[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
[18:41] 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
[52:37] 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
[1:00:08] , 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
[1:20:52] 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
[1:46:30] 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
[1:51:49] , 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
[1:52:18] 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
[1:54:49] 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
[1:55:02] , 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
[2:23:04] , 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
[2:29:25] 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] .