:25:47] more

[1:25:47] wondering

[1:25:48] why

[1:25:49] those

[1:25:49] additional

[1:25:50] days and

[1:25:50] hours

[1:25:51] were allowed. Do

[1:25:52] you have more time

[1:25:53] . That's more

[1:25:54] in line with state statutes

[1:25:54] ,

[1:25:55] ma'am. Um

[1:25:59] . Mic, we need to give

[1:25:59] them

[1:26:01] an opportunity to fix it

[1:26:01] so they can

[1:26:01] get it

[1:26:02] out

[1:26:03] of

[1:26:03] there

[1:26:03] Well, it, it's

[1:26:05] just

[1:26:05] the

[1:26:06] identification of it to make

[1:26:06] sure it

[1:26:07] is truly a junk

[1:26:08] vehicle

[1:26:08] Uh

[1:26:08] , municipalities

[1:26:10] can be

[1:26:10] more

[1:26:10] strict than state

[1:26:12] but in some

[1:26:12] cases, you just want to go with

[1:26:13] the state standard

[1:26:14] , and I

[1:26:14] think

[1:26:15] this is one of

[1:26:15] those cases

[1:26:17] . You

[1:26:17] don't want to jump the

[1:26:18] gun on

[1:26:19] it, yeah. Yeah

[1:26:21] . So

[1:26:21] how often do

[1:26:21] we

[1:26:23] have vehicles um that are

[1:26:24] abandoned on

[1:26:26] public prop I mean

[1:26:26] public property

[1:26:27] , not public

[1:26:28] right of way

[1:26:28] . I'm assuming that

[1:26:29] this applies to the 72 hours

[1:26:32] Public property would still

[1:26:32] be

[1:26:33] pd

[1:26:34] . They

[1:26:35] can tow

[1:26:35] those

[1:26:36] within

[1:26:37] 72 hours

[1:26:37] , I believe, and that'd

[1:26:38] be like

[1:26:38] a

[1:26:39] park parking

[1:26:39] lot.

[1:26:40] Correct

[1:26:44] . Um

[1:26:44] , again, this is

[1:26:45] a

[1:26:46] public hearing. Is there anyone

[1:26:46] else in

[1:26:47] the public

[1:26:48] wishing to

[1:26:48] make public comment

[1:26:50] . And Urcha,

[1:26:51] did you get your question

[1:26:51] answered

[1:26:53] ? You wanna come up and

[1:26:53] make

[1:26:54] more

[1:26:55] comment comment

[1:26:55] . Not

[1:26:56] exactly

[1:26:57] . Can you

[1:26:57] give

[1:26:57] me

[1:26:57] the

[1:26:58] specific

[1:26:59] state statute

[1:27:00] that

[1:27:00] allows the

[1:27:02] 72

[1:27:03] hours versus

[1:27:04] the

[1:27:04] 48

[1:27:04] and I'll

[1:27:05] have to

[1:27:06] email that

[1:27:06] to you I

[1:27:07] would appreciate that

[1:27:08] .

[1:27:08] I'm a part of a

[1:27:09] homeowners

[1:27:10] association and we deal with

[1:27:11] this all

[1:27:11] the time

[1:27:12] , so it's just

[1:27:13] gonna make it that much

[1:27:14] more

[1:27:15] difficult for us

[1:27:16] . If

[1:27:17] now

[1:27:17] someone has

[1:27:19] all

[1:27:19] those

[1:27:19] 16

[1:27:20] extra

[1:27:20] days to

[1:27:22] deal with an

[1:27:22] inoperable

[1:27:23] vehicle, and you

[1:27:24] do see

[1:27:24] them

[1:27:25] drive around, you see them in

[1:27:26] the driveways

[1:27:27] . So yeah

[1:27:27] , if you

[1:27:27] can give

[1:27:28] me

[1:27:29] the reference, I'd

[1:27:29] appreciate it

[1:27:31] and we can go

[1:27:31] from there

[1:27:32] . After this

[1:27:32] , I. All

[1:27:32] right

[1:27:33] . Get

[1:27:33] you my

[1:27:34] contact info

[1:27:35] .

[1:27:35] And

[1:27:35] with most

[1:27:36] , uh, as

[1:27:36] with

[1:27:36] most

[1:27:37] ordinances

[1:27:37] , this will

[1:27:38] require a

[1:27:38] 2nd year. Or

[1:27:39] a

[1:27:39] 2nd

[1:27:40] reading

[1:27:40] ,

[1:27:40] pardon me

[1:27:42] to close public

[1:27:42] comment

[1:27:43] . I have

[1:27:44] a motion to

[1:27:45] close the public comment

[1:27:46] .

[1:27:47] Second, no, I already, I'm

[1:27:47] sorry

[1:27:49] , I got a second from Kim

[1:27:49] .

[1:27:49] 00

[1:27:52] . Ok

[1:27:56] Uh

[1:27:58] , all right

[1:27:58] , uh,

[1:27:59] public comment is closed. We

[1:28:00] have a ordinance before us

[1:28:02] .

[1:28:03] Moves to adopt

[1:28:05] Second

[1:28:05] , a motion

[1:28:05] from David

[1:28:06] and 2nd

[1:28:07] from

[1:28:07] Jonathan

[1:28:19] . Motion

[1:28:20] passes

[1:28:21] unanimously

[1:28:21] . All right

[1:28:22] , Robert,

[1:28:23] don't go far. I've got

[1:28:25] , uh,

[1:28:25] this one's a little shorter to

[1:28:25] read

[1:28:27] . Uh

[1:28:28] , item 7c

[1:28:29] conduct a

[1:28:29] public hearing

[1:28:30] and

[1:28:31] consider

[1:28:32] approving an ordinance on first

[1:28:32] greeting with the caption

[1:28:33] reading

[1:28:34] and ordinance of the

[1:28:35] City of Flugerville, Texas

[1:28:35] ,

[1:28:35] repealing

[1:28:36] and

[1:28:36] replacing

[1:28:36] Chapter

[1:28:37] 92

[1:28:39] , Helton Sanitation of

[1:28:39] the

[1:28:40] of

[1:28:41] ordinances providing

[1:28:41] for

[1:28:42] procedures, penalties

[1:28:42] , and

[1:28:43] remedies

[1:28:44] , and providing an

[1:28:44] effective date

[1:28:46] . It's all you

[1:28:47] ,

[1:28:48] Robert. Ok

[1:28:49] This

[1:28:49] is

[1:28:50] another

[1:28:50] restructuring of

[1:28:51] this

[1:28:52] particular public

[1:28:52] nuisance

[1:28:53] ordinance. Again

[1:28:54] , the ordinance

[1:28:54] has not been

[1:28:55] updated

[1:28:56] since

[1:28:56] 2007

[1:28:56] It had

[1:28:57] a

[1:28:58] standalone section

[1:28:59] addressing wells

[1:28:59] and

[1:29:01] cisterns

[1:29:01] ,

[1:29:01] which

[1:29:01] were removed

[1:29:03] and

[1:29:03] consolidated under the

[1:29:04] broader

[1:29:04] definition of

[1:29:05] a nuisance

[1:29:06] .

[1:29:06] Before, in the

[1:29:07] old ordinance,

[1:29:08] high weeds

[1:29:08] and

[1:29:08] grass were

[1:29:10] part

[1:29:10] of

[1:29:10] the

[1:29:11] public nuisance

[1:29:13] . Um

[1:29:15] delineated articles. It, it has

[1:29:16] now

[1:29:17] been separated into its

[1:29:17] own

[1:29:18] Article One

[1:29:19] . Providing

[1:29:19] clear

[1:29:20] identification

[1:29:21] of

[1:29:21] responsible

[1:29:22] parties and

[1:29:22] specifying

[1:29:23] locations where conditions are

[1:29:24] prohibited

[1:29:26] . High weeds and

[1:29:27] grass provisions

[1:29:27] now

[1:29:28] reference

[1:29:28] the

[1:29:29] standardized notification

[1:29:30] and

[1:29:31] enforcement

[1:29:32] procedures in

[1:29:32] Article ii

[1:29:33] , Section 9213

[1:29:34] , as

[1:29:35] well as

[1:29:35] a

[1:29:35] penalty

[1:29:36] provisions in

[1:29:39] Article 39214

[1:29:40] . The

[1:29:41] subjective

[1:29:42] language previously used to

[1:29:42] describe nuisances

[1:29:43] has been

[1:29:44] replaced with

[1:29:44] more

[1:29:45] objective

[1:29:46] and

[1:29:46] specific descriptions and

[1:29:47] the

[1:29:48] scope

[1:29:48] has

[1:29:49] been

[1:29:50] expanded to

[1:29:51] include miscellaneous

[1:29:53] sanitation issues and

[1:29:53] the

[1:29:53] storage

[1:29:54] of

[1:29:55] discarded materials

[1:29:57] uh consistent with the high

[1:29:58] weeds and grass provisions

[1:29:59] , the

[1:30:00] public nuisance section is

[1:30:01] our

[1:30:01] reference

[1:30:02] standardized

[1:30:02] notification and

[1:30:04] enforcement

[1:30:04] procedures

[1:30:06] . Notification

[1:30:06] ,

[1:30:07] enforcement, and

[1:30:08] penalty

[1:30:08] procedures for

[1:30:09] the nuisances

[1:30:09] have

[1:30:11] been separated into

[1:30:11] distinct sections

[1:30:13] and expanded

[1:30:14] to more closely align

[1:30:14] with the

[1:30:14] state

[1:30:15] . Uh

[1:30:16] , one of

[1:30:17] those

[1:30:18] subjective references in

[1:30:19] chapter 92

[1:30:20] , Public

[1:30:22] nuisance

[1:30:22] definition stated

[1:30:24] a

[1:30:24] public

[1:30:25] nuisance is something

[1:30:27] that

[1:30:27] greatly offends

[1:30:28] the

[1:30:29] public

[1:30:29] morals and decency

[1:30:31] . I

[1:30:32] , I

[1:30:33] can't

[1:30:34] enforce that. You know

[1:30:35] , I just

[1:30:36] ,

[1:30:36] I can't

[1:30:39] . 16

[1:30:43] . Noxious weeds were

[1:30:45] referenced in the

[1:30:45] in the

[1:30:45] high

[1:30:47] weeds. What's

[1:30:47] a noxious weed

[1:30:49] ? I

[1:30:49] don't know

[1:30:52] Perhaps our

[1:30:52] arborist

[1:30:52] could

[1:30:54] . I guess is that

[1:30:54] that is

[1:30:56] that that pollen? Because I

[1:30:56] would love

[1:30:58] to

[1:30:58] outlaw. I don't

[1:30:59] know. Don't outlaw

[1:31:01] it

[1:31:03] altogether. Just the

[1:31:03] allergies

[1:31:04] .

[1:31:05] Another definition was uh of

[1:31:05] a

[1:31:06] public nuisance

[1:31:07] is

[1:31:08] that

[1:31:09] substantially annoy

[1:31:10] the comfort

[1:31:10] health

[1:31:12] and repose of the

[1:31:12] safety

[1:31:12] republic. So

[1:31:14] to

[1:31:14] substantially

[1:31:14] annoy

[1:31:16] . That

[1:31:16] seems

[1:31:16] different

[1:31:17] than annoying or

[1:31:18] reasonable

[1:31:19] person. Yeah, I, I can't, I

[1:31:19] can't

[1:31:20] enforce those types of

[1:31:21] things

[1:31:21] . So

[1:31:23] . We've taken those

[1:31:24] out

[1:31:25] and more clear

[1:31:27] , concise

[1:31:28] objective language. All right

[1:31:29] .

[1:31:30] Counsel

[1:31:30] , questions? Um

[1:31:31] , I have

[1:31:32] a couple

[1:31:32] of questions

[1:31:33] . Um

[1:31:35] , so

[1:31:35] in

[1:31:36] the

[1:31:36] violation section

[1:31:37] under

[1:31:39] 92.14

[1:31:39] . It

[1:31:41] mentions that the

[1:31:41] fee

[1:31:41] ranges from

[1:31:43] $10 to

[1:31:44] $2000 per

[1:31:45] day

[1:31:45] , but

[1:31:46] it

[1:31:48] doesn't

[1:31:48] provide or

[1:31:48] ok

[1:31:50] . Well

[1:31:50] , regardless, it

[1:31:53] doesn't provide um guidelines

[1:31:54] as to

[1:31:55] which

[1:31:55] fee level

[1:31:56] is

[1:31:57] going

[1:31:57] to apply to

[1:31:58] which offense

[1:32:01] .

[1:32:02] Separate offenses

[1:32:03] committed on

[1:32:04] each day that

[1:32:04] the violation

[1:32:06] exists unabated after the

[1:32:07] deadline for abatement

[1:32:08] and

[1:32:08] removal established

[1:32:10] by

[1:32:11] 92131c

[1:32:11] .

[1:32:11] Any person

[1:32:12] violating

[1:32:12] this

[1:32:13] provision will be

[1:32:13] fined not

[1:32:13] less than

[1:32:15] $10 no more than

[1:32:16] $2000 per

[1:32:17] fence

[1:32:17] unless

[1:32:18] otherwise limited by

[1:32:18] applicable

[1:32:19] laws that gives

[1:32:20] the court

[1:32:20] a

[1:32:20] range

[1:32:21] This

[1:32:22] , this will be done

[1:32:22] in court. I

[1:32:23] don't

[1:32:24] , uh, we don't

[1:32:25] issue citations I don't

[1:32:26] have

[1:32:26] citation power. Oh, ok

[1:32:28] . This

[1:32:29] would go through the

[1:32:29] normal

[1:32:31] notification

[1:32:32] procedures and

[1:32:33] they're either going to work

[1:32:34] with us or they're not

[1:32:35] . They

[1:32:35] don't. We file it

[1:32:36] in municipal

[1:32:36] court

[1:32:37] . I think

[1:32:38] this just

[1:32:38] gives

[1:32:38] the judge

[1:32:39] a

[1:32:40] good range

[1:32:40] to be

[1:32:40] able to deal

[1:32:40] with

[1:32:42] it based

[1:32:42] on

[1:32:42] the

[1:32:43] conditions that exist

[1:32:44] . Why

[1:32:45] is the range so large

[1:32:53] I

[1:32:53] , I

[1:32:53] imagine is

[1:32:54] that statutory

[1:32:55] , the

[1:32:56] uh it is

[1:32:56] $2000. $2000 is

[1:32:57] the

[1:32:57] limit the

[1:32:58] statute for this type

[1:32:59] of offense

[1:33:00] . Could

[1:33:00] the

[1:33:00] range be

[1:33:01] smaller

[1:33:02] ? It'd be

[1:33:04] $10 to

[1:33:05] $500.

[1:33:05] It could

[1:33:05] be 500 to

[1:33:07] 2000 that

[1:33:07] that's

[1:33:09] a policy. You can go

[1:33:09] to

[1:33:10] 2000, but you can go lower than

[1:33:10] that

[1:33:11] . That's the

[1:33:12] , that's the,

[1:33:12] the, the

[1:33:12] State

[1:33:13] limits us to no

[1:33:14] more than

[1:33:14] 2000, but

[1:33:15] we

[1:33:16] could

[1:33:16] for health and

[1:33:17] safety. We

[1:33:17] can

[1:33:18] help the

[1:33:18] limit

[1:33:19] lower than that.

[1:33:19] I

[1:33:19] mean

[1:33:20] , 10 seems kind

[1:33:21] of low

[1:33:22] for something that has

[1:33:22] gone

[1:33:22] to

[1:33:23] court. Yeah

[1:33:25] . Sorry, I, well

[1:33:25] , I

[1:33:27] didn't read

[1:33:27] this

[1:33:27] as to

[1:33:28] apply

[1:33:29] to

[1:33:29] court

[1:33:30] . So

[1:33:30] , um, I'm not

[1:33:31] sure

[1:33:31] that it's

[1:33:32] for

[1:33:33] the

[1:33:34] regular

[1:33:34] person reading this, that they

[1:33:35] would

[1:33:36] understand that

[1:33:36] to

[1:33:36] be

[1:33:38] related to going to court. I

[1:33:39] don't know if there can

[1:33:40] be

[1:33:40] any

[1:33:41] clarification on

[1:33:41] that or

[1:33:41] or if

[1:33:42] that's

[1:33:42] just

[1:33:43] the

[1:33:43] regular

[1:33:44] language of the notice

[1:33:44] of

[1:33:45] violation that we

[1:33:45] send

[1:33:46] out on

[1:33:46] we've got

[1:33:47] a

[1:33:48] standard stock

[1:33:48] letter that we

[1:33:49] send

[1:33:50] , it'll

[1:33:51] identify as

[1:33:52] a property owner

[1:33:52] .

[1:33:52] It tells you what

[1:33:53] your

[1:33:53] offense

[1:33:53] is

[1:33:55] . It gives you a time limit

[1:33:55] to

[1:33:56] , uh, comply

[1:33:59] . And it also

[1:33:59] gives you your right

[1:34:01] to appeal

[1:34:02] .

[1:34:03] And it also states that if you

[1:34:04] do not come

[1:34:05] into compliance or

[1:34:06] you don't reach out to us

[1:34:06] , then

[1:34:06] then

[1:34:08] the case will be filed in

[1:34:08] municipal court

[1:34:10] , and then the

[1:34:10] second page of

[1:34:11] that notice

[1:34:14] .

[1:34:14] Gives the

[1:34:15] ordinance language of

[1:34:15] the offense

[1:34:17] . The

[1:34:19] appeal

[1:34:19] procedure, and

[1:34:21] then the

[1:34:21] range

[1:34:22] of penalty

[1:34:23] . But

[1:34:25] I understand

[1:34:26] what you're saying. Ok, so upon

[1:34:28] reading this again

[1:34:28] , um, in

[1:34:29] response

[1:34:30] to

[1:34:30] , to your

[1:34:31] , um, your

[1:34:33] point. I believe that, so it

[1:34:33] says a

[1:34:34] separate offense is

[1:34:35] committed on each day

[1:34:37] . So

[1:34:37] each

[1:34:37] day is a

[1:34:39] separate offense. Is

[1:34:39] that

[1:34:39] correct

[1:34:40] ? And

[1:34:41] so then, and

[1:34:42] then you can't

[1:34:42] be fined

[1:34:43] not

[1:34:43] less than

[1:34:44] $10 no

[1:34:44] more

[1:34:44] than

[1:34:47] $2000 per offense. So

[1:34:47] that

[1:34:48] could be daily

[1:34:50] . So

[1:34:51] it

[1:34:51] could be

[1:34:52] up to

[1:34:53] $2000 per

[1:34:55] day

[1:34:55] . So I

[1:34:55] , so

[1:34:56] that

[1:34:57] was just my concern

[1:34:58] because I

[1:34:59] didn't know about

[1:35:00] that

[1:35:01] , so

[1:35:02] the discretion based

[1:35:02] on

[1:35:03] , um

[1:35:04] , Mhm

[1:35:05] . But, ok, so

[1:35:06] , but

[1:35:06] what the

[1:35:07] prosecutor puts

[1:35:07] forward and the

[1:35:08] judge

[1:35:09] has

[1:35:09] the

[1:35:09] ability to

[1:35:11] and

[1:35:13] this is, right?

[1:35:13] It's all

[1:35:14] in this is our court

[1:35:15] ,

[1:35:15] the judge that

[1:35:16] we oversee.

[1:35:16] Correct

[1:35:18] . Ok

[1:35:18] , and

[1:35:18] then another

[1:35:20] question I had is there a

[1:35:20] process for

[1:35:21] a hearing

[1:35:22] or appeal

[1:35:22] of

[1:35:23] the violation or of

[1:35:23] the fees

[1:35:25] charged because I

[1:35:25] didn't

[1:35:25] notice

[1:35:25] that

[1:35:26] in

[1:35:27] this

[1:35:27] um document

[1:35:31] . The

[1:35:32] appeal is

[1:35:34] is

[1:35:34] through

[1:35:34] municipal

[1:35:36] court municipal

[1:35:36] court

[1:35:36] . Mhm. Ok,

[1:35:37] because

[1:35:38] the

[1:35:38] other

[1:35:38] ones

[1:35:38] were

[1:35:39] specifically

[1:35:40] defined

[1:35:40] . This is

[1:35:41] your right. This is how

[1:35:42] you

[1:35:43] appeal. This

[1:35:43] one doesn't

[1:35:45] So for

[1:35:45] a

[1:35:46] regular person

[1:35:47] who's not, you

[1:35:47] know, well versed

[1:35:48] in this

[1:35:49] , they

[1:35:49] would see

[1:35:50] that there

[1:35:51] is

[1:35:51] no

[1:35:52] listing of

[1:35:52] how you

[1:35:54] can appeal.

[1:35:54] Yeah

[1:35:54] , I disagree. Once

[1:35:55] there's

[1:35:56] notice given on this

[1:35:56] , they

[1:35:57] would

[1:35:58] specifically tell them

[1:35:59] as

[1:35:59] they

[1:35:59] , as mentioned

[1:36:00] , uh, what

[1:36:01] the process is and

[1:36:01] what their

[1:36:02] rights are

[1:36:03] . Ok

[1:36:03] , so I'm just

[1:36:04] looking for

[1:36:05] , so why do we have

[1:36:05] it

[1:36:05] in

[1:36:07] one section about a

[1:36:08] hearing and appeal

[1:36:09] and then not

[1:36:09] in

[1:36:10] in another

[1:36:11] . Those are, I

[1:36:12] believe, are, are the

[1:36:14] others

[1:36:14] administrative fines or are

[1:36:15] those

[1:36:16] also

[1:36:16] court

[1:36:16] administered

[1:36:17] fines in the

[1:36:17] other

[1:36:18] section

[1:36:19] administered fines

[1:36:19] as well

[1:36:21] . Ok

[1:36:23] Uh, I mean

[1:36:24] , it's Yeah, I

[1:36:25] , I

[1:36:25] don't know why

[1:36:25] they

[1:36:26] one

[1:36:26] ordinance has

[1:36:27] it and the others

[1:36:28] don't. It's

[1:36:29] I think

[1:36:30] I

[1:36:31] think

[1:36:32] he's right in the sense that

[1:36:34] that it's gonna be spelled out

[1:36:35] in the letter, and I think, you

[1:36:35] know

[1:36:37] , pretrial hearings, you,

[1:36:37] you get your you

[1:36:38] get notice of

[1:36:39] how, you know

[1:36:39] , the process and

[1:36:40] you

[1:36:40] can

[1:36:41] appeal these to county

[1:36:42] court of law. You, you

[1:36:43] , you

[1:36:43] literally

[1:36:44] , you literally would

[1:36:44] be put on, you

[1:36:46] , you literally

[1:36:46] will have

[1:36:46] . The steps

[1:36:48] for Pe

[1:36:48] given to you

[1:36:49] over

[1:36:50] there. So

[1:36:51] information

[1:36:52] given

[1:36:52] to

[1:36:52] a

[1:36:54] one

[1:36:54] individual through

[1:36:55] this process

[1:36:55] but it

[1:36:57] doesn't

[1:36:57] allow

[1:36:58] understanding for the

[1:36:59] general

[1:36:59] public

[1:36:59] about whether

[1:37:01] the

[1:37:01] appeal

[1:37:02] or options are. So

[1:37:02] I do, I

[1:37:03] do

[1:37:03] think we we

[1:37:04] should probably add

[1:37:06] that language to the

[1:37:06] uh to

[1:37:07] the

[1:37:08] ordinance and, and we

[1:37:08] could

[1:37:09] consider that with an

[1:37:09] amendment

[1:37:09] I think

[1:37:10] we also, as

[1:37:10] we go

[1:37:11] through this, we

[1:37:11] need to

[1:37:12] consider

[1:37:12] our audience. I

[1:37:13] don't

[1:37:13] think

[1:37:13] our

[1:37:14] typical

[1:37:14] audience is

[1:37:15] ,

[1:37:15] is someone who

[1:37:15] can't go to

[1:37:16] sleep, so they're

[1:37:16] reading

[1:37:17] our

[1:37:17] ordinances in the middle of the

[1:37:18] night

[1:37:18] . But

[1:37:19] it's someone

[1:37:19] who has

[1:37:20] received a letter, received

[1:37:21] a

[1:37:21] citation, and

[1:37:22] is

[1:37:22] seeking, you

[1:37:22] know

[1:37:24] , understanding of how to

[1:37:24] proceed. That MAY be spelled

[1:37:25] out in the

[1:37:26] letter, but it

[1:37:27] should also be spelled out in

[1:37:28] the ordinance

[1:37:28] , right? I

[1:37:30] I

[1:37:31] understand

[1:37:33] . Um, part of

[1:37:33] the

[1:37:33] notification

[1:37:35] process to

[1:37:36] , uh, in

[1:37:37] certain circumstances, you get

[1:37:37] an

[1:37:38] advisory

[1:37:39] card

[1:37:39] first, which

[1:37:40] doesn't even put

[1:37:40] you

[1:37:41] , you

[1:37:42] know

[1:37:42] ,

[1:37:42] it's not

[1:37:43] a violation yet

[1:37:44] . It is

[1:37:45] but it's, it's

[1:37:46] , it's

[1:37:46] your

[1:37:46] first

[1:37:47] warning. It's

[1:37:47] , it's very much

[1:37:48] a

[1:37:48] warning

[1:37:49] . And

[1:37:50] then next one that

[1:37:51] comes will

[1:37:51] be

[1:37:53] the official

[1:37:54] notice of violation that comes

[1:37:54] via certified mail

[1:37:55] . I have a

[1:37:55] feeling there's gonna be a lot

[1:37:56] of handholding

[1:37:57] through

[1:37:57] these

[1:37:58] processes. There

[1:37:58] are, and

[1:37:59] that's the only

[1:37:59] way you

[1:38:00] gain

[1:38:01] compliance and that's our job.

[1:38:01] Compliance is

[1:38:02] the goal

[1:38:02] because

[1:38:02] it's like we've dealt

[1:38:03] with our

[1:38:04] with our

[1:38:04] police

[1:38:05] law enforcement

[1:38:05] here

[1:38:06] , um, we specifically,

[1:38:07] that's what we want. We

[1:38:08] want

[1:38:09] compliance as opposed to. So

[1:38:09] Mayor, are

[1:38:11] you asking Robert,

[1:38:11] to go back

[1:38:12] and add

[1:38:13] the language

[1:38:14] to it and bring it back another

[1:38:14] day. Well

[1:38:15] , I've

[1:38:16] heard that

[1:38:16] the

[1:38:17] language

[1:38:17] , you know

[1:38:18] , is

[1:38:18] in the

[1:38:18] other

[1:38:19] ordinances that

[1:38:20] we're

[1:38:20] working on tonight. I

[1:38:21] think

[1:38:21] it's

[1:38:22] appropriate

[1:38:22] that

[1:38:23] uh where

[1:38:24] someone to move

[1:38:24] to

[1:38:25] approve

[1:38:25] this

[1:38:26] with

[1:38:27] the

[1:38:27] amendment

[1:38:28] that

[1:38:28] include

[1:38:29] the um

[1:38:30] same

[1:38:31] language, MR. Mayor

[1:38:32] would you, I wouldn't

[1:38:33] accept

[1:38:34] because this is a

[1:38:34] public

[1:38:34] hearing

[1:38:36] but I, I would be

[1:38:36] happy

[1:38:36] to

[1:38:38] consider that in a little

[1:38:38] bit

[1:38:40] . Uh

[1:38:40] , Robert, what else do

[1:38:41] you have for us

[1:38:42] Uh, that's it

[1:38:43] on

[1:38:44] , on public do we have any

[1:38:45] other questions? Unless you

[1:38:46] have any other questions

[1:38:47] . This

[1:38:49] is a, oh, no

[1:38:50] , I

[1:38:50] just wanted to

[1:38:51] ,

[1:38:52] uh, again

[1:38:54] , um, I appreciate the

[1:38:54] thoroughness that

[1:38:55] you've

[1:38:56] demonstrated here. I

[1:38:58] , um, also

[1:38:58] ,

[1:38:59] I'm glad to see that there's a,

[1:38:59] a

[1:38:59] separate

[1:39:00] section for

[1:39:01] high

[1:39:01] weeds because I

[1:39:03] , I also

[1:39:03] have

[1:39:03] been involved in the

[1:39:04] neighborhood hoa and

[1:39:05] that is

[1:39:05] a

[1:39:06] conti

[1:39:06] continuous problem

[1:39:07] . So

[1:39:07] I

[1:39:08] appreciate that you're

[1:39:09] addressing

[1:39:09] it

[1:39:10] with

[1:39:10] clear

[1:39:11] guidelines

[1:39:11] that a

[1:39:11] normal

[1:39:12] person

[1:39:12] can

[1:39:13] understand that's, you know

[1:39:14] objective

[1:39:14] . So thank you

[1:39:14] for

[1:39:16] that. I don't know

[1:39:17] . This is a

[1:39:17] public hearing. I

[1:39:18] would ask if

[1:39:19] there is

[1:39:19] anyone from

[1:39:20] the public

[1:39:21] wishing to speak on this item

[1:39:23] .

[1:39:24] Looks like I've got, uh, I

[1:39:25] got

[1:39:26] one if you come forward and

[1:39:26] state your name

[1:39:27] . Uh

[1:39:28] , this is

[1:39:28] Scott Staperman

[1:39:30] . Um, I guess

[1:39:30] one simple part about this is

[1:39:31] it doesn't

[1:39:32] same

[1:39:32] thing about the

[1:39:33] hoa

[1:39:34] . If

[1:39:34] their

[1:39:35] findings are that

[1:39:35] they have somebody

[1:39:36] that

[1:39:36] they

[1:39:37] reported to y'all

[1:39:37] take

[1:39:38] into

[1:39:39] account

[1:39:41] their timelines and

[1:39:41] their deliver of

[1:39:42] notice

[1:39:42] or

[1:39:43] delivery

[1:39:44] of it's going to be

[1:39:45] expensive. Can you, can you

[1:39:46] get

[1:39:46] closer to

[1:39:47] the microphone? Did

[1:39:47] y'all hear

[1:39:48] that question

[1:39:48] ? No

[1:39:48] , I

[1:39:49] I don't think we heard it on

[1:39:50] the microphone

[1:39:50] . That's

[1:39:51] fine

[1:39:51] . I

[1:39:51] guess

[1:39:52] the question

[1:39:52] was

[1:39:52] if

[1:39:53] there's

[1:39:53] nothing

[1:39:54] specifically

[1:39:55] mentioned here

[1:39:55] about

[1:39:55] the

[1:39:56] hoa.

[1:39:56] If

[1:39:56] the

[1:39:57] hoa has proceeded

[1:39:58] with

[1:39:58] their own

[1:40:01] um notifications

[1:40:01] or

[1:40:02] deliverables

[1:40:02] . Does this

[1:40:03] take

[1:40:04] into

[1:40:04] account

[1:40:04] their

[1:40:06] timelines

[1:40:06] or

[1:40:06] you're asking for if

[1:40:08] the

[1:40:08] hoa's

[1:40:09] notice, so this would be a

[1:40:10] judicial process

[1:40:11] . Ok, so

[1:40:11] I

[1:40:11] don't

[1:40:12] think we

[1:40:13] could rely on

[1:40:13] the hoa to kick off

[1:40:14] that

[1:40:15] timeline

[1:40:15] . It

[1:40:15] would be

[1:40:16] , I would

[1:40:16] ask that if there

[1:40:17] is

[1:40:17] a concern

[1:40:18] that

[1:40:18] the

[1:40:19] hoa

[1:40:19] raised the

[1:40:20] complaint as well, so

[1:40:21] that

[1:40:22] the

[1:40:22] judicial

[1:40:23] process could

[1:40:23] be

[1:40:24] undertaken

[1:40:24] . Robert

[1:40:25] , would you

[1:40:25] like to

[1:40:26] add anything

[1:40:27] ? It's just

[1:40:27] a

[1:40:31] municipalities and ways are

[1:40:31] two different. We, we

[1:40:33] don't

[1:40:33] enforce

[1:40:35] hoa and they're,

[1:40:35] they're just completely. Now

[1:40:36] what you can do

[1:40:37] is you can have

[1:40:38] a

[1:40:38] court and you have a judge

[1:40:39] and ask the

[1:40:40] judge to

[1:40:40] take

[1:40:40] judicial notice

[1:40:41] and hhoa

[1:40:42] has

[1:40:43] adjudicated the same

[1:40:43] . You know

[1:40:44] ,

[1:40:45] action, so I mean, I think

[1:40:46] it's

[1:40:47] redundancy, but those are

[1:40:48] two

[1:40:49] different processes and

[1:40:50] procedures over there as well,

[1:40:50] but

[1:40:51] I mean

[1:40:51] , so

[1:40:51] this

[1:40:52] would

[1:40:52] effectively start at like

[1:40:53] ground

[1:40:53] zero day

[1:40:54] 1 day this

[1:40:56] one

[1:40:56] for the judicial

[1:40:57] process, yes

[1:40:57] .

[1:40:58] So if the hoa has

[1:40:58] been going

[1:40:59] on

[1:40:59] for

[1:40:59] 9

[1:41:00] months

[1:41:01] and

[1:41:01] you're

[1:41:01] finally

[1:41:02] getting to the city

[1:41:03] . Please

[1:41:03] come to the

[1:41:04] city

[1:41:05] sooner

[1:41:05] . So I

[1:41:05] ,

[1:41:05] I advise

[1:41:07] that

[1:41:07] a lot

[1:41:07] because

[1:41:08] people sometimes take the

[1:41:09] city

[1:41:09] more

[1:41:12] seriously. Well, when you

[1:41:12] have, I was about to say

[1:41:13] when

[1:41:13] you

[1:41:14] have

[1:41:15] judicial authority

[1:41:16] , um

[1:41:16] yes

[1:41:16] , yes

[1:41:17] , remember

[1:41:18] h Hways can

[1:41:19] take you home. Is

[1:41:19] there anyone

[1:41:20] else from public

[1:41:20] wishing to

[1:41:21] make a comment on this item

[1:41:21] ?

[1:41:22] They

[1:41:22] don't

[1:41:23] want to

[1:41:25] . I

[1:41:25] see

[1:41:25] none

[1:41:26] .

[1:41:26] Where blue

[1:41:27] clothes, hole

[1:41:27] collars

[1:41:29] . I

[1:41:29] have

[1:41:30] a motion from

[1:41:30] Caesar in

[1:41:32] a second from, was

[1:41:32] it

[1:41:32] Jonathan? Yeah, and

[1:41:34] I'd

[1:41:34] like to

[1:41:34] add a

[1:41:36] , a friendly, hold

[1:41:37] on

[1:41:38] ,

[1:41:38] afterwards to

[1:41:39] close afterwards

[1:41:40] .

[1:41:40] Sorry

[1:41:41] . You'd like to

[1:41:41] amend

[1:41:42] closing

[1:41:43] public comment not yet

[1:41:43] .

[1:41:44] All right. Sorry

[1:41:45] , I

[1:41:46] misunderstood the motion

[1:41:46] . There

[1:41:46] we go

[1:41:47] . Um

[1:41:49] . And this is

[1:41:50] an

[1:41:50] ordinance. David, would you

[1:41:51] like to make

[1:41:52] a motion? I would

[1:41:53] like to make a motion. I would

[1:41:53] like to

[1:41:54] move that we

[1:41:55] adopt

[1:41:55] the

[1:41:57] uh the ordinance with

[1:41:59] the

[1:42:00] amendment that

[1:42:01] have the

[1:42:02] the

[1:42:04] processes spelled out in the

[1:42:04] same way that the

[1:42:05] other

[1:42:06] ordinance does

[1:42:07] , and also

[1:42:08] that

[1:42:08] the maximum

[1:42:10] daily fine be

[1:42:11] limited to no more

[1:42:12] than $500

[1:42:15] .

[1:42:15] So we

[1:42:16] have

[1:42:17] a motion. All right,

[1:42:17] we do have

[1:42:19] a

[1:42:19] second with a

[1:42:20] reduced maximum

[1:42:21] fine, let's say

[1:42:22] go

[1:42:23] to comment

[1:42:24] , it's 500

[1:42:24] normal,

[1:42:24] I mean

[1:42:26] . But

[1:42:26] are other

[1:42:28] cities

[1:42:28] doing around that or are they

[1:42:29] doing sticking

[1:42:30] to 2000

[1:42:30] ? I

[1:42:30] think

[1:42:31] the question is, what do

[1:42:32] you

[1:42:33] want to give your judge

[1:42:34] the

[1:42:35] authority to enforce, right? I

[1:42:36] mean

[1:42:37] , I'd

[1:42:37] rather have the tools

[1:42:37] in the

[1:42:39] tool tools

[1:42:40] and toolbox

[1:42:40] .

[1:42:40] It's

[1:42:41] a bit

[1:42:42] . Bigger

[1:42:42] stick

[1:42:44] . $500

[1:42:44] a day still adds up

[1:42:46] . $500.

[1:42:47] Sorry, say it again

[1:42:49] . $500 a day

[1:42:49] still

[1:42:50] adds

[1:42:51] up

[1:42:51] . I mean, if

[1:42:52] you're talking about a

[1:42:53] separate

[1:42:53] offenses each day that you

[1:42:54] have

[1:42:55] something

[1:42:56] . So

[1:42:58] $14,000 a

[1:42:58] week

[1:42:59] .

[1:43:00] For high weeds

[1:43:01] Mhm

[1:43:02] I

[1:43:04] , I'm sure

[1:43:05] that it would that that

[1:43:06] the

[1:43:06] higher one would be for

[1:43:07] something

[1:43:07] more substantial

[1:43:09] under this thing

[1:43:09] , but you

[1:43:11] know

[1:43:11] ,

[1:43:11] for

[1:43:11] one month

[1:43:13] , $500 you know

[1:43:13] ,

[1:43:14] is

[1:43:15] uh $15,000 for a month

[1:43:16] . So I

[1:43:16] think, I still

[1:43:16] think

[1:43:18] that's

[1:43:19] right

[1:43:22] . Talking all night but

[1:43:24] I

[1:43:25] feel you, Caesar

[1:43:27] My motion

[1:43:27] passes

[1:43:29] Thank

[1:43:29] you

[1:43:31] her

[1:43:31] , that

[1:43:32] brings us

[1:43:34] to 7d, and Robert,

[1:43:35] I'm not kidding, you might want

[1:43:36] to sit down for this one

[1:43:37] . I

[1:43:38] really, 7d

[1:43:38] is conduct a public

[1:43:40] hearing and consider approving

[1:43:41] an ordinance on first reading

[1:43:41] with

[1:43:42] a

[1:43:42] caption

[1:43:43] reading

[1:43:43] ordinance of the city

[1:43:44] of

[1:43:45] Flugerville, Texas, amending

[1:43:46] the city of Flugerville

[1:43:46] , Texas

[1:43:47] Code of Ordinances

[1:43:48] , Chapter 150

[1:43:49] Adding

[1:43:51] section

[1:43:52] 150.18 regarding

[1:43:52] the means of appeal

[1:43:52] in

[1:43:53] the

[1:43:54] International Business

[1:43:55] Code

[1:43:55] 2021

[1:43:56] edition

[1:43:56] , the

[1:43:57] International

[1:43:58] Residential Code

[1:43:58] 2021

[1:43:59] edition

[1:43:59] ,

[1:43:59] the

[1:44:00] International

[1:44:00] Plumbing

[1:44:01] Code

[1:44:01] 2021 edition

[1:44:03] International

[1:44:04] Mechanical

[1:44:04] Code

[1:44:05] 2021 edition

[1:44:06] .

[1:44:07] International Fuel gas

[1:44:07] Code

[1:44:08] 2021 edition

[1:44:09] . International

[1:44:10] Energy

[1:44:12] Conservation Code

[1:44:12] 2021

[1:44:12] edition

[1:44:14] . International Fire

[1:44:14] Code

[1:44:17] . 2021

[1:44:17] edition

[1:44:19] .

[1:44:19] International existing Building

[1:44:21] Code 2021

[1:44:21] edition

[1:44:23] .

[1:44:23] International Property

[1:44:24] Maintenance Code

[1:44:25] 2021 edition

[1:44:26] .

[1:44:26] International swimming

[1:44:27] pool

[1:44:27] and

[1:44:28] spa code

[1:44:30] 2021 edition

[1:44:31] with

[1:44:31] amendments

[1:44:32] to

[1:44:32] meet local

[1:44:33] conditions, providing that

[1:44:34] this

[1:44:35] ordinance shall

[1:44:35] be cumulative,

[1:44:36] repealing

[1:44:37] all ordinances to the

[1:44:37] extent they are

[1:44:38] in conflict

[1:44:38] ,

[1:44:39] providing

[1:44:39] for

[1:44:40] severability

[1:44:41] and

[1:44:41] providing

[1:44:42] an

[1:44:42] effective date

[1:44:44] .

[1:44:44] Sorry about that. That's all

[1:44:45] right

[1:44:45] . You've got a lot

[1:44:46] of

[1:44:47] , um,

[1:44:48] and I've got to enforce them

[1:44:50] as

[1:44:51] currently adopted

[1:44:52] when we did

[1:44:53] the

[1:44:55] 2022 in back

[1:44:55] in APRIL

[1:44:55] ,

[1:44:55] MARCH

[1:44:57] of 2022 when we

[1:44:57] adopted

[1:44:59] the 2021 Code

[1:45:00] of Sweets that

[1:45:00] you just read out

[1:45:02] . Uh, as an

[1:45:04] oversight on my part

[1:45:04] . We

[1:45:04] are

[1:45:07] currently referencing Section

[1:45:07] 2.3

[1:45:08] of the city

[1:45:09] of Flurevo

[1:45:11] Unified Development Code, Board

[1:45:11] of Adjustments

[1:45:13] . But

[1:45:13] their

[1:45:13] duties

[1:45:15] in

[1:45:17] that section are in

[1:45:18] terms of zoning

[1:45:19] . And variance

[1:45:20] requests. They're

[1:45:21] , they're

[1:45:22] planning board of adjustments

[1:45:24] .

[1:45:25] Going through, I don't know

[1:45:25] what

[1:45:26] , I can't remember what

[1:45:27] tipped me off on this, but

[1:45:28] I

[1:45:29] found out, you

[1:45:29] know, it was

[1:45:29] wrong

[1:45:31] So with this

[1:45:33] amendment

[1:45:33] seeks to do

[1:45:33] as

[1:45:35] correctly

[1:45:35] reference

[1:45:36] the appeals to the

[1:45:36] Board of

[1:45:38] Adjustments as

[1:45:38] described in

[1:45:40] Chapter 150, it

[1:45:40] already exists

[1:45:42] . It's Article

[1:45:42] 4

[1:45:43] ,

[1:45:43] Section 15,040

[1:45:45] This section of

[1:45:45] the

[1:45:46] code

[1:45:47] correctly

[1:45:47] references

[1:45:49] variances in terms of the

[1:45:49] city

[1:45:51] construction code. It's a

[1:45:52] construction board of

[1:45:52] adjustment

[1:45:54] . Instead

[1:45:55] of

[1:45:55] uh

[1:45:55] planning

[1:45:56] . Uh

[1:45:58] , they shall

[1:45:58] govern

[1:45:59] appeals taken from the actions

[1:46:00] of

[1:46:00] an

[1:46:00] administrative official

[1:46:01] pursuant

[1:46:02] to

[1:46:02] the city

[1:46:03] construction code. That's their

[1:46:03] mandate

[1:46:04] or duty

[1:46:05] . So

[1:46:06] just for

[1:46:07] clarity, this moves

[1:46:09] it from

[1:46:09] planning and zoning to board

[1:46:10] of

[1:46:10] adjustment. Correct

[1:46:12] . To

[1:46:14] counsel

[1:46:14] there's not really a

[1:46:15] good name

[1:46:16] for it

[1:46:16] , but

[1:46:16] it's construction

[1:46:17] board

[1:46:18] of adjustment

[1:46:18] . I'm

[1:46:19] , I

[1:46:20] guess I'm, I

[1:46:21] like clarification

[1:46:21] because you

[1:46:22] said the

[1:46:23] first

[1:46:23] time

[1:46:23] it

[1:46:25] references to Board

[1:46:26] of

[1:46:27] Adjustments related to zoning

[1:46:28] and variance requests

[1:46:29] so that

[1:46:29] this corrects it

[1:46:30] to

[1:46:31] ref

[1:46:32] reference construction board of

[1:46:33] adjustment? Do

[1:46:34] we have

[1:46:34] two

[1:46:35] different board of adjustments

[1:46:36] ?

[1:46:37] Your

[1:46:38] going

[1:46:39] a

[1:46:40] movie on it you're

[1:46:41] going to have to create

[1:46:42] one

[1:46:42] .

[1:46:43] You're going to

[1:46:43] appoint people

[1:46:44] to that

[1:46:45] . Ok

[1:46:45] , so

[1:46:45] it

[1:46:46] , so we

[1:46:47] have

[1:46:47] a

[1:46:48] current, so our current

[1:46:49] board

[1:46:50] of adjustments is

[1:46:50] solely

[1:46:51] for

[1:46:52] zoning and

[1:46:52] variance

[1:46:53] requests.

[1:46:53] And

[1:46:54] so now

[1:46:54] you're saying

[1:46:55] that

[1:46:56] this

[1:46:56] will

[1:46:57] correctly

[1:46:57] reference

[1:46:57] the

[1:46:59] the

[1:46:59] appropriate

[1:47:00] um location

[1:47:01] and we

[1:47:01] are now

[1:47:01] also gonna

[1:47:02] have

[1:47:03] to to

[1:47:03] have a

[1:47:04] second board

[1:47:04] of

[1:47:04] adjustment

[1:47:05] for

[1:47:06] construction

[1:47:06] .

[1:47:07] Correct, but I'm sorry, bored

[1:47:07] of

[1:47:08] appeal

[1:47:08] . It was oh

[1:47:09] , Board

[1:47:09] of

[1:47:10] Appeals

[1:47:10] . Ok

[1:47:11] if this board

[1:47:11] of

[1:47:12] adjustment could serve

[1:47:13] as

[1:47:13] both,

[1:47:13] but

[1:47:14] I think

[1:47:15] you're looking

[1:47:15] at

[1:47:15] two very different

[1:47:16] disciplines

[1:47:17] when you're talking about

[1:47:17] planning the construction

[1:47:21] . And

[1:47:22] therefore it's been

[1:47:23] argued

[1:47:24] that

[1:47:24] they should be separate

[1:47:26] . Are

[1:47:27] there statutory requirements

[1:47:27] for the

[1:47:28] uh

[1:47:30] the

[1:47:31] appointees? No

[1:47:31] .

[1:47:31] Uh

[1:47:32] in

[1:47:33] a

[1:47:34] perfect world

[1:47:34] , you

[1:47:35] probably should have people

[1:47:35] from

[1:47:36] the

[1:47:37] various

[1:47:37] disciplines of

[1:47:38] construction

[1:47:39] , maybe a

[1:47:39] plumber

[1:47:40] or electrician, mechanical

[1:47:41] ,

[1:47:41] general

[1:47:42] , general

[1:47:43] contractor,

[1:47:44] maybe

[1:47:44] an engineer

[1:47:45] . But

[1:47:46] no

[1:47:49] Some

[1:47:49] municipalities

[1:47:50] do stipulate

[1:47:51] .

[1:47:51] The

[1:47:52] state

[1:47:52] law for

[1:47:53] like let's

[1:47:55] say Texas Texas State Board of

[1:47:56] Plumbing Code

[1:47:58] . Their nine board

[1:47:59] member does stipulate, you know

[1:48:00] you got

[1:48:01] to

[1:48:02] have contractor

[1:48:02] , an

[1:48:02] electrician

[1:48:04] , a plumber

[1:48:04] , master

[1:48:05] plumber, and things of

[1:48:06] that

[1:48:07] They, the

[1:48:07] specific disciplines

[1:48:08] .

[1:48:08] But

[1:48:09] this, no, this

[1:48:10] , this

[1:48:11] doesn't have those

[1:48:11] . Right

[1:48:15] Uh

[1:48:15] ,

[1:48:16] counsel, any other questions

[1:48:20] This again, just sorry, one

[1:48:20] last comment. This is

[1:48:21] one of

[1:48:22] those

[1:48:22] boards that

[1:48:24] we're going

[1:48:24] to meet

[1:48:25] , hopefully once in in

[1:48:25] the

[1:48:26] 18 years

[1:48:26] I've been doing

[1:48:27] this, I've never had

[1:48:28] anyone

[1:48:29] appeal one of

[1:48:29] my decisions all

[1:48:30] the way to

[1:48:30] a

[1:48:31] border adjustments

[1:48:32] We've

[1:48:32] always been able

[1:48:33] to work

[1:48:33] things

[1:48:34] out amicably

[1:48:35] . There's

[1:48:36] provisions in the code that

[1:48:37] allow me to

[1:48:38] grant modifications

[1:48:38] to the

[1:48:40] code

[1:48:40] provisions as long

[1:48:41] as

[1:48:42] the

[1:48:42] original intent of the

[1:48:42] code

[1:48:43] is met

[1:48:44] , and the

[1:48:45] safety is

[1:48:45] not diminished by

[1:48:46] that

[1:48:47] modification

[1:48:47] . So

[1:48:49] again, we'll

[1:48:50] meet once hopefully

[1:48:51] and

[1:48:51] never

[1:48:51] meet again, but

[1:48:53] is

[1:48:54] there a

[1:48:54] specific case pending

[1:48:56] that uh

[1:48:56] that's requiring this? No. Ok

[1:48:57] .

[1:48:58] This is just part

[1:48:58] of normal

[1:49:00] code adoption. This

[1:49:02] it was

[1:49:03] there it was just referencing

[1:49:03] the

[1:49:04] wrong

[1:49:05] places. Uh, any other

[1:49:05] questions, counsel

[1:49:07] ? No

[1:49:07] . This

[1:49:07] is

[1:49:07] a

[1:49:09] public hearing. Is there

[1:49:10] anyone from the

[1:49:10] public wishing

[1:49:10] to

[1:49:11] speak

[1:49:12] on this item

[1:49:14] ? Move

[1:49:14] to

[1:49:15] close the public hearing

[1:49:16] Second

[1:49:18] of a

[1:49:18] motion from David, 2nd

[1:49:19] from Caesar

[1:49:20] . Mm

[1:49:25] Uh, all

[1:49:27] right.

[1:49:27] Uh, this is an

[1:49:28] ordinance before

[1:49:28] us

[1:49:32] . Anyone wishing

[1:49:33] to

[1:49:34] take 70

[1:49:36] .

[1:49:36] 2

[1:49:37] . I have

[1:49:38] a

[1:49:38] motion from

[1:49:39] Kimberly, 2nd from Caesar

[1:49:50] . The

[1:49:50] motion passes unanimously

[1:49:51] .

[1:49:52] Robert, you heard

[1:49:52] . A

[1:49:52] number

[1:49:54] of

[1:49:54] folks being

[1:49:55] thankful for, for

[1:49:57] your diligence and

[1:49:57] your

[1:49:58] , uh, uh

[1:49:59] the work you put into this. I

[1:49:59] want to

[1:50:01] personally express

[1:50:01] my

[1:50:02] gratitude, uh, for

[1:50:03] your

[1:50:03] initiative. Uh

[1:50:04] , I understood at

[1:50:04] the

[1:50:05] beginning you mentioned,

[1:50:06] you know, you took on

[1:50:06] some

[1:50:08] responsibilities and discovered

[1:50:09] some things that needed

[1:50:09] to

[1:50:09] happen

[1:50:10] , and

[1:50:10] I

[1:50:11] really appreciate

[1:50:11] that

[1:50:12] you

[1:50:12] , uh, took

[1:50:13] the pride

[1:50:14] of

[1:50:14] ownership

[1:50:15] in ensuring

[1:50:15] that

[1:50:15] these codes

[1:50:17] are

[1:50:17] up

[1:50:17] to

[1:50:17] your

[1:50:18] standards

[1:50:19] , um, and I hope we

[1:50:19] all have those high standards.

[1:50:20] So thank

[1:50:21] you very much. Yes sir

[1:50:22] I think he did

[1:50:23] that pun

[1:50:24] on

[1:50:25] purpose

[1:50:26] . Uh

[1:50:26] , that

[1:50:28] brings us to

[1:50:29] item 7e, which is to conduct a

[1:50:30] public hearing

[1:50:31] and

[1:50:31] consider

[1:50:31] approving

[1:50:32] an ordinance on first

[1:50:33] reading with caption

[1:50:35] reading

[1:50:35] and ordinance of the city of

[1:50:36] Flugerville, Texas

[1:50:36] , amending

[1:50:37] the

[1:50:37] city's master fee

[1:50:38] schedule

[1:50:38] related to fees

[1:50:39] for

[1:50:39] temporary

[1:50:40] certificates

[1:50:40] of

[1:50:41] occupancy. Uh

[1:50:41] ,

[1:50:42] we have our

[1:50:43] , uh, director

[1:50:44] Ashley Bailey here

[1:50:44] to present

[1:50:45] to us

[1:50:45] , uh, this

[1:50:46] evening

[1:50:47] . Good

[1:50:47] evening, Mayor

[1:50:48] and council for

[1:50:48] the record, Ashley Daley

[1:50:49] Planning

[1:50:50] and

[1:50:50] Development

[1:50:51] Services Director. Um

[1:50:52] , this

[1:50:53] item before you actually came

[1:50:53] up in a work session, as you

[1:50:55] MAY

[1:50:55] recall

[1:50:56] , this really just

[1:50:56] provides

[1:50:57] the

[1:50:57] flexibility

[1:50:57] to

[1:50:58] reduce some of

[1:50:59] those temporary

[1:51:00] uh certificate

[1:51:00] of

[1:51:00] occupancy

[1:51:01] sees

[1:51:02] , uh, you

[1:51:02] MAY recall

[1:51:02] the

[1:51:03] first

[1:51:03] is

[1:51:03] 100, then

[1:51:04] it goes

[1:51:04] to

[1:51:04] 250

[1:51:05] , 500

[1:51:06] . After

[1:51:07] that

[1:51:07] third item

[1:51:08] it

[1:51:09] can double

[1:51:09] every month

[1:51:09] . They

[1:51:10] are

[1:51:10] for 30 days

[1:51:11] , so

[1:51:11] every

[1:51:12] um

[1:51:12] tco is for

[1:51:13] a little

[1:51:13] bit

[1:51:14] .

[1:51:14] Typically

[1:51:14] these resolved

[1:51:15] within

[1:51:15] the

[1:51:15] 1st 2 months

[1:51:16] , 3 months

[1:51:17] , and

[1:51:17] we have

[1:51:18] seen a few go a little

[1:51:18] bit further. So

[1:51:19] what this would

[1:51:20] do is allow for the city

[1:51:20] manager

[1:51:22] to then limit

[1:51:22] those

[1:51:23] fees and cap them at

[1:51:24] that 500

[1:51:25] amount if they met

[1:51:25] the

[1:51:26] certain

[1:51:26] provisions of

[1:51:27] the

[1:51:27] temporary

[1:51:28] certificates of occupancy

[1:51:28] as

[1:51:29] far

[1:51:29] as

[1:51:29] continuing

[1:51:30] work

[1:51:31] , working

[1:51:31] in good faith

[1:51:32] to clear any

[1:51:32] of

[1:51:32] those items up

[1:51:33] to

[1:51:33] reach

[1:51:34] that

[1:51:35] certificate of occupancy

[1:51:35] for

[1:51:36] the final

[1:51:36] . A

[1:51:37] maximum of

[1:51:38] $500.

[1:51:38] That, that's it

[1:51:40] . It could be a

[1:51:41] maximum of 500

[1:51:42] , yes, if

[1:51:43] it was

[1:51:43] determined that they were doing

[1:51:44] all of

[1:51:45] the things they need

[1:51:45] to

[1:51:45] do

[1:51:46] , um, just because

[1:51:46] it was

[1:51:47] brought

[1:51:47] up that

[1:51:49] , so I

[1:51:49] , I'm

[1:51:50] a little concerned with

[1:51:51] the,

[1:51:52] the language there. I think

[1:51:52] it's a to

[1:51:52] the

[1:51:53] minimum

[1:51:54] of

[1:51:56] $500.

[1:51:56] The, the

[1:51:58] . So if someone is on

[1:51:59] their

[1:52:00] , their 6 months

[1:52:00] , but

[1:52:01] they're

[1:52:02] making continuous and

[1:52:05] demonstratable progress. They

[1:52:05] could be

[1:52:07] reduced as low

[1:52:07] as 500

[1:52:07] ,

[1:52:08] but the

[1:52:09] city manager could

[1:52:10] choose to keep them higher than

[1:52:10] that

[1:52:12] . Well

[1:52:12] , so

[1:52:12] I went

[1:52:14] , you know

[1:52:14] and I'll have to, I'm

[1:52:14] not sure

[1:52:15] if I, if there

[1:52:16] was a

[1:52:16] difference

[1:52:16] between

[1:52:17] the

[1:52:18] summary and

[1:52:18] the

[1:52:19] ordinance itself. I

[1:52:19] don't

[1:52:20] recall

[1:52:21] , but it

[1:52:21] says

[1:52:22] to

[1:52:22] cap

[1:52:23] renewal fees

[1:52:23] at 500

[1:52:24] per month

[1:52:24] .

[1:52:25] So to me, that

[1:52:26] means maximum

[1:52:27] .

[1:52:27] That's that's not

[1:52:28] gonna

[1:52:28] work

[1:52:29] .

[1:52:29] The

[1:52:30] , the actual

[1:52:30] ordinance in

[1:52:31] here

[1:52:31] does

[1:52:32] not

[1:52:33] , but

[1:52:33] it allows

[1:52:34] the city

[1:52:35] manager to cap

[1:52:35] them.

[1:52:35] So

[1:52:36] he grant it

[1:52:36] grants her

[1:52:37] dismiss, ok, but I, but

[1:52:39] less

[1:52:39] than 500 is

[1:52:41] what it, so the

[1:52:41] summary

[1:52:43] just missed, can't

[1:52:44] bring it down

[1:52:44] to

[1:52:45] 300

[1:52:45] or 100

[1:52:45] ,

[1:52:46] but

[1:52:46] she could say

[1:52:46] , ok

[1:52:47] , no more

[1:52:48] than 500

[1:52:48] this month

[1:52:49] . Per month

[1:52:49] .

[1:52:49] Yeah

[1:52:50] . Right. Correct. Yeah

[1:52:51] , it

[1:52:51] says

[1:52:52] the, the

[1:52:52] , the city

[1:52:53] manager

[1:52:53] has

[1:52:54] discretion to reduce

[1:52:54] the

[1:52:55] tco renewal

[1:52:55] fee

[1:52:55] to

[1:52:56] not

[1:52:57] less

[1:52:57] than 500

[1:52:58] . So that's different

[1:52:59] ,

[1:52:59] yeah

[1:53:00] , the ordinances that

[1:53:00] the

[1:53:01] summary was

[1:53:01] . Because the, the

[1:53:02] way it's written now

[1:53:03] , it

[1:53:03] just

[1:53:04] automatically goes up and it

[1:53:04] could

[1:53:05] get into, you know

[1:53:06] , the

[1:53:06] stratosphere and

[1:53:07] the

[1:53:08] city

[1:53:08] manager would be a

[1:53:10] handicapped,

[1:53:11] unable to keep it out of

[1:53:11] the

[1:53:11] stratosphere

[1:53:12] . Is

[1:53:12] this something

[1:53:13] that we're proposing

[1:53:14] for

[1:53:15] moving

[1:53:15] forward, or are we

[1:53:16] trying to

[1:53:17] use this and

[1:53:17] create this to

[1:53:17] help

[1:53:19] someone

[1:53:19] who MAY already be

[1:53:20] in a situation

[1:53:20] at this time

[1:53:21] . I

[1:53:22] really don't have

[1:53:23] a good answer

[1:53:24] for that. This is one that came

[1:53:24] up in a work

[1:53:25] session

[1:53:26] , um,

[1:53:26] because I believe there was a

[1:53:28] complaint about tco

[1:53:28] fees,

[1:53:29] potentially they wanted to

[1:53:30] have

[1:53:30] this. This was

[1:53:31] , this was an

[1:53:31] item that I brought

[1:53:32] forward

[1:53:32] .

[1:53:33] This was there was

[1:53:33] a gentleman

[1:53:33] who

[1:53:34] came and

[1:53:35] spoke

[1:53:35] in his

[1:53:35] 3

[1:53:37] minutes

[1:53:38] , uh, uh, describing

[1:53:38] this

[1:53:38] issue

[1:53:40] , uh, and so yes,

[1:53:40] there

[1:53:40] MAY

[1:53:41] be a

[1:53:42] , an active

[1:53:42] case

[1:53:43] where this would

[1:53:44] be

[1:53:45] applicable

[1:53:45] ,

[1:53:45] but this

[1:53:46] does give

[1:53:46] the

[1:53:47] authority

[1:53:47] to

[1:53:49] adjudicate that

[1:53:49] .

[1:53:50] So would

[1:53:50] that

[1:53:51] be retroactive

[1:53:51] to

[1:53:52] prior

[1:53:52] months or from now

[1:53:53] going

[1:53:53] forward

[1:53:54] ? You're being, yeah

[1:53:55] , it

[1:53:55] wouldn't be

[1:53:55] grandfather. And

[1:53:56] then I just had

[1:53:57] , um, just a

[1:53:58] , a

[1:53:58] ,

[1:53:59] a gut check here. I didn't have

[1:54:00] the chance to look it up

[1:54:00] , but

[1:54:01] how

[1:54:02] does this

[1:54:03] , um, uh, this

[1:54:04] cap

[1:54:04] or

[1:54:04] not cap, but the

[1:54:05] minimum

[1:54:06] of

[1:54:07] 500

[1:54:08] compared to what our

[1:54:08] fees

[1:54:08] were

[1:54:09] before

[1:54:09] we changed them

[1:54:11] . So

[1:54:12] before they were changed

[1:54:13] , so

[1:54:13] when the tco

[1:54:14] fees were changed

[1:54:16] last summer during the budget

[1:54:16] process. Prior to that, it was

[1:54:18] the

[1:54:19] 100,250, 500

[1:54:20] , and then it

[1:54:20] was

[1:54:21] continually 500. Um

[1:54:22] ,

[1:54:23] unfortunately, what staff was

[1:54:23] seeing at that

[1:54:24] point was that

[1:54:24] we had

[1:54:25] a lot

[1:54:25] of

[1:54:25] temporary

[1:54:26] certificates

[1:54:27] of occupancy

[1:54:27] , just

[1:54:28] staying on a

[1:54:29] temporary

[1:54:30] certificate of occupancy

[1:54:30] and

[1:54:30] never

[1:54:31] reaching completion. So

[1:54:32] what we were trying to do

[1:54:32] at

[1:54:33] that

[1:54:33] point

[1:54:34] was to get

[1:54:34] a little

[1:54:35] bit more

[1:54:36] of incentive

[1:54:36] because

[1:54:37] typically you do

[1:54:38] see them

[1:54:38] ,

[1:54:39] they're going to be

[1:54:39] resolving

[1:54:39] the

[1:54:40] , um, 60

[1:54:41] , 90 days

[1:54:42] . Like yeah

[1:54:42] 500 with no

[1:54:45] progress versus

[1:54:45] disallowing them yeah they're

[1:54:47] making progress. So this this

[1:54:47] is very

[1:54:48] , it defines

[1:54:49] the

[1:54:50] different levels and the

[1:54:50] criteria that

[1:54:51] you have to do

[1:54:52] .

[1:54:52] So basically

[1:54:54] this

[1:54:54] is

[1:54:54] giving

[1:54:55] discretion to go

[1:54:55] back

[1:54:56] to

[1:54:56] that

[1:54:57] previous

[1:54:58] fee level

[1:54:59] if they meet

[1:54:59] the

[1:55:00] certain

[1:55:01] criteria. Yes

[1:55:01] , but,

[1:55:01] but

[1:55:02] , but the

[1:55:03] other

[1:55:03] piece

[1:55:03] of

[1:55:04] that

[1:55:04] is that

[1:55:06] um they'd

[1:55:06] some people

[1:55:07] would rather pay

[1:55:08] out your

[1:55:08] little

[1:55:08] $500

[1:55:10] and

[1:55:11] uh so,

[1:55:12] so. Well, then I'll keep double

[1:55:12] But

[1:55:14] the, the

[1:55:14] , the city

[1:55:15] manager

[1:55:16] has

[1:55:16] discretion to grant

[1:55:17] or not

[1:55:17] grant

[1:55:18] that way. So this gives

[1:55:19] her the ability to stop it.

[1:55:20] Yeah, much

[1:55:21] , much like. How

[1:55:22] about they just fix it

[1:55:23] ? You

[1:55:24] know what I mean

[1:55:25] they

[1:55:25] , they

[1:55:25] have to be

[1:55:26] showing progress

[1:55:28] towards fixing it. Got you

[1:55:28] .

[1:55:28] That's

[1:55:30] the, that's cool. And we

[1:55:30] do identify

[1:55:32] what

[1:55:32] is

[1:55:32] substantial

[1:55:33] If you want to give us some

[1:55:33] examples

[1:55:34] of

[1:55:34] that

[1:55:35] just briefly

[1:55:35] .

[1:55:35] Um

[1:55:37] , so right now we do have a

[1:55:37] few different

[1:55:39] types of

[1:55:39] temporary certificates of

[1:55:40] occupancy, so you have

[1:55:41] fixtures

[1:55:42] furniture, and equipment

[1:55:42] , so

[1:55:42] that's really

[1:55:43] just

[1:55:44] moving

[1:55:44] um

[1:55:45] things and it's not open to

[1:55:45] the

[1:55:46] public or

[1:55:46] staff, then

[1:55:46] you get

[1:55:47] to

[1:55:47] the next step where

[1:55:47] if you

[1:55:48] need, you already

[1:55:48] have those

[1:55:49] items in, then you would

[1:55:50] get to

[1:55:51] be

[1:55:51] able

[1:55:52] to have staff

[1:55:52] in there

[1:55:53] for training

[1:55:53] , but you're

[1:55:54] really

[1:55:54] looking at

[1:55:55] that

[1:55:55] substantial

[1:55:55] completion

[1:55:56] . Um, some of

[1:55:56] the

[1:55:57] ones

[1:55:57] that I

[1:55:58] , the

[1:55:58] main one that

[1:55:59] I know of that actually

[1:55:59] stayed

[1:56:00] on tco for quite

[1:56:00] some time

[1:56:01] , was

[1:56:02] um the heb, but it's because

[1:56:02] they installed

[1:56:03] the

[1:56:04] wrong

[1:56:04] size

[1:56:05] wastewater line

[1:56:05] . Um, so that

[1:56:06] one the store was able to

[1:56:06] be

[1:56:07] open

[1:56:08] , um, but

[1:56:08] they did

[1:56:08] have

[1:56:09] a

[1:56:10] longer tco time. It smelled a

[1:56:11] little funny for a

[1:56:11] while

[1:56:13] . Yeah

[1:56:13] .

[1:56:13] Uh, but certainly

[1:56:14] it's really

[1:56:15] once you're a substantial

[1:56:16] completion, all

[1:56:17] of their life

[1:56:17] safety is complete

[1:56:19] . That's when

[1:56:20] Robert and his

[1:56:20] team typically

[1:56:22] look at starting to look at,

[1:56:22] did you finish out

[1:56:24] with

[1:56:24] the

[1:56:25] fire marshal needs? Are we at

[1:56:26] a

[1:56:27] substantial confl point

[1:56:27] where

[1:56:27] it's safe to be

[1:56:28] in there

[1:56:28] . And

[1:56:29] certainly if there's going to

[1:56:30] be something, I know of

[1:56:30] one

[1:56:31] that we have right

[1:56:31] now, where

[1:56:32] the

[1:56:33] roof mounted equipment,

[1:56:33] something was

[1:56:35] the

[1:56:36] roof

[1:56:36] mounted

[1:56:36] equipment

[1:56:37] is not yet

[1:56:37] fully

[1:56:38] shielded

[1:56:39] , um, but that should

[1:56:40] be resolved. Typically that

[1:56:41] resolved in 30

[1:56:41] to

[1:56:42] 45 days

[1:56:44] . So

[1:56:44] .

[1:56:44] It's not, you

[1:56:45] could easily

[1:56:46] see

[1:56:47] a situation where

[1:56:47] you

[1:56:49] know,

[1:56:49] like just like in

[1:56:50] covid

[1:56:51] ,

[1:56:51] there's this

[1:56:53] uh supply

[1:56:53] disruptions, and they just

[1:56:54] can't finish. They

[1:56:55] can't get

[1:56:56] the last pieces

[1:56:57] . But they're

[1:56:58] doing everything they can. We

[1:56:58] don't want

[1:57:00] to

[1:57:00] be charging them

[1:57:02] $20,000.01 month, 40,000 the

[1:57:03] next

[1:57:04] month when they really are

[1:57:05] doing everything

[1:57:06] that

[1:57:06] they can

[1:57:07] to

[1:57:07] , to finish and comply with

[1:57:09] .

[1:57:09] That

[1:57:09] . So

[1:57:11] the city manager will

[1:57:12] be able to, to look at that

[1:57:13] .

[1:57:14] With the, the

[1:57:15] building

[1:57:16] officials and and make those

[1:57:17] determinations. And

[1:57:17] I think

[1:57:18] that

[1:57:18] good to

[1:57:18] have that

[1:57:20] , that

[1:57:20] flexibility. Now

[1:57:22] , counsel, any

[1:57:23] other questions on the side

[1:57:24] ?

[1:57:25] This is a

[1:57:25] public hearing. Is

[1:57:26] there anyone from the public

[1:57:26] wishing

[1:57:27] to make comment

[1:57:31] ? Yeah,

[1:57:32] if you want to come forward. Ok

[1:57:34] ok

[1:57:38] Now

[1:57:38] MS. Brewer, if

[1:57:39] you'd

[1:57:40] introduce yourself

[1:57:41] . Ok

[1:57:41] . No, I

[1:57:41] just have a

[1:57:42] quick

[1:57:43] question. How

[1:57:43] does this impact and affect

[1:57:45] small businesses. When it comes

[1:57:47] to

[1:57:48] the fee changing

[1:57:49] . So it

[1:57:50] would allow those

[1:57:50] small

[1:57:50] businesses

[1:57:51] if

[1:57:52] they

[1:57:52] were

[1:57:52] making

[1:57:54] substantial

[1:57:54] progress

[1:57:54] and having

[1:57:55] to extend

[1:57:56] their tco that would

[1:57:59] not induce the

[1:58:00] uh the doubling

[1:58:01] of the tco fee. I'd say

[1:58:01] the

[1:58:02] intent is

[1:58:04] pretty specifically

[1:58:04] to help

[1:58:05] small businesses in

[1:58:06] particular

[1:58:08] . And the small

[1:58:08] businesses are aware

[1:58:09] that

[1:58:10] that's written in policy

[1:58:10] , that

[1:58:12] this particular process or

[1:58:13] procedure or

[1:58:14] of this

[1:58:14] policy of

[1:58:15] small

[1:58:17] businesses would, if

[1:58:17] they're under construction

[1:58:19] would currently be

[1:58:21] receiving uh

[1:58:23] the higher fee for

[1:58:24] their cto

[1:58:25] .

[1:58:25] What if it

[1:58:26] isn't construction,

[1:58:26] what if it's

[1:58:28] land? What if it's

[1:58:28] property? What, what if

[1:58:30] it's a

[1:58:31] small business that

[1:58:32] is

[1:58:32] um

[1:58:33] renting

[1:58:33] that business

[1:58:34] on

[1:58:35] someone else's land

[1:58:35] . So what

[1:58:35] are

[1:58:37] the responsibilities there,

[1:58:37] is that

[1:58:38] also written out

[1:58:38] in

[1:58:39] policy when it

[1:58:40] comes to

[1:58:40] temporary

[1:58:41] certificates of

[1:58:42] occupancy

[1:58:44] . That's

[1:58:44] a

[1:58:45] really

[1:58:46] interesting question, right? If

[1:58:46] the, if

[1:58:48] , if the

[1:58:48] , you

[1:58:48] , you're,

[1:58:49] you're renting

[1:58:50] and you're,

[1:58:50] you're trying to do finish out

[1:58:51] and the

[1:58:52] the

[1:58:53] landlord is, is

[1:58:53] the

[1:58:53] obstacle

[1:58:57] . Who then is

[1:58:57] responsible

[1:58:57] for

[1:58:59] the a

[1:58:59] landlord

[1:58:59] be an obstacle

[1:59:00] ? Oh

[1:59:01] yeah

[1:59:01] , yeah

[1:59:03] ,

[1:59:03] absolutely

[1:59:04] they can because

[1:59:04] there's

[1:59:06] some requirements that

[1:59:06] the city

[1:59:07] has

[1:59:08] for

[1:59:09] the landowners

[1:59:09] right

[1:59:11] ? And I just wanted to

[1:59:11] know if those

[1:59:13] were distinctual

[1:59:13] between the

[1:59:14] responsibilities of

[1:59:15] the landowners, and I would

[1:59:15] imagine that's

[1:59:17] part

[1:59:17] of

[1:59:17] the city

[1:59:18] manager's discretion, right

[1:59:19] ?

[1:59:19] Because I also

[1:59:20] don't know that

[1:59:20] it's appropriate for the city

[1:59:21] to

[1:59:22] backstop just because you

[1:59:22] have a

[1:59:23] bad landlord

[1:59:24] . I mean

[1:59:26] . I

[1:59:27] think it should be

[1:59:28] clear

[1:59:29] .

[1:59:29] That's a

[1:59:30] , that's a good

[1:59:31] question. It is

[1:59:33] , it is clear

[1:59:33] and I think that, yeah

[1:59:34] , that's

[1:59:34] what

[1:59:35] we

[1:59:35] need

[1:59:36] to

[1:59:36] applying for. I

[1:59:38] I don't think that

[1:59:38] that

[1:59:38] changes

[1:59:38] whether or

[1:59:39] not wet

[1:59:40] to the

[1:59:40] I

[1:59:41] can't I do

[1:59:42] think that's a

[1:59:43] question we need to

[1:59:43] , we need

[1:59:44] to

[1:59:44] address

[1:59:45] . That's not

[1:59:45] a

[1:59:46] hypothetical that I had

[1:59:48] I

[1:59:49] considered before, but

[1:59:49] so the

[1:59:50] ,

[1:59:51] the scenarios, I'm sorry

[1:59:51] , the

[1:59:52] scenarios in which

[1:59:53] the city

[1:59:53] manager has

[1:59:54] discretion or

[1:59:54] documented in

[1:59:55] the the

[1:59:56] ordinance

[1:59:56] correct? It would be

[1:59:57] , and

[1:59:57] then

[1:59:58] for anybody that would end up

[1:59:59] having a separate

[2:00:00] property

[2:00:01] owner, let's say

[2:00:02] that it's a

[2:00:02] full site plan. You've got to

[2:00:03] finish out of

[2:00:04] an overall

[2:00:05] building you have individual

[2:00:05] shelves

[2:00:07] . Typically, you're not

[2:00:07] going to be getting to the

[2:00:08] point

[2:00:09] where you would be

[2:00:09] eligible

[2:00:09] for

[2:00:10] tco

[2:00:11] without

[2:00:11] the

[2:00:12] landowner also completing their

[2:00:13] items. So if you

[2:00:13] have a

[2:00:13] sidewalk

[2:00:14] , that's federal. We

[2:00:14] need

[2:00:15] to be

[2:00:16] , um, adhering

[2:00:16] to

[2:00:17] our

[2:00:17] federal rules

[2:00:18] for

[2:00:18] ada

[2:00:19] . So there

[2:00:19] would be

[2:00:20] things like that if

[2:00:21] someone needed

[2:00:21] to open it

[2:00:22] , then

[2:00:22] we

[2:00:23] could present that

[2:00:23] and say

[2:00:24] the

[2:00:25] building itself

[2:00:25] is safe

[2:00:26] ,

[2:00:26] this one user would like to

[2:00:27] be

[2:00:27] open

[2:00:28] on tco

[2:00:28] . How would we

[2:00:28] like

[2:00:29] to

[2:00:29] proceed with that

[2:00:29] ? So I

[2:00:30] think

[2:00:30] it is covered

[2:00:31] in here

[2:00:31] , um

[2:00:32] just because it would

[2:00:32] still

[2:00:33] pertain back

[2:00:33] to

[2:00:34] the overall

[2:00:34] construction of the site. But

[2:00:36] then that

[2:00:36] individual owner

[2:00:37] would be bound by

[2:00:38] the tco. They

[2:00:39] wouldn't be able to receive a

[2:00:39] co

[2:00:41] until the overall

[2:00:42] . Uh

[2:00:43] building is and then we would

[2:00:44] have to end up looking at

[2:00:45] um to

[2:00:45] the

[2:00:46] um actual

[2:00:47] property owner if

[2:00:47] that were

[2:00:48] to

[2:00:49] occur. I think we

[2:00:50] have some other ways that

[2:00:51] we

[2:00:52] could alleviate that during. So

[2:00:53] would that fine

[2:00:55] accrue to the

[2:00:57] the overall property owner, or

[2:00:57] would that

[2:00:59] that fine be stuck

[2:00:59] on the

[2:01:00] the

[2:01:01] individual business

[2:01:01] .

[2:01:01] Tco

[2:01:03] is

[2:01:03] temporary certificate of

[2:01:04] occupancy would typically go to

[2:01:06] the individual user and that's

[2:01:06] where we

[2:01:07] would then

[2:01:08] come

[2:01:08] sitting on

[2:01:08] and say

[2:01:09] , this is

[2:01:09] the

[2:01:10] this is the

[2:01:10] full scenario and

[2:01:11] this is why I know we would

[2:01:12] have

[2:01:13] other, um

[2:01:14] , ways

[2:01:14] to

[2:01:15] motivate the overall

[2:01:16] property

[2:01:16] on our

[2:01:17] team, because I was like

[2:01:18] it's not atypical

[2:01:18] , it's

[2:01:19] not

[2:01:19] atypical for a

[2:01:21] , a

[2:01:21] tenant to get

[2:01:22] a fine

[2:01:23] , the applicant to get a

[2:01:24] fine for something and then get

[2:01:24] it to

[2:01:25] the owner

[2:01:26] and say, hey,

[2:01:26] this is not within

[2:01:27] my

[2:01:27] purview.

[2:01:28] I mean, fine for this, you

[2:01:28] need

[2:01:29] to

[2:01:29] fix this or you need

[2:01:30] to

[2:01:30] pay

[2:01:31] this. So

[2:01:31] that becomes

[2:01:32] its

[2:01:33] own

[2:01:33] issue

[2:01:34] amongst them themselves

[2:01:34] as opposed

[2:01:35] to us

[2:01:35] with that

[2:01:36] . It

[2:01:37] typically landowners want

[2:01:39] rent

[2:01:39] so, yeah

[2:01:40] , yeah, but but

[2:01:41] it

[2:01:42] could be that

[2:01:42] scenario

[2:01:43] could

[2:01:44] occur. Let's be clear, it's

[2:01:44] not

[2:01:44] like we have not

[2:01:45] dealt with

[2:01:46] that scenario

[2:01:48] before

[2:01:48] . I'm sorry

[2:01:49] Melody, what

[2:01:49] was that

[2:01:50] ? Now I've

[2:01:51] just

[2:01:52] forgotten that. 00 no

[2:01:53] , I

[2:01:53] said

[2:01:55] , this

[2:01:55] scenario could occur

[2:01:56] where

[2:01:58] there's a, something is

[2:02:00] not substantially complete and

[2:02:00] it's out of

[2:02:01] the

[2:02:02] tenants ability

[2:02:04] to do that

[2:02:04] and

[2:02:04] some scenarios

[2:02:05] the tenant wouldn't

[2:02:06] be eligible

[2:02:06] for

[2:02:06] a tco in

[2:02:07] that

[2:02:08] scenario.

[2:02:08] Either

[2:02:09] we would

[2:02:09] maintain't want

[2:02:11] the tco would not be

[2:02:11] issued or

[2:02:12] we would issue it and

[2:02:13] we would

[2:02:13] bring that forward

[2:02:14] as

[2:02:15] a

[2:02:16] sinuating circumstance that

[2:02:17] he's they would

[2:02:17] rather

[2:02:18] be open

[2:02:18] than

[2:02:20] not. Yeah

[2:02:21] , yeah

[2:02:21] , right

[2:02:22] , uh

[2:02:23] again, this is a

[2:02:23] public hearing

[2:02:24] Any

[2:02:25] additional public comment

[2:02:27] ?

[2:02:27] I see no

[2:02:29] additional public

[2:02:29] comment

[2:02:31] . Would anyone like to

[2:02:31] close

[2:02:33] public. One second

[2:02:33] , 2

[2:02:35] . I

[2:02:35] have

[2:02:36] a Caesar and I

[2:02:36] thought

[2:02:36] Jonathan, there

[2:02:37] we go

[2:02:38] . Gotta

[2:02:39] be

[2:02:40] quicker, David

[2:02:47] . Oh

[2:02:48] , so you made

[2:02:49] the motion, man

[2:02:49] . Come on

[2:02:51] . It's

[2:02:51] not

[2:02:52] . I like

[2:02:53] There it goes

[2:02:56] .

[2:02:56] There we go

[2:02:58] Uh

[2:03:00] , and this is an

[2:03:00] ordinance

[2:03:01] . Uh

[2:03:02] , I will move to

[2:03:02] adopt

[2:03:03] the

[2:03:04] ordinance

[2:03:18] . Motion

[2:03:21] passes unanimously. Uh, Ashley,

[2:03:21] thank you for your

[2:03:22] , uh, your

[2:03:23] assistance and your, uh,

[2:03:23] clarity on

[2:03:25] that item. Uh

[2:03:25] , this

[2:03:25] brings

[2:03:27] us

[2:03:27] to our

[2:03:27] regular

[2:03:28] agenda

[2:03:29] item 88a is to

[2:03:30] discuss and

[2:03:30] consider action

[2:03:31] to approve

[2:03:31] a

[2:03:32] resolution appointing

[2:03:32] a

[2:03:33] 2026

[2:03:34] Capital Improvement Bond

[2:03:35] Committee

[2:03:36] . This

[2:03:36] is

[2:03:37] for

[2:03:38] council

[2:03:39] appointments. I think you were

[2:03:39] all informed you need

[2:03:40] to bring

[2:03:41] 2

[2:03:41] people. Uh, I had

[2:03:42] to

[2:03:43] find 3

[2:03:43] .

[2:03:44] Not sure if

[2:03:45] I did

[2:03:45] , but

[2:03:46] uh does

[2:03:46] everyone

[2:03:47] has

[2:03:48] everyone provided

[2:03:48] theirs or is

[2:03:49] this something we

[2:03:50] need to do this, I

[2:03:50] haven't

[2:03:51] heard that, yeah

[2:03:52] , just you'll

[2:03:52] need

[2:03:52] to go

[2:03:52] . Ok

[2:03:53] , I had

[2:03:54] , um, um,

[2:03:55] oh, I just

[2:03:56] had a

[2:03:57] , a comment

[2:03:57] . Um

[2:04:00] Um so as we think about

[2:04:00] the

[2:04:01] timing for a

[2:04:01] bond

[2:04:03] , um, I'm

[2:04:03] focused

[2:04:04] on setting

[2:04:04] ourselves

[2:04:05] up

[2:04:05] for

[2:04:05] success when we go to

[2:04:06] the

[2:04:07] voters

[2:04:07] . We

[2:04:08] currently

[2:04:08] have

[2:04:08] several once in

[2:04:09] a

[2:04:10] generation

[2:04:11] facilities

[2:04:11] under construction,

[2:04:11] the

[2:04:12] recreation

[2:04:12] center

[2:04:13] , city

[2:04:13] hall, and the garage

[2:04:14] . Public

[2:04:15] works building, and 3

[2:04:16] major

[2:04:17] utility projects. All

[2:04:17] scheduled

[2:04:19] to deliver within the next

[2:04:19] 12

[2:04:21] months. Uh

[2:04:21] , the reported amount

[2:04:22] of general

[2:04:23] fund

[2:04:24] unspent bond

[2:04:24] funds

[2:04:25] is

[2:04:26] 414 million, which

[2:04:28] is

[2:04:29] approximately 68%

[2:04:30] of

[2:04:30] authorized

[2:04:31] and issued

[2:04:31] bond

[2:04:32] funds

[2:04:32] ,

[2:04:33] residents want to

[2:04:33] see

[2:04:35] continued

[2:04:35] visible progress

[2:04:36] on major road

[2:04:36] and

[2:04:37] park

[2:04:37] projects

[2:04:38] approved

[2:04:38] in

[2:04:38] 2020

[2:04:39] and prior

[2:04:40] . And the the

[2:04:41] next set

[2:04:41] of

[2:04:41] knees

[2:04:42] being

[2:04:42] discussed

[2:04:42] are

[2:04:43] , are important,

[2:04:44] but

[2:04:44] um they're different in

[2:04:45] scale and

[2:04:46] can

[2:04:46] be sequenced

[2:04:48] more

[2:04:48] flexibly for a

[2:04:49] timing

[2:04:49] standpoint

[2:04:51] , allowing residents

[2:04:51] to

[2:04:51] see

[2:04:53] delivery

[2:04:53] and progress

[2:04:53] across

[2:04:53] these

[2:04:55] existing

[2:04:56] commitments, puts us in the

[2:04:57] strongest position. And

[2:04:57] so I

[2:04:58] support

[2:04:59] delaying consideration

[2:05:00] of a

[2:05:00] potential

[2:05:00] bond until

[2:05:01] next

[2:05:02] calendar

[2:05:03] year 2027

[2:05:04] , when

[2:05:04] these

[2:05:05] large

[2:05:05] projects are

[2:05:05] open to

[2:05:06] the

[2:05:06] public

[2:05:07] . Or

[2:05:08] available and and

[2:05:09] and put forward into

[2:05:10] use. So

[2:05:11] that was my

[2:05:11] comment

[2:05:11] . Your

[2:05:13] position, we

[2:05:14] , we shouldn't get

[2:05:15] started on design

[2:05:16] and planning

[2:05:16] on

[2:05:17] other projects until

[2:05:18] we have

[2:05:18] these other complete. I feel

[2:05:19] like

[2:05:20] that leaves us a

[2:05:20] gap

[2:05:20] in

[2:05:21] our

[2:05:22] ability to

[2:05:22] deliver

[2:05:22] . I

[2:05:23] believe some of the

[2:05:24] bond

[2:05:24] funds

[2:05:25] through a certificate

[2:05:25] of

[2:05:27] occupancy

[2:05:27] has already

[2:05:27] included

[2:05:28] planning for

[2:05:28] the majority

[2:05:28] of

[2:05:29] the

[2:05:29] roads that

[2:05:30] are on, that

[2:05:30] are

[2:05:31] being proposed

[2:05:32] . Um, so

[2:05:33] i just

[2:05:34] think that if we

[2:05:34] want

[2:05:35] to set

[2:05:36] ourselves up for the

[2:05:37] most

[2:05:37] success that it would be good

[2:05:38] to have a lot of these big

[2:05:40] projects

[2:05:41] , uh, visibly done and

[2:05:42] available to

[2:05:43] the public. And

[2:05:43] the number

[2:05:44] you

[2:05:45] quoted

[2:05:46] 441

[2:05:47] million

[2:05:47] 14, yeah

[2:05:47] , it's

[2:05:49] from the

[2:05:49] how much of that is

[2:05:50] geo

[2:05:51] ? That

[2:05:51] is

[2:05:52] the go

[2:05:52] and

[2:05:53] the

[2:05:54] the the

[2:05:55] um

[2:05:55] utility

[2:05:56] with the addition I'm

[2:05:57] sorry, you said that

[2:05:58] the 414

[2:05:58] .

[2:05:58] I'm

[2:05:59] sorry, it's

[2:05:59] a

[2:06:00] general

[2:06:00] fund

[2:06:01] ,

[2:06:01] general fund

[2:06:02] , not go

[2:06:02] , but

[2:06:02] I'm

[2:06:03] sorry

[2:06:04] , 414 I'm

[2:06:04] trying to

[2:06:05] understand how much

[2:06:05] of

[2:06:06] that

[2:06:06] is

[2:06:07] previous uh

[2:06:08] bond election

[2:06:08] dollars

[2:06:10] . Um

[2:06:14] yeah

[2:06:16] , we have

[2:06:18] , um,

[2:06:19] 19 million on one of

[2:06:19] the

[2:06:21] go

[2:06:21] issues

[2:06:21] um that's unspent and

[2:06:22] then

[2:06:23] 40 million this is

[2:06:24] according

[2:06:25] to the uh on

[2:06:25] the

[2:06:26] transparency page of the

[2:06:27] unspent

[2:06:28] bond

[2:06:29] fundslips reported

[2:06:30] so

[2:06:31] that's

[2:06:32] 149

[2:06:32] million

[2:06:32] um from

[2:06:33] the 2020

[2:06:34] . Geo

[2:06:35] bond

[2:06:36] out

[2:06:37] of 191.

[2:06:37] 191, you're

[2:06:38] saying

[2:06:39] that uh more

[2:06:39] than 75%

[2:06:40] of

[2:06:41] that is correct,

[2:06:42] according to

[2:06:43] the report on

[2:06:43] the

[2:06:44] website

[2:06:47] . That

[2:06:48] , that doesn't

[2:06:48] sound

[2:06:50] . Reasonable. I, I

[2:06:50] , I

[2:06:51] don't have

[2:06:52] those numbers the

[2:06:52] top of my head, but I would

[2:06:53] just

[2:06:56] , um, those are all

[2:06:56] fair

[2:06:56] points

[2:06:57] , um, your bond committee

[2:06:57] of course, could come back

[2:06:59] and

[2:07:00] recommend zero bonds. Um

[2:07:00] , so I

[2:07:00] think

[2:07:01] it

[2:07:01] would

[2:07:01] be

[2:07:02] , in

[2:07:02] fairness

[2:07:03] and

[2:07:04] transparency to have

[2:07:04] a

[2:07:05] bond

[2:07:06] committee learn all of

[2:07:06] that

[2:07:07] information

[2:07:08] and be able to

[2:07:09] digest it and

[2:07:09] make a, make

[2:07:10] a

[2:07:11] recommendation

[2:07:11] . Maybe they'll

[2:07:12] agree and come

[2:07:12] back

[2:07:13] with 0

[2:07:15] . I

[2:07:15] think in fairness, you should

[2:07:17] have a, a committee

[2:07:18] of

[2:07:19] citizens

[2:07:20] to make that decision

[2:07:21] Well

[2:07:22] , I

[2:07:22] ,

[2:07:22] I

[2:07:24] do think that uh

[2:07:24] we're

[2:07:26] more

[2:07:26] likely to

[2:07:26] get

[2:07:27] citizens to

[2:07:28] say

[2:07:29] yes after they see

[2:07:31] big

[2:07:31] projects

[2:07:31] opening up

[2:07:33] . Then

[2:07:35] we go to the

[2:07:35] citizens and say

[2:07:37] we'd like you

[2:07:37] to approve a bunch of money

[2:07:38] while we have a

[2:07:39] bunch

[2:07:39] of

[2:07:40] unfinished projects in front of

[2:07:41] you

[2:07:42] . Um

[2:07:42] , the psychology

[2:07:43] of

[2:07:44] the

[2:07:45] ask, I think

[2:07:46] we're

[2:07:46] more likely

[2:07:46] to get a

[2:07:47] yes

[2:07:49] answer, after

[2:07:50] the

[2:07:51] monarch is open and

[2:07:52] and

[2:07:53] operational, then if we

[2:07:55] put

[2:07:55] that

[2:07:56] out there beforehand

[2:07:58] . I

[2:08:00] think that's a a

[2:08:00] very

[2:08:00] good

[2:08:02] topic for the uh bond

[2:08:02] committee

[2:08:03] to consider

[2:08:05] . Uh based on

[2:08:06] uh, I

[2:08:07] would imagine their research

[2:08:07] would include

[2:08:08] timing

[2:08:08] of

[2:08:09] uh

[2:08:09] delivery projects. Um

[2:08:11] . This is

[2:08:13] this is an item

[2:08:14] for

[2:08:15] appointments. Um, we should

[2:08:16] probably take names and

[2:08:17] then

[2:08:18] vote on

[2:08:19] appointing those people

[2:08:20] Um, so Jonathan, do you have

[2:08:21] ,

[2:08:21] uh, 2 people

[2:08:22] ? Yes

[2:08:23] , I'd

[2:08:24] like to

[2:08:25] ,

[2:08:25] uh, nominate Lucas

[2:08:26] Myers and

[2:08:27] Chris Wolf

[2:08:34] . Uh, Caesar

[2:08:35] . This

[2:08:36] time I do not have a name. You

[2:08:37] don't, you don't have

[2:08:38] yours

[2:08:38] .

[2:08:38] I'll provide

[2:08:38] them by

[2:08:40] , um,

[2:08:40] Kimberly

[2:08:42] , um, it's

[2:08:43] Yune

[2:08:43] True

[2:08:43] Love

[2:08:45] , um, y

[2:08:45] e

[2:08:46] t u

[2:08:47] n d e

[2:08:48] . Last

[2:08:49] name True Love

[2:08:52] Mhm. Uh, do you

[2:08:53] have a, do you have a second

[2:08:54] ?

[2:08:54] No. Just

[2:08:56] one

[2:08:56] . Just one for now.

[2:08:57] All right

[2:08:58] . Um

[2:08:59] , Rudy

[2:08:59] , I haven't

[2:08:59] heard back from

[2:09:00] that too

[2:09:01] . You

[2:09:01] haven't heard back from your

[2:09:01] two

[2:09:03] , melody

[2:09:03] . Dennis

[2:09:04] Spencer

[2:09:05] and

[2:09:06] Eric Klingelberger

[2:09:08] . A l I

[2:09:08] n

[2:09:08] g

[2:09:09] e

[2:09:10] l b e

[2:09:10] r g

[2:09:10] e

[2:09:12] r

[2:09:12] . Dennis

[2:09:12] Dennis

[2:09:13] and I'm sorry

[2:09:14] , what was

[2:09:14] Mr

[2:09:16] .

[2:09:16] Berger's

[2:09:17] Eric

[2:09:19] ,, Eric Eric

[2:09:19] . It's

[2:09:21] c or a k

[2:09:21] With a c

[2:09:23] . I can send

[2:09:24] it in writing

[2:09:25] too

[2:09:26] . Yeah

[2:09:27] , I

[2:09:28] emailed my to

[2:09:30] the city

[2:09:30] manager

[2:09:31] earlier today, but

[2:09:32] , uh, Mark

[2:09:33] took up

[2:09:35] , uh, and don't ask me

[2:09:36] to spell his last

[2:09:36] name

[2:09:37] . Uh

[2:09:37] , and

[2:09:38] Kevin Packenham

[2:09:42] . All right. Uh

[2:09:42] ,

[2:09:42] I have

[2:09:44] , um, Mark Epstein

[2:09:46] . Uh

[2:09:48] , I

[2:09:48] have Melissa Cole

[2:09:53] . And my 3rd,

[2:09:53] I haven't heard back yet, but

[2:09:54] I'm going to go ahead and

[2:09:55] put

[2:09:55] her on the spot. I

[2:09:56] do believe

[2:09:57] I

[2:09:57] heard that uh

[2:09:58] um there

[2:09:59] is

[2:10:00] some

[2:10:00] overlap allowed on other

[2:10:02] committees. I do have a

[2:10:02] member

[2:10:02] who's on

[2:10:04] finance and budget

[2:10:04] .

[2:10:05] That one's ok

[2:10:06] Uh

[2:10:06] , so you

[2:10:07] explain what

[2:10:08] , so, uh

[2:10:11] . Certain

[2:10:11] other

[2:10:13] committees and boards

[2:10:13] and

[2:10:15] commissions cannot also serve

[2:10:16] on this

[2:10:17] , uh, but some

[2:10:18] can based

[2:10:18] on the ordinance, so finance

[2:10:20] and budget, for example

[2:10:20] , can

[2:10:21] charter

[2:10:23] review cannot

[2:10:24] , um,

[2:10:24] library can, I

[2:10:25] think

[2:10:25] parks

[2:10:25] cannot

[2:10:27] . I

[2:10:28] don't remember all

[2:10:28] parks

[2:10:29] can

[2:10:29] , can

[2:10:31] , pnz can't

[2:10:31] because Parks is

[2:10:32] an ordinance

[2:10:33] and not a, I, I

[2:10:33] don't

[2:10:34] know that

[2:10:34] specific

[2:10:35] agrees. So

[2:10:36] my third

[2:10:36] don't

[2:10:38] be surprised by this

[2:10:38] tomorrow, is Chris Bailey

[2:10:40] . Mhm

[2:10:41] Uh

[2:10:43] , and so what we have here is

[2:10:47] 123456789, 10

[2:10:47] . I've got 10

[2:10:49] members

[2:10:51] , uh, mentioned and

[2:10:52] 5

[2:10:52] pending

[2:10:54] . Do we want to move

[2:10:54] forward with the

[2:10:54] 10 members

[2:10:55] tonight

[2:10:56] ? Absolutely, yeah

[2:10:56] . All

[2:10:57] right

[2:10:58] , so

[2:10:59] the

[2:10:59] slightest

[2:10:59] presented

[2:11:00] . Second

[2:11:02] All right, I

[2:11:03] got a couple of seconds on that

[2:11:10] Uh

[2:11:12] , motion

[2:11:12] proved unanimously.

[2:11:13] Uh

[2:11:13] , that

[2:11:14] brings us

[2:11:14] to

[2:11:16] item 8b

[2:11:16] discussing and

[2:11:17] consider

[2:11:18] action

[2:11:19] regarding special counsel

[2:11:19] engagement letter with

[2:11:20] Dent

[2:11:21] Navarro Rodriguez

[2:11:21] Bernal

[2:11:21] Sanee

[2:11:22] Ezek

[2:11:27] . I believe

[2:11:28] , uh, our, our

[2:11:30] new attorney, would you like to

[2:11:30] uh chime in

[2:11:32] on

[2:11:32] this

[2:11:32] ? I've

[2:11:33] looked at the

[2:11:34] the

[2:11:35] rates and I

[2:11:37] think their

[2:11:37] market rates

[2:11:38] . You

[2:11:39] know, I

[2:11:39] don't intend to

[2:11:40] for you

[2:11:41] all to

[2:11:41] support them

[2:11:43] for forever

[2:11:43] um

[2:11:45] . But

[2:11:45] I

[2:11:46] think for, for this,

[2:11:46] at least for

[2:11:47] the next month or

[2:11:48] two

[2:11:48] they they have

[2:11:49] some

[2:11:50] files

[2:11:50] and they're certainly doing

[2:11:51] some

[2:11:52] , some good work and

[2:11:52] helping me

[2:11:53] out with

[2:11:54] uh getting

[2:11:55] me up to speed on

[2:11:55] certain

[2:11:56] projects

[2:11:56] and

[2:11:57] um I

[2:11:57] think it'd be

[2:11:58] well worth

[2:12:01] uh, my time and

[2:12:02] , and

[2:12:04] your support to enter into this

[2:12:05] agreement. Oh, I

[2:12:06] will only

[2:12:06] agree to this if you get a new

[2:12:07] placard

[2:12:08] . Yeah

[2:12:10] , I already

[2:12:10] gave

[2:12:10] Tris a hard time

[2:12:14] about that, of

[2:12:15] course, I just had

[2:12:15] a question

[2:12:16] ,

[2:12:17] um

[2:12:17] . So

[2:12:19] , uh, do you have

[2:12:19] , uh, an

[2:12:20] idea of

[2:12:21] how long

[2:12:21] you

[2:12:22] think

[2:12:22] this

[2:12:22] agreement

[2:12:24] will last

[2:12:26] for years

[2:12:26] just

[2:12:26] in

[2:12:27] general, you

[2:12:28] were

[2:12:28] asking for a month

[2:12:28] or

[2:12:29] two

[2:12:29] . I

[2:12:29] would

[2:12:30] expect 3 or 4

[2:12:31] , yeah

[2:12:32] ,

[2:12:33] hopefully diminishing over time

[2:12:33] Yes

[2:12:34] , yes, sir

[2:12:35] . Yes

[2:12:35] , yes

[2:12:35] , and

[2:12:36] yes, as you take

[2:12:36] on

[2:12:37] more

[2:12:37] responsibility

[2:12:38] and

[2:12:39] transition

[2:12:39] .

[2:12:39] Yes

[2:12:40] . So they had

[2:12:40] a month or

[2:12:41] two

[2:12:41] was

[2:12:42] a

[2:12:42] little

[2:12:43] short

[2:12:45] right

[2:12:45] . What

[2:12:46] I

[2:12:46] would say 3

[2:12:47] or

[2:12:47] 4 diminishing

[2:12:47] .

[2:12:48] Of course

[2:12:49] . I think that's fair.

[2:12:49] Fewer hours as we

[2:12:50] Yes

[2:12:51] , I

[2:12:53] approved

[2:12:54] select b is a

[2:12:55] motion

[2:12:55] from Rudy in a

[2:12:56] second from

[2:12:56] Kimberly

[2:12:58] . You still can't get

[2:12:58] it

[2:12:59] fast enough

[2:13:06] . Motion

[2:13:07] passes

[2:13:08] unanimously

[2:13:09] that

[2:13:09] takes us to

[2:13:09] the end of

[2:13:10] our agenda. We

[2:13:11] will

[2:13:11] circle

[2:13:11] back

[2:13:12] along

[2:13:12] item

[2:13:13] 92

[2:13:13] items

[2:13:14] pulled from the

[2:13:15] consent agenda

[2:13:16] ,

[2:13:16] item

[2:13:17] number

[2:13:18] 5b approving of

[2:13:19] professional services contract

[2:13:20] with wsb

[2:13:21] in the

[2:13:21] amount

[2:13:22] of

[2:13:25] $156,136 to

[2:13:25] provide

[2:13:26] facilitation and

[2:13:26] technical

[2:13:27] advisory services for

[2:13:28] consideration of

[2:13:29] a

[2:13:29] 2026

[2:13:30] bond

[2:13:30] program

[2:13:31] and authorizing the

[2:13:31] city

[2:13:32] manager

[2:13:32] to execute the

[2:13:33] same

[2:13:35] . Um, the

[2:13:36] , uh, this was, I

[2:13:37] believe

[2:13:38] , pulled by Mr

[2:13:40] . Rogers

[2:13:41] Rogers. Yeah

[2:13:43] . So

[2:13:43] , uh

[2:13:47] uh, it,

[2:13:47] it's been a while since we had

[2:13:48] a

[2:13:49] bond committee

[2:13:50] . It

[2:13:50] , it

[2:13:51] seems

[2:13:51] like

[2:13:52] , uh, the scope

[2:13:52] of services

[2:13:55] uh, is a little

[2:13:56] larger and

[2:13:57] the

[2:13:57] cost

[2:13:58] is substantially larger

[2:13:59] than last time. Maybe I'm

[2:13:59] remembering that wrong

[2:14:01] , but I'd

[2:14:01] like to

[2:14:01] . I like to have

[2:14:02] a

[2:14:03] presentation about that

[2:14:10] . Good

[2:14:11] evening, Mayor

[2:14:12] and council for

[2:14:12] the

[2:14:13] engagement Services

[2:14:14] with

[2:14:14] wsb. It is a little, it

[2:14:15] is

[2:14:15] different than

[2:14:17] the last time we

[2:14:17] used a, a

[2:14:18] bond

[2:14:19] consultant. Last

[2:14:19] time it was

[2:14:20] strictly for

[2:14:20] hosting

[2:14:21] the bond Committee

[2:14:22] , the

[2:14:22] scope of services

[2:14:23] is

[2:14:24] larger and

[2:14:24] it's the

[2:14:25] committee and

[2:14:25] council

[2:14:26] then recommends going to an

[2:14:27] election that they would help

[2:14:27] us

[2:14:28] through

[2:14:28] communication

[2:14:29] and

[2:14:29] engagement, which

[2:14:30] is a

[2:14:30] larger

[2:14:31] part of the scope

[2:14:31] and

[2:14:31] not

[2:14:32] included

[2:14:32] from

[2:14:33] last time

[2:14:34] , um, to

[2:14:34] get

[2:14:34] us

[2:14:34] to

[2:14:35] that election

[2:14:36] , um, in

[2:14:36] NOVEMBER

[2:14:42] . While you

[2:14:43] ponder that

[2:14:44] can I ask

[2:14:44] , um, what

[2:14:45] was the

[2:14:46] amount included in the budget

[2:14:47] for this

[2:14:49] um services originally

[2:14:51] Um, we have, we

[2:14:52] had initially

[2:14:53] an

[2:14:53] estimated

[2:14:55] 100,000

[2:14:56] , um, we're

[2:14:57] utilizing portions because the

[2:14:57] bulk of it's

[2:14:59] from

[2:14:59] transportation

[2:15:00] , um, a

[2:15:00] transportation

[2:15:01] professional

[2:15:02] services and

[2:15:02] the bond count

[2:15:03] ,

[2:15:04] the bonds

[2:15:06] , um, estimate from

[2:15:06] other

[2:15:07] professional services

[2:15:07] from

[2:15:08] city managers budget

[2:15:09] line

[2:15:09] item. Ok

[2:15:10] , so 100

[2:15:11] from

[2:15:11] cmo and

[2:15:12] 50

[2:15:12] from transportation It's a

[2:15:13] 100, I

[2:15:13] think it's

[2:15:15] actually 1011

[2:15:16] from transportation and

[2:15:16] the

[2:15:18] balance from cno

[2:15:19] . Um, so can

[2:15:20] you explain to

[2:15:21] me what

[2:15:22] , uh,

[2:15:22] what, what

[2:15:24] we're talking about

[2:15:24] when we're talking about

[2:15:26] uh uh

[2:15:27] communication and engagement

[2:15:28] .

[2:15:29] Sure, it's important to be sure

[2:15:29] to be sure that

[2:15:31] the community

[2:15:31] knows what's coming before you,

[2:15:32] as

[2:15:33] you mentioned, that's a,

[2:15:33] what

[2:15:34] those

[2:15:35] projects

[2:15:35] are is

[2:15:36] important to be able to

[2:15:36] convey

[2:15:38] accurate information and so

[2:15:38] being

[2:15:40] able to have a

[2:15:40] good

[2:15:41] communications plan, how, how

[2:15:42] we

[2:15:42] communicate that and engage

[2:15:43] with

[2:15:43] the public. Um

[2:15:44] prior

[2:15:44] to

[2:15:44] that

[2:15:46] , um, election

[2:15:47] is important

[2:15:47] And

[2:15:48] so they're gonna help us

[2:15:48] with

[2:15:49] that

[2:15:49] plan and we're

[2:15:50] not

[2:15:50] sure what that looks like and

[2:15:51] they're gonna help

[2:15:51] us

[2:15:52] on that

[2:15:52] .

[2:15:52] Has

[2:15:53] that been

[2:15:53] a problem in

[2:15:53] the

[2:15:54] past

[2:15:54] ? I mean

[2:15:55] , why do

[2:15:55] we need

[2:15:56] an

[2:15:57] outside services on that. It

[2:15:57] ,

[2:15:58] it seems to me

[2:15:58] that we, we need

[2:16:00] some staff support

[2:16:00] for this

[2:16:01] project. We, we

[2:16:02] have

[2:16:03] , uh, we

[2:16:03] have several positions down at

[2:16:05] the moment, and it's a heavy

[2:16:05] lift

[2:16:06] to

[2:16:07] carry a

[2:16:07] potential

[2:16:07] bond

[2:16:08] project or

[2:16:09] bond package that is

[2:16:10] this

[2:16:10] large

[2:16:10] . As I

[2:16:11] , as

[2:16:12] I imagine,

[2:16:12] uh

[2:16:14] . The, uh, the

[2:16:16] , the skill

[2:16:16] set

[2:16:16] of

[2:16:18] creating the

[2:16:19] information

[2:16:19] related

[2:16:20] to

[2:16:20] this

[2:16:20] and

[2:16:21] and

[2:16:21] um

[2:16:21] ensuring that

[2:16:22] thats

[2:16:23] properly

[2:16:23] communicated because as we

[2:16:25] know

[2:16:25] the

[2:16:25] city

[2:16:27] cannot advocate in

[2:16:28] an

[2:16:28] election. Um

[2:16:29] , and we want to

[2:16:30] make

[2:16:30] sure that

[2:16:30] , that

[2:16:32] we

[2:16:32] have

[2:16:33] professionals who do this. We

[2:16:33] haven't done

[2:16:34] this in

[2:16:34] 6

[2:16:35] years

[2:16:36] .

[2:16:36] Uh, so

[2:16:36] we want to

[2:16:37] make sure we

[2:16:37] do

[2:16:38] it right

[2:16:39] , um, I

[2:16:40] , I

[2:16:40] , I would

[2:16:41] just ask

[2:16:42] , you know

[2:16:42] , can

[2:16:42] our

[2:16:43] communication

[2:16:43] staff, are they

[2:16:44] properly

[2:16:45] staffed and

[2:16:45] trained to

[2:16:46] perform

[2:16:47] this type of activity,

[2:16:48] or is this something that only

[2:16:49] happens every

[2:16:50] . 6 or

[2:16:51] 8

[2:16:52] years and

[2:16:52] and we're gonna need to bring

[2:16:54] in outside professionals

[2:16:55] . Uh,

[2:16:55] well, we're

[2:16:56] , we're down in our,

[2:16:57] on our comms team

[2:16:58] , and I think

[2:16:59] that this, this helps to

[2:17:00] they'll, of course

[2:17:01] , be part of

[2:17:02] that collaboration

[2:17:03] , as with

[2:17:03] our

[2:17:04] transportation, our parks, and

[2:17:05] our other

[2:17:06] staff. This, this

[2:17:06] really helps

[2:17:07] us to

[2:17:08] fully put

[2:17:08] this

[2:17:10] picture together

[2:17:10] and

[2:17:10] can

[2:17:12] properly convey information to

[2:17:13] the bond Committee

[2:17:14] and

[2:17:14] then

[2:17:15] potentially then to the public

[2:17:15] as it moves forward

[2:17:16] . I think

[2:17:17] it's a

[2:17:17] really important point

[2:17:18] that you brought

[2:17:19] up regarding

[2:17:20] the current, um, status

[2:17:21] for

[2:17:21] our

[2:17:22] comms team. It's

[2:17:22] so

[2:17:22] consequently, we

[2:17:23] want to make

[2:17:24] sure that we put our best

[2:17:24] foot

[2:17:25] forward and make sure

[2:17:26] that we

[2:17:29] ,

[2:17:29] uh, uh, maybe

[2:17:30] not eliminate

[2:17:31] ,

[2:17:32] but

[2:17:32] hopefully

[2:17:33] miniate any

[2:17:33] issues or concerns that

[2:17:34] MAY

[2:17:35] happen

[2:17:36] regarding

[2:17:36] our um

[2:17:37] conversations with the

[2:17:37] public

[2:17:38] and community at large

[2:17:38] regarding

[2:17:39] some of the

[2:17:40] effective

[2:17:40] tools and aspects

[2:17:41] and frankly

[2:17:42] what we're trying to get done

[2:17:42] here

[2:17:44] . So, and

[2:17:44] , and two, is it

[2:17:45] important to have a

[2:17:46] , a

[2:17:47] consultant that does, that has

[2:17:47] done this for other cities

[2:17:48] .

[2:17:49] They have

[2:17:49] different approaches.

[2:17:49] We, we

[2:17:50] do this

[2:17:51] once

[2:17:51] every 5 to

[2:17:51] 6 years

[2:17:53] . And so

[2:17:53] bringing on

[2:17:54] someone who has that

[2:17:55] lens

[2:17:55] and

[2:17:56] experience in it

[2:17:56] , we believe

[2:17:56] will

[2:17:57] be very

[2:17:58] helpful to

[2:17:58] this

[2:17:59] process

[2:18:01] . Isn't

[2:18:01] I I

[2:18:02] understand

[2:18:03] our comms team is down a little

[2:18:03] bit

[2:18:04] , but

[2:18:04] even down

[2:18:05] , aren't

[2:18:05] there

[2:18:06] , aren't we have more

[2:18:07] people in comms now than we did

[2:18:07] 6 years ago

[2:18:09] ? I don't

[2:18:10] , I

[2:18:11] don't

[2:18:11] compare the numbers. I imagine

[2:18:12] we might. Um

[2:18:13] , we have a

[2:18:13] lot

[2:18:14] going on

[2:18:15] , um, across the city

[2:18:16] in which, in

[2:18:17] which

[2:18:18] they

[2:18:18] communicate out

[2:18:18] really

[2:18:19] effectively

[2:18:20] and so we wanna

[2:18:20] make sure that

[2:18:21] all those

[2:18:21] , all

[2:18:21] the things

[2:18:22] we already have

[2:18:23] going on

[2:18:23] , continue

[2:18:24] to

[2:18:24] remain

[2:18:25] successful while we

[2:18:25] add

[2:18:26] on

[2:18:27] to

[2:18:27] everyone's plate

[2:18:28] , um, was,

[2:18:28] we're

[2:18:29] expecting

[2:18:29] to

[2:18:30] fill

[2:18:30] those

[2:18:31] empty spots

[2:18:31] and comps

[2:18:32] , right

[2:18:32] ?

[2:18:33] Absolutely. That

[2:18:34] does take time

[2:18:35] COUNCILMAN Rogers, are you

[2:18:36] suggesting we increase the

[2:18:36] headcount of our internal coms

[2:18:37] team

[2:18:38] . I'm sorry. Are you

[2:18:40] suggesting that we increase the

[2:18:41] headcount of our internal

[2:18:42] coms

[2:18:43] team. Uh, well

[2:18:45] , we have um we

[2:18:46] have unfilled positions

[2:18:47] Uh

[2:18:49] , uh,

[2:18:49] and their

[2:18:50] budgeted already, so

[2:18:50] I'm

[2:18:51] , you know

[2:18:52] , why

[2:18:53] are we

[2:18:54] spending the same

[2:18:54] money

[2:18:56] twice

[2:18:56] .

[2:18:56] It

[2:18:57] , it's not, it's

[2:18:58] the fright.

[2:18:59] That's a component of this

[2:19:00] ,

[2:19:01] right, that they're gonna bring

[2:19:01] a whole lot

[2:19:01] of other experience

[2:19:02] That's

[2:19:03] one

[2:19:03] element

[2:19:04] is

[2:19:04] engagement

[2:19:05] . They'll

[2:19:07] , they

[2:19:07] cover

[2:19:08] understanding engineering,

[2:19:09] communicating the

[2:19:09] bond

[2:19:10] committees, looking

[2:19:10] at

[2:19:10] projects

[2:19:11] considering

[2:19:12] the cip as a whole

[2:19:14] .

[2:19:14] And then comes as a component

[2:19:15] of that

[2:19:16] as we, as we get

[2:19:17] towards the end and towards an

[2:19:17] election

[2:19:19] . So I have a couple of

[2:19:21] questions. Um

[2:19:23] , so

[2:19:23] what we're

[2:19:24] talking about

[2:19:25] right

[2:19:25] now

[2:19:25] is

[2:19:25] task

[2:19:26] 3

[2:19:27] about

[2:19:27] proposition

[2:19:28] communications, and that

[2:19:29] task

[2:19:30] is

[2:19:30] only going to be

[2:19:32] going

[2:19:32] forward if the

[2:19:33] council

[2:19:34] votes to

[2:19:35] put

[2:19:35] a

[2:19:36] bond

[2:19:37] proposition

[2:19:37] . So if

[2:19:37] there were

[2:19:38] a

[2:19:39] situation

[2:19:39] where,

[2:19:39] you know

[2:19:40] , it wasn't going

[2:19:41] to

[2:19:41] move forward, then

[2:19:41] that

[2:19:42] part of

[2:19:43] the scope would

[2:19:44] brighten

[2:19:45] up

[2:19:45] this is a time

[2:19:46] and

[2:19:46] materials

[2:19:46] contract, not if we

[2:19:48] speak

[2:19:48] .

[2:19:48] Right

[2:19:48] . Ok

[2:19:49] . Um

[2:19:50] , and then

[2:19:53] I

[2:19:53] noticed in the

[2:19:54] , um, in

[2:19:55] that

[2:19:55] task

[2:19:55] , there was

[2:19:57] , uh, the

[2:19:57] scope

[2:19:57] was, it

[2:19:59] , it appears to

[2:19:59] be one

[2:20:00] city council

[2:20:01] meeting

[2:20:01] , but what

[2:20:02] if

[2:20:02] there were more than one

[2:20:04] city council meeting

[2:20:04] , like if

[2:20:05] there was

[2:20:05] the

[2:20:06] initial one and

[2:20:06] there

[2:20:07] was modifications that

[2:20:07] needed

[2:20:08] to come

[2:20:08] back. Would

[2:20:09] that

[2:20:09] be

[2:20:10] something additional or is

[2:20:10] that included in the scope

[2:20:11] ?

[2:20:11] There's one

[2:20:12] , there's a

[2:20:12] I

[2:20:13] think

[2:20:15] an additional for meetings and

[2:20:16] something we could work with

[2:20:17] the consultant on. Ok

[2:20:19] , and then

[2:20:19] um

[2:20:20] , when I was

[2:20:21] looking about,

[2:20:22] um, who were they were going to

[2:20:22] reach

[2:20:23] out to

[2:20:24] and

[2:20:24] , and

[2:20:26] they

[2:20:26] mentioned

[2:20:27] key stakeholders and

[2:20:27] I was

[2:20:28] just

[2:20:28] wondering if the

[2:20:29] city

[2:20:29] council

[2:20:30] members

[2:20:31] individually are included in

[2:20:33] that definition. So

[2:20:33] that

[2:20:33] city

[2:20:34] council members would

[2:20:35] meet with

[2:20:35] them the same

[2:20:35] way

[2:20:36] we did

[2:20:36] individually with

[2:20:38] um the

[2:20:38] strategic plan

[2:20:39] . We haven't, we

[2:20:40] haven't met, had a

[2:20:42] kickoff

[2:20:43] until we wanna make sure that

[2:20:44] this

[2:20:44] passes first

[2:20:44] . That's

[2:20:45] usually the time in which

[2:20:46] we

[2:20:47] define the stakeholders

[2:20:48] . Ok

[2:20:48] , so

[2:20:49] would you define

[2:20:50] the

[2:20:51] stakeholders

[2:20:51] , including city

[2:20:52] council members that

[2:20:53] have

[2:20:54] meeting individually, like the

[2:20:54] strategic

[2:20:55] plan. Um

[2:20:57] . I think, I

[2:20:58] think I've looked to wsb to for

[2:21:00] their recommendation on it. I'm

[2:21:01] not sure because you all will

[2:21:03] see it, we've talked to you all

[2:21:03] about

[2:21:04] the

[2:21:05] projects previously.

[2:21:05] Um

[2:21:07] strategic plan

[2:21:07] very

[2:21:09] different than a bond. Um, I

[2:21:09] don't know

[2:21:11] that

[2:21:11] that's time

[2:21:11] is

[2:21:12] well spent for you

[2:21:13] or

[2:21:14] them

[2:21:14] on

[2:21:14] that it

[2:21:14] does

[2:21:16] individual

[2:21:16] conversations. But

[2:21:18] if that's

[2:21:18] something counsel would like to

[2:21:19] happen, we

[2:21:20] can certainly put

[2:21:21] that on the stakeholder list

[2:21:22] .

[2:21:22] So

[2:21:23] , um, if

[2:21:25] council members were

[2:21:26] not included

[2:21:27] as stakeholders

[2:21:27] ,

[2:21:28] though one time that

[2:21:29] they

[2:21:29] would

[2:21:30] receive information is that the

[2:21:31] city

[2:21:32] council presentation

[2:21:32] .

[2:21:32] You'll

[2:21:34] receive information

[2:21:34] related to the

[2:21:36] bond

[2:21:37] recommendation at that time.

[2:21:37] Right

[2:21:38] , you'll so

[2:21:39] one meeting

[2:21:39] we

[2:21:39] will, but

[2:21:40] Walt

[2:21:41] Staffel can

[2:21:42] update you through the

[2:21:42] , through

[2:21:43] the

[2:21:44] process. That

[2:21:44] , that's for

[2:21:44] when

[2:21:45] our consultant

[2:21:45] is here

[2:21:45] . It

[2:21:46] won't

[2:21:46] , you

[2:21:46] won't

[2:21:47] just

[2:21:48] hear

[2:21:48] about

[2:21:49] tonight

[2:21:49] and then

[2:21:50] come

[2:21:50] MAY

[2:21:50] Here's

[2:21:51] a

[2:21:51] recommendation

[2:21:51] . We'll

[2:21:52] update

[2:21:52] you

[2:21:53] on how

[2:21:53] the

[2:21:53] bond

[2:21:54] committee meetings are going

[2:21:55] um

[2:21:55] as we do

[2:21:55] through

[2:21:56] various

[2:21:57] communications like the weekly

[2:21:59] .

[2:21:59] Ok

[2:21:59] , and then

[2:22:01] , um, in section 4

[2:22:03] ,

[2:22:03] there was some items

[2:22:04] about

[2:22:04] exclusions

[2:22:06] Um

[2:22:06] , and

[2:22:08] so some of

[2:22:08] them

[2:22:10] seemed

[2:22:10] uh possibly

[2:22:11] important, that would

[2:22:12] be needed

[2:22:13] for a uh projects of these

[2:22:14] , the

[2:22:15] scope. And so I was

[2:22:17] just

[2:22:17] wondering, do

[2:22:17] we

[2:22:18] anticipate

[2:22:18] that those

[2:22:19] additional

[2:22:20] consultants will be needed

[2:22:20] and

[2:22:20] is there

[2:22:21] , you know

[2:22:22] , and then

[2:22:22] do

[2:22:22] we

[2:22:23] have budgeted for

[2:22:24] those

[2:22:24] estimated costs

[2:22:25] of services,

[2:22:25] like

[2:22:26] they

[2:22:27] mentioned

[2:22:27] financial

[2:22:27] analysis

[2:22:28] , debt capacity

[2:22:28] , or

[2:22:30] projected tax impacts, which I

[2:22:31] believe are

[2:22:32] are essential

[2:22:32] for,

[2:22:33] uh, you know, and

[2:22:34] , and has

[2:22:34] been

[2:22:34] included

[2:22:34] in

[2:22:35] previous bond

[2:22:36] committees, so

[2:22:36] so

[2:22:37] I'm

[2:22:37] thinking

[2:22:37] there's then

[2:22:38] another contract

[2:22:40] that's gonna

[2:22:40] be needed,

[2:22:41] possibly. We don't think

[2:22:41] for

[2:22:42] that particular one that

[2:22:42] that'll be

[2:22:44] necessary. If, if we

[2:22:45] needed to, but we have a bond

[2:22:46] council, we have

[2:22:47] financial

[2:22:47] advisors that we're bringing on

[2:22:49] board. You, you've seen

[2:22:49] them

[2:22:49] that they're

[2:22:50] , uh, Dusty

[2:22:51] and

[2:22:51] Richard will, will help us

[2:22:52] through that

[2:22:53] , um, component of

[2:22:53] the

[2:22:54] bond. So

[2:22:54] we don't

[2:22:55] they'll

[2:22:56] cer that

[2:22:56] purpose right they're

[2:22:57] just saying we

[2:22:58] don't have,

[2:22:58] we're not bringing

[2:22:59] this along.

[2:22:59] They

[2:23:00] don't they're

[2:23:00] not going to

[2:23:00] do it

[2:23:01] . We will

[2:23:02] be providing

[2:23:02] Yeah

[2:23:03] , absolutely

[2:23:04] , very

[2:23:05] important to me. And then what

[2:23:06] about

[2:23:06] the

[2:23:06] other because I

[2:23:07] mentioned two items in the

[2:23:08] , in

[2:23:09] the information I sent in

[2:23:09] advance

[2:23:11] , um, about the, you

[2:23:11] know, facilitation of the

[2:23:13] ballot language

[2:23:14] , polling

[2:23:14] coordination

[2:23:15] , voting processes,

[2:23:15] and

[2:23:16] then

[2:23:17] also accurate

[2:23:18] construction cost estimates. So

[2:23:19] we already

[2:23:20] have

[2:23:20] consultants on

[2:23:21] that we're

[2:23:22] working

[2:23:23] with or

[2:23:23] staff

[2:23:25] that could handle

[2:23:25] those

[2:23:25] two

[2:23:27] , services

[2:23:29] as well. We do

[2:23:29] ,

[2:23:30] uh, so through the very

[2:23:31] ,

[2:23:31] whether it's

[2:23:31] parks

[2:23:31] or

[2:23:32] transportation downtown

[2:23:33] , we

[2:23:34] have, we've got a lot

[2:23:34] of

[2:23:35] estimates in

[2:23:35] our

[2:23:36] consultant

[2:23:37] teams that are helping us

[2:23:38] with

[2:23:38] those specific projects that

[2:23:39] are gonna

[2:23:40] gonna attorney will

[2:23:40] help us with

[2:23:42] bond with ballot.

[2:23:43] They just called it

[2:23:43] out

[2:23:44] specifically

[2:23:44] , so I

[2:23:45] just wanted

[2:23:45] to know who

[2:23:45] was

[2:23:46] handling

[2:23:47] those

[2:23:49] services. All right. Any other

[2:23:49] questions

[2:23:50] , counsel

[2:23:50] ? Motion

[2:23:51] approve 5

[2:23:52] . B

[2:23:52] as presented

[2:23:53] .

[2:23:53] Second

[2:23:54] , I have

[2:23:55] a

[2:23:56] second from

[2:23:56] Jonathan or Kim anyway

[2:24:03] . All

[2:24:03] right

[2:24:05] , motion

[2:24:05] passes. That

[2:24:05] brings us

[2:24:07] to

[2:24:07] item 5c

[2:24:08] , approving

[2:24:10] a resolution of the

[2:24:12] , uh, uh, in

[2:24:12] support of the

[2:24:13] Travis

[2:24:14] County

[2:24:14] sponsored applications to the

[2:24:15] Capitol

[2:24:16] area

[2:24:16] Metropolitan

[2:24:17] Planning

[2:24:18] Organization

[2:24:18] Campo

[2:24:19] 2028

[2:24:19] to 2031

[2:24:20] call

[2:24:21] for projects

[2:24:22] and authorized the city

[2:24:22] manager

[2:24:22] to

[2:24:23] execute

[2:24:24] the same

[2:24:24] melody I

[2:24:25] believe you pulled this

[2:24:25] one.

[2:24:25] Mayor

[2:24:26] . MAY I

[2:24:26] ask that

[2:24:26] any

[2:24:27] questions be

[2:24:28] pertinent to

[2:24:28] the

[2:24:28] subject

[2:24:29] on our vote

[2:24:29] . Also

[2:24:29] , will

[2:24:30] they

[2:24:31] affect our vote

[2:24:32] And

[2:24:32] if

[2:24:33] somebody's going to vote no

[2:24:35] anyway, MAY, you know

[2:24:35] , uh

[2:24:35] please ask that

[2:24:36] they not

[2:24:37] waste

[2:24:37] everybody's

[2:24:38] time

[2:24:39] . That is a

[2:24:40] great

[2:24:41] recommendation. Melody

[2:24:41] , I

[2:24:42] believe you had questions

[2:24:43] on

[2:24:44] this? Um

[2:24:44] , yes

[2:24:44] , I

[2:24:44] was

[2:24:46] just

[2:24:46] wondering about

[2:24:47] the projects

[2:24:48] that were

[2:24:49] , um, included

[2:24:50] in

[2:24:50] here

[2:24:50] Um

[2:24:51] , what was

[2:24:51] the

[2:24:52] criteria

[2:24:53] for

[2:24:54] eligibility for

[2:24:54] the

[2:24:55] the streets

[2:24:55] that we

[2:24:56] could

[2:24:57] submit

[2:24:57] for

[2:24:57] this

[2:24:58] funding or call

[2:24:59] for

[2:25:00] project

[2:25:00] and

[2:25:00] then how

[2:25:01] were these

[2:25:02] streets

[2:25:02] selected

[2:25:03] for

[2:25:04] clarification

[2:25:04] ,

[2:25:04] this

[2:25:05] item is

[2:25:06] approving a

[2:25:07] resolution in support of the

[2:25:07] Travis

[2:25:08] County sponsored. So

[2:25:09] were these items

[2:25:10] that

[2:25:10] we

[2:25:11] submitted or we're supporting

[2:25:11] Travis County

[2:25:13] with

[2:25:13] this item

[2:25:13] .

[2:25:14] Great question

[2:25:15] . Um, thank

[2:25:15] you.

[2:25:15] These, these

[2:25:16] are all

[2:25:16] items

[2:25:17] that

[2:25:17] Travis County

[2:25:17] had

[2:25:18] passed

[2:25:18] staff

[2:25:20] to support. So this is

[2:25:20] the

[2:25:21] resolution of

[2:25:21] support. Ok, this

[2:25:22] is a

[2:25:22] resolution of support for

[2:25:24] Travis so

[2:25:24] we wouldn't

[2:25:25] have

[2:25:25] their

[2:25:26] justification for

[2:25:27] , or

[2:25:28] their determination on how they

[2:25:29] made these claims. Oh, well, I

[2:25:31] asked these in

[2:25:31] advance and so I

[2:25:31] didn't

[2:25:32] , I

[2:25:33] didn't

[2:25:33] know

[2:25:33] that

[2:25:34] information

[2:25:35] . County

[2:25:35] and

[2:25:36] Williamson County have the

[2:25:36] two

[2:25:37] biggest amounts, 26

[2:25:39] . All

[2:25:40] right

[2:25:40] ,

[2:25:40] did that, did that answer

[2:25:41] your

[2:25:42] questions? Well, I was also

[2:25:43] curious if I could

[2:25:44] be

[2:25:44] pro if

[2:25:44] there's a map

[2:25:45] of

[2:25:45] the segments

[2:25:47] of the, the segments of the

[2:25:47] roads that

[2:25:49] were

[2:25:49] being included

[2:25:50] here. I think we'd need to

[2:25:50] ask

[2:25:51] Travis County for that. No, I

[2:25:52] do not have that

[2:25:53] . Ok

[2:25:53] , so we

[2:25:54] don't know the

[2:25:55] extension of

[2:25:56] like I think the only one that

[2:25:56] was

[2:25:57] the

[2:25:58] extension

[2:25:58] is um for

[2:25:59] Jesse Bowles. They had

[2:26:00] , um, did

[2:26:00] I think

[2:26:01] Avalon and

[2:26:02] then

[2:26:03] um 973

[2:26:03] on the Far East side

[2:26:05] . That's

[2:26:05] the reservation

[2:26:07] The

[2:26:07] center

[2:26:07] portion. Ok

[2:26:09] . Move

[2:26:11] to approve

[2:26:11] in

[2:26:12] a second, a motion from David

[2:26:13] and second from Rudy

[2:26:20] . Motion

[2:26:21] passes that brings us to

[2:26:22] item

[2:26:22] 5d

[2:26:23] , approving resolution

[2:26:25] Committee Type b sales tax

[2:26:25] funds in support of parks

[2:26:27] and

[2:26:27] recreation projects consistent

[2:26:28] with the 2026

[2:26:30] , 2030

[2:26:30] strategic

[2:26:31] plan

[2:26:31] and

[2:26:32] pcdc

[2:26:33] Comprehensive

[2:26:34] Economic Development Strategy

[2:26:34] to

[2:26:34] ensure

[2:26:35] long-term

[2:26:36] investment

[2:26:37] in community quality

[2:26:37] of life

[2:26:37] .

[2:26:38] Uh, David, I believe

[2:26:41] Uh

[2:26:41] , I

[2:26:43] , uh,

[2:26:43] concerned that

[2:26:45] this is

[2:26:46] going to

[2:26:46] make out

[2:26:48] the pcbc

[2:26:49] and

[2:26:50] uh

[2:26:51] basically outsource the

[2:26:52] uh the

[2:26:53] funding of Parson Iraq

[2:26:54] to pcdc

[2:26:54] .

[2:26:54] Uh, that

[2:26:55] doesn't seem to

[2:26:56] me

[2:26:57] that that's

[2:26:57] what

[2:26:57] the pcbc

[2:26:58] is

[2:26:58] for, but

[2:26:59] maybe there's

[2:26:59] something in

[2:27:00] a presentation

[2:27:01] that will convince me to the

[2:27:01] contrary

[2:27:05] . I don't

[2:27:06] I

[2:27:06] don't

[2:27:06] believe we have

[2:27:07] a

[2:27:08] presentation

[2:27:08] for this. I believe it was

[2:27:09] based

[2:27:09] on

[2:27:10] retreat discussion

[2:27:10] . If

[2:27:12] I recall correctly at the

[2:27:13] retreat discussion

[2:27:14] , we

[2:27:14] uh

[2:27:15] discussed about

[2:27:16] specific dollar

[2:27:17] amounts at the point of, you

[2:27:17] know, like

[2:27:19] they've mentioned

[2:27:19] ,

[2:27:19] 2.1 million and

[2:27:20] decreasing over

[2:27:21] the next

[2:27:21] five

[2:27:22] years

[2:27:23] . So

[2:27:24] , um, I

[2:27:24] was

[2:27:24] not

[2:27:25] expecting

[2:27:27] a

[2:27:28] 50%, um,

[2:27:28] and then I

[2:27:29] also did ask

[2:27:29] a

[2:27:29] question

[2:27:30] in

[2:27:30] advance

[2:27:31] of

[2:27:31] what

[2:27:31] is

[2:27:31] the

[2:27:32] , what does

[2:27:33] this mean in

[2:27:33] terms

[2:27:33] of

[2:27:34] actual dollars

[2:27:34] each

[2:27:35] year

[2:27:36] . And

[2:27:37] would the debt

[2:27:37] service for the

[2:27:39] recreation

[2:27:39] center be included in

[2:27:40] this

[2:27:41] 50%

[2:27:41] allocation

[2:27:44] . I

[2:27:44] think

[2:27:44] that my

[2:27:46] understanding was that that was

[2:27:47] part of the intent and

[2:27:48] part

[2:27:49] of

[2:27:49] having a

[2:27:49] guardrail

[2:27:51] like this it

[2:27:51] and also

[2:27:53] doesn't have to be 50%

[2:27:53] right

[2:27:54] ? This

[2:27:55] doesn't preclude

[2:27:55] the

[2:27:55] normal

[2:27:56] budget cycles and

[2:27:56] approvals

[2:27:58] that happen anyway

[2:27:59] . I

[2:28:00] don't think. And so I

[2:28:00] think,

[2:28:01] you know

[2:28:02] , pcbc's also

[2:28:03] been

[2:28:04] pretty

[2:28:04] consistently

[2:28:05] funding

[2:28:06] pecs projects as well

[2:28:06] . And so I

[2:28:07] think if we

[2:28:07] actually do look at

[2:28:08] that

[2:28:08] as a

[2:28:09] single

[2:28:09] bucket of

[2:28:10] those efforts

[2:28:10] that

[2:28:11] will also

[2:28:13] help us

[2:28:13] to prioritize

[2:28:13] those

[2:28:14] projects and the need um to

[2:28:14] make sure

[2:28:15] that we're

[2:28:16] . You know

[2:28:17] ,

[2:28:18] delivering on our, uh, quality

[2:28:18] of

[2:28:19] life projects

[2:28:20] . Well

[2:28:20] , and

[2:28:20] that's, you

[2:28:22] know, like you said

[2:28:23] that's, that's been a

[2:28:24] long time

[2:28:25] uh, piece

[2:28:27] of pcdc

[2:28:29] , uh, what I'm

[2:28:30] doing pcdc back in the

[2:28:31] Dark

[2:28:31] Ages

[2:28:32] , uh, when dinosaurs roamed

[2:28:33] the

[2:28:33] Earth

[2:28:33] and

[2:28:34] uh we

[2:28:34] had

[2:28:35] problems

[2:28:35] with the

[2:28:36] tar pits on

[2:28:36] the east side of

[2:28:37] town

[2:28:37] . Um

[2:28:38] you

[2:28:39] know

[2:28:40] , the, in the area that

[2:28:41] we've since paved over

[2:28:42] and put

[2:28:42] a toll

[2:28:43] road on

[2:28:43] , um

[2:28:45] . You know,

[2:28:45] the

[2:28:47] , uh, pcbc

[2:28:47] gave, uh

[2:28:49] ,

[2:28:50] generally

[2:28:51] around

[2:28:51] $7500 to

[2:28:52] $100,000 a year to

[2:28:53] parks and

[2:28:54] Rec

[2:28:56] . Um, which was, you know

[2:28:56] ,

[2:28:57] substantial part of the parks

[2:28:57] and

[2:28:58] rec budget back in the day

[2:28:58] ,

[2:28:59] and

[2:29:00] a

[2:29:01] substantial part of the

[2:29:03] pcdc budget back in the day

[2:29:03] ,

[2:29:03] but it was

[2:29:05] nowhere

[2:29:06] near

[2:29:06] 50%

[2:29:06] or

[2:29:08] even

[2:29:08] 15%

[2:29:08] , uh, and

[2:29:09] I think

[2:29:10] that

[2:29:10] this uh

[2:29:12] that

[2:29:12] this resolution

[2:29:14] .

[2:29:14] Uh is just

[2:29:15] , uh, you

[2:29:16] know

[2:29:16] , it's

[2:29:19] if we adhere to this, it's

[2:29:20] going to make it

[2:29:23] virtually

[2:29:23] impossible for the

[2:29:24] pcdc

[2:29:25] to

[2:29:26] fulfill its

[2:29:28] primary job, which

[2:29:28] is

[2:29:30] bringing primary

[2:29:30] jobs to the

[2:29:31] city

[2:29:32] of

[2:29:33] Flugerville

[2:29:33] . David,

[2:29:33] would you, would

[2:29:34] you like to

[2:29:35] ,

[2:29:35] uh, make a motion

[2:29:36] amending?

[2:29:37] Yeah, that's what I was about

[2:29:38] to ask. What number do you, are

[2:29:39] are comfortable? We don't have

[2:29:40] the I'm

[2:29:40] like I'm

[2:29:41] concerned

[2:29:42] because I asked for

[2:29:42] the number

[2:29:42] in advance

[2:29:43] . What is

[2:29:44] , what is

[2:29:44] the 50%

[2:29:46] ? Um do you

[2:29:46] mean? Is

[2:29:46] that

[2:29:48] like, is it

[2:29:48] $66

[2:29:50] million a

[2:29:50] year

[2:29:51] . It's revenues. Yeah

[2:29:53] , so

[2:29:53] what I think

[2:29:53] the

[2:29:54] revenue

[2:29:55] revenue

[2:29:56] 12 million. Ok

[2:29:57] , so, so

[2:29:57] we're

[2:29:58] talking

[2:29:59] about

[2:29:59] $6

[2:30:00] million

[2:30:00] up to

[2:30:01] $6

[2:30:02] million so my concern

[2:30:02] was such a

[2:30:04] high

[2:30:04] number is

[2:30:05] there's

[2:30:06] also psychology to it

[2:30:06] .

[2:30:06] If we

[2:30:07] allow

[2:30:07] , if

[2:30:08] we

[2:30:08] approve this

[2:30:09] and

[2:30:10] then people

[2:30:11] , yeah, it

[2:30:11] will

[2:30:11] be like, well, we

[2:30:12] have up

[2:30:12] to

[2:30:13] $6

[2:30:15] million in

[2:30:15] general, people,

[2:30:16] when they think they have up to

[2:30:16] a

[2:30:17] certain amount of time there

[2:30:18] or amount of money

[2:30:19] , they're

[2:30:20] going to ask for

[2:30:20] it

[2:30:22] . Well

[2:30:23] ,

[2:30:24] whatever the

[2:30:24] $2

[2:30:24] million that

[2:30:25] percentage

[2:30:26] , so

[2:30:26] 1/6. I

[2:30:27] , I mean,

[2:30:27] I

[2:30:28] , I

[2:30:29] like the idea of a

[2:30:29] percentage

[2:30:31] , especially because

[2:30:31] if sales tax

[2:30:33] revenue goes down

[2:30:33] .

[2:30:34] For example, right, that

[2:30:35] number

[2:30:36] would go down and

[2:30:36] likewise if

[2:30:37] we have a

[2:30:38] great

[2:30:38] year

[2:30:38] , we'd

[2:30:39] have

[2:30:40] more to, to

[2:30:40] work

[2:30:40] with

[2:30:42] . Uh

[2:30:43] , I

[2:30:43] also

[2:30:44] think

[2:30:44] that

[2:30:45] I've

[2:30:45] not seen

[2:30:49] other proposals for

[2:30:49] pcdc

[2:30:51] dollars right now

[2:30:52] , um, in terms

[2:30:53] of things that we could invest

[2:30:54] in

[2:30:54] that maybe we

[2:30:55] would rank

[2:30:56] higher and so I think we

[2:30:57] could

[2:30:58] always

[2:30:58] revisit this at a

[2:30:58] future

[2:30:59] time if

[2:31:00] there is

[2:31:00] an

[2:31:00] investment

[2:31:01] opportunity that

[2:31:01] we would like

[2:31:02] to

[2:31:03] pursue, but

[2:31:03] I think quality

[2:31:05] of life for our

[2:31:05] citizens is, I

[2:31:05] mean

[2:31:06] , that's what we

[2:31:06] all

[2:31:07] hear

[2:31:08] about all day, every day

[2:31:08] , and I

[2:31:08] think

[2:31:09] it's a, I

[2:31:09] think it's a

[2:31:10] very

[2:31:11] worthy investment

[2:31:11] . So if

[2:31:12] I'm

[2:31:12] hearing

[2:31:12] you correctly

[2:31:13] , you

[2:31:14] want

[2:31:14] the

[2:31:15] pcdc to make

[2:31:15] it a

[2:31:15] problem

[2:31:16] for us

[2:31:16] to have to

[2:31:17] make

[2:31:17] decisions on it

[2:31:18] . Give us bring

[2:31:19] up so

[2:31:19] many

[2:31:20] deals that we

[2:31:20] would

[2:31:21] be worried

[2:31:22] about

[2:31:22] spending 20%

[2:31:23] of the budget on parks

[2:31:24] , right?

[2:31:25] Because we're

[2:31:28] growing our, our

[2:31:28] commercial tax base

[2:31:29] , um, I

[2:31:29] also

[2:31:30] think there's a, yeah

[2:31:31] , I

[2:31:32] appreciate that. Um

[2:31:32] , I

[2:31:32] , I also

[2:31:34] think there's

[2:31:34] other

[2:31:35] infrastructure

[2:31:36] type

[2:31:37] projects

[2:31:37] that um

[2:31:38] you know, I'm

[2:31:40] I'm

[2:31:40] just

[2:31:41] hesitant to limit

[2:31:42] it

[2:31:42] only to

[2:31:43] parks and rec

[2:31:43] , if especially if

[2:31:44] it

[2:31:45] was at

[2:31:45] a

[2:31:45] 50%

[2:31:46] level

[2:31:48] . Um

[2:31:48] , I

[2:31:48] just prefer

[2:31:49] to

[2:31:49] like

[2:31:50] have

[2:31:50] projects be

[2:31:51] brought

[2:31:52] forward

[2:31:52] each year

[2:31:52] rather than saying,

[2:31:53] you have up

[2:31:54] to this

[2:31:54] amount for

[2:31:55] what, what you choose

[2:31:55] , and

[2:31:56] then

[2:31:56] we could

[2:31:57] choose to

[2:31:59] , it's

[2:31:59] always

[2:31:59] harder to

[2:32:00] take away

[2:32:03] . So if you

[2:32:03] know

[2:32:04] , psychologically, if you,

[2:32:04] if

[2:32:05] you give someone, it's

[2:32:06] always harder to take

[2:32:07] away

[2:32:07] than

[2:32:08] to make that decision each year

[2:32:09] So

[2:32:10] , so correct me if I'm wrong

[2:32:10] though

[2:32:10] , like

[2:32:12] this

[2:32:12] is

[2:32:13] really

[2:32:14] almost guidance to take

[2:32:14] into

[2:32:15] the budgeting process. So I

[2:32:16] , I

[2:32:16] don't

[2:32:17] , I think we would still

[2:32:18] see those projects come

[2:32:19] through

[2:32:19] This

[2:32:19] wouldn't

[2:32:20] stop

[2:32:21] that

[2:32:21] . We'd

[2:32:22] still

[2:32:22] be

[2:32:23] approving

[2:32:23] the

[2:32:24] individual items as they

[2:32:24] come

[2:32:25] through, as

[2:32:26] with

[2:32:26] pcbc

[2:32:27] board

[2:32:28] ,

[2:32:28] the pcbc board would

[2:32:29] . Operate

[2:32:30] under the

[2:32:30] planning assumption

[2:32:31] that half of their money is

[2:32:32] put

[2:32:33] on before they get started

[2:32:34] . No

[2:32:34] ,

[2:32:35] it wouldn't because that's what

[2:32:35] I think

[2:32:36] that's

[2:32:37] what this,

[2:32:37] that's what

[2:32:37] this

[2:32:39] resolution

[2:32:40] would psychologically and

[2:32:41] and,

[2:32:41] and business

[2:32:42] wise

[2:32:42] , if the, the

[2:32:44] that's the resolution, yeah,

[2:32:45] what

[2:32:46] do you, what are you

[2:32:46] thinking about

[2:32:48] ? Because

[2:32:48] if

[2:32:48] you're, I, I, I was

[2:32:49] amenable to

[2:32:50] our

[2:32:51] original discussion

[2:32:51] , which

[2:32:51] was

[2:32:52] 2

[2:32:53] 2.1 million the

[2:32:53] first

[2:32:54] year and then

[2:32:55] to evaluate it

[2:32:55] each

[2:32:56] year as

[2:32:57] to

[2:32:57] the success

[2:32:57] of

[2:32:58] the operations of

[2:32:59] the

[2:33:00] recreation center

[2:33:00] , um, and

[2:33:00] , and

[2:33:01] look at

[2:33:01] it each

[2:33:02] year rather

[2:33:02] than

[2:33:03] having

[2:33:03] it

[2:33:04] just

[2:33:05] automatically dedicated. I

[2:33:05] would like

[2:33:06] to evaluate

[2:33:07] the

[2:33:07] need

[2:33:07] for

[2:33:07] the

[2:33:08] recreation

[2:33:09] center to

[2:33:09] be

[2:33:09] funded

[2:33:11] by pcdc

[2:33:11] for the

[2:33:12] sales

[2:33:12] tax

[2:33:13] , but then this

[2:33:13] is just

[2:33:13] saying

[2:33:14] what you're going to get

[2:33:14] this pot of money, and if you

[2:33:15] don't use it for the recreation

[2:33:16] center, then we can use

[2:33:17] it for

[2:33:17] .

[2:33:18] Would you like to make that in

[2:33:18] the form of a motion

[2:33:20] ? Yeah

[2:33:21] . Uh

[2:33:21] I, I

[2:33:22] , I moved to approve with

[2:33:24] the

[2:33:24] amendment that it

[2:33:25] be 1%

[2:33:28] .

[2:33:29] Outwards. Ok, let's, let's, ok

[2:33:30] ,

[2:33:31] ok, let's, let's, ok,. Oh, hold

[2:33:32] on, hold on, I've got a motion

[2:33:32] on the

[2:33:33] table

[2:33:35] . Motion

[2:33:35] fails for

[2:33:36] lack of a second. Ok

[2:33:36] , I would

[2:33:37] ,

[2:33:38] oh, would you like

[2:33:39] my

[2:33:40] motion or

[2:33:40] what

[2:33:40] what what I, this is

[2:33:42] because I want to get to a

[2:33:43] motion though

[2:33:43] . If we're, if

[2:33:44] you're

[2:33:45] having concerns

[2:33:46] that's

[2:33:47] fine. I'm trying to understand

[2:33:47] that

[2:33:49] . What I'm trying to figure

[2:33:49] out is what we can get you

[2:33:51] to a

[2:33:51] solution here

[2:33:51] . So I'm

[2:33:53] hearing

[2:33:53] 50%, but it's not

[2:33:54] really

[2:33:55] 50%

[2:33:56] because riskly speaking, it

[2:33:57] will be something that we

[2:33:57] see

[2:33:58] every year. I

[2:33:58] mean

[2:33:58] it's

[2:33:59] guidance in the budget

[2:34:00] , exactly

[2:34:01] with that. It

[2:34:01] is fair

[2:34:01] to

[2:34:02] say

[2:34:03] that if they're

[2:34:03] being

[2:34:04] conservative

[2:34:04] , as you know

[2:34:05] ,

[2:34:06] little city working as they

[2:34:06] should be operate

[2:34:07] is that

[2:34:07] , yes,

[2:34:07] it

[2:34:08] can be

[2:34:09] that 50% it should

[2:34:09] be

[2:34:09] operating from that

[2:34:10] . However

[2:34:11] ,

[2:34:12] you also brought up the fact

[2:34:12] that you think it's going to

[2:34:14] stop infrastructure projects,

[2:34:14] which I haven't heard

[2:34:16] . From

[2:34:17] anybody

[2:34:18] . Is

[2:34:18] a possibility. I

[2:34:19] don't know about stop. I'm

[2:34:20] just

[2:34:20] saying that

[2:34:21] the 50, you

[2:34:22] taking

[2:34:23] $6

[2:34:23] million and you're

[2:34:24] allocating

[2:34:24] it to

[2:34:25] Parks

[2:34:25] and

[2:34:26] Rec

[2:34:26] or

[2:34:27] everyone has

[2:34:28] the assumption

[2:34:28] that it's

[2:34:29] going to

[2:34:29] be

[2:34:30] allocated

[2:34:30] to Parks

[2:34:30] and Rec

[2:34:32] . Then um

[2:34:34] .

[2:34:34] That's

[2:34:34] the assumption and

[2:34:35] that's what

[2:34:36] people operate by.

[2:34:37] And so, you know, I

[2:34:38] just

[2:34:39] , I'm

[2:34:39] concerned about allocating

[2:34:40] that

[2:34:40] much

[2:34:41] , um, and just

[2:34:43] having

[2:34:43] it

[2:34:43] be

[2:34:44] assumed that that's going to

[2:34:45] be

[2:34:46] Parks and Rec every year, and I

[2:34:46] I

[2:34:47] think

[2:34:48] naturally

[2:34:48] that's going

[2:34:48] to, that's how

[2:34:50] people

[2:34:50] operate

[2:34:50] .

[2:34:51] So I

[2:34:51] would rather

[2:34:52] go back to

[2:34:53] our

[2:34:53] original plan

[2:34:54] with

[2:34:54] dollar

[2:34:55] amounts that

[2:34:56] was presented

[2:34:56] at

[2:34:56] the

[2:34:57] retreat, which

[2:34:57] I don't

[2:34:58] remember what they are

[2:34:58] off the

[2:34:58] top

[2:34:59] of my head and

[2:35:00] what wasn't

[2:35:00] included

[2:35:01] here

[2:35:02] . I'm

[2:35:02] seeing the

[2:35:02] ,

[2:35:03] the

[2:35:03] , the 2

[2:35:04] . 1 million

[2:35:05] uh, in

[2:35:05] the

[2:35:06] , uh, in the resolution

[2:35:08] . Is

[2:35:09] that, is that the number that

[2:35:11] we discussed at the retreat? So

[2:35:11] there's multiple

[2:35:13] numbers

[2:35:13] . So

[2:35:14] you of course have the

[2:35:14] debt

[2:35:15] service, which is

[2:35:15] um for

[2:35:17] fy 27

[2:35:18] would be

[2:35:18] 3

[2:35:19] million plus

[2:35:20] the 2.1

[2:35:20] million

[2:35:22] um, and then typically

[2:35:24] we'll see

[2:35:24] um our parks

[2:35:25] department want

[2:35:26] to look at

[2:35:26] a

[2:35:27] replacement of a park

[2:35:28] . So maybe

[2:35:29] I could round

[2:35:29] a 5 point

[2:35:31] . 1.5 or

[2:35:33] something from there, 5.15

[2:35:35] . Is

[2:35:35] the total

[2:35:35] So

[2:35:37] I feel

[2:35:37] like

[2:35:37] the

[2:35:38] uh

[2:35:38] the debt service

[2:35:39] is

[2:35:40] already

[2:35:40] established, but I'm right, but

[2:35:42] I'm kind of but that would

[2:35:43] still be a part of this pie

[2:35:44] .

[2:35:44] That's that part

[2:35:44] of it, and

[2:35:45] it's part of this pie

[2:35:46] , but

[2:35:46] it's

[2:35:47] already established as it need

[2:35:48] to be included

[2:35:49] in this to give

[2:35:49] you like the

[2:35:51] , the resolution

[2:35:52] totality would include that. So

[2:35:54] Because Melody, I'd, I'd like

[2:35:54] to

[2:35:55] hear what you

[2:35:56] would be uh

[2:35:56] what would

[2:35:58] be acceptable

[2:35:58] for

[2:35:58] you and

[2:35:59] see

[2:36:00] if it

[2:36:00] is

[2:36:00] also

[2:36:01] acceptable

[2:36:02] for other members of

[2:36:02] counter

[2:36:05] . Well

[2:36:05] , unfortunately I

[2:36:07] don't have the numbers for the

[2:36:07] other few years

[2:36:09] . So the only

[2:36:09] number I know right now

[2:36:09] is 2.1,

[2:36:10] so

[2:36:11] I'm

[2:36:11] , uh, you know, I would

[2:36:12] make a motion that we

[2:36:13] , um,

[2:36:14] allocate

[2:36:15] 2.1

[2:36:16] million

[2:36:16] from

[2:36:17] fiscal

[2:36:18] 2027 budget to the

[2:36:19] Monarch Recreation Center

[2:36:24] . I've

[2:36:25] got a second. Any

[2:36:25] further

[2:36:27] discussion discussion

[2:36:33] . Where

[2:36:34] did I go

[2:36:50] All right, that

[2:36:51] , uh,

[2:36:52] that passed

[2:36:52] . All right

[2:36:53] . Uh

[2:36:53] ,

[2:36:54] that brings us to the end of

[2:36:55] our agenda

[2:36:56] . Do

[2:36:56] we

[2:36:56] have

[2:36:57] any

[2:36:57] other, uh, was

[2:36:58] there any

[2:36:59] business I missed? Anything we

[2:36:59] need

[2:37:01] to discuss before I

[2:37:01] raise

[2:37:01] the gavel

[2:37:03] . It is

[2:37:05] , uh, 9:35

[2:37:07] .

City Council 2-10-26

Agenda

Transcript