[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

Council Meeting 08/27/2026

Transcript