[0:14] from the top.
[0:29] Got it. She's on now.
[0:35] » That's online. Hear us clearly.
[0:46] » Tim, can you can you let us know if you
can hear us?
[0:51] » Yes, we can hear you.
[0:56] Was
it on there?
[1:02] » It's here.
>> You should be able to hear.
[1:05] » I can hear you, sir.
>> Oh, the speaker is right here.
[1:08] » No, it's right here.
>> Sounds like it's right here.
[1:11] » Oh, well, that's for the
like in the center.
[1:15] » Oh, really?
>> Uh, let's see.
[1:20] » Mayor, can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can hear you loud and clear.
[1:24] » Thank you. Time is now 6:31. We are in
session. Want to make sure you're
[1:29] recording.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[1:32] » Uh let's see.
Notice is hereby given that the city
[1:36] council of the city of San Die will hold
a regular meeting on Thursday, August
[1:39] 27th at 6:30 p.m. at city hall. P2870
CRO San Texas. Form of the city council
[1:46] will be present and all agenda items may
be acted upon. You can join the meeting
[1:49] at the Zoom link provided in the agenda.
The public will be permitted to offer
[1:54] public comments in person telephonic
thereby audios provided by the agenda
[1:58] and as permitted by the presiding
officer during the meeting by signing up
[2:00] with city secretary at least 15 minutes
in advance of the meeting if providing
[2:04] comments in person and at least two
hours in advance of the meeting by
[2:07] emailing the city secretary or by
calling 2110607084
[2:12] to speaking telephonically or by audio.
An audio recording of the meeting will
[2:16] be made and will be available to the
public in importance of the Texas Public
[2:20] Information Act upon written request.
Uh, Madam Secretary, may I have a quum
[2:25] call, please?
>> Yes, Mayor. Alderman Kmer
[2:28] » here.
>> Alderman Trembley
[2:29] » here.
>> Alderman McNeel
[2:31] » here.
>> Alderwoman Walker
[2:33] » here.
>> Mayor Pro Tim Maduro
[2:35] » here via Zoom.
>> City attorneys here. Interim city
[2:40] administrator Dr. Johnson
>> here
[2:42] » and city secretary. We're all here. Got
a
[2:45] » quorum
[2:53] to the flag of the United States of
America.
[3:14] Somebody in the room.
>> Okay.
[3:30] All right. Citizens to be heard. People
wishing to speak may sign up for the
[3:33] city secretary in the time and manner as
indicated above. The plan provided for
[3:37] citizens to address the city council on
issues and concerns related to the city
[3:40] of San Die. Please note that the Texas
helpings act prohibits the city council
[3:45] from responding, commenting or
discussing items or topics during this
[3:49] portion of the meeting that are not
included on the agenda. City council
[3:53] appreciates hearing the citizens and
your thoughts and questions that are
[3:56] valued. However, civility in a sense of
decorum will be strictly followed. All
[4:00] speakers may address their comments to
the city council. Uh speakers shall
[4:04] refrain from public criticism of members
of the city council that is prohibited
[4:07] by law. And this item will be up to 30
minutes with three minutes to each
[4:11] speaker. One person may speak on behalf
of a group. Up to three may register on
[4:15] behalf of the group for a spokesperson
to be allotted up to nine minutes. Uh if
[4:20] there are more than 10 speakers, each
will be given two minutes or six or six
[4:25] minutes for a group spokesperson.
[4:30] Okay. So at this time I do have uh Mr.
Jones, you do have the floor is 6:35.
[4:38] » That'll be brief. I just like to bring
something up and I'm pretty sure y'all
[4:42] discussed
jump in properties before
[4:48] and I might have an issue with maybe
behind me has dumped probably looks like
[4:53] two truckloads of shields in the back of
the property. It just went to my copy
[4:58] like
I just like to see the city really get
[5:02] on something and make some kind of
ordinance
[5:06] fitting this kind of stuff.
Went out there one day and all of a
[5:10] sudden it was there.
Trust me if I have seen someone dump it
[5:15] out lit up like a Christmas tree. But
you know
[5:20] something.
[5:31] » All right. Uh we're going to move on to
Lisa Lisa.
[5:35] » Liza, sorry. Liza Clark Lori
>> Lovely.
[5:38] » Oh, sorry. Lovely.
>> Uh time is 6:36.
[5:42] » It's going to be brief. No, I was
watching uh case at 12 News and they
[5:47] were indicating that uh Savios was going
to have ICE or with the police
[5:52] department. My concern is I don't mind,
but the only problem is do they have any
[5:59] training as police? Because if the 911
calls, what would happen? What are they
[6:06] going to do? No, we don't want anybody
that's not our police officers are
[6:10] amazing. I love San Diego. I've lived
here for many years and everything and
[6:17] for them for anything even to stop just
because
[6:22] what if you get a 10 in your brain and
they're going to stop you for that.
[6:26] That's not a that's not a uh that's not
a reason to stop. Okay? If they're going
[6:32] to obey the law, but the thing is we
haven't had any issues. Actually, crime
[6:36] here is way low because our neighbors,
if anybody's selling drugs or doing
[6:41] anything illegal, we're the first ones
to call the police and report them
[6:45] because we don't want that. We moved
over here because it's so quiet and it's
[6:49] peaceful. It's wonderful. Our neighbors
are amazing. Okay? And that's the the
[6:56] one thing that we need to before any
decisions are made about that, we do
[7:01] need to actually discuss a lot because
who is the chief of police? Who's going
[7:07] to be responsible for ICE? Are are
police officers going to obey ICE? Obey
[7:12] the law and our chief of police if
anything happens with ICE. I work for
[7:17] attorney. I did ask them. Okay. And I
told her, "What's going on?" You know,
[7:22] we go, "You you live in this great
place. I love it." I said, "Yes, it's
[7:26] out. It's in the country. It's away from
the crime of people." It's like I did
[7:31] explain to Miss Emily. And I said, and
she goes, "If anything ICE does and it's
[7:37] under the chief of police, do you know
that people can actually sue the city?
[7:42] Do we have the money to pay out if they
actually get a US citizen?"
[7:49] I mean, I'm just asking,
you know, I'm just that is we don't, you
[7:55] know, we don't want problems. We want to
be peaceful here. We love our people
[8:00] here. We're together, you know, and I
guess that's one thing. Uh, just let us
[8:08] know when something like that happens
because they're going to come in. A lot
[8:11] of people are going to leave. Who pays
tax? Are they paying the people that are
[8:15] here? Are paying taxes? Are they paying
the land? That's what we need. It's
[8:20] going to be the graveyard mostly to be
honest with you. How are we going to
[8:24] support? Are we are you going to pay
more taxes? Are they going to cancel the
[8:28] 65 and over? Sorry, you're going to have
to start paying taxes. I don't care if
[8:32] you're retired. Where are they going to
get it with the social security they're
[8:35] going to be getting? There's no way
we're going to make it as long as
[8:40] they're pay and there's no problems. We
don't have now criminals. Yes. Take
[8:44] them. Uh breaking the law. Of course, I
would I my my brother is a chief of
[8:51] sheriff of start of of a county cousin
chief of police. I have another one
[8:56] that's was a sheriff of another county
and went to an FBI and now he's retired.
[9:00] Okay, he's like already close to 70. But
what I'm trying to say my, you know, we
[9:06] come from law and we follow the law,
okay? And we all need to be united here.
[9:14] all of us.
I don't care. I don't I know I don't
[9:18] care who's white, who's Mexican, who's
Italian, who's Irish, or whatever the
[9:23] their background is. We're all the same.
And this is a great great. Okay, that's
[9:31] all I can say. So, I just need to
understand because if not, there's going
[9:36] to be consequences and we don't want
problems.
[9:41] So, um, just
and the taxes, like I stated over here,
[9:45] I was going to talk about taxes.
We need our people to buy land here so
[9:50] they can pay taxes, so they can build
and make it a city. If not, we're not
[9:54] going to have anything. See all those
goats down? People leave. That's what's
[9:59] going to happen. Y'all and I are going
to be around.
[10:03] Who's going to take over?
That's the sad part. Okay. Thank you.
[10:12] » Okay. And then it is 6:40. We have M
Susan Garcia.
[10:19] » Um I kind of the agenda stuff.
>> And you can wait. You can wait.
[10:24] » Wait because I wanted to hear a couple
of things.
[10:26] » Okay.
>> So So which which item did you want to
[10:29] speak to? Well, I had um they may not
have been what one of them was control
[10:38] and um and then the taxes on the city at
the attorney that spoke here last time.
[10:46] I had a question about him and his um
salary and what he does.
[10:50] » The attorney
>> the one that
[10:53] is
>> Oh, that one.
[10:58] question about that and then these
questions.
[11:01] » Okay. Um, so I have what can I do? So I
have them for two spots and and Michael,
[11:08] » right? And that's fine. I'm just trying
to give you the time that you want the
[11:11] items that you want. So they have two
slots
[11:15] I could give for this one for the uh the
taxes.
[11:19] This what we could do for the for the
line barter, but
[11:24] totally push you all
[11:30] » as they come up.
Okay. So, if we get to an item and you
[11:34] want to talk to it, just let me know.
Kind of raise your hand so we can say,
[11:38] "Okay, got, you know, if you want to
talk to three items, let's give you two
[11:43] minutes for each because you get to
six."
[11:47] We'll do that first. Okay. So, that does
conclude the citizens to do.
[11:54] » All right. Then let's move on to agenda
item four, mayor and administrator
[11:57] announcements. Dr. Johnson, do you want
to take some of these?
[12:01] » Yes, sir. So, the presentation, we will
move to the next council meeting. Due to
[12:05] the fact the volunteers, they out of
town this time. Um, as it relates to the
[12:10] November 3rd election, we have a total
of six personnel to include yourself.
[12:16] Place two, Douglas Thomasini, um
Priscilla Smith, both going for place
[12:22] two, Mr. Mc Ottoman McNeil. Place three,
and we have place four, CJ Walker. And
[12:28] we had a write in that submitted her
today.
[12:33] » For mayor.
>> Yes, for mayor. Yes, sir.
[12:42] » Yes. As it relates to the property at um
21945 Priest Road, I do plan on putting
[12:50] together a public hearing in order for
those personnel to be able to submit
[12:54] from C1 to C2s. Right now C1, most of us
know already is considered light
[12:59] commercial. These owners are requesting
to go to C2 in order to have a
[13:04] restaurant on Priest Road.
[13:09] Mayor, if I could interrupt with a
question for the city administrator,
[13:12] please
[13:17] » sir, I noticed that the document that
you put out in the folder for us to
[13:20] review was for the public hearing for
the city council. I was wondering what
[13:26] about the notice for the public hearing
for the planning and zoning commission.
[13:30] Both of those must be held. Both of
those have specific requirements to
[13:34] ensure they're properly u publicized.
>> So I can see for the city council,
[13:40] however, we don't have a public I mean a
planning and zoning. That's the issue
[13:44] we're running into.
>> Sir, we can we can discuss it offline.
[13:47] I'm just asking if you thought about
that that we can't fully discuss it.
[13:51] Your answer is no. Um we we need to
discuss it.
[13:55] » Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
[14:01] Okay, then let's uh move along to agenda
item five. Um at this time, agenda item
[14:08] 5B is not ready for discussions.
If there are no pushy, we can postpone
[14:14] agenda item 5B.
[14:18] » I didn't see agenda item 5A out there.
The meeting minutes for the 28th of
[14:23] July.
[14:34] You're right. 5A is lab labeled
something else.
[14:37] » Correct. The items in the folder are
labeled incorrectly, but according to
[14:40] the agenda, 5A is July 28th meeting
minutes. 5B is the August 13th meeting
[14:46] minutes. I'd like to pull both of those,
please.
[15:12] like to make it a motion for the
remaining items on the consent agenda.
[15:19] Well, if you'd like to pull those for
discussion as well.
[15:25] » Then we we approve
agenda items 5C and S8.
[15:35] I got a motion from Alderman McNeel and
a second from Alderwoman Walker to
[15:39] approve the consent agenda items 5C and
5D as presented. There any discussion?
[15:46] All those in favor say I. I
>> I
[15:50] » All those opposed? She carries.
[15:56] » All right. Moving on to agenda item 6A.
Uh staff and committee reports. Uh
[16:02] financial report report on income and
expenses for July 2026 with resp.
[16:13] » All righty. So, um the statement
beginning balance for July 1st was um
[16:43] All right. Apparently, the financial
report that's in the in the uh file is
[16:51] not the frost statement.
It's the consent. It's the commercial.
[16:56] It's the uh credit card.
Can we postpone it for later down the on
[17:02] the on the uh
>> That's fine.
[17:04] » They're both out there.
>> Okay. Can we
[17:10] » That's it. That's
>> Yeah, that's That's not
[17:17] » at least the rec the reconciliation of
those.
[17:22] » There's a few minutes it
[17:28] » I mean but they haven't had a chance to
review it. So even if you do give it
[17:32] » the wrong one
>> the wrong one. It it was out there on
[17:36] Saturday when I downloaded everything
[17:42] » and the credit card statement was added
[17:49] » cuz I found the credit card statement
when I went out on Tuesday.
[17:58] Yo.
[18:07] » Yeah.
[18:13] » Do we need to postpone this?
>> Yeah. Can we postpone it?
[18:18] » Okay.
All right. Moving along to then agenda
[18:22] item 7A, financial report, unfinished
report on income and expenses for June
[18:26] 2026 with possible discussion as action.
Um, Secretary Bill, see, Secretary
[18:34] » on the June one,
>> I didn't pull the Was it
[18:39] I didn't make a copy for myself.
>> All right, I'll I'll pull it up.
[18:44] » So So it was out there, Dma. We've had a
couple questions on there and I know you
[18:49] sent me an email and have been able to
address the questions, but because they
[18:53] were an open forum, I thought it would
be a good idea um to go ahead and ask
[18:59] them again so you can provide the answer
for the record so they can hear. One of
[19:03] those questions was uh why the payments
to the city attorney and the city
[19:10] prosecutor exceeded the amount that we
authorized on the city council.
[19:15] Yes, ma'am. And that was because we I
did use the program that the payment
[19:20] program that the city attorney provided
and apparently it charges a $25 fee per
[19:27] invoice. So it brought up the amounts
$25 more per each one. So that one that
[19:34] was $645,
it came up to be $670.
[19:40] Um, the other one had, what did I do
with it? Was
[19:47] was 6,000. The five was it 6,000? I mean
5,625.
[19:55] » There was 5,640,
but the total amount of 5,665
[20:01] because that one also had a $25 fee.
>> Exactly.
[20:06] So, and then the other question that I
had uh last time was how come there is a
[20:12] credit that says returned item on June
24th for the amount of $9,592.52.
[20:20] So, what item was it that was returned?
What What is this credit?
[20:26] » Um that one I think it was actual credit
for city public service. I did not get a
[20:31] chance to research that, but um I'm
still researching, but I think that was
[20:35] a a payment to city public service that
was returned because sometimes the cross
[20:41] checking
>> and that's fine, DMA. I'd rather wait
[20:43] until you finished your investigation to
be able to give us a full answer on that
[20:47] one.
>> And then I did see something else on
[20:50] here I wanted to ask and while you're
still researching it since we're not
[20:54] ready to approve it. Um, and you may
know this off hand. There's a charge out
[20:59] here, an expense to TML,
intergovernmental risk P. I think it's
[21:04] risk pool. Is there some sort of fee
that we have to pay to TML?
[21:09] » Yes, there actually there's uh the risk
pool where we do the uh workman's comp
[21:15] and then we and we do the the
>> insurance.
[21:19] » The insurance Yeah. the the insurance on
on the was it is its
[21:24] » on the vehicles and stuff.
>> Okay. So, they cover all that insurance.
[21:28] That makes sense. I just wanted to
verify that. So, then mayor, I would ask
[21:32] that we bring this back or city
administrator bring this back um at the
[21:36] next meeting and give Delma some more
time to continue to research that
[21:39] deposit that shows up of $9,592
on the 24th of June.
[21:48] » All right. No discussion, then we'll
postpone that. Um, in an interest of
[21:54] time,
do you know if MUN rag is online, Dr.
[21:58] Johnson?
>> Yes, there they are. Um, Michael.
[22:02] » All right. Now, they're going to need to
be able to present so that
[22:07] find the item here.
[22:16] Okay. So then we're going to it's now
6:52.
[22:20] We're going to jump to item
8.
[22:30] » Can you hear us?
>> Yes, we can hear I can hear you. Thank
[22:33] you uh for having me tonight and
hopefully I can answer all your
[22:37] questions.
>> Well, do you want to give us a a a quick
[22:41] spiel over your program and how it can
help us and
[22:45] » Sure. Absolutely. So, uh, my name is
Michael Halpern. I'm the founder and
[22:49] president of a company called Money. We
are based out of Cleveland, Ohio. Uh,
[22:53] Cleveland, Ohio area. Um, been involved
in vacant and abandoned properties for
[22:58] well over 20 years. Um, started my
career in this area. It's at Safeguard
[23:03] Properties, which is the largest company
that maintains what's what was called
[23:08] during the foreclosure crisis zombie
foreclosures. And my role at the end of
[23:12] my tenure there was really to be um the
intermediary, the conduit between the
[23:16] banking and mortgage banking and
servicing industry and municipal
[23:20] governments and specifically code
enforcement. Um a lot of
[23:24] misunderstanding on both sides, a lot of
frustration from code enforcement
[23:28] officers specifically um in regards to
how to identify and communicate with
[23:34] banks and mortgage companies and by
extension um other um absentee owners.
[23:39] And it was my job specifically at that
time for in dealing with the banks and
[23:42] mortgage companies to make that
connection. Um help them identify who
[23:46] the individuals in these large
multi-million dollar corporation uh that
[23:50] care about the debris and the front and
maybe the kicked in front door or
[23:54] whatever the case may be. That was a
natural progression into Mun. Um at the
[23:59] height of the foreclosure crisis, there
was a tool that municipal governments
[24:03] utilized um infrequently. Um but during
the foreclosure crisis became
[24:08] significantly more popular and it's
called a vacant property registration
[24:11] ordinance. Um it really took off
throughout um across the country. Um
[24:17] right now we we stopped counting.
Several thousand communities across the
[24:20] country have it. The idea behind it. A
lot of misunderstandings and um so I'm
[24:24] going to try to be as brief as I can. Um
it's not a magic bullet to you know
[24:29] silver bullet magic potion to eliminate
blight. Um, a lot of times communities
[24:33] will look at this type of program when
they're looking at severely dilapidated
[24:37] properties. Um, it's not to address
those properties, those properties that
[24:41] these um, absentee owners and ne
negligent owners um, have ignored your
[24:47] citations and your violations for for 5
years. That's not going to address this.
[24:51] This is a preventative tool um, that
goes into the toolbox of the code
[24:55] officer. the code, generally speaking, a
code officer has a difficult time
[25:00] identifying um the owners, the
responsible parties for vacant abandoned
[25:04] properties, whether it's a bank, whether
it's an LLC, um whether it's the
[25:08] homeowner passed away with heirs, uh
could be out out of state, um and code
[25:13] officers spend a significant amount of
time, um and have a lot of frustration
[25:19] um in dealing with that task. And the
idea behind a vacant property
[25:23] registration ordinance is the
municipality would require um the
[25:28] registration of these properties as
defined. Um we recommend to make it as
[25:33] broad as possible to capture properties
going through the foreclosure process,
[25:37] properties that are vacant and
abandoned. Um the requirement would be
[25:41] to register with the municipality. Um,
typically these um these programs have
[25:46] an associated fee that goes along with
it that will be paid by the registering
[25:50] party, the owner of the responsible uh
or the responsible party that registers
[25:54] with the municipality. Um,
we like I started by saying I mentioned
[25:59] that it's we try to keep it as broad as
possible. We also want to balance that
[26:02] out and be fair uh with strong
exemptions. Right? So, the idea is we're
[26:07] trying to capture for the code officer
um the contact information um to have it
[26:13] at his or her fingertips when an issue
arises at the property. Um if let's just
[26:19] use the term bad apple, they register.
If it's a good apple, and when I say
[26:22] good apple, it's people that are
actively maintaining the um you know,
[26:26] rehabbing the property and pulling
permits, service members that are
[26:29] overseas um
actively listing for sale. So those
[26:34] would be strong exemptions. Um they
still have to fill out the the um the
[26:39] forms, send in the contact information,
but they wouldn't have to pay the fees.
[26:42] So we try to make it as broad, but also
as as fair as possible um when we
[26:47] communicate with communities um and help
them draft an ordinance um that best
[26:52] suits them. Um what we do is we
administer administer these programs on
[26:58] behalf of the municipality. Um so uh and
our business model um is we um we retain
[27:05] a portion of the fee. Um so council
would would establish the fee. Um we
[27:11] obviously can help and and guide based
off national best practices. We do not
[27:15] advocate for high fees. This um the idea
behind this um I've been involved with
[27:20] you know the experts um the community
development experts across the country.
[27:24] They will all tell you it was not
designed to be a revenue generator. Um,
[27:28] so it's really just to cover the
overhead. Um, so the fees are typically
[27:32] not high. Um, there are communities
across the country that have really
[27:36] excessive fees and unfortunately some of
my clients as well, they they don't take
[27:40] my advice. Um, but um, we try to keep it
within the the on the low end and uh, we
[27:48] process the the um the the registry for
on behalf of the municipality. So just
[27:53] to wrap it up, um what that would
involve was we would um work to identify
[27:57] the properties and I can go into as much
detail as you would like. We would work
[28:01] to identify the properties in in the
community that would be required to be
[28:05] registered um work with the owners and
the responsible parties to educate them
[28:09] on the municipal requirement, help them
facilitate the registration um and and
[28:14] facilitate the registration information
being available to the code enforcement
[28:18] um or any municipal staff that wants
that information.
[28:21] So that was uh that was the spiel in
brief and obviously uh here for any
[28:27] questions.
>> I think I read it in your in your
[28:32] brochure your pamphlet here. Uh what
what is the cost to the city?
[28:37] » So there's no out-of- pocket cost to the
city. Um our our typical um retention
[28:42] fee is $125
um per registration. Um so whatever um
[28:48] if you choose to do $125
then that's fine. Um if you choose
[28:53] typically um the clients will um make
the fee slightly higher 150 175. Uh as I
[29:00] said some clients go significantly
higher but I think there's a lot of risk
[29:04] for that and and unnecessary risk. So I
don't advocate for it but um we would
[29:09] retain 125 or whatever um fee you
establish. um let's just say it's 175,
[29:15] you would retain $50 that would go
towards the overhead of overseeing and
[29:21] um you know auditing and making sure
that we're doing what what we say we're
[29:24] doing.
>> How do you contact I mean do you have
[29:28] boots on the ground in Texas considering
you're in Cleveland?
[29:31] » No, we don't have boots on the ground.
Um it's a combination of multiple
[29:35] factors. Um first and foremost um we uh
you we work closely with the code
[29:41] enforcement department. any new
community that we we u we bring on
[29:45] board. Um our our and we're ready to
roll, our first conversation is with a
[29:50] code enforcement officer or anybody in
mun civil government that is that has
[29:54] that list of vacant properties that
they're working. Um that's our first
[29:58] stop. We work with um again the
community community dependent. Um but
[30:02] each community will have and we try to
spread the net as wide as possible um
[30:07] with community groups, block clubs,
faith-based organizations, anybody that
[30:11] cares about the vacant properties in the
community. Even the folks, the
[30:14] individuals that come into council
monthly and and and and and you know and
[30:19] talk about the the the light in the
community, we want to speak to them,
[30:23] their eyes and ears. We work with them.
Um and obviously we use um other um you
[30:28] know items as well. uh utility shut
offs, uh USPS postal data, that's a
[30:33] little bit um um outdated, so we don't
we don't really rely on that. Um so
[30:38] it's, you know, we the idea being um as
I said, want to spread the net as wide
[30:43] as possible um to capture as much as we
can. And just to kind of one thing I
[30:48] neglected to mention earlier, I you
know, I like to be very transparent. Um
[30:52] this program, I'm an advocate for this
program. Um, you know, I spent many
[30:57] years, you know, seeing unnecessary
frustration from code enforcement
[31:00] officers that they were just wasting
time, taxpayer money, sending certified
[31:06] letters to absentee owners, sometimes to
the vacant property itself. Um, just it
[31:11] just didn't make sense. So, I'm an
advocate for this program. This program,
[31:15] it could be implemented and administered
internally in your um without me, right?
[31:20] That's just the reality. um data shows
and I think I included in the brochure
[31:25] um that um that when it's administered
internally you will get some level of
[31:30] compliance you you do not maximize it
for various reasons it could be staff
[31:34] turnover it could be priorities change
um and also um you know the the the
[31:39] business model that we that we have um
it financially incents us to maximize
[31:44] compliance right we only get paid if
there is a registration so um you know
[31:49] um That puts us a step ahead of if
whoever would be doing it internally.
[31:55] internally you would get some compliance
if you could do if you would if you
[31:58] implement the ordinance do a uh even a
you know decent job of of publicizing it
[32:05] um you'll get some level of compliance
but uh obviously uh we feel that our
[32:09] business model maximizes that and then
along with that um you know I I I have
[32:15] especially when it comes to the uh to
banks and mortgage companies um but we
[32:19] you know I'm I'm I I feel like I'm a
good sounding board for communities that
[32:24] struggle some of these properties um
with banks and mortgage companies.
[32:28] Absolutely. I feel comfortable. Um but I
can always help a code officer navigate
[32:32] through that process when the bank is um
being non-compliant, non-ooperative,
[32:38] that's what I did for many many years.
Um and then for these other properties,
[32:42] whether it's an LLC or an heir, um I do
have a national focus. I look nationally
[32:47] and I see what works in other
communities. And um you know I think I a
[32:51] lot of times if if you you know to uh if
you take a look at our social media
[32:55] profile, if you take a look at our
website um we um really try to monitor
[33:00] what's working and what's not working
across the country in this very very
[33:03] niche field and um you know I think we
can bring we bring uh that as an added
[33:08] resource an added um you know value to
any relationship that we have with any
[33:13] municipality.
[33:19] I'd like to get our code enforcement
officers
[33:23] take on this. I'd like for him to to
look at it, see what his his feel is.
[33:28] Also, Dr. Johnson, you put this on the
agenda. Have you looked at the the uh
[33:34] municipalities who are currently using
this? And have you talked to anybody and
[33:39] there's very few around San Antonio, one
big city, Balcony's Heights? Other other
[33:44] than those two, I really don't see any
any other small cities that are
[33:48] utilizing this service. And and I hate
to get another program that we have to
[33:53] manage
without without getting some information
[33:58] from cities that are utilizing it.
Although they're listed on here, how how
[34:02] involved are they at utilizing the
service? And again, I'd like our code
[34:08] enforcement officer. I'd like his his
take on this and is it worth the effort
[34:12] of us to get involved in this?
>> Okay. Before we make a decision and Mr.
[34:17] Cio does want to take two minutes of her
time to
[34:20] » just new to me, but um are they would
you use someone in Ohio? Number one.
[34:26] Number two, you manage San Antonio. Is
that what she said?
[34:30] » No, San Antonio utilizes this service.
>> Okay. Well, San Antonio, if I if I may
[34:35] just clarify, I do not I do not work for
San Antonio. I we currently just for
[34:40] clarification we do not have any current
clients in Texas. Um those communities
[34:44] that listed have the implemented the
program they they all administer
[34:48] internally. So that's just a
clarification.
[34:51] » I think I'll need to do some research
like he said because it sounds like
[34:55] another cost and so far he's already
said that he only gets his money on
[34:59] registration. Number one, um I had a
property in downtown Mon San Antonio
[35:06] that they put that house for five years
empty with animals in and out. I mean,
[35:13] all all house cities have this problem.
I'm not saying it's blow it off, but if
[35:17] if you're getting paid just to register,
how do you register? How do you get
[35:21] someone that's not paying anything, not
showing up, not taking care of their
[35:24] house to register or even care if you're
going to get people to actually care
[35:28] enough to register? I I mean and then
and then later on are you going to be
[35:34] there later? Yeah. When they need I
don't know that sounds like a waste of
[35:38] money. Um
>> so if if I may just um if I may just
[35:42] respond to that. Is that okay?
>> Yeah.
[35:45] » Okay. Thank you. Um so in the brochure
um you'll see that um I think I have one
[35:52] slide of all the various organizations
that recommend this program. Right. I I
[35:58] started by saying it's not a silver
bullet to to address blight. Um and I
[36:02] try to be, you know, I'll definitely
clarify any questions that you may have.
[36:06] Um if you if you administer it, if you
implement it and administer it
[36:10] internally, you're absolutely correct.
It will be another program. It will be
[36:14] another process that code officers have
to do. Um that's why I'm in business to
[36:18] do to to remove that burden. I my goal
is never to replace a code enforcement
[36:23] officer. Um, I have personal friends
built over the years in in this field.
[36:29] My goal is to support them. Generally
speaking, without knowing the specifics
[36:32] of Sandy Oaks, generally speaking, code
enforcement departments are underst
[36:37] staffed, underresourced, and they're
spread very thin. And so, you're correct
[36:42] that property that um they've ignored
the the property condition is hor is
[36:47] horrendous. That's what the municipal
that's what the maintenance code is for,
[36:50] right? This is a tool in the toolbox
that relieves one burden from a
[36:56] generally overstaffed um you know
overstretched um code enforcement
[37:01] department um you know so
>> you do it internally sorry go ahead
[37:08] that's I would move that we bring back
[37:14] » okay so at this time I do have a motion
to postpone until we discuss with our
[37:19] code enforcement officer
by having a tremble and a second by
[37:24] Alderman McNeel.
Uh there need discussion.
[37:30] » Yeah, I had a couple questions.
>> Sure.
[37:33] » So, one, I think he did an excellent job
of explaining that there's no extra work
[37:37] for the city by what the citizens pay to
register the property. That's paying him
[37:42] to do that work for us. No extra work,
just a resource for the code enforcement
[37:47] officer to use. But I understand that
there's some questions on that. But I
[37:51] had some questions specifically for him.
You're talking about vacant properties.
[37:55] Does that include vacant lots? Things
that don't have a building on them and
[37:59] it's just an empty lot. We have a lot of
those in the city as well.
[38:02] » So, um the the the final wording of the
ordinance is obviously crafted by the
[38:08] municipality. We provide a model
ordinance and as I said, I would I
[38:10] absolutely advocate to include vacant
lots as well. Um the dumping ground. Um,
[38:16] » just wanted to make sure that was an
option, sir. And then also the document
[38:20] that the city administrator provided to
us also talked about registration of
[38:24] rental properties, but I did not hear
you mention that at all.
[38:28] » So, it it is a another service that we
provide similar um it is more I'm going
[38:33] to say more involved conversation um
because um typically with a rental
[38:39] registry um there are communities that
have just a registry component. Some
[38:43] have an inspection component as well. Um
it's a different conversation. The
[38:48] reason why I include it um and and any I
can definitely address any questions
[38:52] that you have. The reasons why I include
it because the underlying um burden is
[38:57] still the same, right? If the if a
community has a rental registry, the
[39:00] value is the same. You're getting that
contact information proactively. Um but
[39:05] the um the underlying challenge still
exists, right, of of of if it's
[39:11] administered internally to try to go
actively and locate and and track down
[39:15] these owners. So this
>> we actually have we actually have an
[39:19] ordinance out there. I was just
wondering whether that was something
[39:21] that you do provide. You just didn't
bring it up. I don't want to drag this
[39:24] out because they want to still propose
postpone it. I just want to make it sure
[39:27] that that's something that we can
consider in our future discussions
[39:30] rather than have to bring this back
multiple times. I would, if this is
[39:34] something the city administrator brings
back for you to talk about rental
[39:37] properties, I would request that before
you come back to talk about that, you
[39:40] look at our city ordinance. We actually
already have an ordinance related to
[39:43] required for registration and
inspections of rental properties that
[39:47] might help you shape your conversation
with us when you return.
[39:49] » Absolutely. Absolutely.
>> That's all I had, sir. Thank you so
[39:54] much.
>> Thank you.
[39:56] » All right. So, the mo again the motion
just to reiterate the motion to postpone
[40:00] it. So, we've had time to discuss with
our U code enforcement offer officers
[40:04] presented by Alderman Trump and a second
by Alderman Wheel. If there's no further
[40:08] discussion, all those in favor say I.
>> I.
[40:12] » I.
>> Those opposed, that motion will carry.
[40:14] We'll bring it up at the next well when
after we have a chance to talk to our
[40:19] » Excellent. Thank you so much, everybody.
Have a wonderful evening.
[40:22] » Thank you, Mr. Albert.
>> Absolutely. Bye-bye.
[40:26] » Uh, okay. So, we do have one more
presentation. It's now 7:10.
[40:31] We're going to jump to agenda item 8 L
discussing a possible action on a
[40:36] proposal for governance training and
council development service ethics
[40:40] training workshop for elected officials
and staff at a fee not to exceed 2750
[40:44] inclusive of travel and expenses and to
authorize city administrator to execute
[40:49] the agreement and set the workshop
dates.
[40:55] » Yes, sir. That would be Mrs. Marissa,
[41:01] » you do on the floor.
>> Hi, good evening, mayor, council, um
[41:06] city staff. I'm Marisa Himemenz Santi
and with me is um Bennett Sandlin who is
[41:12] um the head of our training component
and we did send a um sort of an outline
[41:21] of training for half day as well as the
cost for it. And we did talk with your
[41:27] administrator about breaking up that
fee. Um, but I want Bennett to kind of
[41:32] go ahead and talk about how he takes a
full day training and can condense it
[41:37] for you um to review all of these topics
um that you have concerns about.
[41:45] » Thank you, Marissa. Can everybody hear
me? Okay. I'm I'm Bennett Samlin at the
[41:48] Denton Navaro Law Firm. Uh prior to
joining Dent Navaro, I was the executive
[41:53] director at TML for uh 15 years and now
I'm engaged in training city councils,
[41:58] helping them to be sort of better
versions of themselves. This is my
[42:01] passion and I'm very excited about
possibly doing ethics training for the
[42:06] city of Sandy Oaks. Uh I think a 4-hour
intensive workshop on ethics is about
[42:12] the perfect length. Uh too much longer
than that, people lose interest and and
[42:16] people start to doze off. But too much
shorter than that, you're not you're
[42:19] going to miss out on some of the key
items. And so I think four hours is a
[42:23] good fit. What we're proposing for the
city with the city administrator's uh
[42:28] request is a deep dive into the all the
state laws that affect uh city ethics.
[42:34] We're talking conflicts of interest, uh,
including things like, uh, the gift
[42:38] statute, bribery, other other important
state laws, nepotism, dual office
[42:43] holding, um, uh, city, uh, resigned to
run provisions. Uh, and then we also
[42:50] have a kind of an overview of sort of
how this all fits together for a
[42:54] cohesive and and functional city
council. How do you make it work for you
[42:57] and and be and be well respected in your
community following these ethics laws?
[43:02] So, we're excited about the prospect of
coming down to Sandy Oaks and spending
[43:05] half a day with you. We could do
morning, we could do evening, whatever
[43:07] works best for you, but this is right up
the alley of what Denton Navaro is doing
[43:11] these days. We're expanding our incity
training uh workshops and I think half a
[43:17] day on ethics is is is perfect the
perfect length for uh a modern city
[43:23] council, a general law city council. Uh
just refresher on all the things that
[43:28] that you need to know. And of course,
every city council member is an ethical
[43:32] person. The problem with state ethics
laws is they're often counterintuitive.
[43:35] Uh and they're often stricter for city
officials than they are for state law.
[43:38] So, we're going to go over things that
you probably haven't even thought of uh
[43:42] from an ethical perspective. Things that
just aren't intuitive and so you can be
[43:47] the best council member you can for your
city. And Marissa and I will come do
[43:51] that at your at your leisure whenever is
is convenient for you guys. uh if this
[43:55] agenda item is approved and uh we're
happy to answer any questions that you
[43:59] may have.
>> I got a question sir McNe
[44:04] um my question is you mentioned you work
for TML. Um, can you tell me what the
[44:11] difference between your training that
I'm looking at $2,700
[44:17] to do the training and the PML training
where we can do a onetime fee of $25 to
[44:23] get it online and we can have that
training for 60 days. So if we have
[44:27] stragglers that need to come in and take
that course, is there something specific
[44:32] that that the TML training that we would
take online be that that uh that you
[44:38] offer that is is mandated by Texas that
the TML training is not providing?
[44:45] » That's a really good question. Actually,
other than the the two open meetings and
[44:49] open records videos that you've seen,
there are no statemandated ethics law uh
[44:52] training laws. What's different between
what we do and what TML does is that we
[44:57] come to your city and we customize that
training for your city council. So, you
[45:02] can certainly go online. I'm a big
proponent of online TML training. We've,
[45:06] in fact, I helped create some of that
while I was at TML. I think it's super.
[45:10] Uh, but what you get from our firm, if
you're interested, is in-person
[45:15] customized training for your city. Uh
and and also at 4 hours, we're going to
[45:20] cover many many state laws that no other
uh prepackaged training provides. Uh for
[45:27] example, gifting statutes, $50 limits on
gifts and so forth. How do how does that
[45:31] affect a council? How does that affect
campaigning for office? We'll also talk
[45:35] about issues about running for higher
office, what what is your role, these v
[45:40] state legislators? So, it's going to be
a little more in depth. It's going to be
[45:43] in person and we'll be there to answer
questions and and go through scenarios
[45:47] that you may be facing locally. So, it's
just a a more in-depth uh concentrated
[45:52] training uh in in your town, which some
councils find useful. Uh but I'm
[45:58] certainly a big fan of what TML offers
and and we're not we're not saying
[46:01] anything's wrong with that training, but
we're just a little more in-depth, a
[46:04] little more personal, and a little more
personalized for for Sandy Oaks. Does
[46:08] that answer your question, Council
Member?
[46:10] » Yes, sir. Can I can I just piggy back on
that councilman? Um I'm I'm the past
[46:16] president of TML as well and so I was a
mayor prom of my city and I served on
[46:22] the EDC prior to that. So Bennett's
going to bring all of the legal
[46:28] training, talk about scenarios. Um but I
also get to tag along and have the
[46:33] conversation of I sat in your seat and I
know the kinds of things that you're
[46:38] dealing with. I know what you're dealing
with with um your community. How and we
[46:43] can talk about how can we gain public
trust, how can we um help plan for the
[46:48] city. Um I think one of your
constituents was talking about housing
[46:52] and not wanting the city to kind of just
um get passed by. And so, you know,
[46:58] those are the kinds of things that we
can also loop into all of this training.
[47:02] And since Bennett is um an attorney by
training, he can answer legal questions
[47:08] along the way as well.
just kind of think when we on our side
[47:12] of it is that
we should give the female training a
[47:16] shot first. We think we need additional
training cuz I haven't seen an ethics
[47:21] issue in the city yet as far as I know
of or there's an ethics problem where
[47:29] do the hands off but
anybody else
[47:32] » we do have an ethics ordinance
[47:37] table
[47:41] I said
you got anything?
[47:45] Yeah, I I had a question on this. How
does this all fit in to the mandatory
[47:52] ethics training that was dictated for
all council elected and appointed
[47:56] officials before I was on the council? I
haven't seen it yet. So, I I don't
[48:00] understand how this all fits into there.
And I think if we're going to talk about
[48:03] this, we need to figure out how it fits
into whatever document the previous
[48:08] council posted or passed to mandate this
training because that may need to be
[48:13] changed. I have no idea what it is. It
was never given to me.
[48:22] » All right.
>> Council, I can you address that. I
[48:25] There's no state law ethics training
other than the two.
[48:29] » Sir, sir, sir, that's not what I'm
talking about. I'm talking about our
[48:32] city council prior to me coming on it
made a decision that all appointed and
[48:37] elected officials needed to do some sort
of ethical training. So, it's got
[48:41] nothing to do with statemandated, sir.
This is what the city council prior to
[48:44] me being on it. So, I'm not talking
about a state mandate, sir. I'm talking
[48:48] about the city of Sandy Oaks mandated
something.
[48:51] » I'm sorry. Understood.
>> Yeah. And and Mayor Prom, I've seen that
[48:56] in other cities as well. Um they put a
policy in place. Um they give a deadline
[49:01] for their elected officials after
they're they they're sworn into office
[49:05] to take a training. Um, I don't know
what yours says specifically as far as
[49:11] whether it is one particular one or not
or if it's just ethics training in
[49:15] general.
>> Yes, ma'am. That's why my question was
[49:18] [clears throat] towards the city
administrator and the mayor. If this is
[49:21] come back later, that needs to be
addressed as part of the conversation.
[49:31] » So, I'm looking at the policy that we
drafted up. Again, I don't know if this
[49:35] is the final one. is just the one I
could find in my email, Mayor Pim. And
[49:39] and it looks like it's just an
acknowledgement um of, you know,
[49:43] reporting gifts like she was talk like
they were talking about earlier. Um
[49:47] confidential information,
things like that, who it applies to,
[49:53] recusal, recusal and disclosure. Um, so
it looks like it was just an
[49:57] acknowledgement form, not so much of
actual training, but it's a pretty
[50:01] in-depth document that I think
>> was there some sort of policy
[50:05] implemented that indicated or required
all elected or appointed officials to
[50:11] review and sign that because again, I've
been on council for almost two years now
[50:15] and no one has given that to me. I do
recall that
[50:20] too like it was. Yes.
>> Okay. I don't remember that possibly.
[50:26] » So then let us let us take it back um
and then we'll have to circle back to
[50:31] after we figure out what's required for
the ordinance and then we can make the
[50:36] right decision.
>> The motion still stand.
[50:40] » Was it postpone?
>> Well, we don't need a motion to table
[50:44] it. Right. So
>> table it means you're bringing it back
[50:47] later this meeting. If you want to bring
it back at a different meeting, you need
[50:51] to postpone it. Sir,
>> I want to table this all together. I
[50:54] don't see us paying $2,700 training we
can get online.
[50:58] » Again, if you say table, it means you
want to talk about it later this
[51:01] meeting. So you don't want to
>> postpone it. We're going to postpone it
[51:03] in depth.
>> There you go.
[51:09] » Thank you all for joining our meeting.
>> Thank you.
[51:14] Thank you. Appreciate your time.
[51:20] » No, because he wanted to pay
[51:26] » well.
[51:32] Okay.
Okay. So then uh going backwards
[51:40] 7:22
[51:43] discussion of possible action on
authorizing the interim city
[51:47] administrator to advertise for municipal
court judge qualifications through
[51:51] October 2026.
Do you have any?
[51:55] » Yes sir. The RFP's already been um
approved. Just want to know if we can
[52:00] get your permission the council
permission to advertise it.
[52:06] Which agenda item did we go back to?
>> Yeah. Where we at? Uh 8D.
[52:11] » Yep.
[52:15] » Okay. I don't know why this is under new
business because this was on the last
[52:19] agenda. It should have been under old
business. And then I had um a few
[52:24] questions about the timeline that the
city administrator proposed. Um, the
[52:29] judge should not be sworn in until after
the elections because the mayor is
[52:32] supposed to be the one that's it's
supposed to be done after the mayoral
[52:36] elections. And so the new council should
be the one that's approving that. And
[52:42] doesn't our current judge already serve
until December? So, shouldn't the new
[52:46] judge just start at the end of the
current judge's term? And um
[52:54] and just a typo on the thing, you need a
space before the awards and negotiation
[52:58] statement in section six.
[53:05] » Yes. No, I can get those date changed if
you like.
[53:10] » I think we need to have a discussion
here to make sure we're going to get it
[53:12] all in to make sure the judge gets in in
time. I think our city attorney uh can
[53:17] speak to how long the judge serves and
what legally we're supposed to be doing
[53:22] based on our ordinance. I think it's
appointed after each mayor election, but
[53:26] I would turn to the city attorney or the
mayor to clarify this information before
[53:30] we like make that happen. Just throwing
it out there as questions.
[53:34] » The current judge's term expires I think
December 12th. Um
[53:39] the judge is appointed by the mayor,
confirmed by council. So it would not be
[53:43] until after the mayor takes office,
which is 6 days after the election or
[53:48] after canvasing, whatever comes later.
Um so they probably timing wise it'd be
[53:54] the meeting in December where the mayor
could appoint the the judge and then
[53:58] council confirm it for a term to start
after the current judge's term. Um just
[54:04] for logistics, we do have court for
December 14th and that would be the next
[54:08] the time that that judge
uh
[54:13] I guess preides over.
>> So you said six
[54:16] » December meeting would be the 10th.
Would that work for this timeline?
[54:20] » Yeah, you could appoint the 10th, but
his term would not um his or her term
[54:25] would not start until after the
expiration of the current judge judge's
[54:29] term. But by statute, he serves two
years.
[54:32] [clears throat] Couldn't we do it all on
November 12th?
[54:35] » Um,
>> because that would have been six days
[54:37] after.
>> You could do that if you have the
[54:39] canvasing, you have the election results
by that time. Sometimes the election
[54:43] department doesn't have.
>> So, there may need to be a special
[54:46] meeting and to canvas. You only need two
alderman to canvas. So, it may need to
[54:52] wait until it to answer your question,
it can't
[54:56] » it can't happen December 12th. that can
happen especially on behalf of
[55:01] » does advertisement still need to go out
to the
[55:07] » um well it's not required that you issue
an RQ for a judge um but that is what so
[55:14] yes it would need to go out to
I guess to get applications but it's not
[55:20] a requirement
>> I I have no issues with or questions
[55:24] about the dates he wants to advertise it
and also delaying the decision until the
[55:28] December 10th meeting also allows
whoever is on the city council after the
[55:33] election more time to review all of the
responses to the RFQ uh to make an
[55:38] informed decision.
>> Are we required to go to to to
[55:43] put out the qualifications to our new
judge?
[55:46] » No.
>> I mean, I don't I don't see what this
[55:48] judge had done incorrectly or wrong or
whatever you want to call it to where
[55:52] we're going to go out and seek
qualifications. He's done his job fine.
[55:56] he has no complaints, then we just go
back to the board and renegotiate his
[56:00] contract to reduce his health plan so
we're not paying for health because I
[56:04] think that was one of the issues and
then put some actual limitations on the
[56:07] contract to say this is what we're going
to pay this is what we're not
[56:12] this will effectively save us a whole
bunch of time we had discussion with
[56:16] judge is he stay
>> yeah he is I've talked to him now he did
[56:20] ask he did ask for help but I mean if
that's not a part of the deal it's not
[56:24] part of the deal
>> but he is
[56:26] will also give us the opportunity to get
more options and we can always just
[56:31] choose to go with him. But it's whoever
the mayor is after the election is the
[56:35] one that and that city council that's
going to be making that decision and do
[56:40] we not want to give them the option to
pick someone else if they want someone
[56:45] else because waiting until that election
it's going to be too late to send the
[56:48] RFQ out.
>> Fair enough. current current judges it
[56:54] can definitely submit something but we
haven't had a contract or anything. So
[56:59] so this would be an opportunity for him
to tell us what he wants
[57:04] and for other judges and we can see if
there's even any other options. I mean,
[57:09] maybe no one wants to come down to
Little Sandy, but we we don't want to
[57:14] get to the new city council and have
members that would like to take a look
[57:20] at what other options we have in the
city. So, and I have had comments from
[57:27] employees about um cases getting thrown
out or not people not getting fined
[57:32] after they do the work to do the
paperwork. I haven't heard any
[57:35] complaints from the citizens about the
judge. Um, they're just complaining
[57:41] about having the ticket in in the first
place. I don't know about any other
[57:45] council members.
>> I think they're going to be arguments
[57:48] from all employees about that because
they do work hard on their cases, but if
[57:51] the case is not going to then apply.
>> I I'm not saying I'm not saying anything
[57:56] about whether what they said is right or
wrong. I'm just saying that's all I've
[57:59] heard because you asked that question.
I'm saying I haven't heard anything from
[58:02] the citizens other than they don't like
the ticket in general and all I've heard
[58:07] negatively is a couple of citizens
complaining about cases being dismissed
[58:12] and and that's all I haven't heard
anything else. I'm just inquiring if
[58:15] anyone else has just as you have.
[58:23] If there's no further discussion, then I
move that we uh we authorize the interim
[58:28] city administrator to advertise for
municipal court judge qualifications
[58:33] through October 26 with the uh with the
amendments to the document that mayor
[58:40] promp
[58:43] talked about.
>> Second.
[58:51] So, I have a motion from
[58:56] from Alderman McNeel
and a second from Alderman Tremblelet
[59:02] uh to
[59:05] authorize the interim city administrator
to advertise for the municipal court
[59:09] judge qualifications through October
2026 with the amend with the amendments
[59:13] mentioned by the mayor.
[59:17] There any further discussion?
Those in favor say I.
[59:22] » I. I.
>> All right. That motion will carry.
[59:27] » All right. Moving on to E. Discussing a
possible action on approving a
[59:30] resolution and information technology
contract with Felipe Hernandez Jr.
[59:35] » Johnson. You want to talk to this one?
>> Uh, yes sir. So, a contract has been
[59:39] created. However, Mr. Felipe is still
looking over it. Um, hopefully we can
[59:42] get it signed as soon as tomorrow and
him starting on Monday.
[59:48] I am a little concerned that you signed
it before we said it was good to go, but
[59:53] I'm not sure exactly what our motion was
last time for you to go work the
[59:56] contract. I have no questions about the
contract, though.
[1:00:07] » Is there any indication you might not be
happy with it?
[1:00:10] » Uh, no sir, he's not. No indication.
[1:00:16] I'm assuming our city attorney is has
reviewed the document.
[1:00:20] » Not yet. I would have to first thing
tomorrow morning.
[1:00:28] » I accept.
>> Yeah, we can't do anything until our
[1:00:31] city attorney takes
>> Yeah, you need to pull back that signed
[1:00:36] version that you showed us until our
city attorney approves it because
[1:00:42] » Yeah. Is this his paper or our paper?
Did we write this or did they write it?
[1:00:46] » Yeah. So, it was between the two of us.
So, initially he did and I took it
[1:00:51] pretty much revalved it completely. Um,
>> so it was on his paper. So, it's
[1:00:55] » No, no, it was it was on my paper. He
just gave me He just gave me input on
[1:00:59] things that he would like to see.
>> Yeah. Let's have our city attorney take
[1:01:03] a look at before we before you sign it.
For sure.
[1:01:07] » He's already signed it. That's what I'm
saying. He needs to get that signed
[1:01:10] version back from
uh that IT endpoint right away.
[1:01:18] » Yeah. Let's go ahead and do that.
>> Okay.
[1:01:22] » What are we going to do?
>> No action.
[1:01:24] » No action.
>> Or do you want to make a motion to
[1:01:29] withdraw the contract, the signed
contract at this point? I don't know if
[1:01:33] we need to. I I think to cover our
bases, we should uh Yeah, I would move
[1:01:38] that we uh withdraw approval of that
signed contract uh that the city
[1:01:44] administrator drafted and wait until our
city attorney provides input before
[1:01:53] he provides a version.
[1:01:58] I'd
[1:02:02] like to get a motion by our mayor Potim
and a second by Alderman McNeel uh to
[1:02:07] withdraw the signed contract from Felipe
Hernandez at information technology. Uh
[1:02:14] any other further discussion? Not all
those in favor say I.
[1:02:19] » But wait but
again it's until the attorney reviews
[1:02:23] it. So, if the attorney reviews it, then
I want the city administrator to be able
[1:02:28] to sign it and send it back cuz I I
don't think there's any issues with the
[1:02:32] contract unless somebody else does. I
don't want to make this wait until we
[1:02:36] come back again. The police department
needs this contract. I just want I'm
[1:02:40] concerned our city attorney hasn't
reviewed it.
[1:02:43] » Okay. And then and you did say that. So,
let me let me restate the motion. So,
[1:02:47] the motion by the mayor and seconded by
Alderman McNeel is to withdraw the
[1:02:51] signed contract until after the uh the
city attorney has had an opportunity to
[1:02:57] review and if if and when it's reviewed
and approved by them, then the we
[1:03:02] authorize the city administrator to
finally execute the contract.
[1:03:07] » Yes, sir.
>> All those in favor say I.
[1:03:11] » I.
>> All right. That motion will carry along.
[1:03:16] Wait, we I go back to section seven
>> of the contract.
[1:03:20] » Uh, no. Not finished business.
>> B, C, and D,
[1:03:26] » B, C, and D.
>> You're already
[1:03:29] um Well,
[1:03:34] » okay. So,
>> all right. So, let's move to agenda item
[1:03:39] 7 A. uh seven agenda items or actually
the seven 7B
[1:03:46] will be postponed. 7 C will be
postponed.
[1:03:51] Uh and then
then we have 7D.
[1:03:56] All right. So
[1:04:03] then let's go to
let's continue on. We'll we'll get to
[1:04:08] agenda item 7D in just a moment.
But let's go ahead and move on to seven.
[1:04:17] Excuse me. Seven data
eight. Sorry. Discuss and take possible
[1:04:24] action on the word of the contract for
municipal record services recreate
[1:04:27] storage services upon the expiration of
the existing contract with Texas towing
[1:04:32] on August 31st 2026 and authorize the
city administrator to negotiate and
[1:04:36] execute such contract on behalf of the
city Dr. Johnson you have the floor.
[1:04:42] » Yes sir. So we do
>> I have a point of order before we go
[1:04:45] forward with anything with Creswell
recorder.
[1:04:49] So, I don't think the city can le city
council can legally consider this
[1:04:54] because Creswell record was not part of
the original proposals that we reviewed
[1:04:58] when we made our selection. I believe
the city council's options at this point
[1:05:01] are either to select a backup if K3 can
no longer perform the the contract or
[1:05:07] authorize the city administrator to put
out a new RFP. I do not think the
[1:05:12] council can legally look at this. This
is my concern at this point. Sir, I
[1:05:15] bring this to you.
[1:05:23] Attorney, you have anything to
offer?
[1:05:29] » Feelings was a legit offer at the time
and they're the ones that originally
[1:05:34] presented fact that not Kate, the one
before them didn't have that. Sure.
[1:05:41] They subsider
[1:05:44] that we want to go
[1:05:51] do therapy. They were after the fact.
[1:06:01] » If they were after the fact, I think we
need a new RFP and allow other
[1:06:05] organizations an opportunity and then we
can consider them as part of that. We
[1:06:09] don't need to do the full uh multiple
weeks as we did in the past, but we
[1:06:13] cannot go with an RFP, a a proposal
submitted after our RFP closed, not
[1:06:18] legally.
[1:06:24] » Well, then let's just go monthtomonth
with Texas towing for now until we can
[1:06:27] figure that out. But
>> what do we want to authorize the
[1:06:31] administrator to do on this? So, I would
move that the city administrator uh
[1:06:35] speak with Texas Towing about moving to
a month-to-month contract until such
[1:06:38] time as we can figure out the RFP
process.
[1:06:42] » Second,
[1:06:46] I got a motion by the mayor plat and a
second by Alderman Kickmer to authorize
[1:06:51] the city administrator to discuss with
Texas towing a month-to-month contract
[1:06:56] till we're able to figure out our
municipal record and solar services.
[1:07:03] Any other discussion on this item?
All those in favor say I.
[1:07:09] » I.
>> All those opposed.
[1:07:12] » Okay.
>> Okay. Uh moving on to G 8G. Discussing
[1:07:19] and take possible action on authorizing
the city administrator to advertise a
[1:07:22] request for proposal for municipal solid
waste collection and disposal services
[1:07:26] upon expiration of the existing contract
with waste connection on the TMLE. TML
[1:07:32] PML website and the city website through
October 2026.
[1:07:38] Is that sufficient? um on the PM
post.
[1:07:46] Um, you can also email potential
directly,
[1:07:52] » but that's considered something that's
that's factory.
[1:07:56] » My only question on that is is why we're
doing that. Is it like problems with the
[1:08:02] cash company or trying to get lower
prices or
[1:08:09] expiration? Um, there has been
>> some I do hear some feedback. me.
[1:08:15] Personally, they missed my trash can as
well, but I mean that's going to be it
[1:08:18] every um I do know that we want to um
try to negotiate a franchise fee
[1:08:26] into the contracts with whoever we deal
with for operating on our roads for
[1:08:31] utilizing them. Um
>> I believe that's part of the RFP that we
[1:08:35] were looking at for this one. I do know
our citizens are not going to be happy
[1:08:37] if we just automatically renew with our
current vendor.
[1:08:42] » Thank you. I would we did contact the
providers directly and ask them if
[1:08:49] they're
[1:08:52] did before
do we want one
[1:08:57] list providers that we want to try to
contact
[1:09:02] connections management
I think
[1:09:07] » no
>> one we asked the citizens who they'd
[1:09:10] like us to consider just published the
RFP P I mean the citizens as I don't
[1:09:17] know if you recall mayor but when waste
connections came and wanted to come to
[1:09:22] our national night out to talk about
moving all pickups to just Monday uh
[1:09:27] there was uh you were querying on social
media what citizens thought about that
[1:09:32] and many of them didn't want us to
continue with waste management. So, uh I
[1:09:38] think I think we need to listen to them
and find out who they'd like us to
[1:09:42] consider and look at options from all of
them and also allow time between when
[1:09:48] the RFP closes and we actually talk
about it uh to allow the citizens time
[1:09:53] to come tell us what they think about
the companies that provided as an RFP or
[1:09:59] a response to our RFP.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I just don't know if we
[1:10:04] have that much time. All right.
I thought this contract's good until the
[1:10:09] end of December.
[1:10:12] » But you're talking about pulling people,
having them inviting them to the
[1:10:15] meeting, which is fine, but at the same
time, we still got to negotiate a
[1:10:19] contract. We still got to if this if
these guys are going to go, they got to
[1:10:23] we got to get another company mobilized.
>> Why can't we just put out an RFP?
[1:10:28] » Well, just put it out. Let's get it.
Yeah,
[1:10:30] » sure.
>> And we just put it out there. let the
[1:10:33] citizens know that it's out there. And
then when we get the list in, we just
[1:10:38] publish who we have the the responses
from when we're going to talk about it
[1:10:43] at the city council meeting and allow
the citizens to come. Not necessarily a
[1:10:48] public hearing, like a town hall. Come
tell me what you think about these three
[1:10:52] contractors that provided us a response.
Tell us what you think because they have
[1:10:57] strong opinions about who picks up their
trash.
[1:11:00] Well, we want to go with the best value
now.
[1:11:14] » But most most of the cost of the trash
pickup is going to be borne by the
[1:11:18] citizen.
>> So it's not like I mean we have to pay
[1:11:22] for our trash pickup as a city, but so
do our citizens. So, if they would
[1:11:27] rather have company A and pay them an
extra five bucks a month versus company
[1:11:32] B because they think the quality of
service is better, then I I don't think
[1:11:37] it would be uh right for us to go
against that if it's worth it to
[1:11:44] » but we should take that into
consideration uh at least when we're
[1:11:48] evaluating it. Yeah, I think we take
into consideration, but I would dis I
[1:11:52] would respectfully disagree because just
because the three people showed up here
[1:11:55] and want Tiger doesn't mean we should go
with Tiger when everybody else is.
[1:12:01] » I agree, sir. But we need to give them
an opportunity to speak.
[1:12:05] » Understood. If anything else, I'll go
ahead and move to authorize the inter
[1:12:09] city administrator
to advertise the request for proposal
[1:12:14] for the municipal solid waste collection
disclosure service on expiration of
[1:12:18] existing contract waste connections on
the Texas municipal league website and
[1:12:23] the city website through October
26. Um and upon completion to ensure
[1:12:30] that it it goes on the uh agenda and
published so that the citizens can see
[1:12:36] what contractors have responded and so
we can take their input.
[1:12:45] We got a motion by Alderman McNeel and a
second by Alderwoman Walker to authorize
[1:12:50] the interim city administrator to
advertise for RFP for municipal solid
[1:12:53] waste collection and disposal services
upon exploration of the existing
[1:12:57] contract of waste connections on the TML
website and the city website through
[1:13:02] October 2026 and upon completion of the
RFP to post it in a following regularly
[1:13:08] scheduled agenda.
There any further discussion on this
[1:13:12] item?
>> Yes. My concern is My concern is I don't
[1:13:16] see the RFP in the folder.
[1:13:22] » We're offering we're authorizing him to
release something we haven't seen. I
[1:13:25] thought I'd seen it in the past.
[1:13:32] » I see I see the memo where he's talking
about the dates and I don't like the
[1:13:35] date. He scheduled it for the 6th of
October, which I think is not enough
[1:13:38] time for us to look at the RFPs. Um but
because it's only like four days after
[1:13:44] it closes out, but um I I don't see what
the RFP where the RFP is.
[1:13:52] » So you want me to amend my my motion
that authorize them to draft and provide
[1:14:00] the request for proposal?
>> Um I'm just Yeah, I'm just starting
[1:14:06] conversation. I would like to see an RFP
rather than just allowing the city
[1:14:09] administrator to write something and
sending it out without any input from
[1:14:12] anybody. Uh whether that's a select few
or he brings it back to council, I'm
[1:14:17] just throwing it out there that it
shouldn't go out without someone
[1:14:21] reviewing it because it's not here for
us to look at right now.
[1:14:25] » There was a complete RF draft that was
presented to council a few months ago.
[1:14:30] The motion was to bring it back the
second meeting in August. Um so the need
[1:14:35] to reddraft I don't think is necessary
but but to at least see what the final
[1:14:41] version is council wants to be um I
don't I haven't I have not made
[1:14:49] sure
[1:14:54] but also not voted on any changes
[1:14:59] » yeah just supposed to be about
>> so We're going to have to bring this one
[1:15:04] back because we need to look at the RFP
in depth before we get
[1:15:09] you want to withdraw.
>> Yeah, I would
[1:15:14] say
>> Can you agree to
[1:15:18] Can you agree to withdraw?
[1:15:23] All right.
[1:15:28] So that at this time no action is to be
taken but we will bring it we will
[1:15:33] actually bring the RFP to the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
[1:15:44] We're trying to
Okay. Uh let's see here.
[1:15:52] All right. Let's move on to agenda item
8. I discuss possible action on the
[1:15:57] resolution establishing a spring and
fall citywide yard sale uh Saturday
[1:16:02] proceeding the respective curbside brush
and bulky item collections waving the
[1:16:06] garage sale permit fee under ordinance
2026 278. Alderman Kryner and Dr.
[1:16:11] Johnson, you got the floor.
[1:16:17] » Okay. Yes, sir. So, we're requesting the
uh approval of a resolution to be
[1:16:21] approved um in order to basically uh
wave the yard sale. So, a spring and
[1:16:27] fall yard sale we can do at the park or
either um the residents just in their
[1:16:32] front yards, but that would be the
weekend that Saturday before bulk
[1:16:36] pickup. So, whatever not picked up, we
have the bulk pickup to take care of
[1:16:39] that. Um yeah, so right now we have a $5
fee for the garage sales. We just be
[1:16:44] winged that fee.
resolution that goes with that or it's
[1:16:49] just a demo. It will have to be a new
resolution
[1:16:54] discussion if we want
even consider.
[1:16:58] » So So we used to do yard sales at the
park and there's no resolution for that.
[1:17:04] So why can't we just talk to our
community center volunteers
[1:17:09] um about doing it twice or
>> I've seen people asking about that too.
[1:17:16] I think trying to do is have a
communitywide yard sales where everyone
[1:17:20] has it in their own yards, not
[1:17:38] » everyone tell me you have your hand
raised.
[1:17:41] » Yes. Here's here's my concern. The whole
reason why we do this permit and we've
[1:17:47] limited folks to um the the twice a year
has been a conversation in the past was
[1:17:53] because if they do more than two yard
sales at their residence during a
[1:17:57] 12-month period, there's a requirement
for them to get some sort of sales tax
[1:18:02] ID or something the city attorney would
know specifically. So, I do not think
[1:18:06] waving them from having the permit and
the permit fee if they choose to do it
[1:18:12] at their property would be appropriate.
At least if we did it as a community
[1:18:17] one, they wouldn't have to advertise,
but they would still need to do the
[1:18:20] permit, the $5 fee, and we just wave
that per permit and $5 fee for those
[1:18:25] that are willing to take their stuff to
the city park to do. Uh that that is
[1:18:30] what I think we should have the res
resolution say because we need to track
[1:18:34] who is doing it so that we know who is
doing to enough to require that sales
[1:18:40] tax ID number.
>> Can we wave the community?
[1:18:49] » They do.
People are going to take stuff down
[1:18:52] there but if they say you know what I
didn't leave there. I mean see a lot of
[1:18:58] subdivisions communitywide
[1:19:06] » if council does need
[1:19:11] that
weigh
[1:19:17] more than two
[1:19:22] » but but again it's it's for self
tracking purposes if you have more than
[1:19:26] one, more than two, you have to record
your sales tax because you're using it
[1:19:31] as a business. So the fee, fine, get rid
of it. I'm fine with that. That makes
[1:19:36] sense because you're trying to encourage
people, but there still needs to be a
[1:19:40] permit. So that way we're tracking who
is doing how many
[1:19:45] think I think that's a reasonable medium
ground. They can have it in their house
[1:19:50] so they don't have to lug their stuff.
To Alvin McNeil's point, if they don't
[1:19:53] sell it, they don't leave it there. I
would like to see it in the park.
[1:19:57] » How many homes, individuals
the city tracked? You say more than two
[1:20:03] yard sales.
>> How are you tracking whether or not?
[1:20:14] » Then why do we have it in the first
place? I mean, doesn't
[1:20:17] » that's Wait a minute. The requirement
was that the city secretary would start
[1:20:20] tracking that by keeping a a rolling
tally of who's doing it when and you
[1:20:26] would just look back over the next 12
last 12 months and see if someone had
[1:20:29] already submitted two applications if
they're submitting a third one. Then you
[1:20:34] don't accept it without the fee. I mean
it was it was just going to be that that
[1:20:39] simple. Nothing fancy. Just keep a
12-month list uh spreadsheet, word
[1:20:44] document, whatever. search for that
property address and if that address
[1:20:48] shows up two times in that list, they
can't do the third one without it. That
[1:20:52] that was the conversation when we
determined that by not requiring this
[1:20:57] permit and not requiring that fee, we
were uh condoning them breaking the law.
[1:21:03] So then what do like the mayor said
that's wave the fee they can come pick
[1:21:08] up the the permit for free and then push
forward with the resolution to let
[1:21:14] everybody know hey this is what we're
going to do drives
[1:21:18] » have we determined who's going to run
who who's going to run the the community
[1:21:22] center the city park portion of this or
we not going to have that as an option
[1:21:27] » I haven't seen a resolution I thought
the small memo there
[1:21:32] » I I just asked that because some of the
proposed budgets in the future is to do
[1:21:36] away with the paid position at the
community center which just means that
[1:21:39] all of our ladies at the community
center would be going back to being
[1:21:42] volunteers and if no one has spoken to
them about the potential of being there
[1:21:47] on those two Saturdays but we need to
take that into consideration if we're
[1:21:51] going to add that aspect to the
resolution.
[1:21:58] So she's saying if you're going to have
both. So she's saying if the personnel
[1:22:01] that goes to the city park, they would
be waved, right? They would have a be
[1:22:04] waved.
>> Yeah.
[1:22:08] » However, those that want to make
community wide with the park.
[1:22:13] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yes. That was the intent, right?
[1:22:18] » Yeah.
>> No, I haven't.
[1:22:25] My my concern with doing it that way is
there's some folks that are well hidden
[1:22:28] in culde-sacs off of deadend roads that
may not get the traffic that they desire
[1:22:33] and may prefer a more localized uh a
more traveled location because I don't
[1:22:40] know if you've looked at our map but
there's a lot of roads that go nowhere
[1:22:45] and roads off of them that also just end
and they may not get as much uh many uh
[1:22:52] patrons customers as they would wish or
they could potentially get in a
[1:22:56] centralized location of a well
advertised community event.
[1:23:01] » Well, I mean in that in that light,
right,
[1:23:04] » if we get enough
get enough participation,
[1:23:08] then we get signs similar to with the uh
uh the food the food program that was in
[1:23:15] the summer where it says, you know, yard
sale this way, right? You know, people
[1:23:20] put signs out when they have put their
own signs out if they want. Generally
[1:23:24] speaking, they'll put one in the front
yard sale this weekend. You know,
[1:23:27] something like that.
>> Yard sale.
[1:23:32] » Yeah, they're going to put their own
signs up anyway,
[1:23:35] » whether there's an or
[1:23:48] maybe the ladies have no problem doing
it. They did it like every Saturday for
[1:23:52] a long time. it they just lost interest
and they stopped doing it. But I just if
[1:23:58] they're all volunteers, I don't want to
assume we can ask somebody to work that
[1:24:01] Saturday.
>> Yeah.
[1:24:08] » Yeah. I'd much rather have it in my
yard.
[1:24:16] I think I think the medium ground here
is a motion to uh wave the fee, require
[1:24:21] the permit for yard sales at their at
their home and we'll we'll we'll we'll
[1:24:28] start advertising as soon as we can so
that way people can start signing up and
[1:24:32] or at least showing some interest.
>> People can do their yard sides and they
[1:24:36] can advertise on social media.
>> You wanted the council members to make
[1:24:40] that as a motion, mayor? No, no. I was
kind of just throwing it out there for
[1:24:44] people to jump on to it.
>> But again, the consensus is we won't do
[1:24:48] the city part. Correct.
>> Correct.
[1:24:54] Some of us that have been here for a
while know that that didn't go over very
[1:24:58] well. There's very little participation.
>> All right.
[1:25:04] » Some some days are more popular than
others.
[1:25:08] » Go ahead.
Uh make a motion that that uh
[1:25:14] draft a resolution established in the
spring and fall city yard sale set the
[1:25:19] Saturday see the respective curbside
brush and bulk item collections
[1:25:25] at at person's residence wait in the
garage sale permit fee but still
[1:25:31] requiring the uh permit
and not at the not to be held at the
[1:25:38] city Sorry.
[1:25:43] » Oh, Mr. Chris's on the board today.
>> All right. I got a motion by Alderman
[1:25:47] McNeel and a second by Alderman Krickker
to have the city administrators draft
[1:25:51] the resolution establishing a spring and
fall citywide yard sale. Saturday,
[1:25:57] preceding the p prospective curbside
brush and bulk the items collections
[1:26:01] waving the garage sale fee, not the
garage sale permit uh
[1:26:07] to be done to be hand uh to be had at
their place of residence, not the city
[1:26:12] park.
Any other questions?
[1:26:16] » Yes, sir.
>> Yes.
[1:26:19] » Just want to clarify based on the way
that's stated, it sounds like this is
[1:26:22] not just a the next two events. This is
going to be recurring and will stay in
[1:26:26] existence until the city council decides
to terminate this resolution. Is that
[1:26:30] correct?
>> Correct.
[1:26:32] » All right. Thank you.
>> All those Any other questions? All those
[1:26:38] in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:26:41] » All right. That motion carries.
Moving on.
[1:26:45] » Did we Did we do item 7D, seven delta?
>> We have not done it.
[1:26:50] » Okay.
>> You want to want to jump through it? No,
[1:26:52] I just I just wanted to make sure
because we've kind of jumped over a
[1:26:55] little bit and I've been trying to
listen and take notes and uh a little
[1:26:58] hard sometimes. I have no problem with
you continuing as you wish, sir. Just
[1:27:01] wanted to make sure.
>> Okay. No, all no good. All good. All uh
[1:27:06] let's see here. All right. Discuss or
take possible action on agenda item 8J.
[1:27:12] Discuss possible action on amendments to
the personnel policy section 19 travel
[1:27:16] policy addressing training approval,
mileage, muer reimbursement, and
[1:27:19] personal vehicle use. Dr. Dr. Johnson,
do you want to take on this one?
[1:27:23] » Yes, sir. There are amendments that
we're asking to be made to the policy uh
[1:27:28] travel policy due to the fact that
personnel are getting paid for traveling
[1:27:32] within the city limits. Um that's one of
those as well as mails making a change
[1:27:38] to meals. So, mail reimbursement applies
to overnight travel only. Same day
[1:27:42] travel is excluded. Employees must elect
PDM or receipts. This is to save the
[1:27:47] city money. And um everything's in your
everything's in your folder. some of
[1:27:50] those things that we're looking at
making changes to.
[1:27:54] You guys can read over those. Let me
know if you have any questions.
[1:27:58] » Based off a recent event.
>> Yeah.
[1:28:00] » So, my my issue is on so travel within
San Antonio or the general region. Uh
[1:28:07] let's just call it San Antonio that I
don't believe that should be paid for by
[1:28:12] the city for when going to training
because it's local. Uh if you want to
[1:28:16] take it as far as take your your drive
from your home to the office to Sanuk's
[1:28:22] office, say it's 20 miles, that's your
commuter deduction. Anything after that,
[1:28:27] if you have to go 25 miles and it's so
it's five more, we'll pay for that. I
[1:28:32] think that's a fair um a fair commuter
deduction. Um as for meals, same day
[1:28:37] travel, again within the Sanchin region,
I agree. However, if it's drive to
[1:28:42] Austin for a training, that's same day
travel. think we should pay for your
[1:28:45] lunch at least. Um, if you have to go to
an evening training or whatever it is or
[1:28:50] you're going to be there till the
evening, I think you should probably pay
[1:28:53] for your breakfast, lunch, and dinner if
you had to leave early. Um, those are
[1:28:57] just my opinions. That's how we do it in
the in the private sector. I know that's
[1:29:00] not this, but I think it's a fair
accommodation for sending people to
[1:29:04] travel. I know another section that we
talked about is personal vehicle use. uh
[1:29:10] if if if city vehicles are not
available, then yeah, personal vehicle
[1:29:14] use makes sense. However, you'll still
have that commuter deduction. So, you
[1:29:19] know, if you go 25 miles and again, your
commute to Sykes is only 20 miles, we'll
[1:29:24] pay you the five.
That's again my my thoughts on that.
[1:29:30] Bless you.
>> Thank you.
[1:29:37] So, you want to
[1:29:41] We pay per
you pay the IRS rate 72 and half cents
[1:29:46] per month.
>> It went up in July.
[1:29:49] » 76 76.
[1:29:59] » I have a few comments and questions.
[1:30:04] » What was yours?
So, um, 19A, it states that all travel
[1:30:10] must be preapproved by the mayor and
city administrator. Why are we requiring
[1:30:15] both approvals? That's question one with
that sentence. And my second question
[1:30:20] with that sentence is it says in
conformance with the city's budget. I
[1:30:25] don't understand how that approval
conforms with the city budget. I think
[1:30:29] that what that should actually say that
the approval is needed to ensure that
[1:30:34] the travel expenses are covered by the
city bud budget or are within the city
[1:30:39] budget. Something along those lines.
I'll pause and allow that question to be
[1:30:44] addressed before I move to the next
section.
[1:30:47] I I think travel should be approved by
the administrator
[1:30:51] and the manager. I don't think if I'm if
I'm two if it's two different people,
[1:30:56] right? I'll be the mayor. You have a
city administrator for a purpose and you
[1:31:00] have a manager unless they're the same
person.
[1:31:04] So, I mean,
>> yeah, I was saying it should be a dual
[1:31:08] approval no matter what. It can't be uh
it can't Rick can't just go to the city
[1:31:14] administrator as the chief. It would
have to get mine and the administrator.
[1:31:18] So, I think we have to award it to where
it's a dual approval. Um, in this case,
[1:31:23] if it's Fred that needs training, you
would go to Rick and then Rick would
[1:31:26] take that to the administrator.
>> So, supervisor and city administrator.
[1:31:30] And I know that's something that's
already in there and we're just wanting
[1:31:33] to add it, but because it showed up
right here, I recognize that as
[1:31:36] something I should have pointed out when
we were rewriting it, but I wanted to
[1:31:39] address it while we're doing edits
anyway. So, um,
[1:31:44] so let me throw this out here. My
thoughts is since I have the draft of
[1:31:49] this, we figure out what changes the
council wants to approve and then
[1:31:54] instead make a motion for me to go make
the changes and bring it back for final
[1:31:57] approval rather than trying to do it all
uh right here. And if we don't have any
[1:32:04] concerns with that, uh then then we can
move forward that way based on the
[1:32:10] motion made at the end. But I want to
get through all the questions. So just
[1:32:12] to understand this
what folks what the mayor is
[1:32:17] recommending and I didn't hear any
complaints is instead make it the city
[1:32:21] administrator and supervisor needs to
approve that.
[1:32:26] So and then that leads to the question
the line that wants to be that needs to
[1:32:32] be added uh that it requires approval
from the department head and the city
[1:32:37] administrator. Do we want supervisor and
department head or both of them
[1:32:41] supervisor both of them department head?
Um if we're adding a line after right
[1:32:46] after that one that I think
I want to understand what they both
[1:32:51] should say
>> either or
[1:32:55] » I think they need to be both in
alignment.
[1:32:58] » So I think it it it needs to be the
supervisor and the city.
[1:33:06] » Okay. And not the department head. the
department head or do you want to keep
[1:33:09] the department head in the set sentence
that he wants to add?
[1:33:12] » Or do you want
>> I don't think we're deep enough to to
[1:33:16] necessitate the department head, right?
Because pretty much our supervisors are
[1:33:20] the department heads.
>> Yeah. Right now, the only supervisor we
[1:33:24] have is I mean department head we have
is the chief,
[1:33:28] » right?
>> So instead of saying department head,
[1:33:31] say the supervisor and city
administrator
[1:33:34] administrator prior to registration. But
um back again to the current sentence,
[1:33:39] my second question on that one, it's not
in conformance with the city budget, is
[1:33:43] it? Isn't it more that approval more to
verify that it's within the city's
[1:33:47] budget?
>> Within the city budget. Yeah.
[1:33:52] » Okay. And then
uh I
[1:33:58] and at what being with the federal
government, that's the thing that the
[1:34:02] mayor mentioned in terms of if you're
doing local travel and your commute to
[1:34:06] work is 10 miles, but your commute to
the local training or local place that's
[1:34:10] been approved is 20 miles, you would
only be reimbursed for that additional
[1:34:14] 10 miles. And so, um I I think that's a
good idea. What what about the us rest
[1:34:21] of the council in terms of updating
section 19B to specify mileage exceeding
[1:34:26] the normal commute as determined by
what? Google maps
[1:34:32] » or just make a standard commuter
deduction commuter deduction of 20
[1:34:36] miles. Everybody has the same 20. Well,
what if someone lives in town, for
[1:34:41] example, Cassandra, and her commute to
work is two miles because it's two miles
[1:34:47] all the way to the back of town. Uh, but
she needs to drive all the way up into
[1:34:51] San Antonio. We're now having her drive
further than she usually drives to get
[1:34:55] to work, but you're still making her do
that 20 mile deduction. the way you say
[1:35:00] if they so the shall be reimbured to
current IRS mileage rate for each mile
[1:35:06] traveled from city hall
[1:35:10] » that but if it's local travel it should
only be that which exceeds their normal
[1:35:14] commute
>> is what what the mayor was saying and
[1:35:17] what I agree with is what I'm the point
I'm trying to make because if someone
[1:35:21] lives in town
>> and then we're not going to make them
[1:35:24] drive to city hall but if from driving
to town to city hall takes them 10 miles
[1:35:30] and their training is 5 miles down the
road, they don't get commute any kind of
[1:35:35] compensation. But if their commute is 12
miles, they can get compensation for
[1:35:39] that extra two miles we're making them
drive.
[1:35:44] And I can word that in there
appropriately if if this council agrees.
[1:35:48] And again, I'll bring this all back for
you to take a look at.
[1:35:53] Does that make sense or am I just
talking in circles?
[1:35:59] That makes sense. It's like DTS kind of
way with it.
[1:36:04] » Exactly. Yeah. You know DTS.
>> So, does anyone else have any concerns
[1:36:10] with me drafting that
and bringing it back?
[1:36:14] » No. No concern.
>> Okay. And then the next item,
[1:36:23] um,
you want to add a replacement statement
[1:36:27] that says employees must elect per DMR
receipts, not both. I disagree with
[1:36:34] that. My
recommendation would be the um
[1:36:41] the reimbursement will be uh based on
receipts not to exceed perdm.
[1:36:52] money saver.
>> Yeah. So, they would have to go to the
[1:36:55] uh GSA, determine what city they're
traveling to, near city. That would
[1:37:01] determine what their reimbursement is.
>> Okay. I think that was the mayor that
[1:37:07] spoke. Does anyone on the council have
any objections to me incorporating that?
[1:37:12] » No.
Again,
[1:37:16] I hate not being there so I can see the
looks on folks faces because I can tell
[1:37:19] what they think of everything. And then
um
[1:37:23] » smiles. We're all smiling. [laughter]
>> What a happy gender.
[1:37:31] » Yeah.
>> So, and then item 19E,
[1:37:34] it says, "An employee who elects to use
a personal vehicle when a city vehicle
[1:37:38] is available forfeits mileage
reimbursement unless the city
[1:37:41] administrator provides it." I I don't
think we need to specify
[1:37:46] that the city vehicle is available. I
think anytime a city employee wants to
[1:37:51] use a personal vehicle, they need to be
um get approval, written approval from
[1:37:56] the city administrator if they want to
get reimbursed prior to going.
[1:38:02] That way the mayor that way the city
administrator knows
[1:38:07] that this person is taking a POV. It's
going to take this much of the budget
[1:38:12] and that's planned out at the time
they're making it making the trip.
[1:38:21] I I think it's irrelevant whether the
city city vehicles available or not. I I
[1:38:25] I think
um
[1:38:30] if the city vehicle is available, do we
still want to force them to use the city
[1:38:35] vehicle?
if the the we're going to force them to
[1:38:40] get approval instead and then the the
city administrator would make that call.
[1:38:46] » I don't I don't know understand why they
would take their personal vehicle other
[1:38:49] than
they would have to take
[1:38:52] » administrator then the city
administrator would just say no if
[1:38:55] there's no justification because maybe
the city administr maybe the city
[1:38:59] vehicle is available but the individual
is going to Austin and it's a late night
[1:39:03] meeting and they need to stay overnight.
[1:39:07] So, so just because the city a vehicle
is available for them to take it, maybe
[1:39:11] the city administrator doesn't want it
gone overnight and wants it there just
[1:39:15] in case it's needed and is going to opt
to give the person approval to take that
[1:39:20] personal vehicle as an example of a time
the vehicle's available, but city
[1:39:23] administrator chooses to approve it. It
shouldn't be the case all the time, but
[1:39:27] written permission is required. Period.
>> Yeah, I agree.
[1:39:40] the rest of what does the council think
on that one?
[1:39:44] » That's good. I'm ready to move to for
you to make those
[1:39:49] corrections and bring them back. You
don't have anything else to
[1:39:53] » Well, I just wanted to address the two
things that the mayor said. He was
[1:39:58] talking about um the ability for exe for
u maybe sometimes we want to authorize a
[1:40:06] lunch meal if they're driving to Austin.
So um I would just recommend that in the
[1:40:12] meal section under 19c any exceptions to
this and must be or maybe just for the
[1:40:17] whole section. I'll look at it as a
whole and see. But I want to add a
[1:40:20] caveat that any exceptions to this
policy must be approved by the city
[1:40:24] administrator in writing prior to making
the expenditures.
[1:40:30] » Prior to making them
>> prior to making them.
[1:40:36] » No, prior to making any expenditures,
you need to get written approval from
[1:40:40] the city administrator.
[1:40:44] » You need written permission before you
go buy your lunch.
[1:40:48] » Yeah.
difficult.
[1:40:52] » Okay. Yeah, those are the only things
that I see based on what the um what the
[1:40:58] city administrator has proposed and I've
made notes on all those things that I've
[1:41:02] uh mentioned.
Do we need to make a motion?
[1:41:06] » Yes, we'll make a motion. So, need to
authorize it.
[1:41:09] » I move I move that we authorize May 10
to uh
[1:41:16] take action on the
work in the draft and uh amendments to
[1:41:21] the personal policy manual section 19
travel policy address and training pro
[1:41:26] mileage. No reimbursement personal
vehicle use as discussed with this
[1:41:31] council.
Second.
[1:41:36] » Got a motion by Alderman McNeel and a
second by Alderman Kricmer to authorize
[1:41:40] the mayor pro Tim to make amendments to
the personnel policy section 19 travel
[1:41:46] policy address and train approval
mileage me reimbursement and personal
[1:41:49] vehicle use and bring it up at the next
opportunity once the amendments are
[1:41:54] made.
There any further discussion?
[1:41:58] All those in favor say I. I.
>> Okay, that motion carries. Thank you.
[1:42:05] » All right. Um, hey, we don't have Chief
here to discuss.
[1:42:08] » I think it says Chelsea. I think Chelsea
is
[1:42:13] online here. Just
[1:42:18] » Hey, Chief, are you there?
[1:42:24] Okay.
>> I think I saw Cece online.
[1:42:27] » Yes, ma'am. She dropped off as well.
[1:42:33] Uh I'll just give you a little bit of
feedback on it. So there the chief is
[1:42:37] running out of evidence room. They'd
like to come and deer Cassandra's
[1:42:40] office. Correct?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:42:44] » So they'd like to come and Cassandra's
office to expand the evidence room um
[1:42:50] just to compensate for the evidence that
we got to maintain for the you know
[1:42:54] current cases and previous cases and so
on and so forth.
[1:42:58] we could reallocate some people further
down the line to take up, you know, so
[1:43:02] that way they still have a place to
work. But that's the general idea. I
[1:43:06] know the chief's supposed to work on a
uh kind of a design so that way he can
[1:43:10] show us exactly what we need. Then we
also got to figure out if it makes sense
[1:43:14] because um that one evidence room does
have ventilation. So that would have to
[1:43:19] be adjusted because that is a Cassandra
does is a part of a regular ventilation
[1:43:24] system. So, it's not as easy as just
knocking down the wall.
[1:43:28] » So, based on the price of this effort,
do we need more than one quote? And
[1:43:31] would it not make more sense to have a
contractor come in and look at the
[1:43:36] layout of city hall and make a
recommendation on what would be the
[1:43:40] best? I think that might be uh the
contractor that we bring in might be
[1:43:43] more qualified than the chief of police
to determine how best to um efficiently
[1:43:50] remodel city hall
>> uh for the Hrack Park. Yeah, most
[1:43:54] definitely. I think we need to at least
figure that part out and if it's even
[1:43:57] worth it to do it or can it be done with
the existing setup.
[1:44:01] » Can our engineer do that or do we need
to bring somebody in to do that?
[1:44:05] » Well, maybe the engineer could do that.
>> I I just don't think that's within the
[1:44:11] scope of the the chief's expertise and
that maybe someone else needs to look at
[1:44:15] our layout because I don't even know
what the layout of city hall. I mean,
[1:44:19] I've been all through the halls, but to
actually look at the layout from a sky
[1:44:22] view to be able to determine what the
best way is. Um, I I think maybe we need
[1:44:26] our engineer to give us a suggestion and
a ballpark cost so we know whether we
[1:44:31] need to go get multiple proposals or we
whether we can just pick one. I think we
[1:44:35] need more information.
>> Yeah, I know this is a mobile home, but
[1:44:38] are we talking about moving? There's got
to be loadbearing walls and send where
[1:44:42] these things went together.
>> Yeah. So, it would be doing anything in
[1:44:45] there. It would be sim similar to what
they did for the um the the one area
[1:44:50] where they took over part of Jacob's
office. They would make a door in the
[1:44:54] middle and then close out the backside,
right? Close where the the door was
[1:44:57] originally. So that way they can still
utilize the space and then it's secure
[1:45:02] even though it's not within their
hallway, right? Does that make sense? So
[1:45:06] it's just opening a door frame and then
closing one out so that nobody else can
[1:45:10] access it.
But yeah, we can uh we can talk to the
[1:45:14] engineer. Um, and I'm still want to see
what the chief's idea was because maybe
[1:45:19] I'm missing the point there, too. So,
>> and I mean, engineer can definitely
[1:45:23] speak with the chief and use that to
influence it, but I think our engineer
[1:45:27] is better qualified.
>> What's involved with that?
[1:45:33] » Yeah, it's a it's got its own
ventilation system and it's got it own
[1:45:36] track system. So, can it be expanded
into the
[1:45:41] new D?
[1:45:45] » All right. I'll uh get with the engineer
and see if we can come down and see what
[1:45:48] we want to do.
[1:45:51] » All right.
[1:45:59] Is that no action or close call?
>> No. Yeah. I have it down is I'll uh I'll
[1:46:04] action this and get with the engineer to
give it to you. Okay.
[1:46:08] » Yeah. And we need to bring it back once
we have more information from better
[1:46:12] qualified folks with details. What is
the engineering? What is the lowbearing
[1:46:16] walls? That's a very valid point. I I
mean we definitely need to postpone and
[1:46:20] bring it back with more info.
>> Okay.
[1:46:24] All right. So then
All right. So let's move on to agenda
[1:46:28] item 8m
discussing take possible action and
[1:46:32] authorize city attorney to prepare
memorandum of understanding between the
[1:46:35] city of Sanio and enterprises regarding
the potential expansion of the city's
[1:46:40] extrateral extr territorial jurisdiction
to include the oaks at waterwood
[1:46:43] subdivision and the subsequent
annexation thereof. Dr. Johnson.
[1:46:48] » Yes, sir. So, on last week, Jody and I
with Roberto went to go talk to the
[1:46:52] Garcia family, which they are willing to
move forward on possibly being annexed
[1:46:56] by us, but they will they they would
like to see the fine print on some of
[1:47:00] the restrictions that we have in place
uh before moving forward. So, I'm asking
[1:47:05] the council to um by approval for a
memorandum of understanding to be signed
[1:47:11] and sent over to those guys.
I don't understand the purpose of this
[1:47:15] memorandum of understanding based on
what I'm reading. Why do we need them in
[1:47:18] our extr territorial jurisdiction?
That's what I'm trying to understand.
[1:47:21] We've already spent money on our
attorney drafting a letter for them to
[1:47:25] give to us to request that we annex them
and and the restrictions are clearly
[1:47:30] laid out in our ordinances. I mean, we
can sit down and explain them to them. I
[1:47:33] I don't understand the purpose of
putting them in our ETJ.
[1:47:40] » Yes, ma'am. But memorandum of
understanding just give those guys more
[1:47:43] so um a not so much of a contract but
just better understanding on exactly all
[1:47:48] of our restrictions, some of the things
that we require from them before moving
[1:47:51] forward with an agreement.
[1:47:57] I'm hesitant to spend more of our
attorney money
[1:48:01] on them without anything from them
indicating interest. They keep asking us
[1:48:07] for things.
So when I mean our attorney bill this
[1:48:14] year was 10,000. I mean this month was
$10,000 and I I know a lot of it was
[1:48:18] budget related, but you're asking for
more money for them when they're driving
[1:48:25] manufactured homes down our streets and
setting up town. I I I don't understand
[1:48:30] what they don't know
that they need us to tell them in an
[1:48:35] official agreement. It sounded like they
were asking us to wave some of our laws
[1:48:40] for them to enforce the um the deed
restrictions. We have nothing to do with
[1:48:46] deed restrictions. I I I'm just really
confused. Why can't they just tell us
[1:48:51] they want us to annex them or not or ask
us what laws are?
[1:48:56] Memorandum of understanding. Just I I
don't see the point to it. I think my
[1:49:01] first time I've already drafted a draft
petition for them to submit to the city
[1:49:08] and it included these blank spaces for
them to ask the city what they needed or
[1:49:15] what they wanted in exchange for being
included in the extr territorial
[1:49:19] jurisdiction. So I think with that draft
petition they can then include what
[1:49:24] they're asking for and then the city
then can go back and negotiate
[1:49:29] » what it is willing to compromise on and
and in exchange for coming into the TJ.
[1:49:34] So I think that draft petition can be
used in place of this or in instead of
[1:49:39] this memorandum of understanding where
they submit to us what
[1:49:45] » Okay. So this is a thing that the mayor
asked you to draft a few months ago and
[1:49:48] this addresses a lot of the concerns
that ca that that they were asking.
[1:49:52] » Yeah. and that was drafted and that was
sent to them and so the ball has been in
[1:49:56] their their court. Um, as far as getting
them to then ask what they want for BTJ,
[1:50:04] » I think we resend that letter that u
that document and we don't do anyou and
[1:50:10] if they don't decide to do it then we
just wait until they're fully populated
[1:50:14] and we do a referendum.
>> So wh why do we need them in our ETJ?
[1:50:19] Why can't we just annex them? I'm a
little confused there.
[1:50:22] » I didn't understand that before, but
that's required.
[1:50:25] » You can't property that is not near ETJ.
So, first you need to become the ETJ and
[1:50:32] then it needs to be annexed. So, two
separate processes.
[1:50:36] » Understood. That makes sense. Well, then
I would move that we um authorize the
[1:50:40] city administrator to resend that
document to uh this uh these property
[1:50:46] owners and uh allow them to respond with
that instead of anou.
[1:50:52] » A second.
[1:50:58] » Okay. All right. So I have a motion by
the mayor prom and a second by alderman
[1:51:04] brickmer to authorize the city
administrator to resend the document
[1:51:09] instead of theou.
[1:51:13] All those in well is there any further
discussion?
[1:51:16] Not all those in favor say I. I
>> all those opposed. Motion will carry.
[1:51:24] All right. On agenda item 810, discuss
or take possible action on hosting an
[1:51:29] annual national night out on Tuesday,
October 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm at the shops
[1:51:33] of Sanos parking lot. Uh Dr. Johnson,
you want to lead this one?
[1:51:38] » Yes, sir. So, simply requesting
permission to host a national layout
[1:51:42] this year, but I can get up with the Bar
County Fire Department to see if they
[1:51:47] can help us out and probably get some
sponsors from Lime Barker and other
[1:51:52] other personnel that we work with. waste
connections.
[1:51:58] » Do we have authorization from
>> Yes.
[1:52:01] » the shops?
>> The owner. Yes, ma'am.
[1:52:10] » You're good.
>> Is it five o'clock? I thought it was six
[1:52:13] because five o'clock we're just getting
off of work.
[1:52:16] » Okay. So, six o'clock. Yes, sir. And it
is overtime for the employees that are
[1:52:22] working. They will be working.
>> What action is required for us to move
[1:52:26] forward on this
>> summary.
[1:52:40] Do we want to make a motion to provide a
proclamation at the next regular
[1:52:43] meeting?
>> Um I don't think any of the motions
[1:52:46] would be the main All
right, I'll do the proclamation.
[1:52:57] Yeah, let's start um let's get in some
material together so we can at least
[1:53:00] throw it online already so we can start
getting some interest. Okay, and then
[1:53:05] we can start because we got about a
month. Okay, sure. Well, sooner the
[1:53:09] better the better.
[1:53:16] Yeah. Okay.
>> All right. Uh, agenda item O discuss and
[1:53:21] entertain possible action on the
termination of the agreement for
[1:53:24] services between the city of San Diego,
Texas and Western Welding LLC for the
[1:53:27] fabrication and installation of the Tina
Park entrance sign. Johnson, you have
[1:53:31] the floor.
>> Yes, sir. So, the owner the city paid
[1:53:34] the owner $3,000 um owner never did any
work. So, we look at another 3,000.
[1:53:39] Well, according to the contract, it's a
total of $6,000. So, additional $3,000
[1:53:44] will be uh required if he does complete
the work. So, I'm asking the council
[1:53:48] just um discontin terminate the contract
in general. So, we'll be done. We'll be
[1:53:53] out of that deal.
>> Has he answered any of your emails? I
[1:53:59] know both you and Alderman Kickmer have
been trying to get a hold of him.
[1:54:04] » Last I heard from him was
[1:54:15] He has not responded to my email.
>> He has not responded to my last four
[1:54:20] emails.
>> Nothing. And
[1:54:24] » did we give him a dump?
>> We gave him $3,000.
[1:54:28] » So, we need to reclaim that money
because we have no confidence that he
[1:54:32] can complete the job as well
satisfactory.
[1:54:37] So, city attorney, what are our steps to
recover that $3,000 we've already
[1:54:41] provided to him? Uh, I would suggest to
initially a demand letter um that either
[1:54:46] they complete the work or just terminate
the contract and demand that $3,000 bet
[1:54:51] before
um pursuing other legal avenues like uh
[1:54:57] like litigation or you know reports
reports to better business bureau or
[1:55:02] other
[1:55:05] not
[1:55:10] » wish to reclaim All attorney's expenses
is one of
[1:55:17] this endeavor.
[1:55:21] » Let's let's
[1:55:30] » recovering city attorney fees. Wouldn't
that recover require going to small
[1:55:34] claims court?
>> I think yes.
[1:55:39] gonna cost more than the money we're
gonna use.
[1:55:44] » Yeah, let's just try to get our money
by by way of
[1:55:48] move city
and send out man
[1:55:59] completed by we give him uh we give him
30 days. We give him 14 days. I don't
[1:56:06] even think we need to give them any
time. I don't think I'll revert it back
[1:56:10] to the attorney to
>> Alderman Trembble, I recommend your
[1:56:15] motion also include that we um include
terminating that contract.
[1:56:20] » Exactly. Second.
>> Okay. So the motion by alderman tremble
[1:56:26] and second by alderman quicker is to uh
authorize the city attorney to draft the
[1:56:31] demand letter and to the contracting
3
[1:56:38] requested at $3,000
and to terminate the contract.
[1:56:44] Any questions?
All those in favor say I. Hi.
[1:56:48] » Hi.
>> Go on the letter to say um sorry this is
[1:56:53] my boo.
[1:56:56] » Do you want to go to
>> I got it.
[1:57:00] » All right. Um so now at this time
[1:57:07] » are we okay? So let's go to
agenda item.
[1:57:15] Okay. Yeah. So let's go to agenda item.
We'll go to the the next few item. Let's
[1:57:19] go to agenda item 8 C discussing our
possible action on a resolution for the
[1:57:24] city of San Diego, Texas regarding the
maximum abalone tax rate for the for
[1:57:28] council will consider and setting a time
date and location for a public hearing
[1:57:32] on the tax rate that was 828.
So I think we bounced.
[1:57:43] » So council got passed similar resolution
but that was for a rate that was above
[1:57:48] the voter approval rate and the
dimminimous rate. Um we had to notice in
[1:57:51] the paper we had a public hearing and
the council did not vote on the tax
[1:57:55] rate. So we have to essentially start
the process all over again. um a rate
[1:58:00] not to exceed the book. So that is what
this resolution is is for the proposed
[1:58:06] relief that now
we need a note in the paper
[1:58:12] is I believe
[1:58:16] » 3563
[1:58:20] » that is the voter approved tax rate
correct and then the um next regular
[1:58:26] meetings are September 10th and
September 24th um however although those
[1:58:30] are regular meetings it still would need
a forum of four to
[1:58:35] pass the tax rate.
[1:58:39] » Are you supposed to be in town that
week, Miracle?
[1:58:43] » No, sir.
>> No.
[1:58:51] You're likely not going to be available.
[1:58:58] » I can pick you up.
We can all pick you up. We'll take the
[1:59:02] patty wagon.
>> I'll talk to him now.
[1:59:06] » All right.
>> Okay, cool. Um, so then what do we need
[1:59:10] to do? We need to adopt the resolution.
Just amend this resolution.
[1:59:16] » Well, it it wouldn't amend the
resolution since you already had a
[1:59:19] hearing. It's just like a new
resolution. So, it should have a new the
[1:59:22] new resolution should date the recital
as to why we're doing this again and
[1:59:26] then have the voter approval, right? Uh
I can read the motion if someone just
[1:59:30] also specific. Um the motion would be
that the maximum proposed Avalor tax
[1:59:36] rate that the city council will consider
for 2026 is 356390
[1:59:43] cent per 100 technical value and that
the council hold a public hearing on the
[1:59:48] tax rates at city hall 22870 Priest Road
Sandy Oaks Texas 78112
[1:59:56] on September
10 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and that council
[2:00:01] adopt the 226 alarm tax rate.
So that would that's moved
[2:00:10] second
>> and then this needs a record.
[2:00:15] We got a motion by
Miss Ne
[2:00:24] to accept motion as stated.
Alderman Kirkmer
[2:00:30] favor
McNeel. Are you in favor?
[2:00:37] » Walker
[2:00:40] Blade.
>> Hi.
[2:00:42] » And mayor Monado. Hi,
>> that pass motion carry.
[2:00:52] » We're good.
>> Yes,
[2:00:53] » that passes the resolution as well,
correct?
[2:00:57] » Yes. You make a separate motion.
>> A separate motion for the resolution.
[2:01:02] » Uh, well, no, that passes the resolution
that you wanted.
[2:01:04] » Yeah, I thought that's what I thought
that was included in your statement
[2:01:09] and that's in our folder. That's
resolution 2026-267
[2:01:13] if you want to include that in the
minutes.
[2:01:18] » Did you want to have I mean you got her
two minutes so
[2:01:20] » Oh well I was wait till you got to
actually just thought something about
[2:01:26] her and I just thought I'd let you know
that I was very supportive of you. I was
[2:01:30] very impressed by you at the last
meeting and I don't know what was going
[2:01:33] on but I think she does a great job. She
had so much information. She was very
[2:01:38] knowledgeable. She's on top of the thing
and I was so impressed with her. I just
[2:01:43] wanted to say that. I don't know what's
going on with all this other stuff, but
[2:01:46] um so happy that you're here. I was
actually thinking about helping you out,
[2:01:51] volunteering with you. I hope things go
your way.
[2:01:56] » Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[2:02:00] Very nice.
[2:02:09] Okay. So,
>> thank you.
[2:02:12] » Good night.
[2:02:21] » What about item 7D? Are we going to go
back to that before executive session,
[2:02:24] sir?
>> 7D.
[2:02:28] » Yes. However, give me one second.
[2:02:33] Uh let's see. So for agenda items 7D,
discuss or take possible action on
[2:02:39] amending ordinance number 2025262 to
provide for livestock regulations within
[2:02:43] the city limits. Uh I'm recommending the
discussion regarding the livestock
[2:02:46] regulations be held in executive session
under consult under cons consultation
[2:02:51] with the attorney government code
section 551.071 071
[2:02:58] and in conjunction with
>> Can you say that section number again
[2:03:02] please sir?
>> Yes. 551.071.
[2:03:07] » Thank you.
I would also then say for agenda item 8A
[2:03:12] and 8B
uh that we go to executive session to
[2:03:18] deliberate the hiring of a public works
employee related matters pursuant to
[2:03:22] Texas open meetings act chapter 551
general code section 75174
[2:03:27] personnel matters and uh 9B executive
session delivery on the agreements of
[2:03:32] Ashley Cunningham patrol officer
contesting disciplinary action imposing
[2:03:37] demotion reduction based compensation
related matter to pursuant to Texas
[2:03:41] meetings act chapter 551 of the Texas
government code section 551
[2:03:49] 834 we are in executive session All
right.
[2:04:21] Thank you much.
[2:04:29] All right, the time is now 9:06.
We are in session.
[2:04:35] Okay, so
for let's move on to agenda item 7D.
[2:04:40] discuss and or take possible action on
amending ordinance 2025262
[2:04:45] to provide for livestock regulations
within the city limits.
[2:04:53] » Yeah, I just want I'll make the motion
on that one and I would just move to
[2:04:56] authorize the city attorney to make the
necessary amendments to ordinance number
[2:05:01] 20252-262
[2:05:04] to ensure that it's in compliance with
the new Texas law.
[2:05:09] All
right. I got a motion by the mayor prom
[2:05:13] and second by alderman to authorize the
city attorney to uh amend ordinance
[2:05:18] number 2025262 to make it in alignment
with Texas law regulations. There any
[2:05:24] questions on this? If not, all those in
favor say I.
[2:05:28] » I.
>> I.
[2:05:29] » All right. That motion carries. All
right. Uh moving on to agenda item 8A.
[2:05:35] discussion on a possible take action on
hiring a public works employee. I think
[2:05:40] » no action at this time, sir.
>> No. No.
[2:05:48] Okay. And moving on to agenda item 8B.
Discuss or take possible actions on the
[2:05:54] agreements of action and animal control
officer contesting disciplinary actions
[2:05:58] including promotion and reduction based
compensation. Um, Miss Cunningham, I do
[2:06:03] want to give you the floor to give you
an opportunity to present yourself. I
[2:06:06] know information that we have back
there. Actually, I want to go grab it so
[2:06:09] I can
take a few moments.
[2:06:40] So, thank you for
bringing this back up and um hearing
[2:06:45] what I have to say. Um
[2:06:50] and the dog in question was
picked up and disposed of. Um, it was
[2:06:59] placed into the back of the animal
control vehicle and we quickly
[2:07:03] determined that it could not be placed
inside of the plastic bag and most of
[2:07:08] the normal paint. Um, and there was no
ordinance in place for us to go off of
[2:07:17] on what to do in that situation. Um
the law does state that you can bury an
[2:07:24] animal in the park as a employee of the
city. Um
[2:07:31] so with the help of public works at that
time we
[2:07:36] all came up with a consensus idea. It
was not just my idea and we decided that
[2:07:41] the best course of action would be to
pick it up and remove it because it was
[2:07:47] the end of the day. Um there was no way
of getting a hold of the prematurility.
[2:07:54] Uh public works was at the end of their
shift and we were at the end of ours. So
[2:08:00] we decided to both of it properly. Um
that was machinery. We buried it at the
[2:08:08] appropriate depth. Um,
as far as um,
[2:08:16] knowing that this was inappropriate, I
like I said, there was no ordinance
[2:08:21] stating otherwise. So, I was unaware
um, that I would even get in trouble for
[2:08:27] for doing this. I was just trying to do
my job.
[2:08:30] Um,
[2:08:33] it was sort of embarrassing to get in
trouble for this. uh just because I was
[2:08:39] distracted and do my job. Um
[2:08:45] as far as the medication goes, I did
have the oversight of the vet um that we
[2:08:50] use for the city and I also had the
oversight of clinic which I purchased
[2:08:55] the medication. Um, I informed them when
we bought the medication what it was
[2:09:01] for, what it was going to be used for,
and it did sub get used for that
[2:09:06] purpose. Um, it was sent to dogs in our
facility as um
[2:09:13] as approved by the veterinarian that
worked at the clinic veterinarian. Um,
[2:09:19] we do have donated medications that are
in the same class as the medication I
[2:09:24] was purchased and that medication is
dispensed on a daily basis to new dogs
[2:09:30] coming into our facility. Um,
with no script or anything like that.
[2:09:36] It's donated to us. So, we give it out
as we receive. Um,
[2:09:42] I'm not ordering medication. I'm not
coming up with a missionary plan. Um
[2:09:49] there's no
med I'm not a veterinarian. Um so
[2:09:55] there's no
[2:09:59] uh it's like a
I'm not I'm not making a veterinary
[2:10:03] decision on these dogs giving them
preventative medication.
[2:10:08] Um
[2:10:11] I didn't break the law. Um, and that was
a big thing that the product that I
[2:10:17] wrote the law. Um, I was not personally
burying the the dog in the park um as a
[2:10:27] private citizen
working as an employee.
[2:10:33] Um,
[2:10:47] I brought in the
certification
[2:10:52] because I was supposed to get a yearly
evaluation. Um, and I was I was passed
[2:11:01] up for that uh last year due to the
[2:11:08] chief police not doing that for me. Um,
and I feel like I was passed over again
[2:11:13] this year. Uh, when I brought it back up
last year, uh, no action was taken. So,
[2:11:21] I would I would appreciate
this and I I appreciate y'all taking me
[2:11:28] into the
into the session um
[2:11:33] to at least consider
[2:11:39] what what happened that day, why it was
done. Uh the skin of the dog was falling
[2:11:44] off of the dogs as we picked it up and
put it in there. We had a bucket fall
[2:11:49] onto the dog and all of its skin came.
So, it was,
[2:11:55] as you can see in these pictures, um, it
was very much decayed. Very, very,
[2:12:03] it's not something that we would
normally normally pick up, but it was
[2:12:07] thrown into the rice and the owner
refused to pick it up. We asked him to
[2:12:11] pick it up. He said, "I'm not doing
that." I asked the officer at the time,
[2:12:14] "Can we make him pick this dog up?" She
said there's nothing that we can we
[2:12:19] can't force it to pick it up. So time
again decision was made can't leave it
[2:12:25] in the right way but we picked it up
but it wasn't just me by myself was this
[2:12:31] all as a group of city
[2:12:38] there was just me by myself
[2:12:43] » thank you thank you Ashley and I and I
do before I do want to say right
[2:12:49] everything that you've told us today and
everything that you've done for the
[2:12:53] city, there's not one of us that doesn't
respect you. Uh we understand what you
[2:12:58] have done for city of San Die for animal
control and for the for the animals the
[2:13:02] countless animals that have come through
these doors.
[2:13:07] And we, you know, will San be a a place
where we don't have straight or I doubt
[2:13:12] it. So that means you're always going to
have a job, right? there's always going
[2:13:16] to be a need for them.
With that being said, right, I again I
[2:13:21] just got to stress to you how much this
council appreciates what you do day in
[2:13:27] and day out.
No matter whatever whatever happened, no
[2:13:32] matter the outcome, I just got to
understand that we we we want you here.
[2:13:40] We want you to stay here. probably want
you here for the rest of your career.
[2:13:46] But I I just you have to stress how much
self, the council, everybody in this
[2:13:54] building appreciates what you have done
and what you're doing for the animals.
[2:13:59] Even the resident that stuck around as
long as she could
[2:14:04] even know
how much she got up for that
[2:14:19] Tim still on board with us?
>> Yeah. Yes, sir. I'm on there. Just
[2:14:24] wanted to make sure that council members
didn't have anything else to say. Um, so
[2:14:29] thank you, uh, Officer Cunningham. We we
have evaluated the facts of the
[2:14:35] situation. We reviewed the information
you provided in your grievance and we
[2:14:40] have discussed it in executive session.
Based on those evaluations,
[2:14:45] uh, we are going to deny your grievance
and our disciplinary action decision
[2:14:49] imposed at a previous meeting will stand
as uh, stated.
[2:15:05] Is that a motion? Was that a motion?
>> Yeah, if there needs to be a motion.
[2:15:10] Yeah, I move that statement be entered
into the official record, sir.
[2:15:17] » So, I do have a motion.
[2:15:23] I do have a motion by the mayor Pim
to to deny the agreements at this time.
[2:15:30] Do we have a second?
>> Second by Alderman Walker.
[2:15:36] Walker. Are there any other questions?
>> Um, so what was the basis of me getting
[2:15:43] in trouble?
the basis that of you getting
[2:15:47] » is it because because the last time
y'all said that I broke the law but it
[2:15:53] clearly states in the law that I didn't
break the law.
[2:15:56] » Well, I've review I've reviewed the
items that you provided and it is it is
[2:16:01] in our opinion that they don't suffice
to say you did break them. Uh, and you
[2:16:08] mentioned the burial of a animal on a
right of her.
[2:16:13] That's by somebody doing roadway
maintenance,
[2:16:17] » but it states city.
[2:16:22] » The one that you sent
>> it states right here.
[2:16:36] Notwithstanding any other provision of
this chapter, counties and
[2:16:39] municipalities may dispose of carcasses
of animals killed on county or municipal
[2:16:43] roadways by burying carcasses on
property owned by the entity that is
[2:16:47] responsible for roadway roadway
maintenance of carcass roadway.
[2:16:51] » But it's it's who is responsible for
roadway maintenance, which means the
[2:16:55] city who who is the the group that is
responsible for the maintenance of the
[2:17:00] roads, which would be us
>> and public works. That's why public
[2:17:03] works. We don't mix our roads, right? I
mean, I know I'm splitting hairs there,
[2:17:07] right? But it's it doesn't apply. It's
not the same thing.
[2:17:20] So, as I as mentioned, I do have a
motion that a second by Alderwoman
[2:17:24] Walker. All those in favor say I. I. I.
>> I. I.
[2:17:32] She carries. Move
[2:17:41] to
now 919 and