[1:49] ok

[1:49] . Good

[1:51] afternoon. Thank you

[1:51] for joining us

[1:53] here today at

[1:54] this Pflugerville City

[1:55] Council

[1:56] workshop. Uh

[1:56] , calling us

[1:57] to

[1:57] order at 5

[1:58] P.M. On Tuesday

[2:00] ,

[2:00] AUGUST 25th

[2:01] , uh, the

[2:02] first item

[2:02] on our agenda is

[2:04] public

[2:05] comment

[2:05] I

[2:06] do

[2:07] have a request. This looks

[2:08] like

[2:09] it's for

[2:09] . The

[2:09] 7

[2:11] o'clock

[2:11] meeting and I have

[2:11] Les who is

[2:12] waiting for

[2:14] . The item to

[2:15] come

[2:16] forward, is there anyone

[2:17] wishing to speak during

[2:18] public

[2:19] comment at this time

[2:19] , not

[2:20] related to 9

[2:22] . That

[2:23] will move

[2:23] forward

[2:25] to item 3a, that is to

[2:25] conduct a presentation on

[2:27] the

[2:27] Pflugerville Community

[2:30] Development Corporation fiscal

[2:30] year 26

[2:32] , 3rd quarter financial

[2:32] reports. How come that guy

[2:33] gets

[2:34] to sit in the back while she's

[2:34] giving a presentation

[2:36] . Thank

[2:36] you

[2:38] . So

[2:39] , good evening

[2:40] . Um

[2:40] , this

[2:41] report went to

[2:43] the pcdc board

[2:43] on AUGUST 19th

[2:45] . Um

[2:45] , just to

[2:46] review of

[2:47] where

[2:47] we

[2:48] are as of

[2:49] JUNE 30th

[2:49] . Um

[2:52] , total revenue is

[2:53] at

[2:54] 63%

[2:55] sales taxes, their

[2:55] largest revenue

[2:57] , and that it's

[2:58] at 73%. A a little

[2:58] bit

[2:59] behind

[2:59] ,

[2:59] um, where we would

[3:01] have

[3:01] budgeted

[3:03] , um, we're trending

[3:03] fiscal year today

[3:05] , 1.2% year

[3:06] over year

[3:07] . Um

[3:07] , interested

[3:08] income

[3:11] is also behind budget,

[3:11] um, as

[3:12] we've

[3:13] seen

[3:13] interest

[3:14] slowly

[3:15] ticked down over the

[3:15] last

[3:17] several months, and

[3:17] other

[3:17] revenue just

[3:19] like to point that

[3:20] out, it's um

[3:21] The water

[3:23] park

[3:23] payment and we, we get that

[3:24] in

[3:24] SEPTEMBER

[3:25] , so we wait all year

[3:26] to get that

[3:27] . That one bit of

[3:28] revenue

[3:28] in SEPTEMBER

[3:30] . There's

[3:31] just

[3:32] a

[3:33] peek at the sales

[3:33] tax

[3:33] trend

[3:34] . I

[3:35] will say that you

[3:36] can

[3:37] tell from JUNE

[3:37] and JULY

[3:39] . Um

[3:39] ,

[3:40] we're looking better, so we'll

[3:41] see how

[3:42] that looks over the

[3:43] next couple of months

[3:44] to finish

[3:44] out

[3:45] our

[3:46] fiscal year

[3:48] , um, but

[3:48] Um

[3:51] I think JULY

[3:53] was 13% year over

[3:53] year

[3:55] . On

[3:57] the

[3:57] expense

[3:57] side

[3:59] , 56%

[4:00] um spent of

[4:02] the budget of

[4:03] , of

[4:03] personnel

[4:04] , 61%

[4:08] operating 69%

[4:08] development incentives are

[4:09] at

[4:09] 62%

[4:10] . Um

[4:12] , the

[4:13] majority of these,

[4:13] uh, are

[4:16] paid out at the end

[4:16] of

[4:16] the, of

[4:18] the year, so it'll be

[4:19] in quarter 4 that you'll see

[4:19] the rest of those

[4:20] incentive

[4:20] payments

[4:21] . Capital projects is

[4:23] at 51%. Um, we did

[4:25] get or hear

[4:25] a report that the two main

[4:26] projects

[4:27] Impact

[4:27] way

[4:28] and Helios

[4:30] right in and

[4:31] right out should

[4:31] be

[4:31] final in

[4:32] , in SEPTEMBER, so

[4:32] we should

[4:34] be

[4:35] able

[4:35] to

[4:35] um find

[4:35] out those

[4:36] projects by the end

[4:37] of the fiscal year

[4:38] , um, debt

[4:38] payments

[4:39] are

[4:40] 57%. Um

[4:40] , this

[4:40] was

[4:41] before

[4:42] the

[4:42] AUGUST

[4:42] payments hit,

[4:43] and so you will

[4:44] see that jump

[4:45] up in the 4th quarter as well

[4:47] .

[4:48] Any questions

[4:54] ? Based on where

[4:55] we

[4:55] are

[4:56] here at this

[4:56] point

[4:57] , uh,

[4:58] do you think we're going to get

[4:58] pretty close

[5:00] to

[5:00] 100% on

[5:01] everything, or do you think

[5:02] we're going to end up

[5:03] Below on

[5:06] anything I if we're

[5:06] below

[5:07] on

[5:07] revenues or expenditures

[5:09] , which

[5:09] ones and how much? I

[5:09] think

[5:10] sales

[5:12] tax will come in a little

[5:13] short, just like we're

[5:13] projecting

[5:15] in general fund

[5:17] . Um

[5:17] ,

[5:18] I, I mean, we're

[5:19] at 56% of

[5:19] budget

[5:20] on expenses. I think

[5:20] there's some expenses that will

[5:21] come in in the 4th quarter

[5:22] , but

[5:23] I think we'll be below

[5:23] on

[5:24] expenses

[5:25] . Ok

[5:25] , and personnel in

[5:27] particular should be low. Well,

[5:28] I mean, we had

[5:30] vacancies for a

[5:30] good bit of the year, yeah

[5:31] .

[5:32] APRIL of this year? Um

[5:36] , Yeah

[5:36] ,

[5:36] it's about timing around that

[5:37] area

[5:38] . Yeah, yeah, so we

[5:39] , we

[5:39] should expect personnel to

[5:40] come

[5:41] in low

[5:41] . Sales tax

[5:43] to come

[5:43] in

[5:44] low. Um, other than

[5:45] that

[5:45] ,

[5:45] everything looks like it's

[5:46] about on

[5:47] target

[5:47] . Am I

[5:48] understanding this correctly I

[5:49] think

[5:50] most categories on the

[5:50] expense

[5:52] side are behind budget

[5:52] .

[5:53] I mean, we would

[5:54] be

[5:54] at

[5:55] 75% at

[5:56] this point in time if

[5:57] you

[5:58] just

[5:58] do math

[5:59] , but as you pointed

[6:00] out

[6:01] uh, uh, many of the, the

[6:03] large

[6:03] expenditures

[6:05] come

[6:05] in and the

[6:06] debt

[6:08] . I

[6:09] would expect us

[6:10] below

[6:11] 75% at this

[6:11] point

[6:12] . So assuming

[6:13] that

[6:14] everything goes

[6:14] according

[6:15] to plan

[6:17] . We're

[6:17] going to end up

[6:17] at

[6:19] 105

[6:20] or

[6:21] 95. You would expect

[6:21] for us to be

[6:22] below 75% at this

[6:22] point

[6:23] . If

[6:24] you have a

[6:25] majority

[6:26] of expenditures, yeah, because

[6:26] most

[6:27] of

[6:28] the large portion of

[6:29] the expenditures

[6:30] happen in the,

[6:30] in the 4th quarter of every

[6:31] year

[6:33] . But she said that the

[6:33] only one that's

[6:34] like perfect is

[6:35] debt service because we know

[6:37] those numbers ahead of time

[6:37] ,

[6:38] otherwise everything

[6:39] else is

[6:39] turning below on

[6:41] debt services

[6:42] a semiannual

[6:43] . It is

[6:46] . Usually

[6:46] semiannual, but there's like

[6:47] another

[6:48] one off that's in a

[6:49] different month. I think they

[6:51] have one, bond that gets paid

[6:51] in OCTOBER

[6:52] , so

[6:53] they're not

[6:53] perfect

[6:55] . FEBRUARY and

[6:55] AUGUST

[6:55] anymore. Some of the

[6:57] new ones

[6:58] are actually

[6:59] off

[7:00] cycle and the

[7:00] water park is

[7:01] off cycle, the

[7:02] water park revenue is off cycle

[7:02] The

[7:03] water

[7:04] park expenses, I

[7:04] assume, are

[7:06] those monthly? That

[7:06] no, those

[7:08] are all

[7:08] they're twice

[7:09] a year

[7:10] , semiannual, but they're

[7:11] not on the regular bond

[7:11] schedule

[7:13] , so we have to keep up

[7:13] with all the

[7:16] . A different so so

[7:16] it

[7:17] sounds

[7:17] like quarterly

[7:19] . We're

[7:20] roughly in line, but it's not

[7:20] going to be linear

[7:22] . Um, on the

[7:23] debt, well

[7:24] , on

[7:25] the expenses

[7:26] It's gonna be, I think

[7:27] gonna be

[7:27] I think be be, I think below

[7:28] budget

[7:28] . Uh

[7:29] , any other

[7:30] .

[7:31] Questions for this, uh, counsel

[7:31] ?

[7:33] Right

[7:34] , Tracy

[7:34] , don't go

[7:35] too

[7:35] far

[7:37] , um, item 3b

[7:38] is

[7:38] discussions

[7:38] regarding water

[7:40] and

[7:40] wastewater

[7:40] rate

[7:41] study recommendations

[7:43] . Uh

[7:44] I believe we

[7:46] also have uh

[7:47] Jessica Lynch with Baker Tilly.

[7:48] So she found

[7:49] a friend thank you

[7:49] for joining

[7:50] us

[7:51] again

[7:54] Yeah, so

[7:55] ,

[7:56] um, hopefully this

[7:56] will be our

[7:59] last presentation on our water

[8:00] and wastewater study

[8:01] . Um, but

[8:03] we wanted to kind of touch

[8:03] some

[8:03] different

[8:05] things now we've

[8:05] provided you with the full

[8:07] , um,

[8:07] final reports on the water and

[8:09] the wastewater

[8:09] , and so

[8:11] , um,

[8:12] we're prepared

[8:12] to

[8:14] field some

[8:14] questions that MAY have come up

[8:15] with that review

[8:16] of

[8:16] those

[8:17] reports, um, but we're

[8:18] gonna

[8:18] start out

[8:19] with just going

[8:19] over

[8:21] some assumptions that were

[8:21] built into the report

[8:23] . Yeah

[8:27] . So

[8:28] first just on the

[8:28] revenue

[8:30] requirements schedule

[8:30] , um, most

[8:32] of these amounts were given to

[8:32] us

[8:34] by Tracy and

[8:34] her team

[8:36] , um,

[8:36] but specifically those

[8:37] assumptions that

[8:38] were

[8:38] built

[8:39] into their

[8:40] for

[8:41] the revenue side

[8:41] for water

[8:43] , um, annual customer

[8:44] growth

[8:45] of

[8:45] 2%

[8:45] for all

[8:47] the

[8:48] classes except

[8:49] for Lakeside mud

[8:50] 5, which had

[8:50] 7.45%

[8:54] annual

[8:55] growth

[8:56] , um, wastewater

[8:57] is 3%

[8:57] growth in fiscal year

[8:58] . 2027,

[8:58] but

[8:59] then 2%

[8:59] for

[8:59] the phases

[9:00] after that

[9:01] through 2031

[9:01] . Um

[9:03] ,

[9:04] another a question

[9:07] on that. We

[9:07] both looked at each other, to

[9:08] be fair. I

[9:08] , I

[9:08] assume

[9:10] that's

[9:11] because, uh, oh, go

[9:12] ahead, go

[9:13] ahead. Well, obviously when

[9:14] you're projecting revenue

[9:15] , you

[9:15] generally tend to be

[9:16] more

[9:17] conservative, but

[9:17] our

[9:19] wastewater master plan that we

[9:20] did

[9:21] approve had closer to

[9:22] an 8%

[9:22] annual growth

[9:24] over the next 10

[9:24] years

[9:25] , so we're

[9:26] using 3%

[9:27] growth

[9:28] in the next year

[9:28] and 2%

[9:30] growth

[9:31] in the next 4

[9:32] years

[9:32] after

[9:33] that.

[9:33] So I just wanted

[9:34] to

[9:35] highlight

[9:35] that, um, that that

[9:36] is

[9:37] a

[9:37] major

[9:38] reduction

[9:39] in

[9:39] growth projections

[9:40] that we had in our master plan

[9:42] that we just approved. I don't

[9:42] know what

[9:43] the

[9:44] master

[9:44] plan

[9:44] growth

[9:46] percentage drives that I

[9:46] know with this and with

[9:48] the

[9:48] model that I worked

[9:51] here

[9:51] last

[9:52] year

[9:52] , the percentage just

[9:53] drives

[9:53] how much um

[9:55] . More units

[9:55] are going

[9:57] to be

[9:57] considered when

[9:58] we're doing the

[9:59] billing

[10:00] and 8%

[10:00] would not

[10:01] , it

[10:02] would

[10:03] have

[10:04] calculated

[10:04] way more new

[10:06] units

[10:06] that we see

[10:06] year

[10:07] over

[10:08] year. So

[10:09] yeah

[10:11] , so and and

[10:11] as

[10:11] you

[10:13] conveyed numerous times, we go

[10:14] back and we check

[10:15] . What that

[10:16] actually looks like to make

[10:18] sure that it's actually in line

[10:18] and which goes to

[10:19] a

[10:20] conversation that Melody had

[10:23] or

[10:24] COUNCILMAN Ryan had a while

[10:24] ago

[10:25] too as well, so

[10:25] . Cool

[10:27] . Ok

[10:28] , um,

[10:29] and then also based on input

[10:31] from

[10:31] Tracy's team

[10:33] , including

[10:34] contributions from impact fees

[10:36] to help

[10:36] with lowering some of

[10:36] those

[10:38] revenue requirements for

[10:38] water

[10:40] , uh

[10:40] , $4 million annually

[10:42] .

[10:42] And then

[10:43] for wastewater, it's

[10:45] $4 million in the

[10:45] first two

[10:47] years, fiscal year 27 and 28,

[10:47] and then

[10:50] 5 million29 and

[10:50] then

[10:51] $6 million in 2030

[10:52] and 20931

[10:53] to

[10:54] help reduce those rate

[10:56] increases needed

[10:56] , um, for debt

[10:58] service also

[11:00] some contributions

[11:00] from

[11:01] cash

[11:01] reserves

[11:03] , um, based

[11:03] on where we were seeing just

[11:05] the straight revenue

[11:06] requirements in the across the

[11:07] board percentage increases

[11:08] coming in. We

[11:09] have

[11:09] 25% being

[11:10] contributed in the

[11:11] first two

[11:12] phases for

[11:12] . Water

[11:14] and

[11:14] 75%

[11:16] um

[11:16] for the first two phases

[11:18] for

[11:18] wastewater

[11:18] , and

[11:19] then

[11:19] replacements and

[11:20] improvement.

[11:21] Can you explain that a little

[11:21] bit

[11:23] debt

[11:23] , the

[11:25] debt

[11:25] service

[11:26] contributions fund balance that

[11:27] we're using that was put into

[11:28] the debt

[11:29] service fund and so

[11:30] we're

[11:32] basically buying down the

[11:32] rate by using some of those

[11:34] funds toward debt. Ok, so we

[11:34] can, we can

[11:36] do that and

[11:38] Wifia

[11:38] rate

[11:40] . Covenant or

[11:41] the

[11:41] revenue

[11:41] requirement, we can

[11:43] use

[11:44] reserves to, to

[11:44] help

[11:45] stabilize

[11:46] the. Yeah, you can use it to

[11:46] pay your

[11:47] debt service, but

[11:48] you'll still have to show

[11:49] the

[11:50] full payment for like your

[11:51] coverage

[11:52] requirements. Yes,

[11:52] it's

[11:52] , it's

[11:54] , it's working

[11:55] it

[11:55] into the

[11:56] rate calculations so

[11:57] that you're not being

[11:59] hit with

[12:00] the

[12:00] full

[12:01] debt coming out of

[12:02] rates. That's why we're

[12:03] putting

[12:03] the impact fees toward it.

[12:04] That's why we're putting some

[12:05] of

[12:06] the available fund balance

[12:06] toward it

[12:08] . Ok. And then

[12:08] I had

[12:09] a

[12:10] question that

[12:10] came up with the

[12:11] budget when I

[12:12] was looking at

[12:12] this as well, so I guess I'm

[12:13] gonna ask

[12:14] it

[12:15] here, um, in

[12:15] the

[12:15] budget

[12:16] we

[12:17] had

[12:17] $10

[12:19] million in

[12:19] impact fees. I thought

[12:19] , or

[12:22] somewhere mentioned, um, but

[12:22] here it's

[12:23] 8 million, so I

[12:24] was

[12:24] just wondering

[12:26] what was the

[12:26] the

[12:26] determination of how

[12:28] much we

[12:28] put towards

[12:29] , I think you're

[12:29] getting

[12:31] some

[12:31] roadway impact

[12:32] fees in your total

[12:33] . Because I

[12:33] believe that these are

[12:34] the

[12:35] numbers that were put into the

[12:38] budget

[12:38] for

[12:39] water for

[12:39] the entire

[12:40] if you were looking

[12:40] and the

[12:41] all

[12:42] fund summary, it's gonna, it's

[12:44] gonna include roadway impact

[12:44] fees. Ok, thank you

[12:46] . Now

[12:48] , uh,

[12:48] obviously our wastewater area

[12:49] is much greater than

[12:50] our water

[12:51] area, and as

[12:51] much less

[12:51] developed

[12:53] . Um

[12:53] , what

[12:56] is the

[12:57] basis for assuming the

[12:58] Increase

[12:58] in the in

[13:00] the wastewater

[13:02] .

[13:02] Impact fees year

[13:04] It's based on

[13:07] It's based on the death of

[13:09] those big projects, so

[13:09] i

[13:09] basically

[13:11] looked at the debt

[13:11] for like the

[13:11] wastewater

[13:12] treatment plant

[13:13] . And how much

[13:14] we would

[13:15] be able to

[13:15] take

[13:16] from

[13:16] impact fees

[13:17] to

[13:18] debt

[13:18] , and so as

[13:20] that debt grew, that's why

[13:22] they

[13:22] contribution from the impact

[13:23] fees

[13:24] grew the

[13:24] way the water was

[13:25] a little flatter

[13:26] . So my

[13:27] question is, where are the

[13:27] impact trees coming from

[13:29] ?

[13:30] They're being

[13:31] collected in the

[13:33] service

[13:33] area

[13:34] and

[13:34] they're

[13:36] collecting that much more in

[13:36] the impact fees in the out

[13:37] years

[13:38] . I mean

[13:38] , that's what I'm

[13:39] trying to understand. I mean

[13:40] ,

[13:40] that's a projection

[13:42] . I, I

[13:42] don't

[13:43] have a crystal ball as to how

[13:43] much we're

[13:44] gonna get in those

[13:45] years, but we

[13:45] are

[13:47] trending this

[13:47] year

[13:48] . We've collected over

[13:49] our

[13:49] budget

[13:49] . Ok

[13:50] , so

[13:51] that

[13:51] , that looks

[13:51] like

[13:53] , um, fy 28, we're looking

[13:54] at a

[13:56] a 25%

[13:56] increase

[13:58] over

[13:58] fy 27

[14:00] .

[14:00] Does that seem

[14:01] like a

[14:02] realistic

[14:03] growth projection

[14:05] ? I believe so

[14:05] based on the

[14:07] , the

[14:07] subdivisions

[14:08] that, I mean, I have

[14:09] all the

[14:10] information of the memos that

[14:10] we

[14:11] have for the subdivision.

[14:12] There's, there's quite a

[14:13] few.

[14:14] Ok, so we're going to

[14:14] grow

[14:15] 25%

[14:16] in that area

[14:17] . It's a projection

[14:21] And, and, and I, and I, and

[14:22] to

[14:23] me, based on, yeah, I know

[14:25] , but

[14:26] but I, I want to give him

[14:26] credit for to his

[14:27] point

[14:27] , so

[14:28] he's wondering, ok, what that

[14:31] looks like regarding our

[14:31] wastewater area and obviously

[14:32] our ccn

[14:33] there is much greater

[14:33] than it is our water

[14:34] . Um

[14:34] , if

[14:34] you go out there

[14:36] , even

[14:36] just

[14:37] going on

[14:37] Cameron Road

[14:38] , which

[14:39] pretty much 3/4 of the

[14:41] city

[14:41] doesn't even know exists. I

[14:41] mean

[14:43] , it's

[14:43] insane. Over here as

[14:44] well

[14:45] . You see a

[14:45] significant

[14:46] amount of increase regarding

[14:48] these actual subdivisions

[14:48] coming in and when

[14:50] they're

[14:50] coming online, what I

[14:51] anticipate

[14:52] and what I

[14:52] understand the staff is working

[14:53] with

[14:54] the developers, seeing

[14:55] when these units are actually

[14:55] coming online

[14:56] . What's the

[14:57] development schedule, and then

[14:57] making

[14:58] the

[14:59] actual

[14:59] summation on

[15:00] that, and

[15:01] I know that given the

[15:02] fact that some of the other

[15:02] things

[15:03] that are happening in

[15:03] that

[15:04] . Area

[15:06] , including ut

[15:07] University of Texas

[15:08] at Taylor,

[15:08] as well as

[15:08] what's

[15:10] happening

[15:10] growing at 290

[15:11] and 973

[15:12] , you're

[15:13] pressuring more units and

[15:14] more

[15:15] areas to come into in the

[15:15] growth area

[15:17] for that pattern.

[15:17] That's why we always have the

[15:18] conversation, to

[15:19] your point

[15:20] about 973

[15:21] because we know

[15:22] that

[15:22] that is going to be

[15:23] the

[15:24] next

[15:24] major zone

[15:26] that

[15:26] again free for

[15:27] service citizens have no idea

[15:28] about, but that's where the

[15:29] growth is coming from. Let me

[15:30] ,

[15:30] let me ask you a question and

[15:31] make sure I

[15:33] understand the

[15:33] impact feline on this table.

[15:34] The

[15:35] Uh

[15:36] , the impact fees here

[15:36] ,

[15:37] is that what

[15:37] we anticipate

[15:38] collecting from

[15:39] new development

[15:40] or is that how much we

[15:41] have

[15:42] in

[15:42] and call it reserves in

[15:43] our

[15:44] fund that we are

[15:46] applying

[15:47] towards the the rates

[15:48] it, it

[15:48] ,

[15:49] it's

[15:49] not reserves

[15:50] , it's

[15:51] basically what we

[15:53] When we

[15:53] get

[15:53] impact fees in, we can

[15:55] do

[15:55] 2

[15:55] things

[15:56] we

[15:57] can spend it on debt

[15:58] or we can spend

[15:59] it

[15:59] on

[16:00] projects

[16:00] .

[16:00] We've

[16:02] identified this

[16:02] amount

[16:02] from

[16:04] would

[16:04] bring

[16:05] in to, to

[16:06] put

[16:06] it

[16:07] towards debt so that we

[16:08] can

[16:09] factor it

[16:09] into these

[16:10] calculations. The

[16:11] rest of the

[16:11] money that we

[16:11] would receive

[16:12] over

[16:13] these amounts

[16:14] would be

[16:15] , um

[16:16] put towards projects

[16:17] . Ok. And

[16:18] when I see 5 million

[16:18] in

[16:20] fiscal

[16:20] year 2029. I mean, that's

[16:22] a

[16:23] projection that's to more than

[16:23] 2 years

[16:24] out right now. Is that

[16:25] a projection of what

[16:26] we

[16:27] anticipate we will collect or

[16:27] how much

[16:29] we will have that how

[16:30] much we

[16:31] are

[16:32] setting aside for

[16:34] Got you. Thank you. I think

[16:34] that's an

[16:35] important distinction

[16:36] and I don't think, uh, I don't

[16:37] think I was hearing that

[16:38] earlier. I appreciate that. So

[16:40] I

[16:41] , um, found where I saw

[16:42] the 10

[16:43] million for the impact fees.

[16:43] It's in

[16:44] the

[16:45] utility capital

[16:46] fund

[16:47] . And

[16:47] so

[16:48] based on

[16:49] the

[16:49] , the

[16:50] explanation you just gave

[16:51] . It

[16:51] looks like

[16:52] we're projecting

[16:53] or

[16:54] proposing that we're going to

[16:56] receive

[16:56] $10

[16:56] million. So that's

[16:57] revenue

[16:58] . Yes

[16:59] , but

[16:59] this is

[17:00] what

[17:01] we just, what we just discussed

[17:01] here, that is

[17:03] how much

[17:03] of our

[17:04] impact fees that

[17:05] we

[17:05] have

[17:06] collected that we are going

[17:07] to

[17:08] apply towards the debt, not,

[17:08] not

[17:09] our

[17:10] revenue projection for

[17:10] how much we would collect,

[17:11] right

[17:12] , correct. So

[17:12] then my

[17:12] question is

[17:14] . How did

[17:14] we

[17:16] determine that of the 10

[17:17] million we were going to

[17:18] use 8

[17:19] towards

[17:19] the debt and

[17:21] 2 for, I

[17:21] guess, projects. Why

[17:23] not use we

[17:24] were trying to use as much as

[17:25] we could

[17:25] to

[17:26] death based

[17:27] on

[17:28] the

[17:28] debt on the schedule

[17:29] , I mean, I

[17:30] have to be

[17:32] careful because I

[17:33] have to be able to identify

[17:34] this impact fee is paying for

[17:35] this

[17:35] bond payment

[17:37] , and so I was

[17:37] trying

[17:38] to

[17:39] identify those bond

[17:40] payments that were

[17:41] 100

[17:41] 100%

[17:42] related to these big

[17:43] plant

[17:43] projects, so

[17:44] That

[17:45] was my kind

[17:45] of

[17:46] my justification

[17:47] for like I

[17:48] can pinpoint here's the

[17:49] amount

[17:50] I'm bringing in and here's the

[17:51] bond payment that's

[17:52] related to

[17:52] that new

[17:53] asset

[17:54] . And why is it

[17:55] important that you have to

[17:55] identify that

[17:57] ? Because it's

[17:57] restricted. I

[17:59] , I can only use

[17:59] those funds for those

[18:01] , those

[18:02] items. Ok, so what you're, so

[18:03] what I'm

[18:04] hearing is

[18:04] you've

[18:05] identified

[18:08] $8 million of debt

[18:08] payments that can

[18:09] be

[18:10] applied

[18:10] towards impact fees for new

[18:11] growth. And

[18:12] the

[18:13] other 2 million

[18:13] that we

[18:16] are expecting, um

[18:17] .

[18:17] There's not

[18:18] enough debt to use

[18:19] it all

[18:19] . For

[18:21] . There's not enough

[18:22] I mean there is, but you would

[18:22] start

[18:24] piecemealing it

[18:24] across

[18:25] bonds, and I

[18:26] was trying to just

[18:27] be very clean with

[18:28] my

[18:28] projections

[18:30] . And

[18:30] we've

[18:31] already

[18:31] committed some

[18:33] projects to

[18:33] impact fees, so I need

[18:35] to be

[18:35] able to have a little bit

[18:35] of

[18:36] flexibility

[18:37] to

[18:37] finish out

[18:38] those

[18:38] projects

[18:39] that we've said we're

[18:40] going to use Imp impact fees on

[18:47] But we could

[18:48] borrow debt

[18:48] for

[18:49] those projects and then use

[18:49] . I

[18:50] ,

[18:51] I mean, there's, there's a

[18:51] couple of

[18:53] different ways

[18:54] . I'm

[18:55] just

[18:57] , um, uh, well, ok, yeah

[18:58] yeah all right, so, all

[18:59] right

[19:00] ,

[19:00] so there's

[19:00] there's possibly

[19:02] 10

[19:02] million in debt payments that

[19:03] are

[19:04] related to

[19:05] growth projects

[19:05] that are

[19:06] on

[19:07] our impact fee list

[19:07] but

[19:09] they're not

[19:09] cleanly in

[19:09] a

[19:11] specific um

[19:12] And the

[19:13] and the

[19:13] 10

[19:14] million is an estimate as well

[19:15] ,

[19:15] so I would

[19:16] want to box

[19:17] myself

[19:18] in. Can, can you

[19:18] clarify if

[19:20] those are congruent, um

[19:22] . Is

[19:23] this 8 million

[19:23] coming out of

[19:25] that $10 million or is this 8

[19:25] million some

[19:26] that has already

[19:27] been collected

[19:28] . Uh, no, it

[19:29] would be out of

[19:29] the purely out

[19:31] of the estimate of what we're

[19:32] gonna bring in

[19:33] , yes. All right,

[19:34] thank you. Do we

[19:34] have balances

[19:36] in our

[19:36] impact fees for water

[19:37] and wastewater that

[19:38] We

[19:39] collected in the past that

[19:40] could also be used

[19:41] . We've

[19:43] already transferred what's

[19:43] available

[19:44] . We've already

[19:45] allocated all that, yes, ok, so

[19:45] we've

[19:47] used all

[19:47] of

[19:47] our impact

[19:48] fees that have

[19:49] been

[19:50] collected

[19:50] already

[19:51] assigned to projects

[19:54] .

[19:55] All right

[19:56] , thank you

[19:58] . Sorry

[19:59] about that. Where were

[20:00] we

[20:01] ? Ok

[20:01] ,

[20:01] no problem. And I think the

[20:03] only other item on this slide

[20:03] is

[20:05] just the replacements and

[20:05] improvements

[20:07] , um, I do believe

[20:07] there

[20:08] were some questions as

[20:10] far as where those amounts on

[20:10] the revenue

[20:11] requirement

[20:12] schedule came from, so

[20:12] those

[20:14] aren't specifically tied to any

[20:15] budget number

[20:16] that is the line

[20:17] item that

[20:17] we use

[20:19] , um, because

[20:19] when we saw the

[20:20] straight budget

[20:21] items for each phase

[20:23] , the

[20:24] amount of

[20:24] the rate increase

[20:26] varied dramatically from year

[20:26] to year

[20:27] , from face to face, so

[20:28] we use

[20:28] . That

[20:30] line

[20:30] item to be

[20:31] able to smooth

[20:32] out that rate

[20:32] increase so that you saw for

[20:33] the

[20:35] water side an

[20:35] even 5%

[20:36] per

[20:37] phase, and for the wastewater,

[20:38] and

[20:39] even 16.5% per

[20:41] phase

[20:41] . So,

[20:41] if we would make it to

[20:43] be

[20:44] actual capital projects

[20:44] , then

[20:44] the

[20:46] first days would

[20:46] be a

[20:46] lot

[20:46] lower, but

[20:48] then you're going to

[20:49] have, you know, for water

[20:50] , for

[20:51] example, you'll have like an 8%

[20:51] in phase two

[20:52] and then maybe a,

[20:53] you know, 10%

[20:54] in

[20:54] phase 3 and we

[20:55] tried to make

[20:57] it equal amongst

[20:58] the phases. It's also building

[20:58] in

[20:59] . To

[20:59] the rate

[21:02] . Some funds

[21:02] for

[21:03] capital improvement, so it

[21:04] serves

[21:06] both purposes, yeah

[21:08] .

[21:08] Yeah, we start with like the

[21:09] minimum

[21:10] that you need

[21:11] and then

[21:11] work our way to smooth

[21:12] over the

[21:13] increases. I just wanted to and

[21:13] when you

[21:15] say minimum, what

[21:15] we

[21:15] need, what do you

[21:17] mean by

[21:17] minimal what we need

[21:18] ? Um

[21:19] , so

[21:19] for

[21:20] capital projects, just for

[21:22] whatever is in the budget

[21:23] , um,

[21:24] historically what you've spent,

[21:24] we look at a number of

[21:25] different factors, what you've

[21:27] spent historically and what's

[21:27] budgeted for the future. I'm

[21:29] This is

[21:30] a

[21:31] very interesting

[21:31] competition for a lot of

[21:33] two

[21:33] people online and everybody

[21:34] else will look later

[21:35] on on

[21:35] this

[21:36] so that's why I was saying that

[21:37] I want to make sure

[21:38] they

[21:38] understood what you meant by

[21:39] that

[21:40] . If that makes any sense

[21:42] .

[21:42] And

[21:44] how often do you actually

[21:44] get a counselor really

[21:45] interested in

[21:46] talking

[21:47] about

[21:47] this. I

[21:48] love talking

[21:49] about

[21:49] numbers

[21:51] . Me

[21:51] too

[21:53] . What? I know

[21:54] we're

[21:55] all shocked

[21:57] . Um

[21:58] , and then

[21:58] so

[22:00] this is just

[22:00] . In general,

[22:01] there are

[22:02] some for the water

[22:02] side of a cost of

[22:04] service study

[22:05] um, this gets

[22:06] a little into the

[22:07] weeds, but the

[22:09] cost allocations

[22:09] their, for

[22:11] a

[22:11] water

[22:12] system

[22:13] is,

[22:14] um, you apply, if you look in

[22:14] the

[22:16] awwa manual, what's called

[22:16] capacity factors

[22:18] , so

[22:18] you're

[22:18] deterrent, it helps

[22:19] you

[22:20] determine what customers are

[22:21] putting more of a stress on

[22:23] your system than other

[22:23] customers, and

[22:24] these factors

[22:25] help to

[22:25] allocate those

[22:26] costs so

[22:27] that the customers that

[22:27] are

[22:29] putting more stress on your

[22:30] system are the ones paying

[22:31] . For

[22:32] that. And so these are

[22:32] the

[22:33] assumptions

[22:34] , um, mainly

[22:36] based

[22:36] on all the billing data

[22:38] that we

[22:38] received

[22:39] from Tracy's team

[22:40] , so

[22:41] we analyze all that for the

[22:41] test

[22:43] here

[22:43] , um, and looking at

[22:44] those

[22:46] . Highest months what

[22:47] the

[22:48] usage was for each

[22:48] customer

[22:48] class

[22:49] , um, so in each, each of

[22:50] these

[22:52] customer classes, the

[22:52] ones

[22:52] we were able

[22:54] to adjust

[22:54] , um

[22:55] we threw out

[22:56] the highest,

[22:56] highest month because it

[22:58] was

[22:58] a

[22:59] significant outlier

[23:00] compared to

[23:01] the 2nd highest and 3rd

[23:01] highest

[23:03] month

[23:03] , um, for residential and

[23:05] commercial, and then also, and

[23:06] then we compare that

[23:07] to the

[23:08] average so that you can see

[23:08] what goes into

[23:10] your flow, and

[23:10] then who you need

[23:11] excess

[23:12] capacity for because they're

[23:12] ,

[23:13] they're causing

[23:14] strain on the

[23:15] system from those peak demands

[23:16] .

[23:16] Um, and then

[23:17] the

[23:18] number other

[23:19] things that go into that

[23:20] calculation for

[23:21] those factors

[23:21] or the days of

[23:22] water that

[23:22] is

[23:23] used per week, and then the

[23:24] hours of water

[23:25] per day

[23:26] , um, and

[23:26] then just noting

[23:27] on

[23:28] here that

[23:28] because of the

[23:30] agreement the

[23:30] city has

[23:31] with Manville

[23:33] , um, we

[23:33] show what

[23:34] the cost to

[23:35] serve

[23:35] Manville are based on the

[23:36] cost

[23:37] of

[23:37] service allocation. However

[23:39] ,

[23:39] that agreement

[23:40] , um, specifies

[23:41] that their rate cannot change,

[23:42] um, and

[23:43] I think

[23:43] it's

[23:44] for 40

[23:44] years, so

[23:46] . So

[23:46] , um, they are

[23:48] customers that are

[23:48] subsidizing

[23:49] the costs for

[23:50] them, and so then

[23:51] we show in the report

[23:52] how that

[23:53] got allocated to the other

[23:53] classes

[23:55] . Um, and then just

[23:57] for

[23:58] residential from that

[23:59] allocation of Manville's

[24:00] revenue

[24:01] being below the

[24:02] costs

[24:02] it

[24:03] is

[24:04] to serve them

[24:06] . How that

[24:07] was allocated to the

[24:08] other

[24:08] customer classes based on input

[24:09] from

[24:10] management was to help

[24:12] .

[24:13] Reduce the impact to the

[24:13] residential customers

[24:14] , so more

[24:15] of that

[24:16] was allocated to the

[24:17] other customer classes in a

[24:18] smaller

[24:19] percentage was

[24:20] allocated to residential

[24:21] . So

[24:22] ,

[24:22] on that, because I

[24:24] was

[24:24] surprised when I

[24:25] saw that. Um

[24:25] um

[24:28] . Is

[24:28] that

[24:29] subsidy

[24:29] been

[24:29] consistent

[24:30] in

[24:31] previous years,

[24:31] the, the way that it's

[24:32] being

[24:33] allocated

[24:33] . Mostly it's

[24:35] a

[24:35] commercial and not to

[24:36] residential, or

[24:37] was

[24:37] the

[24:38] the

[24:38] allocation in

[24:39] this year changed

[24:40] from how we did it before

[24:42] . So

[24:42] that

[24:43] I would

[24:44] , I did not

[24:44] do

[24:45] the

[24:45] prior

[24:46] ? Manville was built into

[24:47] the rave model. I don't

[24:48] know

[24:49] that there was a specific, I

[24:49] mean it

[24:51] . Um

[24:54] , We were running

[24:55] the model with all the

[24:56] information in it

[24:58] , and then

[24:58] setting the rates

[24:59] to get

[25:00] us

[25:00] to

[25:00] a revenue

[25:02] requirement that we

[25:03] needed. I don't know that it

[25:05] was specifically allocated the

[25:06] way that Baker and Tilly did it

[25:07] but

[25:07] , and without doing a cost

[25:08] of

[25:09] service study

[25:09] , you

[25:10] wouldn't

[25:11] necessarily see that that's how

[25:12] much they've been subsidizing

[25:13] ,

[25:14] so you'd have to go back and

[25:14] see the last time

[25:15] the

[25:16] city

[25:16] actually did a full cost

[25:17] of

[25:18] service study for allocating

[25:19] those costs

[25:20] to

[25:20] see

[25:21] what that

[25:22] um

[25:23] subsidization was

[25:23] . So

[25:23] do you

[25:25] see this in

[25:25] other cost of

[25:25] service

[25:27] studies

[25:27] you

[25:27] do

[25:28] . We do a

[25:28] lot

[25:29] , especially in

[25:29] growing

[25:30] communities where the customer

[25:31] base

[25:32] is changing quite a

[25:33] bit

[25:34] that and haven't had one in

[25:34] years

[25:36] from when maybe their

[25:36] initial

[25:37] rate structure

[25:38] , um, was

[25:39] outlined. So if

[25:40] it's been a

[25:41] , a

[25:42] long time since the cost of

[25:43] service study is done. We see a

[25:43] lot of

[25:45] that subsidization and

[25:45] trying to true up those rates

[25:46] so

[25:47] that the costs are being

[25:48] paid by the customers that are

[25:48] putting

[25:50] the biggest

[25:50] impact on

[25:50] the

[25:52] system. How recent of a

[25:52] trend is that

[25:54] ? It varies

[25:55] from

[25:55] community

[25:56] to community, but

[25:56] We

[25:57] do see it

[25:58] very

[25:58] often. So

[25:59] how

[25:59] often

[26:01] would you

[26:01] recommend that

[26:01] a

[26:03] city

[26:03] updates their cost of

[26:04] service study

[26:05] every month

[26:07] . So

[26:07] like 5

[26:08] years

[26:08] , 10 years, I

[26:10] would

[26:10] say probably at least

[26:12] 5 years,

[26:12] uh, if you're a growing

[26:13] community, especially

[26:14] and you

[26:15] know that those customer class

[26:17] spaces are the the amount of

[26:17] customers

[26:19] in one class

[26:19] or

[26:19] another has changed

[26:21] significantly, then I would

[26:21] recommend doing it. Ok

[26:23] , so

[26:24] like

[26:24] if you see

[26:25] a

[26:25] large increase

[26:26] in

[26:26] multi-family

[26:27] . That

[26:28] might be a

[26:30] trigger to, to look at it again

[26:31] And

[26:33] here multi-family rate

[26:33] design

[26:35] is being classified as

[26:36] commercial. Yes

[26:39] . Thank you

[26:42] . No

[26:44] .

[26:44] Um, and

[26:46] then just on the

[26:46] wastewater side, the way costs

[26:48] are allocated, um, this is

[26:51] based specifically on the

[26:51] monthly

[26:52] reports of operations

[26:53] from your wastewater

[26:54] treatment

[26:55] plant

[26:55] , um, so those

[26:57] , uh, flow

[26:57] ,

[26:58] the flow

[26:59] , and

[27:00] what it's costing

[27:01] more to treat

[27:02] that flow based

[27:02] on your excessive

[27:03] strength

[27:04] surcharges, and so that's the

[27:05] allocation between

[27:06] just your,

[27:06] your flow

[27:08] , your

[27:09] , um, phosphorus

[27:10] your

[27:11] um biosolids, your

[27:13] suspended solids, those, those

[27:14] different items, it's just how

[27:14] that

[27:16] . It's allocated, um, and

[27:16] then

[27:17] for wastewater

[27:18] specifically

[27:19] , the

[27:19] wholesale

[27:20] customers based on their

[27:20] agreement, the rates

[27:22] cannot be

[27:22] increased, so we

[27:23] did

[27:24] not show

[27:25] an increase to any of

[27:26] their

[27:26] rates

[27:27] . And

[27:28] then again

[27:29] , also did

[27:29] a, there's a

[27:31] slight

[27:31] subsidization between

[27:32] residential

[27:33] and

[27:33] commercial just

[27:33] to

[27:35] help offset an increase for

[27:36] an

[27:36] average residential user, um

[27:37] but it's minimal

[27:38] . And

[27:38] that was

[27:38] based on

[27:40] the input from

[27:40] utility

[27:41] management to

[27:42] , to

[27:42] minimize the

[27:42] impact to

[27:43] residential

[27:44] customers

[27:44] So

[27:45] , but previously

[27:46] with

[27:46] the

[27:47] wastewater and how the rates

[27:47] were scheduled

[27:49] . Was there

[27:50] a

[27:51] subsidy of commercial

[27:51] from

[27:53] residential. Yes

[27:54] . Yeah. And it

[27:54] was

[27:56] . Quite significant. Yeah,

[27:56] so I

[27:58] , I wasn't sure because the

[27:58] number and the

[27:59] report

[27:59] was

[28:00] almost

[28:00] 5

[28:01] million and I wasn't,

[28:01] you know

[28:02] , but

[28:02] that

[28:03] was based on

[28:05] this year's usage and the, you

[28:05] know, in

[28:06] the

[28:07] current rates, but

[28:07] not, I didn't know if it

[28:08] changed a lot

[28:09] from the previous

[28:09] year and

[28:10] that

[28:11] was similar to

[28:12] what it would have been in the

[28:12] last

[28:13] few years

[28:14] . So specifically

[28:14] based on

[28:17] um the question that

[28:17] you had sent earlier today

[28:18] , the

[28:18] um, that

[28:20] last schedule, it's

[28:21] kind of an apples to oranges

[28:21] because it's prepared

[28:23] , it's

[28:23] comparing

[28:25] the proposed

[28:25] .

[28:26] Structure to

[28:27] the

[28:27] existing

[28:28] rights, but when I apply

[28:29] the

[28:29] across the

[28:30] board percentage

[28:30] increase

[28:31] to

[28:31] the

[28:32] existing rates.

[28:32] It's still

[28:34] , that gives you like

[28:34] a true cost of

[28:35] like in

[28:36] our

[28:36] projections, what the

[28:38] subsidy

[28:38] ,

[28:39] what commercial would be

[28:41] residential would be subsidized

[28:42] and commercial

[28:43] , um, if the rate

[28:44] structure didn't change and it

[28:44] was

[28:45] , I, I think it was

[28:45] about

[28:47] 4.5 million

[28:48] . I wrote it, so it

[28:48] was

[28:50] 4.9 with the existing rate

[28:51] structure, but if you increase

[28:52] the rates by the

[28:54] . Increase

[28:54] needed across the board, then

[28:55] it's 4.5

[28:57] . So that's, that's

[28:57] pretty large

[28:58] , so

[28:59] . This change

[28:59] in the

[29:01] rate structure that

[29:02] we're, that's being proposed is

[29:03] going to, I mean, we, we, you

[29:04] know

[29:05] , felt it, right, but now

[29:06] we have some numbers of

[29:07] how

[29:07] much

[29:08] was actually being

[29:10] subsidized by residential, and

[29:11] now it's more

[29:12] equitable based

[29:12] on usage

[29:14] based on, on

[29:15] the

[29:15] pressures that each class is

[29:15] putting on

[29:16] your system

[29:19] . So you

[29:21] ,

[29:22] so I updated that for we at

[29:23] least believe that because

[29:24] remember we had that

[29:24] conversation about what's going

[29:25] to happen with

[29:27] . Apartment

[29:28] complex. Yeah, so, yeah

[29:28] , so

[29:28] then

[29:30] this might have been, it

[29:30] might have

[29:31] changed as

[29:32] the

[29:33] housing or as the mix

[29:34] of

[29:35] customers classes

[29:37] changed with

[29:38] more and I and I think

[29:39] chewing

[29:39] up the so that not

[29:42] . Every

[29:42] customer meter size

[29:43] has the

[29:44] same base charge as what's

[29:46] helping to even more align the

[29:47] costs

[29:48] with the customer

[29:50] . Thank

[29:50] you. You're welcome

[29:55] . And then I

[29:55] think you've seen all these

[29:56] before, but

[29:57] again, we just have

[29:58] the present and proposed rates

[29:59] .

[30:00] Here, so

[30:00] that's a

[30:01] , if you want

[30:02] us to go through all of them,

[30:02] we can

[30:04] . Did anything change

[30:04] from the last, because when

[30:05] I

[30:06] looked at the last one

[30:06] and

[30:08] the

[30:09] costs there were, it seemed

[30:09] like there might have been some

[30:10] minor changes

[30:10] , or is

[30:11] this the

[30:11] same as what

[30:11] was

[30:13] left from when

[30:13] you were here in

[30:15] the

[30:15] rates did

[30:15] not

[30:16] change

[30:17] . The yeah, the only

[30:18] rate

[30:18] that changed

[30:20] was Lakeside

[30:20] mud

[30:22] , um, but it did not end the

[30:23] change so that we

[30:24] netted out

[30:24] ,

[30:25] um, what

[30:26] was

[30:27] paid to Anville

[30:27] for that community

[30:28] and the

[30:29] revenues since they're since

[30:29] .

[30:30] Lugerville just

[30:31] serves as kind

[30:31] of a pass through and

[30:33] collecting the revenues for

[30:34] that community

[30:35] , um, so it

[30:36] changed their rate slightly,

[30:36] but it

[30:38] did not impact any of

[30:38] the other rates

[30:43] . That's really

[30:43] all

[30:44] we

[30:44] have

[30:45] for presentation

[30:46] .

[30:47] Let me, let me ask you about

[30:47] that. You mentioned Manville

[30:48] and

[30:48] the

[30:49] pass-through rates. Uh,

[30:50] is there a

[30:51] risk factor built

[30:52] into that? Is there a

[30:52] collection factor

[30:53] built into

[30:53] that

[30:55] ? Um

[30:56] , I guess I don't know

[30:58] how the collection site, like

[30:59] when you pay it out

[31:00] , if you

[31:00] just look at

[31:03] the

[31:03] collections we

[31:05] build or are we paying out what

[31:05] we were supposed to collect or

[31:06] we

[31:07] paying out what

[31:08] we actually

[31:08] my

[31:09] question if you just pay out

[31:10] what you

[31:11] actually collected or

[31:12] if you

[31:12] paid

[31:14] out of

[31:16] folks

[31:16] who

[31:16] didn't pay their bill

[31:18] . I'm

[31:18] not

[31:19] familiar with that. I

[31:20] don't

[31:21] personally do that building. Um

[31:21] I know there's

[31:22] a fee

[31:23] that

[31:23] we

[31:25] collect as part

[31:25] of

[31:27] just doing

[31:27] the

[31:29] service and my

[31:30] understanding is the rest of it

[31:30] is a

[31:32] pass

[31:32] through, so we're

[31:32] able to keep

[31:34] . The

[31:34] portion

[31:34] that's

[31:36] um in the

[31:36] agreement for

[31:36] us

[31:39] . That's

[31:40] that's encouraging

[31:41] .

[31:41] So

[31:43] these have been

[31:43] communicated

[31:43] out

[31:45] the informal direction I

[31:46] received at our

[31:47] last meeting

[31:48] ,

[31:48] um, so residents are aware

[31:49] they're

[31:50] on notice of

[31:50] these of

[31:51] these changes

[31:52] . So if there's

[31:54] I

[31:55] did have a couple other

[31:55] questions

[31:56] that I sent in

[31:57] the

[31:57] email that I don't think

[31:58] think

[31:59] covered

[31:59] , um, in the

[32:01] , the water

[32:01] cost of service

[32:01] . The

[32:03] net

[32:04] revenue requirements

[32:05] ? Were

[32:06] um

[32:06] different than what is

[32:07] in our

[32:08] budget, so it

[32:08] was

[32:10] like 37.5

[32:10] million, but our

[32:12] budget is 35

[32:13] .

[32:13] So

[32:15] , um, just, but

[32:15] the

[32:17] wastewater matched exactly, so

[32:17] I wasn't sure

[32:19] the reason

[32:21] . I

[32:21] mean, obviously it's better

[32:23] . So

[32:24] what the number that

[32:25] you're

[32:26] saying matched was the

[32:26] net

[32:28] revenue requirements

[32:28] , not

[32:29] necessarily the

[32:30] total

[32:31] annual

[32:31] revenues that

[32:33] we

[32:33] would

[32:33] project.

[32:34] So when you look

[32:35] at the water

[32:37] .

[32:37] The 35 7 is

[32:39] the

[32:39] total revenue

[32:40] that this

[32:42] is generating that

[32:42] this rate

[32:43] study is

[32:44] generating.

[32:44] So we're

[32:46] already projecting

[32:46] that we're going to be under

[32:48] .

[32:48] Collected

[32:49] . So

[32:50] the

[32:50] 357 is what

[32:51] we put in the

[32:53] budget or close

[32:54] to it, because there's a just

[32:55] there's a

[32:55] difference between

[32:56] what the

[32:57] rates will collect and

[32:58] what wholesale we'll collect

[32:59] .

[33:00] Um, on

[33:01] the

[33:02] wastewater side, I

[33:02] mean, I did

[33:04] use

[33:04] a

[33:04] judgment. If

[33:05] if I would have put

[33:06] the 22.4

[33:07] that's in this, in this

[33:08] , um

[33:10] .

[33:11] Study, we would have

[33:11] been

[33:13] going

[33:13] backwards a couple of million

[33:15] .

[33:15] Um

[33:16] , So I kind

[33:18] of made the

[33:18] assumption that we might be

[33:20] able to make up some of this

[33:23] gain between the total

[33:24] revenue

[33:24] requirement and the total

[33:25] annual revenues, it's still

[33:27] a

[33:27] budget

[33:29] , you know, we MAY not

[33:30] make it to the 26th

[33:31] 1, but that

[33:31] was kind of my

[33:32] justification

[33:32] for not

[33:33] going all the way back

[33:34] down to the 224

[33:36] . I mean

[33:36] , we're

[33:38] even projecting, I

[33:38] think 26

[33:40] this year

[33:41] . Oh, I

[33:42] , I

[33:42] thought the

[33:43] net revenue requirements

[33:44] was

[33:45] what was being used the

[33:45] bottom

[33:45] one

[33:47] , not the top one. It's

[33:47] the

[33:48] bottom number

[33:49] , the

[33:49] total

[33:50] revenues available. Ok

[33:51] . I

[33:52] thought that was the one we had

[33:54] to use or that was

[33:56] being used

[33:56] as saying this is what we need

[33:56] to

[33:58] . Well, I guess

[33:58] from the

[34:00] net

[34:01] revenue requirement, so I

[34:01] thought

[34:03] that's what we were

[34:03] they're phasing it

[34:05] in so

[34:05] they're not assuming

[34:07] that in

[34:07] year one we're going to

[34:08] collect

[34:08] everything

[34:09] we

[34:09] need

[34:09] . They're

[34:10] phasing that in

[34:11] over 5

[34:12] years. I

[34:12] think on the

[34:14] water side

[34:14] because

[34:16] the way we

[34:16] use

[34:16] the replacements

[34:17] and

[34:18] improvements to help smooth

[34:19] out those

[34:20] rate

[34:20] increases

[34:21] . We

[34:21] made

[34:23] , we increased the

[34:23] replacements and increased

[34:25] improvements line items, so

[34:26] that's why it's at

[34:27] the 37

[34:28] million rather than

[34:28] . 35 million

[34:28] so

[34:30] that we could do

[34:31] the

[34:31] annual

[34:32] 5%

[34:32] per year instead of

[34:34] only

[34:34] having 2% in phase one

[34:35] and 8%

[34:36] in phase two

[34:38] . Ok, that makes

[34:39] sense. Well, cause that was one

[34:40] of my questions

[34:40] was what is,

[34:41] what is

[34:41] this? Yeah

[34:43] , that's why

[34:43] it

[34:44] was the, the goal

[34:45] of

[34:45] phasing

[34:46] those increases or

[34:47] making

[34:47] those

[34:48] increases we're phasing it in

[34:48] this

[34:50] in the study, but we're

[34:50] not

[34:52] actually phasing. We're not

[34:52] actually

[34:54] . Collecting higher

[34:55] revenue for that in our budget

[34:57] .

[34:57] You'll collect higher revenue

[34:58] ,

[34:59] but you'll set it aside to be

[35:01] used for future years

[35:04] . Ok

[35:04] .

[35:04] It'll offset those and

[35:05] then

[35:06] increases needed

[35:06] . I

[35:08] was unsure

[35:08] of how

[35:08] like the

[35:10] , the

[35:10] terminology of what was used in

[35:11] this study and how it

[35:13] related

[35:13] to

[35:13] our budget

[35:14] with franchise

[35:15] fee expense and transfer to

[35:15] general funds

[35:17] , and so I was

[35:17] trying to add them up and

[35:18] compare them to

[35:19] the budget to

[35:20] see

[35:20] . Um

[35:21] , if

[35:22] I

[35:22] could

[35:22] understand

[35:23] how, how this

[35:24] is flowing to

[35:24] our

[35:25] budget

[35:26] . The transfer to General

[35:27] Flynn is the same

[35:28] . The

[35:28] franchise

[35:29] fee was a little

[35:30] bore

[35:30] in the

[35:31] study

[35:31] than what

[35:32] we

[35:33] actually put in the fiscal

[35:34] 27

[35:35] budget

[35:36] , um, because

[35:37] this

[35:37] , that

[35:37] what the

[35:39] , the

[35:39] revenue

[35:40] requirement that they were fed

[35:40] to do the

[35:42] study off of was the

[35:42] fiscal 26th budget

[35:44] . And the

[35:44] fiscal

[35:46] 2016 budget franchise

[35:47] fee was higher. It was

[35:48] like 2.7

[35:49] That's what these numbers are

[35:49] based on

[35:51] . But

[35:51] as we were

[35:52] trying

[35:53] to balance the budget, we were

[35:53] trying to

[35:55] reduce that franchise

[35:55] fee a little bit

[35:57] . Ok

[35:57] , and then

[35:59] .

[36:00] We have cost allocation in the

[36:00] budget

[36:02] . Is that

[36:02] what is, so I

[36:04] was aligning them

[36:05] accurately

[36:05] and as

[36:06] far

[36:06] as

[36:06] , but um

[36:08] . Ok

[36:13] . All

[36:13] right, counsel, what other

[36:14] questions do you have

[36:15] ? I was

[36:16] going to ask the exact same

[36:16] ones that

[36:17] Melody's been talking

[36:18] about. Yeah, I know she

[36:19] took

[36:20] mine

[36:22] too

[36:23] . You're

[36:23] just

[36:24] going

[36:25] online, I do have, I

[36:26] do

[36:26] have

[36:27] one question, uh, for you

[36:28] , so

[36:29] ,

[36:29] uh, the way

[36:29] we adopt

[36:31] these

[36:31] rates is through the budget

[36:32] process and you

[36:33] go

[36:33] into

[36:34] effect

[36:34] OCTOBER 1st

[36:35] with the, with our

[36:36] annual budget. Is that accurate

[36:36] ? Yep

[36:38] , your masterpiece

[36:38] schedule is a part of your

[36:39] budget. All right

[36:40] , and it will

[36:40] come back as a

[36:42] separate

[36:43] ordinance, um, and it'll have

[36:45] two readings. All right, and

[36:45] that ordinance

[36:46] . Will be the

[36:47] master feet

[36:47] ordinance

[36:49] or

[36:50] masterpiece. So I, I

[36:51] did

[36:51] have

[36:52] another question

[36:53] on

[36:54] the

[36:54] um rate

[36:54] coverage

[36:56] with

[36:56] the

[36:56] wifia

[36:57] requirement and

[36:58] the

[36:58] 125% and

[36:58] what

[36:58] we

[37:00] need to

[37:01] , to collect

[37:02] , um

[37:03] because some of

[37:03] the

[37:04] calculations

[37:04] in

[37:05] there were

[37:05] different than

[37:07] what

[37:07] I

[37:07] was

[37:08] understanding how the

[37:09] calculation worked with talking

[37:10] with

[37:12] staff previously, which is

[37:12] always why I

[37:14] like to see it in

[37:14] the numbers and not just

[37:15] describe. But

[37:17] . But, um, so

[37:18] in

[37:19] there, it, it, it looks like

[37:20] .

[37:21] The

[37:21] revenue requirements in

[37:23] this plan are higher

[37:25] . Than what

[37:26] we need for

[37:27] the the rate

[37:28] coverage for Wo because we're

[37:30] at 137% or 100

[37:32] . 48%

[37:32] , which

[37:32] is

[37:33] higher than what we need

[37:34] for

[37:34] 125%

[37:36] . So, um

[37:37] , So that

[37:38] I'm

[37:38] just

[37:39] wondering, is that an

[37:41] opportunity to have

[37:43] Great

[37:43] relief if

[37:44] This is higher

[37:45] than

[37:46] what we need for the debt

[37:47] .

[37:48] That's it

[37:48] . Yes, please

[37:48] go

[37:49] ahead

[37:50] I was, so I was going to say,

[37:50] well

[37:52] , just

[37:52] because for

[37:53] the

[37:54] 2026

[37:55] with the t3 since

[37:55] that that

[37:57] service isn't actually known

[37:58] yet. We did build

[37:59] in some

[38:00] cushion to allow some

[38:01] flexibility with that

[38:01] for

[38:02] those

[38:03] coverages, but

[38:04] then also

[38:06] um the

[38:06] function of again

[38:08] . Um

[38:08] ,

[38:09] fluctuating that replacements

[38:10] and improvements number to

[38:11] smooth out the rate

[38:12] increases

[38:13] is what's going to make

[38:13] those

[38:15] coverage percentages be higher

[38:15] than what's

[38:17] actually required

[38:17] because you're smoothing it out

[38:18] over the

[38:19] different years

[38:20] instead

[38:20] of having

[38:21] just what you

[38:22] exactly you

[38:22] needed phase one,

[38:23] phase 2

[38:24] , and phase 3

[38:24] , so it'll,

[38:24] it'll vary

[38:26] from year to year.

[38:26] They're also not apples

[38:28] and

[38:29] apples because when you're

[38:31] trying to calculate your

[38:33] revenue requirement

[38:33] . You're

[38:35] looking at

[38:35] different factors,

[38:36] and then when

[38:37] you're trying to

[38:38] take those numbers and just do

[38:40] the calculation to make sure

[38:40] you're covered

[38:41] on your

[38:42] debt

[38:42] coverage. They, those are

[38:44] two

[38:45] separate calculations

[38:46] . So

[38:46] , if

[38:46] we were to

[38:48] reduce the rates and

[38:49] reduce the revenue, then

[38:50] we're

[38:51] not meeting our

[38:51] revenue

[38:51] requirements on the

[38:53] other page.

[38:53] I mean, they, they're

[38:55] just

[38:55] not

[38:56] comparable sometimes they

[38:57] both

[38:57] have to

[38:58] be

[38:58] calculated

[38:59] , but they

[39:00] do run separately as far

[39:02] as,

[39:02] you know, what you're doing on

[39:03] the

[39:04] . Revenue Department is

[39:05] different than what you're

[39:06] doing for the

[39:06] debt

[39:07] coverage, at

[39:07] least

[39:09] we're meeting our

[39:10] , we

[39:10] are

[39:10] exceeding our debt

[39:11] coverage,

[39:11] which is good news

[39:12] . So

[39:13] , you run

[39:13] the risk if you

[39:14] take just

[39:14] looking at

[39:15] that

[39:15] coverage

[39:16] calculation and think that

[39:17] you

[39:17] can

[39:18] reduce your, um, the

[39:20] million dollars, you MAY not be

[39:21] meeting all your

[39:22] revenue

[39:22] requirements

[39:23] . Even though

[39:25] you're meeting that coverage

[39:27] funds from

[39:29] or using funds from

[39:30] Fund Balance like we're going

[39:30] to

[39:31] be using 2

[39:33] . 7

[39:33] or 2.3

[39:34] somewhere somewhere from fund

[39:34] balance

[39:36] . Towards that

[39:38] , that

[39:38] does that

[39:40] Get

[39:40] calculated in the

[39:43] rate coverage or does that get

[39:43] calculated in the

[39:45] revenue or so

[39:45] your coverage calculation

[39:46] is

[39:47] specifically what

[39:47] you've earned

[39:48] in that year

[39:49] , so you can't

[39:49] use

[39:50] cash reserves towards

[39:52] calculating that rate coverage

[39:52] or that debt service

[39:53] coverage,

[39:54] the debt service for

[39:56] the 125%

[39:58] .

[39:58] But you can use it for your

[39:59] revenue

[40:00] requirements, correct

[40:02] .

[40:03] Can we have

[40:05] ? Clear

[40:05] as mud. So

[40:06] thank you

[40:07] . There are a lot of

[40:08] moving

[40:08] pieces, yeah

[40:09] yeah,

[40:10] they're all intermixed. I have

[40:12] a better understanding now.

[40:12] Thank you. You're welcome

[40:14] .

[40:15] Thank you, counsel. Any other

[40:15] questions

[40:18] ? I

[40:19] appreciate it, MS.

[40:19] Lynch. Thank you for being

[40:21] here

[40:21] and for that detailed

[40:22] explanation

[40:23] . I'm gonna, uh, and

[40:26] of course uh Tracy, always glad

[40:26] to hear finances from

[40:27] you. It

[40:28] seems like we're always doing

[40:29] better when you're

[40:30] up here. Uh,

[40:31] that'll take us

[40:32] to

[40:32] item 3c.

[40:33] This is discussion regarding

[40:34] a

[40:34] resolution of the city of

[40:35] Pflugerville, Texas

[40:36] , adopting

[40:37] standards for secure,

[40:37] accountable, fair

[40:39] , and

[40:40] explainable technology use

[40:40] directing

[40:41] the implementation

[40:42] and providing an

[40:44] effective date

[40:44] I think we've got some

[40:46] .

[40:46] Language

[40:46] from our

[40:49] regular

[40:49] agenda item on there this is

[40:50] discussion during the

[40:51] work

[40:51] session

[40:53] . James, yeah, I just

[40:55] want to explain the documents

[40:56] you have in front of you

[40:56] . You

[40:57] have

[40:58] two versions, the one with

[40:59] the draft watermark is the one

[41:00] that

[41:02] was attached, um, to the

[41:02] agenda as drafted

[41:03] by council

[41:04] member Kaufman

[41:04] . The other

[41:04] version

[41:06] is

[41:06] a

[41:07] revised

[41:08] version

[41:08] prepared by cast

[41:09] member Matteer

[41:11] Yeah, and, and let

[41:11] me explain.

[41:11] So

[41:12] , uh, I

[41:13] I

[41:15] want to thank

[41:15] um

[41:16] Jonathan early

[41:17] on specifically

[41:18] came to me talking about this

[41:19] idea and this policy and what

[41:20] we're working on

[41:22] , um, we talked

[41:22] about how staff was looking at

[41:24] these things as a whole in

[41:25] their

[41:27] totality. What should we

[41:27] do? How should

[41:28] look at this

[41:29] game like a good opportunity to

[41:29] go

[41:30] and

[41:31] do so

[41:31] . Um

[41:31] , Jonathan then

[41:33] went to

[41:34] um start talking to

[41:35] David, COUNCILMAN Rogers about

[41:36] it

[41:38] , and

[41:38] as we've heard from

[41:38] mayor pro tem

[41:40] , Kimberly

[41:40] numerous times

[41:42] . I get a little

[41:42] nervous about when all of us

[41:43] are all

[41:46] . Discussing everything

[41:47] else happened from that as well

[41:47] so

[41:49] I

[41:49] stepped back

[41:50] , um, they

[41:50] worked on

[41:51] their version, the

[41:52] version has the

[41:53] the draft on it

[41:54] It also has a good um

[41:57] . Summary

[41:58] as well with that as well, and

[41:58] then I

[42:00] asked specifically, I

[42:01] asked our attorney Mike

[42:02] to send

[42:02] me what their

[42:03] draft was and

[42:05] then based on what their draft

[42:05] was, I created

[42:06] a draft where I

[42:07] saw, ok, listen, there's

[42:09] ,

[42:10] there's some

[42:10] things where we

[42:11] need some clarity or some

[42:11] other

[42:12] aspects in my opinion, some of

[42:12] the things that we add on

[42:13] , some

[42:14] things that, um, you know

[42:14] , help

[42:14] buttress

[42:16] what

[42:16] they're getting

[42:16] at right there

[42:18] . And so the

[42:18] policy that you see

[42:20] from

[42:20] me is

[42:21] about

[42:23] . 18 pages

[42:25] . But uh, which

[42:27] covers the, yeah, I know

[42:27] , right

[42:28] which I expect each

[42:29] and every

[42:30] one of you to sit right here

[42:31] ,

[42:32] you

[42:34] You know, I have a judge

[42:34] who don't

[42:36] get me started,

[42:36] that's exactly how he does in

[42:37] these documents

[42:39] . Um

[42:39] , that I, I

[42:40] would like for y'all to

[42:40] , you

[42:41] know, take back and look at

[42:43] , um

[42:43] we don't have

[42:45] a

[42:45] subcommittee,

[42:46] so I would say have

[42:47] Jonathan,

[42:48] David, and I go back and

[42:49] talk.

[42:50] We don't have that, but

[42:51] , um,

[42:52] just what your thoughts are for

[42:53] like, for example, one of the

[42:54] things that, you know, there's

[42:55] some cleanup items

[42:56] . Um

[42:57] , for

[42:57] example

[42:59] . Rudy

[42:59] , before

[43:00] you,

[43:01] before you dig real deep into

[43:01] that, I do

[43:03] have one person

[43:03] signed up for public comment on

[43:04] this

[43:05] item

[43:06] . So I wanted to go

[43:06] ahead and call forward

[43:07] , uh, Mr

[43:08] .

[43:08] Les Wall

[43:08] . Les

[43:10] , uh, I know you

[43:10] signed up to

[43:12] , uh, to

[43:12] comment on

[43:12] this item

[43:13] 3c. Uh

[43:14] , I'll give you

[43:15] uh, 3 minutes

[43:16] , uh, to address

[43:17] us. Hey, thank you. Get

[43:18] my

[43:19] glasses out, so

[43:21] . Yeah

[43:21] , safe

[43:22] technology use

[43:23] . There are those

[43:24] who argue there is no such

[43:26] thing

[43:26] as safe technology

[43:27] , but

[43:28] uh that's a discussion for

[43:29] another day

[43:30] , um, whether we're

[43:31] looking at biometrics

[43:32] , whether

[43:33] you're looking at surveillance,

[43:33] whether you're looking

[43:34] at ai

[43:35] ,

[43:35] um, the bottom line is

[43:36] I don't

[43:37] think it he

[43:37] didn't understand

[43:39] human reasoning

[43:39] . It's

[43:40] only as

[43:40] good

[43:41] as what the programmers

[43:42] can put into it and what

[43:43] comes

[43:43] out of it

[43:44] . So

[43:44] where does the

[43:46] public trust fit into this

[43:48] ? Um

[43:48] ,

[43:48] many are skeptical

[43:50] . Um

[43:51] , and

[43:51] one

[43:51] of

[43:52] the

[43:53] things that I looked

[43:55] at

[43:55] was low, moderate, and high

[43:55] risk

[43:57] . Um

[43:58] , there are

[43:59] those in

[44:00] the tech world that would say

[44:00] they're all high risk

[44:02] . The

[44:02] only

[44:02] system

[44:04] that is closed

[44:05] . Can't be

[44:06] hacked in. That's the one that

[44:07] can't

[44:07] be

[44:08] compromised. If you

[44:09] allow an email, if you allow

[44:09] data

[44:11] to go out of that place or

[44:11] come into that place

[44:13] , it's

[44:13] open

[44:14] And so from that standpoint,

[44:14] I'm

[44:15] glad you guys are

[44:16] addressing this from the

[44:17] standpoint of

[44:18] If we don't, the

[44:20] legislature probably will, and

[44:20] we know they addressed it last

[44:21] session. I

[44:22] bet they're going to

[44:22] do something this session

[44:24] as

[44:24] well

[44:25] , um, one of the things

[44:25] would be

[44:26] the

[44:27] National League of

[44:27] Cities

[44:29] reported 68% of

[44:29] employees for a city

[44:33] . Use

[44:33] ai

[44:33] on

[44:35] personal

[44:36] platforms

[44:37] and 57%

[44:38] input sensitive data from the

[44:38] city

[44:43] . Um, I'm guilty of that as

[44:43] well

[44:45] , taking things home and

[44:45] working on it and then coming

[44:47] back, but um

[44:47] From

[44:48] that

[44:49] standpoint

[44:49] , the National League

[44:50] of

[44:52] Cities says Chet

[44:53] bt Clive,

[44:54] they are not safe

[44:55] . So if we're

[44:56] allowed access to all of that

[44:57] ,

[44:58] they're definitely recommended

[44:58] don't do

[45:00] it, um

[45:01] . Staff limits

[45:01] cannot

[45:02] be

[45:03] replaced by ai

[45:03] . If

[45:05] we're cutting staff, thinking

[45:05] ai is going to replace

[45:06] human

[45:07] intervention. That's not going

[45:08] to happen. In fact

[45:09] , you MAY end

[45:09] up having more

[45:10] it people

[45:11] to try

[45:12] and manage what we're working

[45:12] on

[45:13] , um

[45:14] . And

[45:15] uh the

[45:16] Roosevelt

[45:17] Institute states that ai can

[45:18] be

[45:19] a burden for public workers. It

[45:21] can comprehend or make their

[45:21] work

[45:23] harder cause it'll come

[45:23] out with information that's not

[45:24] accurate. They

[45:25] got to go in and

[45:25] fix it

[45:26] . And I

[45:27] know

[45:27] Harris

[45:28] County Houston's

[45:29] problem

[45:29] on

[45:30] engineering projects. They

[45:30] would

[45:31] put the

[45:32] information in.

[45:32] It'll spit out a project number

[45:33] that

[45:34] is not the number they're

[45:34] working on

[45:36] . They'll correct it.

[45:37] It spits out the wrong number

[45:37] again in the wrong data

[45:38] . Uh

[45:39] , so

[45:39] they've

[45:41] already experienced

[45:41] that, so the

[45:41] only thing I

[45:42] would

[45:43] say is I'm glad you guys are

[45:44] addressing this because it's

[45:44] going

[45:45] to continue to be

[45:46] a

[45:46] burdening issue

[45:48] . And there's

[45:48] those that are going to fight

[45:49] it

[45:49] and there's those that are

[45:50] going to try and work

[45:52] with it,

[45:53] and we really can't fight it

[45:53] very

[45:54] well because it's out

[45:55] there for all of us to

[45:56] use, so

[45:57] I do appreciate you guys

[45:57] addressing this

[45:59] , uh, hopefully

[45:59] before the legislature drops

[46:00] the hammer

[46:01] on cities

[46:01] , but from

[46:02] that

[46:03] standpoint

[46:03] , um, let's just

[46:04] try and be as safe as

[46:05] we can

[46:06] with it because

[46:06] public

[46:07] trust

[46:08] sometimes

[46:08] is compromised

[46:10] ,

[46:10] especially from third parties.

[46:11] And if

[46:12] we

[46:12] give data to a

[46:12] third

[46:13] party

[46:14] and

[46:15] it leaks out, what

[46:15] are their punishments

[46:16] ? What are

[46:17] their penalties? If we have

[46:18] a

[46:19] contractor, if we have a

[46:20] consultant come in and take our

[46:20] data

[46:21] and then all of a sudden

[46:22] goes to

[46:23] another party and they

[46:24] start using it

[46:25] . What

[46:26] ramifications do we have

[46:26] ? I

[46:27] appreciate your

[46:28] time

[46:28] . Thank you

[46:28] Thank you, MR. Wallace

[46:30] . All

[46:30] right

[46:31] , yeah, now I, I was about

[46:33] to say I think one of the

[46:33] things

[46:35] that he said, which I

[46:36] think is critical in this

[46:37] conversation, but

[46:37] I have a

[46:38] slightly different perspective

[46:38] on

[46:39] this

[46:39] is

[46:40] that we're having to

[46:41] do this

[46:42] because nobody else is

[46:44] .

[46:44] Flat out

[46:46] , let's just be honest

[46:46] ,

[46:47] that's what's happening here

[46:48] is

[46:49] that pretty much this is the

[46:49] wild wild

[46:50] west and folks don't

[46:51] want to step

[46:52] in

[46:52] . They don't

[46:53] want to have to make

[46:55] decisions

[46:55] and

[46:55] so

[46:56] consequently

[46:57] citizens,

[46:57] you know

[47:00] , suffer

[47:00] privacy

[47:01] suffers

[47:01] . I

[47:02] , I

[47:02] , I understand and

[47:02] I hear what you

[47:04] said about

[47:04] um

[47:05] Chachi bt

[47:06] and um, oh, you know,

[47:07] anything generated of ai

[47:08] . And

[47:09] it's a reality that folks are

[47:11] using them right there as well,

[47:11] but the reality of the

[47:13] fact is,

[47:13] is that

[47:14] . This council

[47:15] is

[47:15] stepping up in a way to

[47:16] actually go ahead and help

[47:18] address it and deal with these

[47:18] issues. Yeah, i

[47:20] think

[47:21] just to talk a little bit

[47:21] about

[47:22] that, I think one of the, one

[47:22] of

[47:24] my overarching goals with

[47:25] this was to

[47:25] create

[47:26] a framework

[47:27] so that we don't end up like

[47:27] what a

[47:28] lot of

[47:29] other cities are

[47:29] doing where they've got an

[47:30] alpr

[47:31] policy. They've got

[47:31] a

[47:32] generative

[47:33] ai

[47:33] policy. They've

[47:34] got a drone

[47:34] policy, right

[47:35] , and

[47:36] all of these things

[47:37] , um, and so

[47:38] I, I think that the hope of

[47:38] having

[47:40] a framework versus a

[47:40] very specific

[47:42] Piece by piece

[47:42] ,

[47:43] you

[47:44] know

[47:45] , definition of these

[47:47] things is that's really the

[47:47] intent, right, is to get

[47:48] something that

[47:49] can

[47:49] be durable

[47:49] and last

[47:51] . We MAY not know what

[47:52] the technology is that's going

[47:52] to need to

[47:53] be governed 3 years

[47:54] from now, but we should be able

[47:56] to speak

[47:56] to and staff should be

[47:57] able

[47:58] to understand the

[47:59] expectations and the guardrails

[48:00] of counsel from a

[48:01] policy

[48:01] perspective in

[48:03] terms of not

[48:03] what a company is marketing

[48:05] a

[48:05] product or a functionality as,

[48:06] but

[48:07] it's

[48:07] actual usage and how

[48:07] it gets

[48:08] applied in the

[48:09] real

[48:10] world, um, so I just wanted to

[48:10] add that in because I think

[48:12] We're absolutely in alignment

[48:12] on

[48:14] that. And to

[48:14] that point,

[48:15] that's

[48:16] one of the reasons why

[48:16] if you look at my document, for

[48:17] example, if you look

[48:18] at

[48:18] Section

[48:19] 2, the definition, you see

[48:20] , you

[48:21] see me specifically denote

[48:22] the

[48:23] difference between

[48:23] ai systems

[48:24] and

[48:25] generative ai because those

[48:26] two things

[48:27] aren't necessarily

[48:28] the same, and

[48:28] you see

[48:29] what

[48:30] I

[48:30] articulated regarding

[48:31] what

[48:32] covered systems are. That

[48:32] means

[48:33] that works

[48:34] for that as

[48:34] well

[48:35] , um

[48:35] some of

[48:36] the things

[48:37] , uh, for

[48:37] example

[48:39] , consequential decision

[48:39] making

[48:41] . Some verbiage over

[48:41] there as well

[48:43] , I

[48:43] added

[48:44] meaningful human reviews. These

[48:45] are things

[48:46] that I've looked

[48:47] at

[48:48] regarding what I'm advising our

[48:48] clients

[48:50] are, so in the private,

[48:50] I mean, David, I'm sure you're

[48:51] doing the

[48:52] same thing, you know,

[48:53] your clients, hey

[48:54] , listen,

[48:54] these are things that you want

[48:55] in your policies to work

[48:56] for

[48:57] that. The

[48:57] question becomes

[48:57] ultimately

[48:58] is

[48:59] that

[48:59] what's

[48:59] adaptable and this is why we

[49:00] have

[49:00] a

[49:01] great attorney like Mike

[49:02] who can tell us, ok

[49:03] , what

[49:03] , and

[49:03] James is our

[49:04] city manager

[49:05] . What

[49:06] makes sense

[49:06] ? What's

[49:08] adaptable

[49:08] for a public

[49:09] entity as opposed

[49:09] to a private entity

[49:10] . Right

[49:11] there as well

[49:12] , but I think that

[49:12] having

[49:13] that flexibility as

[49:13] you're talking about

[49:14] that

[49:15] malleability to work to make

[49:16] sure that we have

[49:17] a system in

[49:17] place that works, that's

[49:19] great

[49:19] .

[49:20] My biggest concern

[49:21] . Has

[49:21] been

[49:22] and continues to be that

[49:24] . Not

[49:24] only what

[49:26] Jonathan said about

[49:27] what folks, the

[49:28] nice

[49:28] shiny new

[49:30] car or whatever the heck folks

[49:31] are advertising for folks

[49:32] to

[49:33] grab in from that, but

[49:33] the

[49:33] reality of the

[49:35] situation is

[49:35] that how do we go ahead

[49:37] and

[49:37] address this in an

[49:39] area where

[49:40] no one's really addressing it.

[49:40] Like

[49:41] it's just so

[49:42] , so

[49:42] ultimately we come up

[49:43] with a

[49:44] policy and some ideas right

[49:44] there

[49:46] . Someone thinks they have

[49:47] a great on deer on it

[49:48] , and then

[49:49] we, how many times have we sat

[49:49] on this dice over

[49:50] the years

[49:51] where you have something from

[49:53] the legislature or from the

[49:53] federal government that

[49:55] has

[49:55] serious

[49:56] unintended consequences

[49:56] in what they're

[49:57] doing from

[49:58] there as well

[49:59] , so we

[49:59] know

[50:00] enough for what

[50:01] we deal with

[50:02] our cities and how they adapt

[50:03] that and move

[50:04] that forward. I

[50:05] do want to say

[50:05] that one of the

[50:06] things I want to pray, I want

[50:07] to appreciate Mike

[50:08] for is that

[50:09] I did look at the city

[50:09] of

[50:09] Arlington

[50:11] , and I thought that

[50:11] was

[50:11] a

[50:13] very interesting policy

[50:14] and how they deal with some

[50:14] things, so I try to adapt some

[50:15] of those aspects to it

[50:15] . There.

[50:16] Do you have a red

[50:18] line version

[50:18] ?

[50:18] I do

[50:20] . And what I can

[50:21] do is

[50:22] , is

[50:23] send the red line

[50:24] version. Yeah

[50:24] I

[50:24] think

[50:25] that just

[50:26] skimming

[50:26] over

[50:27] it

[50:28] , um, what's actually

[50:29] kind

[50:29] of

[50:29] funny is

[50:31] that uh probably about

[50:32] a month ago when our

[50:33] city

[50:34] attorney and city manager and I

[50:34] started working on

[50:35] the draft

[50:36] that I sent

[50:36] over

[50:38] . I think mine

[50:38] was 19 or 20

[50:40] pages long. Uh,

[50:41] and over the course of the

[50:42] last

[50:43] 30 days or so as we've been

[50:44] talking

[50:45] about enforceability

[50:45] and how to

[50:47] actually

[50:47] operationalize a policy like

[50:49] this, was able to sort of

[50:50] Simplify it

[50:51] and trim it

[50:51] down

[50:51] ,

[50:52] mostly by things

[50:53] that you are

[50:54] added into yours, so I don't

[50:55] ,

[50:56] so I don't disagree, but

[50:57] there's a balance there that I

[50:57] think we're going

[50:58] to have

[50:58] to

[50:58] strike of

[51:00] . Having everything

[51:01] truly defined out to the letter

[51:02] which I love

[51:03] and appreciate

[51:04] ,

[51:05] but I've also had the

[51:06] conversations

[51:07] around how do we

[51:08] get

[51:09] this entire

[51:10] organism

[51:12] , um,

[51:12] to understand

[51:13] and

[51:14] fully gra,

[51:14] you know, what is

[51:16] , what's

[51:17] expected. So one of the things

[51:17] you'll notice

[51:18] in here is

[51:18] that

[51:19] it's

[51:20] , it's

[51:21] less prescriptive

[51:23] ,

[51:23] um, regarding the flexibility

[51:24] for

[51:25] city manager and

[51:25] city

[51:25] staff

[51:26] because

[51:27] one of the things is

[51:28] that I don't want to be too

[51:28] prescriptive on what you're

[51:29] actually going and working for

[51:30] .

[51:30] But anything that's

[51:31] actually,

[51:32] you know, you know

[51:32] , citizen

[51:34] facing citizen data, I mean,

[51:35] that's

[51:37] . That's a lie and that's

[51:37] a wall

[51:39] . And so what do we do

[51:39] ?

[51:39] What procedures, what other

[51:40] aspects do

[51:41] we put in that? So

[51:41] Rudy, is there anything, I mean

[51:42] I

[51:43] , I really

[51:44] , um, agree

[51:45] with

[51:45] COUNCILMAN Kaufman's assertion

[51:46] that, you know, he's

[51:48] consolidated it quite a bit and

[51:49] I know, you know, I appreciate

[51:49] all

[51:50] the work you did

[51:50] . Is there

[51:51] anything in

[51:52] your version that

[51:53] you really

[51:54] feel it needs to be

[51:55] in Jonathan's version, so

[51:57] . It

[52:03] a

[52:03] lot

[52:06] attorney wording

[52:06] hyphens

[52:06] and

[52:08] everything else, so

[52:08] vendor,

[52:09] vendor

[52:10] data

[52:10] use, right

[52:10] ? Like

[52:11] what do we

[52:12] have specifically on

[52:13] there for any vendors that

[52:14] we

[52:15] got

[52:15] Agenic ai

[52:17] , um, what can it

[52:17] be used to send or go in and

[52:18] contact

[52:19] information. What

[52:20] generate ii be

[52:21] utilized

[52:22] for

[52:22] employees

[52:24] , um, but are those

[52:24] things that we really need now,

[52:25] or

[52:26] are they things that we

[52:27] could add as we're

[52:28] moving

[52:28] forward in this. It's a work

[52:29] in

[52:29] progress

[52:31] . I would say that

[52:31] these are things that if I

[52:32] ,

[52:33] well, I mean, I think you know

[52:33] me well enough and I've been

[52:34] doing

[52:35] this long enough where

[52:35] it's, it's um

[52:37] Everything that

[52:38] I've

[52:39] been advised this is

[52:40] probably going about 3, and

[52:40] this has

[52:42] been an issue for

[52:42] about

[52:42] 3.5 years

[52:44] and actually I

[52:45] want to give credit. She's not

[52:46] here

[52:48] Mimi Stiles

[52:49] years ago

[52:50] , um,

[52:51] we had

[52:51] a

[52:51] conversation and

[52:52] we

[52:53] started talking about it and

[52:53] let me tell you what the

[52:54] impetus for

[52:55] me

[52:55] was

[52:55] , was that I,

[52:56] I know all too

[52:57] well in the

[52:58] legal profession that

[53:00] cross-racial identification is

[53:00] a real issue. That is

[53:01] a

[53:02] significant issue that happens

[53:03] across the border and a

[53:04] variety

[53:05] of different aspects. When I

[53:05] started

[53:06] to realize kind of what

[53:07] Les said

[53:07] is

[53:08] um regarding the

[53:09] fact that

[53:11] we're

[53:11] training ai

[53:12] models and ai systems

[53:13] . On

[53:14] flawed data

[53:15] . And if we're

[53:16] having the flaws in those days

[53:16] in

[53:18] the specific data itself,

[53:19] then what we're inputting, what

[53:20] are you garbage in

[53:21] garbage out

[53:22] .

[53:22] So over the last, I mean, what

[53:23] you're gonna

[53:24] see, Caesar, is

[53:25] that this is developed over

[53:27] 3

[53:27] ,

[53:28] what is it

[53:29] ? 2026

[53:31] , 3.5 years.

[53:32] This is, this is me

[53:33] working

[53:34] through with

[53:34] clients going

[53:36] through information CLEs,

[53:36] everything else. These are

[53:38] things I'm saying, ok, this is

[53:38] what I

[53:39] think needs to

[53:40] be to

[53:41] rock bed in here with that. I,

[53:41] I

[53:43] , I mean, what I'd like to do

[53:43] is that, if possible, is

[53:44] to go

[53:45] back

[53:45] with Jonathan and go back

[53:47] with David and

[53:47] have a

[53:48] conversation about that, but

[53:48] we've

[53:49] got

[53:49] to decide that as a

[53:50] council because

[53:51] . We

[53:52] don't have

[53:52] a subcommittee on this. Right

[53:54] .

[53:54] Well, let me

[53:56] say, first of all,

[53:56] I want to

[53:58] Jonathan for doing

[53:59] the heavy lifting on this

[54:01] . And

[54:01] the

[54:03] first draft is always the

[54:03] hardest draft

[54:05] , and

[54:06] , and he, he,

[54:06] he put

[54:07] a lot

[54:08] out

[54:08] there. One

[54:09] of

[54:10] the things that I looked

[54:13] for

[54:13] specifically

[54:13] in

[54:13] your version,

[54:13] Rudy

[54:14] , because Jonathan and i

[54:15] had talked

[54:16] about it

[54:16] as

[54:17] something that

[54:19] is

[54:19] actually

[54:20] missing, uh, and that we think

[54:20] needed

[54:21] to

[54:22] be added was

[54:23] an

[54:23] audit

[54:24] feature. I know you have

[54:25] one

[54:25] paragraph where you speak to

[54:26] audits, but I

[54:28] think we might

[54:28] want to

[54:29] strengthen that, um

[54:30] .

[54:30] And uh I think

[54:32] you're right

[54:32] there, there are

[54:34] a

[54:34] few

[54:35] areas

[54:35] where

[54:37] where Jonathan and I want

[54:37] to make

[54:39] , I think we've agreed

[54:39] on

[54:39] some

[54:41] additional edits some

[54:42] that were, you know

[54:43] , not

[54:44] 100%

[54:45] . On

[54:46] board with and we

[54:46] want

[54:46] to talk

[54:48] about those, I

[54:48] think in

[54:48] in some detail

[54:50] . Um

[54:50] , But

[54:51] I

[54:52] , I, I

[54:53] hear where

[54:53] Councilmaniz is

[54:55] coming from, you know, let's

[54:56] ,

[54:57] let's

[54:57] get

[54:58] something in place

[54:58] ,

[54:59] and then we

[54:59] can, we can tweak

[55:00] it later

[55:02] . And the one

[55:03] of the

[55:04] questions I

[55:04] have

[55:05] , um, and I

[55:06] ,

[55:06] and this counsel to be question

[55:07] for

[55:08] the

[55:08] whole council is

[55:08] , do

[55:09] we

[55:09] want

[55:10] to

[55:11] wait to pass

[55:12] something

[55:12] until

[55:13] we

[55:13] have

[55:13] a

[55:14] strong audit

[55:15] provision

[55:17] . Or do

[55:17] we

[55:19] want

[55:19] to

[55:20] pass something and

[55:21] come

[55:21] back

[55:22] and do an

[55:24] audit provision as a

[55:24] as an

[55:26] add-on later

[55:26] , and I'm,

[55:27] I'm agnostic

[55:28] about

[55:28] that. Uh, I

[55:29] think we can do it. We can do

[55:30] it

[55:31] either way

[55:32] , um, but

[55:33] i think

[55:33] that the

[55:35] , the auditing of the

[55:35] system

[55:37] . One of the

[55:38] Things that

[55:39] has

[55:42] but recently

[55:42] , is that

[55:43] a

[55:44] very

[55:44] Um

[55:49] , I'm searching for

[55:49] an

[55:49] adjective, and

[55:50] I'm coming up

[55:51] short. Let's just

[55:53] say it

[55:53] , an

[55:53] audit

[55:55] , uh, can reveal

[55:56] . Uh

[55:58] The

[56:01] Substantial problems

[56:02] with

[56:02] these

[56:04] technologies and I think we

[56:05] need to make sure that we have

[56:07] a system in place

[56:08] . Um

[56:09] , regular

[56:11] ,

[56:11] uh, perhaps outside as well as

[56:12] inside to

[56:13] make

[56:13] sure that

[56:14] we

[56:14] don't, we don't MISS

[56:15] These

[56:16] things because Uh

[56:17] , you know

[56:18] , um

[56:18] it's new to all of us

[56:20] . Um

[56:20] , even

[56:21] the

[56:22] people who are

[56:22] doing it

[56:23] don't really understand what

[56:24] it

[56:24] does

[56:25] . Um

[56:27] , and at least on the

[56:27] bleeding edge

[56:29] of it

[56:29] , um, and

[56:31] ,

[56:31] uh, you know, we need

[56:32] to make

[56:32] sure that the

[56:34] Um

[56:34] , we

[56:36] have not

[56:36] that we have a

[56:38] performance

[56:39] audit of what it, what

[56:39] it does

[56:40] ,

[56:40] and we need to

[56:43] We would need to

[56:45] use the technology, but we need

[56:46] to make sure that

[56:47] technology

[56:48] doesn't trip us up

[56:49] . So, yeah

[56:49] ,

[56:50] to your point

[56:50] , and you just

[56:51] said it

[56:52] yourself. If you look

[56:52] at page 9, there's

[56:53] a reason why

[56:54] I put so

[56:54] much

[56:56] regarding vendor

[56:56] data use

[56:57] . Because I think one

[56:58] of the concerns, one of the

[56:59] issues is that

[57:01] the totality of

[57:01] what's being

[57:01] utilized

[57:03] , no

[57:03] outside party receives an

[57:04] independent right to

[57:05] train

[57:05] or

[57:06] improve the

[57:07] model developed on

[57:08] unrelated product types, etc

[57:09] .

[57:10] Right there as well. You see

[57:10] that list and talks about

[57:12] the

[57:12] specific contracts

[57:14] the the

[57:14] vendor disclosements

[57:16] , the

[57:17] non-compliance, which I think

[57:17] is a key portion to that

[57:18] and

[57:19] working for there. You

[57:19] also

[57:19] feed

[57:20] right

[57:21] into

[57:21] required vendor

[57:23] contractual obligations

[57:25] .

[57:26] Pre-existing ip ai output

[57:26] ownership, third party infringe

[57:28] city

[57:30] funded

[57:30] deliverables,

[57:30] liability

[57:32] and

[57:32] insurance. Um,

[57:33] those are

[57:34] things

[57:35] that literally

[57:35] there weren't, they weren't in

[57:37] the previous copy and like I

[57:38] said, Jonathan's saying

[57:39] that

[57:40] were in some iteration, and

[57:40] that's why I'm

[57:42] . Go back for

[57:43] ,

[57:44] but I, I mean, you're a lawyer.

[57:44] You don't

[57:46] , you don't just, you

[57:46] know, you bet, you know, we

[57:47] don't, we don't

[57:48] tell clients to

[57:49] just pass something to go ahead

[57:50] and in the subset, it's like do

[57:51] the best you can right

[57:52] now from

[57:53] the onset and then go from

[57:53] there as well. Well

[57:55] , I

[57:55] , um, I

[57:55] guess

[57:57] . It

[57:57] would be how

[57:57] much

[57:58] time are we

[58:00] saying would

[58:00] be

[58:01] between versions. If

[58:01] we're

[58:02] saying, ok

[58:02] , let's

[58:02] wait

[58:03] 2

[58:04] weeks

[58:04] until we can get something

[58:06] that

[58:07] is more substantial and covers

[58:09] everything versus, ok, well, we

[58:09] need to do something

[58:10] that's

[58:11] gonna take a year to, to do

[58:11] that. I, I

[58:12] , I'd rather wait the

[58:13] two weeks and get it done

[58:15] first

[58:15] and you know, and then

[58:18] reevaluate it in a year rather

[58:18] than

[58:19] I have college football

[58:20] this weekend

[58:22] um, otherwise I

[58:23] don't see why we

[58:24] can't be done

[58:26] .

[58:27] Otherwise, I mean, I don't see

[58:27] why this can't get

[58:28] done

[58:29] seriously over the weekend. So

[58:29] the other thing that

[58:30] needs to,

[58:31] that needs to be done

[58:32] is the um

[58:33] is

[58:33] the ordinance for

[58:35] a

[58:35] resident

[58:36] advisory committee as well,

[58:37] which is not included

[58:37] , I think

[58:38] in either one of these, but

[58:38] we've

[58:39] talked about and we've

[58:40] talked about it and we've

[58:40] agreed to it

[58:42] , so everyone on

[58:43] the council were all on the

[58:45] same page, and I, and I bring

[58:45] that

[58:46] up partially because I

[58:47] don't this topic isn't

[58:48] going

[58:49] away and we know we have to do

[58:50] the work on that piece of

[58:51] it

[58:51] as

[58:51] well, and

[58:52] so, you know, while

[58:53] I

[58:54] think it's important that we

[58:55] get something

[58:56] in place rather

[58:56] quickly

[58:57] because we're already

[58:58] tripping over ourselves in some

[58:59] of this stuff

[59:00] , um

[59:01] . You know

[59:02] ,

[59:02] I'm

[59:03] , I'm open to waiting

[59:04] , but

[59:05] to Melody's point, I think we'd

[59:07] need to figure it out pretty

[59:07] quick

[59:09] , especially because our

[59:10] city attorney and city manager

[59:11] are gonna have to get

[59:12] comfortable with a whole

[59:13] new

[59:14] version again real quick, which

[59:14] is going to take time

[59:16] . For them

[59:18] beyond just

[59:18] our

[59:18] counsel's input

[59:19] So I

[59:20] want to be mindful of that

[59:21] as

[59:21] well. Um

[59:22] , so

[59:23] I would, I

[59:23] wouldn't say I

[59:25] disagree with us

[59:25] tripping over ourselves over

[59:27] this. I do agree that we do

[59:27] need to

[59:29] , uh, I, I think

[59:30] honestly, I think 2

[59:31] weeks is

[59:32] way too long. Like I said, I

[59:33] think this is something that we

[59:33] can

[59:33] go

[59:34] ahead and, I mean

[59:34] , you

[59:35] you've, you

[59:36] do this for a

[59:36] living, we're, we should be

[59:37] able to go ahead and

[59:38] get this

[59:39] done and knocked out

[59:40] . We can't

[59:41] get it approved until the next

[59:43] meeting. Well, I, I want to be,

[59:44] I wanna be clear with that

[59:44] . We,

[59:45] we want to get it

[59:47] . Drafted, but

[59:47] we need

[59:48] the professional review

[59:49] of

[59:50] our attorney and our

[59:51] city

[59:52] manager to ensure that what any

[59:54] changes are

[59:54] in

[59:56] fact

[59:56] implementable, um. Because I

[59:57] don't

[59:59] want us to go say, hey,

[59:59] these are all the things we

[1:00:00] want to do

[1:00:01] , and then we look at

[1:00:01] it and we're like, well, that

[1:00:02] doesn't make

[1:00:03] any sense in our,

[1:00:03] in our use case

[1:00:05] , right

[1:00:05] ? That

[1:00:05] uh

[1:00:06] that's something that

[1:00:07] would

[1:00:08] require 3 new headcounts that

[1:00:08] aren't in the budget

[1:00:09] , right? So

[1:00:10] I want to make sure that

[1:00:12] . Not

[1:00:12] only are we getting

[1:00:12] if we

[1:00:14] , if

[1:00:14] we are getting

[1:00:15] it updated, that

[1:00:16] we're getting

[1:00:16] a

[1:00:17] reviewed and

[1:00:17] solid

[1:00:18] and that I

[1:00:19] . That

[1:00:19] feels

[1:00:19] like it's

[1:00:21] gonna take more than

[1:00:22] 2 weeks to me. So if we do it

[1:00:24] this weekend, Mike, how long

[1:00:24] would it take for us to be able

[1:00:26] to go ahead and send it to you

[1:00:28] on Monday. Can I, can I jump in

[1:00:31] ? How much free time do you

[1:00:31] have

[1:00:32] in

[1:00:33] your schedule to review

[1:00:35] another version

[1:00:35] ? Sorry

[1:00:36] , that's

[1:00:37] uh let let's

[1:00:37] James uh jump in

[1:00:38] real

[1:00:39] quick. So this is

[1:00:40] I've

[1:00:40] spent

[1:00:41] so much time on this

[1:00:42] document, like over

[1:00:43] the last 6

[1:00:44] weeks, there's been

[1:00:45] , I don't

[1:00:46] know how many emails we've gone

[1:00:46] back and

[1:00:48] forth

[1:00:48] , um i

[1:00:48] feel like

[1:00:49] we've

[1:00:51] gotten it to a place

[1:00:51] where I know that I can deliver

[1:00:52] on it

[1:00:53] . And

[1:00:53] that took a

[1:00:54] lot

[1:00:55] of

[1:00:56] time, a lot of time. I think

[1:00:57] it's good. I think

[1:00:58] . I think

[1:00:59] it'd be easy

[1:01:00] to adopt this

[1:01:01] and

[1:01:02] then also provide direction

[1:01:02] that I add a

[1:01:04] provision about an

[1:01:05] audit section. I can

[1:01:06] continue

[1:01:06] to work

[1:01:07] with whomever to add

[1:01:08] that in there, but I know I can

[1:01:09] deliver on

[1:01:10] the policy as the

[1:01:11] way that it stands, and it took

[1:01:12] a lot of time to get there

[1:01:14] .

[1:01:15] What all that

[1:01:15] . Well

[1:01:16] , I do want

[1:01:18] to a provision and I would like

[1:01:20] Time to, I

[1:01:22] , I don't know if

[1:01:22] this

[1:01:22] was

[1:01:22] delivered

[1:01:23] electronically and

[1:01:24] I missed

[1:01:24] it

[1:01:25] or the first time, this

[1:01:26] , yeah,

[1:01:26] this is the first

[1:01:27] , this was

[1:01:27] sent

[1:01:29] to them. I always get, you

[1:01:29] know, I don't want to

[1:01:30] send

[1:01:31] anything to y'all in

[1:01:31] general

[1:01:33] ,

[1:01:33] ok, I mean

[1:01:33] , I

[1:01:34] , I

[1:01:35] , um, some of

[1:01:36] the things you pointed out

[1:01:37] , I

[1:01:38] think are important, I

[1:01:39] guess

[1:01:40] ,

[1:01:40] if they

[1:01:40] were in a

[1:01:42] draft before

[1:01:42] and taken out, then that's one

[1:01:43] thing that

[1:01:44] they were never in

[1:01:45] the draft originally, you know

[1:01:46] ,

[1:01:47] like, uh, you know, like I

[1:01:47] think

[1:01:49] . Someone who wants to

[1:01:50] look

[1:01:51] at

[1:01:51] it

[1:01:51] and

[1:01:51] have input or

[1:01:53] or

[1:01:53] whatever, um, you know, can

[1:01:54] have time to

[1:01:55] do

[1:01:56] so. I mean,

[1:01:56] we'll have to use

[1:01:58] some ai to

[1:01:58] look at the

[1:02:00] different versions.

[1:02:00] He says he's got a

[1:02:02] red light

[1:02:02] you got a red

[1:02:05] line already, it

[1:02:05] already did that. So I

[1:02:06] , I mean,

[1:02:07] I don't know, but I mean like

[1:02:07] some of

[1:02:09] the things I, I think

[1:02:10] are critical, you know

[1:02:11] , and if

[1:02:12] James thinks

[1:02:12] . I

[1:02:12] just don't

[1:02:13] know

[1:02:14] what else besides

[1:02:14] the

[1:02:15] audit,

[1:02:16] you know, that, I mean

[1:02:16] ,

[1:02:17] obviously Rudy

[1:02:18] , you felt like a

[1:02:18] number of these things were

[1:02:19] critical

[1:02:20] to go

[1:02:20] ahead and data,

[1:02:21] data privacy

[1:02:22] and governance. I

[1:02:23] mean, for

[1:02:23] example, I think I

[1:02:25] think that's addressed in here.

[1:02:26] So part of this, one of the

[1:02:27] deliverables

[1:02:27] is that I'll work

[1:02:28] with Mike

[1:02:29] and we'll put

[1:02:30] together some sort of a

[1:02:31] a rider

[1:02:32] that goes on top of. So when

[1:02:33] these contracts come up

[1:02:34] for

[1:02:34] renewal, whether they're low

[1:02:35] ,

[1:02:36] moderate, or high risk

[1:02:36] , we

[1:02:37] will

[1:02:38] apply that to that

[1:02:39] . And if it's

[1:02:39] I

[1:02:41] think it's if

[1:02:41] it's moderate

[1:02:42] or high risk

[1:02:42] . And

[1:02:43] they don't

[1:02:43] accept it, then I would bring

[1:02:45] it for discussion at high risk,

[1:02:46] high risk

[1:02:47] for sure only comes

[1:02:48] to counsel moderate, though,

[1:02:48] what we

[1:02:49] , what

[1:02:50] we decided on

[1:02:50] was

[1:02:50] basically at the

[1:02:52] city

[1:02:52] attorney's

[1:02:53] discretion

[1:02:54] that what

[1:02:54] the vendor has

[1:02:55] proposed

[1:02:56] is

[1:02:56] materially

[1:02:57] . That's the same

[1:02:58] or

[1:02:58] covers the

[1:02:59] same risks. I think,

[1:02:59] I think the other

[1:03:01] thing too is

[1:03:01] like we could go back

[1:03:03] and add

[1:03:03] an audit thing. Personally, I

[1:03:04] don't need

[1:03:05] a

[1:03:06] policy to

[1:03:06] have

[1:03:07] direction to do

[1:03:07] an audit, right

[1:03:08] ? If I, if I'm

[1:03:09] I'm looking

[1:03:10] around and if I see 4 that say

[1:03:11] I want to do, honestly

[1:03:12] , I'm

[1:03:12] gonna do it

[1:03:12] anyways after

[1:03:13] recent

[1:03:14] events

[1:03:15] , um, particularly

[1:03:15] with our high use one

[1:03:16] . I'm

[1:03:17] gonna do that anyway, so you'll

[1:03:17] need to direct me to do that.

[1:03:18] I'm just gonna

[1:03:19] do

[1:03:19] it

[1:03:19] . Um

[1:03:19] , so I

[1:03:20] think I'm

[1:03:21] very comfortable with

[1:03:22] the way the policy

[1:03:23] reads right

[1:03:24] now. I know I can deliver on it

[1:03:24] and I will

[1:03:26] most certainly make

[1:03:26] sure to do audits

[1:03:28] . On our high

[1:03:28] risk stuff. I think it does

[1:03:29] make sense

[1:03:30] to memorialize some

[1:03:31] of those things. I

[1:03:32] do have one

[1:03:33] question. I'm not sure if

[1:03:33] this

[1:03:34] is attorneys

[1:03:35] being

[1:03:35] attorneys

[1:03:36] ,

[1:03:37] but, uh, top of page

[1:03:37] 5 on, on

[1:03:39] ,

[1:03:40] uh, the

[1:03:41] , the

[1:03:42] draft watermarked

[1:03:44] version, existing contracts

[1:03:44] shall be brought into

[1:03:44] conformity at

[1:03:46] renewal extension

[1:03:46] material change

[1:03:46] , or

[1:03:48] the

[1:03:48] earliest

[1:03:49] lawful opportunity

[1:03:50] . I

[1:03:50] don't know if

[1:03:51] earliest lawful

[1:03:51] opportunity

[1:03:52] is

[1:03:53] there intended

[1:03:54] to mean

[1:03:55] before those things or

[1:03:56] after those things because it's

[1:03:57] Seems like

[1:03:57] those

[1:03:58] things

[1:03:59] renewal

[1:04:00] extension, material change

[1:04:01] should

[1:04:02] all

[1:04:02] be

[1:04:02] appropriate times

[1:04:04] to make changes. I, I

[1:04:04] can't

[1:04:05] imagine any other

[1:04:07] . Scenario, so

[1:04:07] I'm

[1:04:08] trying to understand if

[1:04:09] that's an earlier or

[1:04:10] a later,

[1:04:11] you know, because I don't wanna

[1:04:12] I don't wanna say

[1:04:13] , oh well, the

[1:04:13] renewal is not for 5 years

[1:04:15] , but

[1:04:15] there's

[1:04:16] a

[1:04:17] lawful

[1:04:18] opportunity

[1:04:18] tomorrow so let's do it

[1:04:19] right

[1:04:20] after it then, and then what's

[1:04:22] a lawful attorney and I mean

[1:04:22] there's a couple of those

[1:04:23] things

[1:04:24] that's

[1:04:24] what that's the

[1:04:25] only one that really

[1:04:26] struck

[1:04:26] stuck out to me, and I don't

[1:04:27] know if

[1:04:29] . Yeah, I thought that

[1:04:29] too. I

[1:04:29] was like ok

[1:04:31] , but

[1:04:31] , but I

[1:04:31] ,

[1:04:32] I do wanna are

[1:04:33] we waiting

[1:04:33] 5

[1:04:34] years? Yeah

[1:04:35] . I mean

[1:04:36] , and and

[1:04:36] what lawful, you know

[1:04:37] , it's

[1:04:38] .

[1:04:38] It's

[1:04:40] Those are the

[1:04:42] things that

[1:04:42] they have the little things I

[1:04:43] didn't mention there's

[1:04:44] things

[1:04:45] that can be cleaned up

[1:04:46] , but

[1:04:47] , um

[1:04:47] I'm really concerned about some

[1:04:48] of

[1:04:49] the

[1:04:49] privacy and some

[1:04:51] of

[1:04:51] the

[1:04:52] um vendor use and not

[1:04:53] being

[1:04:54] prescriptive with that because

[1:04:56] of what I've seen in

[1:04:56] my own

[1:04:57] client's lawsuits

[1:04:58] . Like

[1:04:58] it's

[1:04:59] the

[1:05:00] uh like there's nothing in

[1:05:01] here. Let's put it this way.

[1:05:01] Like I said

[1:05:02] , I've

[1:05:02] had 3.5

[1:05:02] years

[1:05:03] to develop

[1:05:05] this. Nothing is in

[1:05:05] here that I haven't

[1:05:07] had

[1:05:07] experience somewhere down the

[1:05:08] line

[1:05:09] , sure. So you think you

[1:05:10] can do it in 2 weeks

[1:05:11] ? Bring it

[1:05:12] back in 2 weeks I think I can

[1:05:12] do it, so I'm

[1:05:16] . Oh, I'm, I'm

[1:05:17] gonna, I'm

[1:05:18] gonna ask, well,

[1:05:18] first of all, Jonathan, I know

[1:05:19] you put a lot

[1:05:21] of time and

[1:05:21] effort

[1:05:22] in

[1:05:23] with

[1:05:23] city

[1:05:23] staff

[1:05:24] . I

[1:05:25] would ask that we expend no

[1:05:27] more than

[1:05:27] 4

[1:05:28] additional staff

[1:05:29] hours on

[1:05:30] it

[1:05:30] , so if

[1:05:31] we can

[1:05:32] get a

[1:05:32] i think

[1:05:34] , I

[1:05:34] think that that'd be

[1:05:35] that'd be my

[1:05:36] limiting factor

[1:05:37] for y'all coming together and

[1:05:38] meeting and knocking it out and

[1:05:39] whatever you got at the

[1:05:40] end is

[1:05:41] done because you know, I'm a

[1:05:41] big fan of

[1:05:43] at

[1:05:44] 95% solution that

[1:05:44] we

[1:05:45] . Can

[1:05:46] actually implement

[1:05:47] and

[1:05:48] has buy-in is a whole lot

[1:05:50] better than 100% solution that

[1:05:50] no one wants

[1:05:52] to do, I think I

[1:05:52] can, I

[1:05:53] think that

[1:05:54] . I could

[1:05:55] mitigate

[1:05:56] . Pretty substantial

[1:05:57] amount of time because I know

[1:05:57] how these

[1:05:59] guys are thinking

[1:06:00] about it, but that's not

[1:06:01] going

[1:06:01] to

[1:06:01] reduce their

[1:06:03] time

[1:06:03] to it's

[1:06:04] it's aggressive for them

[1:06:05] to

[1:06:06] like really dig into it and

[1:06:08] understand it

[1:06:09] . It's I don't

[1:06:09] know what

[1:06:10] a reasonable amount

[1:06:10] of

[1:06:11] in

[1:06:12] their opinion

[1:06:12] , but

[1:06:12] I do

[1:06:13] think some of

[1:06:14] it

[1:06:14] is you had to

[1:06:15] estimate how many hours

[1:06:16] you

[1:06:17] spent on this already

[1:06:19] ? What

[1:06:21] .

[1:06:21] Sorry, I'm

[1:06:22] , I'm

[1:06:23] 60. I've been

[1:06:24] in consulting, so I

[1:06:26] , I mean

[1:06:26] that

[1:06:28] it's probably been, I've

[1:06:28] probably sat down, you know,

[1:06:29] less

[1:06:30] than 10 times and spent a

[1:06:31] couple of hours on it. Ok

[1:06:32] . Oh

[1:06:33] .

[1:06:33] Yeah, we're

[1:06:37] We're, we're at a

[1:06:39] substantial amount

[1:06:40] of

[1:06:40] staff

[1:06:40] investment already

[1:06:41] . Mike, I

[1:06:42] assume you're probably in that

[1:06:42] range as well

[1:06:43] . I

[1:06:46] So I, that was

[1:06:46] a, that was a yes

[1:06:47] . Yes

[1:06:48] . I'm

[1:06:48] sorry. Yes, sir. Yeah

[1:06:50] . Just,

[1:06:50] just

[1:06:51] . For

[1:06:54] the city for the

[1:06:54] court for the

[1:06:55] court reporter

[1:06:57] .

[1:06:58] So I really don't want

[1:06:59] us to,

[1:07:00] to take a

[1:07:00] huge step back

[1:07:01] and

[1:07:02] then

[1:07:03] uh our staff has a

[1:07:03] lot of

[1:07:04] work to get done. We've got a

[1:07:05] lot of

[1:07:06] demands on, on their

[1:07:07] time. I

[1:07:07] don't think anything

[1:07:08] in

[1:07:09] here undercuts what it is

[1:07:10] . I

[1:07:11] think what it is is buttresses

[1:07:11] or

[1:07:13] ads weren't concrete

[1:07:13] enforcement on some of these

[1:07:14] things, but, and I

[1:07:15] think that's

[1:07:16] the key is that, and then like

[1:07:17] some parts that, like I said

[1:07:18] that

[1:07:20] . I

[1:07:20] , I'm telling

[1:07:22] y'all

[1:07:22] this

[1:07:22] like I

[1:07:24] . Causes

[1:07:24] me heartache

[1:07:25] like the suspension

[1:07:26] and

[1:07:27] termination clause in there. I

[1:07:27] mean, these are

[1:07:29] things where

[1:07:30] Mhm

[1:07:31] . I've seen

[1:07:33] bad stuff we

[1:07:34] also have our

[1:07:36] contract isn't

[1:07:36] written well

[1:07:37] to

[1:07:38] cover you, then

[1:07:39] well, yeah, and I mean

[1:07:40] , but it

[1:07:41] goes well, but is this

[1:07:42] , is

[1:07:42] this

[1:07:43] a discussion, Rudy

[1:07:44] , on, on

[1:07:44] our

[1:07:45] ,

[1:07:45] uh, standard template for

[1:07:45] contracts

[1:07:47] . Boy

[1:07:49] , that because I

[1:07:49] know we've got a standard

[1:07:50] template for PSAs and

[1:07:51] a

[1:07:51] standard template for

[1:07:52] construction, right? I don't

[1:07:52] know, Mike

[1:07:53] , whatever, what,

[1:07:54] what other

[1:07:55] templates we have

[1:07:56] ,

[1:07:56] but uh it sounds

[1:07:58] like, you know

[1:07:58] a lot of what I see in there is

[1:07:59] is

[1:08:00] something that we MAY just

[1:08:01] need to adopt as

[1:08:02] a standard

[1:08:04] I

[1:08:05] mean, I

[1:08:05] would hope some of it's

[1:08:05] just

[1:08:07] easy

[1:08:07] to up and

[1:08:09] lift

[1:08:10] because um you know, just like

[1:08:12] when we did, um

[1:08:14] . We

[1:08:14] changed

[1:08:14] the

[1:08:17] definition regarding act of

[1:08:18] GOD

[1:08:18] after the

[1:08:19] pandemic, and that

[1:08:19] was a huge

[1:08:21] deal because we just

[1:08:21] we need no one had defined

[1:08:22] it

[1:08:23] the way it should, and after

[1:08:24] that we had

[1:08:25] to

[1:08:26] Following up

[1:08:27] on

[1:08:28] that same thread

[1:08:30] . Is

[1:08:30] there

[1:08:30] anything that you

[1:08:32] would say is

[1:08:34] Like material to the policy

[1:08:35] that

[1:08:36] counsel would

[1:08:36] . Adopt or

[1:08:37] that

[1:08:38] changes the

[1:08:39] direction of

[1:08:39] something that is in the

[1:08:41] current agreement. And I ask

[1:08:41] partially to

[1:08:43] what the mayor was

[1:08:43] saying is

[1:08:45] If we're

[1:08:45] , if

[1:08:45] there's

[1:08:46] a decent

[1:08:47] number of

[1:08:48] changes or

[1:08:48] updates that we need to make to

[1:08:50] various templates, documents

[1:08:51] ,

[1:08:52] policies. We probably could

[1:08:53] come back and either do a

[1:08:54] separate resolution or just a

[1:08:55] council directive

[1:08:57] to implement

[1:08:57] .

[1:08:57] X, y

[1:08:59] , and z changes to

[1:08:59] the

[1:08:59] contracts

[1:09:01] outside of

[1:09:01] passing

[1:09:01] the

[1:09:03] governance framework

[1:09:05] today

[1:09:06] potentially you make a great

[1:09:06] point. Yeah, Rudy, are

[1:09:07] your

[1:09:08] changes, do you see them as

[1:09:09] changing the vector or

[1:09:10] just

[1:09:10] changing the

[1:09:12] uh uh the extent

[1:09:13] is this, is it, is it

[1:09:15] something

[1:09:15] that you wanna

[1:09:16] . You say, well,

[1:09:16] it's not going the right

[1:09:17] direction or it just needs to

[1:09:18] go further

[1:09:19] . I

[1:09:19] think

[1:09:20] there's a

[1:09:21] it's both because you're

[1:09:22] looking at things, for example

[1:09:23] ,

[1:09:24] for what I said about gender of

[1:09:24] ai, what that policy is

[1:09:26] opposed

[1:09:26] to agenic

[1:09:28] ai

[1:09:28] regarding specific

[1:09:29] employees in the utilization

[1:09:30] on

[1:09:30] it

[1:09:31] . I think the

[1:09:31] vendor

[1:09:32] data use

[1:09:32] Like

[1:09:33] Oh

[1:09:37] . Trust me, I

[1:09:38] yeah

[1:09:39] ,

[1:09:39] right there as well, um

[1:09:42] .

[1:09:42] Required vendor congregation,

[1:09:42] some

[1:09:44] of these things that you

[1:09:44] talked about, you asked about

[1:09:45] whether or not some of

[1:09:46] these

[1:09:46] things can be up and lifted

[1:09:48] ,

[1:09:48] but um

[1:09:49] . I, I

[1:09:51] Like I said

[1:09:53] , I, I

[1:09:53] would not be doing my job if I

[1:09:54] didn't tell you like

[1:09:55] . There's

[1:09:56] nothing in here that I did not

[1:09:58] think was important. Nothing in

[1:09:59] here that

[1:10:00] I thought um

[1:10:02] . Wasn't

[1:10:02] something from

[1:10:04] the onset we

[1:10:04] have on to set as a standard to

[1:10:05] go ahead

[1:10:06] and

[1:10:06] platform moving

[1:10:07] forward. I truly believe like

[1:10:09] .

[1:10:09] Yes, I think we can

[1:10:11] , I think we

[1:10:11] can sit down, knock this out.

[1:10:12] We can

[1:10:13] have something out on

[1:10:14] Monday. I don't, I don't think

[1:10:15] it should be like how

[1:10:17] . Jonathan

[1:10:18] put it, um, I don't know if

[1:10:18] it's

[1:10:20] a

[1:10:20] Vulcan Maya mole

[1:10:21] , but

[1:10:22] um

[1:10:23] I understanding how staff and

[1:10:23] what

[1:10:24] their thoughts are that as

[1:10:25] well, but I think that we

[1:10:26] can

[1:10:27] ,

[1:10:27] this is not something that's

[1:10:28] going to be

[1:10:29] too significant for

[1:10:29] that, particularly during a

[1:10:31] budget season right now, which

[1:10:32] I get

[1:10:38] . What

[1:10:38] was

[1:10:39] it

[1:10:41] everyone's

[1:10:41] expectations that we're going

[1:10:42] to see this for the

[1:10:42] first time

[1:10:42] and

[1:10:44] . Approve it

[1:10:47] . I'm seeing it

[1:10:47] for the first time, so I can

[1:10:48] say I didn't have

[1:10:49] that

[1:10:49] expectation

[1:10:50] . I mean, like this

[1:10:52] draft because it wasn't

[1:10:53] , it

[1:10:54] wasn't yeah, because it wasn't

[1:10:54] included in

[1:10:56] the agenda last

[1:10:56] time and then when I

[1:10:57] asked

[1:10:57] about it

[1:10:58] , there

[1:10:58] , there was the,

[1:10:59] the

[1:11:00] desire to, the mayor did

[1:11:01] put it on the regular

[1:11:02] agenda as

[1:11:03] well

[1:11:05] , if we, and

[1:11:05] this was this

[1:11:06] time and

[1:11:07] that was in the packet

[1:11:07] yeah, yeah

[1:11:09] , I'm. Yeah

[1:11:09] , Rudy's

[1:11:10] draft is brand new, but I'm

[1:11:10] just

[1:11:12] saying this two

[1:11:12] weeks ago

[1:11:12] I

[1:11:13] didn't

[1:11:14] see Jonathan's draft,

[1:11:15] so this is new

[1:11:16] in

[1:11:16] the last few

[1:11:17] days

[1:11:17] . Yeah

[1:11:18] , we're still working

[1:11:19] on it two weeks ago, frankly.

[1:11:19] Yeah

[1:11:21] , that's, that's why that's

[1:11:21] my, that's

[1:11:21] but

[1:11:23] it wasn't, but

[1:11:23] it was in

[1:11:25] the packet so it was

[1:11:25] in the

[1:11:26] was in the it was in the

[1:11:28] was in the it was in the

[1:11:28] council, it is on the regular

[1:11:28] agenda

[1:11:29] this evening

[1:11:30] , um, it

[1:11:30] sounds like we'll

[1:11:31] have

[1:11:32] some

[1:11:32] time to marinate on

[1:11:34] that over

[1:11:34] the next little bit

[1:11:36] , uh, and

[1:11:37] I'm, I'm not sure I have

[1:11:39] . Clear

[1:11:39] consensus

[1:11:40] yet but we'll see

[1:11:41] what we get in the regular

[1:11:42] agenda if we're

[1:11:43] passing it

[1:11:43] tonight we're

[1:11:44] we're postponing

[1:11:46] it to uh have some more folks

[1:11:46] take a pass

[1:11:47] at it. What were

[1:11:48] you trying to say

[1:11:50] ? Well, I

[1:11:50] , I

[1:11:52] ,

[1:11:52] it sounds, some of the

[1:11:53] discussion sounds like

[1:11:54] . It was

[1:11:55] an expectation that we

[1:11:56] were

[1:11:57] going to read

[1:11:59] this for this

[1:11:59] ,

[1:11:59] this meeting and approve

[1:12:01] it

[1:12:01] tonight and not have any

[1:12:02] changes, and I'm just wondering

[1:12:03] if that's

[1:12:03] a

[1:12:05] realistic

[1:12:06] expectation like I, I would

[1:12:06] have

[1:12:08] expected that we would

[1:12:09] have conversations and

[1:12:10] that we

[1:12:11] would have something to

[1:12:11] change

[1:12:11] it

[1:12:12] and

[1:12:13] that it

[1:12:13] would

[1:12:14] possibly

[1:12:15] make sense to bring back in 2

[1:12:15] weeks. So

[1:12:17] coming back in 2

[1:12:17] weeks is not outside of

[1:12:19] my

[1:12:20] expectations of what we were

[1:12:20] going

[1:12:21] to

[1:12:21] have and discussing a

[1:12:22] policy, especially of this

[1:12:23] magnitude

[1:12:24] . Which we

[1:12:25] have

[1:12:26] been

[1:12:26] discussing for months, right

[1:12:29] ?

[1:12:29] And so, um

[1:12:30] . I

[1:12:31] , I understand the

[1:12:31] the

[1:12:33] time that's been spent, and

[1:12:34] I appreciate everyone's

[1:12:35] time

[1:12:35] and obviously we

[1:12:37] wanna finish

[1:12:37] it, put a bow on it and

[1:12:38] be done

[1:12:40] But I think if Rudy has

[1:12:41] real

[1:12:42] concerns, and I, you know, the

[1:12:42] number of things

[1:12:44] he's pointed

[1:12:44] out, like I agree, you know,

[1:12:45] these are

[1:12:46] things that I've seen

[1:12:47] in the business, you know, like

[1:12:48] my clients too, that these

[1:12:49] are

[1:12:51] critical, um, and if they can

[1:12:51] get

[1:12:53] together and

[1:12:53] , and

[1:12:54] understand, you know, what

[1:12:55] the

[1:12:55] changes are, what's

[1:12:56] been talked

[1:12:58] about before and come back in

[1:12:58] two weeks, then I think that's

[1:12:59] the best thing

[1:13:00] . To do

[1:13:01] . Now did

[1:13:02] you have

[1:13:02] any

[1:13:02] specific

[1:13:03] recommendations

[1:13:04] ? Me, no

[1:13:05] ,

[1:13:05] because I

[1:13:06] didn't, you know, I'm

[1:13:07] like I'm reading this, I'm

[1:13:08] like

[1:13:09] everything sounds great, but

[1:13:09] this is not my area of

[1:13:10] expertise

[1:13:11] , which is why

[1:13:11] I'm

[1:13:11] glad other people on council

[1:13:12] have this

[1:13:13] area

[1:13:14] of expertise.

[1:13:14] Absolutely

[1:13:15] , absolutely

[1:13:18] . I'm

[1:13:18] I'm

[1:13:19] fine with doing it either way

[1:13:20] ,

[1:13:21] and we could, we could pass it

[1:13:22] and then come back and

[1:13:23] and

[1:13:24] add

[1:13:25] the items that Rudy thinks

[1:13:25] are

[1:13:27] essential later, or

[1:13:27] we can

[1:13:28] try

[1:13:29] to tie it

[1:13:29] all

[1:13:31] up at

[1:13:32] once. If

[1:13:32] we're going to tie it all up

[1:13:33] at

[1:13:34] once, there's no way we can get

[1:13:34] that done tonight

[1:13:36] . Right? Yeah,

[1:13:36] and I think that's what melt

[1:13:37] and

[1:13:38] I

[1:13:38] think possibly

[1:13:40] 4

[1:13:40] weeks

[1:13:41] because the, you know, it

[1:13:42] , it's

[1:13:43] however long it's going to,

[1:13:43] once

[1:13:45] , once

[1:13:45] the

[1:13:45] council people

[1:13:46] agree

[1:13:47] then

[1:13:47] it's however long

[1:13:47] it

[1:13:48] takes

[1:13:49] , uh, for the city manager

[1:13:50] and the city

[1:13:51] attorney to review

[1:13:52] it and you know, as you pointed

[1:13:52] out

[1:13:53] , Mr

[1:13:54] . Mayor, they have, they

[1:13:54] have

[1:13:55] a

[1:13:56] full

[1:13:57] schedule so it is

[1:13:58] ,

[1:13:59] and, and I apologize. I had the

[1:14:01] same perspective as Melody. I

[1:14:01] thought we

[1:14:03] were just, I thought

[1:14:04] we were going to discuss what

[1:14:05] was presented tonight for

[1:14:06] Jonathan. Right there as well,

[1:14:06] so

[1:14:07] I

[1:14:08] didn't, sorry y'all. No,

[1:14:08] we're

[1:14:10] , we're discussing, we're

[1:14:10] discussing, uh, you're like,

[1:14:11] what

[1:14:12] is the

[1:14:12] deadline that I

[1:14:13] have to have a draft or

[1:14:13] something, and

[1:14:14] that's what

[1:14:15] we'll get it. I guess I

[1:14:16] , I

[1:14:17] haven't heard much more of

[1:14:17] Caesar. I

[1:14:18] , I

[1:14:19] really agree a lot

[1:14:19] with, uh, what Melody said

[1:14:21] , um,

[1:14:21] it's, I'm ok with holding

[1:14:22] off

[1:14:23] and, and that way it gives us

[1:14:24] an opportunity to be

[1:14:25] able

[1:14:25] to

[1:14:26] really fully

[1:14:26] read

[1:14:27] Rudy's draft

[1:14:28] that we just got today and

[1:14:28] digest it and

[1:14:29] see

[1:14:30] if there's,

[1:14:30] what, what

[1:14:31] changes and how and

[1:14:32] .

[1:14:33] What we wanna do, so

[1:14:35] . I

[1:14:36] ,

[1:14:36] Kimberly

[1:14:37] , uh, thank you for

[1:14:37] asking

[1:14:38] . Um

[1:14:39] , of course, um, I

[1:14:41] I

[1:14:41] am concerned

[1:14:42] about

[1:14:43] the number

[1:14:43] of hours

[1:14:44] that have already

[1:14:45] been

[1:14:46] spent

[1:14:46] on this, and then

[1:14:47] I

[1:14:47] keep

[1:14:48] thinking about the priorities

[1:14:49] that we set

[1:14:50] . Um

[1:14:51] , and

[1:14:52] how

[1:14:52] sometimes us going back and

[1:14:53] forth

[1:14:54] , this is, and

[1:14:54] it's

[1:14:55] very

[1:14:55] important

[1:14:57] , um, how going back

[1:14:57] and forth is going

[1:14:59] to take

[1:14:59] additional time away from some

[1:14:59] of

[1:15:01] those priorities we

[1:15:01] did set,

[1:15:02] and it is

[1:15:03] budget season. I

[1:15:04] am

[1:15:04] wondering

[1:15:06] if what has already

[1:15:06] been worked on

[1:15:08] . Could

[1:15:08] be

[1:15:09] approved and

[1:15:10] then

[1:15:10] we build

[1:15:10] ,

[1:15:11] right? Um

[1:15:12] , I'm just wondering

[1:15:13] if. If

[1:15:13] we'll be able

[1:15:14] to resolve

[1:15:15] this. I don't think 4 arms is

[1:15:18] actually reasonable. City

[1:15:18] manager said

[1:15:19] he's

[1:15:19] already spent

[1:15:20] 60 hours. The

[1:15:21] city

[1:15:22] manager has

[1:15:22] said he's

[1:15:23] a

[1:15:24] city attorney is

[1:15:24] about the same, so I just want

[1:15:26] to be very realistic about the

[1:15:27] time that it's going to take

[1:15:28] for us to create

[1:15:29] the

[1:15:30] document

[1:15:31] that satisfies both, and I know

[1:15:31] you

[1:15:33] were working on it and I

[1:15:33] was just sitting here

[1:15:35] wondering

[1:15:35] why another one was created

[1:15:37] . No

[1:15:38] cause I didn't want to review

[1:15:39] ,

[1:15:40] oh, maybe I didn't say it from

[1:15:40] the beginning

[1:15:41] . Once you started

[1:15:42] working with David, I did not

[1:15:42] want

[1:15:44] to have to worry about any

[1:15:45] foreign issues or

[1:15:46] anything like

[1:15:46] that, so I was like, let me

[1:15:47] just wait

[1:15:48] , get whatever the

[1:15:49] final version is, and therefore

[1:15:50] that I'll go ahead and

[1:15:50] give my

[1:15:51] thoughts on the final version.

[1:15:51] I

[1:15:52] , I

[1:15:53] , I mean, and for the

[1:15:54] public, that's one

[1:15:55] of

[1:15:55] our

[1:15:55] big

[1:15:56] issues if you, and you know

[1:15:57] ,

[1:15:58] and I know Kim brought it up a

[1:15:59] couple of weeks ago

[1:16:00] . If you, if

[1:16:00] you don't hear

[1:16:02] from us on

[1:16:02] things

[1:16:03] . It's

[1:16:04] because we worry

[1:16:05] about getting sued

[1:16:06] . It's just

[1:16:07] to be flat out to tell you

[1:16:08] right there accordingly

[1:16:08] and so

[1:16:09] we've got to

[1:16:09] be careful about

[1:16:11] how we if if

[1:16:12] we're

[1:16:13] discussing,

[1:16:14] we're discussing in

[1:16:14] the public

[1:16:14] and

[1:16:15] we're having these

[1:16:16] conversations because we don't

[1:16:17] want people to

[1:16:18] come back

[1:16:18] and

[1:16:19] say, explain to

[1:16:20] them why

[1:16:20] be

[1:16:21] sued they remove

[1:16:22] the prison

[1:16:23] penalty

[1:16:25] . That's true. That is

[1:16:25] true. We

[1:16:27] could actually go to

[1:16:27] jail too as well

[1:16:29] . Open

[1:16:29] open

[1:16:30] meetings

[1:16:31] a real

[1:16:32] thing and

[1:16:32] so we

[1:16:33] we are

[1:16:34] very cognizant of

[1:16:35] , very

[1:16:36] aware of it, so that's why

[1:16:38] you

[1:16:38] don't, we're, we're very

[1:16:39] particular about

[1:16:40] how we operate

[1:16:40] and work

[1:16:43] . All right

[1:16:43] , um, great

[1:16:43] point. Any

[1:16:45] other, any

[1:16:45] other

[1:16:46] comments on this item at

[1:16:46] this

[1:16:47] point? It is on our regular

[1:16:47] agenda

[1:16:49] . All right

[1:16:50] , this time

[1:16:50] I'm

[1:16:51] gonna take us to

[1:16:52] item 3d

[1:16:53] .

[1:16:54] Uh

[1:16:54] , we're gonna retire

[1:16:56] to

[1:16:56] executive session on this one.

[1:16:57] This is

[1:16:58] deliberation regarding

[1:16:59] real property and economic

[1:17:01] development negotiations

[1:17:01] pursuant to

[1:17:02] Section 551.087 of

[1:17:03] the Texas

[1:17:03] government

[1:17:05] code

[1:17:05] related to

[1:17:06] Project

[1:17:07] Opera

[1:17:07] , the

[1:17:07] time

[1:17:08] is

[1:17:09] 6:15. We're in

[1:17:10] executive session. One

[1:33:28] . Evening

[1:33:37] It

[1:33:46] is

[1:33:57] 6:32

[1:34:09] . We've returned from

City Council Worksession 8-25-26

Agenda

Transcript