[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
[7:24] , 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
[47:20] 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
[54:43] , 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