[00:00:01]
THE MOMENT TO? RIGHT? UH,[CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS ]
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY LEAGUE CITY TEXAS WILL NOW COME TO ORDER IN A REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025 AT 6:00 PM ROLL CALL.I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE PASTOR GREG, UH, THURSTON WITH DOMINION CHURCH TO BE OUR INVOCATION SPEAKER THIS EVENING.
PASTOR, SIR, COULD WE TAKE A MOMENT TO STAND IN BOWER HEAD? HEAVENLY FATHER, IN THIS TIME OF GIVING THANKS, DO WE COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT? IN THE NAME THAT'S ABOVE ALL NAMES, THE NAME OF JESUS, WE GIVE YOU THE THANKS THAT YOU DESERVE FOR ALLOWING US TO LIVE IN THIS WONDERFUL CITY.
AND TONIGHT, AS A RESULT OF BEING A THANKFUL PEOPLE FILLED WITH GRATITUDE, WE KNOW THAT OUR HEARTS AND OUR CITY IS SURROUNDED BY YOUR PEACE.
MAY WE CLEARLY HEAR YOUR VOICE SAY, THIS IS THE WAY, WALK IN IT.
BLESS EACH AND EVERY HOME AND EVERY HEART.
AND TOGETHER EVERYONE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SAID, AMEN.
PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL AND THE TEXAS FLAG, HONOR TEXAS FLAG, IP ALLEGIANCE TO TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE IN BUSINESS.
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
RIGHT, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.COUNCIL WORK SESSION, IF THERE'S A, IF THERE ARE ANY CORRECTIONS.
IF NOT THESE MINUTES, STAND APPROVED PROCLAMATIONS
[4.PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, AWARDS, AND COMMUNITY SPOTLIGHT]
PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CLEAR CREEK WILDCATS BOYS WATER POLO TEAM ON THEIR SECOND STRAIGHT STATE CHAMPIONSHIP.SO LET'S GET THE WHOLE TEAM IN HERE.
THEY ALL STILL GOT THE BLONDE, I GUESS, FROM STATE CHAMPIONSHIP.
I'LL READ THIS AND THEN WE WILL, WE'LL GET EVERYBODY ELSE UP HERE.
WHEREAS THE CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL BOYS WATER POLO TEAM CAPTURED THEIR SECOND CONSECUTIVE UIL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP DEFEATING LEWISVILLE HEBBURN 1715 IN A THRILLING FINAL AT DAVIS NATATORIUM IN SAN ANTONIO.
AND WHEREAS THE WILDCATS COMPLETED AN OUTSTANDING 31 AND FOUR SEASON EXTENDING THEIR WINNING STREAK TO 14 GAMES AND ACHIEVING AN INCREDIBLE 63 4 AND ONE RECORD SINCE THE START OF THE SEASON.
AND WHEREAS THROUGH TEAMWORK, PERSEVERANCE, AND DEDICATION, THE WILDCATS REPRESENTED THE CLEAR CREEK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY WITH PRIDE EXCELLENCE IN SPORTSMANSHIP.
WHEREAS THE CITY'S CONTINUED, UH, THE TEAM'S CONTINUED SUCCESS BRINGS GREAT HONOR TO OUR COMMUNITY AND SERVES AS AN INSPIRATION TO YOUNG ATHLETES THROUGHOUT THE REGION.
NOW THEREFORE, I MAYOR NICK LONG ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY DO HEREBY PRO DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE CLEAR CREEK WILDCAT BOYS WATER POLO TEAM FOR THEIR REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHAMPIONSHIP SPIRIT.
I WITNESS HERE UN TWO SIGN MY HAND AND CAUSE THE GREAT SEAL OF THE CITY, OF LEAGUE CITY TO BE AFFIXED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.
SO, SO NOT, NOT ONLY DID THEY WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP, BUT COLTON COUNTY, UH, I, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FOR YOU TO COME UP AND MAKE A SPEECH.
HE WAS THE STATE PLAYER OF THE YEAR.
UH, HIS DAD, HIS DAD WANTED HIM TO GET UP THERE AND MAKE A SPEECH.
SO LET'S, LET'S SEE, SOME LEADERSHIP.
OKAY, SO WE WON LAST YEAR, WHICH WAS HUGE.
AND I THINK COMING IN THIS YEAR, WE ALREADY KNEW HOW TO WIN.
LOSING OUR SENIORS LAST YEAR WAS A BIG, LIKE, UPSET AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, AND NO ONE REALLY THOUGHT WE COULD DO IT AGAIN, BUT WE WORKED EXTREMELY HARD AND EVERYBODY JUST PUT THEIR HEAD DOWN AND KNEW WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, FIT IN THE PIECES, AND WE CAME BACK AND WE DID IT AGAIN.
SO I, I DO KIND OF HAVE A STORY ABOUT IT AS WELL.
SO I, I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE CO'S AND I WAS GETTING
[00:05:01]
OUT AND THEY JUST WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP THE NIGHT, THE DAY BEFORE.AND I WALK OUT IN MY BACKYARD AND I JUST HEAR LIKE, POOF PO AND HE'S SITTING THERE IN THE POOL, TREADING WATER, THROWING BALLS AT THAT NET CONSTANTLY.
SO I WENT AND GOT, YOU KNOW, WOKE UP MY BOYS WHO WERE STILL SLEEPING AND SAID, YEAH, THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, CHAMPIONS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING BY BOYS.
LET'S GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
[ 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL]
ALL RIGHT.NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED TO GIVE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, LASTING NOT LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES.
COMMENTS MAY BE GENERAL NATURE OR ADDRESS A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM.
UH, FIRST PERSON IS, UH, SHERRY ZI, GREETING COUNSEL.
GREETINGS, ALL Y'ALL THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE, IT'S TIS THE SEASON HOLIDAY IN THE PARK IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
AND I'D LIKE TO COME UP HERE AND THANK ALL OF OUR MANY SPONSORS STARTING WITH THE CITY AND ALL THE WORKERS THAT GET THE PARK READY.
I TALKED TO SOME OF THEM TODAY AND THEY WERE OUT THERE BUSY PUTTING UP THAT TREMENDOUS CHRISTMAS TREE AND ALL THE SIGNS ARE DECORATED AND THEY ALSO DID PART OF THE GAZEBO BANDSTAND AND THEY WILL BE FINISHING UP NEXT WEEK OR EARLY.
THIS, I THINK THE EARLY PART OF FRIDAY.
AND THEN MONDAY OR TUESDAY WE'LL BE OUT THERE AND THE LAKE CITY GARDEN CLUB WILL DECORATE THE REST OF IT.
SO WE THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR COOPERATION, ESPECIALLY CITY SANITATION.
THEY HAVE SO MUCH TO KEEP UP WITH, WITH ALL THE GARBAGE THAT WE GENERATE.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO HOMETOWN BANK OF LEAGUE CITY.
THEY'VE BEEN GREAT AS OUR FINANCIAL SPONSOR FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS.
AND AMERI WASTE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO KEEP ALL THAT AREA CLEAN.
WE SEE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF FOLKS DOWN THERE, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A FESTIVAL THAT WAS JUST SO CLEAN ALL THE TIME.
BLING LIGHTING, WHO DOES A TREMENDOUS JOB WITH OUR LIGHTING IN OUR HOSPITALITY TENT, AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE, CLEAR LIFE MEDIA.
WE COULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT THEM.
THEY LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN LAKE CITY, AND THAT'S A BIG PLUS FOR THIS CITY.
HAMPTON INN, CLEAR LAKE METHODIST HOSPITAL, UM, MASONIC LODGE, OF COURSE 1 0 5 3.
THEY'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED OUR EFFORTS DOWN THERE AND HAVE THEIR LITTLE BARBECUE PIT RUN IT ALL THE TIME.
AND WE SO APPRECIATE THEIR HOSPITALITY AND THEIR FOOD.
SUBARU OF CLEAR LAKE, THEY ARE A GREAT SPONSOR FOR US.
THEY DO SO MUCH IN HELPING US WITH THE VEHICLES THAT WE NEED.
AND I'M SURE SOMEWHERE IN THIS LIST, 'CAUSE IT JUST DAWNED ON ME, IF WE'RE DOING, UM, THEM, WE HAVE SOME GOLF CARTS, SOME SOMEWHERE, THERE'S A SPONSOR FOR THE GOLF CARTS.
I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE THE NAME OF THEM, BUT THEY DO A GREAT JOB IN HELPING US GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B, WHICH SOMETIMES IS A LITTLE HECTIC WHEN YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND PEOPLE TO, TO GET THROUGH.
DARYL AT THE SIGN SHOP IS ONE OF OUR GREATEST SUPPORTERS AND WE HAVE SO MANY LAST MINUTE REQUESTS FOR THEM AND THEY JUST DO A FANTASTIC JOB OF SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS.
SO PLEASE COME OUT THE FIRST WEEKEND OF DECEMBER TO SUPPORT HOLIDAY IN THE PARK.
CHRISTY WRIGHT WITH THE LEAGUE CITY PROUD ORGANIZATION.
I'M ON THE BOARD AND THE VENDOR CHAIRMAN, SO WANTED TO INVITE EVERYONE OUT TO COME SHOP.
WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED LOCAL VENDORS AND OVER 12 FOOD TRUCKS, SO COME DO YOUR HOLIDAY SHOPPING.
UH, WE GOT PLENTY TO CHOOSE FROM.
WE GOT ANYTHING FROM CROCHETED ITEMS TO YARD ART AND ALL THE KIND OF FOOD YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK OF.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE A PLACE TO STAY.
I THINK SHERRY JUST MENTIONED IT.
IF YOU HAVE FAMILY OR FRIENDS COMING FROM OUT OF TOWN, WE HAVE REM BLOCKS.
SO LET US KNOW IF YOU NEED A PLACE TO STAY OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW NEEDS A PLACE TO STAY AND COME OUT.
WE HAVE ENTERTAINMENT ALL WEEKEND.
[00:10:01]
IT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS TO DO.THE FIRST DECEM FIRST WEEKEND OF DECEMBER.
DECEMBER 5TH, SIXTH AND SEVENTH.
I BET SHE'S BRINGING FURRY FRIENDS.
I LIVE IN LEAGUE CITY AND I'M WITH HOLIDAY IN THE PARKS PET PARADE.
AND WE HAVE TWO PARADES THIS YEAR.
SO AS YOU SEE ON YOUR FAR LEFT, WE HAVE TOTO AND DOROTHY, AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOME OF THEIR OTHER PLAYMATES TO COME OUT, UH, FROM THE MOVIE.
SO IF YOUR PET CAN BE DRESSED UP AS THE TIN MAN OR THE LION OR SCARECROW OR THE FLYING MONKEYS OR WHATEVER ELSE, WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO BE IN OUR TOTO AND FRIENDS PARADE.
IT'S GONNA BE ONE O'CLOCK ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER THE EIGHTH, DECEMBER 7TH, SUNDAY, DECEMBER THE SEVENTH AT ONE O'CLOCK.
AND THEN FOLLOWING TOTOS AND HIS FRIENDS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE OUR REGULAR HOLIDAY CHRISTMAS, UH, HOLIDAY PET PARADE.
AND THE HOLIDAY PET PARADE IS FOR ALL THOSE ANIMALS THAT WANNA DRESS UP IN THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT.
WE DO HAVE AWARDS FOR BEST COSTUMES.
UH, WE HAVE AWARDS FOR, UH, CANINES.
WE HAVE AWARDS FOR NON CANINES.
WE HAVE AWARDS FOR KIDS WITH THEIR PET.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, WHATEVER ELSE WE CAN FIND TO MAKE AWARDS OUT OF.
UH, WE HAVE HAD, IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD GOLDFISH THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN OUR PET PARADE.
WE HAVE ALSO HAD, UH, BIRDS AND WE HAVE HAD, UH, SEVERAL, UH, WE'VE HAD A REINDEER LAST YEAR.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DRESS YOUR PET UP, WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO COME OUT TO LEAGUE PARK AT ONE O'CLOCK.
UH, TOTO AND FRIENDS PARADE WILL GO FIRST AND RIGHT BEHIND THAT WILL BE THE HOLIDAY PET PARADE.
WE'LL BE GOING AROUND LEAGUE PARK.
WE WON'T GO IN ANY STREETS OR ANYTHING SO THE KIDS CAN PARTICIPATE.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE AWARDS WHEN THEY ALL COME BACK.
SO, AND AS YOU SEE EVERYBODY IN THE BLUE SHIRT, THOSE ARE FAITHFUL FRIENDS MEMBERS AND THE FAITHFUL FRIENDS MEMBERS TAKE THEIR DOGS AND ANIMALS TO NURSING HOMES, HOSPITALS, AND SCHOOLS TO VISIT DURING THE YEAR.
SO WE HOPE YOU'LL COME OUT AND HAVE FUN AND THANK YOU.
CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? HOLIDAY IN THE PARK.
ALWAYS THE FIRST WEEKEND IN DECEMBER.
I AM THIS YEAR THE CHRISTMAS WITCH.
AND MY NAME IS JANICE, AND I'M BRINGING OUT AND WORKING WITH MANY ELVES, UH, ELVES.
ELVES AND LITTLE BITTY WITCHES.
WE ARE OUT THERE ON MAIN STREET, WORKING HARD TO DECORATE AND GET READY FOR THE BIGGEST, BEST HOLIDAY EVENT.
I THINK IN ALL OF GALVESTON COUNTY.
WE'RE HAVING OUR 28TH ANNUAL EVENT THIS YEAR.
OUR THEME IS, GUESS WHAT? THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME AUNTIE TM, SO DECORATE YOUR FLOATS.
WE THINK THAT THE OAK TREES ON MAIN STREET REPRESENT THE EMERALD CITY IN THE WIZARD OF OZ.
SO WE, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT RECOGNIZED SOMEHOW.
UH, IT'D BE A GREAT SELLING POINT THAT WE HAVE IN EMERALD CITY.
BUT WE ALSO WANNA INVITE YOU OUT FRIDAY NIGHT.
WE HAVE THE CLASSIC CHRISTMAS MOVIES.
THE CITY PROVIDES DELICIOUS HOT POPCORN AND THIS, UH, CHAMBER DOES THE HOT CHOCOLATE.
UH, MRS. CLAUS WILL READ THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS AROUND SIX 40.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE, UM, ALL THE VENDORS WILL BE OPEN FOR FOOD AND SHOPPING THAT EVENING.
LET ME SEE WHAT ELSE, WHICH IS, DON'T ALWAYS REMEMBER EVERYTHING.
WE DO THE CHILDREN'S PARADE SATURDAY MORNING, AND THEN WE DO THE GRAND NIGHT PARADE.
SATURDAY NIGHT AT 6:00 PM GET THERE EARLY THE STREET SHUT OFF AT FIVE.
THERE'S, IT'S HARD TO FIND PARKING, BUT IF YOU GET THERE EARLY, YOU CAN DO IT.
SUNDAY MORNING WE HAVE THE, UH, SPECIAL NEEDS PARADE FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE PET PARADE.
AND THAT IS ALWAYS HILARIOUS AND A LOT
[00:15:01]
OF FUN.I REALLY HOPE TO SEE Y'ALL OUT THERE THIS YEAR.
IT IS DEFINITELY A FREE FAMILY, WONDERFUL EVENT.
AND THE BENNETTS ARE HERE TONIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE Y'ALL STAND UP.
THERE ARE OUR GRAND MARSHALS THIS YEAR.
SO THIS IS DOUG RENEE AND CHRISTIAN BENNETT.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WELL, DOUG IS GOING TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT IN A FEW MOMENTS, BUT THIS IS THE SALT OF THE EARTH.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE LEAGUE CITY A GRAND PLACE TO LIVE OVER THE YEARS, AND WE'RE SO PROUD OF THEM.
AND WE'RE SURE SANTA IS GONNA FLY OVER THE HOUSE, AND IF HE DOESN'T, I WILL.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE YOU COME UP IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT CONGRATULATIONS.
WE'RE VERY PROUD OF Y'ALL AND EXCITED.
CAN'T WAIT TO SEE HOW YOU'RE DECORATING YOUR CAR.
SO WE JUST WANT Y'ALL TO KNOW THAT IT IS A, A, A FAMILY EVENT.
IT'S FREE TO ENTER AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE EVERYBODY COME OUT AND SUPPORT OUR VENDORS.
WE ARE HAVING CHANNEL 13, OUR CELEBRITY, GRAND MARSHALL THIS YEAR IS IKA KNIGHT.
SHE'S AN ANCHOR ON CHANNEL 13 IN THE MORNINGS, SO IF YOU SEE HER, YOU KNOW, SAY HELLO.
I'VE NEVER GONE OVER THAT BEFORE.
BUT I AM
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE CAMERAS OUT THERE AND WE'RE GONNA BE GETTING A LOT OF PUBLICITY THIS YEAR.
AND ALL OF THE NEWSPAPERS, THEY'VE ALL COMMITTED TO COME OUT.
SO LEAGUE CITY IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE AND WE ALL ARE VERY LEAGUE CITY PROUD.
IS DOUG NEXT ON THAT LIST? HE WOULD BE, UH, DOUG IS TOO BEHIND.
WE'LL KEEP THANK YOU FOR LETTING US DO THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOUR TOPIC IS THIS FUN, SO WE'LL GET TO YOURS IN A MINUTE.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY, UH, GRATEFUL THAT WE WERE PICKED TO BE THE GRAND MARSHALS.
THIS IS THE SECOND GENERATION THAT HAS, 'CAUSE MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, GEORGIE FARRELL, WAS IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO? 15, 15 YEARS AGO, TIME'S GETTING BY.
SO WE, BUT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT US.
WE, UH, HAVE SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS IN, UH, LEAGUE CITY.
MY WIFE'S GOT A SIDE BY SIDE FOR ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES AND STUFF.
WE DO THE, UH, HE HEROES, WHICH IS THE CITY'S PART OF, AND WE'RE INTO, UH, THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS.
SO WE KIND OF COVER EVERYTHING.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR, WHAT, 30, 32 YEARS NOW.
I'VE BEEN AROUND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN LEAGUE CITY, BEEN TO THIS PARADE SINCE IT STARTED.
YOU KNOW, IN THIS CAPACITY OR ON FIRE APPARATUS, SOMETHING, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME STAND BY, UH, MY MULLO HAS A HOUSE ON THE LAST HOMESTEAD ON MAIN STREET.
EVERYBODY COME STAND OUT IN FRONT OF THERE.
IT'S A PERFECT PLACE TO WATCH THE PARADE.
WE WANT EVERYBODY TO COME OUT AND HAVE A GOOD TIME.
HE WAS THE CHIEF FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
MY NAME IS, UH, BRENDAN MUELLER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, MY BROTHER RYAN MUELLER, A, UH, DISABLED, UH, COMBAT VET AND ALSO A FIRST RESPONDER IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
UH, WE BOUGHT INTO A PROPERTY ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO AT, UH, 2212 COVE SIDE.
UH, FAST FORWARD ABOUT, UH, 10 YEARS NOW.
UH, WE'RE TRYING TO REPAIR OUR BULKHEAD BECAUSE THE, UH, WATER'S NOW, UH, ERODING AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S ERODING ONTO OUR PROPERTY LINE.
AND WE'RE HAVING, UH, CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY, UH, GETTING COOPERATION WITH THE CANAL OWNERS TO REPAIR THE CANAL.
UH, AFTER, YOU KNOW, A PHONE CALL WHEN THEY SAID, UH, I CAN GET THE, UH, THE BULKHEAD, UH, REPAIRED, SUDDENLY I NEED NEW SURVEYS.
I KEEP GETTING THROWN UP RED TAPE TO, TO GET THIS BULKHEAD REPAIRED.
EVENTUALLY, THEY OFFER ME THIS, UH, UH, CANAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S SEEN IT, BUT, UH, FOR THE, UH, MODERATE PRICE OF, UH, $3,000 A YEAR, AND IT ATTACHES TO THE LAND.
UH, I GET TO USE, UH, MY, UH, MY BULKHEAD AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE WATERWAY, AND I COULD USE THE, UH, THE BOATHOUSE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS RIDICULOUS.
AND, UH, ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CONDITIONS AM I NOT SIGNING IT.
AND IN FACT, SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT DEVALUES ONE'S PROPERTY.
IT EVENTUALLY, IT ESSENTIALLY MAKES YOUR WATER RIGHTS WORTHLESS AND OPENS YOU UP TO BEING ABLE TO, UH, UH, BE SUED INTO THE GROUND, WHICH IS A, A VERY REAL PROBLEM.
I HAVE A NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE WATERWAY, MR. DAVID EVANS.
HE'S NOW ABOUT $200,000 IN DEBT FROM LEGAL FEES
[00:20:01]
AND JUDGMENTS.AND HE DIDN'T EVEN SIGN THIS AGREEMENT.
HE BOUGHT A, HE BOUGHT A PROPERTY, AND THE OLD OWNER SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, AND HE WAS STUCK WITH IT.
AND HE TRIED TO GET OUT OF IT, AND HE LEARNED THE HARD WAY.
UH, UH, YOU CANNOT MESS, UH, UH, WITH, WITH THIS AGREEMENT.
SO, UH, THIS ISSUE, I FEEL LIKE IT, IT, IT'S A BIT RIDICULOUS TO BEGIN WITH.
UH, THE, THE GLEN COVE CANAL, UH, UH, SHOULD NOT BE PRIVATELY OWNED.
IT'S, UH, IN INEXPLICABLE THAT A PRIVATE COMPANY CALLED MB HARBOR, UH, OWNS THIS CANAL.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO, UH, UH, ESSENTIALLY WHAT I BELIEVE IN MY BELIEF IS A SHAKEDOWN, UH, TO GET MONEY OUT OF ALL THE OWNERS UP AND DOWN, UH, UH, UH, UH, THE GLEN COVE CANAL.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CANAL OWNERS QUITE, I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE AN EASEMENT, QUITE FRANKLY.
UH, BUT THERE ARE ISSUES, LEGAL CHALLENGES WITH THAT.
BUT I, I FEEL LIKE THE CITY SHOULD MAKE, UH, UH, BETTER EFFORTS TO EITHER HELP ESTABLISH THE, UH, OLD HOMEOWNERS EASEMENTS OR, UH, H SHOULD V CONVERTED TO AN HOA OR A SPECIAL ZONE PROPERTY, UH, UH, OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE A NEVER ENDING, UH, CONTINUOUS LEGAL BATTLE WITH, UH, ANYBODY THAT OWNS PROPERTY ON THAT GLEN COVE CANAL.
UM, BESIDES THAT, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I GOT.
SO I, I HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL IS AWARE OF THIS ISSUE, AND IT'S VERY PROBLEMATIC, UH, UH, UH, TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
MY NAME IS BETTY GALLARDO AND I, ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND, JOE, OUR HOMEOWNERS IN THE CLEAR CREEK SUBDIVISION, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH CONCERNS THAT HAS, HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
AND I'D LIKE ALL THE REST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBDIVISION TO STAND, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THE SUPPORT THAT WE'VE GOT TONIGHT.
WE RECEIVED THE LETTER EARLIER THIS MONTH WITH A NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT A MEETING THAT WAS SENT BY MR. GARY DEGEORGE.
THE MEETING ADDRESSED A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE'RE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE REQUEST OF A REZONING OF AN OPEN SPACE TO HAVE IT REZONED AS RESIDENTIAL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE SEVERAL HOME HOMEOWNERS, LIKE I SAID, THAT ARE IN ATTENDANCE.
WHILE THERE WAS NOT A SET AGENDA PRESENTED, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT LEADERSHIP WITH MR. DE GEORGE, AND HE WAS THE ONE THAT SET THE MEETING.
THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE MEETING.
AND BASICALLY, I STOOD UP AND SAID, OKAY, WHY ARE WE HERE? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING? WELL, DURING THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL SIDEBARS, IF YOU WILL, I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT MR. DE GEORGE'S INTEGRITY WAS BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.
HE STATED THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN ONLY BUILDING ONE HOME.
AND THEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OTHER HOMEOWNERS AND MR. DE GEORGE'S FAMILY MEMBER STATEMENT STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT HE WANTED TO BUILD THREE HOMES.
WELL, IN MY DISCUSSION WITH MRS. DEGEORGE, SHE SAID, WELL, THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN BUILD A HOME.
SO THEREIN LIES OUR ISSUES WITH SOME INTEGRITY.
SO, UM, BASED ON THAT, THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE CLEAR CREEK SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND WISH IT TO REMAIN AS IS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WHILE WE WERE THERE FOR ADDITIONAL HOMEOWNERS, THAT, UM, THERE'S SOME OTHER CONCERNS THAT WAS BROUGHT.
NOW OUR HOMEOWNERS HAD TWO MEETINGS.
WE HAD THE MEETING WITH MR. GEORGE, AND THEN WE HAD A SEPARATE MEETING.
AND SO WE BROUGHT UP SOME POINTS THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE POINTS, BUT CERTAINLY WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A PLACE THAT WE LIVE AND WE WANT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY THAT IT HAS.
SO WE'VE GOT CONCERNS THAT THERE'S POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL FLOODING, AND WE ALL KNOW THE FLOODING THAT LAKE CITY HAD.
WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW THAT WILL HAPPEN OVER THERE, NOT ONLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT ALSO JUST IN GENERAL.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE'VE GOT AN AREA WHERE WE ALL LIKE TO GO SEE THE DEER THAT THAT COMES OUT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, AND THERE'S A 10 POINT BUCK.
WE'RE EXCITED TO SEE THIS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I GUESS THAT'S MY TIME, BUT ANYWAY, YOU CAN KEEP GOING.
[00:25:01]
POSSIBILITY OF LOSING OUR, THE, THE NATURAL HABITAT THAT WE'VE GOT OVER THERE.WE HAVE THE DEER, WE HAVE OWLS, AND THERE'S BEEN A SIGHTING OF A BALD EAGLE OVER THERE.
ALSO, UH, WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES WITH POSSIBLE STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR HOMES DURING THIS BUILDING OR THIS CONSTRUCTION.
UM, AND IT'S REALLY JUST NOT CLEAR AS FAR AS WHAT HE'S WANTING TO DO, WHETHER HE WANTS ONE HOME OR HE WANTS TWO, OR WE'RE NOT GONNA BUILD IT ALL, OR WE'RE GONNA LIVE THERE, OR WE'RE NOT GONNA LIVE THERE.
UM, WE POSSIBLY HAVE SOME POTENTIAL OF OUR CURRENT HOMEOWNERS WANTING TO SELL BECAUSE THAT GOES AWAY.
UM, WE DO HAVE A SIGNED PETITION, UH, THAT WE'VE GONE, THAT TWO OF OUR LADIES HAVE GONE AROUND AND GOTTEN SIGNED, AND WE'VE GOT OVER 180 SIGNATURES ON THIS.
UM, SO, AND WE ARE HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
UM, THERE'S SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND THAT WE'LL PRESENT LATER IF IT GOES ANY FURTHER.
BUT BASICALLY, IN GENERAL, WE, WHILE THERE'S A FEW HOMEOWNERS THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE LAND ITSELF, IT'S OUR WHOLE SUBDIVISION THAT IS BEING AFFECTED BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE OUR NATURE, BUT OUR, OUR CHILDREN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE BASICALLY WANT TO STATE THAT WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY REZONING IN OUR, UH, SUBDIVISION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LISTENING.
UH, MY NAME IS BJ BUCHANAN AND MY WIFE'S SUSAN BUCHANAN.
AND WE LIVE IN, UM, MARINA DEL SOUL NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ADJACENT TO, UH, MARINA.
AND I KNOW A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, UM, CITY COUNCIL, UM, HAD A WORKSHOP.
UH, I WANNA THANK YOU GUYS, AND ESPECIALLY THANK, UH, MAYOR NICK LONG FOR BRINGING THIS UP.
THIS IS A, UH, UM, QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO ASK BECAUSE THE ANSWERS ARE DIFFICULT.
SO THANK YOU FOR STARTING THIS PATH AND GETTING IT KICKED OFF.
AND WE WANTED TO SAY A FEW THINGS.
WE'VE BEEN LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS, UH, OUR, OUR PROPERTY IS ADJACENT, UH, RIGHT ON, ON THE MARINA ITSELF.
AND, UH, THE CONCERN IS THE LIVERBOARDS.
UM, IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN, YOU NAME IT, YOU, I, I, IT'S, I CAN'T EVEN GO INTO THE DETAILS IN THIS SPACE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, DRUGS BEING SOLD FROM BOATS, FROM PEOPLE LIVING ON BOATS.
WE WOULD SEE BOATS COMING IN AT NIGHT, AT TWO IN THE MORNING, DOCKING ON BOATS, GETTING OFF AND WITH, WITH BAGS, LEAVING EMPTY BAGS AND CARS COMING INTO THE PARKING LOT.
AND ALL NIGHTS, ALL, ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT.
EVERYTHING FROM SEX IN THE PARKING, LOTS FROM THESE BOATS.
MOST OF THESE BOATS, I, I DON'T WANT TO PUT 'EM ALL, BUT A LOT OF THESE BOATS ARE UNREGULATED.
AND YOU KNOW THIS BY WHEN YOU WALK THE DOCKS THAT WE ARE PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S, THERE'S NO STICKERS, THERE'S NO, UH, STATE BOATING LICENSE ON THERE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING NO, NO LEGAL, EVEN TEXAS NUMBER FOR THE BOATS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE.
UH, THEY'RE, WE'VE KNOWN PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOLD BOATS BACK AND FORTH.
'CAUSE THEY TALKED TO US, WE TALKED TO PEOPLE THERE, AND THE BOATS AREN'T EVEN REGISTERED.
AND SO IF THEY'RE NOT EVEN REGISTERED, THEY'RE NOT INSURED, BUT YET THE MARINAS ALLOW THEM TO COME IN.
A LOT OF THE BOATS DON'T EVEN HAVE RUNNING WATER.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT, YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, WELL, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL, LAST NIGHT WE HAVE PEOPLE URINATING OFF THE TOP OFF OF A BOAT.
YOU HAVE VIDEO OF PEOPLE GOING OUT TO THE BACK OF THEIR BOAT, PING SOMETHING, AND THEN IF YOU REALLY WERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO, THEY'RE DUMPING A BUCKET INTO THE WATER, OR THE NEXT MORNING THEY'RE SPRAYING IT DOWN WITH A HOSE.
THERE'S TWO, UH, PUMP OUT FACILITIES THAT RUN OPERATIONS OUT OF THAT MARINA.
THEY STOP AT TWO BOATS THAT I KNOW OF.
AND ONE OF THOSE, TWO OF THOSE OWNERS ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH US.
THESE, THESE MAR THESE, UH, BOAT PUMP OUT COMPANIES, THEY LEAVE OUR MARINA, THEY SPEND THE DAY OUT PUMPING OUT BOATS IN ALL DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE LEAGUE CITY, BUT THEY DON'T PUMP OUT OURS.
I, I JUST, I, I WANNA THANK YOU GUYS FOR BRINGING THIS UP.
THIS, THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE THAN WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT.
AND YOU, YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM A DISTANCE.
YOU HAVE TO BE THERE TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.
SO I WANNA THANK YOU GUYS FOR STARTING THE INITIATIVE, AND THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE, THE
[00:30:01]
NEXT MEETING IN DECEMBER.AND I'D ALSO SAY FOR THE CITY COUNCILMAN, I HADN'T BEEN TO MARINA DEL, SO IN A YEAR OR SO, GO BY AND GO DRIVE THROUGH AND JUST LOOK AT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
IT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED, UH, IN THE PAST 18 MONTHS PROBABLY.
IS THE OWNER STILL THE SAME? IT IS.
BUT I WOULD GO, I WOULD JUST GO BY AND LOOK AT IT.
TYPICALLY NOT, BUT I'LL LET YOU DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS COMING UP.
UM, ROGER EU LIVE IN MARINA DEL SOUL, OPPOSITE SIDE FROM, UH, DAVE.
SO JUST TO REITERATE EVERYTHING HE SAID, BUT I ALSO, I OFFICE ON MY SECOND STORY, SO I KIND OF SEE EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON THERE THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
AND THEN I GOT CAMERAS AND TO GET TO VIEW WHAT GOES ON THROUGH, THROUGH THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT.
AND AS YOU SAID, IT'S ALL KINDS OF WEIRD THINGS, BUT AS FAR AS THE LIVERBOARDS, AND THAT'S WHAT I SAW YOU GUYS TAKING SOME INITIATIVE, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THAT'S GONNA GO, BUT IT WAS GREAT TO HEAR IT.
UM, I JUST SEE EVERY DAY, AS RECENT AS TONIGHT BEFORE COMING HERE, THERE'S NEW PEOPLE THAT ARRIVE WITH BAGS IN THEIR HANDS AND THEY'RE KIND OF DISHEVELED AND, YOU KNOW, I FEEL BAD FOR THEM AND ALL, BUT THE POINT IS IT'S JUST ONGOING DAY IN, DAY OUT.
AND THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO MENTION.
SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME A FEW SECONDS, SIR.
NO, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING TONIGHT.
ALRIGHT, AND NOW WE'LL GO TO, UH, CONSENT AGENDA SIX A THROUGH N.
MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL SIX L, M, AND N.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER? SO MOVE SECOND.
WHO HAS GOT THE SECOND? SAUNDERS? OKAY.
[6. CONSENT AGENDA]
THIS IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.[6L.25-0311 Consider and take action on a resolution removing the Rustic Oaks Subdivision Drainage Improvements project (DR 2003) from the May 2019 GO Bond project list (Executive Director of Capital Projects)]
SIX L.CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION OF RESOLUTION REMOVING RUSTIC OAK SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT DR 20, UH, 2003 FROM THE MAY, 2019 GEO BOND PROJECT LIST.
I JUST HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
I GUESS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MAYBE JOHN, THE MONEY THAT IS ALLOCATED FOR THE, FOR THIS PROJECT ITSELF, WHAT HAPPENS? DOES IT, DOES IT GO BACK INTO THE GL BOND MONEY OR CAN WE REALLOCATE THE MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE? SO THE, THE MONEY WAS, UM, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE WE'VE SOLD ALL THE DRAINAGE BONDS, BUT THE DRAINAGE BONDS ARE DESIGNATED SPECIFICALLY TO DRAINAGE PROJECTS.
AND SO WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON A COUPLE OF THOSE THAT ARE PROBABLY UNDERFUNDED.
SO WE'LL GO TO ONE OF THE UNDERFUNDED PROJECTS THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS.
HAVE WE SOLD ALL THE DEBT? NO.
THAT ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WASN'T SURE IF WE COULD REALLOCATE IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE USED TOWARDS THE PROJECTS OR DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE DRAIN THE DRAINAGE PROJECTS.
BUT THE DRAINAGE PROJECT THAT WERE ON THE BOND, RIGHT? THE BOND WAS, WE'VE LISTED PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES WE WERE WORKING ON, THE BONDS ARE SOLD SPECIFICALLY FOR DRAINAGE.
FOR I'M SAYING, BUT IT HAS TO BE BEFORE THE BOND PROJECTS.
YOU CAN'T JUST LIKE FIND ANOTHER DRAINAGE PROJECT AND PUT IT ON THERE.
CAN YOU, SO LEGALLY, THE WORDING AS IT CAN BE USED FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS, THE INTENT IS THAT WE WOULD USE IT FOR THE PROJECTS THEY'RE LISTED.
I, I CAN'T, YEAH, I CAN'T IMAGINE WE WOULD USE IT FOR ANYTHING.
BUT WHAT'S THE PROJECTS WE IDENTIFY? I JUST THINK IF, YOU KNOW, YOU GO OUT AND YOU ADVERTISE THE BOND, IT SHOULD BE FOR THE PROJECTS THAT THE BOND WAS ADVERTISED FOR.
JUST, UH, A COUPLE A QUICK QUESTIONS.
ONE, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL OF THESE GO BOND PROJECTS, UH, THAT WE'VE REMOVED.
CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHY THIS ONE IS BEING REMOVED AND WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OWNER'S OPINIONS WERE AS TO THIS? THE, UH, THE, THIS PARTICULAR ONE AND SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT WE BROUGHT A FEW MONTHS AGO, THESE ARE SURFACE DRAINAGE.
THESE ARE S SWES BETWEEN HOMES.
AND WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE DESIGN, WE REALIZED THAT REALLY AS DESIGNED, IT WOULD BE VERY IMPACTFUL
[00:35:01]
TO THE TWO NEIGHBORS.SO WE HAD TO GET CONSENSUS FROM BOTH NEIGHBORS TO ALLOW US TO PUT THOSE, THESE DITCHES OR SWES BETWEEN THE HOMES, WHICH IMPACT, UH, WOULD IMPACT AC UNITS, LANDSCAPING SHEDS AND ALL THAT.
AND AS WE WENT THROUGH, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IMPACTED DID NOT WANT THE PROJECTS.
SO IF, SO, IF YOU RECALL, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS, I THINK YOU WERE ON COUNSEL.
YOU KNOW, OUR CHOICE WAS TO MOVE THE PROJECTS FORWARD WITH IMMINENT DOMAIN.
AND NOT THAT WE DID, WE WERE GONNA PAY FOR THE EASEMENTS, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT THE SOILS BETWEEN THEIR HOUSES.
SO WE HAD DONE THIS WITH, UM, ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S WHY I WAS GONNA REMIND YOU THAT THERE'S PRECEDENCE FOR THIS.
SO WHEN WE HAD, SO WHEN WE HAD DONE IT BEFORE, ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UM, AND HE HAD COME AND SPOKE HERE, UH, HIS NAME WAS CHUCK DEFALCO.
HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED AND HE WAS, UH, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT HE APPEARED TO BE, UH, UNHAPPY WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO BE AWARE OF THIS.
SO I HAD ASKED, I BELIEVE WHEN THIS CAME UP BEFORE I HAD ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT HOW MANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS, NOT, NOT THE, NOT THESE COUPLE THAT WERE GOING TO HAVE THE, UM, HAVE THE IMMINENT DOMAIN, BUT HOW MANY OF THE OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE IN THIS AFFECTED AREA WERE NOTIFIED? AND DO WE KNOW WHAT THEIR, UM, OPINIONS BACK WERE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE? OR THE ONES ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE? NO, ON THIS PARTICULAR, ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THEY WERE ALL NOTIFIED AND THEY ALL CAME TO THE MEETING AND NONE OF 'EM WANTED IT.
IT WAS ONLY AS STATED IN THIS DOCUMENT, THERE WAS ONLY ONE GENTLEMAN THAT WANTED SOME KIND OF IMPROVEMENT, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT, AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO WORK ON THEM.
NOT SO THE, SO I GUESS, LET ME, LET ME REF, UH, REPHRASE IT.
THE, THE PEOPLE THAT CAME TO THE MEETING, WERE THEY THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE AFFECTED OR WERE THEY THE OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE, UM, THAT WOULD STILL BE AFFECTED BY FLOODING? RIGHT.
SO AS INSTRUCTED BY COUNCIL IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, WE HAD A, ACTUALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD OR A HOA WIDE, UM, MEETING.
AND NONE OF 'EM WANTED IT, WHETHER THEY WERE IMPACTED OR NOT IMPACTED.
AND THE, AND THE HOA ACTUALLY SENT US A LETTER, SIGNED LETTER THAT IS IN THE DOCUMENT.
JUST ONE QUICK, QUICK, ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, RON.
JUST SO TO, TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND, WE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO IMMINENT DOMAIN THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND GET AN EASEMENT RIGHT.
BUT THE CITY'S LOOKING AT THAT AND INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CONDEMN EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY ALONG THIS SIDE, WE'RE CHOOSING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.
THAT WAS MY ONLY KIND OF POINT RIGHT THERE.
AND ALSO ON THIS ONE, REMEMBER WE ARE ALSO DOING A NEIGHBORHOOD WIDE STUDY DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WILL COME UP IN 2026.
OUT OF THAT, HOPEFULLY WE COME UP WITH PROJECTS THAT ARE MORE HOLISTIC.
INSTEAD OF JUST DOING BANDAID PROJECTS, WE WILL COME UP WITH PROJECTS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PUT IN THE CIP TO ACTUALLY REALLY MAKE BIG IMPACT ON, SO YOU HAVE WATER ALTERNATE PLAN.
YEAH, NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST WITH, UH, BRITTANY BAY.
I THINK THE ONLY CONCERN THAT THOSE OF YOU GOING FORWARD SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE IS WHEN THE BIG ONE COMES AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS GO UNDERWATER, UM, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO, SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ACTUALLY TOLD US, NO, WE DON'T WANT DRAINAGE.
YOU KNOW, SO, UH, THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY DOWNSIDE TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
BUT IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU'RE DOING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, SO YEAH.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE WHAT, WHAT HE SAID, THIS ACTUALLY CAME TO US BEFORE AND WE, WE PUSHED IT BACK AND DID ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING AND BROUGHT IN MORE PEOPLE.
AND EVEN THOSE PEOPLE STILL DIDN'T WANT IT.
SO I THINK IT IS GONNA NEED MORE A REGIONAL APPROACH AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE PEOPLE THAT LAND WOULD BE TAKEN WOULD NOT BE TOO KEEN ON IT GOING FORWARD.
[6M.25-0529 Consider and take action on a resolution authorizing Change Order 5 to the construction contract with G.W. Phillips Concrete Construction, Inc. for Bay Ridge Flood Reduction - Phase 1 (DR2004), in an amount not to exceed $86,779 (Executive Director of Capital Projects)]
SIX M.[00:40:01]
ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER FIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GW PHILLIPS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION FOR BAY RIDGE FLOOD REDUCTION PHASE ONE DR 20 2004 IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $86,779.MR. YEAH, AGAIN, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGE ORDERS.
MAYBE JOHN OR PROJECT MANAGER CAN KIND OF TELL US ABOUT IT.
I'M, I'M SOMEWHAT CONCERNED WHEN I SEE THESE CHANGE ORDERS AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE PAYING HERE, ALMOST $80,000 AND PART OF IT IS FOR ELEVATION ERROR.
I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE SURVEYOR OR WHO'S TAKING THE ELEVATION.
IT'S NOT US, IT'S NOT THE CITY.
IS IT A CONTRACTOR? AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THEIR MISTAKES? THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HATE ABOUT CONTINGENCY FUNDS.
THEY, YOU, YOU DO A 10% CONTINGENCY FUND ON EVERY PROJECT AND JUST THEY MESS UP.
WE PAY 'EM, WE NEED TO REALLY GET A HOLD ON, ON CONTINGENCY FUNDS.
AND IF IT'S THEIR MISTAKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR IT? SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CHANGE ORDERS, UM, AND THERE'S, AND IN THIS CASE, AND IF I GET OFF BASE ON, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO JUMP IN.
IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A ELEVATION ASSUMED, I BELIEVE, FOR THE GAS STATION.
AND BECAUSE THE ELEVATION ASSUMED WAS LOWER OR HIGHER, THEY HAD TO GO FURTHER INTO THE GAS STATION TO ADJUST THE PAVEMENT.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT WHETHER WE SHOULD PAY FOR IT OR WHETHER THE DESIGNER SHOULD PAY FOR IT OR THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD PAY FOR IT, WE LOOK AT, DID WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO WORK WE ALREADY PAID FOR, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PAY FOR THIS WORK.
IF THEY HAD CAUGHT THE, IF THEY HAD CAUGHT THE ELEVATION, WE WOULD'VE HAD TO PAY FOR THE CONCRETE WORK ANYWAY.
BUT IF THEY'RE ASSUMING WHAT THE ELEVATION, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK IF YOU HAD PLANS, THE PLANS WOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH TO SHOW THE ELEVATION OF THAT DRIVEWAY COMPARED TO THE ELEVATION OF THE NEW STREET IS, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND I JUST, I REALLY WOULD LIKE FOR US TO, I NEVER DID LIKE CHANGE ORDERS, RIGHT.
A WATERLINE THAT WE DON'T KNOW THERE OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE PAYING FOR PEOPLE'S MISTAKES A LOT OF TIMES.
WE, WE HOPE, WE HOPE WE'RE NOT PAYING FOR MISTAKES WHERE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING OVER, BUT GO NO, NO, YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING WRONG? NOT DOING ANYTHING OVER.
WHAT I THINK HAPPENED WAS THAT THE ROADWAY BEING HIGHER THAN THE DRIVEWAY IN THE PLANS, IT SHOWS IT TO BE TYING INTO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT IN MUCH SHORTER LENGTH THAN, UH, THAN IT SHOULD BE.
SO THEY ARE GOING FURTHER OUT INTO THE PARKING LOT TO THE DRIVEWAY SO THAT IT CAN, UH, TRANSITION BETTER.
UH, NOW WHETHER THERE WAS A SURVEY MISTAKE AND ALL OF THAT, I HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
BUT MOST OF THE TIME WE TRY TO STOP OUR WORK AT THEIR RIGHT OF WAY LINE.
BUT IT IS SOMETIMES BETTER TO GET A RIGHT OF ENTRY INTO THE PARKING LOT AND MAKE THE TRANSITION MUCH SMOOTHER.
AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
I JUST MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL ON THE CONTRACTORS AND THE EXPERTS GIVING US THE INFORMATION.
MANN, THIS IS THE GAS STATION AT HOBBS.
SORRY MR. SAUNDERS, I KEEP HEARING THE WORD MISTAKE.
IT'S THE CONTRACTOR'S MISTAKE.
WHY ARE I, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MCC COLLINS, WHY ARE WE CONSTANTLY PAYING FOR PEOPLE'S MISTAKES IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME? UNLESS I'M HEARING SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL AREN'T, BUT I'M KEEP HEARING THE WORD MISTAKE AND IT'S THEIR MISTAKE.
WE SHOULDN'T BE PAYING MORE MONEY.
I, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A, UH, ANOTHER AMENDED, UH, MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TILL THE NEXT MEETING AND GET MORE INFORMATION.
WE GOT A MOTION, A SECOND TO POSTPONE IF WE COULD PROBABLY GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
UH, BACK TO EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, WHY IT HAPPENED, WHO'S TO BLAME, WHAT, NOT NECESSARILY BLAME, BUT WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I JUST WANNA POINT OUT WE'RE NOT PAYING FOR SOMEBODY'S MISTAKE.
[00:45:01]
MEASURED DIFFERENTLY TO BEGIN WITH, THE INITIAL BID FOR THE ACTUAL WORK WOULD'VE HAD THIS MONEY IN IT.AND IN FACT WE'D, WE'D BE IN A POTENTIALLY WORSE SITUATION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGE ORDERS.
'CAUSE WE'D ADD THE 10% ON TOP OF THAT, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN AN EVEN FURTHER POTENTIAL, UM, TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF THIS AND, AND COULD RUN INTO OTHER THINGS.
UM, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN OPTIMAL, UH, TO HAVE HAD A EXACT TO BEGIN WITH? SURE.
UM, BUT THIS IS WORK THAT, THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE TO DO THE PROJECT AND WE WOULD'VE PAID FOR IT EITHER WAY.
YEAH, I GUESS I CAN HEAR THAT.
I JUST, THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME AND JUST LOOK AT IT BEFORE WE DECIDE.
I'D JUST LIKE TO REBUTTAL MR. TRESSLER COMMENTS.
IT IS A MISTAKE BECAUSE SOMEBODY MADE A MISTAKE OR WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT IT TONIGHT.
UP HERE WE HAVE ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS THAT ARE DESIGNING THESE PROJECTS AND THEY SHOOT SURVEYS OBVIOUSLY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ELEVATION IS INTO A DRIVEWAY, TO A STREET.
SOMEBODY MADE A MISTAKE OR LET'S LEAST FIND OUT, BUT WE SHOULDN'T, THE CITY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DIP INTO OUR BUCKET EVERY TIME SOMEBODY DOES SOMETHING WRONG.
IF THEY DID IN FACT MAKE A MISTAKE OR AN ERROR.
BUT WE'RE PAYING $80,000 TONIGHT FOR A CHANGE ORDER.
BUT I, I APPRECIATE IT, MAYOR, THAT WE'LL POSTPONE MAKE A SO CHAT.
I NEVER SAID THERE WAS NO MISTAKE.
I SAID WE'D BE PAYING FOR IT EITHER WAY.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A BIG DISTINCTION.
MAYBE YOU COULDN'T HEAR ME 'CAUSE I'M NOT THERE AND I APOLOGIZE.
UM, BUT, BUT THERE'S DIFFERENCE TO SAY WE'RE PAYING FOR IT BECAUSE OF THEIR MISTAKE.
NO, WE WOULD'VE PAID EITHER WAY.
AND THAT'S THE DISTINCTION I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR.
LET'S, UH, VOTE ON THE MOTION POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING.
MOTION PASSES, EIGHT FOUR, NONE AGAINST
[6N.25-0535 Consider and take action on Ordinance No. 2025-47 formally recognizing and declaring Attorney-Client communications as confidential information of the city - Second Reading (City Attorney) Council approved first reading 7-0-0 with one absent on October 28, 2025.]
SIX N.CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025 DASH FOUR SEVEN, FORMALLY RECOGNIZING AND DECLARING ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE CITY.
SECOND, ANDY, MICHELLE, COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A, A BROAD OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE? AND ALSO IF YOU COULD ADD IN, UH, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA SIGN THIS.
I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS AND I'M NOT GONNA SIGN THE, THE WAIVER AGREEMENT.
SO IF YOU COULD ALSO KIND OF, UH, LAY OUT WHAT TYPE OF DATA I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SEE IF I DON'T SIGN THIS DOCUMENT.
OKAY, SO THIS WAS, UM, RECENTLY IN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A NEW BILL.
AND WHAT IT DID, IT, IT ADDED A NEW SUB-CHAPTER AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
WHAT IT DID IS IT CREATED THIS CLARIFICATION THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS AS MEMBERS OF GOVERNING BODIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ORDER TO DO THEIR JOB.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF YOU ARE INFORMED.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS THAT THE RESIDENTS ELECTED YOU TO MAKE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, SO THERE'S A SECTION, A NEW SECTION THAT KIND OF CLARIFIED THAT UNDERNEATH THAT SECTION.
UM, THE LEGISLATURE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE'S CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS, NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, FOR LEGAL REASONS.
UM, THERE'S ALSO INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL.
UNDER LAW, YOU'RE ELECTED, YOU GET TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THIS INFORMATION, BUT YOU YOURSELVES HAVE A SPECIAL RIGHT OF ACCESS THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
SO WHILE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION INFORMATION ABOUT, UM, MAYBE EVEN POLICE REPORTS, INFORMATION ABOUT JUST CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE CONFIDENTIAL UNDER LAW, WHENEVER YOU SEE IT, BECAUSE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A WAIVER.
SO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID IS, UM, THEY ALLOWED, UH, THEY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING THIS INFORMATION PROTECTED.
THEY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF STILL KEEPING YOU INFORMED.
AND SO THEY ADDED A NEW SECTION THAT ALSO AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNING BODY TO REQUEST THAT IT'S GOVERNING BO UH, GOVERNING MEMBERS, UM, EXECUTE A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT'S WRITTEN IN STATUTE.
THE SPECIFIC SITE IS 5 5 2 4 0 4 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND IN THAT IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC.
IT SAYS, IF YOU GUYS WANNA, IF THE GOVERNING BODY WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT AND ACTUALLY EXERCISE THAT.
UM, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE IN THIS AGREEMENT.
UM, SPECIFICALLY, UM, IT HAS TO BE AN ADMONITION THAT WHEN YOU'RE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION NOT BE DISCLOSED, THAT IT BE LABELED AS CONFIDENTIAL, THAT THE INFORMATION
[00:50:01]
BE KEPT SECURELY, AND THAT IF YOU MAKE NOTES ABOUT THE INFORMATION OR WRITE INFORMATION SUMMARIES OF THAT, THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU PROTECT THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.SO THE LEGISLATURE SAYS YOU HAVE IT, LET'S BE CLEAR, YOU CAN GET THIS INFORMATION, BUT THE GOVERNING BODY ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT YOU SIGN THESE AGREEMENTS.
AND AS PART OF THAT, YOU JUST AGREE THAT YES, I HAVE TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL.
AND SO WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS AN ORDINANCE THAT FORMALLY DECLARES ATTORNEY-CLIENT, UH, COMMUNICATIONS CONFIDENTIAL, ADDS A LOCAL REG REGULATION, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL'S EMPOWERED TO DO.
AND AS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE, UM, IF THE, IF IT PASSES, THE COUNCIL WILL BE EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER THIS NEW LAW, WHICH IS 5 5 2 4 4, TO REQUIRE ITS MEMBERS TO EXECUTE THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT BASICALLY SAYS, ACKNOWLEDGE, I, I KNOW THAT I'M A, I'M IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY, THAT BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER OF A GOVERNING BODY, I HAVE ACCESS TO THIS SENSITIVE INFORMATION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M GONNA KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE IRRESPONSIBLE WITH IT.
I'M GONNA MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T RELEASE IT.
BECAUSE SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE IS INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE.
AND SO THE AGREEMENT BASICALLY IS YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.
THAT IS THE, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T GET TO THE PART WHERE, OH, I'M NOT SIGNING IT.
SO WHAT AM I, I'M, I'M OUT OF ALL, ALL OF COUNCIL MAYOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH YOU AT THAT POINT, OR NO, SIR.
UM, HOW WE VIEW IT IS THERE'S TWO SECTIONS AND THEY KIND OF HAVE, HAVE STRESSED, THIS IS A BRAND NEW LAW.
IT JUST BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
UM, WE STILL VIEW THIS AS, UM, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS ACROSS THAT HAVE HAD OPINIONS ABOUT HOW IT IS.
THERE'S, UM, ULTIMATELY IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT AMBIGUITY ON THIS, IT WOULD BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OR IT BE A COURT WHO WOULD ACTUALLY ISSUE FURTHER GUIDANCE ON THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS WHO'S ACTUALLY EXERCISED THIS PARTICULAR OPTION.
BUT IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO SIGN IT, WE WOULD STILL TREAT YOU AS A MEMBER OF, OF THE GOVERNING BODY.
WE WOULD NOT DENY YOU ANY INFORMATION, SIR.
'CAUSE I MEAN, I'VE BEEN AT THIS 12 YEARS I'VE NEVER LEAKED, BUT I'VE, I'VE NEVER LEAKED ANYTHING.
AND, AND IT'S BECAUSE WE, THERE'S ALREADY LAWS AGAINST US.
SO THIS, IF THE, THE NEW LAW ONLY REALLY CLARIFIED THAT YOU'RE, I GUESS, UH, YOU'RE MORE ENTITLED TO, TO INFORMATION THAN EVEN I THOUGHT I WAS.
I THOUGHT THAT, I MEAN, I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE HAD PRETTY BROAD AUTHORITY ON WHAT WE CAN REQUEST FROM YOU AND THAT WHAT YOU MUST TURN OVER.
BUT I WILL SAY THERE ARE THINGS I'VE NEVER ASKED FOR BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ASK FOR IT.
LIKE FOR INSTANCE, UM, LIKE WHEN CHAD WAS WORKING ON THE FIREWORKS ORDINANCE, I KNEW HE WAS WORKING ON IT, BUT IF I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT HE WAS WRITING, I'D CALL HIM UP AND I'D SAY, HEY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON THAT? I WOULD, I MIGHT ASK YOU, BUT I WOULD, IF I ASKED YOU, I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO TURN IT OVER WITHOUT AT LEAST ASKING HIM.
SO, AND I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT WITH, AND WHY I'M OPPOSED TO THIS IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, THIS FEELS LIKE A COUNCIL PROBLEM IS, AND, AND THERE AND STAFF IS SOMEHOW BEING USED TO SOLVE THIS.
AND, AND REALLY, UH, WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO A I I, NO MATTER WHAT A GOOD IDEA THIS SEEMED, I'D ENCOURAGE ALL TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AND JUST GO BACK TO THE OLD RULES.
AND THAT IS, UH, IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SOMETHING ACCORDING TO THIS LAW, YOU SHOULD GET IT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING TO BE PRODUCED WHEN YOU KNOW A COUNCIL MEMBER'S WORKING ON SOMETHING WITH LIKE, SAY, MICHELLE, CALL UP THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND ASK HIM, OKAY.
AND, YOU KNOW, FORCING YOU TO TALK TO YOUR COLLEAGUE WOULD ACTUALLY GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, WORKING OUT YOUR WRISTS.
SO THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
UM, MAYBE I HAVE IT ALL WRONG.
MAYBE THAT'S NOT WHAT ANY OF THIS IS ABOUT, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO ME.
SO I'M GOING WITH MY GUTS ON THIS AND I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL TOO.
SO I I THINK YOU'RE DEAD RIGHT, EXCEPT FOR ONE THING.
AND, AND THAT IS THE KEY PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROTECT THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
IF ONE PERSON DECIDES TO RELEASE SOMETHING, THE P IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU SIGN THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
[00:55:01]
OR NOT, BECAUSE YOU SUFFER THE SAME PENALTIES NO MATTER IF YOU SIGNED IT OR NOT.BUT WHAT DOES MATTER IS THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE IN WHICH WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN WAIVE THEIR, THEIR PRIVILEGE, NOT ONE COUNCIL IN BY RELEASING SOMETHING.
AND SO THAT IS THE KEY PART OF IT, THAT, THAT NEEDS TO GET FORMALIZED IN THE ORDINANCE.
IF YOU, IN THE 12 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, IF IT SAYS CONFIDENTIAL AND YOU KNOW WHAT CONFIDENTIAL IS, AND YOU KNOW WHAT CONFIDENTIAL IS NOT.
AND I'D SAY MICHELLE HAS BEEN VERY DILIGENT RECENTLY ABOUT PUTTING CONFIDENTIAL ON THE EMAIL.
I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY, TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BIT MUCH, IF YOU GUYS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT LEAKING IS NOT RIGHT AND THAT IT EXPOSES THE CITY, I SHAME ON YOU.
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS OR STATE LAWS THAT WOULD, UM, IN THIS SITUATION COME INTO PLAY AND MAYBE WE LOOK AT, UH, HOW TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE THOSE.
'CAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT THERE HAVE EVER BEEN ANY LEAKS, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, BUT MAYBE IT'S TIME TO PUNISH SOMEONE INSTEAD OF JUST WRITING ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT I REALLY THINK, UH, IS NECESSARY.
SO MICHELLE IS THE, UM, AF AFTER HEARING, UH, COUNCILMAN MANN'S COMMENT, HAS THERE BEEN ANY KNOWN LEAKS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS?
SO, UM, SO, SO WHAT I'M, IF, IF, IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT, SO PLEASE JUST CORRECT ME THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALREADY HELD TO THE STANDARD BY THE STATE LAW.
SO WHATEVER WE'RE DOING HERE THAT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, WE'RE STILL ALREADY HELD TO THAT, TO THAT SAME STANDARD OF SAYING THAT THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE, UH, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, UNLESS IT'S, UNLESS COUNSEL AS A WHOLE BRINGS IT DOWN, UM, WHAT THE POINT THAT MAYOR LONG MADE IS ACTUALLY VERY ACCURATE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, IT DOES ALSO FORMALLY DECLARE THAT ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL FOR THE CITY.
IT WOULD BE A LOCAL REGULATION THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STATE LAW DOESN'T DO.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO THAT WE FORMALLY RECOGNIZE IT.
AND SO LAST THING, UM, WHEN I HAD, UH, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE, ON THAT CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, I HAD REVIEWED THE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY AND I MADE A, UH, FEW WORDING EDITS ON MY COPY THAT I FEEL WERE BETTER REFLECT THE INTENT.
UH, BEFORE I SIGN MY, MY VERSION, I'D LIKE TO CONFIRM ON THE RECORD THAT THESE EDITS DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE OR LEGAL MEANING OF THE AGREEMENT.
MICHELLE, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE WORDING CHANGES THAT I MAY DO NOT ALTER THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SCOPE OR ENFORCEABILITY OF THE AGREEMENT IN ANY WAY? WELL, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE ONE AGREEMENT AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THE WORDING OF THAT AGREEMENT, AND YOU CAN PROPOSE THE CHANGES TONIGHT IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO, WELL, UM, FROM EVERYONE HAS HAD A COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT I, UH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN.
UM, AND SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERYONE REPLIED BACK TO MICHELLE IN THE NEGATIVE.
WELL, I THINK WE CAN'T DECIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, ON AN EMAIL CHAIN.
SO THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE DECIDED IN AN OPEN MEETING.
UH, WE CAN'T HAVE ONE PERSON REWRITING SOMETHING BEHIND THE SCENES AND THEN TRYING TO GO AROUND AND GATHER VOTES.
THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IF WE'D WANT TO DISCUSS CHANGES.
I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO GO THROUGH THE CHANGES AND DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THEM AFTER EVERYBODY IS OFF OF THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND THEN WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT JUST, UM, UNTIL I'LL, WE MAY, I MAY CIRCLE BACK.
UM, LOOKING AT THE DATA SHEET THAT YOU PUT OUT IN REFERENCE TO THIS, UH, READING, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CAUGHT THE ATTENTION, AND I THINK ANDY MANN AGREED OR TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT.
YOU SAYS IT REQUIRES COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SIGN CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS IN ORDER
[01:00:01]
TO RECEIVE CONFIDENTIALITY OR CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL.THAT IS THE WORD, THAT IS THE WORDING OF THE BULLET.
SO, BUT THAT'S IN DIRECT CONFLICT OF WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ANDY.
THAT IS LANGUAGE THAT TRACKS THE STATUTE AND WHAT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING AND WHAT YOU'VE POINTED OUT IS THE TENSION OR THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW THEY'RE WRITTEN.
THEY'RE KIND OF WRITTEN BY THE LEGISLATURE, BY PEOPLE UP THERE.
THE LEGISLATURE WROTE THAT TO SAY, WHEN YOU'RE RECEIVING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, THE GOVERNING BODY CAN REQUIRE THAT.
SO I TRACK THE, THE, UH, STATUTORY LANGUAGE, BUT YOU CANNOT READ THAT IN ISOLATION.
YOU HAVE TO READ THAT WITH THE SECTION ABOVE THAT, WHICH SAYS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE OR DOESN'T SAY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
IT SAYS MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
I DON'T MEAN THIS TO MEAN THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO HAVE INFORMATION.
PERHAPS A COURT COULD DETERMINE THAT, BUT I FIND THAT TO BE A OKAY.
I MEAN, THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT LET ME READ SECTION 5 5 2 4 0 4, WHICH YOU, YOU REFERENCED.
IT SAYS A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER MAY REQUEST THE MEMBER OF A GOVERNING BOARD WHO IS RECEIVING PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER LAW TO SIGN A CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT MAY REQUEST.
SO WHERE ARE YOU PICKING UP THAT WE HAVE TO SIGN IT? THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
SO, UM, AND AND I, WITH EVERY SINGLE NEW LAW, THIS IS, UH, AN EXERCISE THAT ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEYS KIND OF GO THROUGH.
WE REVIEW IT, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS.
AND, UH, THE WAY IT'S WORDED MAY REQUEST MEANS THAT THE COUNSEL CAN CHOOSE TO REQUIRE IT OR THE COUNSEL CAN CHOOSE NOT TO REQUIRE IT.
IN THIS CASE, THE ORDINANCE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA IS COUNSEL, IF IT PASSES, WOULD BE COUNSEL DECIDING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THIS A REQUIREMENT IN A CITY ORDINANCE.
BUT BY STATE LAW, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO SIGN THE, THE STATE LAW GIVES YOU THE OPTION.
IT GIVES US THE OBJECT TO MAKE THINGS CORRECT.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE GRIEF IS UP HERE, IS THAT WE'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM STATE LAW THAT WE'RE MANDATING COUNCIL MEMBERS SIGN THE AGREEMENT, WHICH APPARENTLY, I, I'LL BE VERY HONEST, I JUST DON'T TRUST LOCAL GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A LOT OF THE TIMES.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE GO ABOVE A LOT OF THINGS TO, YOU KNOW, ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM TO GIVE PEOPLE AMMUNITION TO COME AFTER COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND, AND I HOPE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS.
BUT YOU ALSO MADE A STATEMENT THAT, UH, THE MAYOR, AND I UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION, HE TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, NO CHOICE CAN BE GIVEN OR NO, NOTHING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE, THE MAYOR THAT IS THE BODY WHO MAKES THAT DECISION, AND THAT'S IN THE CITY CHARTER.
SO DOING THE CITY ORDINANCE TO ME KINDA DUPLICATES THE, THE CITY CHARTER BECAUSE IT, IT EXPLAINS IN ARTICLE TWO OF THE CITY CHARTER THAT THE POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, UM, UH, BUSINESS AFFAIRS SHALL FALL AND BE CONDUCTED BY THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR.
UM, SO MAKING THE CITY ORDINANCE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT GET IS, GET GETTING EVERYBODY.
THE RUB UP HERE A LITTLE BIT IS WE'RE GOING PAST STATE LAW.
IT SAYS WE MAY SIGN A CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE'RE MANDATING IT.
AND I, I MEAN, I THINK STATE LAW COVERS IT.
I JUST, I, I, I'M LIKE, ANDY, I, I BELIEVE THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE GIVING OUT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, BUT IT ALSO, IN THE CITY ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT A FELONY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I MEAN, I'M SURE THE STATE LAW DOES THE SAME THING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY RUB I THINK, UM, I'M LOOKING AT HERE.
AND I'LL PROBABLY VOTE AGAINST IT FOR THAT REASON.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK WE REALLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE REALLY TALKED ABOUT A LOT MORE AND DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK.
AND EVEN IF WE WANNA POSTPONE IT, I DON'T MIND DOING SO WITH TRYING TO GET THE WORDS CORRECT OR IF NOT CORRECT.
BUT I, I JUST, WHEN I SEE THE STATE LAW AND I READ THE STATE LAW, I THINK THE INTENT OF THE STATE LAW WAS MORE TO GIVE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THE CONFIDENTIALITY INFORMATION.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF CITY COUNCILS THAT DON'T GIVE IT TO THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF TOOK FROM THE STATE LAW, BUT NOWHERE IN HERE, IT TALKS ABOUT THAT WE REQUIRE A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SIGN THAT AGREEMENT.
THAT'S, WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE WE'RE PASSING THE CITY ORDINANCE.
SO I'LL, I'LL KIND OF DO MY THOUGHTS.
I, SO I SEE REALLY NO DOWNSIDE TO IT, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
IT, THIS LAW DOES EXPAND WHAT WE GET GIVEN OR WHAT WE CAN ASK FOR MAYBE CLARIFIES WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS HAD ABILITY TO ASK FOR.
AND SOME OF THAT STUFF IS INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE, AND WE'VE FRANKLY BEEN DOWN A ROAD SIMILAR TO THIS IN THE PAST.
[01:05:01]
NOT EVEN THAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT SOMEBODY EXPOSING IT OR, OR NOT, BECAUSE THAT, THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL TIMES WHEN IT HAS HAPPENED, BUT THE PART THAT I THINK I'M MOST WORRIED ABOUT IS TO CLARIFY THAT IT HAS TO BE ACTED UPON BY THE FULL BODY TO BE TO, TO WAIVE OUR PRIVILEGE.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, SIGN IT, DON'T SIGN.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL EXPECTED TO FOLLOW IT.
AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW IT, IT'S THE SAME PENALTIES ANYWAY.
I DON'T SEE THE BIG DEAL ABOUT SIGNING IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY UNDER THOSE PENALTIES EITHER WAY.
SO I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR THAT SO THAT IT'S TOP OF MIND, SO THAT IF, UH, SOMETHING WAS RELEASED AND WE ENDED UP IN A LAWSUIT, WE COULD GO TO THE COURT AND SAY, IT SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE RECOGNIZED IT.
HERE'S THE ORDINANCE, HERE'S THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
IT'S ON THE PERSON THAT RELEASED IT.
IT'S NOT ON THE CITY AS A WHOLE FOR THAT.
SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON IT.
BUT IN THAT SITUATION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS, THIS DOCUMENT WOULD SOMEHOW MAKE THAT INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE? NOW? IS THAT SO I THINK THE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AS A BODY RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THE CONFIDENTIAL, UH, THE CONFIDENTIAL, UH, INFORMATION IS PROTECTED AND HAS TO BE ACTED ON BY A BODY, UH, IS THE PART THAT MAKES IT LESS ADMISSIBLE.
IT'S STILL GONNA BE A FIGHT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION'S OUT THERE.
BUT THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MAYOR, COULD WE LET THE ATTORNEY CHIME IN ON THIS ONE? THIS ORDINANCE MAKES IT CLEAR, UM, THAT IF HYPOTHETICALLY WOULD NEVER HAPPEN WITH THIS COUNCIL.
IF WE HAD A MEMBER WHO WANTED TO USE A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS DEEMED MAYBE RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT ONE OF OUR PENDING LITIGATION CASES OR SOMETHING, UM, THERE IS SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO HAVE THE OPINION THAT WHILE THAT INFORMATION ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION, IT'S CONFIDENTIAL TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
ONCE YOU HAVE IT, YOU ARE ACTUALLY FREE TO DISPERSE OF IT.
AND THERE'S A THEORY OUT THERE.
AND SO BY HAVING THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO CAN MAKE THAT CALL.
IT'S COUNSEL AS A WHOLE, YOU CLARIFY IN CASE SOMEONE EVER DOES TRY TO DO THAT, WE COULD SAY THAT IS THEN ADMISSIBLE.
BUT WOULD IT, IF, AND SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR ARGUMENT.
SO, SO WE HAVE A LAWSUIT AND, UH, ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE WITH A LAWYER 'CAUSE I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT A LAWYER.
HOWEVER, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THE STATE WOULD EXPAND THE, EXPAND WHAT, UH, AND CLARIFY WHAT ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN DO.
AND THE RESPONSE IS, WAIT A, YOU KNOW, WAIT A SECOND.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THERE'S A PENALTY.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S THE SAME PENALTY THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY MAKE YOU SIGN SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS ALL RIGHT, WE GOT CHAD'S UP THERE.
I GOT ONE LAST, OH, I'M SORRY.
SO I, I WANNA ADDRESS TWO OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.
ONE WAS, UM, THAT STATE LAW SAYS YOU MAY, UM, WE'RE GOING FURTHER IN SAYING YOU HAVE TO, AND THOSE AREN'T ANSWERING THE SAME THING.
STATE LAW SAYS WE MAY CREATE THIS AGREEMENT IF WE PASS THIS, WE ARE CREATING RIGHT WHEN WE SAY YOU HAVE TO SIGN IT.
THAT'S, THAT'S A FOLLOW ON TO IT BEING CREATED, UM, THAT, THAT'S NOT GOING BEYOND WHAT THE STATE IS SAYING WE COULD DO.
UM, FURTHERMORE, THERE'S A LOT THAT WE DO THAT, UM, IN STATE LAW SAYS YOU MAY, UM, YOU MAY IMPLEMENT BUILDING CODES FOR, FOR FIRE SAFETY.
UM, YOU MAY, UM, REGULATE SPEEDS ON, ON CITY STREETS.
UM, SO TO ACT LIKE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING EXTREME BY DOING MORE THAN STATE LAW IS TAKING THAT OUT CONTEXT A BIT.
UM, AND AS FOR THE AGREEMENT, I THINK ONE KEY REASON WE NEED IT, UM, EVEN THOUGH IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO DEFENSE IN COURT, UM, IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT MATTERS A LOT WHEN YOU TALK ELECTED OFFICIALS, UM, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS OFTEN A DECENT DEFENSE.
[01:10:01]
SAYS, I KNOW I SHOULDN'T BE RELEASING THIS STUFF.I, AND THEN WHEN YOU, YOU DO, AND YOU'RE CALLED ON IT LATER, YOU CAN'T SAY, OH, GEE, I WASN'T AWARE.
UM, SO THAT'S A BIG POINT OF WHY WE SHOULD, THE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A DEFENSE, IS IT? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT HE JUST SAID, HUH? THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
BUT HE'S SAYING THAT YOU, HE'S SAYING THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.
THAT'S, THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THOUGH.
I, ANYWAY, COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.
LET'S SAY I'M A MAGA WEARING MAGA HAT WEARING GUY SITTING AT HOME RIGHT NOW.
I SEE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO REPRESENT ME, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHO CAN'T TRUST THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THE RULES, YOU KNOW, AND I, I FIND IT BIZARRE.
AND THEN I WONDER IS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A RESPONSE FROM THE BUREAUCRACY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AFRAID OF THIS EXPANDED POWER? OR ARE THERE CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO THINK THAT THIS IS A WAY TO, TO MAYBE ENGINEER A, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T, IT JUST LIKE, AGAIN, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME FOR SOME REASON, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST IT AND I'M NOT GONNA SIGN IT EITHER.
SO, AND I'M SORRY THAT WE'VE TAKEN 25 MINUTES WHENEVER.
LAST COMMENT, MAYOR, JUST REAL QUICK.
WE HAVE A, WE HAVE CITY MANAGERS, WE HAVE, UM, DIRECTORS, WE HAVE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT ALL GET THIS SAME INFORMATION THAT WE DO.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LAW THAT REQUIRES THEM TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CITY ORDINANCE, IF WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THAT, SHOULD WE NOT BE REQUESTING THAT OF OUR ADMINISTRATION? UM, OUR CONFIDENTIALITY POLICIES ARE LOCATED, I BELIEVE IN OUR EMPLOYEE POLICY, OUR POLLING MANUAL.
AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A PROTOCOL, BUT I MAY BE INCORRECT, THAT WHEN EMPLOYEES ARE ONBOARDED, THEY SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SIMILAR TO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE'VE KIND OF CRAFT, WHICH IS WHAT I KIND OF VIEW THIS AGREEMENT AS.
IT'S, IT'S, AND IT, WE SAY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, BUT REALLY THE TITLE IS CONFIDENTIALITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
AND I THINK WE PROBABLY SIGNED ONE BEING A COUNCIL MEMBER TOO AT ONE TIME.
I, MAYBE THAT WAS WHEN I WAS SITTING.
DON'T QUOTE ME ON THE PAPERWORK ON THAT.
BUT MY POINT IS, IS THE LAW DOESN'T SPECIFY.
IT SAYS NON-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR AGENTS, WHICH I'M NOT FOR SURE WHO THAT IS, BUT IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IF WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS ACTION THAT WE WOULD MAKE ANYBODY THAT'S SEEN THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HERE IN THE CITY, INCLUDING THE CITY MANAGER, THE DIRECTORS, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS, BECAUSE I'LL BE FRANK WITH YOU, IT HAS BEEN QUESTIONABLE THAT STAFF LEAKED SOME INFORMATION A LONG TIME AGO TOO.
AND IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S TARGETING THE CITY ORDINANCE.
IT'S TARGETING JUST THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S A CONCERN THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS, IS THE SIGNATURE AND MAKING IT ONE STEP MORE THAN THE STATE LAW.
I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THE INFORMATION BY NO MEANS SHOULD GO OUT TO ANYBODY, THE PRESS TO YOUR FRIENDS OR ANYBODY BECAUSE YOU'RE UP HERE AND YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, TO PROTECT THE CITY.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS ORDINANCE IS A LITTLE BIT FAR IN OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT, I THINK, TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
NOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SAYING I, I WON'T EVER LEAK INFORMATION, BUT WE'RE NOT LETTING EVERYBODY ELSE IN HERE WHO'S GOT THE INFORMATION SIGNED IN THAT SAME AGREEMENT.
SO ANOTHER RED FLAG THAT WENT UP TO, THANK YOU, MAYOR.
SO, UM, BEFORE WE GET TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO, UH, DVE INTO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF IT, SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF AN AGREEMENT THAT SIGNING THIS, THIS DOCUMENT REALLY DOESN'T, DOESN'T BRING ANYTHING, DOESN'T LIMIT ANYTHING IT SEEMS SINCE IT'S PUBLIC OPINION, THAT MEANS WE COULD TRANSLATE THAT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL THING ONLY.
SO IF WE, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO BEFORE WE GO THROUGH LINE BY LINE AND TAKE UP MORE, MORE TIME HERE, SINCE WE'VE KIND OF HAD THAT AGREEMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS TO WHERE WE REMOVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT.
ARE YOU MAKING AN THAT IN AN AMENDED MOTION? I'M MAKING THAT IN AN AMENDED MOTION.
WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE THE CONFIDE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT PORTION.
UH, THIS IS THE MOTION TO AMEND,
[01:15:11]
UH, MOTION FAILS.I CHAD MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.
OKAY, I THINK WE'RE THERE ANYWAY.
UH, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
AND TO, IF I COULD ASK, THE ORIGINAL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS ADOPTED.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION WITH THE ORIGINAL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
[7A. 25-0526 Hold a Public Hearing on an Ordinance amending Chapter 125, Article VI of the Unified Development Code entitled “Provision of Parkland”, establishing a Westside Park Overlay District (POD) (Executive Director of Development Services)]
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 25, ARTICLE SIX OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED PROVISION OF PARKLAND ESTABLISHING A WEST SIDE PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT POD, UH, OPENS AT SEVEN 16.THERE'S NOBODY ON THE LIST CLOSES AT SEVEN 16.
[7B. 25-0534 Consider and take action on an Ordinance amending Chapter 125, Article VI of the Unified Development Code entitled “Provision of Parkland”, establishing a Westside Park Overlay District (POD) (Executive Director of Development Services)]
B, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 25, ARTICLE SIX OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED PROVISION OF PARKLAND ESTABLISHING A WEST SIDE PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT POD.ALRIGHT, SO I'VE GOT A FOUR HOUR PRESENTATION.
JUST, UM, SO, SO, SO JUST, UH, REAL QUICK, THIS, UH, PROCESS KIND OF STARTED AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH OUR WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN INITIATIVE, UM, WHICH COUNCIL APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT, UM, THAT, THAT MASTER PLAN HAD A PARK COMPONENT TO IT.
IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PARK BOARD AT THAT TIME.
UM, THEY RECOMMENDED ADOPTION AS WELL.
UM, BASICALLY WE HAD A, A STRONG PUBLIC FORUM.
UM, A LOT OF COMMENTS COMING BACK TO ONLINE SURVEYS.
ONE OPEN HOUSE, 1400 COMMENTS AND INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS, UM, PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY COMING OUT OF THAT.
SO WE TAKE THAT AND WE LOOKED AT THEIR WISHLIST.
SO ACTIVE PASSIVE PARKS, TRAILS, WALKABILITY, THE FAMILY FRIENDLY AMENITIES KIND OF JUMPS IN THERE.
AND THEN PROTECTION OF GREEN SPACE.
SO WE STARTED FORMULATING, HEY, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP STRENGTHEN OUR, OUR PARKS PROGRAM? UM, SO THE REASON WE WANTED TO UPDATE, IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY FIVE YEARS SINCE IT WAS AN UPDATE TO THE PARTS, UH, AMEND, EXCUSE ME, AND TO THE PARKS ORDINANCE.
UH, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS LIMITED AMENITY STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE PARKS.
IT'S A LITTLE INFLEXIBLE WHEN YOU START GETTING TO THE LARGER PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
UM, AND THEN OUR FEE IN LIE VERSUS REQUIRED DEDICATION IS A LITTLE GRAY.
UM, IT MOVES AROUND A LITTLE BIT.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAD THE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR THE HIGHER QUALITY AMENITIES.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE SAID, HEY, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE CITY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE 3,200 ACRES ON THE FAR WEST SIDE OF TOWN.
SO EVERYTHING WEST OF WESTLAND RANCH, SOUTH OF LEGACY IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
UM, AND WE'RE LOOKED TO TIE IT TO THE PUBLIC'S WISHES AND THEN MORE TO OUR MASTER TRAILS PLAN, WHICH REQUIRES 15 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND FOR EVERY THOUSAND RESIDENTS.
SO THIS ENSURES LARGER PARKS FOR OUR, OUR COMMUNITY.
SO JUST A VERY QUICK COMPARISON, UH, INSIDE THE, THE POD PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT OUTSIDE.
SO TODAY, IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE THAT 3,200 ACRES, OOH, THAT IS NOT GONNA BE READ BY MY, WITHOUT MY GLASSES.
ONE ACRE PER 75 UNITS, THREE ACRES IF YOU ARE IN.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY TRIPLING OUR PUBLIC PARK REQUIREMENT.
IF YOU'RE INSIDE THE, THE POD.
UM, TODAY, IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING ON THE EAST SIDE OR ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE POD, IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT'S LESS THAN A, UH, 750 UNITS, YOU CAN DEDICATE 10 ACRES OF PARK, OR YOU CAN PAY $3,000 PER LOT.
WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT TO, IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS LESS THAN A THOUSAND RESIDENTS, IT'S YOU, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE 3000 PER UNIT JUST AS FYIA SINGLE HOME, 2.69
IT WOULD CHANGE TO A 15 ACRE MINIMUM DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
[01:20:01]
OF THE 10, UH, PRIVATE PART COMPARISONS.SO WHERE WE WERE TAKING A LITTLE ON THE PUBLIC, WE'RE GIVING A LITTLE ON THE PRIVATE, IT REMAINS THE ONE ACRE PER 75 UNITS, UM, YOU GO TO REQUIRING SOME MAGNETIZATION.
SO THAT'S MORE TRAILS REQUIRED AROUND YOUR DETENTION POND OR LINKING YOUR PARTS TOGETHER.
UM, AND WE ARE ESTABLISHING AN IZATION, UH, POINT PLAN THAT WAS PART OF THE PACKET TONIGHT.
AND IT'S ONE POINT FOR EVERY HALF ACRE OF PARK DEDICATION, UM, DETENTION MAGNETIZATION OUTSIDE THE POD.
YOU CAN GET UP TO 25% CREDIT, BUT THERE'S NOT A SET REQUIREMENT TO GET THERE.
UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A PATHWAY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET 50%, UH, REDUCTION BY MONETIZING THEIR DETENTION.
UH, FEE IN LIE ALLOWED IN BOTH CASES.
WE'VE JUST REDUCED THE PARK ACREAGE AMOUNT BEFORE IT CAN BE USED ON THE, UH, WEST SIDE.
SO HERE'S A QUICK SNAPSHOT OF THE DEDICATION POLICY CREDIT POLICY.
SO AGAIN, ONE POINT FOR EVERY HALF ACRE OF PRIVATE PARK THAT THAT'S REQUIRED A IZATION.
NOW AGAIN, FEE AND LOSE STILL ALLOWED.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE ALLOWING FOR UP TO 50% CREDIT OF YOUR PRIVATE PARK, UH, DEDICATION WITH CERTAIN AMEN OF YOUR WET BOTTOM PONDS.
IF YOU ARE THE RARE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS SOME DRY BOTTOM PONDS.
WE, WE WORKED WITH THAT AS WELL.
AND THEN ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF OUR MASTER PLAN, TRAILS MASTER PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT YOUR RESIDENTS WITHIN HALF ACRE OF A PARK.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THINGS DEVELOPING, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE HEARD COUNCIL SAY IT BEFORE, WE, WE DON'T NECESSARILY GET THE BEST PARK LAND.
YOU GET THE FRINGES, YOU GET THE STUFF IN THE MIDDLE.
SO WE WANTED TO INCENTIVIZE TO GET THAT LOCALIZED PARK SO WE CAN ENSURE THE, UM, EVERYBODY WITHIN THE HALF ACRE, I MEAN HALF MILE.
SO WE'VE PRESENTED THIS TO OUR STRATEGIC ACTION, UH, REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THAT IS PNZ, THAT IS SOME OF OUR COUNCIL THAT IS LOCAL DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, AND STAFF.
UM, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD THERE.
WE PRESENTED TO THE PARKS AND FOUR B BOARD, UM, IN EARLY OCTOBER, WE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THAT AS WELL.
WE WENT TO PNZ FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER THE 20TH.
UH, LIKEWISE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT.
SO WE FEEL LIKE IT HITS THE PUBLIC WISH WISHLIST.
IT GIVES US SOME ASSURANCE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT COMMUNITY SIZE PARKS, QUALITY, PRIVATE PARKS, AND THEN SOME DEVELOPER FLEXIBILITY.
ANY QUESTIONS? SO I, I AGREE THAT THIS IS, IS OBVIOUSLY A STEP UP IN STANDARDS, BUT THIS ALSO WENT BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY OWN THAT LAND AS WELL.
RIGHT? WHAT WAS THE FEEDBACK FROM THEM? SO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WE SENT IT TO SEVERAL DEVELOPERS.
NONE OF 'EM REALLY GAVE US A LOT OF FEEDBACK EXCEPT FOR THE LEGACY DEVELOPMENT WHO ACTUALLY SAID, HEY, WE FALL OUTSIDE THE POD, BUT WE ACTUALLY MEET IT.
CAN WE ADOPT IN? AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, RESPONSE.
SO THERE, THERE IS A QUALIFICATION IN THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS ANYBODY IN THE CITY IF THEY CAN MEET THE STANDARDS AND THEY WANT TO ADOPT IN THEY CAN.
[7C. 25-05230 Hold a Public Hearing on an Ordinance amending Chapter 125, Article VII of the Unified Development Code entitled “Tree Preservation, Mitigation, and Maintenance” (Executive Director of Development Services) ]
SEVEN C.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 25, ARTICLE SEVEN OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED PRE TREE PRESERVATION, MITIGATION AND MAINTENANCE.
THERE'S NOBODY CLOSES AT 7 23.
[7D. 25-0529 Consider and take action on an Ordinance amending Chapter 125, Article VII of the Unified Development Code entitled “Tree Preservation, Mitigation, and Maintenance” (Executive Director of Development Services)]
SEVEN D CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 25, ARTICLE SEVEN OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT TO CODE ENTITLED TREE PRESERVATION, MITIGATION, AND MAINTENANCE.ALRIGHT, GIVE US A, ALRIGHT, SO AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT WAS LAST UPDATED IN 2020.
UM, WHEN YOU READ IT, IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET.
UH, ONE OF THE BIG NEGATIVES IN THIS CURRENT AMENDMENT OR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS THERE'S NO CAPS.
UM, SO THAT REALLY PUTS SOME CONSTRAINTS ON LANDOWNERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO USE LAND.
UM, AND THEN WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS WHERE YOU MEET WITH PEOPLE, THEY LOOK AT THE, THE TREES THAT ARE ON SITE AND THEY, THEY OPT NOT TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, THE CO IS TOO COSTLY TO REMOVE.
SO WE TOOK ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND LOOK TO ADJUST.
[01:25:01]
UM, FEE IN LIEU, IT'S THE SAME PRICE, REGARDLESS IF A SIX INCH, 18 INCH, 21 INCH TREE IS $250 PER CALIBER INCH, UM, THERE'S NO CAPS, MEANING THE FEES COULD BE WORTH MORE THAN THE LAND.UH, OUR LARGER SIGNIFICANT TREES.
SO THE LARGER OAKS AND PECANS, YOU CAN'T BE REMOVED UNLESS THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC, UH, LAWS THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO REMOVE.
OUR APPEALS PROCESS IS PRETTY LONG.
AND THEN WE DOUBLE DOWN WITH THAT BY KEEPING THE FINES, UH, CREWING WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS.
AND THEN AGAIN, THE VIOLATIONS.
UM, YOU'RE BASICALLY PAYING THREE TIMES WHAT THE TYPICAL COST IS.
UM, WHY UPDATE IT? WE WANTED TO GET PREDICTABILITY.
WE WANTED SOME STAFF EFFICIENCY.
UH, WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME BALANCE FLEXIBILITY SO WE COULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY TO NEGOTIATE AND THEN TO ESTABLISH SOME FAIR FAIRER PENALTIES AND ALL THE WHILE KEEPING OUR, OUR TREE CANOPY.
SO WHAT'S CHANGING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST TIME, TIME, CURRENT ORDINANCE VERSUS AMENDED ORDINANCE.
RIGHT NOW IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT'S TIERED BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND $200 AN INCH, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE TREE.
UM, NO BASE REMOVAL FEES START IMMEDIATELY.
WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S A 10% WIGGLE ROOM THERE.
YOU CAN START, UH, LOOKING AT REMOVING UP TO 10% OF YOUR C INCHES TREES WITHOUT HAVING A PENALTY.
UH, NO SIGNIFICANT TREE VARIANCE EXCEPT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
WE WANTED TO, UH, ADJUST THAT A LITTLE BIT AND ADD FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE THAT WOULD RUN THROUGH OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR.
UM, RESTITUTION, LIKE I SAID, 300% TODAY, NO CAPS FEES COULD EXCEED THE LAND VALUE.
UH, WE WANT TO CAP IT AT 200% FOR THE RESTITUTION.
RESTITUTION IS AT 200%, UH, CAPS AT 30% OF THE UNAPPROVED LAND VALUE.
THAT SAID, IF YOU MOVE FORWARD AND YOU REMOVE A BUNCH OF TREES, UNPERMITTED, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE THE PERMIT OR ANYTHING.
UM, WHILE THE 10% WORKS, AGAIN, IT, IT ALLOWS SOME, SOME SITE REALITIES TO, TO COME TO FRUITION.
UM, IT REDUCES SOME OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.
AND IT JUST SEEMS, UH, UH, MORE FAIR, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SMALLER PROJECTS AND ALLOWS FOR SOME PREDICTABILITY.
TIER FEES MAKE SENSE BECAUSE IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A ONE TO ONE REMOVAL.
THE CANOPY OF A SIX INCH DIAMETER TREE AND A 18 INCH DIAMETER TREE ARE, ARE DIFFERENT.
UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PREDICTABLE THERE.
SIGNIFICANT TREE VARIANCE, I WON'T SPEND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON THIS.
SO, FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCESS, THERE'S THREE TOPICS THAT COULD FALL UNDER A SITE CONSTRAINT HARDSHIP.
SO IT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED UNLESS THE TREE IS REMOVED.
UM, AS LONG AS THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN COULD SHOW THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING 75% OF THE CANOPY AND THEY'RE MITIGATING AT ONE AND A HALF TO ONE, THEN, THEN THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
IF IT'S LESS THAN 10% OF TOTAL ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE, THIS IS ALLOWED TODAY, UH, EXCEPT IT HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL.
UM, IT POSES A, A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK OR IT IMPACTS PLANNED, MASTER PLANNED, UH, ROADWAYS, SEWERS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THEN PUBLIC BENEFIT COMMUNITY AMENITIES.
I CAN'T IMAGINE TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO JUMP AT THIS OPTION, BUT IF YOU JUST HAD A LOAD OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU WANTED TO DEDICATE SOME LAND AND THEN BE ABLE TO REMOVE SOME, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS FOR.
UM, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO ESTABLISH A GREEN SPACE OF 15 ACRES OR MORE.
SO IF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS MORE THAN THE 10% ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE, OR 10% OF THE TOTAL SIGNIFICANT TREE CALIPER INCHES, IT IS REQUIRED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
NOT A STAFF DECISION, NOT A STAFF DECISION.
SO WHY CHANGE THE RESTITUTION? IT'S JUST FAIRNESS, PROPORTIONALITY.
AND AGAIN, UH, WITH THE PREDICTABILITY STATEMENT, UM, 30%, IT, IT IMPROVES OUR LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY MORE THAN ANYTHING.
UM, IT PREVENTS SOME DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS.
AND AGAIN, WE RAISE THAT MAX FEE TO 50% OF THE LAND VALUE IF YOU DO IT UN PERMITTED.
AGAIN, WE WENT THROUGH THE SPAC REVIEW, DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS THERE.
UM, A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, BUT NOTHING, UM, SUBSTANTIAL THAT WAS AGAINST ANY OF THE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE ALSO WENT FORWARD AND SENT THIS OUT TO SEVERAL LOCAL DEVELOPERS AND, UH, ENGINEERS ON THE SIDE.
I BELIEVE I PUT THOSE EMAILS IN THE, UH, AGENDA PACKET.
DID NOT GET ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON THOSE CHANGES AT ALL.
[01:30:01]
UH, WE TOOK THIS TO PNZ ON THE 20TH AS WELL, AND RECEIVED A RE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.DO WE TREAT 20, YOU KNOW, TWO INCH TALLOW TREES THE SAME AS A 40 INCH OAK? NO, SIR.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE CONSIDERED INVASIVE AND YOU ACTUALLY GET CREDIT IF YOU REMOVE THEM.
YES, AND I LOOKED THROUGH THIS TODAY QUITE A BIT ON THE PERMITTED TREES.
REMEMBER HERE, JUST A YEAR AGO WE PASSED A OH, PALM TREE.
SO, SO I, I HONESTLY DID NOT GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TREES.
WE DID A, UH, UH, SEARCH TO SEE ABOUT MISSPELLINGS AND CORRECTED THAT.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU MAKE SURE IT'S ON THE SECOND READING? I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE AGAINST IT TONIGHT FOR THAT REASON, BUT YES SIR.
YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE PERMITTED LIST 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO GO FIGHT THAT BATTLE AGAIN.
CAN WE, UH, MAYBE GET THE FOLKS WHO MADE THE, THE MOTION TO CHANGE THEIR MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FULL LIST OF TREES AND I THINK WE WERE TOLD PALMS ARE GRASSES, UM, THAT WE APPROVED, UM, A COUPLE YEARS BACK NOW.
YOU WANNA MAKE THAT UPDATE? YEAH.
MOTION TO AMEND OR JUST YOUR MOTION INCLUDES PALMS, TREES INCLUDE PALM TREES, RIGHT? YEAH.
GONNA BE HARD CUTTING THAT GRASS.
IT IS
SO I WOULD JUST SAY COPY THAT LIST OVER.
[7E. 25-0541 Hold a public hearing on a Special Use Permit Application, SUP-25-0013, (Home2 Suites Hotel), a request to allow a “Residence Hotel” use on approximately 2.0159 acres of property zoned “CM” (Commercial Mixed Use), generally located along the north side of Pinnacle Park Drive, approximately 250 feet east of Brookport Drive (Director of Planning)]
ALL RIGHT.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUP 25 DASH ZERO THREE HOME TO SUITES HOTEL OR REQUEST TO ALLOW A RESIDENCE HOTEL USE ON APPROXIMATELY 2.0159 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONE CM COMMERCIAL MIXED USE.
GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG NORTH SIDE OF PINNACLE PARK.
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET EAST OF BROOK PORT DRIVE.
MOVE TO APPROVE SECOND WITH THE CONDITIONS.
THERE'S NOBODY ON IT CLOSES AT 7 32.
[7F. 25-0520 Consider and take action on an ordinance approving a Special Use Permit Application, SUP-25-0013, (Home2 Suites Hotel), a request to allow a “Residence Hotel” use on approximately 2.2 acres of property zoned “CM” (Commercial Mixed Use), generally located along the north side of Pinnacle Park Drive, approximately 250 feet east of Brookport Drive (Director of Planning)]
ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, SUP DASH 25 DASH 0 0 3 HOME TWO SUITES HOTEL, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A RESIDENCE HOTEL USE ON APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONE CM COMMERCIAL MIXED USE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PINNACLE PARK.DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET EAST OF BROOK PORT DRIVE, MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF'S SIX RECOMMENDATIONS.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION THAT WE GOT JUST REAL QUICK.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? IS THIS ON THE PROPERTY THAT LIKE THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO WE HAD THIS HUGE WAR ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE? UH, NO, IT'S IN, NO SIR, THIS IS NEAR IT, BUT, UM, THAT PROPERTY IS THE ONE THAT'S ON IN ORANGE ON THE SCREEN THAT WAS REZONED TO MULTIFAMILY.
THIS ONE IS DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE FAIRFIELD AND IN SUITES.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO IMAGINE WHERE IT WAS IN THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN I WAS ALSO CURIOUS, JUST ME FROM THE, I JUST BROUGHT UP HE HAD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THAT GOING AND OH, NO, NO.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M, I WAS CURIOUS BECAUSE FROM A MECHANISTIC STANDPOINT YEAH.
WHERE ARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WERE, I WOULD LIKE THE ANSWER TO THAT AS WELL.
WE SHERIFF BIG FIGHT THAT WE HAD TO GET DONE IMMEDIATELY.
SO ONE OF MY CONCERNS WITH THESE EXTENDED STATE TYPE HOTELS LIKE THIS, AND I'VE SEEN IT IN MY DISTRICT WHERE I WORK, IS THE STORM COMES IN, THEY GET FEDERAL, THEY GET STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY, THEY BRING EVERYBODY IN, THE HOTEL GETS RAN DOWN AND IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP AFTERWARDS.
SO I'M NOT TOO BIG ON THESE EXTENDED STATE HOTELS.
I'VE SEEN, I'VE SEEN 'EM GO FROM BEING REALLY NICE TO NOT NICE AT ALL.
SO I, I GOT SOME CONCERNS THERE WITH THESE THINGS.
UM, YEAH, I'VE, I'VE SEEN IT AND, AND IT, IT'S KIND OF BOTHERSOME THAT, THAT THEY ALLOW TO DO THAT, BUT THEY GET THE MONEY IN, THEY GET ALL THE PEOPLE COMING HERE TRYING TO AVOID WHATEVER THEY WERE AT TO BEGIN WITH.
[01:35:01]
THEY GET THE STATE FEDERAL MONEY AND THE PLACE GETS RAN DOWN AND THEY DON'T FIX IT BACK UP.AND I DON'T WANT THE, I DON'T WANNA SEE AN ISO.
THAT'S WHERE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE MARSHALS COME IN TOO.
BUT I, I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO THE FAIRFIELD INN, UM, THE, THE TYPE OF HOTEL.
AND ACTUALLY THE OWNER OF THE FAIRFIELD RIGHT NEXT DOOR, IT WILL BE THE OWNER OF THIS HOTEL AS WELL.
I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT I THINK THEY ALSO HAVE A PLACE TOO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE REMODELING YOUR HOUSE OR WHATEVER.
YOU NEED A PLACE TO GO FOR, UM, TWO MONTHS OR SOMETHING.
CAN'T, DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET A WHOLE NOTHER RENT HOUSE.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR A OR YOU'RE IN TOWN FOR A, A JOB.
[ 9A. 25-0482 Consider and take action on the nomination of a representative and alternate to the H-GAC Regional Flood Management Committee (Mayor Long)]
ALL BUSINESS, NEW BUSINESS.CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON NOMINATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TO HGAC REGIONAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.
UH, THE MAYOR'S NOMINEES ARE PEGGY ZALAR AND CHRIS SIMS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM EXPIRING MAY, 2027.
BUT FOR PEGGY
[9B.25-0516 Consider and take action on a resolution casting a ballot for the election of members to the Board of Directors of the Galveston Central Appraisal District for 2026 (Mayor Long)]
B.CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION CASTING A BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GALVESTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
CANDIDATES ARE TOM FARMER, MATT DOYLE, ROBIN COLLINS.
THE CITY HAS 274 VOTES TO CAST.
MAYOR, I THINK YOU HAD A RECOMMENDATION OF MATT DOYLE AND THOMAS FARMER WITH ONE.
THAT'S WHAT I KIND OF READ WITH ONE VOTE GOING TO THE OTHERS AS WELL.
I, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE MAYOR'S CHOICE.
WHICH, UH, WHAT WAS THE ONE VOTE TO, I DID NOT SEE THAT.
THE, THE REMAINING CANDIDATES.
UH, JAMES ROSS AND ROBIN COLLINS.
FOR THE ONE VOTE EACH FOR THEM.
YOU GOT A SECOND ON THAT YET? NO, NOT YET.
[9C.25-0510 Consider and take action on the selection of Mayor Pro Tem (City Secretary)]
NINE C.CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON THE SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM.
MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE SEAN SAUNDERS AS THE NEW MAYOR PRO TEM.
[9D.25-0546 Consider and take action on a resolution adopting a Holiday Decorations Policy (Mayor Long, Mayor Pro Tem Cones, Councilmember Chadwell) ]
NINE D CONSIDERING TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOLIDAY DECORATIONS POLICY MAYOR, MOVE TO APPROVE THE POLICY.[9E.25-0528 Consider and take action on a resolution authorizing a professional services agreement with Freese & Nichols, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $5,000,000 for the Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou Watershed Feasibility Study (DR1908) (Executive Director of Capital Projects) ]
E CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRIES AND NICHOLS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5 MILLION FOR THE LOWER CLEAR CREEK DICKINSON BY YOU.WATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY, MOVE TO APPROVE.
AND DON GONNA, I'M GONNA SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.
WE CAN GO UP THERE AND TALK ABOUT IT TOO, BUT I'M GONNA SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS, UH, OF COURSE THE PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN BEEN WORKED ON FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS NOT $5 MILLION OF LEAGUE CITY MONEY GOING TO THIS PROJECT.
UH, WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PARTNERS, UH, UP AND DOWN THE WATERSHED.
UH, THIS IS KIND OF NECESSARY TO THEN WORK WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO GO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDING IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS KIND OF BUTTONED UP AND READY TO GO IN A FORMAT THAT'S DIGESTIBLE TO THEM.
SO IF YOU GUYS WANNA GIVE US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S $5 MILLION, AND THEN SHOW SOME OF OUR OTHER PARTNERS THAT ARE GONNA BE INVOLVED IN THIS AS WELL.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG NUMBER OUT ON THE FRONT, FRONT END OF IT THERE.
UM, AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS, THIS IS A STUDY TO CONTINUE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY IN
[01:40:01]
ORDER TO REALLY ADVANCE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE SOLUTION TO FLOODING ALONG CLEAR CREEK.UM, AS WE SAW IN HARVEY, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT FLOODING ALONG CLEAR CREEK IN DICKINSON.
BAYOU CAUSED UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF FLOODING.
UM, THE SOLUTION OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS NOT A STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE.
THERE'S, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING TO LOWER WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO A LEVEL SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WE SAW IN THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS.
AND SO THE GOAL HERE IS, UH, A STUDY WAS DONE IN 2021 THAT IDENTIFIED SEVERAL OPTIONS.
UM, THE PRICE TAG ON THOSE CAME BACK IN THE BILLION DOLLAR RANGE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WELL BEYOND THE ABILITY TO ALMOST ANY CITY IN THE COUNTRY TO, TO AFFORD.
UM, SO MOVING FORWARD, MOST LIKELY OPTION IS TO SEEK FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH DIRECT ALLOCATION.
UM, IN ORDER TO GET THAT TYPE OF FUNDING, TYPICALLY THE ARMY CORPS IS THE ONE WHO WILL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THOSE TYPES OF LARGE SOLUTIONS.
UM, THEY HAVE A VERY DEFINED PROCESS ON HOW THEY WILL GO THROUGH THEIR STUDIES.
AND SO WE, AS PART OF THE INITIAL STUDY, UM, THIS SECONDARY STUDY TO REALLY MOVE THE DESIGN FORWARD TO SOMETHING THEY CAN ACTUALLY BUILD, UM, WAS ADDED TO
UH, UNFORTUNATELY THE CORE IS A LONG LIST OF STUDIES, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THEY COVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
UM, THERE'S A SEPARATE AUTHORIZATION IN IN FEDERAL LAW THAT ALLOWS LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO TAKE THAT STUDY ON THEMSELVES TO ADVANCE PROJECTS CLOSER TO COMPLETION.
SO THAT'S CALLED A A 2 0 3 STUDY, WHICH IS WHAT THIS WOULD BE WHERE UPON LEAGUE CITY AS THE PRIMARY SPONSOR WOULD BE PERFORMING THE STUDY THROUGH THAT SECTION 2 0 3 THAT ALLOWS THE COURT, THE, THE, THE SPONSOR TO SELF PERFORM THE STUDY, UM, IN ADVANCE TO NOW THE NEXT STEP IS JUST CONGRESS NEEDS TO WRITE A CHECK SAYING YES, GO BUILD IT.
UM, SO FIRST STEP, UH, THE MAIN, THE MAIN ISSUE IS SO EXPENSIVE IS WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THE WAY THE CORE WOULD DO IT.
UM, SO THEY HAVE A VERY RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT ENABLE, THAT ENSURES THAT THE TAX MONEY WILL BE SPENT IN A WAY THAT IS COST EFFECTIVE.
SO THEY WANNA SEE CERTAIN COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DONE.
THEY WANNA SHOW THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.
THERE'S, UH, DEEPER REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW.
THERE'S CERTAIN PUBLIC MEETING STEPS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW.
UM, THERE'S, SO IT'S A FAIRLY RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT TAKES, TAKES TIME.
BUT, UH, KEY IS TO START IT, UM, AND GET IT GOING.
AND SO THE WAY THIS APPROACH IS SET UP RIGHT NOW IS DO IT IN PHASES.
THEY'RE NOT ALL A MILLION DOLLARS.
WHAT THE FIRST ONE IS, IT'S BASICALLY THAT'S TO ALLOW OFF RAMPS.
IF WE GET TO A POINT WHERE IT SEES THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE COST FEASIBILITY OR ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO OFF RAMP AND NOT CONTINUE TO DEVOTE RESOURCES TO A PROJECT THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.
THERE'S OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING.
THERE'S STATE FUNDING IDEAS TO OUR PROJECTS.
AND I WILL WRAP IT UP AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, HAVE ANY ANSWER, JOHN, IS THERE AN ESTIMATE ON THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL MONEY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ONCE LIKE, 'CAUSE I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS TYPE OF A STUDY, SO IT SEEMS LIKE, SO, SO I THINK THAT, I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IS IF WE MEET THE BENEFIT COST RATIO TO HAVE A PROJECT MOVE FORWARD, TYPICALLY WHAT SHARE OF FEDERAL FUNDING IS THERE RELATIVE TO THE LOCAL MATCH? IS THAT CORRECT OR THE STUDY? THIS STUDY HAS NO FEDERAL MONEY IN IT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, SO YOU'RE DOING THE STUDY MM-HMM
SO THAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH THE BIG SOLUTION, RIGHT? RIGHT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE BIG EXPENSIVE SOLUTION? CORRECT.
IS THAT 80 20? I BELIEVE IT'S EITHER 80 20 OR 75 25.
BUT WHAT WAS THE, 'CAUSE I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD A A DOLLAR AMOUNT, HUH? A BILL.
SO YEAH, SO, SO THIS WILL NOT BE IN ONE OF RANDY'S EARMARKS, SO IT'S BE REAL MONEY.
SO YEAH, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT BOTH WATERSHEDS ARE A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE TO EACH OTHER, BUT BOTH OF 'EM, WE BELIEVE SOLUTIONS TO MATERIALLY AFFECT FUNDING IS ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS.
SO IT COULD BE A BILLION DOLLARS IN CLEAR CREEK, IT COULD BE ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS IN UH, DICKENS.
AND BY COULD BE DIVIDED UP INTO MULTIPLE PROJECTS ALSO SO THAT THE BYS WOULD BE SMALLER.
WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I THINK THE OTHER IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS, IS YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF SAYING THANKS TO STAFF FOR, THEY REALLY JUMPED ON THIS AND ARE LEADING THE COALITION OF PEOPLE.
SO IT'S GALVESTON COUNTY AND LEAGUE CITY REALLY DID MOST OF THAT WITH THEN FRIENDSWOOD AND THEN DRAGGING HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD IN THERE.
AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO GET IT AS WELL.
AND ALSO PRETTY NICE OF THEM TO ALLOW US TO DO THE DICKINSON BAYOU SIDE OF THAT INSIDE
[01:45:01]
THIS STUDY.'CAUSE WITHOUT HARRIS COUNTY KIND OF FLOATING THIS, IT WOULD GET TOUGHER TO DO THAT.
AND THEN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PARTNERS KIND OF UP AND DOWN THE WATERSHED AS WELL.
DICKINSON, UH, AND THEIR EDC, THE DICKINSON BAYOU WATERSHED COMMITTEE GOT IN THERE TOO.
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PARA LAND, SANTA FE, SEABROOK, BRAZORIA COUNTY, KEMA, TAYLOR LAKE, CLEAR LAKE SHORES, ALVIN AND MANFIELD.
SO A LOT OF PEOPLE, UH, PUTTING IN MONEY FOR THAT.
MR. MAYOR, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS I SEE ALL THESE OTHER CITIES INVOLVED LOOKING AT THIS MAP.
THERE'S A LARGE PORTION OF TEXAS CITY INVOLVED IN THIS AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN, HAVE THEY? WE SHOULD GO ASK GUESS.
YEAH, THEY, THEY NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS.
I SEE ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING IN SOUTH OF, UH, HUGS ROAD.
THAT'S A LARGE AREA THAT THEY'RE FIXING TO DEVELOP OUT.
THEY NEED TO BE A PART OF THIS.
WE'LL GO, WE'LL GO MEET WITH THEM.
MOTION PASSES EIGHT FOUR, NONE AGAINST
[10A.25-0427 Consider and take action on an ordinance directing staff to utilize competitive sealed bidding for any 25-0547 solicitation that is projected to exceed $100,000 and raise the City Manager’s signature authority to $100,000 (Assistant City Manager - CFO) ]
10 A CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE DIRECTING STAFF TO UTILIZE COMPETITIVE SEA SEALED BIDDING FOR ANY SOLICITATION THAT IS PROJECTED TO EXCEED A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.AND TO ERASE THE CITY MANAGER'S SIGNATURE AUTHORITY TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
SEAN, ARE YOU UP THERE FROM LAST TIME? UH, YEAH, SORRY ANDY.
YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS, THAT THERE'S A, NOW THE STATE, THERE'S SOME SORT OF STATE LAW THAT'S CHANGED.
UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEM GIVING SIGNATURE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER, BUT EVERY TIME WE SEEM TO GIVE UP, YOU KNOW, JUST OVER THE YEARS WE SEEM TO GIVE UP MORE AND MORE CONTROL TO STAFF.
AND SO I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF A WAY THAT JUST WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT.
NOW I'M IN THE PAST, I'VE ASKED FOR REPORTS FROM SAY, P AND Z AND OTHER GROUPS.
OF COURSE YOU NEVER GOT 'EM ALL RIGHT.
SO I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE I WOULD JUST MAKE AN AMENDMENT HERE THAT, UH, THAT WE COULD APPROVE THIS.
BUT THAT WE HAVE THE CITY AUDITOR PREPARE A MONTHLY REPORT OF THE CONTRACTS THAT JOHN IS APPROVING AND JUST THE AMOUNT WHO GOT IT AND, UH, WHAT MECHANISM, WHAT WAS HIS VALUE MECHANISM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT MADE THE CHOICE, YOU KNOW, IT MADE HIM MADE THE AWARD.
I HOPE I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND MOTION.
UH, DO YOU WANNA GO BEFORE AND THEN WE'LL GO? UM, YEAH, LET ME JUST, ONE THING, I MEAN, I'VE READ THE STATE LAW, IT DOES GIVE THE PERMISSION TO RAISE THE BIDDING PROCESS UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT I'M NOT FOR SURE IF IT INCLUDES THE CITY MANAGER'S SIGNATURE AUTHORITY IN THE SAME LAW.
DOES IT? I I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.
SO IN ESSENCE, WE COULD STILL KEEP THE 50,000 AS THE, THE BASE P UH, OR THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR THE CITY MANAGER.
BUT ALL THIS LAW DOES IS SAYS AFTER A HUNDRED THOUSAND IF THE, IF THE ITEM EXCEEDS A HUNDRED THOUSAND, HAS TO GO OUT FOR BIDS.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
OF COURSE, A HUNDRED THOUSANDS A LOT.
BUT NOWHERE IN THE LAW IT SAYS AS CITY MANAGER, UH, WE'RE GIVING HIM PERMISSION TO SIGN A HIS NAME WITHOUT BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
I I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME BALANCES IN GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SITUATION.
I'M NOT SAYING JOHN, I'M TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE COMING UP.
UH, IF THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE HERE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD CREDIT CARD ISSUES, WE'VE HAD OTHER, OTHER THINGS IN THE PAST, I THINK A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IS A LOT TO GIVE ONE PERSON.
BUT IS THERE A SITUATION OF WHERE WE NEED A HUNDRED THOUSAND JOHN? I MEAN, TELL ME SOME OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE WE NEED A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
I, YOU KNOW, I THINK AS THE, UM, ORDINANCES WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD JUST ALLOW ME TO SIGN EVERYTHING UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THAT WOULDN'T COME TO COUNCIL.
THAT CERTAINLY IS THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION ON HOW TO DO THAT.
BUT YEAH, 50, YEAH, I, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE STATE LAW AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND AND, AND LET'S CAP THE, UH, THE FEE OF 50,000 TO, UH, JOHN.
HE CAN SPEND UP TO 50,000 I THINK PROCEDURALLY WE GOT A DISPEN.
OH, I WITH HIS, BUT WHAT IF WE JUST COMBINE THAT WE CAN, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
SO, WELL WHAT, WHAT'S THE USE OF GIVING HIM SIGNATURE AUTHORITY IF YOU'RE GONNA REQUIRE THREE BIDS ANYWAY, THAT'S OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND, RIGHT?
[01:50:01]
WHAT? THAT'S OVER A HUNDRED.SO I THINK THE, SO WHAT HE'S PROPOSING IS FROM 50 TO A HUNDRED STILL COMES TO COUNCIL.
SO WHICH ONE WAS THE LAST ONE?
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
LET'S GO TO TRESSLER AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK.
YEAH, I, I HAVE ONE ISSUE WITH THE, UH, THE MOTION TO AMEND.
THAT'S THE, THE FIRST ONE THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.
'CAUSE IT'S BEEN PROCEDURALLY WE CAN'T HAVE ANOTHER TILL WE, UM, RESOLVED THAT ONE.
UM, SO THIS IS THE, THE ONE TO HAVE THE, UH, THE CITY AUDITOR, UM, PREPARE A MONTHLY REPORT.
UH, WE ALREADY TEST THE AUDITOR WITH WORK APPROPRIATE FOR AN AUDITOR.
I THINK THERE'S, UM, OTHER WAYS WE COULD HAVE THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE AUDITOR'S TIME.
UM, SO IF YOU WANT A MONTHLY LIST OF HERE WERE THE UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS EXPENDITURES, I DO THINK YOU OUGHT TO PUT A MINIMUM ON THAT.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GONNA END UP WITHIN EXTENSIVE REPORT OF A LOT OF 20, 30, A HUNDRED, $200 PURCHASES THAT REALLY Y'ALL DON'T, AREN'T THE ONES YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
UM, SO I I WOULD SUGGEST, UM, CHANGING TO THE CITY MANAGER, HAVE HIMSELF OR SOMEONE ON STAFF PREPARE A MONTHLY SUMMARY.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST PUTTING A LOWER THRESHOLD ON THE AMOUNT THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE IN THAT REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW, THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE SIMPLE TRANSPARENCY AND ALSO USING A DIFFERENT, UH, HOW ABOUT THIS STAFF? I DON'T CARE WHO ON STAFF, UH, PREPARES THE REPORT, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE CITY AUDITOR AND HER EXPERTISE AND PROCESS TO CERTIFY IT EACH MONTH.
JUST TO REVIEW IT BEFORE SHE SENDS IT OUT TO COUNCIL.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU HAVE A, A SEPARATION OF DIRECT REPORTS FOR IN, I MEAN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY YOU WOULD HAVE IT.
IT'S JUST LIKE A, IN AN ACCOUNTING PROCESS WHERE YOU'D HAVE DIFFERENT GROUPS APPROVE SOMETHING, UH, IN A BLIND WAY.
SO I, I DON'T SEE, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THIS.
I, I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW ANYONE COULD BE OPPOSED TO IT, BUT, ALL RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, I SET THE MINIMUM THOUGH.
DO YOU APPROVE $20
SO, SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, I'VE DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, AND I'M LOOKING AT ANGIE DIRECTORS ARE EITHER 10,000 OR 15,000, AND THEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ARE 25,000.
AND THEN I APPROVE EVERYTHING BETWEEN 25 AND 50.
OBVIOUSLY IF THIS, UH, ORDINANCE IS PASSED, THEN THAT WOULD CHANGE IT.
SO THE THRESHOLDS CAN BE TO AMEND MY MOTION 25 TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR, BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU SAID A 25 IS A EXECUTIVE.
SO CURRENTLY THE PURCHASING POLICY HAS, UM, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS ARE UP TO 25,000 AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE UP TO 50.
HE DOES HAVE SOME DIRECT REPORTS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR THE SAKE OF UTILIZING OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND WORKFLOW.
UM, IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S LEVEL IS FROM 15,000 UP TO 50.
BUT IF A DIRECTOR HAS AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AS THEIR SUPERVISOR, THEN THAT APPROVAL IS TAKEN CARE OF UP TO 25 BY AN A CM.
SO JUST THE REPORTING, UH, THRESHOLDS WOULD BE WHAT, WHAT DO YOU WANT? 25? 25? YEAH.
25 TO A HUNDRED TO JUST GET THE JUICY ONES IN THERE.
YOU WANNA COMBINE THEM REAL QUICK, JOHN? I, OKAY.
UM, LET'S VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION TO AMEND TO, UH, TO INCLUDE THE REPORT CERTIFIED BY THE CITY AUDITOR AT 25,000 AND ABOVE.
AND NOW WE HAVE THE MOTION WITH THE AUDIT.
OH, WITH THE, UH, WITH THE LIST IN THERE.
AND THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ON SEAL BIDS, BUT MAINTAIN THE 50,000 ON THE SIGNATURE.
[01:55:01]
A HUNDRED HAS TO COME TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.SO I I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE, WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO EXCEED A HUN OR EXCEED 50 THOU.
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GO UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WITHOUT BIDS.
BUT EVERYTHING BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED WOULD STILL COME TO COUNCIL COUNCIL.
AND INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS, UH, POINT IN THERE AS WELL, TOM.
SO JOHN, RIGHT NOW ABOUT HOW MANY ITEMS DO YOU, WOULD YOU SAY COME BETWEEN 50 TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS? I HADN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH.
I WOULDN'T THINK IT'S THAT MANY.
IT WOULD BE ALL THE ITEMS THAT COME TO COUNCIL TODAY THAT HAD BEEN BID THAT ARE BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED.
MOST OF THE ITEMS THAT COME TO COUNCIL ARE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
YEAH, THERE'S A, THERE'S, THERE'S, IF IT'S WON A MEETING, THAT WOULD BE A LOT.
IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT APPROXIMATELY, SO THAT'D BE WHAT, BETWEEN 12 AND 24 A YEAR? SURE.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH UPPING IT TO THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I I THINK THAT THAT CAN KIND OF CUT DOWN AND MAKE THINGS GO SMOOTHER, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT.
SO MY ONLY, MY ONLY CONCERN IS, AND I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JOHN'S AUTHORITY BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND OR BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED, BUT THERE IS KIND OF A GAME FOR ANYBODY THAT WORKS WITH CITIES, RIGHT? IS YOU SEND A CONTRACT IN AT $49,500 AND YOU GET APPROVED WITHOUT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND SO MY GREATEST FEAR IS THAT THE CONSULTANTS ARE GONNA NOW SEND IN $99,500 WORK ORDERS TO GET APPROVED TO DO PROJECTS.
UM, I MEAN THAT, THAT'S WOULD SEEM LIKE A PRETTY LUCRATIVE THING TO DO.
AND SO NOT SAYING THAT IT'LL HAPPEN HERE, IT JUST DEFINITELY HAPPENS IN THE INDUSTRY THAT PEOPLE SEND IN THOSE CONTRACTS RIGHT BELOW THE, THE STATUTORY LIMIT SO THAT IT FLIES THROUGH WITHOUT EVER GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND SO I DON'T MIND SO MUCH THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
THEY CAN GO GET THEIR BIDS AND DO THEIR SHOPPING ON THESE LOWER VALUE ITEMS AND NOT HAVE TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME IN PURCHASING.
BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ITEMS THAT USUALLY ARE GONNA BE ON CONSENT AGENDA AND I DON'T THINK IT TAKES UP THAT MUCH MORE OF OUR TIME TO PUT EYES ON IT, SO.
SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE, UH, ANDY'S MOTION ON THERE.
SO THIS WOULD BE TO AMEND FURTHER.
UH, MOTION PASSES 6 4 2 AGAINST AND NOW THIS IS THE MOTION WITH ALL THE, UH, AMENDMENTS ON TOP OF IT.
SO THE MOTION AS AMENDED AS IN, IN ITS ENTIRETY.
WHERE THERE'S SO, UH, UM, ALL WE'RE SPECIFYING NOW IS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
UM, AND WE'RE ADDING EXTRA REPORTING FOR 25 TO 50,000 THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.
OH, 50 TO A HUNDRED COMES TO US.
NO, I'D STILL WANNA SEE IT BECAUSE I WANNA SEE WHAT'S STILL, I DON'T WANNA SEE WHAT'S DIDN'T BID AND NOT BEEN BID.
7 4 1 AGAINST, UH, THE REQUEST IS MADE.
ALRIGHT, WE GOT A MOTION TO SECOND PLEASE VOTE.
DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
[10B.25-0517 Consider and take action on an ordinance abolishing the Galveston County Municipal Utility District No. 14 - First Reading (Director of Finance) ]
AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCEIT'S ALWAYS A GOOD DAY WHEN YOU GET TO GET YES RID OF ONE OF THESE.
YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND, PUT YOURS ON THERE? YES, I, YES.
[10C.25-0540 Consider and take action on an ordinance appointing Judge Dick Hoskins Gregg, III and Judge Richard Cope as the associate judges of the Municipal Court of Record in the City of League City for a two-year term beginning February 1, 2026 and ending January 31, 2028 and appointing Judge Shari Goldsberry as associate judges for the Municipal Court of Record in the City of League City for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2027 (Director of Finance)]
CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING JUDGE DICK[02:00:01]
HOSKINS, GREG III AND JUDGE RICHARD COPE AS ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD IN THE CITY OF LAKE CITY FOR A TWO YEAR TERM, BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1ST, 2026, AND ENDING JANUARY 31ST, 2028.AND APPOINTING JUDGE SHERRY GOLDSBERRY AS ASSOCIATE JUDGES FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD IN THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY FOR A TWO YEAR TERM, BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST, 2026 AND ENDING JANUARY 31ST, 2027.
ALL RIGHT, MAYOR, JUST YES, REAL QUICK QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, THE, UH, JUDGE SHERRY GOLDBERG, DO WE HAVE A, DID WE GET ANY KIND OF, UH, RESUME OR ANYTHING FROM HER? THAT'S THE ONLY THING I MIGHT REQUEST.
MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT TONIGHT, BUT, UM, I, I'VE NEVER OKAY.
HEARD OF, WOULD YOU SEND A, A JUDGE, WOULD YOU SEND A RESUME LATER ON LATER ON? SURE, I CAN DO THAT.
JUST, UH, JUDGE GOLDBERG RUNS THE MAGISTRATE COURT IN ALVESTON COUNTY.
SO SHE'S THE ONE THAT, UH, RUNS THAT COURT.
SO IT, IT'S NOT BENEFICIAL BECAUSE TO HAVE HER AS ONE OF OUR
AND SHE ALSO LIKE THE OTHER TWO JUDGES, UM, HAS TO DO ALL OF THE TRAINING AND THE CRITERIA, UH, THAT THE COUNTY CASES.
NONE AGAINST, UH, THERE ARE NO SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS REPORTS FROM STAFF.
[12.REPORTS FROM STAFF MEMBERS ]
ARE YOU GOOD? MY TIME REPORTS FROM COUNCIL[13. COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS/REPORTS ]
MEMBERS, FORMER MAYOR PRO TEM, TOMMY COS STILL MAYOR PROAM, STILL MAYOR PRO TEM.JUST LIKE TO WISH EVERYONE A A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
AND, UH, CONGRATULATE, UH, SEAN FOR BEING THE NEW MAYOR PRO TEM AND GET READY.
THE MAYOR'S GOING, ASK A LOT FOR ME.
I JUST WANNA TELL EVERYBODY UP HERE.
I APPRECIATE THE VOTE AND THANK YOU AGAIN.
ANDY, MAN, NO, I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE SEAN.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME AGO AND I'M GLAD THAT WE COULD, UH, HONOR OUR COMMITMENT.
UM, JUST A, UH, A QUICK THING, JUST FOLLOWING BACK TO THE, UM, JUST WANNA GET THIS, GET THIS ON THE RECORD.
UM, BACK TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
WHILE I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ANSWER ON RECORD, I DO PLAN ON, RATHER THAN NOT SIGNING AND I DO PLAN ON SIGNING THE ONE THAT, THAT I HAVE, THE CITY CAN, UH, ACCEPT IT OR, OR REJECT IT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD BE BETTER THAN NOT, THAN NOT SIGNING AT ALL.
AND PER THE, UH, WHEN I'D HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE, UH, THAT IT HAD HAD, UH, NO ADDITIONAL RISKS, DID NOT EXPAND OR LIMIT THE AGREEMENT BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED.
SO JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
ALRIGHT, ACCORDING CHADWELL, CONGRATULATIONS MAYOR PROTO SAUNDERS, UH, YOU'LL THE REST OF MY TIME.
ALRIGHT, CONGRATULATIONS SEAN.
[14.EXECUTIVE(CLOSED) SESSION(S) ]
EXECUTIVE SESSION.THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SUBCHAPTER D THE OPEN MEETING ACT, SECTION 5, 5, 1 AT ALL THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ON THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 AT 8 0 3.
I BE CALLED FOR RECONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
RECALL THE MAYOR PROTO, UH, THE CITY
[15. ACTION ITEM(S) FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION(S)]
COUNCIL HAS COMPLETED ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 AT 8 43, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION.THERE WAS NO FINAL ACTION, DECISION OR VOTE WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION JUST CONCLUDED.
15 A CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON DISCUSSION CONCERNING POTENTIAL PURCHASE OR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.
I MOVE TO PROCEED IS DISCUSSED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
YOU HAD TO, YOU HAD TO READ THAT ONE OFF.
ALL RIGHT, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
NONE AGAINST, UH, THERE WAS NO ACTION ON 15 B 15 C.
CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION UPON THE EMPLOYMENT APPOINTMENT OR EVALUATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE, UH, PUBLIC OFFICER
[02:05:01]
OR EMPLOYEE TO WIT CITY ATTORNEY.UH, THERE'S NO PUBLIC ACTION ON THAT, RIGHT? JUST I GUESS WELL, FOR THE SALARY ACTION, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO FOR THAT CITY ATTORNEY? WE'D LIKE TO START
THAT, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT DIRECTION FOR THE HR.
YOU SAID IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT I MISSED OPPORTUNITY.
COULD I HAVE THAT MOTION? THE MOTION? UH, GOTTA READ THAT, LIKE MAKE MOTION TO PROCEED AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO READ THAT ONE.
CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION UPON EMPLOYMENT APPOINTMENT, EVALUATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE, A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO WITT CITY AUDITOR.
MOTION TO MOVE, UH, SEAT IS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
NONE AGAINST AND AT 8 45 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS.