8.2. Presentation on the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Year Ended September 30, 2023 (Alberta Barrett)

[9.2. Conduct a public hearing and consider possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-009 to amend the Code of Ordinances (2020 edition, as amended), Chapter 3, Land Use Standards of the City of Hutto by amending Chapter 2, Administration, by amending 10.203 Development Review Process, amending Chapter 3 Land Use Standards, Section 10.304.9 Temporary Uses, and amending Section 10.310.5, Mobile Food Vendor (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 9.2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-009 TO AMEND CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 3 LAND-USE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF HUTTO BY AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, ADMINISTRATION, BY AMENDING 10.203 AMENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

[01:40:01]

CHAPTER 3 LAND-USE STANDARDS SECTION 10.30 4.9 TEMPORARY USES AND AMENDING SECTION 10.31 0.5, MOBILE FOOD VENDOR. AND JUST SO I DON'T FORGET I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43

P.M. ALL RIGHT, ASHLEY. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK HIGHLIGHT, I AM SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE YOU HAD A WORKSHOP BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2023 TO DISCUSS THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR OPERATING HOURS AFTER A PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I WILL TELL YOU THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ACTUALLY ADOPTED MOBILE FOOD VENDORS IN 2018, AND IT WAS BASED ON THE MOBILE STREET VENDORS OUT OF THE CITY CODE.

AT THAT TIME, THE HOURS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE UDC FOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS ARE THE SAME AS MOBILE STREET VENDORS AND I WILL GET TO THAT REALLY QUICK. A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR SERVES FROM PRIVATE LOT AND REMAINS MOSTLY STATIONARY DURING BUSINESS HOURS. MOBILE STREET VENDORS ARE THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SERVES FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IS IN MOVEMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF OPERATING HOURS SO THE ONLY THING WE ARE CHANGING IS GOING TO BE THE TOP UDC FOR THOSE SERVING ON THAT PRIVATE LOT. YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR PACKET , I INCLUDED THE REDLINES FOR YOU, SO WHAT WE WENT THROUGH AS WE UPDATED THE SECTION TO FURTHER DEFINE THE USE SO THAT APPLICANTS WOULD BE ABLE TO EASILY DISCERN WHICH ORDINANCE APPLIES FOR THEIR PROPOSED USE. HOURS OF OPERATION, WE FULLY REMOVE THOSE BECAUSE OTHER EATING ESTABLISHMENTS DO NOT HAVE HOURS OF OPERATION. WHAT WE GOT CONCERNED WITH IS WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME.

LET'S SAY WE HAVE A COFFEE SHOP OR COFFEE FOOD TRUCK THAT COMES IN. THEY WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY BE LIMITED IF WE PROPOSED HOURS WERE AS LAMPPOSTS OR STARBUCKS WOULD NOT BE SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. IF IT'S AN EATERY IT HAS THE SAME OPERATING HOURS. THEN USE CHART IS UPDATED TO REFLECT NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALSO AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE FOOD TRUCKS AND THERE IS AN APPEAL WE ARE ALLOWING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SHOULD STATE STAFF SAY NO THEY STILL CAN GO TO PNC . THE LAST IS SETTING THE MINIMUM LEVEL STAFF NEEDS TO CONSIDER THESE USES . THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT I WILL GET INTO . YOU'LL JUST SEE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY REMOVED, SO ONE OF THE THINGS IS REALLY JUST TO HAVE A SCALED PLAN OF WHERE THE FOOD TRUCKS ARE GOING, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE MULTIPLE ON A LOT. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 FEET BETWEEN EACH UNIT SO WE DO NEED TO SEE THAT. WE NEED TO SEE OTHER SITE AMENITIES TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE BUILDING CODE. WE ARE ALSO ADDING AND WE WANT TO SEE IT IS PAST THE FIRE MARSHAL INSPECTION AND THAT THERE HAVE THEIR COUNTY HOUSE -- HEALTH LICENSE. THE OTHER THING WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS THAT WE WANT TO REITERATE THE ILLICIT DISCHARGE ORDINANCE APPLIES SO IF THEY WANT TO LOCATE HERE, THEY WILL NEED TO GIVE US COPIES OF WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO DISCHARGE BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE THEM POURING SOMETHING DOWN A CLEANOUT OR INTO OUR SEWER SYSTEM AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES FOR ANY GREASE TRAPS, WE WANT TO SEE THOSE CONTRACTS SO WE KNOW THEY ARE GETTING CLEANED OUT BUT IT IS NOT GOING ON TO HUTTO PROPERTY AND INTO THE GROUND. THE LAST PART IS JUST TO SEE -- MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO PUBLIC RESTROOMS DURING THAT HOUR OF OPERATION AND IF IT IS IN A PARKING LOT, THEY'RE NOT TAKING APPROPRIATE REQUIRED PARKING AND WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING AROUND IN A BUILT ENVIRONMENT SO IT IS NOT GOING TO A PLACE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE A NUISANCE. WITH THAT, PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED ONE REQUIREMENT. IT SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE OWNER OF THE LOT AND IT SAID OWNER OR THE OWNER'S DESIGNEE CAN SIGN FOR THAT . SO WITH THAT, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CHANGE.

>> NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNSEL BEFORE WE GET TO DISCUSSING, WE HAVE ONE COMMENT ON THIS. RENO CORTINA.

>> WELCOME BACK. >> GENERALLY, WE LIKE ALL THE CHANGES. THEY SEEM PRETTY GOOD. I GOT SOME QUESTIONS ON A COUPLE THINGS FOR THE APPROVALS WHERE WE SHOW WHERE THE TRAILERS ARE GOING TO BE. IF PEOPLE MOVE IN AND OUT OR WE HAD A GUY THAT TOOK FEBRUARY OFF BECAUSE HE HAD SOME FAMILY STUFF, IT LEAVES AN EMPTY LOT KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE SO RECENTLY, WE ARRANGED THE TRAILERS TO HAVE EVERYBODY REAL CLOSE TO ONE SIDE. MAKES IT A LITTLE BETTER, GIVES US BETTER

[01:45:01]

VISIBILITY. RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT TRAILERS WERE NOT IN THE RIGHT SPOT SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MOVE PEOPLE AROUND SHOULD WE NEED TO TO MAKE THE PARK LOOK BETTER, TIGHTER, LOOK MORE CLEANED UP. ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS TO HAVE PARKING ON OUR LOT. THE WAY WE MOVE EVERYBODY AROUND HALF OF OUR LOT IS TOTALLY EMPTY. WE'VE LAID DOWN GRAVEL AND PEOPLE ARE PULLING INTO PARK. WE RECEIVED ANYMORE AN EMAIL ABOUT THAT, TOO. I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LET PEOPLE PARK RIGHT THERE. IT FREES UP ABOUT 15 PARKING SPOTS IN AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING THEY NEED MORE PARKING SO THAT IS MAKE -- MAINLY WHAT I WOULD

LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE. >> IN TERMS OF PARKING, THE OTHER LOTS, DO YOU ALL HAVE PERMISSION FROM THOSE LANDOWNERS FOR PEOPLE TO PARK THERE?

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR LOT.

>> OKAY, SO YOU ARE WANTING PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF YOUR LOT BUT NOT ACROSS THE STREET ON

SOMEONE ELSE'S? >> JUST ON OUR LOT. WE HAVE ALL THE TRAILERS ON ONE HALF OF ALL THE CEMENT ON ONE HALF AND THEN THE PART TOUCHING THE ALLEYWAY ALLOWS PEOPLE TO COME IN AND OUT. PEOPLE ARE DOING IT ALREADY . IT FEELS KIND OF BAD BECAUSE IT IS TYPICALLY OLDER PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO PARK.

THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR. THERE'S ALREADY A GRAVITY --

GRAVEL PARKING LOT . >> ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> TO MOVE THE TRAILERS AROUND, YES. IF PEOPLE LEAVE OR MOVE WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO REARRANGE THEM TO LOOK THE NICEST OR MAYBE WE NEED TO KNOW THE PROCESS FOR WHO WE HAVE TO NOTIFY HER HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT. LET'S SAY WE TOOK THAT INTO ADVISEMENT BUT THEN STAFF CAME UP WITH A WAY FOR YOU COULD NOTIFY THEM FAIRLY QUICKLY TO WHERE THEY COULD -- I THINK OVERALL THE IDEA IS TO MAKE IT SIMPLIFIED. I THINK YOU GUYS WAITED LIKE THREE MONTHS OR SOMETHING TO GO TO PNC .

>> WE LOST SOMEBODY. WE HAVE SOMEBODY GOING THROUGH IT RIGHT

NOW. >> YEAH, THAT IS A HASSLE BUT IF THERE WAS A SIMPLIFIED WAY YOU COULD SUBMIT IS THE NEW SITE PLAN IF YOU WILL, THE STAFF, IT IS A BE OKAY WITH

THAT? >> I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO RELIEVE PARKING DOWNTOWN, TO ME, IS A SMART IDEA, YEAH. THANK YOU.

>> SO, THE ONLY CONCERNS THAT I HAVE , BECAUSE I DON'T LOOK AT ANYTHING LEGISLATIVE BUT BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE FOR ANYONE, THE CONCERNS I WOULD HAVE, IF WE ALLOW, UNLESS IT IS ON THE INITIAL PLAN THAT THEY PROVIDE THROUGH PNC JUST LIKE IN ANY OTHER SITE PLAN WILL REQUIRE WHERE THERE IS PARKING ENTER AND EXIT AND IF YOU JUST CAN DO IT YOURSELF AND THERE IS NO APPROVAL BY THE CITY, YOU COULD BE INADVERTENTLY CREATING TRAFFIC JAM PROBLEMS OR TRAFFIC ISSUES WHICH IS WHY WE DON'T JUST LET ANYONE JUST DO WHAT THEY WANT IN THAT WAY, THEN AS FAR AS FOR FIRE CODE, THERE IS A REASON IT IS PROBABLY 10 FEET, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONFORM WITH ALL THE FIRE MARSHAL STUFF SO IT MAY BE THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF FIRE CODE BY HAVING THESE TRACKS THAT ARE IN THEORY COOKING WITH FIRE POSSIBLE, AND WE DON'T WANT THE ENTIRE FOOD PARK TO GO UP, SO THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE THERE, AS WELL. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO OBVIOUSLY WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES AND THEY PULL OFF, YOU KNOW, REARRANGING, BUT THE THING IS WE HAVE TO HAVE OVERSIGHT ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET REISSUED FIRE PERMITS BY EVERYONE THAT YOU MOVED AND IS THAT AN EXPENSE YOU WILL WANT TO TAKE? I WANT TO ASK ASHLEY HOW YOU ENVISION THAT, WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE ON EITHER TRAFFIC MITIGATION OR HOW WE HANDLE FOR THE FIRE AND SAFETY CODE WHEN YOU CHANGE EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT SEEMS IF YOU WOULD MOVE EVERYTHING TO ONE SIDE EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE RE-PERMITTED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AND I THINK THAT WOULD CREATE AN ISSUE. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR LEGISLATIVE HURDLE, I WOULD THINK.

>> THERE WOULD BE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT. I WILL TACKLE THE PARKING PORTION FIRST. I RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WE DO HAVE A LOT OF LEGALLY NONCONFORMING LOTS.

HOWEVER, GRAVEL PARKING IS NOT ALLOWED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. TENANT HAS NOT BEEN SINCE 2011, SO THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN, THAT WE WOULD BE GIVING SOMETHING TO A COMMERCIAL USER THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED. IF IT IS NONCONFORMING WE DON'T TOUCH IT. WITH PARKING LOT ALSO COMES THE REQUIREMENT OF ON-SITE LANDSCAPING AND VEHICULAR SCREENING, SO CERTAINLY, THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR LIKE ANY OTHER SITE PLAN, YOU COULD MAKE SITE CHANGES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET CODE. I MEAN WITH THIS, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BATHROOM ALLOWANCE AT ANOTHER LOCATION, THEY WOULD NEED TO BUILD ONE ON SITE. THERE ARE THINGS THEY CAN DO BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET THE CODE, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH YOU TO SEE IF THERE IS ACCESS, FULL ALLEY ACCESS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AS FOR

[01:50:06]

THE LOCATION IT TRULY DOES COME BACK TO THE FIRE CODE. WE HAVE ADOPTED THE CODE OF FIRE 2021 SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THAT IF WE HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN , IF YOU MAKE CHANGES TO THAT AND IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, WE STILL NEED TO CHECK THOSE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE AND THAT IS WHERE WE

WOULD STILL NEED TO SEE IT. >> THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LOT, AND SAY MAYBE MAX, YOU CAN HAVE EIGHT ON THAT LOT.

COULD MAYBE THEY PRESENT MULTIPLE PROPOSALS? I KNOW TRAILERS MAY BE DIFFERENT SIZES BUT IN GENERAL LIKE THIS IS AN OPTION. THERE ARE OPTIONS WE HAVE EIGHT TRUCKS, FIVE TRUCKS, FOUR TRUCKS , JUST HAVING THAT AVAILABILITY AND THEN THEY CAN STICK TO IT IF YOU HAVE THE COME AND GO WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT IT IS ALREADY LIKE A PREAPPROVAL, AND THEN THEY CAN JUST SIMPLY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU HEY, WE HAVE TWO TRUCKS THAT ARE LEAVING FOR TWO MONTHS AND SO NOW, WE ARE IN THE FIVE PLAN, RIGHT, THEN THEY CAN JUST KIND OF HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE TOO ROCKY. HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS HAVE SOME STABILITY WITH THINGS BUT OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THINGS COULD BE TAKEN OFF OF THE LOT.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE? TO HELP THEM OUT BUT ALSO STREAMLINE IT FOR YOU SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LIKE OKAY, IS EVERYBODY SO AND SO ON THE FIRE MARSHAL COMING OUT THERE AND RE-APPROVING IT EVERY SINGLE TIME JUST SOMETHING THAT

LIKE A TEMPLATE, RIGHT? >> POTENTIALLY I DO THINK SOME OF THE OVERSIGHT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MUCH BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE STAFF CONSTANTLY MUTTERING HOW MANY

ARE ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE. >> AS THAT POTENTIALLY SOMETHING CODE ENFORCEMENT COULD DO?

>> IF THEY COULD ADD IT TO THE WORKLOAD BUT RIGHT NOW SINCE WE ONLY HAVE TWO LOTS, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY WORK. I THINK WE ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE POLICING OF THAT TO SAY WHO HAS FIVE, WHO HAS THIS IN THOSE OPTIONS. WE DON'T REALLY DO OPTIONS WITH OTHER SITE PLANS TO SAY OKAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING WERE DOING AND THIS IS IT. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE ON THE SITE PLANS IS REALLY GOING TO BE THE AMENITIES. WHERE ARE SITE PLANS GOING TO HAVE TRASH CANS, WHERE DUMPSTER SHOWING UP AND WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF THINGS THAT JUST HAPPEN ON-SITE SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT LOOKS GOOD BUT ALSO THAT WE ARE RESPECTING THE CODE

THAT WAS ADOPTED. >> ASHLEY, ON HERE, DOES A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR NEED TO PROVIDE A LICENSE OF A PROPERLY REGISTERED VEHICLE FROM THE DMV? I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOOD VENDORS COMING IN AND OUT, STAYING STATIONARY, THEY ARE NOT. DO THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY NEED TO PROVIDE AS FAR AS --

>> THE TRAILERS REGISTERED IS WHAT YOU MEAN?

>> YEAH. I DON'T SEE THAT IN HERE.

>> WE DID NOT ADD THAT BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD. THERE IS A

PORTION WE ADDED AT THE TOP . >> I DIDN'T SEE IT THERE.

>> THE ONLY THING WE ADDED IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE FIRE MARSHAL AND COUNTY HEALTH BUT IF THAT WAS WARRANTED THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT, WE COULD ADD THAT

TO THE ORDINANCE. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BIG THING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOOD TRUCK IS PROPERLY REGISTERED. I MEAN, THAT IS A REGULATION BY THE

STATE OF TEXAS. >> OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED IS THAT SET THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR WHO WISHES TO LOCATE AND REMAIN STATIONARY ON A PRIVATE LOT, IS THERE DEFINITION FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES REMAINING STATIONARY? BECAUSE EVERY MOBILE VENDOR I KNOW OR MOST OF THEM OCCASIONALLY GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR A WEEKEND OR DAY OR WHATEVER, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM THAT MIGHT BE THERE FIVE DAYS A WEEK THEN THEY LEAVE AND COME BACK AND HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO STAY TO BE COUNTED AS STATIONARY?

>> I GET IT. WE WERE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND SINCE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A FULL FOOD TRUCK LOT ORDINANCE WITH THIS, THIS IS REALLY JUST TO ALLOW FOR SOME DEVIATION IN THE HOURS OF WHO WAS APPROVING SO WHAT WE HAVE IN THERE IS THAT A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR IS STATIONARY IF THEY ARE STATIONARY FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR BUSINESS HOURS. WE WERE NOT GOING TO SET THEIR BUSINESS HOURS SO IF YOU ARE STATIONARY ON THE PRIVATE LOT FOR THE MAJORITY OF YOUR BUSINESS HOURS, THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE THROUGH US.

[01:55:04]

>> AND THE LANGUAGE I WANT TO SEE THAT NUMBER, 75% BECAUSE MAJORITY COULD BE 51% TECHNICALLY. THAT'S HAVE THE

TIME. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD, TOO.

>> PER WEEK OR PER MONTH . MAYBE MONTH. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW STRICT BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE , YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC.

>> I THINK ORIGINALLY WHEN STAFF WAS TOSSING THIS AROUND INTERNALLY, WE HAD SEEN SOME THAT JUST CALL IT OUT THAT IT HAS TO BE A FOOD TRUCK LOT AND IF YOU ARE ON A PRIVATE LOT YOU ARE A FOOD TRUCK LOT AND THIS IS HOW IT BEHAVES SO THAT IS WHAT IT IS STATIONARY AS IF IT IS ON THAT PRIVATE LOT. IT IS NOT A COMMON GO EVENT. THERE WERE OTHERS THAT I THINK THE FIRST ITERATION WE HAD INTERNALLY IS THAT IT WAS STATIONARY FOR MORE THAN 60 MINUTES BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD BE TAKEN UP REQUIRED PARKING AND WE DO NEED TO SEE HER OTHER RESTROOMS, WHERE IS THE HANDWASHING, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PROVIDE THOSE AMENITIES FOR NOT ONLY CUSTOMERS BUT ALSO FOR

THE EMPLOYEES. >> ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT LOGISTICS ON THIS. IF THIS GOES THROUGH ONCE IT IS FINALLY APPROVED, THEY CAN IMMEDIATELY START OFFERING WHATEVER HOURS THEY WANT WHICH IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THEM, BUT WHAT ABOUT KIND OF THE HOW WOULD WE ALLOW THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWING PROOF OF EVERYTHING SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO RESPOND AND THEY ARE NOT JUST -- YOU SHOW UP ON MONDAY AND THEY ARE NOT READY WITH EVERYTHING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM FOR WHERE THEY CAN DISCHARGE AND ALL THAT STUFF AND THEY GET SHUT DOWN, YOU KNOW. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT BUT HOW DO WE ROLL THAT OUT?

>> THAT IS REALLY WHAT STAFF WAS THINKING IS ONCE WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE COME IN OR OUT, THAT IS FROM THE NEW ORDINANCE APPLIES FOR THAT FOOD TRUCK LOT WE WOULD THEN GET THAT DOCUMENTATION. THE DOCUMENTATION IS SOMEWHAT SPECIFIC FOR THAT TRUCK BUT THEN FOR THE SITE AS FAR AS WASTE RECEPTACLES, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE FOR THE SITE. WE WOULD START TO COLLECT THAT INFORMATION SO IT WOULD BE OVER TIME WE WOULD END UP GETTING FULL COMPLIANCE JUST LIKE WITH SOME OF THE SITE AMENITIES. WE WOULD START LOOKING AT OKAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING THAT IN. I THINK THEIR EMAIL SENT OUT LAST BECAUSE WE STARTED SAYING SOME NONCOMPLIANT THINGS DRIVING BY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ON THE SITE, WE WOULD WANT TO START SEEING MOVEMENT ON THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE HOLDING THIS TO THE SAME STANDARD, NOT JUST RESTAURANT BUT ANY OTHER BUSINESS DOWNTOWN OR ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY.

>> SO CAN WE HAVE SOME GRANDFATHERING POSITION THAT SAYS WITHIN 60 DAYS THEY WOULD GET UP TO COMPLIANCE OR SOME REASONABLE NUMBER IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THE LIMITED HOURS.

OTHERWISE THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS ALL THE BENEFITS BUT DON'T HAVE TO GO DO THE NEW THINGS.

>> I THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THIS WOULD BE BUT ALL OF THE FOOD TRUCKS WOULD HAVE TO MEET THIS ORDINANCE WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME BUT THAT WOULD BE CHANGING THE ORDINANCE, NOT NECESSARILY THE REDLINES OF THE

CODE. >> WRITES I'M JUST SAYING WHAT'S A REASONABLE TIME . I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE TIME? 90 DAYS, A FEW DAYS, WHAT IS REASONABLE? ONCE WE ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE FIRE CODE MARSHAL WHO SIGNED OFF, YOU MAY NOT HAVE SOME OF THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE ARE GOING TO PUT SOME TEETH THAT YOU WOULD GET SHUT DOWN IF YOU DIDN'T COMPLY WITH ANY CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME SO MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME? WOULD IT TAKE YOU 60 DAYS TO GET THAT DONE. THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT.

>> I THINK IT DEPENDS. I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT A GREASE TRAP.

WHAT I DID AT FIRST IN THE FOOD TRUCK BECAUSE OF DISPOSAL WAS [INDISCERNIBLE] I SPENT SOME MONEY TO GET ] AND NOW WE HAVE WHATEVER WE ARE ACTUALLY THE ONLY ONES THAT WE -- NO, EVERYONE HAS THEIR WATER. CLEAN WATER AND TIME FOR THE ONE YOU DISPOSE AND EVERY TRUCK HAS A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN DUMP THAT WATER AND IT IS A GREAT WATER. WE DON'T PUT GREASE. WE HAVE A GREASE DOWN CONTAINERS WHERE GREASE IS DUMPED . AT FIRST, SOMEBODY WAS TELLING US WE NEEDED A BIG GREASE TRAP THAT COULD COST A GOOD CHUNK OF MONEY BUT WE WERE THINKING BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE ENTRANCES

[02:00:05]

WHERE WE CAN PUT A SMALL GREASE TRAP EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T DON'T GREASE, SO IT'S GOING TO PROTECT THE WATER IN THE CITY.

EVERY TRUCK HAS TO HAVE WATER, SOMETHING WHERE THEY CAN WASH THEIR HANDS. I HAVE A BATHROOM AND A WATER THINGY SO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE CAN WASH THEIR HANDS AND DO THEIR THINGS AND WHOEVER IS IN THE PARK. EVERY TRUCK HAS TO HAVE INSPECTIONS EVERY YEAR AND HAS TO HAVE YOU KNOW, WE PAY THE PERMIT TO MOVE AROUND. WE DON'T MOVE AROUND. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM STATIONARY BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS IF YOU'RE NOT HERE BUT IT'S HARD. YOU KNOW, ONCE I HAVE EVERYBODY IN PLACE, THE TRUCKS THAT CAN FEED, THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE INVESTED IN HAVING A BETTER SURFACE, BEAUTIFY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS IT DEPENDS, THE THINGS YOU'RE ASKING ME, THE GREASE TRAP EVEN THOUGH THEY COST A LITTLE, IT STILL IS A CHUNK OF MONEY FOUR TIMES, FIVE TIMES EACH MONTH. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THAT OR NOT. I THINK WE WERE WORKING PRETTY CLEANLY. WE HAVE A DUMB STICK BUT WE HAD TO REDUCE IT TO A SMALL ONE. I KNOW WE ARE SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE CORE OR SOMETHING. WE WILL REPLY. I MEAN, WE WILL TRY TO MAKE IT RIGHT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE PARKING IS BASICALLY AS WE PARK TO THE SIDE SO WE CAN GET THIS STUFF DOWN TO THE FOOD TRUCKS AND THEN WHEN WE PARK, AS WE PARK IN THERE BEFORE I WAS HERE AND JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE THE PARKING LOT THAT IS IN FRONT , WE WERE WISHING THEY COULD TAKE THAT PART AND MAKE MORE PARKING. THAT WOULD BE FUN FOR ALL OF US . I THINK THE DOWNTOWN AREA NEEDS MORE PARKING FOR SURE. HOPEFULLY PARKING WILL RESOLVE THE SITUATION.

>> I THINK I WOULD SAY IF WE WERE SOMEBODY NEW COMING IN AND HAD TO FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES WE WOULD BE ASKED TO PROVIDE TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS, MOTORIZED AGREEMENT AND SCALE SITE PLAN ALONG WITH ANYTHING ELSE WE DO. I THINK THE RANGE OF 60 TO 90 DAYS GIVE PEOPLE TIME TO PLAN SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN, TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS. I THINK 60 TO 90 DAYS IS A GOOD RANGE FOR THAT.

>> I MEAN, ISN'T THIS THE SECOND READING? CAN WE BRING IT BACK AND ASK THE BUSINESSES? I RESPECT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING AND IT'S TOTALLY VALID BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE OTHER CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE ADDED INTO THIS ONE AND WE JUST HAVE THAT BE A CHANGE FOR STAFF TO GO BACK AND KIND OF HOLD FOOD TRUCKS IN AND AROUND THE CITY, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO FALL INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THESE THINGS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT VARIES FROM FOOD TRUCK TO FOOD TRUCK.

>> THE BIG WHEN I HEARD CONCERNED ME WAS SAYING GREAT -- GRAYWATER AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CONTRACT FOR WASTEWATER REMOVAL. YOU ARE NOT PUTTING IT ON YOUR PROPERTY.

SO. THAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. THAT IS A BIG --

>> THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF OUR ILLICIT DISCHARGE ORDINANCE SO EITHER HAS TO HAVE A GREASE TRAP AND AN APPROVED WASTEWATER CONNECTION OR THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE

THOSE CONTRACTS. >> ALL RIGHT, SO I LIKE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE HERE. YOU TIED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE INTO THIS, OKAY, AND IT DOES CREATE A MORE REGULATORY -- IN SOME INSTANCES, BUT AS YOU SAID, THERE ARE THINGS THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW. MY QUESTION IS, AND I WILL TRY TO ARTICULATE THIS BETTER SO IT DOESN'T GO OFF THE RAILS, BUT WHAT IS A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR? I DID NOT REALLY

SEE THAT DEFINED ANYWHERE. >> IT'S UP AT THE TOP. WE STILL USE PROPULSION ATTEND. WE DID NOT CHANGE THAT. SO, WHAT WE HAVE UP HERE IS THAT MOBILE FOOD VENDORS ARE VENDORS WHO OFFER OR SELL FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION FROM A CART, TRAILER OR KITCHEN MOUNTED ON A CHASSIS WITH AN ENGINE FOR PROPULSION OR THAT REMAINS CONNECTED TO A VEHICLE WITH AN ENGINE FOR PROPULSION ARE DISCONNECTED FROM AN ENGINE FOR PROPULSION. IT ALSO SAYS THIS SECTION APPLIES FOR MOBILE FOOD

[02:05:01]

VENDORS TO SERVE FOOD FROM A PRIVATE LOT AND BELIEVE GENERALLY STATIONARY FOR A NUMBER OF HOURS. THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE SAYING WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT BETTER, DEFINED DURING BUSINESS HOURS ARE GENERALLY STATIONARY AND GIVE THAT SOME SORT OF PERCENTAGE OR TIMEFRAME TO DEFINE THIS

BETTER. >> ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE PUT IN TABLE, BUT ALMOST PREPARED FOODS OR RAW FOODS OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THE INTENT, FOR ME, IS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT HONEY AND IT'S NOT TO WORRY ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS SELLING TEA, COFFEE, EVEN COOKIES, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAUSE S THINGS LIKE THAT. I T BE WILL SPEAK 100% FROM FACT. I KNOW THE BUSINESS THAT USED TO DUMP , AND YOU KNOW THIS BUSINESS, IS TO DUMP THEIR GREASE TRAP IN A DITCH BEHIND THE BUSINESS. THIS BUSINESS SOLD A CONSUMABLE ITEM THAT WAS HEATED UP AND IT MAY SURPRISE PEOPLE, IT WAS NEVER LICENSED TO SELL FOOD EVER, AND SO PART OF THIS WHOLE THING IS NOT ABOUT TRYING TO GO AFTER ONE PERSON OR ANOTHER. IT IS GENERAL HEALTH. IF YOU GUYS HAVE A BAD ACTOR , YOU DON'T JUST RUIN IT FOR YOU. YOU RUIN IT FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS SELLING FOOD IN THE CITY OF HUTTO IN MY OPINION AND SO MY WHOLE POINT HERE IS NOT TO MAKE THINGS OVER BURDENSOME. I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO GO TO PNC BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY IF WE CAN'T TRUST OUR SERVICES, WE DON'T, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE SERVICES AGAIN, INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE, THAT OPERATED IN A WAY WHERE THEY DID NOT PAY EMPLOYEES. THEY PAID THEM IN CASH. THEY DID NOT CHARGE BRING UP ITEMS. I KNOW THEY DIDN'T PAY SALES TAX. I KNOW THIS, SO ALL THE CONVERSATION IS NOT TO TRY TO FIX EVERY ILL IN THE CITY, BUT TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY. I THINK THIS GOES A LONG WAY. IT'S GOING TO BE A PAIN TO GET THE PERMITS. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE SAY YOU HAVE 180 DAYS TO DO IT, HAVING BEEN THROUGH AGAIN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOOD INSPECTION WCC HD THING. IT MAY NOT BE DONE IN 60 DAYS AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT UPON STAFF APPROVAL, YOU COULD GET AN EXTENSION BECAUSE I'M NOT TRYING TO HIT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE TODAY, OKAY, I'M TRYING TO THINK, HOW DO WE FIX A PROBLEM THAT I AND OTHERS MAY FEEL HAPPEN AND HOW DO WE DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS FAIR SO YOU HAVE MAYBE LIKE 180 DAYS TO FIX IT. IF YOU CAN'T GET IT DONE IN THAT TIME, YOU GO BACK AND TELL YOUR STORY TO STAFF. STAFF CAN SAY OKAY, WE WILL GIVE YOU ONE MORE EXTENSION OF 90 TO 120 DAYS AND AFTER THAT YOU GET SHUT DOWN AND IT IS ON YOU AT THAT POINT TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE THAT IS KIND OF HOW WE TREAT THE OTHER FOOD PEOPLE WHO OPERATE. YOU ARE IN THIS GRAY AREA. EVERYBODY IS LIKE YOU, KEEP WORKING ON IT BUT THERE COMES A TIME WHEN SOMEONE DRAWS A LINE AND SAYS EITHER YOU FIX WHAT YOU GOT TO FIX OR YOU DON'T AND I THINK OVERALL I DO LIKE THE DMV BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY SO IF IT IS A REQUIREMENT IT SHOULD NOT BE BURDENSOME. AND THEN I WOULD SAY FROM BUSINESS OPERATING HOURS IF YOU OPERATE MORE THAN TWO HOURS. I WOULD NOT PUT A PERCENTAGE. IF YOU'RE THERE FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS YOU CAN BE CITED FOR WHATEVER THE ORDINANCE SAYS BUT THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGES I WOULD MAKE IS I WOULD ADD WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SAID ABOUT THE DMV. I WOULD ADD THE LICENSING AND THEN --

>> THE LAST NAME IS THOMPSON. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> YEAH, COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AND THEN ALSO IT WAS BROUGHT UP THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BUSINESS HOURS AGAIN TO ME, I WOULD KEEP IT IF YOU ARE OVER TWO HOURS IN A SPOT AND THEN AGAIN 180 DAYS WITH AN EXTENSION AND THEN YOU DON'T RUN ANYTHING THROUGH THE PNC UNLESS YOU SAY NO, THEY THINK IT'S UNFAIR THEY CAN APPEAL AND THEN THAT WAY WE SHOULD MOVE IT FASTER AND THEN I WOULD ADD THE TABLE JUST SO I'M NOT SELLING PIZZA BECAUSE OTHERWISE I'LL GO OUT AND SELL PIZZA I GOT TO DO IS GET EXPRESS PERMISSION AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE PIZZA AND JUST SELL PIZZA OFF OF THE TABLE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT MOVE. I THINK THE RIGHT MOVE OUGHT TO BE I NEED TO BE PERMITTED AND GO THROUGH THE

PROCESS. >> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE I REALIZE THE FIRST BULLET ON THIS PAGE ACTUALLY SAYS IF A MOBILE VENDOR IS STATIONARY GOES ON TO SAY PREPARING AND SERVING FOOD SO WE COULD ADD THAT TO THAT DEFINITION SO IT IS PREPARING AND SERVING SO I THINK THAT WOULD POSSIBLY ALLEVIATE ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS. IF YOU CARE TO MOTION SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I COULD MAKE IS PRETTY QUICK.

[02:10:01]

>> IS A SNOW CONE -- I HAD A SNOW CONE THE OTHER DAY. IT WAS AMAZING AND I THOUGHT YOU WOULD JUST SELL THAT RIGHT OUT OF A

CART, BUT CAN A PERSON >> OKAY, THERE IS AN ICE CREAM TRUCK THAT SAYS HELLO ALL THE TIME AND I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER. YOU CAN'T HAVE MUSIC SO THEY NEED TO STOP PLAYING THE MUSIC BECAUSE I NEVER KNOW WHAT BLOCK THEY ARE BUT IS A SNOW CONE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PREPARED FOOD?

>> TECHNICALLY, THEY ARE PREPARING IT. IF IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THE KONA FOOD TRUCK THAT ONE COMES IN AND OUT FOR A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. YOU SEE THEM AT A LOT OF SCHOOLS AND YOU CAN HIRE THEM TO SHOW UP AT YOUR HOUSE FOR PARTIES AND THINGS OR JUST BECAUSE IT'S HOT, BUT YOU CAN DEFINITELY -- THERE ARE OPTIONS BUT I THINK BECAUSE THEY WOULD TYPICALLY NOT BE ON A PRIVATE LOT FOR OTHERWISE A SPECIAL EVENT, SOMETHING ELSE SOMEONE IS THROWING BECAUSE IF IT IS AN HOA EVENT OR THE SCHOOL WE DON'T NEED TO BE INVOLVED BUT THAT ONE DOES HAVE THE DRIVER IN THE TRUCK WITH IT SO IF IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WAS A MOBILE STREET VENDOR AND THAT IS SOMETHING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO IS DRIVING AROUND, WHO IS SERVING FOOD IN THEIR CHECKING OTHER THINGS.

>> I COULD JUST BACK A TRUCK UP IF I HAVE PERMISSION FROM LANDOVER -- LANDOWNER BACK A TRUCK UP, PUT A TABLE OUT, SHAVE ICE, PUT STUFF IN BUT WITH THIS I WOULD MAKE SURE I HAVE A HEALTH PERMIT TO DO THAT.

>> I WOULD THINK SO. THAT IS HOW I WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT.

>> NOT THAT I WOULD EVER DO THAT BUT HOW HARD IS IT TO MAKE A SNOW CONE THIS GOOD BUT OKAY, THANKS.

>> YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TOUCH. >> I DO THINK TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE PARKING THING BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER THING WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU GO TO P AND C4. YOU HAVE TO GET PERMITTED AND COME UP TO CODE FOR WHAT IT IS. JUST BECAUSE LIKE I SAID IT'S NOT SPECIFIC FOR YOU GUYS BUT WE HAVE TO PUT EVERYTHING IN PLACE. WE HAVE TO PUT THINGS LEGALLY IN PLACE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS AND SO

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, SO. >> NOT MAC

>> CERTAINLY WE DO HAVE A LOT OF LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. IF WE SEE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING WE ARE NOT REQUIRING THEM TO GO IN AND PAVE JUST TO BE OPEN BECAUSE IT'S A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING SITE. THAT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL. WE HAVE A LOT OF STATE LAWS AND THAT IT CERTAINLY IS THAT BUILDING WAS TO EXPAND THAT IS AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW HER NONCONFORMING ORDINANCES , NOT ONLY FIRE DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT ALSO OF

THE STATE. >> OUR HOA PRESIDENT IS HERE AND I JUST HOPE YOU HEARD THAT KONA BACKS INTO NEIGHBORHOODS .

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC AND WHICH IS TO SPEAK? COME ON

UP. >> JOSEPH CORTEZ. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON PREPARED FOODS. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU KNOW THE BUSINESS BUT I THINK YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS. THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY KNOWING THE BUSINESS. IF YOU WANTED TO SELL PIZZA OFF OF THE TENT YOU NEED A FOOD HANDLERS LICENSE. YOU WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH DISTRICT. THERE ARE PERMITS YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR AND PAY FOR. YOU NEED TO HAVE A THREE-PART WASH STATION. THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT GOES INTO IT AND YOU CAN'T JUST POP UP A TABLE. WE TRIED TO DOING THIS DECEMBER 14TH IF YOU RECALL. FOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, THERE ARE ALREADY SET OF RULES THAT ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO BRING ANTHONY SPITS OVER TO THE FARMERS MARKET AND SELL YOUR PIZZA. YOU NEED TO DO A LOT MORE THAN JUST POP IT UP THOUGH. I WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU INTO THE MARKET AND MOST MARKETS HAVE REGULATIONS. YOU HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF YOUR CERTIFICATION. YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PERMITS AND WE HAVE MR. DAVID URBAN WHO IS OUR COUNTY HEALTH INSPECTOR. HE GOES BY MARKETS AND MAKES SURE IT'S ALL UP TO CODE AND THAT IS FOR PREPARING FOOD. IF YOU WANTED TO SELL FOOD THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS ALL OUT OF COMPLIANCE. THEY

[02:15:05]

HAVE TO BE MADE IN A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN SO ANYBODY WAS SELLING FOOD READY TO EAT TO TAKE HOME, FOR EXAMPLE, FROZEN INDIAN FOOD, THAT HAS TO BE MADE IN A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN THAT IS CERTIFIED BY THE USDA AND VERIFIED SO MAKING IT SEEM AS THOUGH ANYBODY CAN JUST POP UP AND BUY SOME GROUND MEAT AND MAKE A BURGER AND SELL IT, THEY CAN DO THAT, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. I KNOW YOU SAY YOU WORK IN YOU OWN ANTHONY'S PIZZA BUT YOU DIDN'T START IT, YOU JUST BOUGHT IT SO WHEN YOU START BUSINESSES LIKE THAT YOU KIND OF LEARN KIND OF WHAT THE ACTUAL RULES ARE, RIGHT, SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM ALONG

HERE. >> NO, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE RULES AND THAT'S GOOD. I THINK ONE THING I CAUTION YOU ON IS THERE ARE STATE DEFINED TERMS, BUT WE HAVE TO DEFINE OUR OWN TERMS, TOO, SO WE DON'T ALWAYS, UNLESS WE SAY STATE OR WHATEVER, YOU CAN JUST TAKE A WORD OUT OF A STATE CODE SOMEWHERE AND THEN FIND IT IN OUR CODES. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS FOR ALL SORTS OF STUFF IN LESLIE SPECIFICALLY SAY WE ARE FOLLOWING STATE CODE OR WHATEVER OR THIS IN THE STATE SO I THINK THAT IS ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE. IT'S NOT AN ATTACK. IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN, IF HENRIQUE HAS SOMEBODY IN HIS FOOD LOT AND THEY DO SOMETHING IMPROPER AND SOMEONE GETS SICK, THAT AFFECTS YOU. IF YOU DO SOMETHING WITH A FOOD VENDOR AND THEY GET SICK, THAT AFFECTS HIM AND EVERYBODY ELSE AND I THINK THE ATTEMPT IS I DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAS BECOME SO PERSONAL,

>> IT IS A PERSONAL AND JUST PROVIDING CLARIFICATION.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FLIPPANT ABOUT THINGS BUT MAYBE THAT IS THE ONLY BUSINESS IN THE WHOLE CITY THAT OPERATES OUTSIDE OF THE LAW OKAY, OR POTENTIALLY WE HAVE IN MY MIND A PROCESS SET UP WHERE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO SELL THAT ARE ABLE TO HAVE SHOW DIFFERENT CERTIFICATIONS TO THE CITY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ANYWAY SO IT SHOULD NOT BE ANY OTHER REGULATORY BURDEN ON THEM AND THEN THEY GO FORWARD. TO ME, THIS IS A FANTASTIC WAY TO PUT TO BED CONCERNS IN A COMMUNITY FROM EVERYBODY AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT, AS

ALWAYS. >> REALLY I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE YOU ARE USING EXAMPLES THAT WERE INACCURATE AND WE MAKE LAWS AND ORDINANCES BASED OF INACCURATE STATEMENTS IT JUST DOESN'T WORK, AND USING THE EXAMPLE THAT SOMEBODY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE POP-UP TENT FOR EXAMPLE, I'VE HEARD STORIES OF RESTAURANTS WHO HAVE CHEFS THAT DON'T HAVE PROPER CERTIFICATION, SO ARE WE GOING TO THEN GO IN THERE BECAUSE GUESS WHAT IF A RESTAURANT LIKE YOU USE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY DIES FROM A FARMERS MARKET VENDOR OKAY IF SOMEBODY DIES FROM A RESTAURANT IT'S THE SAME THING SO WHY IS THERE DIFFERENTIATION? WHY WOULD WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR ONE TYPE OF FOOD VENDOR VERSUS ANOTHER, RIGHT . IT'S NOT THAT. IT IS THE FACT THAT RESTAURANTS ARE REGULATED. THEY DO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH A LOT OF THESE REGULATIONS, TOO, SO AS THE CITY, ARE WE ALSO GOING TO GO AFTER DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS OR ANY RESTAURANT FOR THAT MATTER AND GO IN THERE AND HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT SAY LET ME SEE YOUR FOOD HANDLER, LET ME SEE YOUR PERMITS FOR SELLING FOOD .

THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS IF IT WAS A BRICK-AND-MORTAR PLACE BEFORE YOU GET A CO YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR FIRE AND BEFORE YOU CAN GET YOUR HEALTH PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR HEALTH. SO EVERYTHING IS TIED TOGETHER AND AGAIN, ALL THIS IS, THE WAY I AM READING IT, ALL THIS IS DOING IS THE WAY FOR SOMEONE TO COME TO ANY FOOD LOT OR SELF FOOD THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THINGS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW A PERSON COULD SELL FOOD IN THE CITY OF HUTTO BUT THEY DON'T NEED A CO AND IF THEY DON'T NEED A CO, THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW THEY'RE SELLING. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. ALL THE CHAIN THAT GOES THROUGH TO MAKE EVERYBODY SAFE DOESN'T EXIST.

>> THE STATE KNOWS AND THE COUNTY KNOWS. ALL THAT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEARCH THIS TO SEE WHO HAS BEEN PERMITTED. IT'S AVAILABLE FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT. I MEAN LIKE I SAID, DO YOU BELIEVE ALL BRICK-AND-MORTAR RESTAURANTS ARE FOLLOWING THE

RULES? >> UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> OKAY SO AGAIN WHY ARE WE CHOOSING -- EXACTLY AND OUR VENDORS, AS WELL, IF YOU SEE THAT AGAIN DAVID URBAN COMES VERY FREQUENTLY, WE ARE VERY GOOD FRIENDS, AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND HE GOES TO SEVERAL MARKETS AND MAKE SURE HIS -- EVERYONE HAS THE PERMITS TO OPERATE. IT'S JUST TRYING TO SAY SOMEONE WHO IS POPPING UP TEMPORARY FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IS WHAT YOU CALL IT, THEY HAVE TO GET THOSE PERMITS, TO SAY THERE A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR WHEN THAT IS A STATE DEFINED TERM AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO CREATE NEW ORDINANCES FOR FOOD WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THEM BECAUSE A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR IS A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR. IF YOU WANTED TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING NEW TO DISCUSS TEMPORARY FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WE WANT TO REGULATE THEM ADDITIONALLY OR HAVE REQUIREMENTS OVER THEM THAT YOU JUST HAVE TO REVIEW WITH THE COUNTY AND STATE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.

>> THANKS, SIR. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 9.2 IS PRESENTED BUT ADDING COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE UDC, THESE CHANGES, WITHIN 90 DAYS

[02:20:07]

OF MARCH 1ST, 2025 WITH AN EXTENSION OF ANOTHER 90 DAYS? VERIFY WHAT THE MOTION IS SO AS PRESENTED WITHIN COMPLIANCE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF MARCH 1ST WITH AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY

EXTENSION. >> YES.

>> CAN WE DO IT FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION BECAUSE WE HAVE A SECOND READING ON THE SEVENTH.

>> 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF ADOPTION. IS THAT YOUR SECOND?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, IS THE MOTION INCLUDING THE REQUESTED CHANGES THAT WE MADE? BECAUSE AS PRESENTED I MEAN THERE WERE A COUPLE

CHANGES. >> THERE WAS THE DMV .

>> YEAH. I MEAN WE CAN REQUIRE REGISTRATION.

>> SO IT IS NOT AS PRESENTED. >> ADDING THE 90 DAY TO GET INTO CODE WITH THE 90 DAY OPTION AS WELL AS DMV AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER THAT WAS THE TWO HOUR REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF JUST MAJORITY OF BUSINESS HOURS, IT WOULD BE IF YOU ARE STAYING IN ONE PLACE MORE THAN TWO HOURS, THAT WAS A SUGGESTION THAT WAS THROWN OUT AND THE LAST WAS TO CHANGE THE FIRST MOBILE FOOD VENDOR TO SAY PREPARING AND SERVING FOOD.

>> IT SAYS IT IN THERE, RIGHT?

>> OH, SO IT IS MISMATCHED. IT SAYS IT IN ONE PLACE BUT NOT

THE OTHER. >> SO THAT IS FOUR THINGS THAN

RIGHT? >> THEN DID MAYOR SNYDER TALK

ABOUT GRAVEL? >> NO, WE DIDN'T.

>> DID YOU MENTION GRAVEL? DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT GRAVEL?

PNC. >> ARE YOU OKAY WITH WHAT

SHE'S SAYING? >> AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. WITHIN COMPLIANCE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE OPTION OF A 90 DAY EXTENSION. THEY HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE DMV , OPERATING AT LEAST TWO HOURS IN A LOCATION AND THEN ADDING

THE WORD PREPARING >> PREPARING AND SERVING.

>> PREPARING AND SERVING, AND YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT?

>> YES. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING ON, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> DOT NOT [INDISCERNIBLE] >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT ARE

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-010 approving budget amendments for the Hutto Economic Development Corporation (HEDC) as approved at their Board Meeting on January 29, 2024 (First Reading) (Alberta Barrett)]

GOING TO ITEM 11.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION AND A 0.2024 -010 PROVING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HEDC IS APPROVED AT THEIR BOARD MEETING ON JANUARY 29, 2024.

>> THANK YOU. ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. THIS ITEM IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THAT BOARD . THIS INCORPORATES THE SPINE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WITH A NET ZERO EXPENSE. IT RE-CLASSES INTEREST PAYMENTS AND INCREASES PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON THE ALLIANCE BANK LOAN. IT INCREASES THE HUTTO CHAMBER GALA TABLE. DECREASE AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO REFLECT THE LAND SALE CHANGE AND AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

>> ALL RIGHT, I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE SPINE ROAD CONTRACT IS MADE PUBLIC. TO HAVE A SECOND? HEARING ON THE NET DIES. OPEN UP FOR ANOTHER MOTION.

[02:25:09]

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 11.1 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> DO WE HAVE TO AS PART OF IT, CAN WE I GUESS AFTERWARDS IF IT PASSES THEN WE CAN DISPENSE WITH THE SECOND READING. OR IS IT NO MATTER WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TWO?

>> MY OBJECTION IS NOT ON YOU ALL BUT PASSING THIS AMENDMENT IS TAKING MONEY FROM THE CITY OF HUTTO, TRANSFERRING IT TO THE HUTTO EDC TO PAY FOR CONTRACT THE PUBLIC IS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE, WHICH IS ALMOST UNHEARD OF, SO WE'VE RAISED PEOPLE'S TAX BILLS TO PAY COW FOR THIS ROAD. WE HAVE THE MONEY, WE'VE SOLD THE BONDS AND I CALLED AGAIN BECAUSE IN TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE, WE ARE NOT WILLING TO RELEASE THE CONTRACT AND SO YOU HAVE PUBLIC MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE WORK. THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS BEING BUILT. THEY DON'T KNOW ANY PARAMETERS OF IT THAT YOU'RE GETTING READY TO SPEND $9 MILLION AND GIVE IT AWAY AND ONCE YOU DO THIS, IT'S GONE AND I'M NOT REAL HAPPY WITH THE EDC ATTORNEY QUITE HONESTLY BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP IN NOVEMBER, THE ONLY REALL KX A AND, BRING THEM DOWN TO THE STEPS OF CITY HALL AND GO I WANT TO INTERVIEW AND FIND OUT WHY I CAN'T SEE THIS CONTRACT. WHAT IS THE BIG SECRET, AND I ASKED, HOW DOES THE CITY SELL BONDS FOR A ROAD THAT THEN HAVE THE MONEY AND WE DELEGATE AUTHORITY WITH SOME OTHER DEAL AND I SAY SHAME ON ME. WE SHOULD'VE DONE THAT BECAUSE EVERY OTHER TIME BEFORE WE SPEND MONEY WE SEE THE CONTRACT BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE THE CONTRACT. THE PUBLIC CANNOT SEE THE CONTRACT IN THIS IS, I THINK, ONE OF THE REASONS WE GET IN TROUBLE AS A CITY AS WE DO THINGS AND THAT IS WHY TO ME, I AM OKAY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT BUT $9 MILLION OR WHATEVER IT IS OF PUBLIC MONEY GOING TO SOMETHING THE PUBLIC HAS NO IDEA WHAT WE ARE SPENDING IT ON, SO. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

>> I WILL SAY THAT I ALSO QUESTION THE EDC ATTORNEY WHO WAS ASKING ME WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHY ARE WE RELEASING THE CONTRACT. THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME AND ANYONE FROM EDC CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THIS IS WHAT I HEARD IS THAT THE EDC HAD ZERO OBJECTIONS WITH RELEASING THE CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC. THE OBJECTIONS WERE ON THE PART OF THE OTHER PARTY, WHO HAS A RIGHT UNDER LAW TO SAY WHETHER THEY WANT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT RELEASED OR NOT .

THEY RELEASED A REDACTED VERSION AND SO IT IS NOT THAT THE CITY WHERE THE EDC WAS TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING OR TRYING TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO RELEASE SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS THAT THE OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION DID HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT SO THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, FOLLOW PROCESS, GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GO THROUGH THAT. IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THE MAYOR CAN CORRECT ME IF THIS IS ALSO WRONG, THAT WHAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE EDC ATTORNEY IS THE REASON THERE WAS RELUCTANCE IN RELEASING THIS TO MAYOR SNYDER IS BECAUSE HE EXPRESSED THE INTENT PURPOSE OF I WANT A COPY OF THIS SO I CAN MAKE IT PUBLIC, AND THEREFORE THAT WAS THE CONCERN, WAS THAT THERE WAS AN EXPRESSION MADE BY THE MAYOR TO SAY THE PURPOSE I'M ASKING FOR THIS IS SO I CAN POST IT ONLINE OR RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE WAS A CONCERN THERE. WHEN I PRESSED ON THE EDC ATTORNEY AND CITY STAFF MYSELF THROUGH EMAIL, AND I SAID, I FORMALLY REQUEST A COPY OF THIS. I WANT TO SEE A COPY OF IT, TOO, AND I REQUESTED EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER EQUALLY RECEIVE A COPY OF IT IN OUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND IT WAS RELEASED SO THAT IS WHEN WE ALL GOT IT IS BECAUSE I ASKED FOR IT AND I SAID WE DESERVE IT AS A COUNCILMEMBER AND I WAS TOLD YOU CAN GET IT, BUT THEN WE WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT THIS IS NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC YET BECAUSE WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. WE ARE GOING TO THE E.G. LIKE WE HAVE TO THAN FROM THAT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT. I REALIZE THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE PUBLIC CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE REQUEST OF THE RIGHTS OF THE SECOND PARTY

[02:30:04]

IN QUESTION WITH THIS CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AND SO THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING ON IT. AGAIN, ANYONE FROM THE EDC CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WHERE THE MAYOR CAN CORRECT ME IF WHAT I WAS TOLD IS INCORRECT, BUT I AM ALSO GRATEFUL THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE FROM MY RECOLLECTION WHEN WE ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZE THIS THROUGH THE BOND ISSUANCE, WE DID THIS SO THAT WE COULD GET A LOWER BOND RATING. WE COULD GET A LOWER INTEREST RATE THAN WHAT THE EDC COULD IF THEY TOOK OUT THE LOAN THEMSELVES PLUS THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE OUT THE $21 MILLION LOAN TO KIND OF PURCHASE THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY SO WE BASICALLY PUT THEM INTO DEBT UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS AND SO NOW, THIS WAS A WAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FUND THE SPINE ROAD THAT WAS NEEDED AND THEN BE ABLE TO DO IT AT A CHEAPER RATE FOR THE CITIZENS SO WE CAN SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY.

I MEAN, THAT IS KIND OF MY PERCEPTION OF IT. I AM FINE APPROVING THIS AS IS. I REALIZE THERE ARE PERCEPTIONS OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC THAT ARE KIND OF DIFFERENT, BUT THAT

IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT. >> THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT THIS IS AN EAST-WEST ARTILLERY -- ARTERIAL ON OUR MASTER MOBILITY PLAN SO THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR AND YOU KNOW, IT IS TRUE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE DEBT SERVICE THE EDC TOOK OUT FOR THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY, WHICH WE HEARD ABOUT BEFORE YOU KNOW, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE FUNDS IN THEIR BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON THIS AND WE ISSUED IT BECAUSE WE MADE THIS CHANGE MIDYEAR IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, SO ONCE THEY GET SOME LAND SALES DONE THEN THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WORK ON A REFUNDING AGREEMENT IN THE FUTURE SO IT IS NOT LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE FOREVER . WE HAVE SAVE THE TAXPAYER TONS OF MONEY BECAUSE WE DID NOT LOSE THE LAND AND NOT HAVE ANY WAY TO RECOUP FINANCES LATER WITH THOSE LANCETS, SO YOU KNOW, IT IS EASY TO THROW A STONE WHEN YOU DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY AND WE DID THE MOST PRUDENT THING WITH THE TAXPAYERS MONEY AND TO MAKE THE BEST FINANCIAL OUTCOME OF A MESSY SITUATION FROM MANY YEARS AGO THAT DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THIS GOVERNING BODY, BUT WE MADE THE BEST LEMONADE WE CUT OUT OF THE LEMONS WE WERE GIVING AND SO

THANK YOU, GUYS. >> OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I HAVE A COMPLETELY UNRELATED QUESTION ABOUT INCENTIVES. WAS JR S IN THIS BUDGET STILL? I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT EDC INCENTIVE TIMED OUT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BUDGET.

>> I THINK THAT WAS ON THE CITY SIDE.

>> THE EDC HAD PAYMENTS TO THEM, TOO.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT WAS NOT EVEN BUDGETED FOR. WE KNEW, I THINK, BEFORE THE BUDGET WAS CREATED THAT THEY WERE CLOSED.

>> OKAY, BUT THEY DIDN'T -- THEY ARE NOT IN HUTTO, BUT THEY ARE STILL OPERATING, RIGHT? YEAH, OKAY, SO THE SECOND PART IS , I THOUGHT WHEN EDC HAD THAT CONTRACT THAT THERE WAS A CLAWBACK PROVISION THAT IF THEY WERE ON HERE LONG ENOUGH THEY HAD TO PAY BACK, SO CAN YOU PLEASE LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE

IF THEY OWE US MONEY? >> GOOD CALL.

>> OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. SO, ON NOVEMBER 27TH, I SAID HEY, THE CONTRACT WAS ORIGINALLY AWARDED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SO I THINK YOU ALL WOULD FIND A LITTLE BIT ODD THAT WE WOULD DO THAT SO ASKED THEM NOVEMBER 27TH FOR THE CONTRACT AND THEN I GOT A QUESTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK ON IT AND I ASKED THEN, TOO, HEY, WE OUGHT TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT. THIS IS IN DECEMBER. I WILL DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE MONEY HAS MOVED FROM THE CITY TO THE EDC AND THEN ON DECEMBER 20TH, SOME ISSUE ABOUT WHY WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE CONTRACT ON THE CITY COUNCIL SIDE AND THEN I EXPLAINED THAT

[02:35:15]

DECEMBER 22ND I HAVE ANOTHER REQUEST FOR IT. SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT LIKE -- I HAVEN'T EVEN THREATENED TO GO PUBLIC WITH IT YET. IT WAS NOT UNTIL JANUARY 4TH I SAID HEY, CAN I GET A COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE EAST-WEST SPINE ROAD. I WAS GOING TO POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR THOSE WHO HAVE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO ANSWER A QUESTION. I TALKED TO CHENEY ABOUT THIS. I WOULD COME ASKING A QUESTION AND IT WAS LIKE I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN APPROVED YET. YEAH, IT WAS APPROVED THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. SO WE GET TO A POINT THAT GOES ON ANOTHER MONTH AND THEN I'M LIKE SO I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER I'M GOING TO CALL BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SUCH A SECRET AND PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF ROAD IT IS. YOU SAY IT IS ON A PLAN. IS IT FOUR LANES, TWO LANES? WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED ABOUT THIS. YOU SAY A ROAD, I SAY HOGWASH. WHAT IS IT? IT'S THE FIRST TIME. THE LAST THING I WILL TELL YOU IS THERE IS , IF YOU -- THIS WHOLE DEAL ABOUT -- I'M BURNING MY TIME LOOKING FOR THIS. THERE IS A DEAL 552-1101, EXCEPTION CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SAYS THAT INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO A GOVERNMENT BODY BY A VENDOR, CONTRACTOR A POTENTIAL VENDOR OR POTENTIAL CONTRACTOR IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A BID PROPOSAL OR QUALIFICATION IS ACCEPTED FROM NEW REQUIREMENTS OF 55201. THE WHOLE THING GEORGE IS PUSHING THIS ON IS BASED ON REQUESTS FOR I DON'T WANT THE BID WITH ACTUAL CONTRACTS. I WOULD BE EMBARRASSED OF THIS COUNSEL PASSES THIS BECAUSE ANYTIME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE -- DOLLARS ARE SPENT IF YOU THINK THE PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE WHO'S GETTING IT, HOW THEY'RE GETTING IT AND IN WHAT MANNER THEY ARE GETTING IT, THAT IS A MAJOR -- THAT IS THE WHOLE REASON I RAN FOR OFFICE IS BECAUSE MONEY WAS GETTING SPENT IN THE PUBLIC WAS SHUT OUT AND ALL I HAVE ASKED FOR FOR THE WHOLE TIME, TAKE THE CONTRACT. THIS WHOLE THING, YOU WATCH, WHEN IT COMES BACK FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT RELEASED IT THEY WILL SAY WE DID OUR JOB AND THUS MIGHT PROBLEM WITH THE DISCUSSION WE HAD UP FRONT ABOUT KEEPING INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC AS YOU COME UP WITH REASONS TO FIND OUT WHY DON'T WANT TO LET THIS GO. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS CONTRACT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. DUE TO ME HARPING ON IT THEY BROUGHT IT BACK AND HAD ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT BECAUSE I STARTED HARPING IN NOVEMBER.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE WAY THAT OCCURRED WAS THE CONTRACT WAS REVIEWED IN THE SELECTION WAS MADE AND THE MOTION OUT IN PUBLIC DID NOT NAME THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND SO LEGAL DID NOT CATCH THE ERROR AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE AND APPROVED, SO THEN THE FOLLOWING MEETING, THEY DID GO BACK AND CORRECT THAT, SO THE RESOLUTION THAT IS PUBLIC DOES SAY THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S NAME AS IT SHOULD'VE BEEN ORIGINALLY.

>> IN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AGAIN THAT IS WHY I ASKED JOHN TO QUESTION, BECAUSE I'M IN NOVEMBER GOING HOW DOES THIS EVEN WORK? THERE'S NOT EVEN MONEY IN THE EDC? HOW ARE THEY AWARDING A CONTRACT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. 90 DAYS LATER WE ARE HAVING THIS THING LIKE THE ONLY WAY TO STOP DOING THIS AND STOP HAVING THESE ISSUES IN MY MIND IS TO SAY IS CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE REMEMBER THE EDC WAS GOING TO PAY FOR THE ROAD THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN BUDGET YOU SAID THAT CHANGED.

COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, YOU SAID WHAT CHANGED, WE ARE PAYING FOR NOW. WHERE WAS THAT ITEM? WHERE WAS THAT MOTION? THE CITY COUNCIL RUNS THE MONEY. WE CONTROL YES OR NO AND WE KEEP HAVING OTHER PEOPLE TELLING US WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND I'M LIKE, WHY ARE WE UP HERE? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE KEEP BEING TOLD WELL, THE EDC SAYS WERE GOING TO DO THIS. THE EDC SAYS ARE GOING TO DO THAT. OUR JOB IS TO SAY THAT'S OKAY, IT YOU CAN DO IT. WE APPROVE A KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, COME BACK AND THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE AGAIN YOU HAVE A ROAD AND YOU GUYS CAN EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC JUST BE CAREFUL YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE DETAILS OF IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL UP IN THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE. >> SO MY SECOND TIME THROUGH I GUESS, YOU CLAIM YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING. YOU ARE ON THE EDC AT THE TIME WHEN WE ADOPTED THE BUDGET, SO YOU'RE KIND OF TALKING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH AGAIN TWICE ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE YOU ARE PART OF THE EDC WHEN WE ADOPTED THIS LAST YEAR. WHERE YOU KNEW AND WERE PROVIDED ALL THE FINANCIALS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU, SO TO CLAIM AMNESIA NOW DOESN'T REALLY MAKE MUCH SENSE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> CAN I RESPOND TO ONE THING ALSO JUST FOR AWARENESS, THE SPINE ROAD PROJECT AS PART OF THE CIP THAT GETS UPDATED REGULARLY AND IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.

>> BUT YOU KNOW, YOU CLAIMED EARLIER THAT

>> HOLD ON. >> NO. IS STILL MY TIME. SHE WAS GIVING CLARIFYING STATEMENT. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE ROAD OR ANYTHING ABOUT IT. MAC WRECKER EVERY MONTH GIVES A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE SPINE ROAD, SO ONCE AGAIN, IT'S A HALF TRUTHS THAT AREN'T ONCE

[02:40:03]

AGAIN, SO. I'M DONE. >> I'M ATTACKING AN ISSUE RELEASING A CONTRACT . I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING WITHOUT A PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU DON'T THINK I'M SPEAKING THE TRUTH, JUST DO THIS. WE GOT THIS.

DISCUSS RESPECTFULLY, FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM, THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, DON'T GO TO BED ANGRY. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU DON'T LIKE MY OPINION, THAT'S FINE.

>> I WAS CORRECTING YOUR STATEMENT.

>> POINT OF ORDER, CAN WE GET SOME ORDER, MR. MAYOR?

>> EVERY MEETING. >> OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> I THINK WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM. I DON'T LIKE THAT THE CONTRACT IS NOT PUBLIC. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. I DON'T THINK HOLDING UP THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ADDRESS IT. I THINK THE WAY TO ADDRESS IT IS TO LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO ON A POLICY NATURE TO SET POLICY THAT ALL CONTRACTS GOING FORWARD WILL HAVE A CLAUSE IN THEM THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE MADE PUBLIC AS SOON AS THEY ARE ADOPTED BY COUNSEL OR IF WE CAN GET THE EDC TO MAKE A SIMILAR CHANGE IN THAT WAY, FUTURE CONTRACTS WILL BE FIXED. ONCE SOMEBODY HAS CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO KEEP IT FROM THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE AG AND I MEAN, I WISH WE DIDN'T RIGHT NOW BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT SO WE ARE STUCK ON THAT ONE. I THINK WE NEED TO FIX A PROBLEM FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS AND HOLDING THIS BUDGET DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO FIX IT.

>> I AGREE HUNDRED PERCENT WITH COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON ABOUT THE COMMENTS IN GENERAL. FOR ME, I DO SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF THE MONEY IN THE BUCKET, AND I'VE TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS AND TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND IT AND CLARIFY BETTER BECAUSE I DO -- ALTHOUGH IT IS UNDER THE CITY OF HUTTO, THE EDC AND THE CITY OPERATING, THEY OPERATE UNDER THE CITY OF HUTTO, I STILL SEPARATE THEM AS TWO OPERATING ENTITIES BECAUSE THEY EACH HAVE A BOARD. WE HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND WE HAVE THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE EDC AND SO I DO STRUGGLE WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONEY, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS ROAD, BUT HE HELPED ME TODAY KIND OF BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT . IT IS JUST THINKING OF THIS AS MORE OF LIKE A FUND, LIKE THE UTILITY FUND, WE HAVE THE GENERAL FUND. WE HAVE THE UTILITY FUND SO THAT REALLY HELPED ME BECAUSE I DO WORRY ABOUT THE BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE EDC, BUT NOW THAT I CAN KIND OF REFOCUS THAT INTO MORE OF A FUND BECAUSE IT IS STILL THE CITY OF HUTTO, THIS IS STILL A CITY OF HUTTO PROJECT, IT IS JUST BEING COORDINATED AND RUN BY THE EDC AND THAT BOARD AND SO I THINK THIS IS JUST BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF A FIRST RODEO FOR US, SO IT IS VERY ROCKY. I MEAN THAT IS JUST HOW I FEEL.

IT IS ROCKY WITH WHO IS PAYING FOR WHAT MONEY, THE CITY TAKING THE MONEY , NO AGREEMENTS OF PAYBACK, THINGS OF THAT SORT, DEFINITELY VERY ROCKY SO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON ABOUT MOVING FORWARD. WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS CLEANER AND WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE EDC ON BIG DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, SO WE WORK TOGETHER, BE EFFICIENT WITH THINGS, AND BE CLEAR INSTEAD OF THE OH, THIS HAPPENED ON THIS DATE OR I HEARD FROM THIS. IT'S JUST VERY MUDDY, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

GETTING THIS ROAD DONE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I WILL JUST MAKE ONE FINAL STATEMENT THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHEN WE TOOK OUT THE LOAN FOR THIS MONEY, WE MADE IT CLEAR WHAT IT WAS FOR. IT'S FOR THE SPINE ROAD. WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WERE DOING IT BECAUSE THE EDC COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO IT AT THE TIME AND WE HAD BEEN CLEAR WITH THE PUBLIC ON WHAT THE ROAD IS, WHAT IT IS FOR IN THE DESIGNS BECAUSE AWAY FROM THIS DISCUSSION, A PERCEPTION THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING, THAT THE EDC IS TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING. WE HAVE BEEN UP FRONT, IN MY OPINION, THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. THE RELEASE OF THE STOCK -- THIS DOCUMENT IS

[02:45:07]

BECAUSE A PERSON IS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO SAY THEY DON'T WANT THE FULL UNREDACTED DOCUMENT RELEASE SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW.

WE ARE FOLLOWING THE PROCESSES. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD'VE HAD TO DO THIS HAD WE NOT BEEN THE ROUTE OF REQUIRING THE EDC TO TAKE OUT A $15 MILLION LOAN TO BAIL THE CITY OUT. I OPPOSED THAT PLAN FROM THE START. I WANTED TO GO TOTALLY DIFFERENT WAY THAT WOULD NOT PUT THE EDC IN SUCH DEBT BUT I LOST MY ARGUMENT ON THAT ONE, BUT GOING FORWARD, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY. I THINK THERE IS A WAY FORWARD WE CAN LEARN FROM WHAT WE ARE DOING AND DO THINGS A LITTLE

DIFFERENTLY, SO THANK YOU. >> DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT

>> AYE >> MAYOR SNYDER

>> NÉE >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

>> AYE >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

[10.1. Consideration and possible action regarding possible appointments, re-appointments and/or removals to City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, Economic Development Corporations, Local Government Corporations and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Boards, City Council Liaisons, and Area Government appointments]

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 6-1. THAT

[11.2. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-011 authorizing a budget amendment in the amount of $41,000 for the FM 3349 Bridge Beautification Project (First Reading) (Alberta Barrett)]

BRINGS US TO ITEM 10.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND TEXTURE INVESTMENTS OWN BOARDS, CITY COUNCIL LIAISONS AND AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.

>> MAYOR, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE ANYONE

TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME. >> ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION FOR THIS ITEM? HEARING THEM, WE WILL GO ON TO 11.2 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER LETTER 0-2024-011 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,000 FOR THE FM 3349 BRIDGE INDICATION PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING. AGAIN, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 23-24 BUDGET BUT DUE TO HAVING ACTUAL INVESTMENT EARNINGS HIGHER THAN BUDGETED AND A LOWER COST FOR THIS PROJECT THAN I GUESS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITH AN EXTRA EARNINGS AND INVESTMENTS , WITH THE ESTIMATED COST AT

41,000. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> HAS PRESENTED?

>> YES. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR >> AYE

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON >> AYE

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK >> AYE

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON >> AYE

[11.3. Consideration and possible action on proposed Charter Amendments and adopt Ordinance No. O-2024-012 ordering a Special Election for May 4, 2024, to amend the Home Rule Charter of the City of Hutto, Texas; designate the propositions and manner of holding such election; and provide for the posting and publication of notice (Legal) (Part 1 of 2)]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 11.3, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER LETTER 0-2024-012 ORDERING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR MAY 4TH, 2024 TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF DESIGNATE PROPOSITIONS AND MANNER OF HOLDING SUCH AN

ELECTION. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE HELD A WORK SESSION EARLIER TODAY AND AM PASSING OUT THE AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A CALLING OUT THE CHARTER.

ON PROPOSITION ONE, I CHANGED THAT THE CHARTER WOULD BE AMENDED SIX AND 304 COMPENSATION TO REPLACE THE WORD COMPENSATION WITH CELERY AND THAT SELLER IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATE LAW AND TEXAS CONSTITUTION.

THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO PROPOSITION TWO OR PROPOSITION THREE FROM LAST TIME , AND I WILL STOP IF ANYBODY WANTS TO

DISCUSS ANYTHING. >> IS THE IDEA FOR US TO GO ALL THROUGH THIS AND THEN MAKE ONE MOTION OR MOTION FOR A PROPOSITION OR WOULD YOU PREFER?

>> IF WE GET TO ONE WHERE YOU WANT SOME CHANGES, MAKE A

MOTION THEN. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON PROPOSITION ONE THAT -- HOW TO WORD THIS -- YOU CAN BEST

[02:50:01]

TELL ME, TO WHERE WE CAN CHANGE THE WORD COMPENSATION TO CELERY , THE COMPENSATION $250 FOR ATTENDANCE FOR THE MAYOR A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND $200 FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. THE REASON FOR MY MOTION IS, I DON'T KNOW I'M GOING TO GET CONSISTS ASCENSION WE GET PAID. I STILL THINK WE NEED TO ASK THE QUESTION, SHOULD WE EVEN BE PAID, BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE -- I THINK WE ARE OVERPAID. WE ARE THE HIGHEST PAID IN THE METRO AREA AND WE HAVE CITIES THAT HAVE TWICE OUR POPULATION THAT ARE PAID ONE DOLLAR AND WE HAVE CITIES THAT ARE PAID $20 AND THEN WE SET THE BAR HIGH A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN WE ASKED THE PUBLIC IF WE ARE GOING TO GET PAID. WE WENT THROUGH ORDINANCE, OR THROUGH CHARTER AND WE GIVE THEM A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THE COULD OF SAID NO AND WE COULD HAVE KEPT SETTING OUR OWN PAY AMOUNT.

>> POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR. THIS ALREADY WENT TO -- WE VOTED NO. WHY ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING IT?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. WE ARE ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE MOTIONS AND ADJUST ITEMS AS PART OF OUR PROCESS OF SAYING -- SETTING THIS UP AND IN MY MIND I TRIED TO DO A WEEK AGO AND YOU GUYS DID SOME FUNNY THINGS IN ONE LET ME MAKE THE MOTION AND SO I WAITED UNTIL THIS TIME TO THEN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT AND YOU ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO VOTE HOWEVER YOU FEEL CONVICTED TO

ITEMS THAT COME UP. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. MAYOR, BUT YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES VOTED DOWN , SO CITY ATTORNEY, WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT SHOULD WE BE PAID? WE HAD A VOTE. IT FAILED.

>> THE MOTION WAS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PAY, WHICH WAS NOT

SOMETHING WE VOTED ON PRIOR. >> OKAY, SO I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> I'M HAPPY TO ADJUST THE PAY OF THAT GETS CONSENSUS.

>> MAKE YOUR MOTION. >> I DID MAKE A MOTION. YOU'RE

COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MOTION. >> I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MOTION. I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAD ALREADY TALKED ABOUT SHOULD WE GET PAID.

>> COOL STORY. >> APPRECIATE IT, BUDDY.

>> SO THAT IS THE MOTION. THAT'S WHY I MADE IT. I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE ON IT.

>> I WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PROPOSE TO US LAST TIME WAS NOT A NUMBER THAT WE GAVE THEM. IT WAS A NUMBER THEY CAME UP WITH AFTER DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH. THEY COMPARED OUR CITY WITH OTHER CITIES. THEY LOOKED AT A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF. THAT IS HOW THEY CAME TO THE NUMBER. IT WAS NOT A NUMBER THAT WE GAVE THEM AND TOLD THEM THAT THAT IS WHAT WE WANTED THERE. THEY DID THEIR OWN RESEARCH AND THEY SAID WHAT IS REASONABLE FOR OUR CITY, FOR KIND OF HOW WE WORK AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF SO AGAIN I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I THINK THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS ON THE COUNCIL WHO DON'T NEED THE PAY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU KNOW, THEY MAY OWN MULTIPLE BUSINESSES. THEY MAY OWN RENTAL PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY NOT NEED THE MONEY. THERE ARE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY WANT TO RUN FOR COUNCIL WHO COULD REALLY USE THE MONEY. THEY MAY NOT BE FORTUNATE LIKE I AM. MY EMPLOYER IS VERY ACCOMMODATED WITH MY CITY COUNCIL TO WHERE THEY ALLOW ME TO TAKE COMP TIME AND THAT KIND OF THING BUT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT I THINK WOULD LOVE TO RUN BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF TAKING OFF DAYS THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO SERVE AND THEY NEED TO KIND OF -- THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VACATION TIME AND SICK TIME TO BE ABLE TO COVER THAT OVER THE PERIOD OF A WHOLE YEAR AND SO TO ME, I THINK IT COULD BE A LITTLE DISCRIMINATORY BY SAYING WELL, WE SHOULD GET PAID ANYTHING BECAUSE REALLY I THINK THAT'S GOING TO LIMIT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY WANT TO BE ABLE TO RUN AND WHO MAY CONSIDER RUNNING. YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT YOUR POOL AND JUST SAY WELL, THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ALL THIS TIME

[02:55:14]

OFF, THIS EXTRA TIME BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME. YOU CAN PUT IN AS MUCH TIME AS REALLY WANT ON THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU CAN PUT THE BARE MINIMUM IN AND THEN SOME OF US IF NOT MOST OF US PUT A LOT OF POLITICAL FOOTBALL DURING 2019 CONSTANTLY BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WAS CONSTANTLY WE SHOULD TAKE IT TO ZERO AND WE SHOULD DO THIS AND WE SHOULD DO THAT.

WE'VE TAKEN IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE COUNCIL AND PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF THE CITIZEN. THE CITIZENS VOTED THE LAST TIME THIS CAME UP TO SAY YES, WE THINK THIS IS REASONABLE SO I THINK THAT LIMITING THE CHANGE TO WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO JUST CHANGE THE WORD FROM COMPENSATION TO SALARY IS

CONVINCED -- EFFICIENT. >> MY STATEMENT ON THIS, BECAUSE I WAS NOT ON THE CHARTER FOUR YEARS AGO I GUESS BUT I WAS AROUND WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING IT AND THE WHOLE POINT WAS THEY DID NOT WANT IT TO TURN INTO COUNSEL DEBATING AND MAKING A POLITICAL THING WHICH THIS MOTION IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALLEVIATING BY HAVING THAT. THE CURRENT CHARTER COMMITTEE DID NOT COME IN AND SAY WE THINK BASED ON OTHER STUFF WE SHOULD CHANGE THE NUMBER. THEY JUST SAID BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE OVER THE LAST YEAR BETWEEN SALARY AND COMPENSATION THE AG RULED AND THEY WISELY SAID LET'S JUST CHANGE IT TO CONFORM WITH THE STATE LAW NAME SO THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION ON DEFINITIONS, SO GOING FORWARD, THEY KNOW BY STATE LAW WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS AMOUNT THAT THE VOTERS PUT IN WITH THE ORDINANCE SO I FEEL LIKE MAKING THIS MOTION AND APPROVING THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL THE VOTERS OF HUTTO THAT ADOPTED THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS TODAY IN THE CHARTER THREE YEARS AGO, AND THE CHARTER COMMITTEE THIS YEAR DID NOT MAKE UP THAT IN THE WHOLE POINT WAS IT SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN BY COUNSEL AND YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT BE DRIVEN BY COUNSEL.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE ARE LETTING THE VOTERS MAKE THE DECISIONS.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHT

ON THAT. >> THE ONLY THING I SAY IS YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, IN THAT YOU ARE CORRECT. THE CHARTER COMMISSION DID NOT REQUEST THIS CHANGE , AND WHY AM I BRINGING IT UP? THE SAME COMMISSION YOU ARE SAYING IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE TO EVERYBODY IF WE DON'T TAKE THEIR CHANGES, THAT SAME COMMISSION VOTED 5-2 NOT TO PUSH SOMETHING FORWARD AND YOU BRING IT UP AND I DON'T FAULT YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, JUST LIKE THE EDC, THE COUNCIL HAS THE ULTIMATE SAY. WE COULD SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR INPUT AND NOT DO ANY OF IT. WE COULD ALSO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR INPUT. WE WANT TO AMEND THIS A LITTLE BIT AND SO AGAIN, LET'S NOT MAKE IT PERSONAL. IT IS NO SECRET, THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS CORRECT, I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF PEOPLE GETTING PAID FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. SOME PEOPLE WORK VERY HARD IN MY FOUR YEARS APPEAR. I WOULD ARGUE NOT EVERYBODY WORKS SO HARD. IF YOU ARE GETTING THE JOB BECAUSE YOU NEED THE MONEY, I THINK YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT TO THE PUBLIC THAT I NEED THIS JOB BECAUSE I NEED THE MONEY. YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS JOB FOR MONEY. YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS JOB BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE WHOLE POINT IS THE MONEY IT'S ALWAYS AMAZING OUT OF ALL THESE PROPOSITIONS, THE ONLY ONE THAT GETS EVERYBODY WOUND UP AS THE ONE ABOUT PAY , AND IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY. IT IS OTHER CITIES AND I LOOK AT IT AND I GO THE WAY WE DO IT , WE NEED TO HAVE HIGH EXPECTATIONS OF OURSELVES IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THE MONEY. WE NEED TO BE DOING THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC, NOT FOR OURSELVES. WE NEED TO BE DOING THINGS NOT OUT OF NEED, NOT THAT I NEED THE PAYCHECK, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A REWARD OR WHATEVER. SOME OF US ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE IT. SOME OF US GIVE IT AWAY. SOME OF US USE IT. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE GET IT BUT LET'S NOT MAKE IT A PERSONAL THING BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ANYBODY. IT'S A QUESTION WE HAVE YET TO ASK THE PUBLIC AND FOR ME I AM COMPLETELY OKAY WITH EVERYBODY OUT THERE SAYING THE MAYOR IS CRAZY AND WHEN IT COMES BACK AND IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SAYS YOU GUYS DON'T NEED TO GET PAID , THERE IS A DECISION BUT WE NEVER ASK THAT QUESTION. FOR ME, I THINK IT IS OUT OF FEAR THAT WE WOULD BE DOING THIS JOB FOR FREE , LIKE ALL THE OTHER COUNCILS DID BEFORE 2019 BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD YOU NOT ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION, SHOULD WE GET PAID ? IN THAT CASE, YOU GUYS DIDN'T WANT TO GET TO DO THAT, SO I

[03:00:02]

TRY TO REDUCE THE PAY. AGAIN IT'S A POLITICAL THING AS LONG AS I'M UP HERE, EVERY TIME THERE'S A CHARTER GOING TO KEEP PUSHING FOR GIVING THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE SHOULD WE GET PAID, AND IT'S NOT A POLITICAL THING IS MUCH AS IT IS WE HAVE YET TO ASK THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE ONLY ASKED THEM HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET PAID ON THE OPTION, AS I SAID BEFORE, WAS, WE ARE GOING TO GET PAID $800 AND WE ARE GOING TO GET PAID BY A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE PUBLIC VOTED NO, WE WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN PAID AT A HIGHER AMOUNT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE THAT WE COULD CHANGE EACH MEETING, EACH WHENEVER, AND SO, TO ME, IT IS A PERSONAL THING THAT DON'T HATE ME FOR IT.

IT'S JUST A PERSONAL THING. THAT'S ALWAYS SAY, ANYWAY.

ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR

>> NÉE >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT

>> NÉE >> ONE

>> AYE >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

>> NATE >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

>> NATE >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON

>> NÉE. >> MOTION FAILS TO -5. SO APOLOGIZE , I FORGOT WHAT PROPOSITION YOU STARTED BEFORE

ASKED THE QUESTION. >> I WAS DOWN THE PROPOSITION

FOUR, THERE WAS NO CHANGE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSITION WHEN IT'S PRESENTED THEN.

>> IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO

IT AGAIN. >> I GOTCHA. SO THEN WE CAN MAKE A MOTION AT THE VERY END. I GOT A QUESTION. MAYOR, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SO, THERE MAY BE LIKE 14 OF THESE WHATEVER THAT I'M HAPPY WITH AND SOME THAT I'M NOT. THEN I MAY WANT TO VOTE NO ON ONES THAT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO NOW IF WE GO THROUGH THE WAY THAT WE ARE , THE MAYOR HAS EITHER GOT TO VOTE NO ON ALL OF THEM BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE HOW NUMBER ONE IS OR HE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE NO ON HOW THIS IS SO HE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC HOW HE FEELS ON EACH ONE.

>> WE CAN DECIDE AS A COUNSEL. WE HAVE THE POWER. WE CAN DO EACH PROPOSITION. WE CAN DO TWO AT A TIME, THREE AT A TIME, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO. IF YOU GUYS ARE OKAY WITH PROPOSITION ONE, I LIKE YOUR IDEA BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO VOTE NO ON THE WHOLE THING, BUT I'VE DONE THAT ON A BUDGET BEFORE AND I DIDN'T HATE THE WHOLE BUDGET, BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION ONE --

>> I DON'T WANT TO SOURCE DOWN BUT I ALSO WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE HOW THEY WANT TO VOTE.

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY THEN IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WE

CAN WORK TOGETHER. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> I WOULD'VE PREFERRED THE PREVIOUS CHANGE BUT THIS CHANGE

STILL NEEDS TO HAPPEN, SO. >> AGREE.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR

>> AYE >> MAYOR SNYDER

>> I DOUBT >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

>> AND SO WE HAD DISCUSSED TWO THROUGH FOUR. THERE IS NO CHANGE FROM THE LAST TIME. PROPOSITION FIVE, THERE IS A CHANGE , SO THE WAY IT READ LAST TIME --

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON FOUR?

>> WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME. THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED NO.

WHAT IS OUR PLAN OF ATTACK TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO LEVER THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY ARE TELLING US WHAT WE WANT AND WE COME BACK THREE YEARS LATER AND GO OH, WE THINK YOU GOT IT WRONG. I WANT TO ASK

YOU AGAIN. >> I THINK ONE OF THE RESEARCH THAT WAS MADE WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EDUCATION TO THE PUBLIC LAST TIME ON THIS ISSUE, AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD THE PANDEMIC, WITH HAD COUNCILMEMBERS APPEARING BY VIDEO FOR CERTAIN REASONS, THERE IS A CHANGE IN STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS THAT , THAT YOUR QUORUM HAS TO BE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO IF WE HAVE A QUORUM OF FIVE IN SOMEBODY -- ONLY TWO PEOPLE CAN APPEAR ON VIDEO, YOU ARE LIMITING -- YOUR PARTICIPATION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT STATE LAW HAS CHANGED TO ALLOW VIDEOCONFERENCING BY COUNSEL AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THE CHARTER COMMISSION

CONSIDERED IN REDUCING IT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON PROP TWO. SO, IT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ELECT MAYOR PRO TEM AT THE CONCLUSION OF REGULAR AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS,

[03:05:03]

SO THERE COULD BE A MAY VOTE ON THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN POTENTIALLY A VOTE ON THE RUNOFF?

>> NO, IT IS ONCE THE NEW COUNCIL IS SEATED, THEN

REVOKED. FOR EXAMPLE IF LIKE -- >> I THINK THAT IS MISLEADING THEM BECAUSE IT IS REGULAR AND RUNOFF SO IT SHOULD SAY THE FISCAL OR THAT ELECTION CYCLE, THAT ELECTION CYCLE IS COMPLETE , RIGHT? THE ELECTION CYCLE IS FINALIZED BECAUSE THE WAY IT READS HERE EVEN THOUGH IT IS SUPER SIMPLE, IT JUST IS SEEMING LIKE IT IS -- IT COULD BE JUST INTERPRETATION.

OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T READ IT THAT WAY BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW

OTHER PEOPLE FEEL. >> I THINK I JUST SAID OF ALL REGULAR AND RUNOFF CITY ELECTIONS.

>> THAT'S THE SAME THING. >> KNOW IT SAYS ALL BECAUSE

IT'S BOTH. >> THE WAY THE CHARTER READS IS THAT YOU LET MAYOR PRO TEM AT THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOLLOWING EACH REGULAR CITY ELECTION, AND SO PROBABLY WE ARE JUST GOING TO ADD AND RUNOFF ELECTION , SO WE PROBABLY SHOULD CHANGE THAT AND TO OR.

>> YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. TO ME, ANYWAY.

>> ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT?

>> IF YOU HAVE AN OR, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT TWICE. I THINK IT IS AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL REGULAR AND RUNOFF ELECTION SO IF THERE ARE NONE, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING AFTER THE REGULAR ELECTION. IF THERE IS A RUNOFF IT WOULD BE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST RUNOFF ELECTION AND IT IS A POSSIBILITY YOU COULD EVEN HAVE -- YEAH.

>> CAN YOU RESTATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

>> IT READS NOW, THE MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL BE A COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOLLOWING EACH REGULAR CITY ELECTION AND THEN BECAUSE IS THE FIRST MEETING AFTER THE REGULAR OR RUNOFF IN THE

RAFTERS THREE WEEKS LATER. >> OKAY.

>> ARE JUST KEEP GOING ON UNLESS SOMEONE OBJECTS TO

SOMETHING. >> SO, CHANGE TO OAR.

>> YOU ARE BACK ON FIVE? >> WE WILL STORE -- WERE STILL ON PROP FOUR CITY WE NEED TO CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF IT THIS AS YOU KNOW, IT STILL REQUIRES FOUR VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO PASS SOMETHING, AND FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET STILL REQUIRES FIVE QUORUM MEMBERS SO THAT THEY KNOW IT IS NOT JUST EVERYTHING GOES DOWN TO FOUR AND IF YOU HAVE IT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE CAN

UNDERSTAND IT. >> IT CURRENTLY READS FIVE MEMBERS WOULD CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR THE PER SPECIFIC TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS AND NO ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE PROVIDED IN 3.60 BE VALID OR BINDING UNLESS ADOPTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. WE ARE NOT CHANGING THAT. WE ARE JUST CHANGING FIVE TO FOUR. IN OUR CHARTER MATERIALS THAT WE ARE GOING TO EXPLAIN, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SECTIONS WITH THE CHANGES SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROPOSITION IN YOUR ELECTION MATERIALS AND THEN LOOK AT HOW THE CHARTER IS GOING TO

ACTUALLY READ. >> OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE ON ONE THROUGH FOUR?

>> FIVE. THIS VOTING. LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IF YOU ARE IN ATTENDANCE, YOU SHALL VOTE ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171. I ADDED, OR EXCEPT WHEN A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL ABSTAINS FROM VOTING IN ORDER TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AS DEFINED IN THE HUTTO ETHICS CODE OR CITY PROTOCOLS, SO APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY MEANS A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE AGENCY FUNDING , YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP AND MIGHT BE ON THE BOARD OF THAT GROUP AND YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL CONCERN ABOUT VOTING, SO THIS

WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ABSTAIN. >> SO, ONE LEGAL QUESTION RELATED TO THAT. SAY COUNCILMEMBER WAS ON A BOARD WITH OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING AND THEY ABSTAIN FOR PROPRIETARY REASONS AND IT GOT ADDED TO THE BUDGET, THEN DO THEY HAVE

[03:10:04]

TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THE BUDGET BECAUSE THEN IN THAT SENSE THERE STILL GIVING MONEY FOR APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE BUDGET SO MY CONCERN ON THAT IS --

>> YOU CAN PULL OUT FROM YOUR BUDGET ANY LINE ITEM YOU CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON AND THEN VOTE ON THE BUDGET.

>> OKAY. >> PROP SIX.

>> PROP SIX. ORDINANCES IN GENERAL . THIS IS TO REMOVE THE SECOND READING REQUIREMENT SO THAT ORDINANCES MAY BE ENACTED BY ONE READING AS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW AND THAT THE CAPTION OF THE ORDINANCE SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. THERE ARE A LOT OF STATE LAWS THAT REQUIRE PUBLICATIONS OF ORDINANCES AND THE WAY WE PUBLISH OUR ORDINANCES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE BUDGET, KIND OF CONFLICTS WITH THE NEW STATE LAWS ADOPTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT COMPEL YOU TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AT A CERTAIN TIME SO THIS REALLY BRINGS THE CHARTER UP TO DATE WITH HOW ORDINANCES ARE PASSED.

>> ISSUES WITH PROP SIX? PROP SEVEN.

>> PROP SEVEN, VOTER ELIGIBILITY OR VOTER REGISTRATION LIST. NO CHANGE TO THAT FROM THE LAST TIME.

AMENDING THIS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY SECRETARY MAINTAIN A CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTERS REGISTERED WITHIN THE CITY IS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS

ADMINISTRATOR. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO CLARIFY THIS ONE TO -- BECAUSE THIS ONE IS ANOTHER ONE THAT FAILED LAST TIME I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THE CITIZENS REALLY KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LIST IS ALREADY MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. THIS IS DUPLICATION OF EFFORT, AND SO IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY AND SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO WORD AND SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THE CITY SECRETARY MAINTAIN A CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTERS WITHIN THE CITY , YOU KNOW, PROVIDED THAT THE COUNTY MAINTAINS A LIST OR I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD IT BUT CONSIDERING THAT THIS LIST IS ALREADY MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY, SOMETHING TO THAT

EFFECT. >> IT WOULD JUST SAY BECAUSE THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR MAINTAINS THIS

LIST. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> ISSUES WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT, PROP EIGHT.

>> I GUESS WHAT OF STATE LAW CHANGES TO REQUIRE THAT , THEN

OBVIOUSLY -- >> YOUR CHARTER WOULD BE PREEMPTED. ANYTHING YOU VOTE ON AND PUT IN YOUR CHARTER, THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE IT LIKE THEY'VE CHANGED ALL THAT BUDGET PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.

>> THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO AN INDIVIDUAL ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GENERALLY NORMAL THING BUT TO JUST KIND OF FOR THE CITY TO PUT OUT A MANUAL JUST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, RIGHT, AS TO, I GUESS, SO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DO GO TO THE POLLS CAN KIND OF REFERENCE THIS AS TO WHAT TO EXPECT, SO THIS IS WHAT IT IS ASKING AND THESE ARE THE PROS AND THE CONS OF IT, AND THEN THEY CAN DECIDE LIKE CERTAIN VALUE BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO MAKE IT VERY NEUTRAL.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO PROS AND CONS BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS A PROPOSITION AND HOW THE CHARTER IS AMENDED AND WE WILL GIVE THE REASONS WHY, BASED ON WHAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDED OR WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN

RECOMMENDING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT JUST LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF YOU GET ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT, TO ME, IS JUST GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY. IF WE JUST STICK TO THE FACTS, WHY SOMEONE MADE THE DECISION, THEN OTHER PEOPLE CAN SAY I DISAGREE WITH CHARTER, I DISAGREE WITH COUNSEL, I AM VOTING THIS WAY.

>> SO, SECTION 502, WE ARE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEE RESIGNED TO FILE FOR OFFICE BECAUSE STATE

LAW PREEMPTS THE CITY? >> WHAT IS THE CHANGE THERE? CURRENTLY IT IS REQUIRED YOU HAVE TO GET LIKE 1.5% OR 50 NAMES AND WE'RE JUST CHANGING IT TO 25?

>> WE ARE DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONE HALF OF 1% IS A PETITION FILING REQUIREMENT.

>> I THINK THERE'S A WORD MISSING IN HERE. I KEEP READING THIS LAST SENTENCE AND IT DOESN'T READ WRITE TO ME WHERE IT SAYS AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PETITION SIGNED BY 25 QUALIFIED VOTERS RESIDING IN THE CITY FOR A CANDIDATE IS REQUIRED TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE I DON'T KNOW, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME READING IT.

>> YEAH, RESIDING IN THE CITY FOR A CANDIDATE .

>> THAT A PETITION SIGNED BY 25 QUALIFIED VOTERS RESIDING FOR THE CITY WAS REQUIRED FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE PLACED ON THE

BALLOT. >> THAT IS YOUR CURRENT CHARTER

[03:15:04]

THAT ALLOWS THAT, PETITION SIGNED BY 25 VOTERS TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO GO ON-SITE AND DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ONE HALF OF 1%.

>> OKAY. >> ANY ISSUES WITH DELETING THE

ONE HALF OF 1%? >> A RECALL, THIS IS THE SAME FROM LAST TIME, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THIRD SENTENCE FROM THE END , AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 75 DAYS PRIOR , SO, WHEN IT READS THE PETITION CIRCULATED BY A QUALIFIED VOTER, AND THAT THE SIGNATURES TO SUCH PETITION SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE OR BE COUNTED, WHICH WERE PLACED THERE ON MORE THAN 75 DAYS, SHOULDN'T IT SAY AFTER?

INSTEAD OF PRIOR? >> AFTER THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION? THE ORIGINAL PETITION IS THE RECALL

PETITION. >> THAT'S A GOOD CATCH.

>> SO, THEY FILE THE RECALL PETITION AND THEN THEY HAVE 75

DAYS TO COLLECT NAMES? >> CORRECT AND THE NAMES THAT ARE PLACED ON THEIR ARE TO BE COUNTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION . THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT SHOULD

BE AFTER THE FILING. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> ISSUES TO CHANGING PRIOR TO AFTER?

>> WELL, THEN DOES THE MORE THAN 75 DAYS ? STILL SEEMS LIKE

SOMETHING IS OFF THERE. >> SUCH POSITION -- PETITION SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE OR BE COUNTED WHICH REPLACE THE SIGNATURES ARE EFFECTIVE AND COUNTED WHICH REPLACED MORE THAN 75 -- WITHIN THE 75 DAYS AFTER THE FILING.

>> SO WITHIN INSTEAD OF MORE THAN.

>> YEAH, OKAY. SO GET RID OF PRIOR TO, AND MORE THAN.

THERE ON WITHIN 75 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH ORIGINAL

PETITION. >> SO WE ARE CHANGING MORE THAN TO WITHIN, AND WE ARE CHANGING PRIOR TO AFTER.

>> NO, PRIOR TO TO AFTER. >> OKAY, SO THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION FOR IT TO BE SUBMITTED? THAT IS ON THE SIGNATURES HAVE TO BE THERE 75 DAYS BEFORE THIS TURNED IN SO YOU CAN'T HAVE BEEN COLLECTING SIGNATURES FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.

>> STILL WITHIN 75 DAYS PRIOR TO. SO PRIOR TO STAYS, BUT THE

MORE THAN GETS REPLACED. >> OKAY.

>> WITHIN 75 DAYS. >> I THINK MAYBE I'M GETTING CONFUSED. SOME OF THIS IS -- AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS TO DO A RECALL MAY COME INTO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE FILE AND SAY I WANT TO DO A RECALL AND HERE'S MY REASON FOR RECALL, RIGHT? AND THEN, THE CITY SECRETARY DOES HER THING AND PREPARES THE FORMS AND SAYS OKAY, HERE ARE YOUR FORMS FOR RECALL. HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO USE TO GET YOUR SIGNATURES. HERE YOU GO AND THEN THEY HAVE 75 DAYS AND THEN THEY HAVE 75 DAYS TO ACTUALLY -- I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED IS THE FIRST TIME THEY GO INTO THE CITY SECRETARY SAYING I WANT TO DO A RECALL. IS THAT A PETITION?

>> THAT IS A PETITION UNDER 6 TO 2.

>> SO WHAT IS THE FINAL 75 DAYS?

>> THE PETITION HAS THE QUESTION OF RECALL THAT THE CITY SECRETARY GENERATES THE FORMS TO GO OUT AND CIRCULATE

AND GATHER THE SIGNATURES. >> SO IT IS AFTER, NOT PRIOR

TO. >> YOU, SO THEY FILE THE PETITION, GET THE FORMS, COLLECT THE SIGNATURES THEN THEY COME BACK IN 75 DAYS AND WHAT IS THAT PAPERWORK CALLED? THEY'RE COMPLETING THE PETITION? THEY ARE SUBMITTING THE NAMES? WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT?

>> THEY SAID THEY SHOULD BE COUNTED.

>> I HATE TO WEIGH IN ON THESE SORTS OF THINGS BUT WHEN YOU READ FROM THE BEGINNING AND WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH, THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE IS TALKING ABOUT BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THAT A PETITION FOR RECALL BE ASSIGNED BY QUALIFIED VOTERS EQUAL TO A NUMBER OF AT LEAST 10%. THAT IS THE VERY FIRST

[03:20:02]

THING, SO EVERYTHING AFTER THAT SHOULD RELATE TO THAT 10% VOTER SIGNATURE PETITION, SO IF WE NEED TO SEPARATE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A STEP WHERE THE PETITION IS REQUESTED BY GOING TO THE CITY SECRETARY IN THE CITY SECRETARY SAYS I ACCEPT YOUR PETITION, HERE IS YOUR THING, GO GET SIGNATURES, I WOULD SAY YOU SHOULD PROBABLY SPLIT THEM APART, BECAUSE THIS WHOLE SECTION SEEMS TO ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL 10%

COLLECTION OF NAMES. >> YEAH, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T COLLECT NAMES WITHOUT GETTING THE FORM FROM THE CITY SECRETARY AND WITHOUT HAVING SUBMITTED THE REASONING THAT THE REASON IS VERIFIED AS VALID.

>> THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PETITIONS. ONE IS THE PETITION TO THE CITY SECRETARY WITH THE REASON FOR RECALL AND SHE HAS TWO WORKING DAYS TO CERTIFY. YOU CAN'T JUST PUT ON THERE, I DON'T LIKE THIS PERSON. LET'S RECALL THEM THEN GO OUT AND GET YOUR 10%, SO THERE IS AN ORIGINAL PETITION WITH THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THEN THEY HAVE 75 DAYS TO GET THE SIGNATURES AND WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, ANY SIGNATURE IS GOING TO BE A SIGNATURE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE CITY SECRETARY ON THE RECALL PETITION.

>> I GUESS WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS YOU SPLIT IT INTO TWOS -- TWO DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS AND I'M PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT AND KNOW ABOUT GOVERNMENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK

THIS IS SAYING. >> YES, THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION HAS COME IN. I HAVE 75 DAYS TO DO WHAT? WHAT IS MY

STARTING DATE AND END DATE? >> I DO THINK IT IS BECAUSE THE PETITION IS BEING USED IN MULTIPLE WAYS OF MEANING.

>> ONE IS A PETITION FOR RECALL.

>> OKAY, THAT SAYS BE SIGNED BY QUALIFIED VOTERS SO THAT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THAT PETITION ALREADY HAS SIGNATURES, SO MAYBE THE PETITION TO RECALL . YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SIGNATURES AND THEN WHENEVER YOU SAY THEN THEY HAVE 75 DAYS TO COLLECT 10% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS SIGNATURES , SOMETHING

LIKE THAT. >> QUICK QUESTION. WE ARE JUST CHANGING THE THRESHOLD 20-10 AND THE DATES FROM WHATEVER IT

WAS TO 75, SO -- >> RIGHT NOW , THE CHARTER IS AMBIGUOUS. THE CHARTER IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHAT THAT 45 DAYS MEANS, AND WHEN IT STARTS.

>> HERE IS A RECOMMEND. >> I THINK I GOT IT. SO IN THE FIRST UNDER -- SENTENCE, CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT IN SECTION 602, PETITION FOR RECALL, SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE SECTION IS UNDER THE CURRENT CHARTER, YOU GET 10%. AND THEN WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE 75 DAYS, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN SECTION 605 , AND THAT IS CALLED VARIOUS PAPERS CONSTITUTED RECALL -- CONSTITUTING RECALL PETITION AND THAT IS ALL YOUR VOTER SIGNED THINGS, SO THAT THE PETITION BE CIRCULATED BY QUALIFIED VOTERS SIGNATURES TO REMAIN EFFECTIVE OR BE COUNTED WHICH WERE PLACED THERE ON 75 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL PETITIONS, SO -- WE NEED TO BUS UP TO TWO PROPOSITIONS.

>> YOU WANT TO MAKE TWO PROPOSITIONS END QUOTE SECTION

605 TO BE AMENDED? >> I DO. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING YOU GIVE THE CITIZENS DECIDE YOU WANT TO

LOWER TO 10%. >> THAT'S PROP 10.

>> WRIGHT, SO THAT IS -- >> PROP 10, WHAT THEY DID IS MARRY INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM FOR THE CITIZENS.

>> NO, GOTCHA. >> I THINK COUNCILMAN CLARK WAS COMING UP WITH A PRETTY GOOD THING. YOU ARE GIVEN TWO OPTIONS. YOU CAN GO FROM 25 TO 10 AND THEY CAN VOTE YES ON NO OR NO ON BOTH. THEY CAN SAY OKAY, WE DO SEND A PERCENTAGE BUT NOT TODAY'S BUT TO ME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS SO IT OUGHT TO BE PROBABLY TWO DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE?

>> YEAH, I LIKE KEEPING IT TOGETHER BECAUSE IF YOU -- I DON'T KNOW. I THINK, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THEY NEED TO BE KEPT TOGETHER BECAUSE IT IS -- WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE PASSES AND

[03:25:05]

THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T? WHAT HAPPENS IF TENANT FAILS AND NINE DOES? ONE SAYS 10 THEN ANOTHER WILL SAY 20. WE'VE

ARTIE GOT THAT PROBLEM. >> IT'S OKAY. IF ONE FAILS AND THEY SAY NO, WE WANT TO KEEP IT 20% BUT WE WILL GIVE YOU 75 DAYS TO GET IT, THAT IS OKAY. IF THEY SAY WE WILL GIVE YOU 10% BUT WE ARE NOT GIVING YOU 75 DAYS, THAT'S OKAY AND THEN PROPOSITION 10 IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT -- THAT IS A REFERENDUM. IF THEY SAY WE ARE OKAY FOR RECALLS BEING AT 10 BUT REFERENDUMS NEED TO BE 20, THAT'S OKAY, TOO. IN MY MIND.

BOTH, YOU ONLY DO ONE OR THE OTHER YOU ARE STILL MAKING IT -- I THINK THE HURDLE IS TOO HIGH TO MAKE IT A REASONABLE REQUEST TO EVEN CONSIDER DOING A RECALL EFFORT IN MY OPINION.

>> YEAH, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE THE HURDLES.

WE ARE GIVING THE PUBLIC THE OPTION TO DECIDE WHAT THE HURTLE SHOULD BE PAID 20 OR 10, AND 45 OR 75.

>> HERE IS A RECOMMEND. CHEW ON THIS FOR A MINUTE. THIS DOES NOT NEED ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, SO IF WE COULD MAYBE PAUSE ON THIS, THINK ABOUT IF WE WANT TO SPLIT IT UP , WE GO KNOCKOUT THE REST OF THE AGENDA THAT DEALS WITH DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR THAT

[11.4. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-013 amending Hutto Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4 Animals, Article 4.09.002 Cats to provide for Trap, Neuter and Release (First Reading) (Chief Jeffrey Yarbrough)]

THEN WE COME BACK AND HAMMER THIS TO MIDNIGHT. WHAT DO YOU

THINK? >> PAUSE ON NINE. OKAY, SO PAUSE ON THAT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO 11.4 AND TALK ABOUT CATS.

CHIEF, YOU READY? CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER LETTER 0-2024-013 AMENDING HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 4 ANIMALS, ARTICLE 4.0 9.002 CATS TO PROVIDE FOR TRAP, NEUTER AND RELEASE. THIS IS GOING TO BE

GOOD, I CAN TELL. >> YES, SIR. JEFFREY YARBROUGH, CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO. I'M COMING TO YOU TODAY WITH THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, 11.4, REQUESTING THAT WE AMEND THE EXISTING HUTTO ORDINANCE RELATED TO ANIMALS TO UPDATE IT WITH THE CURRENT STATE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE, WHICH IS HOUSE BILL 3660 WHICH IS RELATED TO THE TRAP, NEUTER AND RELEASE PROGRAMS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN TEXAS. THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THIS UPDATED HOUSE BILL TO NONCRIMINAL EYES THE ACTIONS OF TRAP, NEUTER AND RELEASE PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE WOULD CAPTURE FERAL CATS AND HAVE THOSE ANIMALS STERILIZED AND RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD WHERE IT IS NO LONGER A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND THERE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ATTACHED TO THAT SO WE JUST WANTED TO UPDATE THIS CURRENT ORDINANCE

TO ALIGN WITH THE STATE. >> CURRENTLY WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND CAPTURE FERAL CATS, NEUTER THEM AND PUT THEM BACK OUT IN THE WILD AND THIS IS GOING TO SOLVE IT TO WHERE WE CAN NO LONGER PROSECUTE THEM FOR THAT,

IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT IS INTERESTING. AROUND THE STATE, THERE ARE OPPOSING VIEWS AND OPPOSING POSITIONS. SOME ARE FOR IT, SOME AGAINST, BUT THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION PAST THIS TO WHERE IT IS NO LONGER A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEIR ANIMALS AND JUST DUMP THEM OUT IN THE WILD, SO THIS LAW JUST BRINGS THAT ORDINANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

>> OF COUNSEL, THE TNR PROGRAM GOES PREDOMINANTLY TO THE SHELTERS. THE SHELTERS WHO MOVE TOWARD NO KILL OR POSITIVE OUTCOME HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY FINDING HOMES FOR KITTENS AND CATS THEN THEY DO PUPPIES AND DOGS, SO THEY BEGAN IMPLEMENTING TRAP, NEUTER , RELEASE. THAT'S WHAT I'M USED TO KNOWING IT AS, AS A POSITIVE OUTCOME TO WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO USE DEATH SO THEY WOULD TAKE THE STRAY CATS, NEUTER THEM AND THEN RETURN THEM BACK IN SOME OF THESE ENDED UP CREATING CAT COLONIES, AND THAT DID IN TURN CAUSE PEOPLE TO GET KINDA SEPARATED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND WANTING PEOPLE TO BE PROSECUTED AND ALL THOSE OTHER TYPES OF THINGS, SO THAT IS JUST EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW

ABOUT TNR. >> WE ARE JUST MOVING IN LINE

WITH STATE LAW. >> MOTION TO APPROVE 11.3 IS

[03:30:04]

PRESENTED. >> .4.

>> I'M SORRY, 11.4. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 11.4 IS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON, PLEASE CALL VOTE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER >> AYE

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON >> AYE

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON >> AYE

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON >> AYE

>> MISSION PASSES 7-0. THE NEXT, 11.5, CONSIDERATION AND

POSSIBLE ACTION -- >> CAN WE WAIVE THE SECOND

[11.5. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-014 amending of Hutto Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 22.04.001-22.04.010 and Articles 22.04.011 and Articles 22.04.012 to provide for amending the definition of vehicles to include All Terrain Vehicle, Trailer and to amend Parking, Stopping and Standing provisions related to such vehicles (First Reading) (Chief Jeffrey Yarbrough)]

READING ON 11.4? >> KNOW BECAUSE AT THE PENALTY.

PENALTY YOU'VE GOT TO WEIGHT. ALL RIGHT. 11.5, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-404 AND -- O-2024-014 AMENDING HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE 22.0 4.001-22.0 4.010 AND ARTICLES 22.0 4.011 IN ARTICLES 22.0 4.012 TO PROVIDE FOR AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF VEHICLES CAN INCLUDE ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE, TRAILER AND AMEND PARKING STOPPING AND STANDING PROVISIONS RELATED TO

SUCH VEHICLES. >> WE ARE COMING TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON OR THIS EVENING OR TONIGHT ACTUALLY, TOMORROW.

>> IT'S YOUR MORNING, RIGHT? >> YEAH, IT'S THAT TIME. WE ARE BRINGING THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT. THIS ACTUAL ORDINANCE, WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING, HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN THE CITY SINCE 2013. THAT IS WHEN WE LAST HAVE RECORD OF IT BEING UPDATED AND SO WE WANTED TO UPDATE SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS AND TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN A GROWING CITY . MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS WE HAVE DOWNTOWN AND WE HAVE SOME TREMENDOUS PARKING ISSUES AND WE HAVE PLACES AROUND THE STADIUM WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PLACED THEIR OWN NO PARKING SIGNS THAT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY SO THIS ALLOWS US TO CLEAN UP THE PARKING ORDINANCE AND CREATE MORE ALIGNMENT WITH NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF OUR CITY. SOME OF THE THINGS, TOO, WE ARE ADDRESSING, WE HAVE 18 WHEELERS THAT HAVE BEEN SEEN TO ATTACH THE RIGS AND PULL THE ACTUAL TRACTOR-TRAILER IN THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND WE HAVE THOSE SITUATIONS WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE GRASS, PARKING ON THE SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE 18 WHEELERS THAT PARK OUT ON THE SIDE OF THE FEEDERS OUT ON 130, SO WE ARE JUST UPDATING OUR TRAFFIC ORDINANCES TO ACCOMMODATE US IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH THINGS AND IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS, WE HAVE SOME CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE PUT OUT THE NO PARKING SIGNS DOWNTOWN, CURRENTLY THE WAY THE POLICY IS WRITTEN, WE HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED ENFORCEMENT OF TELLING THOSE THAT ARE IN NONCOMPLIANCE, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THE CITY HAS DONE IN TIMES PAST IS TO TAKE VEHICLES THAT WERE BLOCKING INTERSECTIONS OR PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY WHEN WE HAD THE SIGNS OUT SAYING NOT TO PARK ON ONE SIDE WHICH PROHIBITED THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES FROM COMING THROUGH, THAT THE ONLY OPTIONS WE HAD AT THE TIME WERE TO TAKE THOSE VEHICLES AND HAD THEM TOWED TO A LOT AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE AND SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CITE OR REMOVE THOSE VEHICLES BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE POLICY OR ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT SO WE ARE BRINGING THIS TO YOU AS A FIRST READING TO UPDATE THE DEFINITIONS AND THE PARKING STANDING POLICIES OR ORDINANCE

THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? I WILL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> CHIEF, IS THERE LIKE A TIME LIMIT OR TIME PERIOD THAT YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THESE CHANGES KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC BEFORE IT BECOMES A CITATION?

>> YES. ONE OF THE THINGS WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON HIS WE ARE LOOKING FOR AGITATION AND -- EDUCATION AND VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. THERE MAY BE SOME THAT DON'T, BUT ANY CHANCE WE HAVE TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE PUSHING OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND WORKING WITH COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE MAKING THE COMMUNITY AWARE OF

[03:35:03]

THE PUBLISHED AND UPDATED ORDINANCE.

>> THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THIS PAST YEAR THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE WE LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES ARE AND THEN GIVE THEM THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO FALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. IF WE DO ANYTHING NOW, IT WILL BE ARTICULATED TO THE PUBLIC.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION RELATING TO THE MISCELLANEOUS RESTRICTIONS. I KNOW BEFORE IN THE PAST LIKE SAY YOU HAD A VOTE, -- BOAT, AS LONG AS IT WAS STILL CONNECTED TO YOUR VEHICLE YOU COULD BE PARKED ON THE STREET BECAUSE IT WAS CONNECTED MAYBE YOU GOT IT FROM THE STORAGE PLACE AND PARKED IT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO GO OUT THE NEXT DAY BUT WHEN I SEE THIS HERE, HE SAYS PARKING CERTAIN VEHICLES FOR LONGER THAN FOUR VEHICLES, ANY VEHICLE SUCH AS A TRAILER, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, IS IT NOW THAT IF THE BOAT TRAILER IS NOW FOR YOU ARE OPENING UP TO WHERE IT IS PARKED, NOT CONNECTED TO A VEHICLE OR JUST THE FACT THAT IF IT IS A TRAILER EVEN IF IT IS CONNECTED TO A VEHICLE YOU CAN NOW REMOVE IT IF IT IS MORE

THAN FOUR CONSECUTIVE HOURS? >> I WILL LET ASSISTANT CHIEF JONES SPEAK ON THAT. HE KNOWS THE HISTORY OF FOUR WE WERE AND WHY WE ARE MOVING TO THE DIRECTION WE ARE GOING WITH

THAT. >> JONES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOR THE RECORD. THE ONLY TIME WE WOULD ENFORCE THAT IS IF THE TRAILER WAS BY ITSELF, NOT HOOKED UP TO A CAR. IF IT IS HOOKED UP TO A CAR NORMALLY WE DON'T MESS WITH IT UNLESS IT IS OVER 12,000 POUNDS IN THE COMBINATION. THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE HEAVY TRUCK PARKING ORDINANCE. A BOAT AND A TRAILER TOGETHER, WE DON'T TOUCH IT.

>> ANOTHER OF BEEN A LOT OF HOA COMPLAINTS. SEEN PEOPLE PUTTING OUT STUFF BUT THEY ARE NOT IN VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY ARE

STILL CONNECTED. >> IF IT IS CONNECTED . IT IS JUST THE ONES THAT LEAVE IT THERE FOR DAYS AT A TIME.

THOSE ARE THE ONES WE GET COMPLAINTS ON AND THAT IS A COMPLAINT DRIVEN ENFORCEMENT ACTION. GUYS ARE NOT GOING OUT LOOKING FOR THOSE KIND OF VIOLATIONS UNLESS WE GET A CALL FOR SOME REASON. WE GO OUT THERE, INFORM THE CITIZEN WHAT THE LAW IS AND ALLOW THEM TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM.

>> NORMALLY YOU DON'T DO IT, BUT THIS ALLOWS YOU TO DO IT,

RIGHT? >> IT GIVES US THE DISCRETION.

IT GIVES US THE OPTION TO, IF YOU'VE GOT -- PARTICULARLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS VIOLATIONS AND IF YOU HAVE GOT A VEHICLE PARKED IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE THAT IS ATTACHED TO A TRUCK, AND IF IT IS IMPEDING TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY THROUGH THEIR THEN THAT GIVES US THE LATITUDE TO SAY LOOK, THIS

VEHICLE NEEDS TO BE MOVED. >> I MEAN ON A BOAT, LET'S SAY I WANTED TO JUST STICK WITH SOMEBODY, I COULD GO THROUGH, COME BY FOUR HOURS LATER, ISSUE A CITATION BECAUSE OF A BOAT. I MEAN, I COULD IF I WANTED TO, RIGHT? IS THERE A WAY TO JUST SAY THAT NO OVERNIGHT PARKING OR SOMETHING? THERE ARE PEOPLE ON MY STREET, ONE GUY HAS A GIGANTIC BOAT AND IT TAKES HIM A COUPLE HOURS JUST TO GET IT I MEAN, HE CLEANS IT AND DOESN'T ALL THAT BUT I DON'T WANT HIM TO SAY THE CLOCK IS TICKING, I'VE GOT TO GO BECAUSE OF THE WAY SOMEONE COULD COME BY. I KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO GET AND OTHER THINGS BUT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVERNIGHT, DO WE HAVE MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH BOATS OR CAMPERS OR , I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET, HAS A FIFTH WHEEL. THEY PARK IT ON HOLIDAYS IT'S LIKE THEY GET READY AND THEN THEY LEAVE THE NEXT MORNING. FOUR HOURS JUST SEEMS --

>> THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO, AND TO TAKE THE FEEDBACK FROM COUNSEL TO WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND MAKE SURE WE DEFINE WHAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY, SO WE ARE NOT MARRIED TO FOUR HOURS IF WE FEEL LIKE THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST LANGUAGE, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADJUST THAT.

HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE IS IT TO WHERE IF IT IS NOT THERE

OVERNIGHT ? >> FOUR HOURS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE NOT ACTIVELY PURSUING IT ANYWAY. FOUR HOURS SEEMS SHORT, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO GET READY FOR A BOATING TRIP OR CAMPING TRIP OR SOMETHING. I THINK IF YOU SAID 12 HOURS OR OVERNIGHT THAT WOULD BE PLENTY BECAUSE IN HOAS, THE ISSUE IS WHEN PEOPLE ARE LEAVING IT THERE FOR DAYS AND WEEKS AND IT NEVER LEAVES UNLESS IT IS THE DAY THE HOA INSPECTORS COMING THROUGH, THE NAME OF IT.

>> THE VOLUME OF CALLS WE GET, THAT DOESN'T EVEN REGISTER ON THE CALL SCALE, CALLS SPECIFIC TO THIS.

[03:40:01]

>> I THINK GOING ON ABOUT HIS WHOLE THING THAT HE TALKS ABOUT EDUCATION AND VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, I THINK PEOPLE WILL DO SOMETHING. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO COMPLAIN THEY WILL JUST GO OUT AND SAY HEY, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE LAW. THEY CAN EDUCATE THEM AND HOPEFULLY GET THEM TO MOVE IT, RIGHT? AND THEN SAY THIS IS LIKE A REPEAT OFFENDER OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? THEN NOW THEY KIND OF HAVE THE HISTORY, THERE LIKE ALL RIGHT, TIME TO DO THE TICKET, RIGHT, AND SO I MEAN HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T GET TO THAT POINT BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE THIS FOUR HOUR TIME LIMIT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT GOING TO COME DOWN TO THAT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE LIKE YOU KNOW, 12 TO WHATEVER WEEKS KIND OF THING. 12 HOURS PLUS.

>> EXACTLY, AND THAT IS THE RECURRING THEME THAT WE SEE. IN FACT, WE HAD A SITUATION TODAY THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH WHERE A CITIZEN WHO HAD A CONCERN ABOUT VEHICLES THAT WERE PARKED ACROSS THE STREET , AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN, AND THE WAY THEY MANEUVER AROUND THE ORDINANCE AND BY MOVING THE VEHICLE A CERTAIN WAY OR MOVING IT TO A CERTAIN LOCATION, THEY RESOLVE THE PROBLEM AT THAT POINT, BUT IT STILL CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE COMPLAINING AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT ORDINANCE NEXUS TO ADDRESS THAT, SO WE JUST HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE CATCH THIS INDIVIDUAL IN THE ACT THAT GIVES US MORE STANDING, AND SO THAT CREATED THE CHALLENGE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE OUT ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR THAT AND TAKING A RULING -- RULER AND SAYING YOU ARE 3.2 INCHES OVER. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE ARE AGAIN WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE ARE MEETING THE NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS BUT MAKING SURE THAT IF THERE IS A CHRONIC OR PERPETUAL ISSUE, WE HAVE STANDING TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> COUNSEL ALSO, THE FOUR HOUR RULE'S BURDEN OF PROOF. IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE IT 12 HOURS, 12 HOURS FROM THE TIME THEY BECOME AWARE OF IT SO MAYBE IT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME SO THE FOUR HOURS MAKES THE BURDEN OF PROOF USER AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD ASK IS, IF IT WERE TO GO TO 12, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE ON THE 18 WHEELER DRIVERS WHO THEN DISCONNECT THE TRAILER AND LEAVE THAT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THEN DRIVE THE CAB SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE THAT IS THE OTHER THING WE SEE HAPPENING, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE 130 CORRIDOR IS 18 WHEELERS PULLING OFF TO THE SIDE AND

LEAVING THEIR TRAILER. >> TO YOUR POINT, ONE THING WE HAVE SEEN WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THAT IS YOU GIVE A PERSON A NOTICE AND THEY MOVE THEIR VEHICLE AROUND THE BLOCK, USED TO BE YOU WOULD GO OUT AND TAKE SOME CHALK SO YOU MOVE IT, NOW YOU SEE THAT THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN MOVED, AND THAT ESSENTIALLY CAN START THE CLOCK AGAIN.

>> DOES OVERNIGHT SOLVE THAT?

>> NO. IT MAKES IT WORSE. >> BECAUSE OF THEY COME BACK AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND THERE'S A TRUCK THERE THAT'S NIGHT, RIGHT, THEY JUST START TELLING EVERYTHING AT 2:00 IN

THE MORNING? >> NO. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

MAKING IT OVERNIGHT -- >> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO KEEP IT THERE OVERNIGHT. YOU CAN HAVE IT THERE IN THE DAY WHILE YOU'RE GETTING READY BUT IF YOU COME AROUND AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING AND YOUR TOWING BOATS AND TRAILERS, DOES THAT NOT SOLVE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIX?

>> IT MIGHT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. IT WAS STILL CAUSE AN ISSUE FOR THE 18 WHEELERS. IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD, IN MY MIND, FOR THE TRAILERS TO BE DISCONNECTED FROM THE CAVS OR FOR THE CAPS AND TRAILERS JUST TO BE PARKED OVER IDLING WHILE THEY'RE SLEEPING, YOU KNOW, ON THE HIGHWAY, BASICALLY, OR ON THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE HIGHWAY.

>> MY CONCERN IS, WHAT IS A NAME FOR A GUY THAT JUST ALWAYS EVERY LITTLE PET PEEVE CALLS IN. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE GOT THEM TO WHERE THAT IS THE ONLY THING I'M AFRAID OF, YOU MAKE THIS THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE CREATING AN ISSUE TO WHERE I WANT TO DO GET A NEIGHBOR AND EVERY TIME I SEE THEM, I CALL THE POLICE, SO I'M OKAY WITH GIVING IT A TRY. WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND GO MAN, WE'VE GOT WAY TOO MANY CALLS

FOR BOATS. >> A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO NEEDS TO BE HEARD. A VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO NEEDS TO BE HEARD, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES A GREAT JOB.

>> OH MY GOSH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DO WE HAVE A

MOTION FOR THIS? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

[03:45:01]

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR

>> AYE >> MAYOR SNYDER

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON

[11.6. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-015 amending Hutto Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8 Business Regulations, Article 8.06 Vehicle Towing to provide for towing regulations (First Reading) (Chief Jeffrey Yarbrough)]

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT

>> AYE >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. ONE MORE, CHIEF. REAL QUICK, 11.6, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-015 AMENDING HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER EIGHT BUSINESS REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 8.06 VEHICLE TOWING TO PROVIDE FOR TOWING REGULATIONS. SO NOW

YOU CAN'T PARK -- >> WE ARE WORKING ON IT. THIS CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2009, AND THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN AT THE TIME WAS THAT IF YOU OWN A TOWING COMPANY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR STORAGE FACILITY INSIDE THE CORPORATE STATE LIMITS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT , IT HAS LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF TOWING COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TOE INSIDE THE CITY SO THE PROPOSAL, AND WE ARE REQUESTING THIS AMENDMENT, EXPAND IT TO THE ET J THAT WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF THOSE ABLE TO PROVIDE TOWING SERVICES TO THE CITY, AND WE HAVE UPDATED THE FEE SCHEDULE BY DOING AN ASSESSMENT OF AND GETTING NUMBERS FROM OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION TO UPDATE THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT THE TOWING COMPANIES ADHERE TO. AGAIN, FOR THE ONE COMPANY WE HAVE CURRENTLY HAD HERE IN TOWN, IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE A FEE SCHEDULE FROM 2009, BUT UPDATING THAT IS SOMETHING WE THINK BRINGS IT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THOSE OF -- AROUND US BUT ALSO THIS AMENDMENT GIVES OTHER TOWING COMPANIES THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FOOTPRINHUTTO NEEDS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 11.6 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, SO, WHY NOT MAKE IT , YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE COUNTY OR -- JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD BE IN PFLUGERVILLE OR ROUND ROCK. GENERALLY THESE CODES ARE PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS FOR THE STORAGE FACILITY TO BE SAN ANTONIO AND PEOPLE GET TOWED AND THEN BE IN SAN ANTONIO THEN YOU'VE GOT TO TRY TO GET TO SAN ANTONIO TO GET YOUR VEHICLE. THAT'S USUALLY WHAT THESE ARE IN PLACE FOR. JUST EXPANDING IT TO THE ET J ALMOST MAKES ME CRINGE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE NOW WE ARE ENCOURAGING STORAGE FACILITIES TO GO TO THAT SET UP IN THE ET J AND GET THEIR ENTITLEMENTS IN PLACE WHENEVER WE DON'T HAVE LAND-USE CONTROL OUT THERE. I WOULD ALMOST RATHER IT JUST BE HEY, YOU ARE IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY OR IF YOU ARE WITHIN PFLUGERVILLE OR RED ROCK OR TAYLOR OR GEORGETOWN AND THAT IS FINE BECAUSE I THINK THAT MEETS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS KEEP IT CLOSE, BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE A PROLIFERATION.

>> OR MAYBE A 15 MILE RADIUS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TRAVEL BEHIND WHAT WE PROPOSED IS WHEN A PERSON'S VEHICLE IS TOWED, THE INCREASED HARDSHIP OF HAVING TO GO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE TO CEDAR PARK OR GEORGETOWN NORTHWEST, WHEN THEY COULD GET THEIR VEHICLE FROM A CLOSE PROXIMITY HERE, THAT WAS THE THOUGHT BEHIND WHAT WE PUT INTO THAT PROPOSAL.

>> YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR ITEM? >> IT'S NOT MY ADAM, IT'S HIS

ITEM. >> WELL, BUT I MEAN THE ITEM,

RIGHT? >> I HONESTLY DON'T CARE, IF YOU HAVE TO TOW THE CAR, IT'S A PAIN IN THE NECK ANYWAY, PERSONALLY, SO WHATEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE, WHETHER IT BE -- I GET YOUR POINT ON THE CITY AND ET J. THERE IS AN ET J LOT AND YET, YOU DON'T WANT A PROLIFERATION OF TOTAL LOTS BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING READY TO TO A BUNCH OF VEHICLES AND BOATS AND STUFF BUT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO MAYBE NOT MAKE PEOPLE DRIVE OUT TO LIBERTY HILL, ALSO. SO, I'M OKAY WITH A

MILEAGE OR -- >> 15 MILES, I THINK IS

REASONABLE. FROM CITY HALL. >> YEAH, WITH AN AMENDMENT, A

15 MILE RADIUS? >> IT COULD BE IN TRAVIS OR PFLUGERVILLE SO I JUST SAY 15 MILES.

>> THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT BEING 15 MILES FROM WHERE?

>> FROM CITY HALL. >> I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE

POLICE STATION. >> THE PLAYSTATION MIGHT NOT

[03:50:05]

ALWAYS BE THERE. >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A 15

MILE RADIUS FROM CITY HALL? >> UNLESS THERE IS A REASON NOT

TO HAVE TRAVIS. >> OKAY, SO THE MOTION IS 15

MILES FROM CITY HALL. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF SOME REASON

IT SHOULD BE TRAVIS? >> AGAIN, DUANE JONES, ASSISTANT CHIEF. THE IDEA BEHIND IT WAS JUST LIKE CHIEF SAID, TO NOT PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON SOMEBODY THAT HAS GOTTEN INTO A CAR CRASH, TO HAVE TO GO DOWN 15 MILES FROM CITY HALL , GOING SOUTH INTO TRAVIS COUNTY IS PRETTY WELL INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND GOING NORTH, IT'S SOMEWHERE NEAR GEORGETOWN. IT PLACES AN UNDUE BURDEN ON SOMEBODY THAT HAS ALREADY GOTTEN ARRESTED OR GOTTEN INTO A CAR CRASH. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON BEHIND IT.

>> IS 10 A BETTER NUMBER? >> 10.

>> AS CERTAINLY COULD BE AND I THINK 10 MILES WOULD PROBABLY

GET INTO THE ET J. >> 10 WILL GET YOU TO TAYLOR.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST OUT THERE WAYS.

>> YOU GUYS WANT TO CHANGE IT TO 10?

>> I STILL THINK 15. >> WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION? I MEAN IF IT IS THE ET J.

>> RIGHT NOW THE MOTION IS 15 MILES FROM CITY HALL.

>> MOTION TO CHANGE IT TO 10.

>> I SUPPORT THAT. >> YOU SUPPORT THAT.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> I DO.

>> OKAY, KEEP IT AT 10. 10 MILES FROM CITY HALL. PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT

>> AYE >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

[12.1. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2024-031 approving the Olander Farms Development Agreement between Keith Alan Olander, Karen Ann Olander, Janet Lynn Olander Barnard, Timothy Edward Barnard, Brian Anthony Barnard, Elizabeth Barnard Davis, and Hutto-40 LLC and the City of Hutto and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement (Sara Cervantes)]

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON

>> AYE >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON

>> AYE >> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, GUYS. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2024-0 THROUGH ONE APPROVING THE A LENDER FARMS DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN KEITH ALAN OLANDER, KAREN AND OLANDER, JANET LYNN OLANDER BERNARD , TIMOTHY EDWARD BERNARD, BRIAN ANTHONY BERNARD, ELIZABETH BARNETT DAVIS AND

HUTTO-40 . >> SARA CERVANTES, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS FOR A 12 ACRE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT. AS OF RIGHT NOW IT WOULD BE CERTIFIED BY HUTTO WASTEWATER AND I DO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE HL CAPITAL PARTNERS AND MISSION OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM. THEY HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION FOR YOU ALL,

AS WELL. >> THANKS YOU FOR BEING

PATIENT. >> THERE ARE NO CAT COLONIES INCLUDED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, MAYORS, TRAVIS BERG, A LENDER FARMS, PINK HOUSE. WE ARE DOING A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY WITH A SMALL TOWN CENTER URBAN CENTRIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE. ALONG WITH SOME MULTIFAMILY FOR-SALE TOWNHOUSES. WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO PROVIDE A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT HOUSING OPTIONS ALONG WITH DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS TO SERVE THE CITY AND WE WILL FOCUS ON QUALITY BUILD AND LOW WATER USAGE. ON THE MULTIFAMILY PARCEL, WHICH IS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE FOUNDATION AND THE VALERO, WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING SOME FOUR STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX, A LITTLE MORE DENSE.

THE TOWN CENTER IS KIND OF WHAT BRINGS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY TOGETHER. IT WILL BE A WALKABLE SITE WITH A LOT OF GREEN SPACE. LOOKING TO DO SOME RAIN WATER CAPTURE AND NATIVE PLANTINGS AND BE VERY ENERGY-EFFICIENT.

[03:55:05]

I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME UP FROM COUNSEL IS THE REASON THEY WANTED TO SEE EVERYTHING MOVE CLOSER TO THE WAY BUT WE HAVE 130 FEET WE HAVE THE ENTERPRISE PIPELINE ALONG THAT WAY. WE ARE TRYING TO SET BACK AND MAKE IT MORE COMMUNITY INCLUSIVE.

AGAIN, HERE IS JUST A SHOT. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS A LOT OF TERRITORY THERE FOR THE SET BACK FROM THE ROAD. AGAIN, THE TWO TOWNHOME PARCELS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT INTEGRATING THAT SO IT FLOWS INTO THE TOWN CENTER GREEN SPACE TO HAVE A NICE TIGHT COMMUNITY FEEL .

AND SOME QUESTIONS CAME UP ABOUT THE FOUNDATION, THAT IS WHO THE OLANDER FAMILY HAS DONATED THE LAND AND THE HOUSE TWO. THERE ARE A REGISTERED 501(C)(3) AND THEY DO A LOT OF -- IT IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION PROVIDING SUPPORT TO UNDERPRIVILEGED CHILDREN IN HAITI. AND WE HAVE CONFIRMATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE HOUSE PINK, SO THAT IT KEEPS THE COMMUNITY TOUCHSTONE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS AND CARES ABOUT. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL? NONE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR 12.1.

TO APPROVE 031, APPROVING THE OLANDER FARMS AGREEMENT.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND HELPING US UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING THERE. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT LOSING ALL OF OUR FARMLAND. WE ALSO REALIZE THAT A LOT OF THE KIDS DON'T WANT TO BE FARMERS ANYMORE. I GREW UP ON A DAIRY FARM. MY GRANDPA WAS A DAIRY FARMER UNTIL THE DAY THAT HE DIED. I WORKED ON THAT FARM UNTIL I WAS ABOUT 16 WHEN I COULD DRIVE AND THEN I GOT A JOB SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT IS HARD WORK. AND SO I APPRECIATE FARMS, BUT ALSO REALIZE THAT IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, YOU KNOW, JUST GO TO THE COUNTY AND DO IT ANYWAY AND BUT THIS WAY AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE SOME SAY INTO WHAT IS GOING ON THERE. I THINK THE DESIGN IS GREAT AND I THINK ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF THIS IS THE TOWNHOMES. TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE DON'T HAVE THAT AT ALL IN HUTTO. WHERE PEOPLE COULD GET A TOWNHOME THAT THEY COULD OWN AND NOT JUST RENT.

AND I LIKE THE CITY CENTER THING TOO. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> I WOULD SAY THE SAME. YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HEARD TONIGHT A LOT OF CITIZENS WORRIED ABOUT TRAFFIC, THE ROADS, CONGESTION , ESPECIALLY ON THAT ROAD. AND SO , LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT LOOKS REALLY DESIRABLE. THE TOWN CENTER REALLY CATCHES MY EYE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE DON'T DO IT IT WILL PROBABLY GO TO THE COUNTY AS WELL. JUST TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PEOPLE'S CONCERN AROUND TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION . I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT AS YOU ARE DEVELOPING , WHAT CAN YOU DO TO REMEDY SOME OF THAT AND HELP US OUT WHILE WE ADDRESS OUR TRAFFIC CONGESTION QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUES AS YOU ARE GOING ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.

THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING RESIDENT CONCERNS AS WELL AS SERVICING YOU GUYS IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE TO GET YOUR PROJECT DONE.

WELL. I LIKE THAT THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE PRESERVED AND OBVIOUSLY MAINTAINED BY THE FOUNDATION. THAT IS GREAT.

THAT WAS PROBABLY A FAMILY ASK TO CONTINUE THAT. I THINK IT IS GREAT AND IT WILL BE GREAT FOR THE FUTURE OF THAT AREA, JUST TO KIND OF KNOW THE BACK STORY OF WHERE THOSE FOLKS LIVE. WHAT ELSE? I DO LIKE THE TOWN SQUARE IDEA AS WELL.

[04:00:02]

HOPEFULLY IT LOOK LIKE FROM THE RENDERINGS THAT Y'ALL WERE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A RUSTIC AGRICULTURAL LOOK. THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF Y'ALL CONTINUE WITH THAT. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW IT IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH BUT I THINK THAT IS KIND OF THE VIBE AND THE FEEL THAT YOU ARE GOING FOUR. AND I APPRECIATE THE IMPACT FEES AND THE LAUNDRY LIST OF IMPACT FEES THAT WILL MITIGATE THE PARKS, THE LAND, THE ROAD'S AND WASTEWATER AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. SO I

APPRECIATE THAT. >> SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, TRAVIS. WE TALKED AND I SAID I WAS NOT A BIG FAN OF MULTIFAMILY RIGHT HERE BUT ALSO A FAN OF PEOPLE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. AS LONG AS YOU GUYS DEVELOP IN A WAY THAT IS NOT IMPACT THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM, THEN I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE ARE FOR HERE. THAT IS AMERICA. I WISH THE MULTIFAMILY WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT AS PEOPLE STATED, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE WATER, IF WE HAD IT, IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE GO DOWNSCALE AND SO FOR ME, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THIS, THEN YOU ARE BASICALLY LOSING CONTROL OF 88 OR 89 ACRES. I THINK WHAT THIS DOES IS, YOU GUYS HAVE KIND OF DONE SOME THINGS THAT WE WOULD RATHER SEE AND NOT CHOOSE TO ANNEX AND DO ALL THIS OTHER CRAZY STUFF AND CREATE AN ISSUE. IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO WORK WITH YOU ALL AND WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC THAT THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT THESE WHEN THEY'RE ON THE FRINGES OF THE CITY BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A 90 ACRE TRACT RIGHT IN THE CENTER, YOU DO THE BEST THAT YOU CAN AND YOU WORK WITH PEOPLE AND ARE FORCED TO DO THINGS YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO DO. ON THE FLIPSIDE, WE WILL TAX YOU AND GET SOME IMPACT FEES AND HELP FIX THE ROADS UP. I APPRECIATE MEETING IN THE MIDDLE, AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION FOR EVERYBODY. SO, THANK YOU.

THERE ARE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT WE ARE EAGER TO SOMEHOW PROFIT FROM BRINGING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT WE MIGHT HAVE HAD A CHOICE ON, BUT WHEN THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN E TJ AND BRINGING IT INTO THE CITY AND GETTING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND COLLECTING PROPERTY TAXES AND IMPACT FEES, BECAUSE IF IT IS IN TJ WE DON'T GET THAT, WE STILL GET THE TRAFFIC AND ALL THAT BUT WE DON'T GET ANY TAX REVENUE TO OFFSET THAT, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO FIX THE PROBLEMS.

VOTE. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK Y'ALL. I GOT YOU OUT BEFORE MIDNIGHT, SOONER THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.

>> THIS IS EARLY FOR US. >> TALKING TO MAYOR PRO TEM, I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT, BUT WE KEEP THE ITEMS ON HERE SO THAT WE WILL NOT FORGET THEM AND WE TABLE 12.2, 13.1, 13.2

AND 13.4. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY? 12.2, 13.1, 13. TWO AND 13.4.

>> THE IDEA IS THAT I'M TRYING TO GET YOU OUT BY 11:00 .

>> SO IS IT JUST TO THE NEXT MEETING?

>> YEAH, JUST TO THE NEXT MEETING. WE MAY HAVE TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING ONE DAY AND GET CAUGHT UP, BUT SINCE THEY ARE NOT TIME-CONSUMING OR URGENT MATTERS, 13.1 KIND OF, BUT -- GOOD HOUR AND A HALF OF TALKING RIGHT THERE.

MOVE THOSE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH.

>> SHOULD 13.1 MOVE TO AFTER THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION? SEVENTH AND WE CAN ALWAYS DECIDE TO MOVE IT TO THEM. SO THAT BRINGS US TO 13.2, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON APPROPRIATING $1,814,600 FROM THE DURANGO COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES TO THE CIP PROJECTS ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND.

>> I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD PULL 13 OUT BEFORE WE DISCUSSED THIS.

[04:05:03]

ALL RIGHT. IS ALBERTA STILL HERE? ALL RIGHT, SO THEN WE

[14.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-042 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for network upgrades at the Police Department in the amount of $150,560.02 with Freeit Data Solutions (David Reeves) ]

WILL GO TO 14.3, CONSIDERATION --

>> 1413. >> SORRY, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE EXCEPT IN -- ACCEPTANCE OF THE JANUARY 2024

FINANCIAL REPORT. >> I WAS CLOSE. GOOD EVENING, FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD. SO , INCLUDED IN THE PACKET WAS THE JANUARY FINANCIALS. WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GO THROUGH IT FROM END TO END?

>> ALBERTA, GENERALLY IF THEY HAVE ASKED FOR THE REPORT YOU JUST KIND OF GIVE THE HIGH LEVEL ITEMS. THE REASON THIS IS SPECIFICALLY GETTING PULLED IS GOING TO THE RESERVE ISSUE.

BECAUSE I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RE-APPROPRIATION STUFF. SO THERE YOU GO.

>> SO ON THAT PAGE FIVE. >> PAGE 634 OF THE PACKET.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT 634 IN THE PACKET.

>> SO I HAD ASKED THAT THE REPORT BE ABLE TO BE DISCUSSED BECAUSE OF THE RESERVE ISSUE . IT IS NEGATIVE RIGHT NOW, IT IS 18% INSTEAD OF 20%. WE NEED TO RECTIFY THAT BY MAKING A BUDGET AMENDMENT. IN ORDER TO DO THAT , IT'S JUST SO HAPPENED THAT AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL APPROPRIATING FUNDS, SO DID NOT MAKE SENSE TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN OSCILLATION WITH EACH OTHER.

>> TO TALK ABOUT PAGE 634, IT SHOWS THE GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND IN THE MIDDLE SECTION WE TALKED ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND, THE FUND BALANCE. SO ALL ALONG WE HAD BEEN USING THE PROJECT DID OR BUDGETED AMOUNT AS THE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE. THEN OF COURSE WITH THE FINALIZATION OF THE AUDIT WE HAVE CHANGED THAT NUMBER AND PUT IT TO THE CHANGE THEIR . WHICH , WHEN THOSE TAKE INTO EFFECT , WE HAVE A NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE WHEN WE TAKE THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT OUT OF 334,128.

SO LOOKING AT IT AT 505,000 BASED ON WHERE WE ARE AT NOW IT IS 341 THROUGH THE PROJECTED, THROUGH WHAT IS BUDGETED AT THIS POINT. THERE ARE AREAS WITHIN OUR BUDGET THAT WE CAN ADJUST TO OFFSET THIS NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE REQUIREMENT OR RESERVE. SO I GUESS WE CAN DO THAT IN A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

WE CAN BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. HOW MUCH DETAIL DO WE NEED TO COVER THIS EVENING? I AM SORRY, SO I GUESS IN THE SUMMARY, SOME OF THE TOP ITEMS WE WOULD LOOK AT THE LINE ITEMS, BUT MAINLY FIXED ASSETS OR CAPITOL OUTLAY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PURCHASED OR ENCUMBERED IN THE PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN STARTED, WE COULD DELAY THOSE.

>> THE REASON I WANTED THIS PULLED OUT LIKE THIS, WHAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WAS THAT I WANTED TO GIVE STAFF AND THE CITY MANAGER TIME TO GO AND COME BACK WITH WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO CUT TO CLOSE THIS GAP. AND THEN ONCE THEY DID THAT, THEN AS COUNSEL WE COULD DECIDE TO POSSIBLY USE THAT MONEY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO MAYBE NOT CUT THOSE OR LET THEM BE CUT AND GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION FIRST AND POINT OUT THAT WE ARE $320,000 THAT WE NEED TO ACCOUNT. LET THEM COME BACK WITH THE CUTS THAT THEY THINK ORGANIZATIONALLY THAT WE WANT TO DO AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE IF WE ARE OKAY WITH THOSE CUTS OR IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO RECTIFY THAT FIRST, BUT I WANTED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE THEN APPROPRIATE MONEY ON THIS OTHER THING AND THINK THAT IT IS FREE AND CLEAR.

[04:10:01]

MONEY THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO DISCUSS IS USED TO OFFSET THIS? IS THAT THE ASSUMPTION THERE?

>> IT IS NOT, BUT IF I RECOMMEND BUDGET CUTS A THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE DOLLARS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE SPENT ON THAT COULD BE APPROPRIATED TO COVER THOSE BUDGET CUTS. SO REALLY THE QUESTION WILL BECOME ON THE OTHER ITEM, WHETHER THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD PREFER THAT I RECOMMEND BUDGET CUTS FROM ITEMS ON THE BUDGET , WHICH WE HAVE PREPARED IN CASE WE GO THAT WAY, OR DOES THE CITY COUNCIL PREFER THAT I IDENTIFY THOSE ITEMS THAT THE PID DOLLARS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR AND THEN WE USE THAT AS A NEW REVENUE SOURCE. IT IS A BOOK PROBLEM. THIS IS WHAT THE MAYOR WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT WHAT IS MONEY AND WHAT IS NOT MONEY. IT IS A BOOK PROBLEM, BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY YOU HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE IS THE BEGINNING BALANCE OF THE FUND, BUT THEN WE ARE HEADING INTO IT PROJECTED REVENUES AND SUBTRACTING OUT PROJECTED EXPENSES BASED ON THE BUDGET, AND RIGHT NOW WHENEVER YOU DO THAT PAPER EXERCISE , WE ARE COMING UP AT 341,000 LESS THAN WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE UNENCUMBERED FOR MEETING THE 20% RESERVE. SO THE RESPONSIBLE THING WOULD BE TO EITHER INCREASE THE REVENUE OR DECREASE THE EXPENSES. I CANNOT REALLY RECOMMEND INCREASING THE REVENUE ANYMORE, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY PROJECTED WHAT WE THINK THE REVENUE WILL BE, SO THAT LEAVES ME WITH REDUCING THE EXPENSES. NOW ENTER INTO THE FACT THAT THE 1.8 MILLION COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, WE DID NOT APPROPRIATE. REMEMBER, THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR BUDGET TO PAY FOR ROADS AND SIDEWALKS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE CLEARANCE TO USE THAT OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES, WE MOVED IT OUT, SO IT IS EFFECTIVELY SITTING THERE AND THEN THEY WANTED TO BRING IT BACK NOW THAT WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO RE-APPROPRIATE THOSE DOLLARS OR NOT. SO THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BUT THEY'RE BOTH BUDGET

WHOLE. >> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

>> I SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING. >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE

1.8. >> BUT IF WE DID THAT AND JUST FOR THE WHAT IS IT, 300,000 ? IF WE DID THAT, THE REST OF THAT ONE .8, WHERE WOULD THAT GO?

>> WERE EVER Y'ALL DECIDE . AS LONG AS IT IS AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT IS SOMEWHAT LOOSE IN ITS

DEFINITION. >> YOU HAVE TO SHOW SOME SORT OF BENEFIT FOR THE PID. WHEN WE SENT THIS TO COUNSEL, ROADS LEADING UP TO DURANGO FARMS OR TALK ABOUT, LIKE MAIN STREET AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THOSE WITH THIS MONEY.

>> THE PARKLAND WAS ALSO TALK ABOUT TOO.

>> YOU JUST CUT SIDEWALKS BY HALF 1 MILLION AND YOU ROLL HALF 1 MILLION FROM THE PID.

>> YOU TOTALLY CAN, AND THEN IT ALL WORKS OUT.

MAINTENANCE THAT WE WANT TO BACKFILL.

>> THAT IS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OTHER PID COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE. THE MAIN THING WAS, BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DECEMBER FINANCIAL WORK, THIS NUMBER WAS LIKE STARTING OUT AT LIKE 9 MILLION, BUT WE HAD TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS AND SUBTRACT OUT THE CDC.

WHENEVER WE SUBTRACTED OUT THE CDC AND MADE THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ACTUAL ENDING BALANCE, BECAUSE AGAIN, USUALLY YOU ARE A MONTH OR TWO BEFORE YOU ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT YOUR ACTUAL BALANCE WAS BACK ON THAT DATE AS WERE WAITING FOR THE INVOICES TO CLEAR. SO WE MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. AFTER EVERYTHING WASHED OUT, THE BUFFER THAT WE HAD DRIED UP AND WENT AWAY WITH THE CDC, AND THEN THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE ACTUAL ENDING BALANCE FOR THE YEAR NOW HAS US TO WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY -- IF WE SPEND ALL THE MONEY THAT WE BUDGETED , AND IF OUR REVENUES COME IN AS PROJECT DID , CURRENTLY WE WOULD END THE YEAR -341,000 LOW THE RESERVE .

>> AND IT IS BECAUSE THE ENDING YEAR WAS WHAT, 1.5 SHORT?

>> YES, SIR. >> BUT THE 2023 BUDGET, THE

[04:15:05]

COUNCIL ACTUALLY BUDGETED -2.9 MILLION, SO YOU INTENDED TO SPEND 2.9 MILLION MORE THAN YOU SELECTED AND WE ONLY SPENT 1.3.

WHAT WE HAD? >> NO. THE RECONCILIATION WAS THE 2.8 UP TO 3.2 MILLION CDC NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE FROM WHEREVER IT HAD BEEN PAYING ALL THE LEGAL FEES AND IT WAS IN AN ACCOUNT AS -2.8 MILLION AND THEY MADE US ROLL THAT INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND SUBTRACT THAT OUT FROM THE BALANCE.

>> WHICH MADE IT 1.5 OFF OR SOMETHING. SO TAXES ARE UP 932,000. SO EVEN WITH A $1 MILLION INCREASE IN TAXES ABOVE AND BEYOND BUDGET WE ARE 300 21,000 SHORT?

>> YES, EVEN WITH THAT , WE WOULD STILL END UP NEGATIVE, WE WOULD STILL END UP 341,000 SHORT OF OUR RESERVE IF WE DON'T AMEND TO THE EXPENDITURES.

>> WE TOOK IN 1 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD TAKE HIM IN PROPERTY TAXES AND WE ARE STILL SHORT. SO THAT IS WHAT THIS IS, 932,000 AND 688.

>> THAT IS SOMEWHAT -- THAT IS BECAUSE THE 11.8 MILLION THAT YOU SEE IN THE BUDGET IS MET OF THE REBATES. SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE COLLECTED MORE, THAT IS GOING TO GO OUT IN THE EXPENSE

LINE ITEM. >> SO WE HAVE WORSE THAN 341, BECAUSE I ASSUME IT INCLUDES THE 932 OVER, RIGHT?

>> NO. >> OKAY, I ALWAYS GET CONFUSED ON THIS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE ONLY GET PART OF IT. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF SPENDING ANY PID DOLLARS. WE HAVE A SPENDING ISSUE, NOT AN INCOME ISSUE. MY OPINION IS, YOU GUYS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CUT MONEY. INSTEAD OF HIRING 40 EMPLOYEES, HIRE 35. THAT ONE .8 , WE GOT A PRESENTATION FROM JEFF WHITE, AND THE PEOPLE WANT A COMMUNITY CENTER. HE SHOWED US SOMETHING, IT WAS A WAY TO HELP OUT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. AND IT ALSO HAD A COMMUNITY CENTER COMPONENT. WE SAID WE WOULD USE THIS MONEY FOR ROADS LEADING IN AND OUT OF OLD TOWN, WHICH ARE NOT IN THE BUDGET TODAY. EVERY DOLLAR WE DON'T USE AROUND THE OLD-TIME AREA, WE ARE JUST PLUGGING HOLES WITH IT. SO IF WE DON'T USE THAT MONEY, I GUESS I WILL FINISH WITH THIS, IF WE DON'T USE THE MONEY FOR THE THING JEFF SHOWED US, OR EAST WEST, WHATEVER STREETS WE WANT TO USE AN OLD TOWN HITTING UP TO DURANGO, THEN ALL WE ARE DOING IS TAKING GOOD MONEY AND PLUGGING HOLES WITH STUFF WE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUYING. AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THIS CLOSE. I'M NOT VOTING FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO.

BROUGHT THIS, I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP FOR US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AS A BUDGET DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO APPROPRIATE THOSE, OTHERWISE US OPENING UP THAT ONE .8 MILLION AND JAMES FINISHING , YOU KNOW, SEALING THE DEAL, WE SIGNED OUR PART AFTER EVERYTHING WAS ALL SAID AND DONE AND IT WAS RELEASED TO USE OUTSIDE OF THE PID. THEN IT WOULD JUST BE SITTING IN THE GENERAL FUND AND IT COULD BE USED BY THE CITY MANAGER . YOU KNOW, HE CAN SAVE IT OR TALK IT ASIDE. I THOUGHT IT WAS WISE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALWAYS MONEY SITTING AROUND BUT NOTHING IS BEING DONE. WE HAVE BONDED SO MUCH STUFF, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. SO SINCE THIS IS AVAILABLE WE COULD, AS A COUNSEL, DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO APPROPRIATE THIS AND TELL THE CITY MANAGER, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH IT. WE CAN GUIDE HIM WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, OTHERWISE IT WILL SIT OR HE IS GOING TO DO WITH IT WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE IT WILL BE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS. IF IT IS NOT USED THIS YEAR, IT COULD BE ROLLED OVER. AND JUST GET LOST IN THE GENERAL FUND AND BE USED -- I MEAN HOPEFULLY IT WON'T, BUT BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY BENEFIT SOLELY, BUT JUST LETTING A FOCUS ON WHERE THESE DOLLARS SHOULD BE USED AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO MOVING FORWARD, I KNOW I POSTED EARLIER TODAY, BUT INITIALLY HE APPROPRIATED 260 FOR THE

[04:20:03]

BEAUTIFICATION , THE PD FACILITY MASTER PLAN 300 K AND THEN MASTER PLAN SIDEWALKS 500 K. AND THAT WAS ALL RELEASED AND CUT OUT. WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHERE THE BEAUTIFICATION WENT, 41, THE MASTER PLAN PD. THE MASTER PLAN STUCK IN THE LAKESIDE ESTATE SIDEWALKS WERE CUT IN HALF AT 250 AND GENERAL SIDEWALK REPAIR WAS CUT AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- NOT QUITE SURE ON THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT SOME OF THESE PID DOLLARS BE ALLOCATED FOR 137, THE REPAIRS OF THE OVERLAY TO USE IT TO REPLENISH THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND, BECAUSE WE TOOK IT FROM THE CRACK SEAL CATEGORY, AND TO REPLENISH THAT, SO THAT PUBLIC WORKS CAN GO AND FINISH THAT WHILE ALSO WE GOT THE WORK DONE FOR 137. IF NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND Y'ALL WANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED, THAT IS OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT, OR MAYBE WE COULD, IF YOU NEED MORE TIME TO THINK ON IT, ON PROJECTS, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH POSTPONING IT UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. I THINK THAT IT IS THE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO, TO APPROPRIATE IT SO THAT IF YOU HAVE IDEAS OF OLD TOWN, THAT IS GREAT, BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND TALK ABOUT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO $1.8 MILLION.

>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT FINANCES.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHIFTED

TO THE OTHER END. >> WELL IT PLAYS INTO IT AS

WELL, RIGHT? >> WE CAN'T TAKE MOTIONS ON HOW TO SPEND THE 1.8. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THIS.

>> WE ARE NOT ON YOUR ITEM RIGHT NOW.

>> WE ARE ON 14.13. >> SO THIS IS STILL RELATED TO THE FINANCES, I GUESS. GETTING THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND SEPARATE WAS SOMETHING THAT I WANTED. I ACTUALLY WANTED US TO TRACK EACH COMMUNITY BENEFIT PAYMENT THAT WE GOT FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS SO THAT WE KNEW WHERE THAT MONEY CAME FROM THAT WENT INTO THIS FUND SO THAT WE COULD USE IT FOR PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH AND THAT WOULD BE A NORMAL ONE TO FUNNEL SOME OF THAT FUNDING INTO PAYING FOR THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

DURANGO WOULD BE NATURAL FOR IMPROVING OLD TOWN, IMPROVING THE PARK AND IMPROVING THE INTERSECTIONS NEARBY. SO WE ARE JUST KIND OF USING IT AS A BIG CITY FUND TO GO AND PAY FOR WHATEVER WE WANT. SO LIKE TAKING THE DURANGO MONEY AND SPENDING IT ON 137 DOES NOT HELP ANYONE NEAR DURANGO OR PEOPLE IN OLD TOWN IMPACTED BY PEOPLE IN DURANGO GOING THERE.

SINCE IT IS IN A SEPARATE FUND, IT WILL NOT GET LOST IN THE GENERAL FUND AND IT CANNOT GET SPENT WITHOUT US UPPER CREEK -- APPROPRIATING IT. IT WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET SPENT WITHOUT US APPROVING IT.

FINANCES? >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, WE ARE NOT 341 NEGATIVE ON THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE BECAUSE WE OVERSPENT, WE ARE -341,000 BECAUSE THE AUDITOR SAID HE DID NOT LIKE HOW WE WERE TRACKING A NEGATIVE BALANCE IN AN ACCOUNT THAT HAD NO ASSETS.

WE ALL KNEW LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE DOING THE BUDGET THAT NEGATIVE BALANCE WAS THERE. IT IS NOT LIKE IT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS.

>> WE HAVE BEEN REPORTING THAT EVERY MONTH, WHAT THAT NEGATIVE BALANCE WAS. SO AGAIN, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES, DURING THE AUDIT PROCESS THEY THOUGHT THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE NEEDED TO SHIFT THAT AND RECORD IT IN THE GENERAL FUND AND NOT KEEP IT OUT THERE SEPARATE.

>> RIGHT, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS ARE CLEAR, IT IS NOT LIKE WE OVERSPENT A TON OF MONEY AND WE ARE BROKE BECAUSE WE BLEW THROUGH THE MONEY LIKE WE WERE IN VEGAS. THIS IS NEGATIVE BECAUSE WE CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE OF OUR AUDITOR TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD CORRECTLY TRACK

THIS HERE INSTEAD OF HERE. >> YES, SIR.

[04:25:04]

FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE, WE STILL DON'T HAVE FIVE AND 5 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND. PART OF THAT NUMBER IS AN ACCOUNT THAT DOES IT, RIGHT? IT IS LIKE YOU HAVE A CHECKING ACCOUNT THAT HAS $8000 IN IT , BUT THAT $8000 IS NOT CASH IN THERE BECAUSE REALLY IT IS AN IOU FROM A FRIEND OVER HERE THAT OWES 4000. IF YOU COUNT YOUR ACCOUNT AS 8000 YOU CANNOT

SPEND 8000. AND MY SAYING -- >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, YES. YOU DO HAVE THE ENDING FUND BALANCE THAT YOU HAD AS OF OCTOBER 1. THAT IS YOUR FUND BALANCE AS OF

9/30. >> WE DID NOT ACTUALLY TRANSFER MONEY OVER, WE JUST HAD -- THE BALANCE WAS HIGHER THAN -- IT WAS HIGHER THAN 5 MILLION, BUT WHAT MADE IT HIGHER THAN 5 MILLION WAS WE HAD A $4 MILLION IOU FROM AN ACCOUNT THAT IS NEGATIVE, AM I RIGHT ON THAT? AND THEN THEY SAID YOU CANNOT DO THAT ANYMORE.

NEGATIVE BALANCE OVER THERE WITH NO WAY OF HOPING THAT COST. IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON PAPER THAT SAID OKAY, THE CITY IS GOING TO RECEIVE THIS 3.3 MILLION IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS BASED ON THESE EVENTS, X, Y, AND Z, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO MAKE THAT ENTRY. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH AGREEMENT. THERE IS NO -- THERE WAS NO IN THE NEAR FUTURE, IN THIS NEXT YEAR THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE THIS MONEY.

>> SO WE GOT, LET'S JUST SAY WE'VE GOT 5.5 MILLION NOW AND THIS OVER HERE WAS SAY 3 MILLION. TRYING TO GET WHOLE NUMBERS. SO WE ORIGINALLY HAD A 5 MILLION AND THE AUDITORS SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO WAY TO GET THE MONEY BACK, SO WE ARE GOING TO BRING YOU DOWN TO 5.5. IS THAT THE SIMPLIFIED -- WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT IS LIKE NOT MONEY -- WE DO NOT LOSE CASH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE BALANCE WAS MONEY THAT WE DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE, TO WHERE IF THE ACCOUNT OWED ALL THE MONEY AND OUR WHOLE OPERATING BALANCE, OUR WHOLE GENERAL FUND WAS OWED FROM THE COTTONWOOD, WE WOULD NOT HAVE MONEY TO PAY SALARIES,

WE WOULD JUST HAVE A BIG IOU. >> YOU ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. AND THAT IS WHY YOU GET FOR SO FRUSTRATED WHEN WE TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE THERE IS CASH BASIS ACCOUNTING WHERE IT IS LITERALLY LIKE HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE ON HAND RIGHT NOW AND HOW MUCH GOING IN AND OUT AND THEN YOU HAVE CRUEL BASIS ACCOUNTING AND THIS IS A MIXTURE OF BOTH OF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING RESTAURANTS ABOUT. SO YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, EFFECTIVELY, IF YOU BOILED IT DOWN TO JUST THOSE TWO ACCOUNTS, OVER HERE YOU HAD POSITIVE 8 MILLION AND OVER HERE YOU HAD -3, SO IF THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO ACCOUNTS AND THAT WAS THE ONLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE SOURCES, THEN YES YOU WOULD ONLY ACTUALLY HAVE $5 HOW OUR FINANCES WORK.

IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IN JANUARY WE GOT ALMOST ALL OF OUR PROPERTY TAX FOR THE YEAR, SO WE HAVE ALL OF THAT REVENUE RIGHT NOW EVEN THOUGH ON THE BOOKS IT SHOWS THAT WE DON'T BECAUSE WE WILL ACCRUE IT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

AND EXPENSES OFFSET IT. >> YOU CANNOT GET A $19 MILLION AND SPEND IT ALREADY BECAUSE YOU WIN THE LOTTERY AND YOU RUN OUT IN THREE MONTHS. WHAT I'M TRYING TO EMPHASIZE, WE KEEP TRYING TO SELL -- I KNOW THAT WE DID NOT OVERSPEND, BUT IT IS NOT LIKE WE -- IT IS NOT LIKE MONEY JUST LEFT ONE BANK AND WENT TO ANOTHER. THE MONEY WAS NOT THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

EVEN IF THERE WAS MONEY PUT TO OUR HEADS TO SPEND THE MONEY YOU COULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY BECAUSE HOW DO YOU DRAW ON IT? LEFT IN THE CITY, THEN YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT WE HAVE OVER $100

MILLION IN CASH ASSETS >> WELL, THE AUDITORS MADE US DO THIS, WELL THEY DID THE RIGHT THING, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT -- IF I SAY I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU $2000, YOU CANNOT SPEND THAT UNTIL I GIVE IT TO YOU.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO BLAME THE AUDITORS, I AM TRYING TO -- I'M SORRY I APOLOGIZED I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY IN DECEMBER THE STATEMENT LOOKED ONE WAY AND IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE REALLY HEALTHY, AND THEN THE NEXT MONTH, NOW SUDDENLY IT LOOKS LIKE OH MY GOSH, WHAT HAPPENED? WE ARE NEGATIVE. IT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE MADE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE STATEMENTS

[04:30:01]

AND NOW THAT WE HAVE THE STATEMENTS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE, I AM OBLIGATED TO COME BACK AND SAY WE NEED TO CUT THE BUDGET OR FIND ANOTHER REVENUE SOURCE.

>> THE ONE QUESTION THAT I HAD ABOUT THE AUDITOR WAS YOU KNOW, I WOULD AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BALANCE THAT , IF WE HAD A FINAL JUDGMENT, BUT WE DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY COULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION NOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT. IF WE WIN THE APPEAL THAT MONEY WILL COME BACK. SO I MEAN IF WE WON THE APPEAL. WE DON'T KNOW. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN SPECULATIVELY SAYING THAT YOU COULD HAVE THE ASSET LATER TO CLOSE OFF THE DEBT ? UNTIL YOU HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO BALANCE IT. THAT IS MY FINAL PREMISE AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO EXPLAIN IT, BECAUSE I DID NOT GET THAT. LIKE IF WE

HAD FINAL JUDGMENT, I RE-. >> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE DON'T HAVE FINAL JUDGMENT AND WE WILL IN THE FEDERAL CASE AND THEN WE LOST IN A STATE DISTRICT COURT. WE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RETRY US IN THE STATE COURT BECAUSE WE ONE IN THE FEDERAL WORK. THERE IS BASIS FOR THINKING THAT WE ARE GOING TO WIN, BUT ON A CONSERVATIVE BASIS WITH THE MONEY, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY GUARANTEED TO GET THE MONEY BACK, SO IN A CONSERVATIVE ACCOUNTING , THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. IT IS PAINFUL RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. IF WE OWED $10 MILLION WE WOULD BE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE WE WOULD BE AT ZERO RIGHT NOW BASICALLY. SO IT IS REAL. WE NEED TO FIX IT. THANKFULLY IT IS $300,000, NOT $300 MILLION AWAY. I THINK THAT WE COULD FIND $300,000 THROUGH BUDGET CUTS AND ALLOCATING MONEY, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE THAT A PRIORITY, BUT IT IS NOT RAILING AGAINST THE AUDITOR AND THE DECISION -- OUR BOOKS ARE CLEAN NO MATTER WHAT NOW AND THE ONLY THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IS THAT WE GET A BONUS BECAUSE WE DO WIN AND THEN WE GET MONEY TO GET BACK IN AND THAT WOULD

BE GREAT. >> THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD IF

THAT HAPPENS. >> THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO ANYONE, RIGHT? THE ONLY THING THAT IS HIGHLIGHTING THIS, AND TO EVERYONE'S POINT, THIS IS THE RIGHT DECISION THAT THE AUDITOR MADE IS HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE NEGATIVE BALANCE. WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DECISIONS IN A VAC HUMAN LAST YEAR. WE DID NOT THINK IT WOULD REALLY AFFECT US LIKE THIS, BUT NOW THAT WE ARE NOW ACCOUNTING FOR IT IN THE OTHER ACCOUNT, YEAH, IT IS HIGHLIGHTING IT. THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS NOT THAT THE AUDITOR MADE A BAD DECISION OR THAT WE MADE A BAD DECISION TO FOLLOW THEIR GUIDANCE, BUT TO JUST SAY THAT WHEN WE BUDGETED LAST YEAR WE KNEW THAT WE HAD THE NEGATIVE BALANCE AND THAT WE WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR IT, BUT WE WERE HOPING FOR A GOOD JUDGMENT OR WHATEVER AND WE WERE SEGREGATING AND SAYING LET'S LEAVE IT OVER HERE, AND WE ARE NOT NOW, AND WE ARE HAVING TO ADDRESS IT NOW. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS , IT IS NOT LIKE WE DO NOT KNOW IT WAS THERE WHEN WE DID THE BUDGET.

WE ALL KNEW THAT IT WAS THERE.

>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY KEPT AM UP LATE AT

[13.2. Discussion and action on appropriating $1,814,600 from the Durango PID community benefit fees to CIP projects and/or road maintenance fund (Councilmember Amberley Kolar)]

NIGHT BECAUSE SHE TALKED ABOUT IT IN HER DESIRE TO GET IT FIXED.

YEARS AGO. YOU KNOW, ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO 13.2? ALL RIGHT. 13.2 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON $1,000,846 IN THE DURANGO PAID COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES TO CIP PROJECTS IN THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND. SO I MAKE A MOTION TO SPEND $1,814,600 ON A PUBLIC -- WHAT IS IT, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND REC CENTER AS PROPOSED BY -- DIRECTOR OF PARKS , WHAT WAS IT BACK IN SEPTEMBER?

>> I BELIEVE THAT HE MADE A PRESENTATION BACK IN SEPTEMBER ABOUT A PARKS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE SPACE THAT WOULD HAVE COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE AND IT. I DON'T THINK IT WAS A REC

CENTER. >> WE HAVE SOME KIND OF COMMUNITY CENTER.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? >> I LIKE THE DIRECTION, BUT I -- I WILL SECOND IT SO WE CAN DISCUSS. I LIKE THE DIRECTION BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE DETAIL TO COMMIT MONEY. I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT MONEY TO SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF US WITHOUT A PLAN. A TREE WITH THE DIRECTION BUT I WOULD LIKE IT TO ASK THEM TO COME BACK WITH AN AGENDA ITEM

[04:35:06]

TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. WHERE WE GET A PRESENTATION ON THE ITEM AND THE PROPOSAL TO MAKE SURE IT DOES WHAT WE WANTED TO DO.

MONEY BASED ON COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR'S CONCERN. THEY STILL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO PLAN. I WAS IMPRESSED WITH IT. IT SEEMED, THERE ARE TIMES THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE AND IT IS LIKE THAT IS A $400 TOILET, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IS COMING UP. THIS SEEMED VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT. IT WAS A NICE BUILDING AND IT PROVIDED -- ALL THE STUDIES WE ARE DOING, THEY ARE THE ONLY DEPARTMENT THAT I KNOW OF THAT IS OPERATING OUT OF A TRAILER .

>> PUBLIC WORKS DOES TOO. >> WE NEED TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF TRAILERS AT SOME POINT. THIS WAS A GOOD FIT. IT HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE WHICH CHECKED OFF A HUGE BOX. IT WAS ON FOUR ACRES AND SO I AM TRYING TO EARMARK IT OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANYONE SPENDING IT AND THEN I WOULD FULLY EXPECT JEFF AND HIS TEAM TO COME BACK WITH A DETAILED APPROACH SO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE SPENDING IT APPROPRIATELY TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS WHY I PICKED THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.

>> I REMEMBER THE PRESENTATION. IT WAS DONE AT A WORKSHOP I THINK. AND IT WAS GIVING US OPTIONS. IF THIS MONEY WERE NOT TO BE RELEASED AND TO ONLY BE USED INSIDE, RIGHT? IT WOULD BE USED ON THE UP TO FOUR ACRE BLOCK IN OLD TOWN. AND SO THEN IT WOULD BE RESTRICTED, OR INSIDE OF THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT IS THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE HANGING OUT FOR A WHILE TO ACTUALLY BE USED INSIDE OF IT, SO I THINK THEN THAT KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT THE CITY MANAGER DID, OF NEGOTIATING WITH THE DEVELOPERS ON THE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE FEES, RIGHT? WHERE SHOULD BE USED AND ALLOCATED. IT WAS A THREE-PART PROCESS. BUT THE CITY MANAGER WAS TASKED WITH, YOU KNOW, TO FIGURE IT OUT AND SO THANKFULLY YOU KNOW, HE WAS ABLE TO FREE UP THE MONEY TO BE USED INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE PID BOUNDARIES. SO LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS INSIDE.

THAT ASPECT OF THE NEGOTIATION AT ALL BECAUSE WE NEED TO DEVELOP THIS PARKLAND AND I FELT LIKE IT WAS A PERFECT USE FOR THE MONEY TO USE IT ON THIS THREE ACRE PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS SOLD TO THE OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT WE HAVE THREE ACRES THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED INTO SOME KIND OF A PARKLAND OR SOMETHING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS GOING TO COST MONEY. AND WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT A LOT OF MONEY LAYING AROUND FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROMISED THAT WE WOULD DO SOMETHING THERE WE CAN DO SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPACTED. WE NEED TO FIND $600,000 ELSEWHERE FOR THE RESERVE ISSUE AND THE STREET MAINTENANCE ISSUE. WE NEED TO FIND ROUGHLY $600,000 SOMEWHERE, BUT I DON'T THINK SPENDING THIS MONEY IS NECESSARILY THE RIGHT ANSWER THERE. WE HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH LOOKING AROUND FOR WAYS TO SAVE MONEY FIRST.

THEY COME BACK WITH THE COATS AND WE DON'T DECIDE EVERYTHING IN A VACUUM AT ALMOST MIDNIGHT TONIGHT WITHOUT A PRESENTATION.

THEY WILL COME BACK WITH SOME PROPOSALS OF THAT FOR THE DURANGO FARM AREA AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO WITH THE PARK IF YOU HAD THOSE FUNDS AND WHAT WE WOULD CUT AND THEN WHAT COUNSEL -- IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO DEAL WITH

WITH BASICALLY $600,000. >> BUT THAT IS CHANGING MAYOR

SNYDER 'S -- >> I'M JUST TALKING, THIS IS MY FIVE MINUTE TALK. I'M JUST --

[04:40:01]

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> I WOULD PREFER TO COME BACK LATER WHEN WE HAVE SOME PLANS. THAT IS ALL THAT I'M SAYING.

>> WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT, IT IS 11:43.

>> WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT WITH AMENDING IT TO DIRECTING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH $600,000 IN BUDGET CUTS TO

ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES? >> YES.

>> I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS --

>> THE OTHER ITEM, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT UNDER THAT ITEM.

>> THAT WAS NOT AN ITEM. >> I DON'T WANT TO LIMITED TO JUST THE BUILDING. PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US MAYBE IMPROVE MAINE AND E STREETS AND GET RID OF THOSE TRAFFIC CIRCLES THAT WE PUT IN .

>> OBVIOUSLY, THOSE WERE CHEAPLY PUT IN AND GETTING RID

OF THEM SHOULD BE CHEAP TO -- >> WE HAD TALKED ABOUT INSTEAD OF THEM HAVING LIKE THE RAISED TABLES WHICH WOULD COST MORE MONEY AND PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS TO MAKE IT -- I MEAN, THERE WAS

KIND OF -- >> THAT IS WHY WE SHOULD TABLE IT TO TALK ABOUT IT LATER.

TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME UP WITH THE PLAN FOR 1.8 MILLION TOWARDS THE PARK'S OFFICE COMMUNITY CENTER AND TO -- 60 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN BUDGET SAVINGS? AND OTHER AREAS.

DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WOLCOTT?

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER ?

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORTON? >> MOTION FAILS, 3-4.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL STAFF CAN COME BACK WITH A SHORT FALL GAP FOR THE ROAD REPAIR AND THE FUND BALANCE AND SOME IDEAS OF COMMUNITY

BENEFIT. >> AND SECOND WAS COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> I WOULD SAY THE SECOND MEETING OF MARCH TO GIVE THEM SOME TIME BECAUSE THE FIRST MEETING IS KIND OF -- I MEAN,

-- >> THE 21ST, MARCH 21 MEETING?

>> ARE YOU GUYS BOTH OKAY WITH THAT?

>> SO THE MOTION IS TABLING THIS ITEM UNTIL 3/21/24.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE --

>> WAS THERE A REQUEST TO ASK STAFF TO DO SOMETHING?

>> YEAH, I STILL WANT THEM TO COME WITH SOME PROPOSALS AND TO HEAR WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO DO WITH THE MONEY, AND ALSO THAT WE NEED TO HANDLE THAT BECAUSE PART OF THAT IS ALSO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO CUT FOR THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE AND THE -- TO REPLENISH THE ROAD MAINTENANCE.

>> THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND. >> THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE TO REPLENISH IT BECAUSE WE TOLD THEM TO TAKE IT FROM THE CRACK AND A SEAL. THEY HAVE THE 1.2, AND SO WE JUST TRANSFERRED IT FROM ONE CATEGORY UP TO THE NEXT, SO -- THEM TO DO.

MILLION TO BE FIXED INDEPENDENT OF THE ICE STORM THAT BROKE THE ONE ROAD.

TABLE UNTIL MARCH 21. THE DECISION, ONE .8 MILLION STAFF IS COMING BACK WITH WAYS TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.

ANY DISCUSSION ANYMORE? ALL RIGHT, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR?

>> AYE. >> THE MAYOR SNYDER ?

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES , 7-0.

[13.5. Consideration and possible action on releasing to the public the January 30, 2024, legal memo relating to Guidance on Use of Official Titles by Elected City Officials (Mayor Mike Snyder)]

ALL RIGHT, 13.5, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION OF RELEASING TO THE PUBLIC THE 2024 LEGAL MEMO RELATED TO GUIDANCE ON USE OF OFFICIAL TITLES BY ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS. LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO RELEASE IT.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR SNYDER , SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. I WILL BRING THIS UP, ANYTIME THERE IS A MEMO THAT

[04:45:02]

DEALS WITH ME I FIND IT BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC TO JUST LET THEM SEE IT. ALL RIGHT, NO DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON?

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER ?

>> AYE. >> SORRY. SHE SAID AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON? >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0.

STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE MEMO? I THOUGHT IT WAS IN HERE, BUT OUR LAW FIRM DID NOT CONTRIBUTE BACK WHEN I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD, BUT THEY WENT BACK AND RESEARCHED THE RECORDS, THEY DID NOT --

[CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> YEAH, IT IS IN THERE.