[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Okay, we have a quorum. If we were in what would stand, we're going to do our indication and our pledges.
[1:13] Do we have any public comments?
[1:24] Okay, but no one is here.
[1:33] Public comments. I have three minutes and council cannot reply back by law, so we're here here in your concerns and we can get back to the right you. First person will be John Smith.
[1:49] If you let mine stay in your name and then you're address the phrase.
[1:52] It
[2:22] briefly, I've been in astronomy for longer than I ever want to,
[2:48] you see a bigger sky
[2:49] below from Phoenix, which is 90 miles away than you do from Tucson.
[2:55] So preserving the night sky is, I think, very worthwhile.
[3:01] Because of the nature of Tucson, I ran a deep sky observatory on my home, in my home property,
[3:09] successfully for many years, and our HOA, the rule was, you should see the effect of the light, not the light itself, and that's a close-notes version of shielded lighting.
[3:24] So, I would encourage Liberty Hill to keep the dark sky ordinance going.
[3:36] I think it's good for the wildlife.
[3:38] It's good for safety, frankly,
[3:41] because an unshealed and bold just blinds the person,
[3:44] whereas a shield and bold lights the area that you want to see in.
[3:48] This is also a better for wildlife.
[3:50] And the only way kids have ever learned constellations is to be able to see them.
[3:55] So I just encourage you to be positive in that direction and keep a good control of the whites.
[4:01] Thank you.
[4:01] Thank you.
[4:07] Okay, next we have Nick Page.
[4:20] Well, Nick Page is a little bit too frozen.
[4:24] Well, that's being billabored.
[4:25] And that's in the Sundance Ranch.
[4:28] So I'm outside the city.
[4:30] And I can't vote.
[4:32] and maybe be annexed. I'm here for that.
[4:35] But I'm here to speak on behalf of the dark sky ordinance.
[4:39] To keep it in place and to please,
[4:43] let's put this to bed, we're having to do this every single city council meeting where it always comes up for a challenge.
[4:51] And everybody knows the story, so I don't need to go rehash that.
[4:55] But I live out five miles from here and I can save the city glow.
[5:00] Let's just get in brighter and brighter. And the few businesses that are pushing back on this, those are relatively small signs if you compare them to the huge jumbo-tron billboards that will surely be next.
[5:18] I'm great with all the building that's coming in, that's fine, we'll be on prospering.
[5:23] I've never been about anti-growth, I'm a nation, I've been a birthday on my wife and I've been
[5:28] grown.
[5:29] I grew enough to where I could come out here in the out of the city and enjoy life for a while.
[5:36] And now it's being thrown back in a face like we are, somehow anti-growth and anti-American
[5:44] and if we'll want them to like to be turned down, that's the silly thing in the world.
[5:50] I'm just asking the city council again to leave this ordinance in place and stop with
[5:58] this back and forth share game every time they were called down here.
[6:02] I don't even need to leave here, since I'm going to live outside the city, but I come down here
[6:07] to leave with you people for this dark sky ordinance to stay in place.
[6:15] I'm here in this third hand, but if there was a comment made, my somebody on this
[6:20] dies, that people that aren't here physically to support our skies, there must not
[6:27] be that much support for it.
[6:30] Well, there's 700 people that I know of that have signed on with a petition to keep this
[6:35] thing.
[6:36] Now, can we get 700 people in this room?
[6:39] We can try.
[6:40] I mean, we can put out a little fire and we can get this place packed and I've been down
[6:45] here before or where there's a community-wide issue and you can't get enough people in the
[6:51] building.
[6:52] And when we're talking about ordinances and ordinances, you're bad or at least one.
[6:57] Every business in this town has a little sign somewhere in the entry that has an ordinances
[7:03] is maximum occupancy. You can't get more than maximum people in this building legally. Why don't
[7:14] they push back on that? They're not, they're getting more business that they've gotten more
[7:20] bodies in the room, it looks like to me, so I don't say why that ordinance is okay, but I've said
[7:28] There's a lot of technical information that other people can give, but this is getting real long.
[7:36] Thank you.
[7:39] Thank you, sir.
[7:42] Okay.
[7:42] Next we have Wolf Franklin.
[7:54] I know this is not as tall as it used to be.
[7:57] Somebody missed an expecting me.
[7:59] Anyway.
[8:00] Can you hear me?
[8:01] Yes, ma'am.
[8:02] Good evening, friends and neighbors.
[8:04] I counsel people.
[8:06] When you miss a little bit of me, I was already at four or five.
[8:10] most vaguely below your text list, there was this patch of coffee put it within the series,
[8:17] and I'm hearing like a passage grandma, because to where the straight girls of this world have
[8:26] stood for those that are helpful, helpful, and good. The last job is to learn to, and this is my job
[8:34] So I'm here.
[8:36] There's two of us, which are closely pointing out that some people have had a difficult
[8:44] over their love-scat movements because they felt they had a lot of good work.
[8:50] And I'm sure they've heard such things.
[8:52] Well, I have a card that is straightened out.
[8:57] But I want to remind people that love-scat is a little dark girl.
[9:55] And each one of those, there is stake, the world.
[10:00] The billboards feel that they're going to lose some freedom, aye, y'all are going to lose a bill, get rid of them from them, that they're going to lose a rule of the freedom to do anything in the working time of the right, and let it go to the court.
[10:14] And the reason for the chaos, for the weather ahead of the stake, they're still the worst things to do.
[10:21] That's just an irreplaceable right for them to rise in.
[10:25] It is watching, so it is still gazing with the brush you get, and all the stars are starting to come back to the sea.
[10:33] If we go back to bright lights now, there is a tone.
[10:38] It's right on the ground that we've made.
[10:41] I'll give you a little bit of an argument.
[10:42] I'll give you a little bit of an argument.
[11:27] May I count some members? My name is Kristen Phillips. I live at 320 capstone. Thank you for
[11:32] the opportunity to speak tonight. I would like to ask two issues that are ultimately connected
[11:37] by common theme, public trust. First, I want to speak about transparency and public engagement.
[11:45] The city's code of ethics states that citizens are entitled to a fair, ethical and accountable
[11:49] local government that earns the public trust and full confidence. It further states that city
[11:56] officials should be independent, impartial, and fair and legitimate in actions and have
[12:02] a purpose of the code of ethics is to assure public confidence in the integrity of
[12:07] local government and its effective inferior operations.
[12:11] With those principles in mind, I'm concerned about the strategic plan survey, currently being
[12:16] promoted to the community.
[12:18] The survey is not an honest and for many members of our community, that matters.
[12:23] Teachers, sitting in place, business owners, volunteers, and others may hesitate to provide
[12:32] clear with feedback if they believe their responses can be tracked back to them.
[12:37] A strategic learning process should encourage honest participation not create barriers to it.
[12:44] I must admit this survey is not available in Spanish.
[12:47] We will have a variety of organizations to identify as Hispanic.
[12:50] If you genuinely want community input, we should ensure that all residents have a
[12:56] little opportunity to participate. Public engagement is most effective when it is
[13:02] accessible, representative and inclusive. Second, I would like to revisit the
[13:07] conversation that I brought up two weeks ago surrounding the Pride Proclamation
[13:11] in our community. Across Central Texas, it is like Mount Rock, Georgetown,
[13:16] on Cedar Park, Bander, and Huddle have issued proud proclamations.
[13:22] This is not about a proclamation. It's really about whether all residents still see and valued by the local government.
[13:29] The Liberty Home Road Charter states that we are firmly values a political engagement, diversity, inclusiveness, and regional cooperation.
[13:39] It further states that we have found the value and inherent worth of other person in every individual's freedom of thought, speech and belief.
[13:50] Whether some of the supports I personally it's not the issue.
[13:54] The question is whether our local government is willing to recognize it from the beginning worth of all members of our community.
[14:01] A population does not grant special rights. It simply acknowledges that LGBTQ residents are part of this community, and if they too deserve to know they belong here.
[14:13] Transparency builds trust, inclusion builds trust, listening builds trust. Future elections will be determined on that trust or like they're of.
[14:25] I encourage the council to continue striving toward the values that you outlined in your own government documents, diversity, inclusiveness, and culture of law.
[14:37] Thank you.
[14:39] Thank you.
[14:46] Okay.
[14:47] With that, that is all, unless anyone else is here to speak.
[14:52] Okay.
[14:53] So we do have some that were sent in by email and those will be sent to all of Council.
[15:00] On those that came in late. Next, we go to our consent agenda. Any questions or do we have a motion on the consent agenda council?
[15:14] I will do the consent agenda.
[15:19] Also again.
[15:20] Questions been seconded on in favor?
[15:23] Six billion Russian passes.
[15:27] Bigular agenda item for a presentation on UBC, 613,
[15:31] outdoor lighting and its impact on residents and businesses.
[15:35] This is an item that Council of Ass for staff to
[15:39] bring forth information for an information,
[15:43] really what it was meant for us to educate
[15:45] because this council hasn't been saying when make sure everyone is educated and now that we have a
[15:50] really incredible, well working staff, we felt like it would be done right for the residents and the citizens.
[15:56] So that's going to be presented by Laura.
[15:59] I believe, our city attorney.
[16:00] And so Laura, if you want to come on up.
[16:03] But she's going to explain how this ordinance is going to impact businesses and residents starting in 2027.
[16:13] So I'm, yes, I'm going to open the history of the ordinance and how it's working currently and then I will talk about non-conforming and what that looks like under the ordinance, which is okay, but I'm available for any questions as well.
[16:32] So my name is Lauren, you are in the city attorney, and you know, we were given direction to staff to provide just information on how the ordinance is currently working.
[16:41] What it says in a little bit of the history of the ordinance so that everyone can be educated as the mayor stated on what the ordinance currently says.
[16:50] And so the first thing that I wanted to go over is just where you can find the ordinance.
[16:54] It is in the unified development code.
[16:57] It can be a found online at where we hold our ordinances, but it's also there's a lot of information on our website about the ordinance.
[17:05] So I just wanted to provide that information initially.
[17:08] And it's section 6.13 of the Unified Development Code.
[17:13] So the history I went through with the assistance of the city secretary related to
[17:18] when it, that how we got to where we are today with the ordinance, that there were discussions starting
[17:23] in 2020 related to the having a bucks guy or outdoor lighting ordinance.
[17:30] There are hearings and discussions at P&D Council and the EDC.
[17:34] The outdoor lighting ordinance was adopted on August of 2020, and then in July of 235,
[17:41] we became the first, the city of Liberty Hill. We became the first international
[17:44] dark sky community in Williamson County. Since then, there's been multiple discussions about
[17:49] the lighting ordinance, including how to incorporate it into the sign ordinance. But based on
[17:55] discussions at City Council, it was where they plan to address any changes during the UDCB
[18:00] which is currently occurring.
[18:04] So, the purposes of the ordinance, as the ordinance has written,
[18:07] was with you some clear, improving nighttime visibility,
[18:10] encouraging energy conservation, tourism as mentioned,
[18:14] as well as protecting the night sky and protecting from light trespass,
[18:19] and to allow the city to apply for the international dark sky community designation,
[18:23] which it did and was successful in 2025.
[18:27] Application of the ordinance is primarily the city limits.
[18:29] There are sometimes where we have an agreement with the subdivision or a commercial entity or if you request a variance and there's some relationship then it can be applied in the ETJ as well.
[18:43] Some key definitions, there's a lot of definitions in here and also I wanted to show kind of what it looks like as far as what a lighting fixture when you're trying to figure out the different types.
[18:54] Like for example, the color temperature is based on the number of Kelvin, so that can be listed on a
[19:00] lighting fixture, glare, what that means, you know, the visual discomfort caused by bright
[19:05] force of light. Light trespasses, you know, when light falls on another person's property, that
[19:10] it's not or into a driver's eyes. Lemon is the unit of measurement, the amount of light
[19:15] produced, and then the total outdoor light input is when you look at one piece of property and
[19:20] how many lumens from every lighting fixture
[19:23] that you can see from the outside of the building?
[19:28] The general, in these pictures are from the Ornits themselves.
[19:32] So some of the general requirements
[19:33] that we have in our Ornits is shielding.
[19:37] Almost every light has to be shielding,
[19:39] unless it's a very low-women light.
[19:42] And if you have to make sure that if you don't have shielding
[19:44] that's also not doing light trespass,
[19:46] you know, deleting light onto other people's property,
[19:49] It can also be based on height, how children a light needs to be or not be.
[19:54] The light trespass that's basically other than street lights that have some exemption.
[20:00] The writing on any residential and residential area cannot bleed onto other people's properties.
[20:06] Color temperature, so that is where you can kind of see the bright blue voices like a warmer color that's got to be limited,
[20:14] and it's supposed to be less than 2500 Kelvin, which is what's listed on the outside of the light fixture.
[20:22] You can see a light bulb that will show you on the packaging.
[20:26] there is a general curfew, but that can be modified by hours of operation. If someone's
[20:32] open 24 hours a day, it doesn't apply to them, but adaptive controls where the lights
[20:37] can go less or after closing time, then the lights can stay on if it can go down a little
[20:43] bit or if there is no adaptive controls, then it needs to be turned off when the business is not open.
[20:49] or wouldn't put within one hour of that.
[20:53] Women caps, so this is the amount of light
[20:56] that's being given out for non-residential,
[20:59] and needs to be less than 100,000,
[21:02] and for residential needs to be less than 25,000,
[21:05] although in the ordinance it recommends even less than that.
[21:08] And then there is adaptive controls,
[21:11] which is where you could have a dinner or something like that,
[21:14] and that is something that is a can expand a cliff
[21:17] for a business, but it also is something that is going to be required for all the government
[21:23] lighting moving forward, new lighting. Some places that don't, this picture is also in the
[21:31] ordinance and it just kind of shows some different types of lighting pictures and what's
[21:34] acceptable, what's unacceptable. For the outdoor light, sports facilities, there are some exemptions
[21:39] for this, recognizing that some public facilities like schools might have different needs for lighting,
[21:45] Towers are addressed, service stations are addressed, as far as how much
[21:49] lighting can be used, or how tall it can be, flat poles, you know,
[21:52] downward facing lighting rather than upward facing. And then public
[21:55] properties are discussed frequently in the ordinance, kind of trying to
[22:00] make those most compliant as far as the city is concerned, even before
[22:04] the residential and non-residential.
[22:07] Non-conforming. So I think this is kind of where we're talking about the point
[22:11] where things are going to have to start being us or it's currently
[22:14] day, things are going to have to start being changed in 2027 as far as non-residential,
[22:20] we're all without an exemption, we'll have to change. But first for non-conforming, it has to
[22:28] be changed if more than 50% of the appraisal value of the structure is destroyed. So if it's
[22:33] being able to build a new building basically, for non-residential, for giving a rezoning
[22:38] application, a conditional use permit or after being a major addition, then you have to
[22:44] to bring it into compliance at the same time.
[22:46] For residential though, the only time
[22:48] that those have to be updated prior to the amortization
[22:52] and of the end of the period where you get to keep your lights
[22:56] is if you add new lights, whether new lights or new fixtures
[23:00] those need to be compliant.
[23:02] Four of the structures that they enable in six months,
[23:05] then when it's reopened, it needs to be brought into compliance.
[23:09] In a time you'll place a fixture, the new fixture needs to be compliant
[23:13] And then it's five years as the mayor noted from 2022 to 27 is when all properties need to become into compliance with the lighting ordinance, but residential may apply for an additional 10 years of time to come into compliance.
[23:29] For process, for compliance review, any time there's a building permit, there's a lighting plan that has to be submitted and that's for new outdoor lighting, updating existing lighting or new construction.
[23:43] The planning departments are one who does these reviews.
[23:46] They look at all the factors that I just discussed as far as what the regulations are, including illuminance, glare, safety, light, trust pass, and it's required for all new construction.
[23:56] And the modifications that I mentioned before, and you can't build these or install new lights
[24:02] until the lighting clean is approved.
[24:05] The lighting clean, this is just a list of what needs to be in the lighting plan.
[24:09] It's mostly just a list of everything that goes to the light, as far as lumens, calvins
[24:13] all of that, what type it is, where it's going to be, and the shielding and any other controls
[24:20] that you're doing to make sure that there's no light trespassing that meets the code of ordinances.
[24:25] And then, in addition to all of this list, you can also add additional evidence if you want to show that it's compliant in some other way to the ordinance.
[24:36] Accentions include swing lights, under one of the lighting for pools.
[24:41] If the lighting is required by law, then it's allowed.
[24:45] Emergency lighting, construction lighting, some governmental facilities are getting some exemptions.
[24:51] And then it does address temporary lighting for filming or something like that.
[24:56] slide regulations so this is part of the
[25:00] The lighting one, it's not the sign one, but it's again the similar curfews involved. At top-down lighting, I don't
[25:09] know what underwater lighting made it onto this as well, but I don't think there's underwater signs. Internal
[25:14] elimination, so you want, like, it's, we're, we're, we're clusting a dark background, not white lighting.
[25:21] But we still allow white color within the logo if someone has a logo that has white in it, then that's allowed up to 33% of the sign.
[25:29] And then this also addresses the electronic message lines that you may have seen that have a scroll or something like that.
[25:36] It's limited in the places that it can be.
[25:38] It can only change after a 30 seconds or more.
[25:43] And then it depends on the outdoor light.
[25:45] So it's requesting that or requiring that the dimming be based on how bright it is or dark it is outside.
[25:52] And it's limited to two within one mile of roadway.
[25:56] violations, so this was another question that we got, what happens, it is, it can be
[26:01] classed in this manner, which would go to municipal court, there can be civil penalties,
[26:06] each day's a separate violation, and it generally goes through the co-forcement through
[26:10] cleaning and development.
[26:13] Normally, I haven't heard of this being deviated from, but they get a letter asking them
[26:18] to comply, they're provided chances to meet the staff, to complete and to compliance.
[26:23] They might get a stop-work order if they're already adding something that's not compliant, and that's true of any of our land use ordinances
[26:32] And then, you know, if all those things failed and someone did not bring it compliant to then they could be brought to
[26:39] the municipal court
[26:41] So these are examples of non-compliant versus compliant lighting these are provided by staff
[26:48] So Costco, you know downward the correct, you know lighting and then versus a
[26:53] non-compliant lighting. In a mobile room of questions, if you all happen yet, just about the ordinance in general, or the 2827 change.
[27:10] Is it light on?
[27:11] Yeah.
[27:12] I happen to notice that mobile sign can't exit it.
[27:16] Is that mobile just curious? Is that the normal sign?
[27:21] So they would be allowed to do that since that's the logo.
[27:24] is that white part was less than 33% of the sign area and that's less than 200 square feet
[27:30] or less. So they could probably have that sign. Yeah, those are all ones that like the
[27:36] mobile sign they could have it as long as it's smaller than it. And it's part of their logo.
[27:40] Okay, let's hear some of that. Yeah. And the lighting plan does a residence have to put a lighting
[27:46] And we're talking about mostly new construction
[27:50] or major in model more than 50%.
[27:53] Do they have to do a lighting plan for a resident?
[27:56] So yes, anytime they're adding lights
[27:59] or changing the addition, they have to do a lighting plan.
[28:02] But all they're doing is listing the types of lights
[28:05] that they're getting.
[28:06] And then they just provide the packaging
[28:10] that I showed when they get their lights
[28:12] or whoever's doing the construction,
[28:13] and they would provide these examples
[28:17] so that city staff can look at it.
[28:20] So it's not a formal, like a site plan or a plan.
[28:22] It's more of a listing of these or lights I'm using
[28:24] and these are where they're going on my house.
[28:26] Another one more question.
[28:27] Go back to where you showed a lights that are,
[28:30] except what the ones are not that they're right there.
[28:33] So I'm looking at the one that's two from the bottom
[28:35] in the middle, that looks like a standard light.
[28:39] If I look in my neighborhood, a standard light nobody's garage.
[28:42] under the unacceptable.
[28:47] I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't,
[28:50] because I have two of them on my garage too, it has a, you know, typical shield on top.
[28:54] You're talking about, which I'll hand it this way.
[29:06] Yes, yes, yes.
[29:07] Yes, we'll be concerned.
[29:08] The shield is what?
[29:13] Legal or is it dependent on my cousin?
[29:16] It depends on the, what kind of life it's in there, and if it's less than 200 lumens,
[29:20] which a lot of residential would be, then it's still okay, and really it says acceptable versus
[29:26] unacceptable, but really it's based on more factors than that. This is just to give people a very
[29:31] easy visual where they can look at it and be like, okay, this is the one that I can use or I need to
[29:36] be more careful with the other ones. It's kind of a sense of it's really bright in your face, you know,
[29:41] that's not acceptable. I was just curious about that. I think that's all I have. Thomas, I think you
[29:47] Yeah.
[29:48] So, Rose, happy to answer any questions that you all have on this.
[29:52] We have a second part of this presentation that Mayor Pro Tem was going to speak to because
[29:55] she's got the context relative to kind of the history and things that have happened.
[30:00] Over the past couple of years, that quite honestly, a lot of this staff just doesn't have.
[30:05] And so, you can ask questions now, or she can go through that next part and additional questions after that.
[30:12] Well, I do have some questions as well, just for clarification.
[30:16] Council, I'd like to maybe ask questions on this, and she's gone through the material.
[30:21] And I'll clear up this in a fair part, Tim, what do you all thoughts?
[30:25] I'll give it up. Okay.
[30:27] Are you just having any other questions, Tim?
[30:30] No, that's good.
[30:31] What?
[30:31] No, no.
[30:32] Wait.
[30:33] Whatever.
[30:34] Over discussion.
[30:35] But we can wait till the end.
[30:36] Okay.
[30:37] I wanted to ask you on the.
[30:42] The.
[30:43] The.
[30:43] I know the penalties.
[30:44] This says that each day is a separate violation.
[30:47] So if it's a classy misdemeanor.
[30:50] Or so.
[30:50] An civil penalty.
[30:52] Is that for every day that they're not in compliance.
[30:55] then they're right racking up classing misdemeanors. I don't understand why it's
[31:00] as each of the separate violation or why that statement is not necessary.
[31:05] You're either in violation and you get a classing misdemeanor.
[31:10] So that's a great question. Just to point out first, that's that classing misdemeanor is
[31:15] that's criminal and civil, those are separate and they're used for different things.
[31:20] But for a class C misdemeanor, for a lot of items, whether there's an issue of non-compliance,
[31:26] you know after being requested, and all of that, each day is a separate violation.
[31:31] Not necessarily judge is the one who decides that, but each day you are not coming into compliance as
[31:37] another misdemeanor, because each day it's another day that you're not coming into compliance.
[31:43] It's not required by law, it's not something that's written into co-like state law,
[31:47] but it is very common when you're talking about the violations where things like this or another example would be if you
[31:56] issue a stop work world or because someone hasn't gotten a building permit yet and they keep not
[32:01] applying for the building permit each day as a violation. So that's why it's in there but it's not
[32:04] required by law. It's just what's in your ordinance currently. Okay and then also in an ordinance anything
[32:09] and that's what I thought it was like a 500 dollar fine. So the fines are set. The maximum
[32:19] fine for this one is 500 dollars. That's the maximum that the judge can issue. It's up
[32:26] to the judge to decide. And he might have window fines on this, which I don't know if he does.
[32:31] And what that means is that he said a fine that's like if you just want to pay it and not go to court,
[32:36] it can be less than that. I'd have to ask news for court staff, but there's a window
[32:40] behind for this, but it is up to $500 and it's up to his discretion.
[32:46] And those federal residents as well, it's on anyone who violates their own residents or
[32:51] this is not right, anyone who violates the ordinance.
[32:58] And the statement will be moving to the other person's property. How is that,
[33:03] I mean, that goes to the planning department or a code enforcement, do they have been
[33:06] have to go get plans from the county to see where the property line ends. I'm sorry, I'm
[33:11] getting really detailed probably there, but I'm just trying to figure out who's going
[33:15] to determine what leads and what someone else has bought property if we get a complaint
[33:19] as a city and then it's up to us to determine if it was actually bleeding into someone's property
[33:26] and violation.
[33:27] Yes, so if we, if this city, so practically, you know, we have a code enforcement department
[33:32] that might at night see why it's that my understanding is it's complete based mostly.
[33:39] And so if a neighbor was complaining about the night light lights of their neighborhood,
[33:42] but that they can see in their property and that there was a discussion and had and that wasn't fixed.
[33:49] Then yeah, if there ever been get to the point in municipal court, which is a wrong way off,
[33:53] then there would have to be a showing that it's actually bleeding onto someone else's property.
[33:57] And that would be something that code enforcement, the prosecutor would do.
[34:00] So, can I piggyback on that because that does actually stress-passing?
[34:05] And what I want to talk about?
[34:07] So, as you read the definition for light trespass,
[34:10] means a light emitted from pictures designed to install the manner
[34:13] that unreasonably causes light to fall on a property
[34:15] other than the one where the light is installed.
[34:17] In a motor vehicle driver's eyes are upwards towards the sky.
[34:21] If the light appears star-like from another property
[34:24] or a public roadway, the light is creating light trespass.
[34:27] I've had a problem with this since I first learned about it two years ago.
[34:31] There's not a front porch light anywhere in the city that you cannot see from the road.
[34:38] And according to that definition, every single porch light in the city would be in violation.
[34:45] So, I don't know where we got that definition from for light trespass, but I don't like it.
[34:51] I've never liked it since we're sitting here talking about it now.
[34:55] And I think most residents would probably agree with that.
[34:58] Like most garage lights.
[35:00] Front porch lights and things of that nature. I'll bet you at night that you can even if it is 200 limits or less, you're going to be able to see it from the road and it's going to look starlight.
[35:12] So my question is, kind of like hers, one, how are we going to enforce it to who's going to enforce it?
[35:19] How much time and money are we going to spend enforcing it, and who actually gets to make that determination? We're going to have a calibrated piece of equipment that we're going to point towards that light and it's going to tell us
[35:29] You know, what threshold it's at because every single home in our city has a light that will be in violation based on that definition.
[35:42] Okay, 90 percent of them.
[35:45] So, for, once again, it's complete based.
[35:48] So, my understanding is that there's not people driving around, you know, some cities do have people who they set up for nighttime to go around and make sure that the lights are compliant.
[35:56] My understanding is it's complaint based, so someone would have to complain about it first
[36:00] which doesn't, you know, just say there's not someone out there trying to, I mean of course when the building plans come in and everything they want it to be compliant
[36:09] So that's the first thing, the second thing is, that's a technical definition
[36:15] I did not research where that definition came from
[36:18] It's not, I've seen it in other cities, but I don't know who originally drafted it, it might be an international dark sky definition
[36:25] But it's really, you know, it code enforcement is the one who enforces it.
[36:31] Also, there is a equipment out there that most, I don't know if our city has the right.
[36:36] We have one of those and it's just a piece of equipment that you can use and it tells you whether
[36:41] what the rumors are and if it's compliant or not.
[36:46] I just see that.
[36:47] I'll be in it.
[36:47] That's going to be a nuisance on city staff.
[36:50] I mean, two neighbors that are like, you know what, you pissed me off today because the
[36:56] your light and now you got to deal with it. It's going to open such a can of worms.
[37:02] So, I love that. I love the optimism from both of you. But this has been an effects
[37:10] of Swainish Way, too. And my understanding is this has not been what's happening. That
[37:14] doesn't mean it can start happening tomorrow. But I know that Robin, you had something to
[37:20] question about whether there's a lot of complaints and what y'all have experienced.
[37:28] Well, I just asked my staff what complaints we hear from the development community was that we get them.
[37:34] Yeah. Well, that's development. I think right here we're more focused on residential and yeah.
[37:38] So it sounds as if with residential, we don't even really enforce anything until complaints start and then once complaints start.
[37:45] And I guess it's going to come up with that definition.
[37:47] I feel like I think you can't look at the definition alone.
[37:51] And if you look at the frequently asked questions on how we're ordinances being forced
[37:55] wherever it residents and education and awareness program along with potential incentives
[37:59] and assistance is imperative to success, this also includes education and our citizens
[38:04] on how to approach a concern before proceeding to report it for enforcement.
[38:08] It is not intended to have staff assigned to monitor the compliance of residents.
[38:12] There are best practices that will be employed in this regard.
[38:16] More information will be forthcoming as the programs are developed and deployed.
[38:20] So that will be addressed to make sure people are clear unless a definition actually means and I can tell you that it's easy to shield a lot with a 3D printed shield
[38:30] And I don't agree that not even 90% are going to be in violation because a lot of the houses are built today where they're not
[38:37] Well staffs going to go off the definition that's written in our ordinance
[38:45] Yeah, I mean, yeah, okay, whatever that definition is, a right trespassing, that will be the definition that staff will use to make a decision is the fight trust.
[38:58] So the definition is important to take notice to, because that will determine whether it's considered trespassing.
[39:06] I'm going to have a question from council and then we'll, okay, thank you, or if you're welcome, wish you had anything else.
[39:11] Do you need the-
[39:13] I do.
[39:13] I do.
[39:13] I do.
[39:14] I do.
[39:14] I do.
[39:14] I do.
[39:16] I do.
[39:17] I do.
[39:26] I do.
[39:27] us on as we're growing so again
[39:35] I think red means no thank you since I was on the planning
[39:41] and zoning commission starting in 2020 when a lot of this started as per the chronology
[39:46] of it all so I wanted to focus on some of the aspects of what we heard from the business
[39:52] community when they expressed concerns and some background as you can see in the chronology
[39:57] that's in our packet. There was some amendments for payment.
[40:04] And so that's when a lot of the things that you notice in the chronology started because it was a Senate bill that had this down to what kind of font size it was, and it sent people into a panic.
[40:15] So I want to focus on some of the issues that these businesses had, and we can talk about what could be.
[40:21] At the time, in November, 21, 2024, the council decided not to proceed on with these two ordinances to amend anything because we were going to allow it to be as Laura said in the UDC rewrite.
[40:37] So, with that is, of course, as Laura said, the ordinance that was approved in August of 2022 was trying to reduce light pollution in our city and main dark skies for energy efficiency while left protection human health and astronomy.
[40:51] So, let me start off with the legal non-conforming use, which some of our people refer to as
[40:57] grandfathering.
[40:58] So, the legal non-conforming use for the signs, even on this current ordinance, is granted
[41:04] to, as Laura mentioned to an existing sign, unless the sign is damaged by the honest specific
[41:09] defined threshold, which Laura mentioned the 50%, the sign is abandoned, and the legal
[41:16] non-conforming use, and this is a concern of some property owners, what happens if the property
[41:21] is sold, it goes with the property in a sale, but the new owner has six months to apply
[41:27] for a new permit. So that was a dress for them. For existing signs, they must comply with
[41:33] the lighting ordinance requirements by August of 2022 on dimming, speed, and curfew. 11pm or
[41:39] one hour after closing. Be clear, to be legal and non-conforming, you needed to be legal and
[41:45] permitted in the first place. So there's that. So I just want to point out too, because I was
[41:51] on the planning and sounding commission when we were doing the, we were looking to stop
[41:55] back the sign ordinance to address these things for EMBs. We were told by staff at the time,
[42:02] you don't need to, because ordinance 19-0-017 for hyvidin, these EMBs, due to the negative impact
[42:10] on health, safety, and the refer of local residents. This is wrong before the lighting ordinance.
[42:15] That in November 2021, 2022, during an ordinance cleaned up by the previous city secretary,
[42:22] there was recommended to counsel to repel that ordinance because it was already in the signed ordinance, although it was not.
[42:29] So the proposed signed ordinance that was put on hold in 2024 for the UDC rewrite sought to reinstate that provision for new EMDs.
[42:38] While still allowing the independent school district to be able to install new EMDs on school campuses based on the attorney's advice at the time,
[42:49] that said that exceptions should be given to public schools because they provided public information.
[42:55] However, that exception was linked to the lighting ordinance to still require those school districts to comply with the lighting on dimming, curfew, etc.
[43:03] That exception does not exist today because Council at the time put that ordinance on hold.
[43:11] So let's go to Registry of Science.
[43:13] One of the things that the current EMB businesses asked for was a creation of a registry
[43:18] to safeguard that the city would maintain the records so they would have legal dog conforming years.
[43:24] In discussion with staff at the time there was not a need for a separate registry to be created
[43:28] it because a database already exists for permits. So therefore, the city is going to
[43:34] was to research the permits for those signs and obtain them from the owner. And the
[43:39] current permit system would address this concern for the MDs of the business owners that.
[43:45] So there's no change to an ordinance needed on that concern.
[43:49] Our conflict of the sign value basis in the lighting and the sign ordinance. That's what Laura
[43:55] mentioned about the 50%, and staff at the time thought there could be an amendment to it
[43:59] to look at structural aspects instead, let's be on my technical capabilities, but that
[44:05] is a possibility that could be resolved if both use structural for both ordinances.
[44:11] And again, at the time, it was decided that we could wait for the EDC, but for the EDC,
[44:18] And it to be versus it to be resolved in a stop gap, which we can stop gap if we want to.
[44:23] On the lighting ordinance effective date of 2027, at the time the sign ordinance amendment said 2029, it was very confusing back then.
[44:33] But note that the business that expressed this concern had alone on the sign and stated that given he was in the NTJ 2029 was okay.
[44:41] But at the time, at this time, it's a viewpoint because that sign ordinance amendment did not happen.
[44:47] flashing Christmas lights. The current ordinance says that residents can have flashing Christmas lights. The businesses wanted them to.
[44:57] It can be changed. We just need to specify.
[45:00] This is a five-year, the time November 15th, January 15th, and allowed non-residential to have it as well, but we need to specify the months if we've changed that.
[45:10] Again, this is put on hold, but it can be done in a stock gap. The big question comes down to, can electronic messaging devices stay on all night if they're static and drop to 25%.
[45:22] The answer to that is no because EMD spread light in all direction, so shielding does not help them.
[45:29] Studies have indicated that the only solution is reducing to 25% at sunset and turning off during the curfew until dawn.
[45:37] EMDs are a major source of sky glow.
[45:40] A former light pollution that writings this night sky and reduces visibility of stars,
[45:44] They can also cause glare, light trespass, and clutter.
[45:49] If you go back to the original ordinance inside this city,
[45:52] EMDs were not allowed because they were considered blifed.
[45:55] They were considered clutter.
[45:57] And also because they were not considered safe.
[46:01] Research from Federal Highway Administration shows EMDs divert driver attention.
[46:06] They affect driver behavior, and they potentially reduce safety.
[46:10] In terms of the advertising benefits that people argue,
[46:13] There's no evidence that operating aside outside those
[46:16] curfew hours at midnight to dawn, given the traffic volume in
[46:20] our city, wants the risk to traffic safety.
[46:23] So that's the big sticking point on EMDs.
[46:28] But the businesses did not ever issues because this was not raised
[46:31] by the businesses.
[46:32] The concern was raised on living a classy
[46:35] misdemeanor for violators.
[46:38] The previous best on best practices and a research,
[46:42] The subcommittee looked at options.
[46:44] Council has those options that compares the other cities that are dark sky, et cetera.
[46:50] Unfortunately, it was to start August of 2022 for new businesses coming into play with the new sign ordinances, et cetera, new houses, et cetera.
[46:58] And the penalties were planned to be amended during the UDC rewrite to ensure consistency with all city ordinances.
[47:05] If you go back to what our current city ordinances are for other violations, they are a class C, and they do find $700 a day.
[47:11] The lighting ordinance is not going to affect until August of 2027 for existing businesses and residents.
[47:18] So there's still time to resolve this issue and it was decided in 2024 to resolve it during the UDC rewrite, but we can stop gap it.
[47:26] So there's a separate report on the penalty clauses and we can, I do recommend and did back then that we separate development from residents and that we can look at different penalties for residents.
[47:39] We can stop gap it right now, or we can wait till the UDC rewrite.
[47:44] That's not going to affect anything for us to change this for penalties.
[47:50] Other concerns I've heard are that if I see the bulb, it's I'm going to get in trouble.
[47:57] There's inexpensive 3D printed shields to go over the light bulb that can address this if it's even needed.
[48:03] For a trespass, most portraits are not going to be trespassing.
[48:07] Concerns on safety. Again, it is a start sky not dark brown.
[48:11] Shielded and directed light is better for safety, for studies and studies and shown that.
[48:17] You can see what's in the shadows better.
[48:20] Concerns on not understanding lumens and kelvin's for residents.
[48:23] Light bulb boxes have lumens stated on them.
[48:26] Typical ones used by residents do not exceed the ordinance.
[48:29] Even party lights sold at venues like Dipper within the 2,700 kelvin requirements
[48:35] and that is stated on the box.
[48:38] The UDC rewrite, but I will say this.
[48:41] The UDC rewrite was intended to make it easier to understand,
[48:44] not just for the life of your units,
[48:46] before all our ordinances.
[48:48] Some requirements aren't specifically
[48:50] site for non-residential,
[48:52] but we need to make it clearer in the UDC rewrite.
[48:56] And that's already also been addressed
[48:57] in the FAQs that are on our website.
[49:00] There's still time to do this before affectivity.
[49:04] So, let's talk about two other things that are really concerning, and they concerned me.
[49:10] The concern on the cost of businesses to comply.
[49:13] Since I was on planning and zoning back in 2022, and the Council at the time on August of 2022,
[49:20] asked for the EDC to grant assistance to businesses.
[49:24] And amazingly, a grant program was approved by the EDC August 18th 2022.
[49:30] The question is, where is it?
[49:33] There are other grant opportunities as well, like Hill Country Alliance, and efforts, but I will say I think we need some efforts to assist businesses in determining what their needs are for retrofit.
[49:44] The unknown is what's scary to all of us, right?
[49:47] So it would be helpful.
[49:49] There was a time when we talked about going around and helping businesses and having a big barbecue, like in the old days, right?
[49:55] Where we all have barbecue, and then we talk about how can we help them fix this?
[49:59] And there are...
[50:00] Companies that can help retrofitting existing Victor fixtures as well as 3D printed shields.
[50:06] So, that's one of the things that I think we do need to focus on, and we do need to figure out what happened to those EDC grants.
[50:13] The second big concern is, there's only now 14 months left.
[50:17] I mean, what happened? It's not fair to our current new staff to say you've got 14 months now to do what we needed to do in five years.
[50:26] And so, and we need time to get education and grants in place.
[50:29] Thomas, I don't know if you want to talk about this a little bit because you were the one that brought this issue forward.
[50:37] Do you want to talk about it? Anything?
[50:40] Well, I think the thing that we had talked about was, you know,
[50:47] I'm a staff perspective, we need to understand the policy position.
[50:49] The city hasn't existing ordinance and existing regulations.
[50:52] and as 2027 approaches, we need to make sure that we are resourcing in whatever way necessary
[51:01] to meet that regulation. At the same time, I don't think that it's unfair to say that there
[51:08] are things that could have been done over the past four years that could have made this transition
[51:13] a little bit easier. And so as I was thinking through the some of the issues, whether there's a policy
[51:22] change or not, I think at time is the number one thing that I hear is that this is bearing
[51:29] down on us and we've only got so many months to come into compliance of what does that
[51:32] look like. The reality is we've discovered that there was a grant program that was supposed to have
[51:38] been enacted. We've discovered that there could have been more education and outreach and we
[51:43] discovered that there are some significant questions and so just from a administrative standpoint,
[51:48] The question that I asked was, what an extension would be acceptable if the policy position
[51:56] and goal from this council was to maintain dark sky designation and you did reach out
[52:02] and have that conversation and it sounds like that is a possibility but I'll let you answer
[52:08] that.
[52:09] So we want to be successful at this and so I did reach out and say could we extend by two years
[52:17] moved from August of 2027 to August of 2029 and I went through a list of things as to why I
[52:25] thought that was justifiable. It is an option. Should council decide to do that and then Thomas
[52:32] would email them to tell them that we're planning to do that. The ordinance would need to be changed
[52:37] and it would be covered in our annual report. So it is possible to extended another two years. Yes,
[52:45] They would be willing to do, yes, that would not affect us whatsoever.
[52:49] And because everybody wants it to be successful,
[52:52] I'm not happy that we didn't do everything that we thought we were going to do back then.
[52:56] I will be honest.
[52:57] But I do think that, you know, we had an EDC grants.
[53:01] We have all these things.
[53:02] We need to step back and do it right.
[53:04] And I do want to set staff up for success.
[53:08] So I would recommend to Council that we go ahead and pursue extending it for two years
[53:14] for the compliance aspects so that we can go back and get the grants in place. We can
[53:19] get the education in place. If you want to stop graphic great, otherwise we like the UDC
[53:24] proceed on so there's consistency among our ordinances in the UDC.
[53:32] I have a quick question for you on the grants.
[53:39] Oh no thank you as extensive appreciate it's a very important understand history is important
[53:47] understand as we're making decisions for the future the EDC grant is the EDC grants that you
[53:53] were saying and that would come through our EDC yes it was approved by the council and I
[53:59] I think it was August 10th, the planning and zoning recommended it to Council. Council stated that they wanted EDC grants but into place. EDC met at the next meeting and approved grants to be put in place.
[54:13] But it never came back to Council for this question.
[54:15] But my next question, my real next question is how is it determined how much money of the EDC fund?
[54:26] then goes to the grants. It's just the same process as I feel like what we do on a non-profits.
[54:34] Because I would say that, to help people to repay their buildings. We pay people to
[54:42] redo different things to help businesses. So I think that was it. So EDC would be over that.
[54:47] The EDC board of the council. I think council would be over that. That's something I would like to know.
[54:51] Yes. I would think. How much I would defer to you. But I think it would be a council decision
[54:58] I think that the hope is there.
[55:00] Whatever the policy position is, this council decides, whether it's to move forward with the existing ordinance, as written, or to apply for essentially a two-year extension, or any merit of things. Whatever that is, our job is going to be to come back to y'all, really through the FY2027 budget process and say,
[55:22] Here's the things that we need to do in order to meet the intent of what y'all have directed us to.
[55:28] And so if that is to incorporate a program such as a grant program, we would work with the EDC to get that done.
[55:39] Just off the top of my head, we would probably recommend that it be done similar to the community grant process,
[55:44] where there's probably a couple of times a year where an application process is open.
[55:48] would want it to be really defined, that budget authority would be included in the budget process.
[55:54] And so we would essentially be bringing forward essentially a program overview for compliance related to dark sky.
[56:04] They would include grants, how a complaint based system, how it would resource it.
[56:09] Because the last thing that we wanted to do is put together a program and have council not understand what that looks like.
[56:16] Does that make sense?
[56:22] So my next question was, if we Council chooses to extend and thank you for checking in,
[56:27] that that extended so you can keep our designation, will there still be the requirement
[56:34] for any new businesses coming in to fall within this ordinance that we have that we have
[56:40] in place.
[56:41] It's just extended.
[56:42] know, we've extended it. No, the extension would only be related to the amortization, right? So, yeah,
[56:50] the existing, we're, we're still anybody that comes in. So for residents, it's about existing
[56:54] businesses that would impact residents.
[56:59] No, that is still a situation would just be for the
[57:01] amortization people that are required to fall to come into compliance. But it would be for existing
[57:07] residents and existing businesses. It would be new businesses in any new thing bill. Any new
[57:13] sales would still comply with the current board.
[57:15] So that in two or three years we don't have to.
[57:18] I think we're saying the same thing differently.
[57:20] All right.
[57:20] Thank you.
[57:21] Yeah, for the grant program.
[57:23] I mean, if I understand it correctly, it is to financially assist existing businesses in the expense that comes with coming into compliance with their current science.
[57:32] So, as long as I understand that correctly, I think we would need to have meetings to give grants more often than once or twice a year, right?
[57:41] because they're gonna apply, they need to money kind of now.
[57:44] I mean, it takes time, one to apply,
[57:47] two to get the money three to get the new sign.
[57:50] So if we only did that once or twice a year,
[57:52] it's not really helping our businesses
[57:53] come and become clients.
[57:54] So I would think that would be a minimum of
[57:57] a quarterly discussion.
[57:59] Hey, we've got XYZ businesses applying for the grant.
[58:02] Let's give them the grant, and they get the money,
[58:04] then they fix their sign.
[58:05] Makes sense?
[58:06] Yeah, I think the, yeah, the rule would work out the schedule.
[58:10] And at the end of the day, there would probably be a recommendation from us that y'all could take or not to say that we would want to see the business owner fitting, you know, putting 50% of that bill.
[58:22] I think that there needs to be some.
[58:24] We'll just have a cap on the amount of grant that we can set that we can afford to give.
[58:27] Yeah, that's my other kind of budget options.
[58:29] I think to make sure we're going to access the taxpayer dollars from the EDC funding.
[58:35] And it's not going to go towards building up downtown or anything.
[58:37] It's going towards businesses.
[58:39] I would like to hold them accountable.
[58:40] The other thing to just remember is that you're talking about a really a finite amount of signs.
[58:47] And probably not 500 of them, right?
[58:51] So it doesn't seem like this would be a forever program.
[58:54] You've got an existing number of signs and anything new coming in would either come into compliance or would fall underneath one of the pre-authorized exemptions.
[59:04] So in theory, we're talking about a limited amount.
[59:09] For it's worth it.
[59:12] Thank you.
[59:13] Thank you.
[59:14] Thank you.
[59:14] Thanks, Diane.
[59:15] For your program, Williams.
[59:16] Thank you.
[59:18] Really appreciate that.
[59:20] And this discussion is exactly what the intention was.
[59:23] So, for anybody who is concerned that we're going to throw dark skies out the window, it's not going to happen with this council, it's just not going to happen.
[59:33] It's really to, as we get closer to 0.27, it's to find out what's the impact everybody and make sure that we do this the right way.
[59:41] So, this discussion is really just part of it.
[59:43] And I was concerned about the grants myself.
[59:45] at a conversation with their city manager as well. They said talk about grants where
[59:50] are they and we're a bit more psychobin have additional discussion. So I really appreciate
[59:54] Mayor Protown Boys put together today more of what you put together in staff and this is exactly
[59:59] the kind of...
[1:00:00] On the conversation we have in public, we all can understand, get educated further on what this means to our city. So thank you again for that. I really appreciate it.
[1:00:10] So as far as if any changes are going to be made, I definitely feel that there needs to be discussion on the classiness demeanor for a resident.
[1:00:20] I think of my mom and dad, they have enough physical and health, but you know, but it's just not enough, I think that they're watching that that would then follow me, I've already heard their concerns about being fined and, you know, there's like, we're going to be going to take it, you know, there, you know, so I just want to make sure that we're mindful of our residents and I do feel that classy is, you know, I don't know what y'all thought so her, but I think it's a little harsh.
[1:00:47] Well, there are comparisons in that thing that it was sent out GLS correspondence that I got,
[1:00:52] but I actually prepared it. And so there's options here, and we're going to have to amend the
[1:00:56] ordinance anyway if we're going to extend it for two years. And so they could address the thought
[1:01:02] the Piddlestick's as part of that stock gap, if you will. So then if we...
[1:01:07] And I agree. So then as a counselor, if you feel that, yes, we do. There are a few of these
[1:01:12] things that we would like to take a look at and have a stop gap. How would we move forward on that?
[1:01:19] Because I know we're in the middle of our UDC. We can raise our staff to come back with an amended ordinance that addresses those two aspects as a stop gap.
[1:01:29] Correct. The which two aspects besides the violations and the extension of compliance time. Is that?
[1:01:36] Yeah. Yeah, anything that you want to see as a man. And then also direct staff to pursue the
[1:01:42] the grants that EDC had for it. Yeah. What about those? Yeah. There's a grant that
[1:01:49] across the listeners through I, because before we direct staff, we all kind of have to be an agreement.
[1:01:54] Well, I think staff would come back. I think staff would come back with a proposal to distinguish
[1:02:00] Distinguished between developer compliance and residential compliance. Yeah
[1:02:07] Okay, I doubt proposed changing the developer compliance the fine for a day doesn't affect pretty much
[1:02:13] They won't anything anyway
[1:02:15] Yeah, quick question them. They class the thing in general
[1:02:20] Oh, I understand on some of the ordinances to say somebody's grass is 10 feet high
[1:02:26] So I'm wondering what you got and I didn't read it.
[1:02:30] I read it quite understand it was just for lighting.
[1:02:32] This is just an lighting.
[1:02:34] But I will tell you that when we were
[1:02:36] Mending the lighting ordinance in August of 2022 planning and zoning,
[1:02:42] the fine at the time was a class A, which is higher in the
[1:02:47] current in the previous lighting ordinance, right?
[1:02:50] But I think most correct if I'm on most of the UDC is a class C. Most of the UDC, if not all of the UDC is a class C.
[1:02:59] So all of the UDC is currently a class C.
[1:03:02] So it's typical of violation of ordinances.
[1:03:06] That's the maximum pedal.
[1:03:08] That would be applied.
[1:03:10] Financial penalty as well as.
[1:03:13] I'll suit.
[1:03:14] Thank.
[1:03:14] It's class C or whatever.
[1:03:15] And click me if I'm wrong, but that penalty doesn't listen, I mean, they get 30 days, right?
[1:03:19] It's coming to compliance and now what I read?
[1:03:21] Yeah.
[1:03:22] Thank you.
[1:03:23] So it's not like it's not a commodity yet.
[1:03:25] Hey, you're out of compliance.
[1:03:26] Here's your $500 fine.
[1:03:28] It's no here.
[1:03:28] You're out of compliance.
[1:03:29] You've got 30 days to comply.
[1:03:31] It's a classy atmosphere after that.
[1:03:33] I don't know.
[1:03:33] I don't know.
[1:03:35] Let's.
[1:03:35] So I keep you here is.
[1:03:40] What type of a program are we going to have?
[1:03:42] I think that there's a lot of merit to any program, you know, I'll use the example of somebody who's not taking care of their property and their grass is too tall.
[1:03:51] We're not going to go out there and say we're issuing you a $500 fine because your grass is too tall.
[1:03:57] It's going to be education in outreach. No different thing when we get into a drought conservation situation.
[1:04:03] We're going to educate one of the most early stages of drought.
[1:04:06] And so it will never be our recommendation
[1:04:09] and on something like this that we come out heavy handed.
[1:04:14] I think we have to be in the education piece of it.
[1:04:19] And less directed otherwise, but I think before we even get
[1:04:22] to citation, we have done outreach and we have done
[1:04:26] a significant amount of it.
[1:04:28] Now that does not come without resources.
[1:04:30] I want to be clear.
[1:04:32] You know, in order to provide a service,
[1:04:34] we have to be able to have the resources to provide said service. So going back to the previous
[1:04:39] question of what can we bring back. There's a lot of material that you all have regarding tonight.
[1:04:47] And so I think if you wanted to a broader direction could be to bring back a proposed revision
[1:04:55] based on the stop gaps that have been discussed and we would be happy to
[1:05:00] If there's the specific things that y'all want to make sure,
[1:05:06] then please include those. But I think generally, there's not going to be anything outside of the scope of what we've discussed tonight.
[1:05:13] And a revision doesn't, it's just a proposal. It doesn't obligate you guys to do anything. It's could just be a good starting point.
[1:05:23] And you don't need us to direct you to contact because you will, as we discuss, you've got to email in to
[1:05:28] Commissal, is our contact, you'll have to email in to our Sky International, but we're not expecting issues.
[1:05:35] Okay, I'm moved to bring back a proposed, direct staff to bring back a proposed revision based on the stopgats discussed.
[1:05:43] Well, second.
[1:05:46] Motion's been made in second, did all in favour?
[1:05:50] 6-0, motion passes.
[1:05:53] It's a one point clarification that email will not go out until council takes action or not on the proposal.
[1:06:01] No problem.
[1:06:02] That's not a problem.
[1:06:17] Okay.
[1:06:17] We go to item 4b discussion regarding proclamation guidelines.
[1:06:22] This was asked to be brought back to council.
[1:06:25] So that council could have a moment to read the policy that we already have in place.
[1:06:31] And if there's no, I know there was an email sent to us by Councillor Helping to consider
[1:06:40] a, I don't think it was those city of Cedar Park's ordinance, I just wanted to, I know we
[1:06:45] had just spoke before that, but could feel a shared council.
[1:06:48] Oh, it was, I actually was supposed to add a couple more to it, I just didn't, it was just
[1:06:53] for like, so we could see what I was surrounding cities are doing and if there's any
[1:06:58] differences, but I looked through it all and I didn't really notice anything different than what we had, so.
[1:07:04] Okay.
[1:07:06] Yep.
[1:07:08] I know from, I don't know how long I'd go.
[1:07:10] It's been, you've talked about so many things, but you and I had discussion.
[1:07:13] And one of the things in the current guidelines that I wanted to bring out was to, to just make sure that it's something that you want to continue leaving.
[1:07:23] And it's in the website form, and it's also in the guidelines.
[1:07:34] Oh, not the platform.
[1:07:37] Guidelines and the Proclamation form, where it request and ask, would you like to pop
[1:07:44] Proclamation presented at the City Council meeting or another event?
[1:07:49] And I thought, when you and I were discussing it, there was the general thought that it would not always be at a council event that would really be up to your discretion.
[1:08:01] Because it goes on to say the original, and then the guidelines go on to say their original proclamation will be presented to the individual organization, et cetera.
[1:08:13] and made arrangements at the city council meeting.
[1:08:16] And so for me, this is a mayor proclamation.
[1:08:19] So I would defer to you, but I just wanted to point out that aspect
[1:08:22] that we had talked about it might not always be at a council meeting,
[1:08:25] so I don't know if you want to ask that or not,
[1:08:28] or if that's the decision you want to make.
[1:08:31] I mean, since they put, there's going to be moments where
[1:08:34] proclamations made and it may be better to have it done at an event.
[1:08:39] So, I think that's just what Diane and I were discussing is making sure the wording is
[1:08:43] there that doesn't hold the proclamation only happen in a council meeting, but then there's
[1:08:49] leeway to say if it best fits going to whether it's, you know, we're really held by the
[1:08:54] Sea Ranch, because for the first time, you know, we'll do a cool proclamation for the kids,
[1:08:59] you know, that we'd want to do that when we get the high school, right? So, I think that was
[1:09:02] the intention there. And if wording needs to be there, I'm not really sure we need to get that specific
[1:09:07] in the policy, but Council signed with the way it is and that direction.
[1:09:14] The question asks them, I would like to free them to do that.
[1:09:18] I don't know if you want to decide, do you want to present it at an event and just let them specify,
[1:09:22] but not specify, I can't.
[1:09:24] I think it should be up to the applicant to know where they want it.
[1:09:28] They want it at a council meeting or at any event.
[1:09:30] And then if it is going to be done at event, then to make sure that every council member that there's, you know,
[1:09:35] request every council member is invited to that moment and I don't know that you have to
[1:09:40] train to the other morning. Okay, I wanted to make sure that I saw a lot of your
[1:09:43] previous discussions. Okay, thinking about that sounds good. There are any other
[1:09:47] questions by council? All right. Have a quick question. Yeah, just curious how
[1:09:51] do you know how would those who are requesting this know whether it's confirmed or
[1:09:56] denied, but the request has to do with us as a material myself.
[1:10:00] Is that possible to outline that or I didn't see any other cities is just you would know based on e-mail or commutation.
[1:10:07] All right, yeah, just the
[1:10:11] same. The procedures that are posted online include sending it to the city secretary.
[1:10:18] And I would coordinate with the mayor on whether or not she wants to move forward with the proclamation.
[1:10:26] Anything else?
[1:10:29] All right, we move on to item 4c discussion consideration possible action to clarify citizen public comments,
[1:10:39] and
[1:10:40] Yeah, we'll let you start this out. Is that good for you or
[1:10:45] Why don't you introduce Diane let's let's get some feedback as to why this is put on here again, and then okay bring up legal right so I brought this agenda item
[1:10:56] before Council and the public to ensure clarity on the recent change that we no longer read
[1:11:03] public comments even if they're requested because there's confusion and some inconsistencies
[1:11:09] with the previous city secretaries page that they can be emailed in and passed operating procedures
[1:11:17] etc. So my concern is just the transparency of the change because it is not required in a
[1:11:27] home or charter. It is not required by law. It is not required in our ordinance. But I just would
[1:11:32] like to update our webpage to make sure people are more aware that even if you say it's going to be
[1:11:37] requested we're not going to do this. And so this is just a discussion for council decide what it wants
[1:11:43] to do, but for me, I do believe in the inherent right that people have a guaranteed participation
[1:11:49] in their government.
[1:11:50] And so for me, if you send it in at five o'clock and she's forced to put it here on the desk
[1:11:56] or email it to me tomorrow, I don't get to see your input in order before I make a decision.
[1:12:03] And I believe that is my job as a council member, at least speaking for myself, to read those
[1:12:09] Also, there's a second part of that is that at the last meeting, some of our council members were referencing emails they had gotten, but yet I was not aware of it, because it only went to them.
[1:12:21] We have an ordinance that says if it goes to one of us, it goes to all of us, and that's the responsibility of us as council members to do that.
[1:12:29] because the city secretary may or may not know.
[1:12:32] So in order to make that happen,
[1:12:34] where I feel like I'm doing such a well,
[1:12:37] I feel like we may have to back it up and be clear on our website.
[1:12:40] You have until five o'clock to submit a form to speak in public here.
[1:12:46] But in terms of emailing in, if a council is to consider that,
[1:12:51] power to making a decision, there needs to be a different deadline for those for us to get it,
[1:12:56] because I want to see it in the email.
[1:12:58] I, and people could say, well, you wouldn't care how good if we read it.
[1:13:02] I'll be honest, I'm a visual person. I need to read it.
[1:13:05] And I need time to comprehend it.
[1:13:08] Hearing it doesn't always register for me either, right?
[1:13:12] So I just want us to be clear on what these procedures are.
[1:13:16] I just want to refresh everybody's memory on Code of Ordnance 2.02033.
[1:13:21] That requires any document letter correspondence verbal or written.
[1:13:24] To be transmitted to one of us.
[1:13:27] be transmitted to all of us, so that we're all in the level playing field and we know what's
[1:13:31] been happening.
[1:13:32] And I think it's kind of hard for us to, and I'm happy for staff to speak.
[1:13:36] I think it's very hard for us to be secretary who gets what at five o'clock, what
[1:13:39] she's going to do.
[1:13:40] She gets, I mean, and all of us up here, we call the days when we were complaining, not
[1:13:44] with you Laura, but some other previous staff, or we would get something at five thirty, and
[1:13:49] we didn't have time to comprehend really that much less comprehend it.
[1:13:52] So I think that we still, my,
[1:13:55] just purpose of my discussion today and learn feel free to come up.
[1:13:59] But for me, I don't oppose changing it.
[1:14:02] I just want to be transparent.
[1:14:04] And I also want to make sure that we back up
[1:14:06] and that we make sure it's very clear
[1:14:08] if you want council to consider something
[1:14:10] for an agenda item, it needs to be a little bit before.
[1:14:14] Because I don't know about y'all,
[1:14:15] but I can't read an account call and comprehend it.
[1:14:18] So for me, I don't know if that helps,
[1:14:20] that I think that as we grow
[1:14:22] And as we implement home role, I hope people forgive us that we are not that small town anymore.
[1:14:27] We're going to get five emails.
[1:14:28] We could get 200 and sitting here reading it and I'm still not comprehending it because I'm a visual person.
[1:14:35] I just want to be transparent, but I want to make sure everybody understands.
[1:14:38] I want your guarantee participation, but I need you to send it into me in advance.
[1:14:43] Where I'm not getting it at the desk.
[1:14:46] So that's my position on it.
[1:14:48] and I just think we should discuss it and so the public hears and we actually be
[1:14:52] forward and make sure everybody's aware. So that's why you're welcome to come now.
[1:14:57] Yeah, I think Laura's going to be a great job.
[1:15:00] What is required? What is not? And I think that the city secretary also does a great job of making sure that everything is shared.
[1:15:11] The specific item that you referenced, it is my understanding that was an email that went to a specific council member. So I want to be very clear that the city secretary was not in violation of not sharing it with everybody.
[1:15:28] And I know that you know that.
[1:15:29] I know that make you fit clarifying that.
[1:15:32] This is S's individual, so it's not on her.
[1:15:34] I just want to make sure that absolutely.
[1:15:36] We will continue to send all communication to all council members.
[1:15:43] It's hard for her to send it if she gets it at five o'clock
[1:15:45] or six o'clock and we're sitting here.
[1:15:47] Oh, we're pro-good lines.
[1:15:48] Yes.
[1:15:49] We're pro-good lines.
[1:15:50] Thank you.
[1:15:52] So I, one of the things that I wanted to do after our discussion
[1:15:56] after y'all's discussion was just go over what art one says, what state law says and what
[1:16:00] our website says. Just to clarify, another text is up a meetings act. We have to allow
[1:16:07] public comment before every meeting. We do that. We have the forums that's fine. It does allow
[1:16:13] for time restrictions, but any restrictions must be content neutral, time place and manner restrictions.
[1:16:20] So that means we can say three minutes, but we can't say, if you're not for this, then you can't
[1:16:26] So that's one of the issue, that's a big issue.
[1:16:31] We have the phone one, the website and we also have a available at the City Council meeting.
[1:16:35] And this is the website says that all persons completing submitting,
[1:16:40] completing slash submitting a public comment form, whether or not a loudspeak,
[1:16:44] may submit written comments or observance to the City Secretary for Inclusion
[1:16:47] and the record file copy of the agenda.
[1:16:50] So on its face what that means is anyone could bring written comments
[1:16:54] a minimum ahead of time, or if they have exhibits, they can give them to the city secretary
[1:17:00] and then she can add them to the district, basically to the agenda packet, and if they bring
[1:17:05] them the day of the meeting, of course the agenda packet is going to be after the agenda packet
[1:17:08] is gone out, but if it was before the meeting, it could be added to the agenda packet before
[1:17:12] them. One thing that I want to emphasize is that any action that the city council takes as far
[1:17:21] reading or not reading comments or how they treats them needs to be treated,
[1:17:24] every comment needs to be treated the same, but written comments and so just something to keep in mind.
[1:17:31] This is just the public testimony section, but I just wanted to point out that it's very,
[1:17:35] and I know you can't read it that fast and it's, you know, 715, it's 950, but just like we can't
[1:17:43] allow some people to speak and other people not to speak, if we're going to, if you want to have
[1:17:48] practice of reading rate comments out loud, then if you read this, then it leads to the presumption
[1:17:54] that all of them should be read out loud. Here's the agenda language. It's pretty clear.
[1:18:00] People can come up. They can talk on non agenda items. They can talk on agenda items. It's up
[1:18:04] to them. Request they can ask questions ahead of time with the city secretary and her emails
[1:18:10] on there. As far as public comment before meetings, as Mayor Potem mentioned, there is a section
[1:18:17] of the of our code that asks the all documentation we provided to every member of City Council.
[1:18:23] I think that's a very common requirement in it's something that staff will try to ensure
[1:18:31] and then if council members also and then just keep in mind that if you do receive something
[1:18:36] related to city business, especially in your personal email, that's technically a city record,
[1:18:41] so please keep that in mind. And then I just wanted to remind everyone when you talk about when
[1:18:47] You can get things like as far as public comment, because the legislature changed state laws,
[1:18:53] as far as when we have to post our packets and our, well, it's really just when we have
[1:18:57] to post our agenda, but we post them simultaneously.
[1:19:00] We do have to follow the current chart that's within our code to make sure that we're posting
[1:19:07] timely.
[1:19:07] And so that's something to keep in mind if you want to set a deadline for written comments.
[1:19:13] My recommendation is to adopt a policy regarding how we can come to a big accepted if you want to continue.
[1:19:19] It's not required.
[1:19:20] We don't have to accept the right comments, but it's just because it's not required, doesn't mean you don't need to do it or you shouldn't do it.
[1:19:28] So they should be sent to when the city will need them if they want to be included into an agenda packet.
[1:19:36] When they will be printed out and provided to a border commission if you want to do that as well.
[1:19:41] And then what happens when there's public comment submissions that are not related to an agenda item if you want to address that as well and then vote if you do adopt such a policy post that policy on the website with each board of commission's website make sure that that's clear on each website.
[1:19:56] And I'm available for questions.
[1:19:58] If I can say I appreciate it.
[1:20:00] What you said is on the website now, but the website now has been updated since we have a new city.
[1:20:05] Some of it has changed because before, what's in our package shows that, and this is the mayor and I got a current patient email from a resident, because it was confusing to them, because the website kept saying,
[1:20:16] these Simpson at Liberty Hill right and everybody in the line was gone so it says you can submit
[1:20:20] comments in person or via email but it was allowing for it and this is a part that I think needs
[1:20:26] and I think some changes have been made that help it prove it but I think it needs to be as you say
[1:20:31] more firm. Can you go back to those list of things if you don't mind and this is just my, my,
[1:20:37] oh, the, that, I think they, of course they have to be sent to all of us, but if you have to decide
[1:20:43] Is it going to the city secretary you're right or is the website going to say if you want to submit something you submit it to all of these councilmen
[1:20:50] Are you submit it to a business I do not recommend that
[1:20:53] Oh, we go to the surface of open meetings
[1:20:55] I understand and then she would send it to all of us when they will be included in the agenda packet
[1:21:00] If it's a related to an agenda item
[1:21:04] The public doesn't know if they are until the packet's published
[1:21:07] So that's a challenge there
[1:21:12] Right, so
[1:21:14] Yeah. So when they will be printed out and provided to the board, I'll be honest. I don't
[1:21:19] want anything printed out for me here because it's too light. I prefer to have to. Yeah.
[1:21:26] And what happens to a public comment submissions that are not related to the agenda item?
[1:21:30] I guess I just, I don't know. I guess I just get submitted to us all too. But on that one,
[1:21:35] it's not concerning. My concern is when I'm making a decision on an agenda item that I have
[1:21:40] anything and everything that the public wants me to see
[1:21:44] for their guaranteed participation and government for me.
[1:21:47] That's just me. I would like to see it in email and advance.
[1:21:50] I was doing for hours per.
[1:21:51] At least 20 hours prior.
[1:21:53] I don't care. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:21:56] So if it's staff needs to back that up to give her time to get it.
[1:22:00] So it was a new 24 hours.
[1:22:01] I'm all fired. Whatever staff needs, I'm all fired.
[1:22:04] Yeah. I do agree that we should post it on the website as well.
[1:22:09] I think that it will be very easy for us to bring back a recommended policy for y'all to either approve or not approve.
[1:22:16] Sweet. Yep. Happy to be able to do it.
[1:22:19] Sounds great.
[1:22:20] Do we need to do that?
[1:22:21] We'll do it.
[1:22:22] We'll do it.
[1:22:22] We'll do it.
[1:22:23] So as far as we've seen all the time, please read this at the next meeting.
[1:22:31] What we really do not is up to us, or are we saying anything submitted to the email or printed?
[1:22:37] will not be red right if I can tell you didn't know I can tell you didn't
[1:22:42] recommend the staff recommended policy it will clearly state that written public
[1:22:46] comment is not red right I like it so you know we I guess that does we do a
[1:22:50] question that I yeah that I had on one of them that I read because it did say
[1:22:56] please read and I there was a part of me that wanted to respond these were no longer be
[1:23:00] read at city council meetings so if somebody sent something to us and we noticed
[1:23:06] that we are the only one of two or three council members that are on that email.
[1:23:12] Can I not reply to that email?
[1:23:14] So it is no longer a policy to read public comments during that city council.
[1:23:18] We would forward back to the city map position as we forward it to the city secretary.
[1:23:23] We're she has to forward it.
[1:23:24] Because we really wanted to do that for a moment.
[1:23:26] You also don't know if they blind copy somebody.
[1:23:28] You wouldn't see that.
[1:23:31] The city secretary is always going to protect y'all by handling that communication.
[1:23:36] for you. And also make sure everyone gets it. So back to what Diane brought up. If we receive
[1:23:43] something, we don't know if anyone else has been blind copy. That's happened in the multiple times.
[1:23:48] I didn't know. And I sent it to the city's secretary. And then, you know, it came out. So then,
[1:23:52] yeah, we just needed to do that. Maybe everything to hurt. Okay. So we're playing with that.
[1:23:57] We just have to move on to that. Right. Because because of the past practices, we didn't go back and
[1:24:01] say, we're not reading it. And so there's an issue, but now we're clarifying it. Let's just
[1:24:05] Alright, item 4D, the discussion consideration of possible action of proving a resolution of
[1:24:11] the city of Liberty Hill, Texas, 2, let's go through the list.
[1:24:15] Determining the cost of certain public improvements to be financed with an improvement area
[1:24:18] in a both-three and improvement area in a before the Butler Farm's PID, approving a preliminary
[1:24:24] amendment and received service and assessment plan and a proposed improvement area, number
[1:24:29] three assessment rule and improvement area in a both-four assessment rule, directing the filing
[1:24:35] of such proposals assessment rules with the city secretary to make available for public
[1:24:39] construction and noticing a public hearing, running a little separate, sure, noticing
[1:24:45] a public hearing at 4 June 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 26 to consider an ordinance of loving
[1:24:49] assessments on improvement area number three and improvement area number four of the
[1:24:54] reforms and improvement district and other matters related there too and directing city
[1:24:59] staff to publish.
[1:25:00] May all notice as said, public hearing, and resauding in a matter of incident, and related dirty, and providing
[1:25:05] ineffective dates. We were very so far now. We already have a way through it. I was already just in a
[1:25:11] go for it all. You're there. Help you with a video of simple explanation and we move on. So, I could be
[1:25:16] an American council. This item for you is a resolution for public hearing for the other farms pit. So,
[1:25:21] the other farms, public improvement district is the area of other farms and the west side of the
[1:25:29] they're gonna give a presentation on kind of what is all involved in this.
[1:25:34] I don't give you an idea that PID has an X amount of, you know, it's sort of been authorized by Council previously.
[1:25:38] This is another phase of their development that's part of the PID that's already been authorized.
[1:25:43] But this is to authorize the issue of those bonds.
[1:25:46] So I will turn it over to the developer.
[1:25:48] They have a presentation to kind of give you an update on where their development is.
[1:25:52] And I'll turn it over to them for them to be able to give you kind of an update.
[1:26:01] Now, Mr. Council, my name is Bob White,
[1:26:03] so I'm a developer of other farms.
[1:26:06] We appreciate your time to address this as you're not in the night.
[1:26:10] I also want to thank the staff for being respectful, courteous,
[1:26:14] and dealing with it through this process.
[1:26:16] In other issues that we dealt with at the first of the year.
[1:26:20] Thank you, so although that requires them where we're with DPF-G,
[1:26:23] the presentation, that we'll both answer questions when we're finished.
[1:26:28] Thank you.
[1:26:30] Good afternoon. Good evening, Mayor Council.
[1:26:31] I'm a public.
[1:26:33] My name is Recrose Berg.
[1:26:34] I'm the managing principal for D.P. F.F.
[1:26:36] for the consultant to the developer for the Butler Farm's PID.
[1:26:40] We're here to talk about the process of
[1:26:44] living assessments under remaining two phases of the project
[1:26:47] in proven area three and four.
[1:26:50] Everyone I think knows about what farms is.
[1:26:53] But here's a map.
[1:26:55] The PID is an existing PID that was created in 2018.
[1:26:59] The original service in the session plan, which is the document that levies the assessments.
[1:27:05] It operates the district was created in 2021 by your PIDA administrator.
[1:27:10] In 2021 at the same time, the initial bombs and assessments for the major preliminary and the first two phases of the project were levied.
[1:27:19] Each year, some certain accordance with state statute that the service plan has been updated and has been written as an outcurrent.
[1:27:27] Here's some pretty pictures of the community.
[1:27:29] We always like to include those.
[1:27:32] The property has pool, project playground, park, hiking, bike trails, and picnic area.
[1:27:38] Bob can answer any questions about the project itself.
[1:27:42] The initial and proven area through that we're asking to discuss tonight
[1:27:45] are the outline and black these four phases of the project.
[1:27:51] This will involve 514 total lots
[1:27:54] three different sizes with average cell prices listed here between 353,455,000.
[1:28:03] They are built in contracts for each of the all-all-all-all.
[1:28:09] In primary four is small. It's called Phase 10.
[1:28:12] The smart portion on the southern part of the property.
[1:28:15] It is 26 lots of 64 lots of 180,000 average cell price.
[1:28:21] We were working. So, the development of these phases is projected to add additional
[1:28:27] assess value of over $229 million dollars to the tax force for the city of Liberty Hill.
[1:28:33] Just to remind you that the pit assessments that we are discussing tonight are only the responsibility
[1:28:38] of the property owner. The Alberta's time, the billboards, and then whoever are the hunt buyers.
[1:28:44] Nobody else in the city of Liberty Hill has any obligation or the city has an obligation for these assessments.
[1:28:52] In terms of additional tax revenues, we are projecting that upon build out more of a small
[1:28:59] charge that exists on the bottom of the farm's budget, the city will generate for these
[1:29:03] two additional phases, $750,000,000 a year of additional tax revenue, the school district will
[1:29:09] generate over $2.8 million additional tax revenue.
[1:29:15] Here's how, this is the summary of the assessments.
[1:29:18] The assessments are laid out here and closed the initial bond, the major improvement bond that was issued in 2021.
[1:29:25] The additional assessment that's being asked for at this time included in the total assessment of 20,140,000 is 12,350,000 for the new assessment.
[1:29:37] And then for the $1,175 for the Phase 4, there is $750,000, I think a metal assessment
[1:29:45] included within there.
[1:29:47] The $1,000 on average will pay between $2,028 for the small slots to $2,767 to the biggest
[1:29:57] box. The equivalent.
[1:30:00] Government tax rates that are shown on the right-hand column ranging about 58 cents are similar to what
[1:30:08] exists on the original and proven areas we wanted to. The home prices are different by the
[1:30:12] equivalent of payment obligations relatively for each homeowner will be the same. And we're
[1:30:19] here to answer any questions. Your pitted administrators here, your barn councils here, and
[1:30:24] they can talk about the various documents, but we appreciate everyone's help getting to this point.
[1:30:29] And everyone doesn't agree, but I don't know all the documents that are before you tonight.
[1:30:33] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:30:39] There isn't actually a lot of firearms though, correct?
[1:30:43] Not yet.
[1:30:44] Not yet, right?
[1:30:47] It's definitely a part of the plan.
[1:30:49] That's right.
[1:30:56] So the police submitted the city,
[1:30:58] wait and on a permit. Got it.
[1:31:02] I'm glad I didn't say that.
[1:31:06] Okay.
[1:31:11] Great.
[1:31:11] Okay, so on this item, questions on the item, okay, no, all right, there
[1:31:28] I hope to approve the resolution related developer funds paid as presented in notice the public hearing date for June 24, 2021
[1:31:44] Thank you, gentlemen.
[1:31:49] All right.
[1:31:50] With that, we are going to convene into executive session.
[1:31:56] There are no bathroom breaks for council.
[1:31:57] Okay.
[1:32:01] All right.
[1:32:02] So, um, we're going to take this code at section 5, 5, 1, 0, 7, 1, consultation with
[1:32:07] the attorney.
[1:32:07] So, the council shall convene and to close executive session to speak the advice of legal
[1:32:11] council regarding pending and potential litigation.
[1:32:14] That is at 7, 34.
[1:32:31] Okay.
[1:32:31] Oh, I don't think it is.
[1:32:32] It's eight o'clock.
[1:32:33] So, the council is now back in open session.
[1:32:36] Is there any action to be taken regarding items discussed in the executive session?
[1:32:41] Right.
[1:32:42] So,
[1:32:47] for the best of us to push this dance to the best feeling of the turned ad in the book.