[0:08] All right, we're going to call this
[0:09] regular city council meeting of July
[0:11] 8th, 2026
[0:13] uh to order at 6:01 p.m.
[0:18] We will start with our moment of
[0:19] silence. Please arrive if you are
[0:21] willing and able.
[0:45] All right, we'll proceed into our
[0:46] pledges.
[0:48] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[0:51] United States
[0:59] and justice for all
[1:02] the Texas flag
[1:06] one state
[1:08] one and indivisible.
[1:12] » Thank you all. We'll do our roll call to
[1:14] establish quorum. Uh, council member
[1:17] Crystal Richardson.
[1:19] >> Council member Chris Garber.
[1:23] » I [laughter]
[1:28] council
[1:29] pass
[1:32] >> and mayor
[1:33] >> here. Thank you.
[1:36] >> We'll move into our proclamation. Uh,
[1:38] haven't note that council member Richard
[1:41] too.
[1:42] not to call your office. [laughter]
[1:45] Um,
[1:46] >> I have 603. Uh,
[1:48] >> oh, [laughter]
[1:50] you're right. My phone.
[1:54] >> We'll move into our proclamations and
[1:56] presentations. July 2026 is National
[1:58] Park and Recreation Month in the city of
[2:00] Wood Creek. Uh, please note that we have
[2:02] several parks in the city. Please uh
[2:04] make an attempt to go out and enjoy them
[2:06] when you can. We have Augusta Park,
[2:08] which is where the two August meet near
[2:09] Brook. We have Creekide Park which is at
[2:12] playground. We have the Triangle Park
[2:13] where we have our gazebo. And we have
[2:15] Veterans Memorial Plaza which is at the
[2:17] entrance with the flags.
[2:21] We will move into our public comment
[2:22] portion of the meeting. Please remember
[2:24] the rules. We do not allow profanity,
[2:26] personal attacks, or threats. You will
[2:29] have three minutes to speak.
[2:32] We will start with the in-person
[2:34] comments. And we do have one written
[2:37] comment. Our city secretary will be
[2:38] reading our written comments from now
[2:40] on.
[2:41] >> The agenda item suits.
[2:43] >> Okay, perfect. And um we will be timing
[2:47] the written public comment in order to
[2:50] make sure we can read at a pace where
[2:52] people can understand. If you don't
[2:54] mind, I'm going to take a moment to make
[2:56] the note about that during that item.
[3:06] » All right. First on the public comment
[3:07] list, we have Miss Stewart.
[3:11] Hello.
[3:13] >> Hello.
[3:13] >> Good evening. Good evening.
[3:17] >> Hello. I'm kind of soft spoken. Can you
[3:18] hear?
[3:19] >> Yeah.
[3:19] >> All right. All right. Uh my subject
[3:22] tonight is uh reinstating a budget item
[3:26] funding for speed cushions on the east
[3:28] end creek drive. Uh, dear council, I'm
[3:31] writing to urge you to reinstate budget
[3:34] funding from speed cushions on the east
[3:36] end of Woodry Drive. Slowing down
[3:38] traffic in this area of public safety
[3:40] necessity. Two specific locations
[3:43] require traffic calming to prevent
[3:45] accidents. Near 16 Creek Drive, there's
[3:49] a blind curb. It severely restricts
[3:51] visibility with vehicles are backing out
[3:53] of the driveways down near 7 Wood Creek
[3:56] Drive which is where I live at. Inbound
[3:59] speeding cars appear without warning
[4:01] causing numerous close calls. Installing
[4:03] cushions near 16 wood creek by upstream
[4:06] from there will force drivers to slow
[4:08] down before this blind curve. Uh and
[4:11] then near Wood Five Wood Creek Drive
[4:14] which is the golf course spot.
[4:16] Uh the golf cart crossing here is
[4:18] dangerous. Carts must navigate like an
[4:20] L-shaped path that's keeping them in the
[4:23] roadway longer. Furthermore, heavy shade
[4:26] makes the carts difficult to see during
[4:27] the day. Speed cushions before this
[4:30] crossing by going eastbound are
[4:33] essential to slow oncoming traffic down
[4:35] so drivers can save the gear. I feel
[4:38] like you can kind of guess who's for one
[4:40] there because sometimes it's hard to see
[4:43] the cars crossing. uh investing these
[4:45] speed cushions is a proactive lowc cost
[4:48] measure to protect residents, drivers,
[4:50] and golfers alike. Thank you for
[4:51] prioritizing our community safety. Yeah.
[5:01] Next on our list, we have Miss Liver.
[5:08] Thank you.
[5:11] First of all, my thanks go to the
[5:14] council
[5:16] veneer and our staff who work so hard to
[5:20] make Wood Creek a very special place to
[5:22] build. I have been in Wood Creek 22
[5:27] years and I must say they've been the
[5:30] greatest years of my life.
[5:33] Woodri was just not old retired doctor.
[5:38] It's changed. Our demographics have
[5:41] changed. All the empty lots are gone.
[5:44] Most
[5:46] >> we're a growing city where people want
[5:49] to live. Families, young families with
[5:54] two of the cutest ones you've ever seen
[5:56] from across the street. But and I think
[5:59] of them when I think of the reason we're
[6:02] here tonight and that's asking you to
[6:05] please reinstate funding for the I like
[6:08] to call them traffic.
[6:12] The reason being um we have um a busy
[6:19] road drive being one of the main streets
[6:22] in Woodbury and um people sometimes are
[6:29] speeding. I don't know if they're just
[6:31] passing through or they actually live
[6:33] here, but um the street cushions would
[6:38] really be effective if it placed
[6:42] near my home at 1600 drive and then
[6:45] probably there uh where the land and
[6:49] Michael
[6:50] um and if they if people who are
[6:54] entering Wood Creek, whether they're
[6:56] visiting or residents, when they see
[6:59] that they know that this is a community
[7:02] that prioritize its safety for its
[7:05] citizens, its squirrels, its little
[7:08] farms.
[7:09] >> I've buried many of the squirrel
[7:12] on the tree drive and perhaps
[7:16] I'm more cognizant of that because if
[7:19] you know me, I still love to mow. I
[7:22] still love to pull weeds whether in my
[7:25] uh yard or down to entry. And so I see a
[7:29] lot of uh fastm moving traffic and I
[7:34] would really really appreciate it if you
[7:36] would reconsider
[7:38] uh the funding and add funding for
[7:42] additional speed pushes on your driving.
[7:45] Thank you so much.
[7:47] >> I'd also like to resubmit a
[7:54] petition. Thank you.
[7:56] >> Yeah. uh that was re was was actually
[8:00] submitted last year, but almost everyone
[8:03] who lives
[8:05] from the beginning of Woodbury Creek up
[8:07] to where I think Brent lives signed and
[8:10] is invaluable. Thank you so much.
[8:13] >> Thank you, ma'am. Your time. Appreciate
[8:16] you.
[8:18] >> All right. Next up, we have Mr. Hayes.
[8:26] Good evening, elected officials of Wood
[8:28] Creek and the citizens of Wood Creek. My
[8:30] name is Richie Hayes. I live at 12 Wood
[8:33] Creek Drive and I inviting y'all to
[8:37] reinstate the money for these speed
[8:39] bumps. I want to point out a few things
[8:42] that maybe have been overlooked.
[8:46] On the weekends, we have a lot of golf
[8:50] course traffic.
[8:52] I understand we have a sign posted that
[8:54] says 25 mph radar enforce.
[8:58] It's not being enforced very well from
[9:01] what I see. I've been passed backing out
[9:04] of my driveway and starting forward
[9:06] towards 12 numerous times by cars
[9:11] and I'm asking y'all to please rethink
[9:15] this because somebody's going to get
[9:17] hurt and I do not want to see that.
[9:21] Thank you for your time.
[9:30] » Next up, we have Mr. Pulley.
[9:36] » Yes, my name is Brett Pley. I want to
[9:38] thank you guys again for all the hard
[9:39] work you do up here on the council, you
[9:41] know, representing our community. Again,
[9:43] um that being said, I'm concerned with the idea of this budget. you know,
[9:48] this is something that we thought was
[9:49] kind of a done deal. Space three, we've
[9:52] been told it's coming and waiting. We
[9:54] thought, okay. Um, and for some reason,
[9:56] that thing got pulled. And I I respect
[9:58] the the debate about that and concerned,
[10:01] but I I think it's clear that we really need that speed there. We really
[10:05] want you to put that back in in the
[10:06] budget if you can. Uh, you know, one of
[10:09] the things that's a really dangerous for
[10:10] whatever strip. And I do a lot of
[10:12] walking through here. You can't tell it
[10:14] from the big belly anchor, but um I do
[10:18] walking and walking through that. That
[10:20] is one of the most dangerous stretches
[10:21] for me. When I come to on cycle, I'm
[10:24] like I got to be super careful because
[10:26] this is if I'm going to get it, this is
[10:28] going to be that little stretch of area
[10:29] that I'm going to get hurt. And it's I
[10:32] don't know what it is about it, but it
[10:33] just is people are going fast trying to
[10:35] get to the highway. They forget that
[10:37] we're a neighborhood. You've got
[10:38] families walking that area. You've got
[10:41] kids on bikes. You've got promo
[10:44] bicycles. You've got uh you know a
[10:46] neighborhood that's trying to enjoy
[10:47] their neighborhood. And I think it's
[10:49] critical that you reinstate that, you
[10:51] know, for the sake of our neighborhood.
[10:53] And and [clears throat] we were relying
[10:54] upon that. We thought we had a process
[10:56] that we've worked through for years,
[10:58] Chris, and some of the others I serve
[11:00] with on the council and I thought we had
[11:02] that in place. I thought we were okay.
[11:05] So, I'd like you to rethink that and
[11:07] reinstate that speed cushion. And I
[11:09] think the way to do it is just bring it
[11:11] back as a regular agenda item and then
[11:14] do it as a budget amendment. But we're
[11:16] begging you, you know, to fulfill that
[11:18] promise that you made to us that we were
[11:20] going to get some relief over there. And
[11:22] so we had one discussion. We worked with
[11:26] engineers. We worked with a ton of
[11:28] people. These folks as well as people
[11:30] that couldn't be here today all behind
[11:32] us and they're behind you. And we want
[11:34] to get that back in the budget. So,
[11:36] please do what you got to do to make
[11:38] that happen sooner than later. Again,
[11:41] thank you so much and keep up good work.
[11:43] Thanks. [clears throat]
[11:44] >> Thanks, sir.
[11:47] >> All right. I believe that concludes our
[11:49] public comment period. Uh we will move
[11:52] into our consent agenda. Do I have a
[11:55] motion to approve?
[11:58] >> We approve agenda.
[12:00] >> We have a motion to approve the consent
[12:01] agenda. Seconded by council member
[12:03] Bailey, made by Rosco.
[12:07] All in favor, please raise your hand and
[12:08] say I.
[12:09] >> I.
[12:10] >> Unanimous. Consent agenda passes.
[12:15] We'll move into the reports. Um, our
[12:19] city administrator is out of town, but
[12:22] going to call and zoom in with us
[12:25] here.
[12:31] Sorry, we don't have Thank you so much.
[12:36] » Can y'all can y'all hear me?
[12:38] >> Yeah.
[12:38] we got him.
[12:39] >> Okay. Um just going to be real quick.
[12:42] You know, the sheriff's uh report, he's
[12:44] been active. Um he got several tickets.
[12:48] Um as you noticed, there's uh he's after
[12:51] the ebikes, so he's keeping an eye out
[12:53] for that. And um hopefully that'll
[12:58] come to a head at some point. Um
[13:02] code enforcement uh we had a pretty good
[13:04] busy month of June. Uh we had uh 11
[13:09] vegetation dangerous growth. Um most of
[13:12] them were empty lots, but uh those of uh
[13:15] all but two have been as of last week,
[13:17] all but two of them were open. Um or all
[13:20] but two of them were resolved. Um we had
[13:24] seven trailers, one was left unresolved.
[13:27] We had one trash um you know, junk
[13:30] accumulation that's been taken care of.
[13:31] And then also there was an open burning
[13:34] um um note that we sent out and that's
[13:37] been resolved. uh engineering update. Um
[13:42] the Wood Creek private drive
[13:44] reconstruction, the bids are in Civcast
[13:47] and they're out for bids are due on July
[13:50] 29th. Um they're targeting the August
[13:53] 12th council meeting um to for the bid
[13:56] award. Uh with construction anticipated
[13:59] in September,
[14:01] uh drainage site for the Westwood Brook
[14:04] Hollow. Um they just got their task
[14:07] order uh approved task order in and
[14:10] they're working on um next Tuesday we
[14:13] have uh the next steps which is just
[14:15] kind of a coordination of all that needs
[14:17] to happen uh with the location and
[14:20] easement um with the full set of
[14:24] preliminary plans due around October.
[14:27] Um, also I've talked with the golf
[14:30] course um um contractor that's redoing
[14:35] the cart pass. He's going to we're going
[14:37] to work together with him on the cart
[14:39] path that's in that area as well. So
[14:41] that that's going pretty well. And then
[14:44] city hall updates is pretty quiet. The
[14:46] main thing is we've had a bunch of tree
[14:47] trimming and um removal permits since
[14:51] June 1st or July 1. Is it July? June
[14:54] 1st. Anyways, we've we've been busy. So,
[14:58] uh, that's about it. Pretty short and
[15:01] sweet.
[15:02] >> Thank you.
[15:03] sir. Thank you.
[15:05] >> Um, next on the agenda, we move into our
[15:08] regular agenda. Um, it's the item
[15:11] concerning our audit and financial
[15:12] statements. We're going to start with a
[15:14] presentation on this and then we'll um
[15:17] go with a motion. So, I believe J is
[15:21] online with us now. I just like the
[15:27] What?
[15:31] » We won't be able to project that and
[15:33] have them online. That's why I was
[15:34] asking if we were using that.
[15:38] >> And by the way, the microphones are not
[15:39] hot yet, so y'all don't have to speak
[15:42] into them.
[15:51] » No. Uh, everyone. So, in your packet,
[15:54] um, is the full
[15:56] report on your desk or sorry in your
[15:59] pack full audit on your desk is the
[16:01] report portion only. Um we received this
[16:04] after the agenda was posted fairly
[16:06] recently actually and then additionally
[16:09] council members on your desk at least
[16:11] four of you had a letter that you needed
[16:14] to fill out and send to them.
[16:18] >> Um so if you could make sure to do that
[16:19] before you leave tonight so we can get
[16:21] that to them. That was something we were
[16:22] delinquent on. Um,
[16:25] >> okay. Jeremy, whenever you're ready,
[16:27] we're going to start with your
[16:28] presentation and if we could let him
[16:30] finish speaking before we start asking
[16:32] questions and then we can move into the
[16:34] question portion after we have a motion
[16:36] on the table.
[16:38] >> I appreciate that. Can everyone hear me?
[16:40] All right.
[16:42] >> Yes.
[16:42] >> Okay, cool. Uh, thanks mayor and um, and
[16:45] thanks council for having me here today
[16:47] and allowing me to join join remote.
[16:49] It's kind of a last minute thing. I just
[16:50] had something come up that um you know I
[16:52] couldn't afford the the commute time
[16:55] from San Antonio, but I appreciate the
[16:57] flexibility and the the capabilities
[16:58] that the the council has to let me
[17:00] remote in.
[17:02] Um so everyone got uh the the thick
[17:04] bound uh document um is basically your
[17:08] financial statements for the city of
[17:09] Wood Creek for the fiscal year ended
[17:10] September 30th, 2025. I'll cover a very
[17:13] high level of the the financial
[17:15] highlights uh that I I I feel are are worth mentioning, but I'm I'm happy
[17:20] to go over any details. So, um again, if
[17:22] [clears throat] there's any questions,
[17:23] I'll I'll I'll dive in as as much as
[17:25] y'all want uh to go over. Starting on
[17:28] page one, um a few pages in is our
[17:32] independent auditors report. I do want
[17:34] to mention this is a draft. Um there
[17:36] still can be changes if if if there
[17:38] needs to be, but it's in draft mode
[17:40] until uh council accepts the audit. So
[17:43] once council accepts the audit, we can
[17:45] go ahead and finalize it and provide it
[17:47] to Jim and he can distribute however he he needs to.
[17:51] So uh again starting on page one is our
[17:54] independent auditors report. This is
[17:56] actually only uh two or three pages that
[17:58] belongs to us, the independent auditors.
[18:00] Basically states what we're engaged to
[18:02] do. First uh paragraph is the most
[18:04] important and that's our opinion. Um we did audit the accompanying financial
[18:08] statements for the governmental uh
[18:10] activities. Each major fund and the
[18:12] aggregate remaining fund information for
[18:14] the city of Wood Creek for the fiscal
[18:15] year end is September 30th, 2025.
[18:18] We find the financial statements as
[18:20] presented are in compliance with
[18:22] generally accepted accounting
[18:23] principles. That's the highest opinion
[18:24] you can get from an independent
[18:26] accounting firm. Basically states
[18:28] there's no modifying um statements or
[18:30] departures from GAAP. um in the
[18:32] statements you have in front of you. So
[18:34] it's a clean opinion.
[18:36] Uh the basis for our opinion is is
[18:38] basically stating that we gathered
[18:40] evidence in accordance with our auditing
[18:42] standards required and those are the
[18:43] general generally accepted auditing
[18:45] standards of the United States. Those
[18:47] are the standards we followed to do our
[18:48] audit. We did have a change in
[18:50] accounting principle that was required
[18:52] for the fiscal year and it's called
[18:54] gazsby statement number 101 over
[18:56] compensated abses. those have been that change has been implemented in your
[19:01] financial statements. So um uh that we
[19:05] that was needed to comply with US
[19:07] generally accepted accounting
[19:08] principles.
[19:10] The next few pages is basically more uh
[19:12] boilerplate language on who's
[19:14] responsible for these financial
[19:15] statements and that's management of the
[19:18] city. Our responsibilities is just to
[19:20] issue an opinion and gather evidence in
[19:22] accordance with our standards.
[19:27] Going through the report on page 17 is
[19:30] our balance sheet over the governmental
[19:32] funds. These are the funds that the city
[19:34] manages um on a month-to-month basis and
[19:37] Jim manages on a day-to-day basis. Um
[19:40] but there's major funds that are are
[19:43] more highly active and then there's
[19:45] other governmental funds. We have a back
[19:47] schedule that that still presents all
[19:49] the uh non- major funds but we aggregate
[19:52] them in a single column here on page 17.
[19:56] So, your major funds for the fiscal year
[19:58] were the general fund, the debt service
[20:00] fund, the capital projects fund, and the
[20:03] new drainage fund. Um, previously we had
[20:06] the ARP fund, but through discussions
[20:08] with management, um, we had to rename
[20:10] that to the drainage fund.
[20:15] Uh, your total assets for the fiscal
[20:17] year was 1.1 million in the general
[20:19] fund. Um, of that 995,000 is is embedded
[20:24] in your cash and investments at Texas
[20:25] class and and um your your local bank.
[20:30] Your overall fund balance for the
[20:31] general fund was 1.1 million. Uh 276,000
[20:36] of that was assigned for capital uh
[20:38] projects and the remaining 832 is
[20:41] unassigned for ongoing city operations.
[20:44] Um I will say that 832 amounts to about
[20:47] 15 months of operating reserves. So,
[20:49] it's a very healthy fund balance for the
[20:50] general fund.
[20:53] Um, the rest of the major funds, uh,
[20:55] I'll I'll highlight their ending fund
[20:57] balance for the fiscal year, and it's
[20:59] pretty comparable to the cash balance.
[21:01] So, again, very liquid, um, uh, health
[21:05] for each of the funds presented here. Um
[21:07] total fund balance for the uh debt
[21:09] service fund was 89 uh,000 and that's
[21:13] restricted for debt service requirements
[21:15] um on your your new note or I'm sorry
[21:17] your new tax uh bond. [snorts] Uh
[21:21] capital projects fund was is 518,000
[21:24] and that's restricted for capital
[21:26] projects in accordance with your bond uh
[21:28] proceeds. And then your drainage fund is
[21:31] assigned um based off y'all's um ARP
[21:34] funding for future journey projects. and
[21:36] that was 471,000
[21:39] and that includes not only the corpus of
[21:41] the art funds but also interest earned
[21:43] on on that sitting in the Texas class.
[21:45] So it amounts to 471,000
[21:50] couple pages on page 19 is our income
[21:53] statement for the governmental funds.
[21:55] I'll just cover the general fund because
[21:56] that's the the most activity it was in
[21:58] that one. Um, our total revenues for the
[22:01] general fund was 885,000.
[22:04] Of that, roughly 750,000 of that is in
[22:07] uh taxes. So, it's either property
[22:09] taxes, your heavy heavy revenue source,
[22:12] and then you also get some sales and
[22:14] franchise taxes.
[22:16] Total operating expenditures was 642 and
[22:19] that was all in the general government
[22:21] um of of the general fund. Uh overall,
[22:24] we did increase our general fund fund
[22:26] balance by 170,000. Again, good year for
[22:30] the general fund. Uh debt service uh did
[22:33] have a net increase of 70,000. Our
[22:36] capital projects dipped about 431 and
[22:38] that was due to some completed some
[22:40] ongoing construction projects that the
[22:43] capital projects fund was funding. And
[22:45] then our drainage funds increased by
[22:47] 20,000 and that's all the interest
[22:48] earned during the year.
[22:54] The rest of the the bound document is
[22:56] more uh detailed notes to the financial
[22:59] statements. It gives a little more
[23:00] descriptive language on the balances
[23:02] themselves. I wasn't going to highlight
[23:04] any of those unless there was one that
[23:06] y'all um that caught y'all's eye and I
[23:08] can go into further detail on those if
[23:10] you'd like.
[23:13] >> Does this conclude your your
[23:14] presentation portion
[23:16] >> for the bound document? Yes. Uh do you
[23:19] want me to go into the the report that
[23:20] you was handed out today?
[23:23] >> Yeah. Do you mind? And then we'll just
[23:24] then we'll do the the item and then we
[23:26] can open up some questions.
[23:28] >> Sure. So the the the item that was
[23:30] passed out to you um earlier today. Um
[23:34] again, sorry that wasn't included in
[23:35] your bond pack or your your board packet
[23:37] to to look at beforehand, but I'll I'll
[23:39] cover I'll cover the the highlights of
[23:41] this and if there's any questions um
[23:43] I'll happy to answer them. Um so this is
[23:47] our required communication with those um
[23:49] charging governance or the city council
[23:51] of of the city of Wood Creek. Basically
[23:53] states how the audit went. Um there was
[23:56] again a new accounting policy adopted um
[23:58] starting on page one of the document.
[24:02] There was a new uh accounting uh
[24:04] standard uh implemented that was gazby
[24:06] number 101 again on competences.
[24:09] There's some estimates embedded in the
[24:11] financial statements. We evaluate those
[24:13] and management's estimate estimates and
[24:16] uh they're comparable consistent with
[24:17] the years prior. No no huge changes
[24:19] there. There was some um no there was
[24:23] some difficulties encountered um in
[24:25] performing the audit and that was just
[24:26] getting the trial balance um timely. As
[24:29] you know we we did miss the March 31st
[24:31] uh mandated state deadline. Um and so
[24:35] that was the difficulties the only
[24:36] difficulties in performing the audit was
[24:38] just getting the trial balance and
[24:40] getting the audit started. um timely.
[24:44] There were some corrected u
[24:46] misstatements. There were no uncorrected
[24:47] misstatements in the financials. U
[24:49] management has made all the audit
[24:51] adjustments which amounted to about 20
[24:53] journal entries um in the fiscal year.
[24:56] And I've attached those um towards the
[24:58] back end of the um the letter here. We
[25:01] didn't have any disagreements um with
[25:04] management um or or uh if we did, we
[25:07] would have to disclose that to you.
[25:09] managers provided us everything we
[25:11] needed to conduct our audit.
[25:13] And then y'all did comply with the
[25:15] public funds investment act. And that's
[25:17] um basically making sure that you're up up to date on your investment
[25:21] policy, your train uh your investment
[25:23] officers are are getting their training
[25:25] that they need and comply with that that
[25:27] um investment act and that you're not
[25:29] investing anything um that's not allowed
[25:32] in the investment act.
[25:36] on page three is kind of the the
[25:38] highlight of this um this letter and
[25:41] that's our material weaknesses. These
[25:43] didn't change from the prior year when
[25:45] we came to you in December of last year.
[25:48] Um there was some some some issues with
[25:50] the bank reconciliations again this year
[25:53] and just getting those timely done. So
[25:55] we just recommend that the bank wrecks
[25:57] get uh more timely uh managed and we
[25:59] think the that with the new bookkeeper
[26:01] that that that process is already in
[26:03] place. But during the year it wasn't um
[26:07] wasn't in place and that's what that
[26:08] that's why it warranted the comment
[26:10] here.
[26:12] Also reconciliation of accounts again we
[26:15] had 20 journal entries uh over the
[26:18] city's um fund fund statements and so
[26:21] having the city um reconcile those on a
[26:24] monthly basis or more periodic basis um
[26:27] would give you a true picture of the
[26:29] financial position of the of the city.
[26:30] So, um, getting those, um, fixed up and
[26:33] getting the bookkeeper to to, uh, manage
[26:36] those reconciliations would would go a
[26:38] long way. And that's all I have for the audit, um, presentation. I'll
[26:43] take any questions you have on anything
[26:45] I discuss or the audit process in
[26:47] general.
[26:49] >> Do we have a motion on the table for
[26:51] item number one on the regular agenda?
[26:58] I move that we
[27:00] accept
[27:02] um the audited or receive
[27:06] just accept that we accept the audited
[27:09] basic financial statement and
[27:11] supplemental schedules and independent
[27:13] audit report by ABIP BC for fiscal year
[27:18] ended September 30th 2021. SEI motion
[27:22] made by Mayor Carton Rasco and seconded
[27:25] by council member Richardson as stated
[27:27] in the packet to accept the audit. Do we
[27:31] have any questions or comments at this
[27:35] time?
[27:38] Is that yes?
[27:42] Um
[27:45] could you look at page nine?
[27:49] Sure.
[27:51] Which part? The one in the packet. The
[27:54] balance one. Do you have
[27:55] >> the one that was in the agenda?
[28:03] Not this new one that we just ended up.
[28:07] Um
[28:09] some of these are just maybe there
[28:12] because it's acting so many other things
[28:14] done. But uh on the note it says
[28:20] revenues uh total 1.448
[28:25] which is an increase of 18 percentage.
[28:28] Um you can look at one [clears throat]
[28:30] of above 1.448
[28:33] compared to 1.48
[28:35] and that's not 18%.
[28:38] It's actually 2.9%.
[28:41] And so that note actually came over from
[28:46] the 2024
[28:48] audit.
[28:50] So 2024 audit it was an 18%
[28:55] um difference
[28:57] increase but
[29:00] it's not 18% here. Okay. Um
[29:06] the next
[29:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree. I agree that that
[29:08] number should be 2.8%. 8%.
[29:12] >> Yes.
[29:13] >> Yeah.
[29:15] >> Okay. Um
[29:17] so
[29:20] the same note um it says there's 52,000
[29:25] or just the next note which is a
[29:29] decrease 52,000.
[29:32] It's due to reduced professional
[29:33] services. Um that line is directly from
[29:37] 2024 audit
[29:40] but um those fees were actually
[29:46] the professional fees were 41,000 higher
[29:51] actual to actual
[29:53] and um so I think some of these mills
[29:57] need to be adjusted
[29:59] to what actually happened some of were
[30:04] adjusted
[30:05] requirement.
[30:07] Okay. on page 10.
[30:10] Um
[30:14] this says second paragraph
[30:18] it says general fund was 832,000
[30:23] of total 1.1
[30:27] on the prior year
[30:34] it says the general fund was 377,000
[30:41] Uh later on it goes on to say that the
[30:46] in paragraph three
[30:48] u the go bond series 2023
[30:52] it's 89,000 for debt service and a
[30:55] remaining balance of 832,000
[31:00] on a side.
[31:02] But in 2024,
[31:04] that remaining balance was said to be
[31:08] 377,000.
[31:11] So that is a $454,000
[31:15] change. And so sometimes you'd think a a
[31:19] fund would go down, but this is going
[31:22] up. Now, there's a number that keeps
[31:25] popping up. It's 426,000.
[31:29] Uh that is an adjustment
[31:33] and this may be what's going on now.
[31:37] That's on page
[31:39] 43.
[31:41] >> Can I can I address your number 10 real
[31:43] quick?
[31:44] >> Yes. Okay.
[31:45] >> Okay. So that third paragraph, the 832.
[31:49] So this is just describe that that's the
[31:51] amount that's unassigned for future use.
[31:53] So that that directly ties um to page
[31:58] uh I think it's 17.
[32:01] So you can see the the components of
[32:03] your fund balance. You have some that
[32:05] are committed, assigned, restricted, and
[32:08] unassigned. If you look at the far right
[32:10] column, it's just summarizing those
[32:14] in that paragraph. So, so the 832
[32:18] was related to what was out what was the
[32:20] fund balance for future use at the end
[32:23] of 2025.
[32:25] And I think the difference that you're
[32:26] mentioning the 450 that was because we
[32:30] had a prior period adjustment related to
[32:32] the 4 that the ART funds
[32:37] >> that you mentioned the 426 that that's
[32:39] those were the ART funds that weren't
[32:41] realized and we realized them in the
[32:43] current year.
[32:45] Can you explain uh because there's also
[32:48] a place what's called unearned
[32:51] or deferred revenue is
[32:55] >> okay what you're talking about there.
[32:58] Okay. So
[33:00] when the fire audit says it was
[33:05] um 377,000
[33:08] that was just
[33:12] » that didn't include that that that
[33:14] didn't include that that did not include
[33:16] the unearned revenue of 426 that was in
[33:20] the ARP fund.
[33:22] >> Okay. So
[33:24] >> yeah. Yep.
[33:25] >> And so we realized that revenue in the
[33:27] current year.
[33:29] >> Well, I guess it was a prior period
[33:31] adjustment. So we realized it in the
[33:33] prior year. It should have been it
[33:35] should have been realized in the prior
[33:36] year.
[33:37] >> Yeah.
[33:37] >> Okay.
[33:40] Um the next sentence, general
[33:45] funds.
[33:47] Um,
[33:50] again, this is kind of a lack of text
[33:54] being updated. It says the actual
[33:57] expenditures are 95,000
[34:00] less and that's due to salaries general
[34:03] office expense mini court but in
[34:07] actuality
[34:09] um salaries were down by so this is
[34:12] 95,000
[34:13] 3500 office was over by 9,000
[34:18] and the median court was 5,000 budgeted
[34:23] that's only that's down a,000 of
[34:25] dollars. So what really happened there
[34:29] was
[34:30] the increase
[34:33] the budget was high
[34:37] by about 80,000 on a contract services
[34:42] line but um the actual to actual was
[34:48] 41,000.
[34:50] So these might seem picky block and
[34:53] still an honor should be accurate. So
[34:56] >> I gotcha. And you're referring to the
[34:57] general fund budgetary highlights,
[34:58] correct? That's where you're at.
[35:01] >> General fund budgetary highlights
[35:04] that.
[35:05] >> Okay.
[35:05] >> Yeah, we we we worked with Jim on this
[35:07] to to provide us information on what
[35:10] caused the difference in the actual
[35:12] versus budget. And um so we'll have to reook at that and and give
[35:17] a better explanation on what what caused
[35:19] the difference between actual and budget
[35:22] final budget.
[35:24] >> Um the same goes for the next line
[35:28] 147,000
[35:30] actual revenues. Um that really had to
[35:35] do with franchise fees taxes services
[35:39] and some other income. Um and I just
[35:44] have one more main area to go over
[35:49] now which page on capital assets. Let's
[35:53] just keep on page 10. Um it says that
[35:57] there is an increase of 533,000.
[36:02] Um
[36:05] but our revenue and expense report shows
[36:10] 459,000
[36:13] which your numbers are probably more
[36:14] correct but how where do you find those
[36:19] um capital improvement numbers and is
[36:22] there a place where it's it's summarized
[36:25] because
[36:27] >> okay yeah
[36:29] >> if if you go to page uh sorry It's in
[36:32] the footnotes. If you go to page 31,
[36:44] so that 533,000
[36:47] if you look at this table that shows
[36:49] your your capital assets for
[36:52] governmental activities, if you look at
[36:54] the bottom where it says governmental
[36:56] activities, capital assets, comma, net,
[36:58] it's the difference between your
[37:00] increases and decreases.
[37:02] So the 802,000
[37:05] 426
[37:07] which includes the actual cost of
[37:09] constructions and capital improvements
[37:12] as as well as dep less depreciation on
[37:15] your existing assets and then the
[37:17] subtraction the subtraction is is your
[37:20] disposal of assets and completion of
[37:23] your projects which equals the 269 241.
[37:27] So the sum of those two or the net of
[37:29] those two is your 533
[37:32] 185.
[37:34] >> But is there a place where they are
[37:37] identified?
[37:38] Um let's say
[37:43] okay in our reports we we identify
[37:49] safety enhancement
[37:51] we identify drainage. Is there anywhere
[37:54] in your report where it isolates
[37:57] what has been approved?
[38:00] >> I'm sorry. In my report that what is
[38:02] what
[38:04] >> which
[38:05] items of what capital improvements
[38:09] specifically are?
[38:11] >> No, no, no. We're not required. we in
[38:15] the in the MDNA section which is your page 10 over capital assets we can
[38:20] add some language in there to describe
[38:22] it but it's not required to to be
[38:25] presented we the we do have a schedule
[38:28] that details out what your capital
[38:30] projects are and what each of these
[38:32] buckets on page 31 are what what what
[38:35] land you have what construction in
[38:37] progress building improvements machinery
[38:39] equipment we have details behind all
[38:41] that and what they're still being
[38:43] depreciated fund. Um, and that's just an
[38:46] Excel schedule, but we we have the data
[38:48] behind it, but we're not required to
[38:50] disclose the details um within the the
[38:52] document. It's up to management. If they
[38:55] want to disclose some more information,
[38:57] they can.
[38:58] >> Okay.
[38:59] >> Yeah.
[39:00] >> Um there's
[39:02] differentiation. That was a question.
[39:05] uh the new roads don't seem to be
[39:08] negotiated but there's something right
[39:10] about oh the modified approach where you
[39:14] maintain the roads to kind of the
[39:18] condition when they were first built and
[39:20] you don't have to do separate
[39:23] depreciation
[39:24] but on those modifications
[39:28] is that capitalized or expense
[39:33] » it it depends
[39:35] I would say they're probably capitalized
[39:37] because they're extending the life of
[39:38] the of the asset of the road,
[39:42] >> but it just depends on the the the each invoice, you know, and we looked at
[39:49] every invoice, so
[39:53] >> Okay. Um
[39:55] I think that's all the questions. Thank
[39:57] you.
[39:58] >> Okay.
[39:58] >> So,
[39:59] >> hopefully I answered them.
[40:02] >> Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Bailey.
[40:03] I have notes that we have on page nine
[40:06] and these two corrections to make and
[40:08] then some possible corrections. I'm
[40:10] unclear on that under the general fund
[40:13] budgetary highlights that you just plan
[40:15] to get back with Jim again and verify
[40:16] that information.
[40:18] >> Yes.
[40:18] >> Is that a good summary for you? Any
[40:21] >> Yeah.
[40:22] >> Okay. A little bit of the description,
[40:24] the text.
[40:25] >> Okay. Um any other questions or concerns
[40:29] from other council members? Um, I will
[40:32] open the floor to Jim, but before we do
[40:34] that, I just wanted to take a moment to
[40:37] recognize that this was Jim's first
[40:39] fiscal year um as the city manager in in
[40:43] its entirety and there was a pretty
[40:45] hefty return to reserves under his
[40:48] stewardship and I'm personally very
[40:50] grateful for that. He managed our budget
[40:52] well. Um, of course, some of some of it
[40:55] was due to just other things outside of
[40:58] his control, but it's always u rewarding
[41:01] to see the city administrator returns
[41:03] money to reserves rather than all of us
[41:06] collectively overspending. So, I just
[41:08] wanted to highlight that. Um, and then
[41:10] Jim, he is online. Jim, did you have
[41:13] anything to add or um comment on this
[41:17] portion of the meeting?
[41:22] » [clears throat]
[41:22] >> No, I'm good. Just want to thank Jeremy
[41:25] and his team for all the hard work they
[41:27] did fighting through our our issues, but
[41:30] um it went pretty smooth and we're ready
[41:32] to move forward come October,
[41:36] get on a normal schedule.
[41:38] >> Yeah. And so one of the highlights again
[41:40] of um Jeremy mentioned it this evening,
[41:42] but we do have a new accountant who
[41:44] works for us regularly. we struggled
[41:47] with two previous accountants. Um, and
[41:51] so that that is actually helping us kind
[41:53] of keep pace better. And then we will be
[41:55] ready to start our audit as Jen just
[41:57] mentioned in October as soon as this
[41:59] budget's closed. So we should be in good
[42:02] standing from now on moving forward and
[42:04] we should be able to make that March
[42:05] deadline more regularly now. So
[42:08] >> what's the name of the account?
[42:10] >> They work for the clear cash flows but
[42:14] is mentioned. What's his
[42:16] >> uh Charles Williams is the one working
[42:18] uh under Clear Cle clear clear career
[42:20] doing that for us. He's he's on top of
[42:23] it.
[42:24] >> Yeah.
[42:26] Consent for all that one. Um all right,
[42:29] y'all. Uh are we ready to vote? Any
[42:31] other comments?
[42:33] Um, so just to be clear, because this
[42:36] was a draft and there were some possible
[42:37] edits, will it need to come back to
[42:39] council again or will this we would just
[42:43] accept this? Understanding that it'll
[42:45] come back with edits as a final.
[42:49] » If it were up to me, I I mean, it's up
[42:51] to y'all. We can come back and present
[42:53] again um and [clears throat] give you
[42:55] more time to review and we can have a
[42:57] meeting before and just go over any
[42:59] questions you may have and and changes.
[43:02] But the the changes that were here
[43:04] aren't aren't um material. I don't want
[43:08] to use the wrong word, aren't
[43:10] significant enough um to to warrant not
[43:12] approving, but I understand if you want
[43:14] to table this and and wait till we get
[43:16] the the language in there and then um
[43:18] come back to you and and issue again. I
[43:21] mean, I understand that. I I leave it up
[43:24] to council.
[43:25] >> Okay. If I could make a request that we
[43:27] approve with the event the edits as
[43:30] suggested. um only because we do have a
[43:33] rather large grant that we're trying to
[43:35] get that um us approving would need to
[43:38] happen before the end of the month.
[43:40] >> Mayor Mayor,
[43:40] >> sir,
[43:41] >> I move to approve with items.
[43:43] >> Thank you. So, it's a
[43:44] >> second
[43:45] >> an amendment seconded by Council Member
[43:47] Richardson.
[43:49] So, approve with edits.
[43:51] >> Do second.
[43:52] >> Council member Richardson.
[43:55] >> All right, we'll take a vote on the
[43:57] amendment first. All in favor of the
[43:59] amendment of approval. Question. Um,
[44:02] when would we see the edits of box and
[44:08] » tomorrow morning? I can get them over to
[44:09] Jim. Tomorrow morning.
[44:11] >> Yeah. [laughter] Okay. All right.
[44:13] >> Yeah.
[44:17] » And again, like we've had this draft
[44:19] prepared. Um, and if there's any any
[44:22] time that they can get distributed out
[44:24] to to whoever and we can meet and make
[44:26] these edits beforehand, I'm I'm happy to
[44:28] do that. I'm happy to meet ahead of
[44:30] time. Um, it's it's up to y'all. Yeah.
[44:34] And next year, maybe maybe that's the the route of changes. Hey, maybe we we have a little audit committee
[44:40] meeting uh with some of y'all and go
[44:42] over everything um and make sure
[44:44] everyone's okay so that um
[44:46] [clears throat] there's no none of these
[44:48] changes happening uh kind of last
[44:50] minute. So,
[44:52] um all of our council members do have an
[44:54] opportunity to meet with our city
[44:55] administrator in advance of meetings at
[44:57] any point in time and some of them have
[44:59] set meetings. So, as we move forward
[45:01] every year, it would be good to utilize
[45:03] that meeting for these kind of
[45:04] assessments. We don't have to have
[45:06] gotcha moments in the council meetings
[45:09] regularly. We can't address small things
[45:11] like this, especially if there are no
[45:14] corrections and there's no um dispute
[45:16] over policy or anything like that. All
[45:19] right. Um any other [clears throat]
[45:22] comments on the amendment will hold a
[45:23] vote.
[45:25] All in favor of the amendment to approve
[45:27] with edits, please raise your hand and
[45:28] say I. I. And then that passes
[45:30] unanimously.
[45:33] I move on to the main motion which would
[45:35] read accept of the audited basic
[45:37] financials statements and supplemental
[45:39] SC auditors report by AFPC for the
[45:43] fiscal year ended September 30, 2025 to
[45:45] approve with edits.
[45:49] All in favor raise your hand and say I.
[45:52] >> I.
[45:52] >> Unanimously approved.
[45:55] Thank you. Thank you journey. Thank you.
[46:01] » We will um send out communication from
[46:04] him as soon as we have it for everyone.
[46:08] >> Moving on to item number two in the
[46:09] agenda. This is related to the H County
[46:12] Central Appraisal District proposed land
[46:14] purchase.
[46:16] Do we have a motion on the table?
[46:25] I move that we approve resolution number
[46:27] 2026-07-08-01
[46:31] supporting H county simple appraisal
[46:33] districts proposed land purchase and
[46:35] construction of new facility to provide
[46:37] services to the taxing units and
[46:40] taxpayers of Pace County pursuant to
[46:42] Texas property tax code section 6.0 zero
[46:46] lifetime.
[46:50] » Council member Richardson made the
[46:51] motion as stated in the packet. Mayor
[46:53] Bert Morasco seconded.
[46:56] Um I have a brief statement here to
[46:57] read. Um one, the purchase of
[47:00] construction will come from the CAD
[47:02] budget and not the city's budget. Two,
[47:05] the resolution is a formally required by
[47:07] statute and the tax code to authorize
[47:09] the CAD to move forward. And three, the
[47:11] city council must make a factual finding
[47:13] that the proposed new facility is to
[47:15] expand operations and promote the cat
[47:16] operations to serve both the city and
[47:18] county residents and thereby promoting
[47:20] the general welfare.
[47:23] Um, we did not present a no response to
[47:26] this. Um, it was the only time they
[47:29] needed the resolution was if we were
[47:31] approving it. Um, so do y'all have any
[47:35] questions about this item?
[47:38] >> I didn't want saw it. I didn't want it.
[47:41] >> Uh, essentially they are saying they
[47:43] need to build another facility and this
[47:45] will levy taxes to do so, but it comes
[47:48] out of their portion of the taxes.
[47:51] >> Um, and
[47:54] I don't want to get into the weeds too
[47:56] much because I can't speak for other
[47:57] cities. Some cities might not move
[47:59] forward with this because they felt that
[48:02] it came out a little bit late in the
[48:04] year and so they had more questions. Um,
[48:09] I don't personally have those questions.
[48:12] Um, of course, if you all had them, you
[48:14] have the opportunity to not pass this,
[48:17] but essentially they only need a portion
[48:19] of all the cities in their jurisdiction
[48:21] to approve to move forward. So,
[48:28] no other comments. All right. All in
[48:30] favor of approving the resolution number
[48:32] 2026-07-08-01,
[48:36] please raise your hand and say I.
[48:38] >> I.
[48:39] >> Unanimously approved. Thank you all.
[48:44] [clears throat]
[48:47] » In the morning, we need to send that
[48:48] over to them because they have a
[48:49] deadline. All right, we move on to item
[48:52] number three. This is a discussion about
[48:53] planting seven new trees. Do I have a
[48:56] motion on the table?
[49:02] Uh, a motion to approve the purchase and
[49:04] installation of seven new trees from the
[49:07] city of Wood Creek to be installed by We
[49:10] Love Trees because cost not to exceed
[49:13] $6,000 from the 2026 2027
[49:18] trees and parks budget line item
[49:20] 10-10-554
[49:23] designated for fall 2026
[49:26] planting. A second.
[49:29] >> Council member Gormick seconded. Motion
[49:31] made by council member Swedberg as
[49:33] stated in the packet. Do you mind if I
[49:36] present this item on this?
[49:38] >> Okay. Um [clears throat] first off, um
[49:42] our city administrator has asked an
[49:44] amendment to change the budget line
[49:46] item. um we have a tree fund
[49:50] >> and so we just kind of in our
[49:52] discussions of this moving up to it um
[49:54] sort of forgot that we have an entire
[49:56] fund designated for this purpose. So I
[49:58] would ask that in this meeting we would
[50:00] amend to say tree fund instead of the
[50:03] trees and parks budget line item at some
[50:05] point. We don't have to issue that now.
[50:08] Um letter A has actually already been
[50:11] approved by council. This is sort of
[50:13] just the final approval because we asked
[50:15] the trees and parks board to uh decide
[50:18] the uh type of tree and this was
[50:20] actually their second designation. they
[50:23] originally picked or I don't remember
[50:25] the complete history but at some point I
[50:27] think it was supposed to be a sycamore
[50:28] but arborist on the board recommended
[50:32] not because sycamores prefer more water
[50:34] than this area would provide and so he
[50:37] recommended the cedar m because they are
[50:40] more resilient and this area will
[50:42] receive less water. Um, so that's the
[50:45] history on item A in Dece or actually it
[50:48] might have been November. Um, they voted
[50:50] to say a cedar elm and like I said,
[50:53] council has actually already approved
[50:54] the funding for the planting of that.
[50:56] This would just be the final approval.
[50:58] Um, item B is new and um, something I'd
[51:03] like to recommend if council would like
[51:04] to send that portion to the trees and
[51:06] parks board for a direct recommendation
[51:09] since they haven't commented on that, would be great. Also, city
[51:12] administrator uh Mr. Burton wanted um to
[51:17] discuss the concept that the veterans
[51:19] memorial plaza might be better served by
[51:22] only memorializing veterans there.
[51:25] That's up for discussion and debate by
[51:26] council and of course the tree board of
[51:28] how we install trees where, but I wanted
[51:30] to make sure his opinions on that were
[51:33] noted tonight. And then items C and D
[51:36] are related to the road reconstruction
[51:38] of Western Wood Drive. Both property
[51:42] owners
[51:43] have expressed um interest and favor this and specifically the Cypress
[51:49] Falls side was on board and essentially
[51:52] requested this instead of losing a tree
[51:54] and the Cypress Point side has stated
[51:56] that they are supportive of this um and
[51:59] that they would actually be interested
[52:00] in cost sharing but have reserved giving
[52:04] a final um total on that because it's
[52:06] for one it's a whole board but also um
[52:08] they were kind of waiting to see what um
[52:11] the city plan might look like,
[52:13] especially the cost of it. Okay.
[52:15] >> Mayor, can I ask you a direct question?
[52:17] Um
[52:18] >> could you distinguish between Cypress
[52:20] side and Cypress
[52:22] Oh, I'm in the cycles one.
[52:24] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[52:25] >> So, the lodge area is Cypress Falls.
[52:27] >> Yes. Yeah. So they own one side of the
[52:30] culvert where a large tree is being
[52:33] taken out and then Cypress Point is
[52:34] actually the land owner on the other
[52:35] side Hog Creek and there's um I think
[52:40] three trees being taken down there.
[52:43] >> Um and so this is kind of just our
[52:45] commitment to replace trees that we take
[52:48] down for construction. We have an
[52:49] overall city policy in favoring that
[52:51] kind of thing. Actually it's an
[52:52] ordinance. So this is us kind of acting
[52:55] in good faith in our own construction.
[52:57] That makes sense.
[52:59] Mayor, mayor, sir. Um, I wish to discuss
[53:02] the suggestion of a cedar elm at the
[53:04] Brook Meadow Street Island location. Um,
[53:07] I have cedar elms in my backyard and
[53:09] they have a strong tendency to drop the
[53:10] limb in large and small. So, I did some
[53:13] research to see if that is true for
[53:15] cedar elms in general or just those in
[53:17] my backyard. The research says that yes,
[53:20] as a cedar is a good tree for street
[53:22] islands as they are highly adaptable,
[53:24] resilient native trees that tolerate
[53:26] tough compacted soils, restricted root
[53:29] spaces found in Texas road islands. But
[53:32] because they grow quite large, often
[53:34] reaching up to 70 ft, confined road
[53:37] islands might restrict root systems over
[53:39] time or lift surrounding roadway if not
[53:41] provided adequate room. And to quote the
[53:44] we love trees website, in small road
[53:47] islands in Texas, these trees face added
[53:50] stressors, constricted root zones
[53:52] combined with extreme heat and
[53:54] unpredictable weather swings frequently
[53:56] result in sudden living drop where
[53:59] heavier branches fail without warning.
[54:02] So, the research confirmed my concern
[54:04] and then I did some research on what
[54:06] other trees might best suit this small
[54:08] little roadway location. And the
[54:10] following four trees consistently showed
[54:12] up on all the lists. Texas mountain
[54:14] wool, a slow growing evergreen featuring
[54:18] fragrant purple spring blooms and
[54:20] compact canopy perfect for tight tough
[54:22] spaces. There are already two volunteers
[54:25] at this location, though poorly placed
[54:28] near the edge. Um, Mexican plum, a
[54:31] native ornamental offering beautiful
[54:33] white spring blossoms and attractive
[54:34] bark. I should mention that the that I
[54:37] have several of these and they have
[54:39] three to four inch spikes on the
[54:40] branches, though I do support the idea
[54:42] of planting fruit trees in the
[54:43] community. Desert willow thrives in full
[54:46] sun with high drought tolerance
[54:48] producing trumpet shaped flowers. Texas
[54:52] red bug thrives statewide with bright
[54:54] pink spring flowers and handles
[54:56] reflected heat well. In my yard, I have
[54:58] several of all of the above except for
[55:00] the desert willow.
[55:02] Based on my experience with my trees and
[55:04] the research I've done regarding street
[55:05] trees in Texas, I would recommend
[55:07] council chooses the desert willow to
[55:10] complement the other plantings and
[55:12] volunteers at the Brook Meadow location.
[55:14] Specifically, I think council should
[55:16] choose the cultivora,
[55:19] which is a seedless variety for large
[55:22] fragrant magnolia magenta blossoms.
[55:26] Being seedless seedless helps reduce
[55:28] maintenance for this area compared to
[55:30] other cultivars. Overall, the desert
[55:33] willow is a tough and pretty tree
[55:35] perfectly suited for this location.
[55:40] » May I just say they're not pretty in the
[55:42] winter.
[55:43] >> True. They do.
[55:44] >> I will.
[55:44] >> They're just like sticks.
[55:46] >> They also grow very wide and low. So
[55:49] this area is a little like I'm not
[55:53] disagreeing that would in theory be a
[55:55] good pick. I am concerned about the
[55:57] width of 20 ft at only 20 ft high.
[56:03] So that's they grow like
[56:05] >> so I think that that would actually
[56:07] impede the street pretty significantly.
[56:11] >> Desert.
[56:11] >> Yes. Because they grow wide and low.
[56:14] >> Yeah. So they would be good for like
[56:16] that street island in Wood Creek Drive
[56:20] because it has a wide width, but they
[56:24] like the one that's planted at the
[56:25] gazebo is actually planted too close to
[56:27] the gazebo. The arborist commented on
[56:29] that as well.
[56:30] >> Yeah, I was just trying to state my
[56:32] concern about the the wind drop if I
[56:34] experience it. anytime you have a
[56:36] slightly strong wind.
[56:40] >> So I, you know, especially since it's a
[56:42] roadway, I want to take make sure that
[56:44] we're cons considering that option. Um,
[56:48] if I could, I'd also like to talk about
[56:49] Memorial Park. I do appreciate um Jim's
[56:53] idea. Um, so kind of take that in. I
[56:57] wrote this well before Jim mentioned
[56:58] this, but I wanted to talk about the
[57:00] orchid trees in Memorial Park. Um,
[57:03] they're beautiful spring blue trees.
[57:08] Yep, I'm in right place. And I've had
[57:10] them personally, which may not be an
[57:11] issue for the city if they are planted
[57:13] in a location where consistent mowing
[57:16] will occur as they tend to throw seeds
[57:19] like crazy. Actually, the tree is funded
[57:22] on how it throws seeds. The dry seed
[57:25] pods literally pop and throw their seeds
[57:27] 35 to 50 feet away. I've actually been
[57:30] hit in the face by these seeds. I
[57:32] planted mine in a wide deep garden
[57:35] border. Um, one of my annual tasks is to
[57:38] pull out the volunteers of this tree
[57:40] mates. They are they look delicate, but
[57:42] they are truly Texas. A 2-in volunteer
[57:45] can have an 8 in tap routt. So, I would
[57:49] only recommend that if council decides
[57:52] to go with orchid trees that they plant
[57:54] them in the Greek grass section of a
[57:57] moral park. But if they're plant if the
[57:59] planted to plant
[58:01] in the existing garden beds, I would go
[58:03] with the red.
[58:05] >> Yeah. No, on that one, we were going to
[58:08] let our arborist kind of decide this the
[58:11] place, but u we lost like a whole cops
[58:13] of trees over there a few years back.
[58:16] There was a mistake in direction from a
[58:18] member of the tree board and they took
[58:20] out a bunch of trees they shouldn't
[58:22] have. Um and so
[58:25] uh she was chairperson at the time
[58:27] actually. But uh and so in in my mind
[58:31] this I would hope that they would try to
[58:33] go kind of in that area um to where a
[58:36] bunch of trees were taken out
[58:39] >> in the winter.
[58:40] >> Yeah.
[58:40] >> Wonderful. I'm just thinking of parents
[58:43] during the year.
[58:44] >> Yeah. But we would rely they the
[58:47] intention was not to go in the existing
[58:48] beds and we would rely on a professional
[58:51] to say this is a safe place to plant
[58:53] this or you know we have to look for
[58:55] lines as well.
[58:56] >> Right.
[58:58] >> Can we can we discuss the part about the
[59:00] veterans versus non veterans?
[59:03] >> If y'all feel like you need
[59:06] >> Well, it's it's called Veterans Memorial
[59:08] Park. There's a there's a
[59:10] >> a monument there to
[59:12] >> the circuses. there's the black poles.
[59:15] Um, and and I just wonder there not a committee [clears throat] of
[59:21] veterans that that manage that or would
[59:24] go to approve anything that's going on
[59:27] in there. So, so it's like, okay, so, so
[59:32] I'm not sure who would complain um if if
[59:36] we were memorializing,
[59:38] you know, city leaders, city members um
[59:42] in that way, in that place um that also
[59:45] needs treats. But, um but that's just my
[59:48] thinking on it's like, well, I mean,
[59:50] council would ultimately make the
[59:52] decision whether to put trees there,
[59:54] whether they're veterans or not. We
[59:55] don't know whether um Miss Britner um or
[1:00:00] Mr. Winter were veterans. I mean, we
[1:00:03] probably find that out, but but even if
[1:00:05] they weren't, is this, you know, it
[1:00:07] seems like the most
[1:00:10] logical place to do, you know, special
[1:00:13] memorials. Um and there is a need in
[1:00:17] that location. So, it's just I just
[1:00:18] wanted to sort of bring that up and
[1:00:20] >> see what people think about.
[1:00:22] >> If I may also, u Mr. renter. Actually,
[1:00:24] the member of Wow. James left, but Wow.
[1:00:27] Um, the weeders of Wood Creek takes care
[1:00:30] of the entrance for us for free and he
[1:00:34] was one of the members that used to go
[1:00:35] work there. So, it was sort of like a
[1:00:37] kind of an homage to that work he did
[1:00:39] there. Um, and this idea started for me
[1:00:42] right after his passing, which is
[1:00:43] actually some time ago now, almost two
[1:00:46] years, maybe two years. Um and then when
[1:00:48] Miss Britner also passed away because of
[1:00:50] her lengthy service in the city, I just
[1:00:52] wanted to recognize her as well. Um she
[1:00:54] served on a council for a long time and
[1:00:57] mayor for several.
[1:01:00] >> So um you know I think you know we could
[1:01:04] take each of these as an amendment. I
[1:01:07] would request the first amendment to be
[1:01:08] about the budget to come this would come
[1:01:11] from the tree fund specifically. Sir,
[1:01:14] >> I manage that the funding
[1:01:19] is from to become from the tree fund.
[1:01:24] >> Thank you. So you would to confirm you
[1:01:27] mean you would strike trees and parks
[1:01:29] budget
[1:01:30] line item and instead put like in with
[1:01:34] the number and say tree fund.
[1:01:35] >> Would you like me to fully state that?
[1:01:37] >> No, it's okay. I just wanted authors.
[1:01:39] Okay. So seconded by council member
[1:01:41] Richardson. motion made by council
[1:01:44] member Gart [clears throat] and then um
[1:01:49] we'll go ahead and vote on that just to
[1:01:50] keep this clean if you don't mind. All
[1:01:51] of you heard of that budget change raise
[1:01:53] your hand say I unanimously I on the
[1:01:58] amendment. Um and then if you just take
[1:02:00] each letter you know I hope you all
[1:02:03] approve these all of them. Um obviously
[1:02:05] they're up for discussion. Um because of
[1:02:08] the way this is stated, you can make
[1:02:11] adjustments, but if you make
[1:02:13] adjustments, it likely needs to come
[1:02:15] back because that was not publicly
[1:02:17] noticed. So, for example, if you want to
[1:02:19] reconsider the Cedar Elmont letter A, we
[1:02:23] would either need to send the new
[1:02:25] request to trees and parks or for it to
[1:02:27] come back at a future council meeting.
[1:02:29] By the way, the public is adequately
[1:02:30] noticed on that change.
[1:02:34] Question, if I may. Um,
[1:02:38] it says proposed selections on our
[1:02:41] agenda.
[1:02:43] So, can't council change something
[1:02:46] that's proposed.
[1:02:50] And [clears throat] we're also not
[1:02:51] changing the
[1:02:53] value or a number. We're we're saying
[1:02:58] >> proposed is a blue car. We want a green
[1:03:02] car.
[1:03:02] >> That is not allowed on to
[1:03:06] So, you've got a very specific list of A
[1:03:08] through D. Um, it does say proposed
[1:03:12] elections, but here they are. And so,
[1:03:14] the question is, adequate notice to the
[1:03:17] public under the Open Meetings Act. And,
[1:03:22] [clears throat]
[1:03:22] you know, if you had a discussion to
[1:03:26] formulate what the options will be and
[1:03:29] that was broadly drafted, then then
[1:03:31] you'd have a little bit more discretion.
[1:03:32] But here you've got a very specific list
[1:03:35] that follow specific list and to the
[1:03:39] extent that you know it's if it's if
[1:03:43] it's a dimminimous or a very minor
[1:03:46] change it might be okay under adequacy
[1:03:49] of notice but the best practice is to
[1:03:54] either go with what action is proposed
[1:03:58] and vote up or down on it or bring it
[1:04:02] back to a future agenda which can
[1:04:04] certainly be done. You can direct staff
[1:04:06] say this is what we want. This is the
[1:04:08] direction back and approve it with
[1:04:11] adequate notice to the public
[1:04:14] >> and I will say on letter A in particular
[1:04:16] that's from a report from the tree
[1:04:18] board. So that wasn't something I
[1:04:21] personally generated.
[1:04:23] My con Yeah. My concern is that we love
[1:04:26] trees actually doesn't recommend this
[1:04:29] very tree and we're hiring we love
[1:04:32] trees. So it kind of
[1:04:34] >> So my amendment would be
[1:04:39] um item A and B be sent to the tree
[1:04:42] board
[1:04:44] for review and recommendation.
[1:04:47] The
[1:04:48] >> second. All right. We have a amendment
[1:04:50] to send A and B to the tree board for
[1:04:53] recommendation. We have a second from
[1:04:55] council member Bailey.
[1:04:58] Any further discussion on those two?
[1:05:00] >> They would have um the notes from the
[1:05:02] meeting with the discussion.
[1:05:04] >> Yes,
[1:05:06] that was true. This meeting? Yeah,
[1:05:08] >> from this native.
[1:05:08] >> Yeah. Is that
[1:05:10] >> But I mean just I'm sorry.
[1:05:12] >> I just have a quick question. As far as
[1:05:14] the cedar elm and the risk of the limbs
[1:05:16] dropping, is that minimized by regular
[1:05:19] maintenance by an arborist?
[1:05:24] » Not my experience.
[1:05:27] >> So,
[1:05:27] >> okay, I understand. But I'm going to
[1:05:29] share what I in my research that I did
[1:05:31] in the last couple days. Um, cedar elms
[1:05:35] have very brittle wood. So wind tends to
[1:05:38] break it ver versus other trees that
[1:05:41] tends to have more flexible wood. I
[1:05:44] guess I mean that's based on the
[1:05:45] research I did and that's kind of what
[1:05:48] we love trees. So actually a website
[1:05:51] that I was doing this research from.
[1:05:53] Well, as far as serum goes, you know, I
[1:05:55] was I was in on those meetings,
[1:05:57] discussions and going back and forth and
[1:06:00] Sycamore and Serum and it's that the
[1:06:04] focus I think of the treeboard at the
[1:06:05] time was well, we need something that
[1:06:07] goes tight because it's a fairly narrow
[1:06:10] stretch and you don't want you don't
[1:06:12] want the the traffic block. You don't
[1:06:13] want traffic vision blocked, but you
[1:06:15] want something that's trunk
[1:06:19] >> and leaves. Um, and so it fit that
[1:06:22] description, but there wasn't a real
[1:06:23] there wasn't conversation about sort of
[1:06:25] the downside of one because I we had a
[1:06:27] bunch of CR still and they do smile. Um,
[1:06:31] and it's a win. I mean, so so would regular birth care help?
[1:06:39] >> Um, yeah. But would it solve it? Would
[1:06:42] it I I don't I don't know, but I don't
[1:06:44] think so. I still ask the question is
[1:06:47] deciduous versus evergreen a question
[1:06:50] that we want to consider as we look at
[1:06:52] these trees
[1:06:55] cuz all the rest of them look good in
[1:06:57] the winter.
[1:06:57] >> Do you have a citation for the we love
[1:07:00] trees?
[1:07:01] >> I don't sorry
[1:07:03] >> okay because I'm on their website right
[1:07:05] now and I don't mean
[1:07:07] >> any of that
[1:07:08] >> put in quotes and I just pulled it and
[1:07:10] put it into my notes
[1:07:13] >> so Am I alone on the disc?
[1:07:16] >> No, you're not alone. I didn't mean to
[1:07:18] glaze over it. I just I think it's best we rely on
[1:07:24] professionals
[1:07:25] and all, you know, for this in
[1:07:27] particular. And we can always also add
[1:07:29] on a consultation with we love trees in particular
[1:07:36] um if that was a concern of y'alls and
[1:07:39] they could give a a more indepth answer
[1:07:45] for the for the tree board if y'all
[1:07:46] wanted as part of that. Yeah.
[1:07:50] >> Okay.
[1:07:51] >> Because I was one of the ones who said
[1:07:52] see around the
[1:07:53] >> first
[1:07:58] street.
[1:07:59] >> They're they're all over our city and
[1:08:01] they line their streets already.
[1:08:04] >> I've got too many.
[1:08:12] » [clears throat and cough]
[1:08:17] » Do you have any other comments on
[1:08:19] sending A and B to the tree board and
[1:08:22] offering a consult with we love trees
[1:08:24] for them?
[1:08:28] All right. All in favor of that mot,
[1:08:30] please raise your hand and say I. Um,
[1:08:33] all five passes
[1:08:35] unanimously. Um, that leaves item C and
[1:08:38] D. Um, much like item A, this wasn't
[1:08:42] directly generated from me. I offered
[1:08:45] the opportunity of a possible tree
[1:08:48] replacement and the discussions with
[1:08:50] these individuals. Cypress Falls or Miss
[1:08:54] Hasty in particular appreciated the bald
[1:08:56] Cypress
[1:08:59] petition specifically. Um I will say
[1:09:01] that the board chairperson of uh Cypress
[1:09:05] Point made some other suggestions and um
[1:09:09] Mr. Filming um however when I looked
[1:09:12] those up they don't meet kind of like
[1:09:15] our city standards for um the kind of
[1:09:17] trees we prefer to plant by policy. So
[1:09:21] um I did not proceed with some of the
[1:09:23] things he mentioned but um he did he
[1:09:26] basically said yeah you know whatever is
[1:09:28] in the creek you know replace I'm
[1:09:31] quoting sorry Ed if you're listening but
[1:09:35] um so what was selected here were trees
[1:09:37] that are already located in that area
[1:09:40] sycamore
[1:09:42] >> and because we have a policy of uh
[1:09:44] promoting diverse canopy instead of
[1:09:47] three of the same it was you know
[1:09:50] promoted to be three different
[1:09:54] >> we don't need any amendment that's
[1:09:55] already part of it
[1:09:58] >> unless you guys want to do something
[1:10:00] else and then I would recommend that you
[1:10:02] bring it back to council so you have
[1:10:04] proper compliance or send it to the tree
[1:10:07] board
[1:10:11] » any further discussion on CN
[1:10:14] all in favor of moving forward with
[1:10:16] those as stated please raise your hands
[1:10:19] and say I
[1:10:20] >> I
[1:10:21] >> unanimously passes. We send the sheet as
[1:10:26] that just occurred. But we have to go
[1:10:28] back and redo all of the main motion
[1:10:30] together with all of these amendments.
[1:10:32] So C and D have been approved. A and B
[1:10:34] would be sent to the tree board and then
[1:10:37] we'll do the main motion with those
[1:10:38] amendments. So I'll read that now. Are
[1:10:40] you ready? All right. So, the motion as
[1:10:42] amended will state to approve the
[1:10:44] purchase and installation of seven new
[1:10:46] trees in the city of Wood Creek to be
[1:10:48] installed by We Love Tree cost not to
[1:10:50] exceed $6,000 from the 2026 2027 tree
[1:10:53] fund designated for fall 2026 planting
[1:10:57] with A and B to be sent to the tree
[1:10:59] board or consult
[1:11:03] in addition with we love trees. I added
[1:11:04] that it's not an official per amendment
[1:11:07] though. and then C and D would be
[1:11:09] approved as is.
[1:11:12] All in favor of the amended motion,
[1:11:14] please raise your hands and say I.
[1:11:16] >> Unanimously passes with those
[1:11:18] amendments.
[1:11:24] All right, we'll move on to item number
[1:11:26] four. Um, this has actually been
[1:11:29] postponed because we do not have the
[1:11:30] report from the trees and parks board.
[1:11:32] They requested a secondary meeting to
[1:11:35] discuss the topic because they wanted to
[1:11:38] go out and personally spend a little bit
[1:11:40] more time on this and do a little bit
[1:11:42] more research on their own before they
[1:11:43] issued a report to us. So, we will not
[1:11:45] be taking up item number four.
[1:11:51] [clears throat] We'll move on to item
[1:11:52] number five which is related to a
[1:11:55] schedule for routine mat maintenance
[1:11:57] contract review and policy review for
[1:12:00] the city.
[1:12:01] Sir,
[1:12:02] >> I move that council direct staff and or
[1:12:04] city attorney to make the following
[1:12:05] edits and return the draft resolution to
[1:12:07] council for approval. The edits are to
[1:12:10] remove the third and final resolved
[1:12:12] section from this resolution and any
[1:12:15] creation of a threshold higher for
[1:12:17] submission of an item to council's
[1:12:19] agenda or council's final approval on
[1:12:22] any item on council's agenda legally
[1:12:25] required by state law and remove the
[1:12:29] entire section regarding policy and any
[1:12:31] reference in the document pertaining to
[1:12:33] such specifically the whereas statement
[1:12:36] about excessive and redundant policy
[1:12:38] review, leaving only the sections named
[1:12:41] infrastructure and asset maintenance and
[1:12:43] contract services. And that the
[1:12:45] resolution makes clear that only those
[1:12:47] two sections are being addressed by this
[1:12:49] draft resolution, including in the
[1:12:51] whereas and results section.
[1:12:59] » Motion fails for lack of a second. Do we
[1:13:01] have a secondary motion on the table?
[1:13:08] I move that we approve resolution number
[1:13:12] 2026-07-08-02
[1:13:15] establishing schedule for routine
[1:13:17] maintenance contract review and policy
[1:13:20] review for the city review.
[1:13:25] » Seconded
[1:13:27] by council member Richardson. motion
[1:13:30] made as stated in the packet. Do you
[1:13:32] mind if I introduce?
[1:13:36] » Sorry.
[1:13:36] >> Do you mind if I introduce this?
[1:13:38] >> So, uh, this item is something we've
[1:13:41] kind of long talked about. Um, it kind
[1:13:44] of concretes some of our maintenance
[1:13:47] schedules so that um, especially if we
[1:13:50] have any turnover and change of staff.
[1:13:52] Hopefully that never happens, but as
[1:13:54] things do happen, people do wish to
[1:13:56] retire eventually. um this would give a
[1:13:59] clear road map for people moving
[1:14:01] forward. Um the policies themselves
[1:14:05] um they are set so I'll just take kind
[1:14:08] of take it by section. Um we discussed
[1:14:10] in a meeting and set the the numbers for
[1:14:13] procurement and fine balance. The
[1:14:15] investment policy is governed by state
[1:14:17] law. So that means that um the other
[1:14:20] ones are kind of set after each council
[1:14:22] is redone. So at November we have an
[1:14:25] election and so that new council will
[1:14:27] get to set their policies if they wish.
[1:14:30] Um and then the setting of paper of
[1:14:34] record that's kind of a standard process
[1:14:36] we do that every single year at the same
[1:14:38] time. um the records retention policy um
[1:14:42] we you know that is under kind of what's
[1:14:46] require I mean that's a city secretary
[1:14:48] item and the state sort of regulates it
[1:14:51] but this is in compliance with that um
[1:14:55] [clears throat] then moving on with our
[1:14:58] um advisory bodies we ask that they do
[1:15:01] this annually that's in the code but by
[1:15:03] including this in this kind of calendar
[1:15:05] it gives us one place to look for all of
[1:15:07] this of um subcommittees and ad hoc
[1:15:10] workg groups. Um that's something that
[1:15:12] we we dissolve either with an election
[1:15:17] or when the business is vent or we can
[1:15:18] work on them during the budget season
[1:15:20] like if we know we're going to be
[1:15:21] forming like for example when we form
[1:15:23] the road committee for the road bond
[1:15:25] that kind of stuff. Um the comprehensive
[1:15:27] master plan has a plan you know so I'm
[1:15:30] not going to read this whole thing to
[1:15:31] you. Um the the only like the liaison
[1:15:35] policy
[1:15:37] uh is something that you know we're kind
[1:15:39] of like like sort of using that might
[1:15:42] eventually not be on here. Um temporary
[1:15:45] water restrictions we set in in that
[1:15:48] actual resolution. So that mimics that
[1:15:51] um moving on to the infrastructure and
[1:15:53] asset maintenance. These are things that
[1:15:55] we have been doing out of like kind of
[1:15:58] just memory. They have there's never
[1:16:01] been a consistent stated schedule on any
[1:16:04] of these things. And so they were based
[1:16:06] like for example the rainwater
[1:16:07] collection system that's based on the
[1:16:09] recommendations from the people that
[1:16:10] installed it and people that work in
[1:16:13] that field. They need to be checked out
[1:16:15] every couple of years. Um the website
[1:16:18] review that's something that I take in
[1:16:20] all my staff personally and um so that's
[1:16:23] h we do that in January. In fact we've
[1:16:25] done a few of them now. So that will
[1:16:27] probably um at least happen once a year.
[1:16:31] Um but obviously if there are changes
[1:16:32] needed in the meantime, we would do
[1:16:33] that. The golf park crossing, that
[1:16:36] number is based on what we watched since
[1:16:38] we last painted them. So it's been about
[1:16:40] three years since we last painted them
[1:16:42] and they need to be painted again. So
[1:16:44] that's where that number came from. The
[1:16:46] playground wood chips. Um basically this
[1:16:48] just sets out a plan to regularly manage
[1:16:51] them and measure them. The ride ofway
[1:16:53] trees trimming was something we just
[1:16:55] sort of did every two years. and so we
[1:16:56] had to cycle it into the budget, but
[1:16:58] this now concretes that I would like to
[1:17:01] make a minor edit to strike starting
[1:17:02] year 2026 because it's it's not needed.
[1:17:05] Um the way this was originally lined out
[1:17:08] changed. I added that next review time
[1:17:11] column to give more clear direction so
[1:17:13] people didn't have to sit there and do
[1:17:14] the math. So the starting year 2026 is
[1:17:16] actually um a new point. Now, the
[1:17:20] contract services um that's actually
[1:17:22] where that change came into place
[1:17:24] because council has sort of a standing
[1:17:26] motion that we would in theory review
[1:17:28] these every 3 years and but that motion
[1:17:31] is very very very old. Um the overall
[1:17:34] goal of this policy is not only to make
[1:17:37] things explicit and clear for any staff,
[1:17:39] any council member, any member of the
[1:17:41] public about when we promise to do these
[1:17:44] things. It's also to create continuity
[1:17:46] in our leadership so that we have um
[1:17:50] kind of a very clear direction for the
[1:17:52] city on an annual to like every two-year
[1:17:55] basis and we're not kind of changing
[1:17:58] direction repeatedly. So by clearly
[1:18:02] expressing that we're going to review
[1:18:03] our audit services every three years
[1:18:05] like this, it doesn't become a
[1:18:07] relationship where we make may feel like
[1:18:10] they've done something wrong or we're
[1:18:12] not serving us well. It's a policy that
[1:18:14] we've written in the Greek poo. Same
[1:18:15] with our uh legal representation. At
[1:18:18] five years, council would take up the
[1:18:19] item, talk about it, see if we want to
[1:18:21] go out for um you know, uh proposals.
[1:18:26] Thank you. I couldn't remember it was
[1:18:28] bit of proposal, but it doesn't become a
[1:18:30] relationship where, you know, we imply
[1:18:32] that we're unsatisfied. It's just kind
[1:18:34] of a routine schedule of maintenance is
[1:18:36] the goal for this. I tried to capture
[1:18:38] everything. Of course, if I miss
[1:18:39] something, um, you know, that might need
[1:18:42] to be taken up. The only policy that's
[1:18:44] not in here is this policy itself. Um,
[1:18:47] so that explains that. Does anyone have
[1:18:50] any questions for me about it?
[1:18:58] » Any other comments or concerns?
[1:19:02] >> All right. All in favor? Yes, sir.
[1:19:05] >> I'd like to comment, please.
[1:19:07] To start, remember this is not simply a
[1:19:09] schedule that is being posted on a
[1:19:12] office wall as a reminder to anyone as
[1:19:14] to when it might be good to review the
[1:19:16] listed policies. No, this is a policy
[1:19:19] obscinely restricting anyone from
[1:19:22] considering updating outside of this
[1:19:24] arbitrary timeline.
[1:19:27] Anyone is already free to create their
[1:19:29] own schedule for themselves as to when
[1:19:31] might be a good time to review the
[1:19:33] listed policy. Everyone is free not to
[1:19:36] present up to policy for council
[1:19:38] consideration based on their own
[1:19:40] schedule. This resolution is designed to
[1:19:42] prevent council members who wish to take
[1:19:44] up reviewing or updating council policy
[1:19:47] from submitting and or improving any
[1:19:50] such improvements to their policy.
[1:19:52] Council, I will ask you to consider who
[1:19:55] this resolution serves as it certainly
[1:19:58] does not serve council and their
[1:20:00] legislative duties. It serves to
[1:20:02] restricts council's ability to serve the
[1:20:04] city and its citizens as well as it
[1:20:07] violates open meeting act and the
[1:20:09] attorney general's opinion on such the
[1:20:12] mayor's mindset regarding council
[1:20:14] carrying out their official duties is on
[1:20:16] full display again. She thinks that our
[1:20:19] legislative responsibilities are
[1:20:20] excessive and redundant. This policy
[1:20:23] attempts to supersede or alter our
[1:20:25] conduct of meetings policy by creating
[1:20:28] additional hardships and barriers and
[1:20:30] additional bureaucracy on auton
[1:20:32] council's ability to respond in a timely
[1:20:34] manner to situations as they arise.
[1:20:38] Council needs to remain nimble and free
[1:20:40] to address issues as they see fit. The
[1:20:43] intent of this policy is to make it more
[1:20:45] difficult to present items on council's
[1:20:48] agenda. I mean, what the heck? a
[1:20:49] unanimous vote before even allowing an
[1:20:52] item to land on the agenda
[1:20:54] [clears throat]
[1:20:54] and then creating an additional high
[1:20:57] threshold of a supermajority vote to
[1:21:00] approve that item when no state law
[1:21:02] requires such thresholds.
[1:21:05] The resolution states stated threshold
[1:21:08] of requiring a unanimous vote in order
[1:21:11] for council to submit an item related to
[1:21:13] any listed issue violates the open
[1:21:16] meetings act in that while council is
[1:21:19] free to create a policy governing their
[1:21:22] agenda preparation. The net effect of
[1:21:25] such policies cannot preclude a council
[1:21:28] member from placing an item on their
[1:21:30] agenda for public discussion. Also, the
[1:21:33] attorney general's opinion as to the
[1:21:35] opens meeting that as it relates to
[1:21:37] council's ability to place items on
[1:21:40] council's agenda is that it is important
[1:21:42] to ensure that policy requires no more
[1:21:45] than two council members to agree to
[1:21:48] place an item on the agenda. Attorney
[1:21:51] General number DN-228193.
[1:21:56] As a result, an item can only be removed
[1:22:00] from the agenda by the council member
[1:22:02] who placed it on the agenda or by a
[1:22:04] majority vote of council at an open
[1:22:07] meeting. This re resolution goes far, beyond that. Imagine if council were
[1:22:13] to create a policy that required a
[1:22:15] unanimous vote for any item that the
[1:22:16] mayor may wish to submit to council's
[1:22:18] agenda and that in order for the mayor's
[1:22:20] item to pass required a supermajority
[1:22:23] vote. If that sounds shocking to you,
[1:22:26] and you are not opposed to the mayor
[1:22:28] attempting to obstruct council's
[1:22:30] official duties and their ability to
[1:22:32] place items on their own agenda with
[1:22:34] this ridiculous resolution, I would ask
[1:22:36] that you review your reaction. If you
[1:22:40] are horrified by my hypothetical
[1:22:42] restriction regarding the mayor, how can
[1:22:44] you not be glorified by the mayor's
[1:22:46] attempt to restrict the very legislative
[1:22:48] body that is given the responsibility to
[1:22:51] legislate? We are an aldermatic form of
[1:22:53] government.
[1:22:54] A beautiful, sometimes cumbersome,
[1:22:56] elegant form of democracy. Council is
[1:22:59] the governing body. Council's agenda is
[1:23:02] named such for a reason. It is not
[1:23:04] called the mayor's agenda. It is
[1:23:05] council's agenda. Council is a
[1:23:08] legislated branch of this government.
[1:23:10] Legislative and policymaking power rests
[1:23:12] exclusively with the full city council.
[1:23:15] The mayor is the chief executive
[1:23:17] officer. the mayor execute council's
[1:23:20] action as well as prepares the proposed
[1:23:22] budget and is the emergency manager.
[1:23:24] Nothing in those state listed duties of
[1:23:26] a mayor is about creating policy. That
[1:23:29] responsibility rests entirely on
[1:23:31] council's shoulders.
[1:23:33] If council does move forward with
[1:23:35] approving this resolution as presented,
[1:23:37] let's consider what effect that has on
[1:23:40] council's ability to address situation
[1:23:42] and changes as they present themselves.
[1:23:45] For instance, the city administr
[1:23:48] administrator recently presented to
[1:23:50] council an interesting idea that council
[1:23:52] seemed to support which would require
[1:23:54] council to update the liaison policy and
[1:23:57] create the city clerk as the new leaison
[1:23:59] for advisory boards and remove the mayor
[1:24:01] from that role. This resolution would
[1:24:04] could prevent anyone, council members,
[1:24:06] the mayor or staff from presenting an
[1:24:08] updated liaison policy on council's
[1:24:10] agenda without first obtaining the toma
[1:24:13] violating requirement of a unanimous
[1:24:15] vote. Imagine one member of council
[1:24:17] could prevent the update to the liaison
[1:24:19] policy even though a majority of council
[1:24:22] may support the change or even a
[1:24:24] supermajority as this policy describes.
[1:24:26] This resolution states the first time an
[1:24:29] update to the liaison policy could be
[1:24:31] considered is in 2028.
[1:24:33] Remember this resolution would go into
[1:24:36] effect immediately upon passage.
[1:24:39] You may be thinking to yourself, but
[1:24:41] council would understand that an update
[1:24:43] to the VAN policy would need to come
[1:24:45] before council. Therefore, it is obvious
[1:24:47] that a unanimous vote would be would
[1:24:49] occur. But remember that council is not
[1:24:51] allowed to discuss the content of a
[1:24:53] proposed future business item being
[1:24:55] presented. Coun a council member may
[1:24:58] simply state they wish could bring an
[1:24:59] update to the leaison policy or any
[1:25:02] policy during the future business
[1:25:04] portion of an agenda and council would
[1:25:06] be voting on allowing that item to onto
[1:25:09] the agenda. And yet one nay vote would
[1:25:12] prevent that item being considered by
[1:25:14] the rest of council when if council was
[1:25:16] allowed to consider the item it may have
[1:25:18] passed. So giving the power to one
[1:25:21] member of council to preclude other
[1:25:22] members of council from being able to
[1:25:24] add an item to council's agenda would be
[1:25:27] a disservice to the majority of council
[1:25:29] good leg legislative practice and
[1:25:31] frankly violates TOMA. Again, the net
[1:25:34] effect of city policies cannot prevent a
[1:25:36] council member from placing an item on
[1:25:39] their agenda for public discussion.
[1:25:42] Interestingly enough, I submitted an
[1:25:44] item and received a required second
[1:25:46] months ago to update the conduct of
[1:25:48] meetings policy which includes the
[1:25:50] agenda preparation guidelines. And if
[1:25:52] council were to adopt this resolution
[1:25:54] before you as presented, it would
[1:25:56] prevent my item from coming before
[1:25:58] council. The reason I am bringing this
[1:26:00] update to the count conduct of meeting
[1:26:02] relates to this very issue I am
[1:26:04] addressing which is that I see that the
[1:26:06] mayor is interpreting policy
[1:26:08] restrictions should only be applied to
[1:26:10] council members when policy clearly
[1:26:12] states that is the item not the who
[1:26:15] restrictions apply to. I'm not sure that
[1:26:17] council intended that council members
[1:26:19] would have a more difficult time placing
[1:26:21] items on their own agenda than anyone
[1:26:24] else being wish to place items in front
[1:26:25] of council. I certainly did not intend
[1:26:28] the policy to be applied like that when
[1:26:29] I voted I. The mayor certainly does not
[1:26:32] apply these policy restrictions to her
[1:26:34] own items which she wishes council to
[1:26:36] consider. It should be noted that I have
[1:26:39] submitted items that I ultimately
[1:26:41] withdrew because the mayor created
[1:26:43] additional steps and requirements not
[1:26:45] listed in our submission policy in order
[1:26:47] for my item submission to be
[1:26:51] on the agenda. So I remove submitting.
[1:26:54] That is not how this should work. Nor
[1:26:56] should my mayor consider herself an
[1:26:59] adversary to council legislative
[1:27:01] responsibilities to consider and
[1:27:03] entertain ideas beyond her own. Again,
[1:27:07] this is the same issue. Council's
[1:27:09] ability to place items on their council
[1:27:11] agenda and respond to situations,
[1:27:14] changes, and new ideas. Council's
[1:27:17] legislative duty should not be
[1:27:19] obstructed in this manner and it should
[1:27:21] not be imposed by an arbitrary schedule
[1:27:23] and extreme threshold that is seen in
[1:27:26] this resolution. There is another aspect
[1:27:29] to this schedule that I wish to bring to
[1:27:30] your attention which is that some of the
[1:27:32] policies listed are scheduled for two 3
[1:27:36] and 5 years before allowed to be
[1:27:39] considered by this or any future
[1:27:40] council. Council's terms are for two
[1:27:43] years though staggered. Imagine someone
[1:27:46] running for council on a particular idea
[1:27:48] of updating one of these policies and
[1:27:50] the citizens elect that person to
[1:27:52] office. There is a likelihood if this
[1:27:54] resolution is adopted as president
[1:27:56] presented that they could be prevented
[1:27:59] from ever being able to represent the
[1:28:01] citizens and present the policy update
[1:28:04] to council. Remember, this resolution
[1:28:06] attempts to create a unanimous vote
[1:28:09] threshold to even consider an any of the
[1:28:13] policy items listed.
[1:28:16] But let's break it down to the basics.
[1:28:18] As it currently stands, in order for a
[1:28:20] council member to sit and submit an item
[1:28:23] to council's agenda, they must first
[1:28:25] request a second from another council
[1:28:27] member before during the future business
[1:28:29] portion of an regular council meeting.
[1:28:32] And then the submitted item will be
[1:28:34] placed on council's agenda between 3 to
[1:28:36] 6 months in the future after meeting
[1:28:39] certain requirements such as meetings
[1:28:40] with the city administrator if the item
[1:28:42] proposes to spend money etc. By not
[1:28:45] adopting this resolution as presented
[1:28:48] all that still stands. This resolution
[1:28:51] restricts 30 restricts 36 issues from
[1:28:54] being taken up outside of this arbitrary
[1:28:57] schedule. It creates a total of
[1:28:59] violation by requiring more than two
[1:29:01] members approving placing an item on
[1:29:04] council's agenda. It creates the
[1:29:06] possible violation of preventing a
[1:29:08] member of council being able to submit
[1:29:10] items to council's agenda. And it
[1:29:12] creates a supermajority vote to approve
[1:29:14] such review or updates where no such
[1:29:17] threshold is legally required. It
[1:29:20] attempts to strike at the very heart the
[1:29:22] bedrock principle of council's ability
[1:29:24] to legislate and control their agenda.
[1:29:27] Let the mayor or staff place the
[1:29:28] schedule on their walls as reminders to
[1:29:30] themselves as to when it might be a good
[1:29:32] time to review and take a look at
[1:29:35] updating the policies listed, but leave
[1:29:37] in the dumpster outback any attempts at
[1:29:39] restricting council's ability to respond
[1:29:42] to real life. There appears to be a
[1:29:44] motive of efficiency in this resolution.
[1:29:46] I would argue that it is more efficient
[1:29:48] for this legislative body to get things
[1:29:50] right and working for the citizens of
[1:29:53] our fair city than to simply allow an
[1:29:55] issue to go unreed for years. Sometimes
[1:29:58] getting it right involves trying things
[1:30:00] out and seeing what works and seeing
[1:30:02] what doesn't work. Why would anyone
[1:30:05] consider good practice to restrict their
[1:30:07] own ability to learn and make things
[1:30:09] better? It's amazing this policies
[1:30:12] policy is being presented by a former
[1:30:14] educator.
[1:30:15] I do not believe that it is good
[1:30:17] leadership to set up a situation where
[1:30:20] everyone fails because they place
[1:30:22] arbitrary additional restrictions on any
[1:30:25] attempts to correct or even simply
[1:30:27] review their own work. Life and the
[1:30:30] changes that come with them do not abide
[1:30:32] by arbitrary schedules, nor do new ideas
[1:30:35] and perspectives about issues. Sometimes
[1:30:37] you have to try something out for a bit
[1:30:39] before you realize there are elements of
[1:30:40] it that do not work. Council needs the
[1:30:43] flexibility to easily address those
[1:30:45] non-working elements or changes in
[1:30:47] perspective unobstructed. It should not
[1:30:50] be the mayor's decision as to what
[1:30:51] qualifies as excessive and redundant
[1:30:54] review and updating of policies.
[1:30:57] Council's action should remain with the
[1:30:59] legislative body who to decide on base a
[1:31:03] case-bycase basis. Simply put, this is
[1:31:06] bad policy in its current state.
[1:31:10] >> [clears throat and cough]
[1:31:12] >> Mayor, yeah, if possible, um, maybe some
[1:31:14] clarifications might help. Um, for the
[1:31:18] record, standard,
[1:31:20] city attorney, factually in my
[1:31:23] experience, usually a resolution is a
[1:31:26] directive to staff on administrative
[1:31:29] matters. And usually with contracts,
[1:31:32] contract administration,
[1:31:34] routine review, having a tickler system
[1:31:37] to kind of bring things back to council.
[1:31:40] Um, a resolution is a mere uh statement
[1:31:44] of this administration's
[1:31:47] um approach, directive.
[1:31:50] Um, it is not the same thing as city
[1:31:54] code. the resolution as drafted.
[1:31:59] I did review it. I didn't catch any
[1:32:02] issues. I think that's
[1:32:06] with all due respect to Council Member
[1:32:08] Grummer.
[1:32:10] He's real good at analyzing things and
[1:32:13] spotting issues.
[1:32:15] I I think there's a little bit of overly
[1:32:18] broad concern based on hypotheticals.
[1:32:21] The resolution is preempted by state law
[1:32:25] in numerous ways. Uh first the Texas
[1:32:28] Constitution, you can't bind future
[1:32:30] administrations.
[1:32:32] You can revisit your own motions and
[1:32:35] orders. Um, for example, state statute
[1:32:39] in the financial provisions in the local
[1:32:41] government code, chapter 111,
[1:32:45] a bank depository contract has to go out
[1:32:49] for um solicitation
[1:32:53] every 5 years. You you're not change
[1:32:56] this resolution does not change state
[1:32:59] law. It does not change the open
[1:33:01] meetings act. It's
[1:33:04] more of a
[1:33:08] best practices approach with the intent
[1:33:13] of capturing concepts like contract
[1:33:16] management, revisiting things. It's more
[1:33:18] of a of a
[1:33:21] aspirational approach. It's not
[1:33:24] something that's drafted to prohibit
[1:33:28] this body from addressing things that
[1:33:31] have to be addressed. So, um the the
[1:33:35] resolution is is fine in my legal
[1:33:38] opinion as to legal form.
[1:33:42] Um and it's up to the local governing
[1:33:45] body to make its local rules.
[1:33:49] So, I hope that helps.
[1:33:50] >> Nice. If I may, since it was my item, um
[1:33:56] I I do want to kind of um highlight some
[1:34:01] large or strong wording used. So, this
[1:34:05] does not prevent a council member from
[1:34:08] submitting an item. What it says is this
[1:34:11] is the timeline for when certain items
[1:34:13] will come back up. So, there is no
[1:34:16] prohibited motion there. every November,
[1:34:18] for example, the council rules and
[1:34:20] meeting procedure would come back up and
[1:34:23] a council member could submit the item
[1:34:25] in advance with a second and then the
[1:34:29] reconsideration would come onto the
[1:34:31] agenda and in my mind by asking for the
[1:34:34] unanimous approval that was protecting
[1:34:36] the entire body. That was my intent
[1:34:39] because you all would then collectively
[1:34:42] decide if you wanted to bring back up
[1:34:44] that policy again. And actually there
[1:34:47] was a a history here. So not a future um
[1:34:52] hypothetical that occurred. We actually
[1:34:54] took up the council rules and meetings
[1:34:56] procedure policy I think three or four
[1:34:58] times in a a two month period one time
[1:35:02] uh with council squabbbling over details
[1:35:05] in it. And while I respect that process,
[1:35:08] that was very, very difficult for staff
[1:35:10] and the administrative team leading the
[1:35:12] city at the time because it repetitively
[1:35:15] changed how our meetings ran like back
[1:35:18] to back to back. And so that was part of
[1:35:20] that. Um, so that that isn't being
[1:35:23] changed. You all would still have the
[1:35:24] right to bring things up. It would just
[1:35:26] require all of y'all agreeing to do that
[1:35:28] after you've already agreed to pass
[1:35:30] something. That's the other thing is
[1:35:32] this. These are not new policies. I
[1:35:33] haven't snuck anything in there. These
[1:35:35] are things that y'all all voted on. For
[1:35:37] example, the county council meetings and
[1:35:40] rules and procedure policy you all
[1:35:42] unanimously approved just in January,
[1:35:45] >> right? So to already be bringing that
[1:35:47] back up in three months, I felt
[1:35:50] personally was a little disrespectful
[1:35:52] towards council. The only reason that
[1:35:55] item isn't on an agenda already is
[1:35:58] because council member Gummer expressed
[1:36:00] that he would not be in this meeting
[1:36:01] today. Right. So the next possible
[1:36:05] meeting he could have had it was in
[1:36:07] August because at the timeline of when
[1:36:09] we'd submitted we were already
[1:36:11] publishing the June agenda and he was
[1:36:14] told that agenda was full with other
[1:36:16] administrative items. So he was not
[1:36:18] rejected. He expressed at that time the
[1:36:21] next time would be August. I have with
[1:36:23] him communicated with another item. He
[1:36:27] declined to have it placed because he
[1:36:28] wanted to wait until the entire
[1:36:30] comprehensive plan process was in
[1:36:32] process for the survey questions to come
[1:36:34] back up. He did revoke a surveillance
[1:36:36] policy item. We all had that discussion
[1:36:39] with Stan in a meeting actually where
[1:36:41] the reason I asked for him to have an a
[1:36:45] an additional obstacle as he called it
[1:36:48] is I asked for the policy to be legally
[1:36:50] reviewed and I highlighted that part of
[1:36:52] it was an ordinance and part of it was a
[1:36:54] resolution and that neither portions
[1:36:56] were prepared in those formats and I
[1:36:59] requested that he break them out. I also
[1:37:02] cautioned on the use of government
[1:37:04] surveillance or public surveillance
[1:37:05] terminology and as we presented in that
[1:37:08] meeting that was not the appropriate
[1:37:10] terminology for the security cameras we
[1:37:13] were attempting to assault. So I am
[1:37:14] explaining myself there because I don't
[1:37:16] appreciate the um misconception of my
[1:37:20] actions. Also I just reviewed the
[1:37:22] council liaison policy and actually we
[1:37:24] revoked we repealed the council liaison
[1:37:27] policy. Um what's in place now is
[1:37:30] actually just says I'm the liazison
[1:37:32] which as I communicated in that meeting
[1:37:34] I would still be serving in those roles.
[1:37:36] I just wouldn't necessarily be attending
[1:37:38] the meetings. I would be watching them
[1:37:40] and I would still be the representative
[1:37:41] between the two boards. So that's not
[1:37:44] actually um an issue there either. Um
[1:37:49] you know I I don't think there's
[1:37:50] anything wrong with this policy.
[1:37:52] Obviously I brought it up. Um, I um
[1:37:57] firmly reject the concept that this
[1:37:59] wouldn't apply to me because if I needed
[1:38:01] to bring up any of these policies, I
[1:38:04] would have to follow this policy. So, I
[1:38:06] don't circumvent it. For every item I
[1:38:08] bring to you all, I get a second. The
[1:38:11] only items that I don't do that with are
[1:38:14] not things I'm a sponsor for, meaning
[1:38:15] they're administrative tasks that
[1:38:17] maintenance the function of our city or
[1:38:19] they're coming from other boards or
[1:38:21] other entities. Um and so those you know
[1:38:25] most of that if anything has been new
[1:38:27] has been brought forward with the second
[1:38:29] as well. So, isn't it
[1:38:32] >> I just wanted to say that
[1:38:35] I read this more in the the light of
[1:38:38] what our our attorney said is that it
[1:38:42] struck me from the beginning as things
[1:38:43] that had always been important to me in
[1:38:46] administration of government and that's
[1:38:48] better practices not
[1:38:52] missing deadlines, legal deadlines and I
[1:38:56] and and contract agent
[1:38:59] but that's our our responsibility
[1:39:02] and I just I didn't see anything in this
[1:39:04] that would restrict us from coming back.
[1:39:14] Um well there are a few things already
[1:39:17] that I'd like to see changed. I'd like
[1:39:19] to see golf cart crossing paintings
[1:39:23] more often than every three years.
[1:39:27] That's just not often enough. Um, I'd
[1:39:30] like to see the audit services changed.
[1:39:34] Uh, not limited three years. We
[1:39:37] continued our audit year this year
[1:39:40] because it was necessary for the pro
[1:39:43] progress. I think this is way too far
[1:39:47] and I would like for council member to
[1:39:51] restate his original motion. I was
[1:39:55] trying to understand all the facets of
[1:39:58] it. You know, I didn't have the
[1:40:00] opportunity to um say that.
[1:40:05] >> Well, you did have an opportunity.
[1:40:06] Second, you didn't feel like there was
[1:40:08] enough time,
[1:40:09] >> but I I mean, if I may,
[1:40:12] um to me, the conversations here
[1:40:18] sort of we we agree that you know, a a
[1:40:21] schedule is a good thing. It seems like
[1:40:24] the main sticking point is requiring a
[1:40:27] unanimous vote um and a supermajority
[1:40:31] vote um where I I personally don't think
[1:40:36] that the the schedule or the resolution
[1:40:40] um would suffer by just removing that
[1:40:44] one clause. And I would offer an
[1:40:47] amendment that um the clause on
[1:40:50] requiring unanimous vote
[1:40:53] um for discussion um be scripted.
[1:40:57] >> Second.
[1:40:58] >> All right. Amendment on the table
[1:41:00] strikes under the third resolve
[1:41:04] require a unanimous vote from the
[1:41:06] governing body to take up for
[1:41:07] discussion.
[1:41:09] >> Second.
[1:41:10] >> That's that's great. I don't have a
[1:41:12] problem with that amendment. I would
[1:41:13] like to speak to my intentions that
[1:41:15] someone chose to spoke for for me
[1:41:17] tonight. Again, it's was just to protect
[1:41:20] you all so that we don't have one or two
[1:41:22] council members submitting things
[1:41:26] repetitively or wanting to reconsider
[1:41:28] things after you all have voted.
[1:41:32] So that was it
[1:41:33] >> and that was an amendment.
[1:41:35] >> I would amend second by council.
[1:41:38] >> Oh yeah, I didn't hear that. Thank you.
[1:41:40] >> Thank you. And that is based on reality
[1:41:42] because over the course of the last five
[1:41:45] years that has said occurred at least
[1:41:48] three different times.
[1:41:49] >> What has occurred
[1:41:50] >> where a single
[1:41:53] this is not a hypothetical this occurred
[1:41:55] here
[1:41:56] >> where policies were brought back
[1:41:58] repetitively
[1:42:00] um because a single council member was
[1:42:02] not and it wasn't a single person
[1:42:05] either. This was three to four different
[1:42:07] people bringing back policies every
[1:42:09] single meeting to tweak and tweak and
[1:42:12] tweak because they didn't get their way
[1:42:13] in the previous meeting. So, we spent
[1:42:16] probably about six hours total on one
[1:42:19] policy um ping ponging back and forth
[1:42:21] again in another one.
[1:42:24] I know that you might find no problem
[1:42:27] with that, but I can tell you from
[1:42:29] working with three different
[1:42:31] administrative staffs now that our staff
[1:42:34] does not appreciate when our council
[1:42:37] cannot give them a clear directive and
[1:42:41] stick to it. It becomes very difficult
[1:42:43] to manage this city. We have lost two
[1:42:46] previous city administrators over these
[1:42:50] kind of things. If I'm being completely
[1:42:53] honest, obviously they also left for
[1:42:54] other reasons, but these were huge
[1:42:58] complaints from them. So my goal with
[1:43:00] this was to create a protection for all
[1:43:04] of us and our time and you guys have
[1:43:08] struck that point. So that's address. I
[1:43:11] just wanted to speak for myself instead
[1:43:13] of having somebody um speak for me which
[1:43:16] I don't find appropriate.
[1:43:18] You have spoken twice. Does anyone else
[1:43:20] have any comments? You actually issued
[1:43:23] an original motion, spent over 6 minutes
[1:43:25] speaking the first time. Does any other
[1:43:27] council member have an additional
[1:43:28] comment before Chris Gmer speaks for
[1:43:30] what he perceives to be his second time?
[1:43:35] » No. All right, Council Member Germit,
[1:43:38] >> you have the floor again.
[1:43:40] >> Over the last 5 years of service on
[1:43:42] council, I can easily sum up what I've
[1:43:44] stood up for and my goals as a
[1:43:46] representative of the citizens of this
[1:43:48] fair city. that is that the beautiful
[1:43:50] and elegant system the state has handed
[1:43:53] down to us as an aldermatic form of
[1:43:55] government here in Wood Creek is
[1:43:57] preserved and protected and even
[1:44:00] encouraged to become an exemplary
[1:44:02] example of democracy in action. I have
[1:44:05] run on the very ideal of a government
[1:44:07] that works for the people. Believe me
[1:44:10] when I say I've gained no pleasure in
[1:44:13] calling out where, when, and whom of us
[1:44:16] fail to uphold these others. I
[1:44:18] understand well the experiences of being
[1:44:20] called out for my own failings.
[1:44:23] I have spent these last five years
[1:44:25] researching, questioning, and fighting
[1:44:28] for the system of government by which
[1:44:30] the citizens are best represented. It is
[1:44:33] better to have a team of these five
[1:44:35] elected council members exploring the
[1:44:37] best path forward in representing the
[1:44:39] people than it is for one person to
[1:44:41] attempt to make all the decisions.
[1:44:43] Regardless of how smart an individual
[1:44:45] may be, a single person has a hard time
[1:44:48] finding their blinding spots or those
[1:44:51] perspectives that they have not yet
[1:44:53] considered. Whereas five council members
[1:44:56] of diverse perspectives, experiences,
[1:44:59] and ideas is more likely to find
[1:45:01] solutions otherwise not considered.
[1:45:04] I want to apologize to the mayor for it
[1:45:06] may seem to some that I have been giving
[1:45:08] her a hard time since she has taken this
[1:45:10] on this role as mayor. It is not because I don't think she is
[1:45:16] capable and intelligent and fit for the
[1:45:18] role as mayor. Actually, it is quite the
[1:45:21] opposite. It is because I have such high
[1:45:24] standards for her, having known her
[1:45:26] these many years, serving next to her,
[1:45:29] that I know she is more than capable of
[1:45:31] doing better for working towards
[1:45:33] representing the best of our community.
[1:45:35] It is because I care that she succeeds
[1:45:38] in her role that I may appear to push
[1:45:40] her harder. A long time ago, I
[1:45:44] approached a teacher of mine and told
[1:45:46] her that I felt she was singling me out
[1:45:48] more than anyone else in the class and
[1:45:50] holding me to a higher standard than she
[1:45:52] was holding the other students. Her
[1:45:54] response has always stayed with me. She
[1:45:57] told me it is because she knows that I
[1:45:59] am capable. That is why she is has a
[1:46:02] higher standard of criticism for me. If
[1:46:04] she did not believe that I was capable,
[1:46:06] she wouldn't waste her time. I hold
[1:46:09] grace for all of us to grow and learn
[1:46:11] and become better at representing this
[1:46:13] beautiful messy democracy we find
[1:46:16] ourselves in. But I will also hold the
[1:46:18] sword to fight for council's fundamental
[1:46:21] ability to fully realize, discuss,
[1:46:25] change their minds to create better
[1:46:27] solutions and to allow messy
[1:46:29] disagreements to happen as part of that
[1:46:31] process.
[1:46:33] Things do not become better simply by
[1:46:36] placing them on a shelf unexamined. They
[1:46:39] need to be held up under scrutiny,
[1:46:41] questioned, and called out. That doesn't
[1:46:44] mean you do not value it. It means you
[1:46:46] value it more because you are willing to
[1:46:49] put in the effort. There is a pervasive
[1:46:51] mindset of us versus them in our
[1:46:53] community. But I will point out that very mindset also includes the go
[1:46:58] along to get along which seems to float
[1:47:00] around in the air around here.
[1:47:02] That do not question mindset means you
[1:47:05] do not care whether the something truly
[1:47:08] works or not because you place your own
[1:47:10] feelings of belonging ahead of what
[1:47:12] actually might be right. I will admit I
[1:47:15] have fallen prey to this pervasive
[1:47:17] settling. And what I mean pervasive is
[1:47:20] that get along don't make waves mindset
[1:47:22] expresses itself constantly around us
[1:47:25] including such statements as come back
[1:47:27] to the table to anyone who is different
[1:47:30] points of view than those at the table.
[1:47:33] This mindset is the very process of
[1:47:35] othering those who may disagree with
[1:47:37] your perspective and this othering
[1:47:39] creates you are either with us or you
[1:47:42] are outsider one of them. This mindset
[1:47:45] and its expression is immediately
[1:47:47] created the us versus them divisiveness
[1:47:50] that so many of this administration has
[1:47:52] attempted to fuse in the past. It also
[1:47:55] attempts to invalidate someone's level
[1:47:57] of commitment and voice on an issue. We
[1:48:00] are actually in this together.
[1:48:03] Being a mayor or a council member is not
[1:48:05] an easy thing to do in a small town such
[1:48:06] as ours. But please let us not make a
[1:48:09] disagreement or a mistake become the
[1:48:12] only identifier of a person. While our
[1:48:14] mayor presented this ridiculous
[1:48:16] resolution in front of us is a huge
[1:48:17] mistake. I do not hold this one misstep
[1:48:20] as a sum of who she is. These service
[1:48:23] roles almost require that we will get
[1:48:26] things wrong sometimes. And that is kind
[1:48:28] of my whole point here. We need to allow
[1:48:31] ourselves the ability to learn to
[1:48:33] correct things and to work to make
[1:48:35] things better. The resolution as
[1:48:38] presented assumes that we are living in
[1:48:40] a non-changing world. That council has
[1:48:42] previously made the best version of
[1:48:44] policy ever to exist and no improvements
[1:48:47] can or should be made and that council
[1:48:49] cannot learn anything new or adapt to
[1:48:52] any new new situation that may present
[1:48:54] itself. That is unrealistic.
[1:48:57] It is one of the bedrock principles of
[1:48:59] council's process to review, discuss,
[1:49:02] question the full implications,
[1:49:04] identify, and weigh the pros and cons
[1:49:07] and the context of something in order to
[1:49:09] create the best fit for our community.
[1:49:11] Though I sometimes wishfully entertain
[1:49:13] that I could wave a wand and there would
[1:49:15] never be a conflict, I know that as
[1:49:17] often that very conflict that we should
[1:49:20] be exploring, differing perspectives can
[1:49:23] create innovative solutions. to hamper
[1:49:25] that would to leave possibilities
[1:49:27] undiscovered. Council should continue
[1:49:29] preserving and protecting their
[1:49:31] legislative duties and responsibilities
[1:49:33] from any additional restrictions not
[1:49:36] already given to us by state and federal
[1:49:38] law. We should all stand up and protect
[1:49:40] our obligations regardless of whether or
[1:49:43] not someone else finds our process
[1:49:46] objectionable, messy, inefficient,
[1:49:49] excessive, or redundant.
[1:49:52] Council member Banning requested to read
[1:49:54] your um failed motion. Would you please
[1:49:56] do so?
[1:50:04] » I move that council directs staff andor
[1:50:07] the city attorney to make the following
[1:50:09] edits and return the draft resolution to
[1:50:12] council for approval.
[1:50:14] The edits are to remove the third and
[1:50:18] final result section from this
[1:50:20] resolution and any creation of a
[1:50:23] threshold higher for submission
[1:50:26] of any item to council's agendas or
[1:50:28] council's final approval on an item on
[1:50:31] council's agenda than legally required
[1:50:33] by state law and remove the entire
[1:50:36] section regarding policy and any
[1:50:39] reference to in the document pertaining
[1:50:41] to such specifically the whereas
[1:50:44] statement about excessive and redundant
[1:50:46] policy review, leaving only the sections
[1:50:49] named infrastructure and asset
[1:50:51] maintenance and contract services and
[1:50:54] that the resolution makes clear that
[1:50:56] only these two sections are being
[1:50:58] addressed by this draft resolution
[1:51:00] including the warehouse and resolved
[1:51:01] sections.
[1:51:03] >> Do we have any further That's not a
[1:51:04] motion. Um he did not make an amendment.
[1:51:07] He was responding to your question. Miss
[1:51:09] Leard,
[1:51:10] >> just very quickly, I I believe that
[1:51:12] council member Rasco's
[1:51:15] amendment addresses many of the things
[1:51:18] that council member
[1:51:21] just outlined
[1:51:23] in the ability to bring back
[1:51:26] items to council without the unanimous
[1:51:31] approval of such. That's true.
[1:51:34] >> All right. Any other additional
[1:51:35] discussion on this item? Hearing
[1:51:40] none, you will all have the opportunity
[1:51:41] to vote. All in favor of passing this
[1:51:43] resolution with the amendment to strike
[1:51:45] require unanimous vote from the
[1:51:46] governing body, please raise your hand
[1:51:48] and say I.
[1:51:49] >> You still need to vote on the amendment
[1:51:50] first.
[1:51:51] >> Oh, apolog No, really? I thought that
[1:51:53] Oh, apologies.
[1:51:55] >> Yeah. So, we'll vote on the amendment.
[1:51:56] All in favor of the amendment to strike
[1:51:59] require unanimous vote from the
[1:52:00] governing body, please raise your hand
[1:52:02] and say I.
[1:52:03] >> I.
[1:52:04] >> So, that is a unanimous vote, I believe.
[1:52:06] I Yeah. And then on the full main
[1:52:09] motion, it would be to approve
[1:52:11] resolution number 2026-07-08-02
[1:52:15] establishing a schedule for routine
[1:52:17] maintenance contract review policy
[1:52:18] review for the city of Lake Creek with
[1:52:20] the amendment to strike under the third
[1:52:22] resolve require unanimous vote from the
[1:52:24] governing body to take up this for
[1:52:26] discussion. Please raise your hand and
[1:52:29] say I.
[1:52:31] >> Three eyes. It passes. Nay. Nay.
[1:52:35] >> Two nays.
[1:52:41] And I apologize because um I made a
[1:52:44] statement that this policy isn't
[1:52:46] addressed but it is in the end. I was
[1:52:50] meaning that it's not addressed in the
[1:52:51] chart and I'm sorry about that
[1:52:55] [clears throat]
[1:52:56] >> question on procedure.
[1:52:59] Does this prevent previously approved
[1:53:02] items from coming on to? It doesn't
[1:53:05] prevent them. It would come up in
[1:53:06] November after the election, heard this
[1:53:08] policy, unless a council member wanted
[1:53:11] to bring it up and have a second.
[1:53:13] >> And then your your item can come back in
[1:53:17] August. What this says is that it would
[1:53:19] require a super majority vote to pass
[1:53:21] it. [clears throat]
[1:53:23] >> No, we struck that.
[1:53:25] >> No, we struck unanimous vote for
[1:53:29] my was
[1:53:32] >> Yeah. Uh Jeff made sorry
[1:53:37] required unanimous vote for discussion
[1:53:39] to be stricken.
[1:53:41] That's it.
[1:53:42] >> What I said was that the clause
[1:53:47] >> the clause requiring the unanimous vote
[1:53:49] for
[1:53:49] >> me. That's not what was stated but we
[1:53:52] can retract and go back if there is
[1:53:55] confusion here. What was stated was the
[1:53:57] clause and then you
[1:54:00] >> only read that section. I was motion to
[1:54:02] be considered silent.
[1:54:04] >> I hear you. I'm just explaining that
[1:54:05] when I restated it, none of that was
[1:54:07] ever corrected. When I stated what the
[1:54:09] amendment was, nobody corrected that.
[1:54:12] >> So you're to be clear trying to strike
[1:54:15] the entire resolve section.
[1:54:17] >> That was my intent.
[1:54:18] >> Okay.
[1:54:19] >> And that's what I regret.
[1:54:23] » Okay. So
[1:54:25] we will reconsider the amendment first.
[1:54:29] So everyone's clear. You're striking
[1:54:31] that entire section. All in favor of
[1:54:34] striking the third resolve in its
[1:54:36] entirety, please raise your hand and say
[1:54:38] I.
[1:54:38] >> I.
[1:54:40] >> Unanimous I. All in favor of passing the
[1:54:43] policy with that entire sectional
[1:54:45] struck, please raise your hand and say
[1:54:46] I.
[1:54:47] >> I.
[1:54:48] >> Three eyes. Passes. Nays. Two.
[1:54:52] >> All right. Um, I would like to have
[1:54:55] discussion about your item at a later
[1:54:56] time, Mr. marked and whenever we are
[1:54:59] both maybe of cooler heads and not
[1:55:01] having um been in a meeting with
[1:55:04] everyone for 8 or till 8:00 right
[1:55:07] >> mayor if I make a quick comment
[1:55:10] >> there are always emergency situations
[1:55:12] where you know something can be brought
[1:55:14] to council there always situations
[1:55:19] um that may require revisiting a policy
[1:55:24] or a code for example the state
[1:55:27] legislature passes new rules and you
[1:55:30] need to amend your local rules there. So
[1:55:33] there's there's always situations
[1:55:36] um I'm reading the policy to be a
[1:55:39] baseline for example on road
[1:55:43] um
[1:55:44] >> regulations
[1:55:45] >> regulation
[1:55:46] devices you know the three years is is
[1:55:50] again that's a minimum a baseline. It
[1:55:54] doesn't necessarily preclude
[1:55:57] if there's an engineering study or if
[1:56:00] there's if there's a compelling need to
[1:56:02] bring something back. It's just to
[1:56:05] revisit it every 3 years or whatever.
[1:56:09] And but there's but you can address
[1:56:12] emergency repairs. you can address um
[1:56:16] any needs that the city has
[1:56:20] that if there's
[1:56:22] a legitimate need it can it can be uh
[1:56:25] directed to staff or there's a way to
[1:56:29] get there is what I'm saying. So so
[1:56:32] again you're you're not boxed in
[1:56:35] completely you there is some discretion
[1:56:38] obviously u based on the totality
[1:56:41] surface. So my question is a legal one
[1:56:43] in that it states. So the question is I
[1:56:47] submitted several months ago.
[1:56:49] >> No, in June,
[1:56:51] >> May. I got my second in May. I actually
[1:56:54] submitted it in April
[1:56:59] and I got my second in May or and
[1:57:03] council agreed to allow me to present
[1:57:06] onto the agenda and update to the
[1:57:09] conduct of meetings.
[1:57:11] Council member Grimmer, that is not on
[1:57:13] his agenda.
[1:57:14] >> I'm asking a legal question in regards
[1:57:16] to the resolution we just passed.
[1:57:20] The the the question is does the
[1:57:23] structure of this resolution where it
[1:57:25] says the update to
[1:57:28] conductive uh update to the policy of
[1:57:31] conductive meetings is no longer allowed
[1:57:34] until this dates much in the future
[1:57:38] prevent my item that I've already been
[1:57:40] approved to submit.
[1:57:44] It's been sitting waiting for months
[1:57:45] before it land on agenda. which are
[1:57:47] >> these state facts. That is not true.
[1:57:51] >> I literally looked it up before I any of
[1:57:54] this.
[1:57:58] » But he just said he just said this be
[1:58:00] your minimum standard. Something that
[1:58:02] has to come back earlier than what's on
[1:58:03] here. It [clears throat] comes back
[1:58:05] earlier than what's on here.
[1:58:06] >> That's the question. This is not it's
[1:58:09] not stated as minimum standard.
[1:58:11] >> The answer is this resolution does not
[1:58:14] expressly prohibit that. Thank you.
[1:58:16] >> Now the body
[1:58:19] makes its own rules and you can revisit
[1:58:22] rules whenever the body decides to
[1:58:25] revisit rules pursuant to its
[1:58:28] procedures. Um so the the agenda item
[1:58:33] here is this resolution and the answer
[1:58:36] is no. It's not that restrictive. Um it
[1:58:40] it's a presumptive
[1:58:43] >> um baseline.
[1:58:45] >> So I
[1:58:46] >> as I already told you earlier, your
[1:58:48] thing will come up in August. The only
[1:58:51] reason it didn't come up in sooner is
[1:58:53] because you were told the June agenda
[1:58:55] was full and you communicated you did
[1:58:57] not intend to be here for this meeting
[1:58:59] >> and and we really need to focus on
[1:59:01] >> the agenda. Yeah. I ain't saying I'm
[1:59:04] just clarifying that this you're
[1:59:06] understanding everyone's understanding.
[1:59:09] >> Thank you.
[1:59:10] >> Yes.
[1:59:12] >> Yeah.
[1:59:13] Don't fall through the cracks.
[1:59:19] » That's the way I look.
[1:59:23] >> Are we done? Is everyone their piece?
[1:59:25] Thank you. We have a individual here
[1:59:29] who's um represented for items six and
[1:59:32] seven. We will call our executive
[1:59:35] session to consult and receive and seek
[1:59:36] advice from attorney pursuant to section
[1:59:39] 551.071
[1:59:42] of the Texas government code regarding
[1:59:44] legal requirements and procedures for
[1:59:45] issuance of building permits pursuant to
[1:59:47] chapter 151 of the city's code of
[1:59:49] ordinances including but not limited to
[1:59:51] instances of applicant hardship and
[1:59:53] related legal considerations.
[1:59:56] at 801.
[2:00:00] Um, executive s
[2:00:04] >> recording progress.
[2:00:07] >> We're reconvening at 8:24. No action was
[2:00:10] taken during the executive session. We
[2:00:13] do have uh a written public comment to
[2:00:15] read and then we do have the individual
[2:00:17] applying for the variance here. We'll
[2:00:19] read the written public comment first.
[2:00:20] That's okay. and then we'll do the the
[2:00:22] inerson.
[2:00:23] >> Okay.
[2:00:24] >> I should start timer. Sorry.
[2:00:26] >> Sorry.
[2:00:27] >> Um this individual submitted a total of
[2:00:29] three comments actually. So I we are the
[2:00:32] we're going to start using the timer and
[2:00:35] uh the city secretary will be reading
[2:00:36] them.
[2:00:39] >> Thank you to remove any u political
[2:00:44] issues with this process. All right. Um
[2:00:49] go ahead. I notice number seven on our
[2:00:51] council's regular agenda deals with the
[2:00:53] spokes law. If this is in any way deals
[2:00:56] with installation of an above ground
[2:00:57] pool, please read by below objection
[2:00:59] into the record. At the time this item
[2:01:01] comes up for council's consideration as
[2:01:03] I'm unwilling to take a chance on
[2:01:05] something that so much affects the
[2:01:06] appearance of my neighborhood and the
[2:01:08] value of our homes. I remain completely
[2:01:10] opposed to these above ground pools.
[2:01:11] Know that I want restrictions that may
[2:01:13] go with them. The ordinance should be
[2:01:14] left as is with no amendments whatsoever
[2:01:16] in a trust of my opposition to any above
[2:01:19] ground pool ordinance previously sent to
[2:01:20] the city secretary. You and others will
[2:01:23] be read by her at any city council
[2:01:25] meeting concerning these pools. Sorry, I
[2:01:27] have practice law for over 15 years and
[2:01:29] I've seen many unintended consequences
[2:01:32] of situations like this where just a
[2:01:33] small opening was left for someone to
[2:01:35] later utilize like this drought
[2:01:37] temporarily passing and someone putting
[2:01:38] in one of these pools before another one
[2:01:40] comes along. Thank you for your time and
[2:01:42] your service. Lou Joseph and Elizabeth
[2:01:45] 23.
[2:01:47] Please note our opposition to any city
[2:01:49] ordinance in any shape or form which
[2:01:50] authorize any above ground swimming pool
[2:01:52] construction. One, city already has an
[2:01:54] ordinance in place prohibiting any above
[2:01:56] ground pool construction in order that
[2:01:58] it was passed for a very good reason.
[2:02:00] Two, currently there are critical draw
[2:02:02] restriction signs from the eastern
[2:02:04] groundwater conservation district around
[2:02:06] Wood Creek requesting 30% less water
[2:02:08] use. Three, Jacobsville aquaer is so
[2:02:11] depleted that the pool can't be used by
[2:02:12] the public anymore and our aquifer already stressed out as well.
[2:02:17] Lastly, above ground pools are
[2:02:19] unattractive and adversely affect
[2:02:21] property values. We also ask the city
[2:02:23] secretary to read this objection into
[2:02:25] the record of any city meeting
[2:02:26] concerning any above ground pool
[2:02:27] ordinance as well as reading it to any
[2:02:30] assembled audience there if possible.
[2:02:31] Thank you for your time and
[2:02:32] consideration this matter. Our aquafer
[2:02:35] property values and the preservation of
[2:02:36] them are very important to us. Very
[2:02:39] truly
[2:02:41] Joseph.
[2:02:43] Okay. And dear city secretary, please
[2:02:46] read our belove unconditional opposition
[2:02:47] to the assembled public and into the
[2:02:49] record of any proceeding involving any
[2:02:51] proposed above ground pool ordinance
[2:02:52] seeking to authorize the construction of
[2:02:54] above ground pools in the city of Wood
[2:02:56] Creek. Please read this objection into
[2:02:58] public comment section to any city
[2:02:59] council meeting including but not
[2:03:00] limited to city council meeting
[2:03:02] scheduled for 892023 and 823 2023. if
[2:03:06] there are in any way connected with
[2:03:08] construction and or installation of
[2:03:09] above ground pools or on the agenda of
[2:03:11] any other proceeding involing such above
[2:03:13] ground pools. One, our city has already
[2:03:15] have in place an ordinance prohibiting
[2:03:16] any above ground pool construction and
[2:03:18] we're certain that it was passed for
[2:03:19] reasons that were good then as well as
[2:03:21] still doing good now. If it ain't broke,
[2:03:23] don't fix it. Two, climate change and
[2:03:25] oils dry out. We're currently in drought
[2:03:27] restriction emergency with signs all
[2:03:29] over Wood Creek asking us to lower our
[2:03:30] water usage by 40%. Jacob's well is
[2:03:33] close and our own training aquifer is
[2:03:35] already stressed out as it is. We don't
[2:03:37] want these pools even if that's 40%
[2:03:38] figured lower. We know the people near
[2:03:41] Wood Creek who are now having to water
[2:03:43] having to have water trucked in because
[2:03:45] their walls have already jumped. Three
[2:03:46] above ground pools are Pandora's box, a
[2:03:49] can of worms that should never be opened
[2:03:50] for any reason.
[2:03:51] >> That's it.
[2:03:53] >> Question. Weren't these three different
[2:03:55] people?
[2:03:55] >> He
[2:03:57] Okay.
[2:03:57] >> Yeah. in the thing it says, "Please read
[2:04:00] any future past
[2:04:04] they've ever submitted." So,
[2:04:05] >> yeah. And then when I So, statement of
[2:04:08] fact, um, swim spas are not above ground
[2:04:11] pools per our code. Um, so when I did
[2:04:16] inform him of that, he did not retract
[2:04:19] his comment. So, we proceeded with
[2:04:21] reading it as it was submitted in
[2:04:24] addition to his other comments for his
[2:04:26] request.
[2:04:28] All right, we're going to move into item
[2:04:29] number seven regarding the request for
[2:04:32] the installation of a swim school and
[2:04:34] allowing the permit process to commence
[2:04:36] for 74 Champion Circle.
[2:04:39] Do I have a motion?
[2:04:44] to approve a request for the
[2:04:46] installation of the slope spa and allow
[2:04:47] the permitting process to commence for
[2:04:49] 74 champions.
[2:04:59] Motion fails for lack of second
[2:05:03] a different motion or
[2:05:05] >> Well, I wanted to hear from the
[2:05:08] resident.
[2:05:08] >> I I apologize.
[2:05:11] No, I'm sorry. Yeah, I
[2:05:12] >> I know you were doing a motion and then
[2:05:14] she talks and then
[2:05:16] >> I I just tell her she could speak before
[2:05:18] we typically with the items going to
[2:05:20] have a motion to open it up and I
[2:05:21] apologize. Please, if you would like to
[2:05:23] issue a comment now, that would be
[2:05:24] appropriate. Well, I'm just grateful to
[2:05:27] be here and it's been an honor to sit
[2:05:28] and watch y'all do your job and I'm
[2:05:31] thankful to be in the city with such
[2:05:34] great leaders and so thank you for
[2:05:37] having me and hearing me and I am here
[2:05:40] to request a variance to the moratorum
[2:05:44] that I wasn't aware of. I just wasn't
[2:05:47] aware of it. I would have bought the
[2:05:50] swim spa if I was aware of it. I mean, I
[2:05:52] wouldn't have done that. Um, but uh I
[2:05:55] did for my healing and I've been
[2:05:59] watching it sit there for 6 weeks when I
[2:06:01] should have been in it healing and I
[2:06:04] look forward to healing with it. I hope
[2:06:06] and pray that you will grant the
[2:06:08] variance. Uh I do uh have several
[2:06:11] medical conditions that I believe this
[2:06:15] will cure. So
[2:06:19] I'm not going to use your water or our
[2:06:21] water. I'm having the water uh hauled in
[2:06:25] and uh I don't do any topping off of the
[2:06:28] uh feeding of the swim spa with rain
[2:06:31] water collection or have it trucked in
[2:06:34] as well. I don't want to be this this
[2:06:36] stuff the spot and it's going on granite
[2:06:40] so it's not going on concrete
[2:06:42] [clears throat]
[2:06:43] and um
[2:06:46] and I just believe that that I've healed
[2:06:49] with this swim spot and I have a
[2:06:52] doctor's prescription.
[2:06:54] >> That's a good question that I haven't
[2:06:56] actually found out about yet. Is this
[2:07:00] any ground?
[2:07:02] >> It It's And I have a deck around it and
[2:07:05] it's lovely. I think
[2:07:09] >> it's
[2:07:10] a five ground spa. Swimming spa.
[2:07:13] >> It's not a pool.
[2:07:15] >> But you're digging a big hole.
[2:07:18] >> No, no, not digging a hole. It's going
[2:07:20] to have a granite slab to be placed on
[2:07:22] and then a decking around it.
[2:07:26] Okay, we do need a motion before we get
[2:07:29] into Q&A, please. Um, so if we could
[2:07:32] have a motion on the table.
[2:07:34] >> Thank you for hearing me.
[2:07:38] And my name is Laura. I didn't introduce
[2:07:40] myself.
[2:07:42] Thank you.
[2:07:44] And this is my first home, so I'm I'm
[2:07:47] learning all kinds of things about home
[2:07:49] ownership and and this city. So, and
[2:07:53] your rules.
[2:07:55] specified.
[2:07:57] >> Thank you. So, um, council, we do need a
[2:07:59] motion to either approve or deny the
[2:08:01] variance. Um, we I don't know what the
[2:08:04] proper rules on not taking it up at all,
[2:08:06] but I would request that we either
[2:08:08] approve or deny the variance.
[2:08:11] I move that we take action to approve
[2:08:16] request for installation of a swim spa
[2:08:20] and allow the the permitting process to
[2:08:24] commence for 74 champions.
[2:08:29] >> We have a second.
[2:08:30] >> I'll second.
[2:08:31] >> So we have a second for discussion
[2:08:32] purposes. Council member Bailey made the
[2:08:34] motion as stated in the packet. Council
[2:08:36] member Richardson is a second. Um so
[2:08:40] clarifying details uh swim spas or at
[2:08:43] least this one in particular and
[2:08:45] typically it's all above ground. They're
[2:08:46] basically really really large hot tubs.
[2:08:49] Um and I will caution you though that
[2:08:53] your um your impervious coverage you
[2:08:58] barely got the swim spa under it. I do
[2:09:02] not believe additional debt being would
[2:09:04] be covered. And so if they choose to
[2:09:06] approve your variance tonight, you would
[2:09:08] need to work with city administrator
[2:09:09] Burton on that concept because you might
[2:09:12] not be able to install the decking you
[2:09:13] wish. And if they do choose to approve
[2:09:16] your variance tonight, you would still
[2:09:18] have to go through the permit
[2:09:20] application process where you would need
[2:09:21] to approve the rainwater collection and
[2:09:24] that is a large enough um system to
[2:09:29] support filling something like this. Um,
[2:09:31] so all of that documentation would need
[2:09:34] to be as as part of the permit process
[2:09:37] should they approve the variance. The
[2:09:40] first step tonight is just the variance
[2:09:42] and we would need a direct statement on
[2:09:45] that. This is not necessarily
[2:09:48] sufficient enough in my opinion, but um
[2:09:51] so I would request that it be amended to
[2:09:53] reference the variance in Virginia
[2:09:58] if you choose to pass. to amend her
[2:10:02] motion.
[2:10:03] >> Okay.
[2:10:04] >> Yes. Because the the packet
[2:10:07] um doesn't necessarily directly
[2:10:10] reference the variance and I'm I'm just
[2:10:12] concerned about
[2:10:15] um about that.
[2:10:19] >> Sorry.
[2:10:19] >> I move to amend to specifically
[2:10:22] reference a variance.
[2:10:25] Second.
[2:10:30] in the it would be to approve or deny
[2:10:32] the hearings would be the amendment.
[2:10:36] >> Do y'all have any discussion or
[2:10:37] questions?
[2:10:39] >> I'd like to say that if you if you don't
[2:10:41] mind, may I say something? Uh the guy
[2:10:46] who's going to come and fill it up says
[2:10:48] that he can write a letter that shows
[2:10:52] that he will be in charge of keeping it
[2:10:55] filled. you would have to provide um the
[2:10:58] initial purchase of the water. That's
[2:11:00] what we've required in the past. So,
[2:11:03] that we understand they might not fill
[2:11:04] at that exact time, but you would have
[2:11:06] to essentially have that in place.
[2:11:09] >> Um a maintenance contract
[2:11:12] >> or the refill would definitely benefit
[2:11:14] you in regards to the city administrator
[2:11:17] approving the application.
[2:11:18] >> Yes.
[2:11:19] >> Um none of that was provided tonight
[2:11:21] though for the record.
[2:11:24] Yeah, that's excuse [clears throat] me.
[2:11:26] I'm sorry. That that's really my issue
[2:11:28] is that um
[2:11:31] you know the spa was purchased and
[2:11:35] delivered and
[2:11:38] um and you come to us with you know
[2:11:40] legitimate issues. Um but you know our
[2:11:44] the the reason that you have to follow
[2:11:46] varants is because our job is to enforce
[2:11:50] the policies of the city. um we haven't
[2:11:52] approved um even a hot tub you know in a few years we did one one cool um
[2:12:00] and the the medical documentation on
[2:12:03] that one one person was um was extensive
[2:12:08] >> well I've had the MRIs and the CAT scans
[2:12:11] and all of that that I can provide I
[2:12:13] just didn't think that that should be
[2:12:15] necessary I mean I really didn't but I'd
[2:12:18] be happy to provide it
[2:12:19] >> all I'm saying is that you for us to
[2:12:22] approve the variance. Um, we had to say
[2:12:26] it's it's so compelling that we're
[2:12:28] willing to break the rules that we have
[2:12:30] set for ourselves. Um, and your
[2:12:33] application to me, I mean, it's just in
[2:12:36] my opinion, the application, you know,
[2:12:38] isn't strong enough for for me to to
[2:12:41] feel like it's there. I mean, it's not
[2:12:42] that you can't go back and come back
[2:12:45] with with strong. I mean, just like like
[2:12:47] the the contract for the water being
[2:12:50] trucked in, the design of the rainwater
[2:12:54] system that's going to to top it off.
[2:12:56] >> Um, you know, I I don't know about them.
[2:13:00] Well, I don't know, you know, physical
[2:13:01] therapist or, you know, orthopedic
[2:13:04] surgeons or or whatever. you know that
[2:13:06] you know if you if if I had better
[2:13:09] documentation that yeah this is really
[2:13:11] important and there's no other way you
[2:13:13] can do it like going to the YDA or or a
[2:13:16] physical therapist that you know might
[2:13:18] provide um you know that service um then
[2:13:23] I mean it'd be easier for me to to say
[2:13:25] okay let's go ahead and break the rule
[2:13:27] that that's my opinion on my one vote
[2:13:30] and I'm sorry I feel that way but that is
[2:13:35] >> [clears throat]
[2:13:35] >> Council, if I may, you do have the
[2:13:37] option if you'd like to postpone us for
[2:13:39] further documentation as well. Just in
[2:13:41] hearing that comment, that is a
[2:13:42] possibility.
[2:13:45] There's nothing wrong with that. Does
[2:13:47] anyone else have any additional
[2:13:48] questions for the applicant or
[2:13:50] additional comments or concerns?
[2:13:52] >> Do you know offand how many gallons it
[2:13:55] takes to fill?
[2:13:56] >> About 2,000.
[2:14:02] and
[2:14:03] >> and I have it planned to be delivered as
[2:14:05] soon as it's
[2:14:08] moved and set up on the pad that's being
[2:14:11] built.
[2:14:13] >> I will say typically water truck
[2:14:15] providers don't do less than a,000 uh
[2:14:17] refill. Occasionally they'll come out
[2:14:19] for something like 3 to 600. So again,
[2:14:23] should should you wish should council
[2:14:25] postponed and you wish to provide
[2:14:27] additional documentation or should your
[2:14:29] variance be granted and you move into
[2:14:30] the permit process, it would really
[2:14:32] benefit you to have more of that stuff
[2:14:35] documented, you know, like the size of
[2:14:37] your rainwater collection, your contract
[2:14:38] with your water provider saying they
[2:14:40] would fill lesser amounts than a
[2:14:41] thousand. And so I mean, if I could echo
[2:14:44] what he rascow said is that um in seeing
[2:14:48] this application
[2:14:50] um there is a burden of the applicant to make a
[2:14:55] compelling case to grant a variance.
[2:14:57] That's standard policy that's nothing to
[2:15:00] do with you or this situation if that
[2:15:02] makes sense. And so what I have heard or
[2:15:06] what I am hearing now is that um there
[2:15:08] is not necessarily right now a
[2:15:10] compelling case um meaning um a
[2:15:15] long-term disability that would take a
[2:15:18] permanent installation
[2:15:20] or um you know the the plans for the
[2:15:24] rainwater collection would have been
[2:15:25] very helpful or um the the literal
[2:15:29] contract with your water provider. these
[2:15:31] were things these would be things that
[2:15:33] would make for a more compelling case.
[2:15:36] Um because the variance is basically we
[2:15:38] have rules and so you're asking us to go
[2:15:41] around these rules and it's sort of like
[2:15:43] a burden of proof on your part if that
[2:15:47] makes sense.
[2:15:47] >> Well, it's all ready to go. It's ready
[2:15:50] to be done. The the the the crew is
[2:15:54] ready to to build the pad and the
[2:15:56] rainwater collection and install the the
[2:15:58] jacuzzi. It's all ready to be and I I
[2:16:02] need to be healing in it yesterday.
[2:16:04] >> Do the plans that you submitted include
[2:16:07] >> those?
[2:16:08] >> Well, it could happen it it can happen
[2:16:11] as soon as y'all give me the okay to
[2:16:14] >> doesn't work. No, you have to come first
[2:16:16] and then and then we say, "Okay, that's good."
[2:16:19] >> I mean, we can't we can't I mean, I
[2:16:21] can't I can't I can't do for you what we
[2:16:25] haven't done for a lot of other people
[2:16:27] in this drive.
[2:16:29] um with just on the on the promise that
[2:16:33] yeah, I'll bring something back to you, know, after I get it done, after I
[2:16:36] get it everything set, I I mean, it's
[2:16:38] like if if if we had it now and had more
[2:16:40] to to work with,
[2:16:42] >> you know, you and this is this doesn't
[2:16:44] say that it will never come back before
[2:16:47] the council. You never have another
[2:16:49] chance. It's just that we in my opinion
[2:16:51] the application is just incomplete and it's like like it would be it would
[2:16:56] be
[2:16:58] it would just be tough for me to say
[2:17:00] okay I'll take your word for it. Right.
[2:17:02] So um
[2:17:05] sorry but
[2:17:08] >> does anyone else on council have
[2:17:10] anything they'd like to share or say?
[2:17:12] Just I if anything I'd like to see
[2:17:16] further documentation
[2:17:18] of medical.
[2:17:20] You got it. I'll get it.
[2:17:25] So right now we have an amendment to
[2:17:28] address variance specifically. That's
[2:17:31] what it said. Does specifically
[2:17:32] reference gay varian?
[2:17:34] >> If we could vote on that amendment. Now,
[2:17:37] I would request we vote that down if you
[2:17:40] don't mind and that we either approve or
[2:17:42] deny the variance and issue that
[2:17:44] amendment or postpone for further
[2:17:47] documentation. One of those three
[2:17:48] options I think would be more clear for
[2:17:51] staff and for the applicant.
[2:17:56] So
[2:17:57] you want an amendment to deny the
[2:18:01] dariance or approve the variance
[2:18:03] >> or a secondary like a new motion where
[2:18:07] we a postpone is a standalone motion. It
[2:18:10] would intercept the conversation and
[2:18:12] stop it. All of it would end. Postponing
[2:18:15] means done tonight. Come back at the
[2:18:17] next meeting with XYZ. So we have to
[2:18:21] take up this amendment that says
[2:18:23] paraphrasing addressing a variance. I
[2:18:25] would ask that y'all vote that down and
[2:18:27] if you intend to approve or deny you
[2:18:29] make that amendment
[2:18:31] >> or someone issued a motion in postponing
[2:18:34] for further documentation.
[2:18:40] » Sir council member Ger
[2:18:41] >> I just want to make sure I'm
[2:18:42] understanding the process. We have an
[2:18:44] amendment to add the variance words.
[2:18:46] Then we have the main motion as stated
[2:18:49] on the agenda. You're asking for all of
[2:18:53] that to make.
[2:18:55] >> No. No. Vote vote on the amendment
[2:18:59] up or down.
[2:19:00] >> Um and then offer
[2:19:03] >> possibly
[2:19:03] >> a different amendment maybe or
[2:19:06] >> Okay. The reason why
[2:19:07] >> I could just make it clear
[2:19:09] >> I would suggest to vote this amendment
[2:19:10] down was because it it's added wordage
[2:19:14] that's not necessary if that makes
[2:19:15] sense. It's just all you all we really
[2:19:19] need is vote to approve the request for
[2:19:22] variance or vote to deny the request for
[2:19:25] variance or motion to postpone until
[2:19:28] further documentation.
[2:19:30] >> So we'll go ahead and take up the
[2:19:32] amendment to add variance verbage. All
[2:19:34] in favor, please raise your hand and say
[2:19:35] I.
[2:19:37] No eyes. Motion fails. Please raise your
[2:19:40] hand and say nay. If we do not support
[2:19:43] >> nay.
[2:19:45] >> Two nays. Do we have an abstent? Anyone
[2:19:48] abstaining?
[2:19:49] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[2:19:51] >> I'm not sure.
[2:19:52] >> Are you on the motion?
[2:19:53] >> No, this variance would be
[2:19:57] >> So there were no eyes. I'm just assuming
[2:19:59] everybody else would be mad. So we yeah
[2:20:02] you either have to I n they or fain and
[2:20:04] an F saying is a yes unless you have a
[2:20:07] real reason not to be offending meaning
[2:20:10] you it's money going to you or something
[2:20:12] >> I vote against
[2:20:16] >> let's take a roll call you're against abstain so that becomes a yes
[2:20:23] >> I'm in
[2:20:25] clarification previous city attorney
[2:20:26] said we cannot abstain unless we have a
[2:20:29] legal reason to do. So
[2:20:31] >> there is an argument for that.
[2:20:35] >> Is that true?
[2:20:38] >> Your understanding?
[2:20:39] >> Yes, I I agree with that.
[2:20:41] >> Okay.
[2:20:41] >> So unless you have a legal reason, we're
[2:20:44] going to go with Stan's agreement here
[2:20:46] on that.
[2:20:48] >> Okay. So
[2:20:49] >> a legal reason would be that you're
[2:20:51] going to use her swim or this is going
[2:20:53] on your property or she paid you money.
[2:20:57] >> A real conflict of interest.
[2:21:00] So, I missed the opportunity to move.
[2:21:04] >> No, no, all we're voting on.
[2:21:09] All the amendments said was add variance
[2:21:11] words.
[2:21:12] >> Okay.
[2:21:13] >> Paraphrase. So, I'm asking you all to
[2:21:14] vote that down because that is not a
[2:21:16] helpful amendment right now to the
[2:21:17] motion. We and we would make a new one
[2:21:21] of some version, please. So, we will
[2:21:24] start over with a roll call just to make
[2:21:26] this clear so everyone knows. Council
[2:21:29] member Richardson.
[2:21:31] >> Council member Gmer.
[2:21:33] >> Council member Bailey.
[2:21:34] >> Nay.
[2:21:35] >> Council member Slicker.
[2:21:37] >> Mayor.
[2:21:39] >> Okay. That amendment says that's what I
[2:21:41] got. Okay. First,
[2:21:45] >> um,
[2:21:47] so the motion on the table right now is
[2:21:50] to approve a request for installation of
[2:21:52] the swim and allow permitting process to
[2:21:55] commence.
[2:21:58] We can vote on that or you can add the
[2:22:02] words about the variance in particular.
[2:22:04] That was just a request for me. Or a new
[2:22:07] motion can be made to postpone.
[2:22:13] » Okay.
[2:22:15] I move that we postpone this decision
[2:22:19] allowing the applicant time to provide
[2:22:23] more detail on the physical preparation
[2:22:28] of the spa and medical need
[2:22:37] administrative question
[2:22:40] that doesn't require any varian
[2:22:43] >> we will wait in this case.
[2:22:47] >> Um, so council member Bailey's motion
[2:22:48] was to postpone his decision to allow
[2:22:50] applicant more time to provide
[2:22:53] documentation
[2:22:55] on the installation
[2:22:58] and medical meeting. Yes.
[2:23:00] >> Okay. Seconded by Mayor Pton Rasone.
[2:23:04] Um, do we have any further discussion?
[2:23:08] Um,
[2:23:09] I would be happy to work with you via
[2:23:12] email, help you understand what that
[2:23:16] looks like and city administrator Burton
[2:23:18] can also help on that front. Um, we did
[2:23:20] not establish a timeline on this and as
[2:23:23] it's stated now, it's just when she
[2:23:26] feels her materials have been submitted.
[2:23:30] So, if that's okay with council, we'll
[2:23:32] move forward with that understanding.
[2:23:36] So, you don't have a deadline right now
[2:23:39] and your variance will still be honored.
[2:23:41] You don't have to resubmit and pay
[2:23:42] again. Um, but the council is requesting
[2:23:46] additional information from you
[2:23:48] concerning the medical need. So, the
[2:23:50] doctor's prescription wasn't enough.
[2:23:54] It's not that it's not you want to see
[2:23:57] the X-rays and the results from the
[2:24:00] different MRIs and things like what
[2:24:04] we're I would love to talk to you about
[2:24:07] this outside of a public meeting where
[2:24:09] we're not discussing your health in a
[2:24:11] recorded meeting if you don't mind.
[2:24:13] >> But if you are open to that discussion,
[2:24:16] I won't deny you it here. It just I out
[2:24:19] of your privacy and respect for you, I
[2:24:21] don't think that that would be
[2:24:22] appropriate. That's fine. I'm willing to
[2:24:25] do whatever you need me to do.
[2:24:27] >> Okay. Um I would I would like to discuss
[2:24:29] this with you at a meeting outside of a
[2:24:31] public hearing.
[2:24:32] >> So was it denied or did
[2:24:34] >> it's been postponed until you provide
[2:24:37] additional applicant information
[2:24:39] regarding the installation.
[2:24:41] Specifically, what I'm hearing is
[2:24:43] related to the water concerns and
[2:24:46] further medical documentation justify
[2:24:49] any long-term disability or need.
[2:24:53] >> So, the long-term uh health conditions
[2:24:56] that I have, you need more information
[2:24:58] on that because I have short-term and
[2:25:00] long-term.
[2:25:01] >> Yes, ma'am. What we have here today
[2:25:03] appears to be kind of a shortterm
[2:25:06] >> incident, right? Uh, so that was what I
[2:25:10] heard expressed was the concern that
[2:25:13] this is a short-term need that perhaps
[2:25:15] could be satisfied without the permanent
[2:25:17] installation of a water using device.
[2:25:19] >> Right?
[2:25:20] >> If you have a long-term disability that
[2:25:23] would
[2:25:24] give a more compelling argument for a
[2:25:27] water installation device, it's
[2:25:28] permanent or semi-permanent being
[2:25:31] installed at your home, then that would
[2:25:33] help your case.
[2:25:36] >> I'll get that to you. Okay.
[2:25:41] » Yes. Yes.
[2:25:43] >> I just
[2:25:44] >> Okay.
[2:25:46] >> All right. The motion on the table is to
[2:25:47] postpone this decision to allow the
[2:25:49] applicant more time to provide the
[2:25:52] documentation on the installation and
[2:25:55] medical need. Do we have any further
[2:25:57] discussion tonight in council?
[2:26:00] All right. Hearing none, we'll go ahead
[2:26:02] and hold a vote on that motion to
[2:26:03] postpone. All in favor, please raise
[2:26:05] your hand and say I.
[2:26:08] Four I one n a motion passes to
[2:26:11] postpone.
[2:26:15] [clears throat]
[2:26:16] All right. Thank you. Thank you so much.
[2:26:18] As you heard a long way.
[2:26:22] >> Let's uh put together at a later time to
[2:26:26] work on your additional application
[2:26:28] materials and Mr. Burton can also help
[2:26:30] you if I'm not available.
[2:26:32] >> Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank
[2:26:34] you.
[2:26:37] All right, guys. We're going to move
[2:26:38] into council considerations for future
[2:26:40] business. And I' I've mentioned this
[2:26:43] before, but if you guys would like your
[2:26:44] stuff included in the slides, you can
[2:26:46] always email me beforehand. Um, all I
[2:26:49] have right now are I would like to
[2:26:50] propose a rainwater collection incentive
[2:26:52] for smallcale and landscape watering.
[2:26:56] Seconded by council member Richardson.
[2:26:58] Um, tonight I heard a reconsider for
[2:27:01] speed cushions in the budget from the
[2:27:04] public.
[2:27:05] that one. I second.
[2:27:06] >> Uh okay. So, Mayor Pton Rasa will be
[2:27:09] sponsoring that item and uh council
[2:27:12] member Gerard has seconded that
[2:27:14] consideration.
[2:27:15] >> Um when I say speaker, should I like
[2:27:18] safety enhancement phase three?
[2:27:19] >> Uh I would say safety enhancement phase
[2:27:22] three.
[2:27:24] um what was in the budget
[2:27:27] >> and that's what they were requesting
[2:27:29] come up and we'll have a separate item
[2:27:31] for it this time instead of it being
[2:27:34] um part of a larger item
[2:27:36] >> and uh I will honor the modifications if
[2:27:40] it's okay in working with Mayor Proasco
[2:27:42] the modifications that council members
[2:27:44] expressed uh wanting in that plan the
[2:27:47] last time but we'll bring back in
[2:27:50] >> question well we're not be talking about
[2:27:53] details. I just can the details of it be
[2:27:56] broken up so obviously could maybe it
[2:27:59] can change into this but that later
[2:28:03] it's in that safety enhancement.
[2:28:07] >> It is kind of remember
[2:28:12] actually nothing was specified. It was
[2:28:15] just safety enhancement phase three and
[2:28:16] then what was proposed was what citizens
[2:28:18] had brought to us because the whole
[2:28:20] point was we were just approving to add
[2:28:23] it to the budget and approving staff to
[2:28:25] be able to work on the plan and consult
[2:28:26] with engineers to bring forth a plan for
[2:28:28] council consideration.
[2:28:30] >> But council did make modifications
[2:28:33] during the meeting and I will honor
[2:28:36] those if you don't mind. We'll adjust
[2:28:37] what was presented.
[2:28:42] No additional considerations for future
[2:28:44] business. I remember Council Member
[2:28:46] Gmer, you um made an announcement on a
[2:28:50] previous meeting about something related
[2:28:51] to taxes. Were you still interested in
[2:28:53] uh getting your second on that during
[2:28:55] the appropriate allocated time for
[2:28:57] policy?
[2:29:00] >> Seems I don't remember at the moment.
[2:29:02] No.
[2:29:03] >> Was it um like a further income?
[2:29:08] >> Oh, it was.
[2:29:09] >> Yes. the possibility.
[2:29:11] >> Okay. Um I plan on our possibility of
[2:29:16] a general homestead exemption
[2:29:20] tax exemption.
[2:29:23] >> Yeah.
[2:29:26] >> That was on the last.
[2:29:27] >> Thank you.
[2:29:28] >> Yeah. It was made as an announcement.
[2:29:30] >> Oh yeah. The announcements weren't on my
[2:29:33] class. So, I was just trying to
[2:29:38] » do a second.
[2:29:40] >> I don't know.
[2:29:42] >> Um,
[2:29:45] okay.
[2:29:50] » And then the the item that um custom
[2:29:54] permer was speaking about that was that
[2:29:58] may have been on this agenda.
[2:30:00] >> It's already submitted.
[2:30:01] >> Okay.
[2:30:03] That doesn't have to be resub.
[2:30:04] >> It doesn't. It was submitted in May on
[2:30:06] the 17th. Uh the agenda was posted on
[2:30:09] the 27th for June. So, and it was
[2:30:12] already in process at that time in full.
[2:30:14] He was um asked if it could go on July.
[2:30:18] He said he'd be out of town. So, it
[2:30:20] could come in August.
[2:30:21] >> Okay.
[2:30:22] >> It's already
[2:30:28] » Sorry, [clears throat] that wasn't
[2:30:29] directed to you. No, it's not. It is
[2:30:32] 7:00.
[2:30:32] >> Yeah. Uh, all right. Now, we're going to
[2:30:34] move into announcements hearing. No
[2:30:36] future business. Uh, one announcement.
[2:30:38] We have a repotting lot 144 and lot 146
[2:30:41] of the re
[2:30:43] of the repot and extension of Wood Creek
[2:30:45] section 2 establishing lot 144A county
[2:30:48] Texas notice of a public hearing set for
[2:30:50] July 15, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. During the
[2:30:52] regular planning and zoning commission
[2:30:54] meeting, they will need to issue a
[2:30:56] report that would then come to us. So
[2:30:58] this is your notice. You could tune into
[2:31:00] that meeting to be informed by them
[2:31:03] directly. And then planning and zoning
[2:31:04] is also planning a public hearing for
[2:31:06] MH1 noting expected August 19th, 2026.
[2:31:10] That's related to the manufacturer
[2:31:12] manufactured housing code. The state is
[2:31:14] requiring from us. Our next council
[2:31:16] meeting is August 12th with the final
[2:31:18] budget workshop. Please come with all of
[2:31:20] your final budget stuff for that meeting
[2:31:23] because we'll be launching straight into
[2:31:26] Sep, you know, like that's it and then
[2:31:28] September has to be posted. So,
[2:31:30] >> I'm sorry you're saying that the regular
[2:31:31] meeting plus budget work.
[2:31:34] >> Yeah, it will be primarily a budget
[2:31:37] workshop. I
[2:31:38] >> is the goal. That is um in the future
[2:31:41] it's it's very beneficial for all
[2:31:44] council to uh take into consideration
[2:31:46] the budget calendar when submitting
[2:31:48] items and understanding that the months
[2:31:50] of July and August
[2:31:53] 10 and June really even tend to be very
[2:31:55] heavy budget stuff. So anyway, all
[2:32:00] right, moving on. Uh that would adjourn
[2:32:03] our meeting. I have a motion to adjurnn.
[2:32:06] >> Uh meeting at 8:56.
[2:32:09] >> Thank you.