7.F. Discuss the analysis of accounting for 2016 Proposition 1 Bond Funds (Forensic Analysis Report) (Contact: Floyd Hartman, Assistant City Manager)

[7.F. Discuss the analysis of accounting for 2016 Proposition 1 Bond Funds (Forensic Analysis Report) (Contact: Floyd Hartman, Assistant City Manager)]

AND I WOULD ASK MR. HARTMAN IF HE WOULDN'T MIND WALKING US INTO THIS DISCUSSION OVER OUR PROP ONE AUDIT.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

YES. WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS WE HAVE THE FORENSIC ANALYSIS REPORT.

AND STEVE ARE YOU HERE? COME ON. COME ON UP. SO WE HAVE THE AUDITOR HERE TO PRESENT THAT TO YOU FOR TODAY AND THEN A DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

AFTERNOON, SIR.

HOW ARE YOU? REAL GOOD, MR. HARTMAN. THANK YOU FOR THAT INTRODUCTION.

MY NAME IS STEVE DAWSON.

I'M PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF DFG FORENSIC ACCOUNTING SERVICES.

AND IF YOU RECALL, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE WERE CONTRACTED TO COME IN AND LOOK AT THE ACCOUNTING FOR THE 2016 PROPOSITION ONE BOND FUNDS.

I THINK AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS DEALING WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE FUNDS.

WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE FUNDS? I KNOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT ARE BEING HANDLED BY DIFFERENT TYPE CONSULTANTS SUCH AS US OR LEGAL CONSULTANTS.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE WERE ISSUES OF THE SPENDING OF 85% OR LACK OF SPENDING OF 85% OF THE BOND FUNDS WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD THAT'S REQUIRED, ACCORDING TO THE BOND.

[01:05:02]

THAT TYPE OF SITUATION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE.

WE'RE ASKED TO INVESTIGATE AND ASKED TO LOOK AT.

WE'RE DOING A FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THESE BOND FUNDS FROM INCEPTION IN 2016 UP THROUGH BASICALLY MARCH OF 2024.

AND SO WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS THE REPORT DEALING WITH THAT PARTICULAR TIME PERIOD AND AGAIN, DEALING WITH THE ACCOUNTING FOR THOSE BOND FUNDS.

NOW, I WANT TO GET INTO THIS BY BASICALLY STATING THAT THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE DOING IS ACCOUNTING. AND AGAIN, I WILL READ SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS IN THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER DEALING WITH WHAT A FORENSIC ANALYSIS IS AND THE OBJECTIVES IS. IT WAS BASICALLY TO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS OF THE CITY, AS APPLIES TO THE 20 1718 AND 21 BOND SERIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT 2016 PROP ONE BOND ISSUE.

WE'RE DOING THAT FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME UNTIL AGAIN UP THROUGH MARCH OF 24.

AND THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE, IF I CAN JUST STATE THAT IS TO SEE WAS THE ACCOUNTING PROPER FOR THOSE BOND FUNDS, ARE THERE FUNDS MISSING FROM THOSE BOND FUNDS? WHAT IS THE STATUS? WHAT IS THE BALANCE LEFT OVER AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE OF THOSE BOND FUNDS? I KNOW THAT THIS FORENSIC ANALYSIS WAS PREDICATED UPON RECEIVING SOME CONFLICTING ANSWERS, SOME DIFFERENT ANSWERS. AS FAR AS WELL, WE HAVE 6 MILLION LEFT.

WE HAVE 10 MILLION LEFT.

WE HAVE 38 MILLION LEFT.

JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT ANSWERS.

AND SO THIS ANALYSIS WAS ASKED TO BE PERFORMED TO TRY TO GIVE YOU WHAT IS A A TRUE ANSWER BASED ON OUR DIGGING THROUGH THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS AND TALKING WITH THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

NOW ANY TIME WE DO AN ANALYSIS ON A FORENSIC ANALYSIS, WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR AND BEING TRYING TO BE AS AWARE AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE FOR ITEMS OF PREDICACION.

PREDICACION IS WHAT WE CALL PROBABLE CAUSE.

PROBABLE CAUSE IF WE SEE ITEMS IN THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS, IF WE SEE ITEMS AS TO HOW THEY WERE PROCESSED, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE NEFARIOUS IN NATURE, THEN WE WILL INVESTIGATE THAT.

AND THAT'S PREDICATION, SOME TYPE OF PROBABLE CAUSE THAT LEADS US TO THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK FURTHER FORENSICALLY INTO WERE THERE ITEMS TAKEN OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

AND SO THIS ENGAGEMENT, AS WE GO INTO IT, INCLUDES THE IDENTIFICATION OF ANY TYPE OF PREDICATION OR THE SEARCH FOR PREDICATION THAT MAY EXIST.

SO WHEN WE DO THAT, WE ARE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION DEALING WITH WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT REVEALED OR REFLECTS POTENTIALLY THE COMMITTING OF A CRIME, THE CONCEALMENT OF A CRIME, OR THE CONVERSION OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE OBTAINED IN THE CRIME? IS THERE SOME TYPE OF PRESENTABLE CASE OF FRAUD TO ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECORDS? AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN THE DOCUMENTATION.

BECAUSE DOCUMENTATION TELLS THE STORY, NOTHING ELSE REALLY WILL TELL THE STORY.

DOCUMENTATION TELLS THAT STORY.

WHEN WE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR THE WHAT WE CALL THE MIND OF A PERPETRATOR.

AND THAT DEALS WITH A LEGAL TERM CALLED MENS REA, WHICH IS THE GUILTY MIND.

AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD EXPRESS INTENT ON THE PART OF AN INDIVIDUAL INTENT TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY IN SOME FORM OR FASHION.

WE ARE ALSO LOOKING FOR THE MENS REA CATEGORY OF KNOWLEDGE.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT WOULD SHOW THIS INDIVIDUAL KNEW THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS WRONG, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY WENT AHEAD AND COMMITTED A AN ALLEGED CRIME.

AND IF SO, WAS THERE ANYTHING AS FAR AS RECKLESS CONDUCT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT DEAL WITH MENS REA CATEGORIES? NOW I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SKIP TO ONE OF THE RESULTS OF OUR ANALYSIS THUS FAR IN OUR ANALYSIS, AS WE HAVE COMPLETED THIS ENGAGEMENT, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ITEMS OF PREDICATION OR PROBABLE CAUSE THAT WOULD SHOW INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF ANYBODY ACTING WITHIN THE CITY TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY FROM PROPOSITION ONE BOND FUNDS, AND THAT IS

[01:10:09]

GOOD NEWS.

NOW, IN MY PROFESSION, I DON'T OFTEN GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE GOOD NEWS.

SO IF THERE IS GOOD NEWS IN ANY OF THIS, THAT IS ONE PIECE OF IT.

WE FOUND NO ITEMS OF PREDICATION TO INVESTIGATE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CRIMES.

THE OTHER THING AS WE'LL GET TO THIS AND I'LL GET MORE SPECIFIC HERE IN A MINUTE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.

BUT THE OTHER THING IS, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS IN THE PROPOSITION ONE FIDELITY ACCOUNT BASICALLY IS WHAT SHOULD BE THERE. SO THE GOOD NEWS THAT I CAN GIVE YOU HERE IS THERE ARE NO FUNDS MISSING FROM THE PROPOSITION ONE BOND FUNDS.

SO I'VE GIVEN YOU TWO GOOD PIECES OF NEWS SO FAR.

WELL, THEN WHY ALL THE QUESTIONS? WHY THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH.

WHAT DO WE HAVE LEFT? WHAT? WHAT IS SPENT? WHAT'S UNSPENT? WHAT'S ALLOCATED, NOT ALLOCATED.

AGAIN, I'LL SPEAK TO THOSE ISSUES NOW BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PROCESS ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE FIXED.

AND WITHIN OUR REPORT AFTER WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES OF WHAT WENT WRONG IN THE ACCOUNTING, WE ALSO HAVE A SECTION IN THE REPORT THAT DEALS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR IMPROVING THAT IN THE FUTURE.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PLANS ALREADY IN PLACE.

I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT IN DEALING WITH YOUR PEOPLE HERE AT THE CITY YOU'VE GOT GOOD PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

YOU'VE GOT GOOD PEOPLE.

THEY'VE LEARNED SOME THINGS AND, AND COMMUNICATION IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE PRIMARY ISSUES THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

BACK IN 2016 PROPOSITION ONE BOND WAS APPROVED AT 89.3 MILLION, BASICALLY.

SO I'M JUST ROUNDING UP TO $89 MILLION.

EXCUSE ME, IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THAT FUND? NOW, AS WE GO THROUGH OUR PROCESSES OF WHAT IS THAT SPIN ON? WAS IT WAS IT SUPPORTED AS FAR AS AN EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED? THE ANSWER THERE IS YES.

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME SOME REAL NUMBERS.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE OUT OF THE $89 MILLION, 55 MILLION HAS BEEN SPENT.

OKAY. AND SO THAT LEAVES A REMAINING AMOUNT OF $34 MILLION.

NOW, AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S BEEN COMMUNICATED THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN LESS THAN THAT.

THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT.

BUT ALL OF THAT IS A MATTER OF COMMUNICATION DEALING WITH, WELL, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET ALLOCATION? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL EXPENDITURES.

AND SO I THINK IT WAS A GOOD, PRUDENT MOVE FOR COUNCIL TO ENGAGE THIS IN THIS PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT'S REAL, WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I GIVE YOU, IS IN PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THE ACCOUNTING FOR THESE 2016 BOND FUNDS, WE'RE DEALING WITH ISSUES OF MISCOMMUNICATION, LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS, ALL KINDS OF DEPARTMENTS.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A MANUAL SYSTEM, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

I KNOW THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH AND LIVING IN AN ELECTRONIC SOCIETY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPENDITURE OF THESE BOND FUNDS THAT ARE WHAT WE WOULD CALL MANUAL.

IT'S HARD COPY TYPE DOCUMENTATION.

AND SO ANYTIME YOU HAVE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS WHAT'S GOING ON IN A BOND FUND EXPENDITURE SITUATION WITH MANUAL DOCUMENTATION, WITH SOME LACK OF COMMUNICATION IN THE PROCESS, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH REPORTING PROBLEMS AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. AND SO AS WE GO THROUGH THIS AND I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE THE VERSION THAT TELLS YOU EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE FOUND AS FAR AS RESULTS.

I KNOW THAT I'M GOING THROUGH THIS RATHER QUICKLY, BUT WHAT WE DO IN OUR ANALYSIS IS WE DO WHAT'S CALLED A STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE OR RE PERFORMANCE OR BOTH.

OKAY. WHAT IS THAT? WELL, IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE AS FAR AS AUDITING OF THESE RECORDS ALREADY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF

[01:15:02]

REPERFORMANCE OF WHAT THAT AUDIT ENTAILED, TO SEE IF OUR RESULTS ARE THE SAME AS WHAT THE INITIAL AUDIT RESULTS WERE. AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, WE ADD TO THAT THAT OUR STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE.

SO NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO REPERFORM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE TO SEE IF WE COME UP WITH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS, THEN WE PERFORM AS WELL OURSELVES TO DETERMINE IF ALL OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE CONSISTENT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT THEY ARE.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION OF THE CITY, WHICH WAS GOOD WORK.

AND QUITE FRANKLY SAVED YOU QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF OUR FEE, I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A QUICK RUNDOWN OF OUR FEE.

YOU APPROVED A MAXIMUM OF $37,000 FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT.

AND WHEN I LEAVE HERE TONIGHT THE TOTAL COST THAT WE HAVE IN THIS ENGAGEMENT IS ABOUT 17,000.

SO THAT'S THAT JUST SPEAKS TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THROUGH REPERFORMANCE OF THOSE TYPES OF PROCEDURES.

WE LOOKED AT THE PROJECTS, WE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENT DOCUMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROJECTS DETERMINED THAT THE DOCUMENTATION WAS THERE.

THERE IS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR EXPENDITURES MADE.

NOW, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT EXISTED.

AND AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO A LOT OF PROCESS ISSUES OR COMMUNICATION ISSUES.

THERE'S A LOT OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN BUDGET OR BETWEEN PROJECTS.

A LOT OF TRANSFERS MORE THAN IS IN ANY FORM OR FASHION NECESSARY.

BUT AGAIN, THE ABILITY TO TRAIL THESE TRANSFERS TRANSFERS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE PROJECTS.

THAT'S THAT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT.

AND SO ULTIMATELY, THOSE TRANSFERS TRAIL.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THEM.

ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE IN HERE IS A NEW AUTHORIZATION FLOW.

IF YOU WILL, FOR ANY TIME A TRANSFER IS NECESSARY, REQUESTED BETWEEN PROJECTS, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

IT'S GOING TO BE DOCUMENTED IN WRITING AND HAVE DUAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT TRANSFER.

AND THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE MADE.

BUT THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS OF LOOKING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTATION, LOOKING THROUGH THE SYSTEM WHAT WE CALL THE CORE PROCESSING SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF AMARILLO. THOSE ARE ITEMS IN THERE THAT.

THAT'S A TON OF DOCUMENTATION.

AND THE FORTUNATE PIECE OF THIS IS THE DOCUMENTATION IS THERE? IT MAY NOT HAVE ALL BEEN REAL EASY TO FIND.

I CAN I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT, BUT IT'S THERE.

AND SO THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S A GOOD OUTCOME TO THIS WHOLE SITUATION.

NOW LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE WAY OF ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

WE'VE GOT IN OUR REPORT AN ANALYSIS OF AND THIS IS A QUICK ANALYSIS JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS.

THERE WERE $89.6 MILLION BASICALLY IN PROP ONE BOND FUNDS RECEIVED AND 75.8 MILLION THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED.

BUDGET ALLOCATED, WHICH MEANS THERE'S ABOUT $13.8 MILLION TO BE ALLOCATED IN BOND FUNDS.

IS THAT ALL THAT'S LEFT? NO. THE ANSWER IS THERE'S 34 MILLION LEFT BECAUSE 20 MILLION HAS BEEN BUDGET ALLOCATED AND NOT EXPENDED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO BOTTOM LINE, YOU'VE GOT 34 MILLION THAT SHOULD BE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE IS 34 MILLION THAT IS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT.

ANOTHER OUTSTANDING QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ASKED IS, WELL, WAS THAT ALWAYS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT.

YOU KNOW, WERE THOSE BOND FUNDS IN THAT BANK ACCOUNT? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES.

YOU KNOW, THOSE THOSE TRANSFERS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THOSE ARE PROJECT ALLOCATION TRANSFERS, BUDGET ALLOCATION TRANSFERS WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR THESE BOND FUNDS.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TRANSFERS IN AND OUT OF THE BOND FUND BANK ACCOUNT.

THOSE ARE THOSE AMOUNTS ARE PURE.

AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD PIECE OF INFORMATION.

AGAIN I LIKE GIVING GOOD INFORMATION.

I KNOW MY FACE DOESN'T NECESSARILY SHOW IT, BUT IT ALWAYS LOOKS LIKE THIS.

BUT I DO LIKE TO GIVE GOOD NEWS.

NOW WHAT DO WE SUGGEST? WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND AS FAR AS CHANGES IN THE PROCESS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, FOR COMMUNICATION AND SO FORTH?

[01:20:02]

WELL, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL ITEMS IN HERE.

AGAIN, I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT DOCUMENTATION AND DUAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TRANSFERS, BUDGET ALLOCATION, TRANSFERS BETWEEN PROJECTS.

I ALSO TALK ABOUT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE THAT IS HERE THAT SHOULD BE UTILIZED.

THE BUILDER BUILDER SOFTWARE AND THEN THE IMPROVED PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION.

NOW THE CITY EFFECTIVE BASICALLY I MEAN, THE PLANS ARE RIGHT NOW FOR JANUARY OF 2025 TO HAVE A NEW ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM IN PLACE CALLED WORKDAY.

AND THAT IS GOING TO ASSIST.

IT'S GOING TO HELP A LOT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF COMMUNICATION, AND IT'S GOING TO COORDINATE HUMAN RESOURCES.

IT'S GOING TO COORDINATE PROJECT PLANNING.

IT'S GOING TO COORDINATE THE ACCOUNTING FINANCE FUNCTION TO WHERE THERE IS IMPROVED COMMUNICATION, WHICH IS WHERE ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT OCCURRED EXISTED HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.

THAT WORKDAY IMPLEMENTATION, AGAIN, IS PLANNED FOR JANUARY OF 2025.

NOW, THAT'S ONLY GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS THE PEOPLE OPERATING IT.

OKAY. AND THAT'S ALWAYS THE CASE WITH SOFTWARE.

AND SO I AM I AM BASICALLY STATING AND HAVE PUT IN THIS REPORT THAT AS FAR AS SPECIFIC INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR ME TO RECOMMEND AND HAVE YOU IMPLEMENT RIGHT NOW, THAT'S A POINTLESS PURSUIT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN JANUARY OF 2025.

AND SO AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THAT WORKDAY AND BUILDER IS IMPLEMENTED FOR PROJECT TRACKING AND ACCOUNTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES WE'RE AVAILABLE PHONE CALL, EMAIL, WHATEVER.

SAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS CONTROL IN THIS AREA? AND WE'LL WE'LL GLADLY DO THAT ANYTIME WE DO AN ANALYSIS TYPE ENGAGEMENT LIKE THIS, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS A GREAT ACCOUNTABILITY EXERCISE WE LIKE TO SEE TODAY WHERE WE MAKE THE REPORT AS REALLY THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, NOT THE END OF THE PROCESS.

AND BY THAT, I MEAN, I WANT YOUR PEOPLE TO KNOW YOU CAN PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THE ADVICE THAT WE SEE AS FAR AS THE BEST INTERNAL CONTROL THAT CAN EXIST WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

NOW AGAIN, WHY THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO DEALS WITH QUESTIONS OF WHY THE MONEY'S NOT SPENT, TIMELINESS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AGAIN, THAT'S BEING HANDLED BY EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS.

BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THAT'S A REVIEW OF THE ANALYSIS OR REVIEW OF THE ACCOUNTING FOR THIS OTHER COMMUNICATION ISSUES THAT EXIST HERE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNICATION.

THERE'S EMAILS TEXTS, TEAMS NOTES EXCEL SPREADSHEETS.

YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE IN MY MIND.

I IN ANY SPREADSHEETS, EXTERNAL TO THE CORE PROCESSING SYSTEM.

JUST DRIVE ME UP A WALL.

BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO EXIST, THE COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO ALSO BE CENTRALIZED, AND THAT COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO BE CENTRALIZED IN SOMETHING LIKE THE WORKDAY PROGRAM.

THAT ALSO TAKES CARE OF THE OLD DOCK SYSTEM.

WHEN THAT'S DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING PROCESS.

SO I FEEL POSITIVE ABOUT WHERE IT'S GOING AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE.

I FEEL POSITIVE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT MISSING FUNDS.

NOW, WHAT YOU'RE TASKED WITH AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS HOW QUICKLY DO WE GET THESE FUNDS SPENT AND ON WHAT? SO I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY QUICK REVIEW OF THE ACCOUNTING PROCESS AND THE FINDINGS THAT WE HAD.

COMMENTS. QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS. COUNCIL.

YES. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU, I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE AUDIT.

I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN AND DOING THAT.

I KNOW IT'S PRETTY SCARY ON OUR END, YOU KNOW FOR STAFF AS WELL.

EVEN IF YOU'RE DOING THINGS RIGHT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE FOUND.

THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE OFF.

YEAH. SO I THINK YOUR AUDIT JUST SIMPLY REINFORCED THE PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT AT LEAST IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE DOING THINGS WELL.

[01:25:01]

FROM, I GUESS, WHERE THE SCOPE WE FIRST THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE 37,000, 17,000, RIGHT.

I THINK THAT GOES TO SHOW THAT OUR ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT, OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT IS DOING A GOOD JOB.

SO MY HOPE IS THAT YOUR FINDINGS ARE JUST A FIRST PART OF BUILDING A FOUNDATION OF TRUST.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE THE QUESTIONS I THINK THAT SOME COUNCIL HAD WAS, IS THE MONEY THERE, WAS IT MOVED AROUND? WAS IT, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO BUT FROM WHAT YOU'RE FINDING IS IT WAS ALL THERE.

IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MESSY LIKE THE, THE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT TYPE DEAL MAKES ME THINK OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING AUDITED BY THE IRS.

AND YOU GOT A BOX FULL OF RECEIPTS AND IT'S LIKE, YEAH, IT'S PRETTY MESSY, BUT I GOT IT RIGHT.

SO I'M GUESSING THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH A LITTLE BIT.

THAT'S THAT'S A VERY GOOD METAPHOR THERE.

SORRY. NO.

YEAH. YEAH. ANALOGIES.

BUT WE APPRECIATE THAT.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR THOROUGHNESS.

I THINK YOU WERE SOUGHT OUT BECAUSE WE KNEW YOU'D BE IMPARTIAL.

SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.

AND, I MEAN, I JUST I THINK THERE'S A MISCOMMUNICATION ON ALLOCATED VERSUS EXPENDED WHICH, AGAIN, A COMMUNICATION ISSUE.

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

SO LAURA AND HER, YOU, NEAL AND EVERYBODY ELSE, THAT THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB, THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF AT LEAST DOCUMENTING WHERE THE MONEY IS AND THAT TYPE DEAL.

THE BIGGEST QUESTION WE HAVE, LIKE YOU SAID, IS OUTSIDE OF YOUR SCOPE IS THE WHY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHY.

WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANSWERS.

I HOPE EVENTUALLY WE WILL GET ANSWERS AS TO WHY THE MONEY WASN'T SPENT, IT'S REALLY ODD FOR A MUNICIPALITY THAT NEEDS MONEY AND HAVE LOTS OF PROJECTS, AND WE'VE GOT MONEY AND IT DOESN'T GET SPENT.

BUT I KNOW THAT'S OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE, SO THAT'S OUR JOB TO FIND THAT.

BUT I APPRECIATE YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN THE ANALYSIS, AND I APPRECIATE OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN. QUESTIONS FROM THIS SIDE.

YOU MENTIONED A STATEMENT THERE THAT KIND OF CAUGHT MY ATTENTION, AND I AGREE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THE MONEY'S IN THE BANK.

THE BAD NEWS IS THE MONEY'S IN THE BANK.

IT'S NOT ON THE STREETS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

YES. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SIT IN THIS SEAT, WHAT YOU HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE DRIVING DOWN GRAND STREET, WHICH YOU CAN WHEN YOU HEAD BACK TO LUBBOCK, YOU GO DOWN GRAND STREET AND YOU CAN ENJOY ITS VIRTUOUS DRIVE DOWN THERE.

BUT I THINK THAT AND AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T FALL UNDER YOUR AREA, BUT I THINK YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER MONEY WAS MISSING, BUT THE ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT THAT MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT.

THE GOOD THING IS THERE, THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH WAS LEFT.

KIND OF LED TO THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN NOW OF DEALING WITH POTENTIALLY BEING IN PROBLEMS WITH THE IRS FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE THAT WE SPEND THAT MONEY. SO THE GOOD NEWS IS IT'S THERE.

BUT THE BAD NEWS IS WE HAVEN'T SPENT IT AND WE HAVEN'T SERVED OUR CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY TO GET THEIR ROADS FIXED AS THEY VOTED IN 2016 TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS SPREADSHEETS EXTERNAL TO THE CORE PROCESSES.

ALL RIGHT. TELL ME MORE ABOUT WHY THAT FRUSTRATES YOU.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE LIFE OF WHICH WE LIVE IN A LOT OF TIMES IN THE BUDGET AND IN OTHER AREAS.

OH, YEAH, THE SPREADSHEETS HAVE INFORMATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CORE.

EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

YEAH. NO, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I SPEND MOST OF MY TIME DOING FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

AND WHEN WE GET INTO AN ORGANIZATION'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IS THERE AS, AS A CAPTURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS THAT OCCURRED. AND SO AS TRANSACTIONS ARE ENTERED INTO THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, IT'S IT'S TO ACCUMULATE THAT INFORMATION INTO ADEQUATE AND PROPER REPORTING TYPE REPORTS TO SAY, OKAY, HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS AREA, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS AREA. AND THE CORE PROCESSING SYSTEM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM OF ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS THE GOAL IS FOR THAT TO BE THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ORIGINAL ENTRY THAT RESULTS IN PROPER REPORTING.

WE GO INTO SO MANY ORGANIZATIONS WHERE THEY THEY HAVE THE TRANSACTION RECORDING INTO THE SYSTEM, BUT THE ACTUAL REPORTING OF THE RESULTS IS ALL MAINTAINED AND KEPT ON A SPREADSHEET.

AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS, WELL, WHY? YOU KNOW WHAT IS? WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT? AND A LOT OF TIMES IT'S TWO THINGS.

THE SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE OR THERE IT'S IT'S ONE OF THE WAY.

IT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT OR IT'S HARD TO LET GO OF A SPREADSHEET.

[01:30:06]

BUT SPREADSHEETS HAVE A LOT OF HUMAN ERROR ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

AND SO ANYTIME I SEE THAT IN THE INVESTIGATIVE CAPACITY I KNOW THAT.

OKAY, I'VE GOT TWO SYSTEMS BASICALLY TO AUDIT.

I'VE GOT THE CORE PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND I'VE GOT A BUNCH OF SPREADSHEETS THAT I HAVE TO AUDIT.

SO THAT'S WHAT FRUSTRATES ME.

THANK YOU. KIND OF A LONG.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE GET TO THE BUDGET, BECAUSE WHILE WE HAVE BUDGETING SYSTEMS, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT IS GATHERED. AND, YEAH, OUT OF DISPARATE SYSTEMS THAT COME INTO A SPREADSHEET AND REALLY, YOU DON'T KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT INFORMATION.

I MEAN, HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU VERIFY THAT THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE? NOT THAT IT'S PUT OUT THERE INACCURATELY, BUT IT'S IT'S THINGS CAN HAPPEN.

THINGS CAN TRANSFER. BUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT GO BACK TO THE SYSTEM.

AND HOPEFULLY OUR NEW SYSTEMS WILL BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE GET A LOT OF EVEN ON COUNCIL, WE GET A LOT OF BUDGET INFORMATION THAT REALLY DOESN'T COME FROM THE SYSTEM.

IT IS TRANSFERRED INTO SPREADSHEETS TO SAY, AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

IT'S I GUESS THE CHALLENGE IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU EFFECTIVELY KEEP UP WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WHEN YOU'RE HAVING TO USE SPREADSHEETS TO KEEP TRACK OF IT? YEAH. NO, I THINK IT WILL HELP.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO MR. DAWSON? YES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A PHONE CALL FROM ME EARLIER TODAY.

YOU BET. I KNOW IT WAS GOOD FOR ME TO GET WITH YOU, JUST TO MAKE SURE I WAS READING YOUR REPORT CORRECTLY.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN YOUR REPORT SPEAKS TO, LIKE.

LIKE GROSS COMMUNICATION ERRORS, RIGHT.

A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION MULTIPLE TRANSFERS THAT ARE HARD TO FOLLOW DURING JUST A, YOU KNOW, A 30 MINUTE CONVERSATION WITH YOU HEARING YOU SAY, LIKE, YEAH, I REALLY HAD TO WORK TO TRACK ALL THIS, AND WE FOUND IT, AND THAT'S GOOD.

SO I AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH A GOOD SET OF PROBLEMS. I KNOW I WALKED AROUND FOR LIKE AT LEAST THREE MONTHS SAYING OUT LOUD, MAN, I WOULD LOVE TO THINK THAT WE HAD $40 MILLION LAYING AROUND, BUT I KNOW BETTER, RIGHT? AND FINALLY MRS STORRS STOPPED ME ONE DAY IN MY OFFICE, AND SHE SAID, MAYOR, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD LOVE, LOVE IT IF WE HAD THAT MONEY? I SAID, WELL, I'M SAYING IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE DON'T HAVE IT.

I'M BEING TOLD THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT.

I HAVE STAFF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE TELLING ME ON REPORTS THAT IT'S NOT THERE.

AND SO WHEN I WAS TALKING TO YOU EARLIER, I HAD TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR AND DISTINCT IN WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS COMMUNICATING TO YOU WAS THE MONEY THE TRANSFERS WERE TRANSFERS, TRANSFER ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN PROJECTS.

IT WASN'T TRANSFER LIKE WE MOVED THE MONEY AROUND.

SO WE USED THE $40 MILLION TO GO AND DO OTHER THINGS.

AND THEN WE PUT IT BACK.

I THINK WHAT WHAT I WANT THE COMMUNITY TO HEAR IS, IS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THAT THE MONEY LITERALLY SAT IN THAT FIDELITY ACCOUNT DID NEVER MOVED, JUST ACCRUED INTEREST UNTIL IT WAS DISPERSED FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT THAT WE DID.

AND SO THAT THAT WAS PART OF OUR CONVERSATION EARLIER.

I'LL TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU'RE SMILING RIGHT NOW, LIKE, I'M, I I TAKE THIS PRETTY SERIOUSLY.

I WANT TO ENJOY OUR JOB.

I WANT TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR THE CITIZENS.

THERE'S A THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF STRESS AND PRESSURE IN IN YOU CARE, RIGHT? YOU DON'T JUST WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME UP HERE.

AND SO WITH THIS ISSUE BEHAVIOR MATTERS.

AND I THINK A LOT OF MY QUESTIONING FOR STAFF AND A LOT OF MY PURSUIT ON THIS ALONG THE WAY WERE THAT I COULD NOT FATHOM THAT WE WOULD BEHAVE IN A WAY THAT THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE BEHAVE IN BUSINESS.

SO YOU NEVER HAVE THE ISSUE OF HAVING THE MONEY SITTING THERE AND YOU FORGOT THAT YOU HAD IT.

I JUST COULDN'T CONTEMPLATE THAT.

AND SO I WAS ASSUMING THAT WE WERE BEHAVING A CERTAIN WAY OF, OF REPORTS THAT WOULD COME OUT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY ASKED, I ORIGINALLY SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE LEFT? WELL, WE'VE SPENT MOST OF IT.

THERE'S NOT MUCH LEFT.

DON'T EVEN HAVE ENOUGH TO DO THE NEXT PROJECT ON THE PRIORITY LIST, WHICH AT THAT TIME I BELIEVE WAS GEORGIA AND IT HAD BEEN BUDGETED.

YOU GUYS CAN CORRECT IT 4 OR 5 MILLION, AND IT WAS BEING PROJECTED AT LIKE A $12 MILLION PROJECT AT THAT TIME.

THIS IS TWO YEARS AGO.

KEEP IN MIND. SO I WAS I WAS UNDER THE THE INFERENCE THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE $12 MILLION SITTING THERE.

AND SO I COULD NOT I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOR OF GOING FROM A GIVEN REPORT THAT SHOWED 6 MILLION.

[01:35:01]

AND THEN WE WE HAD A FOLLOW UP REPORT THAT SHOWED 16 MILLION, AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN THAT PRESENTATION OF THE 16 MILLION WHERE STAFF SAID, WELL, I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN THAT, YOU KNOW AND WE WE TALKED THROUGH IT.

THIS WAS A 2.5 HOUR MEETING.

WELL, HOW MUCH MORE? WELL, WE PROBABLY HAVE 20, 22, $23 MILLION.

WELL OKAY. LET'S GET OUR BUDGET BOOK OUT.

LET'S GO BACK THROUGH. IT TURNS OUT 34.6 MILLION.

THESE ARE NOT NORMAL BEHAVIORS.

SO IN THE IN THE THE TO USE A TERM THAT'S BEEN YOU KNOW SPOKEN HERE, YOU KNOW, CRIMINALITY IS WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IN YOUR TRADE.

AND WE'RE THANKFUL THAT NOTHING CRIMINAL HAS GONE ON.

BUT THEN MISCOMMUNICATION, GROSS INCOMPETENCE OF OF LIKE AN ORGANIZATION.

AND I'M NOT SINGLING OUT ANY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD POINT THE FINGER TO PROBABLY FOUR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND SAY, WELL, BETWEEN THESE FOUR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND BETWEEN THIS GUY WHO USED TO BE THE DIRECTOR, THIS GUY WHO USED TO BE THE CITY MANAGER, THESE THINGS, THESE CURRENT STAFF INVOLVEMENTS, WE WE'VE BEEN GROSSLY INCOMPETENT IN MANAGING THIS MONEY.

AND IT'S NOT A, AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT I THINK IS IS TOO MUCH TO HANDLE.

IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE $40 MILLION.

IT'S THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT I THINK IT'S TAKEN.

SO FROM 2016 ALL THE WAY UP.

AND THEN FOR PREVIOUS COUNCIL TO FUND THIS IN 2021, FOR IT TO TAKE THREE YEARS FOR US TO GET HERE AND FOR US TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE WITH YOU OF THE BEHAVIORS HAVE BEEN SO ERRATIC, AND THIS IS SO OUT OF THE BOX THAT WE LITERALLY NEED A FORENSIC AUDIT TO KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

WE CANNOT JUST PUSH FORWARD AND ASSUME THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW.

WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE VERY GOOD DECISIONS MOVING FORWARD.

SO A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS WERE LIKE, WHO AND WHY? YOU KNOW, WHO TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THE JOB IN 2021? YOU WERE TOLD TO GO DO THE JOB AND THEN IT JUST DIDN'T GET DONE.

WE DID ONE. WE DID WESTERN HAGI.

WALLACE. RIGHT. WE DID THOSE SPENT SOME MONEY, LET'S CALL IT $20 MILLION OUT OF THE 57 MILLION.

CORRECT. AND THEN NOTHING, JUST NOTHING MOVED.

AND AT THE SAME TIME AS, AS MAYOR AT THAT TIME, I'M PUSHING, SAYING, PLEASE TELL ME.

SHOW ME REPORTS. I WANT YOU, NEAL, TO SHOW ME WHERE ALL THE MONEY WENT.

YOU KNOW, WHAT PROJECTS DO WE STILL HAVE ON THE ORIGINAL LIST? HOW MANY PROJECTS CAN WE GO DO? NOT TO MENTION, WE WENT THROUGH A BUDGET CYCLE WHERE COUNCIL PUT FORWARD A $14 MILLION ANNUAL SOLUTION IN THE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN BORROW WITH $1 MILLION IN OUR CURRENT TAX RATE.

WE CAN IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND WE CAN HAVE A $14 MILLION REOCCURRING FUND IF WE LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.

THAT ACTUALLY WILL GET US INTO HOPEFULLY, A GOOD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THESE ROADS.

SO WITH ALL OF THAT, I THINK I'M GETTING TO THE POINT OF.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE A CONTROLLER IN PLACE.

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THE FINANCE COMMUNICATION WHERE FINANCE IS WATCHING THESE BORROWED FUNDS AND THEY'RE COMMUNICATING.

AND I STILL DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT THROUGH A BUDGET SESSION WHERE WE PUT FORWARD MONIES THAT WE WERE READY TO BORROW.

AND HAD WE HAVE NOT CAUGHT, THAT WE WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXPIRATION DATE ON THE THE SPEND DOWN ON THESE, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE BORROWED IT.

AND SO ALL OF THESE THINGS WORKING TOGETHER FOR OUR GOOD AS A COMMUNITY, ONLY WORK TOGETHER FOR OUR GOOD IF WE TALK ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC, IF WE BRING IT OUT, IF EVERYBODY'S HERE.

AND SO I'M LOOKING FOR A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE PROCESS SOLUTIONS.

HOW DO WE GET TO THAT CORE PROCESSING SYSTEM WHERE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS AN ACCOUNT BALANCE AND SOMETHING THAT TIES DIRECTLY TO THOSE CHECKING ACCOUNTS AND THOSE EXPENDITURES NOT MANUALLY ENTERED SPREADSHEETS.

RIGHT. HOW DO WE GET THERE? I STILL DON'T HAVE THAT SOLUTION.

AND I IF STAFF IS FURTHER AHEAD THAN I AM ON THIS, THE PUBLIC WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT.

ACCOUNTABILITY ON I DON'T THINK THIS COUNCIL IS COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING, WELL, IT WAS COVID, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, JANUARY OF 2021, THAT'S AN ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE.

JULY OF 24.

I DON'T THINK WE SAY THAT ANYMORE.

SO. SO WHO DROPPED THE BALL? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN? HOW DO WE HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE AND HOW DO WE PUT THIS OUT IN.

HEY, THIS WAS MY MY PART IN THE DEAL.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR FROM STAFF.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR FROM THIS AUDIT.

YOUR ASSURANCE OF.

YES, THIS ACTUALLY LIES IN THIS DEPARTMENT.

AND THIS IS THE BEST PRACTICES THAT I'VE SEEN ELSEWHERE.

THE COMPTROLLER, THE ACCOUNTABILITY, THE AUTOMATED REPORTS.

[01:40:03]

I'M INTERESTED IN THIS DUAL AUTHORIZATION.

SO THIS IS PROBABLY NOT YOUR YOUR IDEA THAT YOU CAME UP WITH, LIKE, HEY, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO PUT IN DUAL AUTHORIZATION.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S COMMONLY DONE ELSEWHERE, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO, SO HOW DO YOU THINK AN ORGANIZATION OF OUR SIZE HAS GOTTEN AWAY FROM FILING THOSE REPORTS AND HAVING THOSE DUAL AUTHORIZATIONS? DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT SAYS, HERE'S WHERE YOU GUYS GOT OVERWHELMED, OR HERE'S WHERE YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, OFF THE OFF THE RIGHT ROAD? NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

I THINK WHAT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS A PROCESS THAT WAS OLD THAT DIDN'T CHANGE THROUGH THE YEARS.

AND SO WHEN I SEE DUAL AUTHORIZATIONS AND SO MANY DIFFERENT PLACES, I THINK, OKAY, THAT'S THE AREA WHERE THIS NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IS IN THAT TRANSFER AREA BECAUSE THAT THAT FORCES ACCOUNTABILITY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

I MEAN, IT REALLY DOES IF I IF I KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF TWO PEOPLE HAVING TO APPROVE IT, THEN QUITE POSSIBLY THERE WOULDN'T BE THAT MANY TYPES OF TRANSFERS. AND SO THAT'S A ALMOST A SELF SELF-HEALING TYPE OF INTERNAL CONTROL THAT I LOVE TO IMPLEMENT EVERYWHERE.

SO VERY GOOD.

COUNCIL. I'M, I MAY TRY TO DIRECT THE CONVERSATION MORE TO STAFF.

AND I HATE TO HAVE MR. DAWSON UP AND DOWN.

SO. SO BEFORE WE ALLOW HIM TO SIT DOWN AND MAYBE ASK A QUESTION OR TWO.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAWSON? I KNOW THIS DID FALL UNDER YOUR SCOPE, BUT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE IRS REGULATIONS THAT THAT IMPACT THIS TYPE OF BOND ISSUANCE? YES. SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THAT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR AND TO MAKE SURE AGAIN, GLAD THE MONEY IS THERE.

BUT YOU KNOW, HOW THE MONEY WAS HANDLED IS KIND OF AND A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

MISCOMMUNICATION HAS GOTTEN US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHICH IS HAMPERING US ON THE ABILITY, I THINK, TO TO FIX OUR ROADS.

BUT SO IN IN 2016, WE INITIATED, WE ISSUED $89 MILLION AND CHANGE IN DEBT.

AS I RECALL, IN 17 AND 18, WE WE WE WE SPENT ABOUT $27 MILLION OF THAT OR IT GOT APPROVED.

IT WASN'T ISSUED, BUT IT WAS APPROVED.

AND THEN IN 21, WE DID THE 57 MILLION RIGHT THEN AND THEN WHAT DOES SO WHEN WE GOT THE 50 WHAT IS THE IRS REQUIREMENT.

THE 85% THING THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT.

WHAT IS 85% EXPENDITURE WITHIN THE THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD FROM THAT SERIES ISSUANCE? YES. AND WHY DOES THE IRS REQUIRE THAT TO WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ORIGIN OF THE REGULATIONS.

BUT BASICALLY IT IS THIS IS THIS IS BOND MONEY.

THIS IS MONEY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO COST YOU WHAT IT WOULD COST YOU IN THE IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.

AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, IF YOU'RE JUST HOLDING IT AND NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE AND GET OUR PIECE OF IT.

THAT'S A THAT'S KIND OF A GENERAL.

SO, SO IF WE AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE AT 85%, I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT PERCENTAGE.

I THINK WE WERE AT 54%.

YEAH. SOME, SOME AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS KIND OF DISCOVERED.

AND, AND SO THE ISSUE IS WE HAD NOT RESOLVED.

AND WHEN YOU SAY THE IRS IS GOING TO GET WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET, WHAT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TAX CAUSE TAXATION OF THAT BOND BECAUSE IT'S A TAX FREE BOND. RIGHT. CORRECT.

SO THE INVESTORS ARE NOT HAVING TO PAY TAXES ON ON THE EARNINGS FROM THE BOND.

RIGHT. BUT IF THAT MONEY IS NOT SPENT IN A TIMELY FASHION, THEN THE IRS SAYS THAT THAT COULD BE TAXED.

YES. AND HOW DO THEY DO? THEY GO AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL BOND HOLDERS TO PAY THAT TAX, OR WHO HAS TO PAY THAT PENALTY? THOUGH AGAIN, THAT'LL GO INTO DIFFERENT REALMS. AS FAR AS WHO HAS TO PAY THAT PENALTY.

BUT I WOULD SAY GENERALLY CITY OF AMARILLO IS GOING TO BE THE PENALTY BEARER.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP INTO WHAT IS THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS.

SURE, BUT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THAT TAX.

AND WE HAVEN'T MET THE DEADLINE RIGHT NOW.

SO THE IRS COULD COME AND SAY, SINCE YOU DID NOT SPEND THAT MONEY, THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE TAX, EITHER THE PEOPLE WHO INVESTED THE MONEY INTO US, INTO THE CITY, AND GOOD FAITH THAT WE WOULD SPEND IT IN A TIMELY FASHION SO THEY COULD EARN THE MONEY OUT OF IT, OR THE TAXPAYERS WOULD THEN HAVE TO PAY THAT MONEY.

RIGHT. AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN SAY THAT AT ANY POINT RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHAT LEGAL COUNSEL IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEALING WITH THEM, DETERMINING WHAT'S THE BEST WAY OUT OF THAT.

SO I DON'T AGAIN, I'M COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THAT PROCESS.

[01:45:02]

RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND SO SO THAT PUTS THE CITY AT LIABILITY OF NOT ONLY GETTING THE WORK DONE THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET DONE, BUT THAT IT COULD COST TAXPAYERS.

WE COULD PAY. WE'D HAVE TO PAY THE TAX ON THAT.

RIGHT. OR SOMEBODY WOULD.

AND I GUESS IF THE INVESTORS FIND IF THE INVESTORS HAVE TO PAY THE TAX, THEN THEY'RE PROBABLY LESS LIKELY TO WANT TO INVEST IN US.

I MEAN, COULD THAT AFFECT YOUR BOND RATING IF YOU'RE NOT SPENDING THE MONEY IN A TIMELY FASHION? AGAIN, ALL OF THIS COMES INTO THE BIG THE BIG PICTURE OF HOW IT'S SPENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS.

RIGHT. AND SO ALL OF THE RAMIFICATIONS I DON'T WANT TO GO TO JAIL FOR PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.

SURE, SURE. YEAH, YEAH.

AND THEN AND THEN AND THE REASON WHY ANOTHER TERM I HEARD AT ONE TIME IS CALLED ARBITRAGE.

RIGHT. WHICH WHICH I GUESS IS WHAT THE OTHER THING, WHY THEY HAD THESE REGULATIONS.

WHAT IS THAT WHAT DOES ARBITRAGE MEAN AND HOW DOES IT CAN IT APPLY IN A CASE OF A BOND LIKE THIS.

AGAIN, THAT'LL THAT'LL BE AN AREA I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOUR ATTORNEY.

OKAY. BECAUSE I'LL BUTCHER THE EXPLANATION.

OKAY. I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND MY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME.

I MEAN, YOU WE GOT THE WE GOT THIS MONEY AT A VERY FAVORABLE RATE RIGHT AT THE TIME.

THAT RATE HAS GONE UP.

AND IN FACT, WE COULD PROBABLY EARN MORE ON THAT MONEY NOW BY JUST KEEPING IT THEN, THEN THEN WE'RE PAYING ON IT SO IT WINDS UP IF YOU IF YOU GET SOMETHING AT A LOW RATE AND THE RATES GO UP AND YOU CAN MAKE ON THAT, YOU COULD WE COULD KEEP GENERATING.

AND WE'VE DONE PRETTY WELL ON THIS.

THE INTEREST IS I MEAN THE GOOD THING WE HAVEN'T SPENT IT IS GENERATING INTEREST.

BUT I GUESS I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE RULES THAT THE IRS HAD IS THIS MONEY IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE YOUR OWN PERSONAL INVESTMENT, WHERE YOU'RE JUST GETTING IT AND YOU'RE USING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE USING BONDHOLDERS MONEY, AND WE'RE LETTING IT BE TAX FREE, AND THEN YOU'RE JUST USING IT TO EARN INTEREST ON AND NOT SPENDING.

IT'S NOT A HEDGE FUND, SO TO SPEAK.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

MY MY OTHER QUESTION IS IF YOU IF YOU HAVEN'T MET THIS DEADLINE AND YOU ISSUE MORE DEBT, WHAT DOES THE IRS SAY? THAT'S OKAY. OR WHAT? WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU HAVE NOT MET THE PREVIOUS GOVERNANCE ON THE DEBT THAT YOU'VE ISSUED A BOND ISSUE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND OURSELVES IN.

YEAH. AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, WE HAD SAVED $1 MILLION IN OUR BUDGET.

WE HAD SCRIMPED AND SAVED BECAUSE WE SAID IF WE HAVE $1 MILLION THAT WE CAN INVEST ANNUALLY INTO ROAD WORK, WE CAN.

WE CAN FUND $14 MILLION WORTH OF THAT.

AND OUR PLAN WAS TO KIND OF CONTINUE TO DO THAT, TO HAVE A REGULAR AMOUNT OF REVENUE COMING IN THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO ACCELERATE GETTING THE ROADS REPAIRED. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S YOU CAN RUN INTO TROUBLE WITH THE IRS IF YOU ISSUE NEW BONDS AND YOU HAVEN'T SPENT THE OLD BOND MONEY IN A TIMELY FASHION.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? NOT NOT THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THEIR RAMIFICATIONS ARE, BUT IN GENERAL, THAT'S SOMETHING THE IRS WOULD FROWN UPON.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU BET.

NOW, I GUESS I'VE GOT A COMMENT THAT GOES WITH THAT.

MR. PAULSON, I'M SORRY YOU'RE STANDING UP HERE FOR ALL THIS.

NOT A PROBLEM. EARNING THAT EXTRA LITTLE BIT OF MONEY RIGHT AT 17.

SO I BELIEVE THERE'S A WAY TO.

IF WE'RE IF WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, THAT THERE IS A WAY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED THIS.

CORRECT. I DON'T WANT THAT INFORMATION TO GO OUT THERE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, ONE, IT WAS WRONG.

RIGHT? WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE IN TROUBLE.

WE DIDN'T SPEND THE MONEY IN A TIMELY FASHION, BUT THERE IS A WAY FOR US TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH BOND COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE FUNDS THAT WERE SPENT ON PROJECTS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR PROP ONE THAT WE DIDN'T USE FOR PROP ONE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE, BUT TO REALLOCATE AND MOVE THAT AND ALMOST MAKE IT RETROACTIVE. SO THERE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING FROM BOND COUNCIL, THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT, WHICH IS HELPFUL.

BUT I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN VERY CAUTIOUS UP HERE TO SAY, HEY, BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE, WHICH I BELIEVE WE'VE HAD A MEETING THE STATED THAT THAT THAT ONCE WE GOT THIS AUDIT THAT MIGHT GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO DO THAT AND REALLOCATE THE MONEY.

SO I JUST WANTED THAT STATEMENT OUT THERE AS WELL, THAT IT'S NOT THERE IS A WAY TO COME BACK INTO COMPLIANCE AND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, NOT WITH US, BUT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. WELL, AND WHY I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M I'M DISAPPOINTED FOR THE TAXPAYERS THAT WE'RE USING MONEY THAT THEY WANTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

AND I MEAN, YES, AND WE NEED TO GET IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IRS.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T, BUT FOR ME, IT'S JUST THE OTHER RAMIFICATION IS, AGAIN, WE WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, WE GET ELECTED AND SERVED TO GET THE ROADS PAID TO GET THE SEWER LINES DONE.

WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE WE'RE BEHIND IN A LOT OF AREAS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS IS IT'S DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO STAY ON TOP OF THIS TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

AND IF AND THE OTHER THING IS IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING THE MONEY, YOU KNOW, AND WE WANT TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE'RE A GOOD FIDUCIARY STEWARDS OF WHAT WE ARE HAVING.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN GET BACK INTO COMPLIANCE.

[01:50:03]

I HATE THAT WE HAVE TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE TAKING MONEY THAT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT, BUT WE CAN DO IT.

THAT THAT'S FINE.

AND I'M GLAD WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

BUT WHAT WHAT WHAT I AM THINKING IS HAMPERING.

IT IS JUST US GETTING THE ROADS FIXED.

BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T ISSUE ANY MORE DEBT UNTIL WE GET THIS RESOLVED, WE COULD GO ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO YEARS.

AND WHEREAS WE HAD PLANNED ON FUNDING 14 MILLION THIS YEAR, WHICH WE CAN'T DO, I DOUBT WE'LL BE ABLE.

AND WE WERE GOING TO SAVE ANOTHER MILLION NEXT YEAR.

THAT'S $28 MILLION OF ROAD WORK THAT WE CAN'T THAT WE WERE PREPARED TO PAY FOR, THAT WE HAD WORKED HARD TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GET THAT MONEY.

AND THEN YOU PUT THAT TO THE 30 MILLION THAT WE HAVEN'T SPENT.

I MEAN, THAT'S $60 MILLION WORTH OF ROAD WORK THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO GET DONE BECAUSE WE HAD MISCOMMUNICATION.

AND WHILE MISCOMMUNICATION MIGHT SOUND LIKE A MINOR THING AND WE NEED IT, BUT IN THE END WE SEE MISCOMMUNICATION CAN COST US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND EVERYTHING.

UNLESS DONNY CAN TELL ME DIFFERENTLY, EVERYTHING IS GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE, NOT CHEAPER.

SO IF WE'D DONE SOME OF THIS WORK 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING THE MONEY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET LESS DONE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE PRICES HAVE GONE UP.

SO I THINK IT'S BEEN A GOOD AS THE MAYOR SAYS, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD EXERCISE TO REALLY AND AGAIN, WE WE CAME INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, FIVE NEWBIES AND ONE SEMI VETERAN NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

AND I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING COMING UP IN THE BUDGET SESSION THAT SAID, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, WE HAVE THIS ISSUE.

AND WE WERE ALL EXCITED BECAUSE PEOPLE ELECTED US TO GET THEIR ROADS DONE.

AND THEN IN MARCH, WE RUN INTO THIS ROADBLOCK OF SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE, WE CAN'T FIX THE ROADS AT THE RATE THAT WE WANTED TO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SPENT THE MONEY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO US.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT, NOT ONLY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM, BUT TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, TO ENSURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE PROCESSES THAT YOU'VE RECOMMENDED INTO PLACE SO THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION AND SOMEBODY IS MONITORING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE SO THAT WE DON'T WIND UP ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS, THIS, YOU KNOW, JUST REALLY HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR CITIZENS THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THE ROADS FIXED AS QUICKLY AS WE SHOULD.

AND I THINK WHAT YOU'VE REVEALED TO US WILL HELP US BE ABLE TO GET BACK ON THAT ON TRACK, AND HOPEFULLY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

GOOD. YEAH. GOOD. I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE 20.8 MILLION WHEN YOU WERE WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE AUDIT.

THIS 20.8.

IS IT GOING TOWARDS PROP ONE PROJECTS.

YES. OKAY.

SO STAFF DO WE HAVE A LIST OF THIS 20.8 GOING TOWARDS PROP ONE PROJECTS SOMEWHERE? YEAH WE CAN GET. SO AS WE PROGRESS IN THE DISCUSSION PAST STEVE WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE.

BUT YES, WE HAVE A LIST OF PROP ONE PROJECTS.

BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE FIRST PROJECTS THAT WE CAN AWARD TO FUND WITH THE FIRST FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT GETTING THE FUNDING TO THE ROADS.

OKAY. SO WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY IS THE A PROJECT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 14 MILLION AND THE CURRENT PROJECT, CURRENT BUDGET, BUT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED WITH THE PROP ONE.

AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT PROP ONE OF 34TH OR OR BELL STREET, WHICHEVER ONE WE HAVE THE FUNDING FOR, TO PUT THAT FUNDING INTO THAT ROAD.

DOES THAT HELP YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SO WE CAN GET YOU THE LIST OF THE PROP ONE, AND WE CAN GET YOU THE LIST OF THE FUNDING FOR THE CURRENT DEBT ISSUANCE.

BUT WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

OKAY. WELL, I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE 20.8 THAT SAYS IT'S ALLOCATED TO BUDGET.

YEAH. ARE THOSE GOING TOWARDS PROP ONE PROJECTS OR ARE THOSE GOING TO GO TOWARDS IF MY UNDERSTANDING KYLE THAT IS IN GEORGIA STREET ISN'T IT NOT.

YES. THAT IS ALLOCATED.

THERE'S FUNDING OF APPROXIMATELY THAT AMOUNT.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME THE EXACT AMOUNT, BUT THERE'S APPROXIMATELY THAT AMOUNT FUNDED IN GEORGIA STREET.

OKAY. I GOT COUNCILMAN IF IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, YOU GUYS CORRECT ME BECAUSE WE WERE ALL IN THAT MEETING WHEN WE HAD THE BOND MAN THERE.

I HE TOLD US WE COULD GET INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT I REMEMBER ASKING A QUESTION.

IS IT LEGAL? AND DID WE EVER GET A FIRM ANSWER THAT BY DOING IT, IT WAS LEGAL OR THE LETTER? ME, I THINK I REMEMBER SAYING, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE'RE JOSTLING AROUND MONEY JUST TO TRY TO GET COMPLIANCE.

SO I'VE PROVIDED YOU THE LETTER FROM THE BOND COUNSEL ABOUT THAT TOPIC.

OKAY. SO ARE WE STILL I MEAN, WE'RE WE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE TODAY WITH THE SECOND IRS RULE.

IF YOU DON'T MEET THE FIRST ONE, THERE'S ANOTHER RULE THAT APPLIES THAT GIVES US OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND THAT IS CONTINUE THIS PROCESS TO PUT THESE FUNDS

[01:55:04]

INTO THOSE PROJECTS AND FUND THOSE AND MOVE THOSE FORWARD.

OKAY. IT'S SORT OF LIKE WHAT WE GOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY TO ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.

YES. TO PAY FOR SOME ROADS.

YES. THIS WAS THE ONE ON THE AGENDA.

TODAY WAS A PROJECT PROPOSED IN THE CURRENT BUDGET, 14 MILLION DEBT.

BUT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED AND READY TO GO.

BUT CAN WE SPEND THAT THIS YEAR? WELL, THAT NOW THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO PLAY INTO OUR NEXT YEAR.

SO SOME OF THAT.

SO THE PLAN GOING FORWARD WOULD BE TO EXPEDITE THE THE GEORGIA STREET, THE NORTHEAST 24TH OVERPASS DESIGN, WHICH IS FUNDED WITH THIS THIS SUMMER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM THIS YEAR ENHANCED THE SUMMER MAINTENANCE NEXT YEAR AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CULTURE STREET DESIGN AND THEN ALSO INTO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE. ALSO COMBINE THAT WITH THE PROJECT THAT DONNIE'S TALKING ABOUT IS SPENDING FUNDING TO GET US TO THE 85% RULE, WHERE WE CAN ISSUE THE DEBT FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET, AND THAT WOULD BE DONE AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS SUMMER.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CARRYING OVER INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET? YES. LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER COUNCILMAN SIMPSON SAID, WE'RE BASICALLY LOSING FOR 20, $28 MILLION.

SO YES, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUDGET DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO ISSUE THE DEBT PLAN THAT YOU ALL HAVE LAID OUT BECAUSE OF THIS.

BUT HERE THIS WAS THE FIRST STEP IS GETTING THE AUDIT AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO START AWARDING.

THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO WHERE WE CAN ISSUE THAT DEBT IS TO AWARD PROJECTS.

OKAY. AND SPEND PROP ONE FIRST, SO CAN I.

DOES THAT HELP ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YEAH. AND FLOYD, IF YOU WOULD WALK ME THROUGH THIS SO THAT WE CAN GO BACK A STEP.

OKAY. LET'S UPDATE OUR PUBLIC THAT IS HEARING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE WE'RE USING SOME WORDS GROSS INCOMPETENCE OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE LEGAL CRIMINAL. THESE ARE WORDS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CASUALLY FLOAT OUT INTO THE ETHER HERE AND NOT DEFINE WHERE WE'RE AT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MONIES THAT NEED TO BE SPENT DOWN.

SO 40 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE'VE GOT TO EXPENSE OUT WHETHER IT'S ALLOCATED OR NOT.

YOU HAD BROUGHT BOND COUNSEL AND A LEGAL COUNSEL TO TELL US, OKAY, YOU'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

BUT HERE IS THE PATH BACK TO COMPLIANCE.

SO YOU NEED TO SPEND THESE MONIES.

NOW, CAN WE GO BACKWARD AND GRAB MONIES THAT WE ALREADY SPENT BUT PAID FOR IT OUT OF ANOTHER PROJECT, ANOTHER FUND, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.

AND SO THAT LOOKS LIKE DRAINAGE.

LET'S SAY WE SPENT MONEY ON DRAINAGE, BUT IT QUALIFIED FOR PROP ONE.

SO ARE WE GOING TO UNFUND? AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT ACCOUNTING TERM.

WE'RE GOING TO UNFUND THE PROJECT FUND THE PROJECT THROUGH PROP ONE, USE THOSE UNFUNDED MONIES, SET THEM OVER IN CASH, AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO GO AND PAY FOR THE ACTUAL PROP ONE PROJECT, WE NOW HAVE THAT CASH TO PAY FOR THAT.

SO THAT WAS THE THAT'S THE THAT WAS THE FIX.

COUNCIL SAID NO IN THAT MEETING.

NOT COMFORTABLE DOING THAT.

A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, NOT SURE THAT IT'S LEGAL.

ONE TO GET OUTSIDE LEGAL ADVICE.

WE DID IT IS LEGAL.

YEAH. AS FAR AS WE KNOW TWO, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CONFIRMATION THAT WE HAVE NOW WITH STEVE DAWSON.

OKAY. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GRAVE MISTAKE TO HAVE MOVED MONIES AROUND AGAIN IF YOU COULDN'T CONFIRM THAT THE MONEY WAS THERE.

SO NOW THAT WE KNOW, HEY, THE MONEY'S THERE.

WE HAVE THE MONEY. WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE NOT WASHING OVER A MISTAKE COVERING IT UP, WHATEVER.

WHATEVER YOU WOULD SAY.

COUNCIL DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.

SO AT THAT POINT NOW NOW WE HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL TELLING STAFF, YES, YOU ARE ABLE TO GO AND GRAB THESE OLD EXPENDITURES AND PULL THEM IN.

YOU CAN UNFUND PUT IT INTO CASH AND SPEND IT SO THAT THE MONEY ACTUALLY BALANCES OUT EVENTUALLY.

BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE A CLEAN AUDIT.

AND I WANT TO SAY THAT PROCEDURALLY VERY UNCLEAN NOT AS HYGIENIC AS WE WOULD HOPE, BUT CRIMINALLY CLEAN.

SO. SO HERE I SAY AGAIN, LIKE THE MONEY NEVER LEFT THE ORGANIZATION.

SO AT THAT POINT, I THINK COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE ABILITY.

NOW, I WOULD SAY STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE SOME OF THIS WORK BASED ON LEGAL ADVISEMENT, NOT NOT AT THE ADVISEMENT OF COUNSEL, COUNSEL, AND NEVER GAVE A DIRECTIVE TO STAFF TO GO AND, AND PULL MONIES THAT WERE EXPENSED PREVIOUSLY INTO A PROP ONE ACCOUNT.

THEY HAVE DONE THAT.

AND THAT'S WITH THE EFFORT TO GET US TO THE POINT TO WHERE NOW, WHEN YOU ISSUE THE $8 MILLION STREETS, SUMMER STREETS PROGRAM AND YOU START SPENDING THAT DOWN NOW WHEN YOU CAN EXPENSE SOME OF THE GEORGIA STREET FUNDS.

[02:00:01]

NOW, WHEN WE GET OUR $5 MILLION WORTH OF MAJOR AND MINOR REPAIR WORK OUT, WE ARE NOW GETTING OURSELVES CLOSER TO THE PLACE WHERE COUNCIL SET US UP.

AND I WANT THE PUBLIC TO HEAR US SAY COUNCIL SET YOU UP VERY WELL IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGET BY TAKING $1 MILLION OUT OF OUR EXISTING MEANS, WE TOOK IT OUT OF OUR EXISTING HOUSEHOLD BUDGET AND WE USED IT TO BORROW $13 MILLION, GIVING US A $14 MILLION SOLUTION.

THE BIG RUB HERE IS, IS WE CAN'T SPEND IT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE TWO YEARS BEHIND WHERE WHERE WE WE TRIED TO TO START THIS.

AND SO MOVING FORWARD IT'S STILL IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE THAT PLAN.

THAT PLAN IS STILL VIABLE.

YES, SIR. SO THE GOOD NEWS ON THAT IS THAT THE DESIGN COST OF THAT IS AN EXPENSE QUALIFIED UNDER PROP ONE.

AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN AS TIMELY AS WE CAN.

SO IT WON'T REQUIRE THE DESIGN TIME AFTER.

AFTER WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND AWARD THOSE IMMEDIATELY.

SO TIMING WISE, WE WILL BE ABLE TO FACILITATE A LITTLE BIT BETTER TIMING RELATED TO THAT DESIGN AND BID AND AWARD.

OKAY. OKAY. SO IT IS IT IS A CHALLENGE THAT THAT STAFF PUT INTO THIS COUNCIL'S LAP ON THIS TIMING ISSUE RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. AND SO THIS 14 MILLION AND WE ARE STANDING HERE TODAY ACKNOWLEDGING WITH WITH THE AUDIT THAT WE HAVE WORK TO DO TO MAKE THAT WORK FOR Y'ALL'S BENEFIT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT TODAY IS WHERE CAN WE MOVE FORWARD IN AWARD OF EVERY PROJECT THAT WE CAN THAT QUALIFIES UNDER PROP ONE.

ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROP ONE PROJECTS UP TO THE THE INFLATIONARY COMPONENT WILL BE DONE.

AWESOME. YEAH, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

COUNCILMAN FLOYD, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN GET TO THE POINT WHERE IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE, WE CAN USE THAT MILLION TO BORROW AGAINST OR NOT? NOT IN THIS, NOT BY NOT BY, SAY OCTOBER, SEPTEMBER 30TH.

NOT THIS YEAR.

WE ARE WE ARE TARGETING IT WILL TAKE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THROUGH IN THE SPRING AND IN THE NEXT SUMMER TO GET US TO THE POINT TO ISSUE THAT 14 MILLION.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIKE CURRENT BUDGET, WE'RE BEST SAYING CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.

I'M SAYING THAT FISCAL YEAR COMING, THERE'S STILL NO WAY FOR THIS IN FISCAL YEAR 2425.

IF IF WE PERFORM OUTSTANDING, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN ISSUE THAT 14 MILLION IN THAT TIME PERIOD.

BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO BUT IT WOULD BE A MILLION HOPING THAT WE CAN GET THERE AND NOT UTILIZING.

CORRECT. SAY, SAY THAT AGAIN.

WE'D HAVE TO HOLD BACK THAT MILLION TO USE TO BORROW AGAINST.

YES, IN HOPES THAT WE WOULD GET THERE SO IT COULD BE A COMPLETE OFF OR NOT.

YEAH. IT'S GOING TO PLACE A LOT OF TRUST IN US BEING ABLE TO PERFORM WHEN WE HAD THIS CHALLENGE.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT CHALLENGE COMING OUT OF A HUGE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD THE MONEY, WE DIDN'T DO IT.

NOW WE HAVE THE MONEY AND WHEN WE'RE SAYING WE GOT TO DO IT, BUT BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THROUGH THE THROUGH THE SPRING AND WINTER AND FALL AND WINTER, WE CAN DESIGN A QUALIFYING PROJECT OF A MAGNITUDE THAT IS GOING TO GET US TO A POINT WHERE A YEAR FROM NOW INTO THE AUGUST AND THE END OF PAVING SEASON, A YEAR, THAT'S OUR BEST SHOT AT MEETING THAT GOAL. THAT IS THE BEST SHOT OF WE HAVE A MEETING, THAT GOAL, WHICH WOULD MEAN A LOT A YEAR FROM RIGHT NOW GOING INTO THAT END OF PAVING.

AND THAT'S OUR BEST SHOT TO MEET THAT GOAL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO OCCUR BEFORE THAT TIME FRAME, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

THAT'S IF FUTURE COUNCIL AGREES TO IT BECAUSE THIS WAS OUR IDEA.

YES. AND THIS WILL BE COULD BE A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL.

THIS ELECTION IN MAY.

ALL OF THAT'S A DISCUSSION IN THIS UPCOMING BUDGET NEXT WEEK.

SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PLACED IN THAT BUDGET UPCOMING, IF WE CHOOSE TO DO IT INSTEAD OF ISSUING 14 MILLION AT THAT POINT, WE MIGHT BE IF WE CAN PERFORM AND SPEND MONEY AT THAT POINT, WE HIT THAT IRS MARK.

WE COULD ISSUE 28 MILLION AND GET BACK ON TRACK, BECAUSE WE COULD DO DESIGN IN ADVANCE OF THAT, KNOWING THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE STILL HAVE THE OTHER MILLION FROM THIS CURRENT YEAR THAT WE CAN STILL BORROW AGAINST, JUST DOUBLE IF WE HAD THE CAPACITY TO DO THE PROJECTS.

YES. OKAY.

SO THANK YOU.

THAT'S A HUGE CHALLENGE.

AND WE RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGE THAT COUNCIL'S IN.

AND WE'RE STANDING HERE TODAY AS STAFF.

HOW DO WE HELP YOU AND HOW THE STAFF BRING FORWARD SOLUTIONS TO GET YOU TO THE POINT YOU NEED TO BE AND THE CITIZENS WHERE THEY NEED TO BE ON ROADS.

SO MY COUNCIL MAY NOT BE AT THIS POINT IN THE CONVERSATION, BUT I WOULD TRY TO MOVE US FORWARD.

I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF, BUT THEN I'M REALLY ASKING A QUESTION OF MY BOSSES, WHICH IS OUR PUBLIC.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BUSINESS OWNERS.

SMALL BUSINESS THRIVES HERE.

NOBODY'S EVER MADE A MISTAKE LIKE THIS AND KEPT THEIR JOB.

LIKE, BOTTOM LINE, I DON'T GET THE LUXURY OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND YOU HIRING ME FOR YOUR NEXT PROJECT.

YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT.

YOU PROBABLY WON'T LET ME COMPLETE THE PROJECT THAT I HAVE.

[02:05:02]

I LIVE IN A ZERO TOLERANCE WORLD.

AND IT'S IT'S NOT PERSONAL.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ONE RELATIONSHIP OR ANOTHER.

IT HAS TO DO WITH BUSINESS AND RUNNING THE CITY LIKE A BUSINESS.

SO IF I WERE TO ASK.

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GOT TO LIVE.

IF I WERE TO ASK FOR SOME GRACE FROM OUR PUBLIC.

WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY.

AND I'M ASKING FOR A COMMITMENT FROM THIS STAFF THAT SAYS MR. PATH. WHEN YOU GET ON BOARD, YOU WON'T SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND FROM CPD TO FINANCE TO ACMS LIKE WE ARE ALL ON A ZERO, A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY MOVING FORWARD, WHICH IS THE POLICY THAT I LIVE IN.

AND I WOULD EXPECT THE SAME FROM YOU GUYS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT COUNCIL IS AT THIS POINT AND I KNOW THAT THIS CONVERSATION CAN CAN HANG A TURN.

I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT.

I DON'T I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT IN THAT HERE.

NOW, I THINK THE BENEFIT IS IN HOW DO WE GET OURSELVES BACK TO A POSITION TO DOING THE WORK FOR OUR CITIZENS? AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS COUNCIL WAS TO TRY AND EARN SOME TRUST BACK WITHOUT ASKING FOR IT.

SO WE WANTED TO GO EARN YOUR TRUST, NOT ASK YOU TO TRUST US, AND THEN HOPE FOR GOOD NEWS LATER.

WE'RE BEING VERY, VERY OPEN.

WE'RE BEING VERY CANDID.

WE'RE WE'RE CALLING THINGS WHAT THEY ARE.

THE PIECE OF THIS THAT I DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW IS A COMMITMENT FROM STAFF.

OKAY, SO MAYBE I CAN ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S MY JOB TODAY.

I'M STANDING BEFORE YOU AS INTERIM YOUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER.

THAT'S MY JOB TODAY IS TO PROVIDE WHAT YOU JUST ASKED FOR.

THAT COMES IN THE FORM OF CLEAR EXPECTATIONS.

THAT WASN'T THE CASE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

WE KNOW THAT.

BUT WHAT WE STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A TEAM IS A COMMITMENT THAT CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, WE WILL PROVIDE THOSE FOR YOU.

AND IF THAT'S NOT PROVIDED, WHETHER I'M YOUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER, I GO BACK TO YOUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

THAT'S ON ME TODAY BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE'RE GOING TO BRING FORWARD CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR YOU AND THE COUNCIL, AND WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT THROUGH REGULAR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS.

THAT'S NOT MY IDEA.

THAT WAS HER IDEA.

REGULAR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS IS WHAT'S GOING TO GET US IN THAT COMMUNICATION COMPONENT.

THAT GETS US TO WHERE WE CAN GET THOSE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS BACK TO YOU.

THIS IS ESSENTIAL FOR US TO DO THIS IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF TRANSPARENCY TO YOU, SO THAT YOU HAVE TRANSPARENCY.

TRANSPARENCY TO THOSE CITIZENS YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.

WE HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU THAT TRANSPARENCY SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT TRANSPARENCY.

RICH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE'S AT IN THE ROOM, BUT HE'S HE'S ON THAT.

AND RICH IS GOING TO HELP US ON THAT TEAM, PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

BUT HE'S GOT A DASHBOARD BUILT AND HE'S GOING TO HELP US DO THAT.

OKAY. THIS GENTLEMAN WITH THE AUDIT MENTIONED THERE'S A TRAINING COMPONENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR STAFF THAT HAS TO OCCUR TO PREVENT WHERE WE WERE.

AND THAT IS A COMPONENT OF WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED.

BUT THAT TRAINING COMPONENT COMES WITH THAT SOFTWARE.

BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT SOFTWARE, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT GETS US FROM NOW TILL JANUARY.

I RESPECT THAT HE HE'S NOT GOING TO ANSWER UNTIL JANUARY, BUT I HAVE TO ANSWER NOW TILL JANUARY.

AS YOUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND THE THE ASSISTANT ROLE THAT I PLAY BACK, THIS THIS GENTLEMAN WILL MONITOR ME FOR THAT TIME PERIOD.

I PROMISE YOU. HE WILL HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

SO ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES? YOU BETTER BELIEVE THERE ARE.

AND I'M THE LEAD OF THAT TODAY.

THE CONSEQUENCES GO THROUGH ME TODAY BECAUSE OF MY TITLE AND MY COMMITMENT TO YOU TO LEAD THIS ORGANIZATION TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT TODAY.

I'M FULLY COMMITTED TO YOU, THE CITIZENS AND THAT.

BUT IF THERE'S CONSEQUENCES, THEY COME THROUGH ME TODAY, NEXT MONDAY, THEY GO THROUGH THAT GENTLEMAN.

OKAY. AND SO IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT CONSEQUENCES, I'LL BE GLAD TO HAVE THAT WITH YOU.

AND THAT'S IMPORTANT.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT FOR OUR CITIZENS CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE'RE DOING.

BOTTOM LINE IS I'M HERE TODAY TO LEAD THAT BY EXAMPLE FOR THE TEAM, BECAUSE THAT'S MY ROLE TODAY, NEXT WEEK.

THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE COMPLETE ROLE I'M IN, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO.

BUT IT ALL COMES WITH ENHANCED COMMUNICATIONS.

AND THAT'S TODAY.

WHAT I'M DOING IN THIS MICROPHONE TO YOU TODAY IS COMMUNICATING SOMETHING I THINK THAT GETS US DOWN THAT PATH.

AND THE ABILITY FOR US TO TALK ABOUT WHERE WE WERE AND THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT PAST.

BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN US ONGOING.

AND I DON'T THINK IT SOLVES TODAY AT THIS PODIUM.

[02:10:03]

I CAN'T SAY ANYTHING IN THIS MICROPHONE TODAY THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

BUT I CAN SAY SOMETHING IN THIS MICROPHONE TODAY THAT CHANGES WHERE WE ARE IN JANUARY AND WHERE WE GO FROM JANUARY TO NEXT YEAR AND GET TO THOSE POINTS.

THAT HELPS THE CITIZENS.

AND THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.

ALL OF THAT SAID, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE TO BE EVALUATED AND MONITORED AS WE STEP FORWARD.

I'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT PLAN TO THIS GENTLEMAN NEXT WEEK, AND I'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THIS TEAM AS PARTNERS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT YOU HEARD HIM SAY, WE HAVE ONE OF THE BEST MONITORS AND EVALUATORS THAT WE HAVE GOING, AND THAT'S YOU, NEIL GERBER, WHO DID THIS GOOD WORK TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE IN A GOOD SPOT ON THE MONEY AND WHERE WE'RE AT NOW.

WE DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB GETTING IT IN THE ROADS, BUT THAT'S OUR COMMITMENT GOING FORWARD.

CAN I CLARIFY FROM THERE FOR YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE THE ONE ANSWER THAT I HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TODAY.

OKAY, BUT THE ONE I THINK THAT REALLY GIVES US A LOT OF HEARTBURN OR A LOT OF RUB INTO WHAT MAYOR WAS TALKING ABOUT.

I FEEL LIKE I'VE GOTTEN AN ANSWER FROM THE FINANCE SIDE, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE FROM THIS SIDE.

WHY AND HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? I JUST AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TODAY.

OKAY. BUT I'M TELLING YOU, THAT'S THE ONE THING INSIDE ME.

AND I GET THAT MOVING FORWARD, WE CAN SAY, HEY, WE'VE GOT ALL THESE THINGS IN PLACE WHERE THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, AND I GET THAT AND THAT'S GREAT.

BUT TO MAYOR'S POINT, HOW AND WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? IT JUST IT'S MIND BOGGLING TO ME THAT WE HAVE MONEY FOR PROJECTS THAT THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND WE JUST DIDN'T DO IT.

AND I'M SORRY, BUT YOU KNEW THE MONEY WAS THERE, OKAY.

AND YOU JUST DIDN'T DO IT.

I IT JUST IT LEAVES ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST PROBLEM.

IT JUST MAKES ZERO SENSE TO ME AND NO ONE.

THE BIGGEST PATH MOVING FORWARD IS OWNING YOUR STUFF.

YES, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT YET.

ON THIS SIDE OF, LIKE, I OWN IT.

THAT'S GREAT.

BUT HOW DID IT HAPPEN? OKAY, I NEED TO HEAR THAT.

AND I WOULD GUESS THAT ALL OF US NEED TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE MAIER SAID, WE ALL RUN BUSINESSES AND IT'S LIKE, AND I'M SORRY, IT'S OKAY.

AND IT'S LIKE, HEY, I'M GOING TO DO BETTER NEXT TIME, BUT I NEED TO KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED.

OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I MEAN, I JUST HAVE NOT HEARD HOW, YES, LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND I GET THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU GOT MONEY AND YOU DON'T SPEND IT FOR PROJECTS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

OKAY. OKAY. I MEAN, IS THAT FAIR? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THAT'S FAIR.

OKAY. I WOULD ALSO LET YOU KNOW I'M ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY PART IN IT.

YEAH, I KNOW THAT. AND WE'VE HAD A TALK I MEAN YOU KNOW I'VE TALKED AND YES, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ELSE FROM ENGINEERING.

HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING OF THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED.

OKAY. I DID YOU KNOW THE MONEY WAS THERE.

THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU USE IT? THAT'S. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

AND I WOULD GUESS ALL OF US WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

AND PROBABLY NOT JUST ME.

WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON IT.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE KNOWING WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW I THANK YOU WHAT SO AND I'M SO THE FIRST THAT I THINK WE BECAME AWARE OF IT I THINK WAS THE MARCH 26TH MEETING.

YES, SIR. AND THAT WAS THE MEETING THAT WE HAD THAT WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE THE DEBT AT THAT MEETING.

YES. CORRECT.

YES. AND THEN THAT AND THAT'S WHEN WE FOUND OUT.

WAIT A MINUTE. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T ISSUE THAT DEBT.

IT WAS THE ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO NOT ISSUE THE DEBT AT THAT MEETING.

YES. SO WHEN WHEN DID WE FIND OUT ABOUT THAT? AND HOW DID WE FIND OUT THAT WE WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE? I MEAN, HOW DID WE BECOME AWARE OF THAT? WELL, IT WAS A STEP AT A TIME.

COUNCIL MEMBER, I MEAN, FULL AWARENESS, YOU KNOW, ON A SITUATION LIKE THIS, IT BECAME A SITUATION WHERE AWARENESS GREW OVER TIME.

OKAY. SO I KNOW THAT ANDREW FREEMAN HAD DONE A LOT OF WORK THROUGH LAST FALL WORKING ON IDENTIFYING THIS.

AND I KNOW THAT LAURA HAD HELPED US UNDERSTAND IT, BUT GETTING TO THE POINT OF ISSUING THE DEBT WAS WHERE WE ALL CAME TOGETHER AND UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAD THIS PROBLEM. WHEN WE TALKED TO THE BOND COUNSEL THAT PREVENTED US FROM ISSUING THE DEBT.

SO FULL AWARENESS CAME RIGHT UP INTO PREPARING THE AGENDA AND GETTING THAT MEETING.

FULLY AWARE OF THE RAMIFICATIONS AND WHERE WE WERE AT, TOTALLY AS A TEAM, WE WERE ALL.

THAT'S WHEN WE ALL BECAME AWARE OF IT AS A TEAM TOGETHER, MAKING DECISIONS.

AND SO WAS IT THE BOND COUNSEL THAT BROUGHT IT UP? WHEN WE DESCRIBED THE SITUATION, BOND COUNSEL COUNCIL ADVISED US AT THAT TIME NOT TO ISSUE THE DEBT BECAUSE WE HAD NOT MET THE DEADLINE, BECAUSE WE YEAH, WE REPORTED THE STATUS OF THE PREVIOUS BONDS.

YES. OKAY.

YES. YES, SIR.

DOES THAT HELP? YEAH.

AND AGAIN, I'M JUST AND IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO I'M JUST WONDERING THE LAYERS OF LIKE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING SURE THAT WE STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IRS.

YEAH. AND I THINK FOR COUNCIL, IT JUST MAKES SURE.

[02:15:02]

ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE PROCESSES IN PLACE TO I MEAN, WE'VE LOOKED AT ONE THING.

YOU KNOW, THE GOOD THING IS WE FOUND, YOU KNOW, THE MONEY'S THERE, BUT THE PROCESS IS SEEN TO BE LACKING THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE ON.

I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, AND ULTIMATELY WHO'S WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING, YOU KNOW, THOSE FINANCIAL PROCESSES OR WHO'S WHO'S, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR SAYING, I KNOW THE IRS REGULATIONS AND RED FLAG.

WE CAN'T ISSUE THE DEBT.

AND WE NEED TO TELL COUNCIL AND GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET AND CIP AND IN AUGUST THAT THEY CAN'T ISSUE THE DEBT, NOT THE DAY OF TRYING TO ISSUE THE DEBT.

YES, SIR. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS AUDIT REPORT IS JUST AS HELPFUL TO ME AS A STAFF MEMBER, AND I APPRECIATE STEVE'S WORK HELPING HIS RECOMMENDATIONS, BECAUSE THAT HELPS US GET A BIGGER, COMPREHENSIVE VIEW INSTEAD OF THIS NARROW VIEW OF IT.

WAS THIS FORM ON THIS DATE THAT DID THAT INSTEAD OF DOWN IN THE WEEDS.

IT'S A GLOBAL LOOK, AND I APPRECIATE STEVE'S VIEW GLOBALLY.

HE BACKS UP GLOBALLY AND HELPS US LOOK AT IT FROM THAT.

AND THAT'S HELPED ME.

AND I THINK IT'S HELPED STAFF LOOK BACK AND SAY THERE'S MORE THAN JUST ONE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED AND ONE PROCESS INVOLVED HERE.

AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, HOW DO WE INCORPORATE THOSE CHANGES IN SOFTWARE TO MAKE THAT WORK APPROPRIATELY? AND THAT'S GOING TO HELP US DEFINE THE PURCHASE OF THAT SOFTWARE.

AND IT'S GOING TO HELP US WRITE THAT SCOPE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE BUY A PRODUCT.

AND THAT PRODUCT DOES EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED IT TO DO IN THIS SCENARIO.

SO I THINK I THINK IT STRETCHED US TO TO SEE THIS REPORT AND THEN GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, ESPECIALLY SITTING IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE UNKNOWN, WITH AN AUDITOR, A SPECIAL AUDIT, NOT KNOWING THE OUTCOME AND HAVING TO SIT AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS AND WHERE WE WERE AT.

AND THAT HELPED WHEN HE GOT THAT ALL PUT TOGETHER INTO A REPORT FOR US.

YEAH. AND JUST TO KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THE IRS REGULATIONS.

I MEAN, YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THE I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, YOUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER BACK IN YOUR ROLE.

I MEAN, WE WANT YOU TO BUILD STREETS AND FIX SEWER LINES, NOT NOT STUDY UP ON.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TOOK ANY CLASSES ABOUT THE IRS, SO BUT BUT JUST MAKING SURE WHAT IS THAT ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND ULTIMATELY WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE SAYING I'M I'M FOCUSING ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S A MAJOR THING BECAUSE WE COULD FACE SOME SEVERE PROBLEMS. BUT MY HISTORY AS A PROJECT MANAGER, I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THAT AS WELL.

I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROJECT MANAGER TO KNOW MY FUNDING SOURCE.

I NEED TO WORK WITH THE ACCOUNTANTS AND I NEED TO WORK WITH THE ATTORNEYS.

IT'S NOT LIKE I RUN OUT AND DO CONTRACTS WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ATTORNEY.

THIS IS A PROJECT MANAGER DOES HAVE A COMPONENT OF ALL THE PARTS AND PIECES OF A PROJECT.

OKAY. YES.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OF OUR AUDITOR.

WE CHECKED ONE LITTLE PART OF THE CITY BUSINESS HERE.

DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO CHECK FURTHER INTO OTHER AREAS, OR DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY? I REALLY COULDN'T SPEAK TO OTHER AREAS JUST BECAUSE THIS WAS SINGULARLY FOCUSED.

I DIDN'T KIND OF A SIDE ANSWER TO THAT.

IF THERE WERE PREDICATION OR PROBABLE CAUSE SHOWING UP IN THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION OR THIS ANALYSIS THAT REACHED INTO ANOTHER AREA, I WOULD SIT HERE AND TELL YOU, YEAH, WE NEED TO DO THAT.

WE DIDN'T SEE THAT.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT THERE.

BUT WE BEING SINGULARLY FOCUSED ON THE 2016 BOND FUNDS WE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THAT WE DIDN'T SEE INDICATIONS.

OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION IS.

LET'S SAY WE'RE WE'RE GOOD THIS YEAR.

BUT LET'S SAY I WANT TO LOOK AT ANOTHER DEPARTMENT NEXT YEAR.

RIGHT. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT IT.

PRUDENCE ALWAYS HOLDS DEPARTMENTS ACCOUNTABLE.

SO WOULD I RECOMMEND IT? I LIKE TO SEE EVERYTHING LOOKED AT.

OVER TIME. YEAH.

I MEAN, TO ME, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO MAYBE TAKE A DEPARTMENT EVERY YEAR AND DO A FORENSIC AUDIT.

YEAH. AND IN WHATEVER FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS, YOU WOULD HAVE EVERYTHING.

YEAH. AND WE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE AT.

YEAH. AND WE DO SEE THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'VE GOT ONE OTHER QUESTION.

JUST YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A VIEWPOINT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CITY HAS INTERNAL AUDITORS, WHICH YOU'VE WORKED WITH.

WE ALSO HAVE EXTERNAL AUDITORS.

IN FACT, WE'VE GOT ON THE THE AGENDA TODAY TO RENEW A CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE.

WHAT IS YOUR GENERAL ADVICE ON EXTERNAL AUDITORS AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, SHOULD YOU CHANGE THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS?

[02:20:03]

WHAT SHOULD YOU BE LOOKING FOR? I MEAN, IS THERE ANY ADVICE, AS WE WERE LOOKING AT, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE HAD THE SAME COMPANY DOING OURS FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND NOT THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB.

BUT IS THERE IS THERE A GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW ON EXTERNAL AUDITORS OR ADVICE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE US AS, AS SOME BEST PRACTICES WHEN IT COMES TO WHO YOU'RE GETTING TO EXTERNAL AUDIT AND HOW THAT WORKS.

THIS ANSWER MAY BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT SOME MIGHT ANSWER, BUT IF YOUR EXTERNAL AUDIT FIRM NUMBER ONE, YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR COMPETENCY.

TO ME, YOU STAY WITH THEM.

YOU KNOW, I COME AND UNDERSTAND WHERE I COME FROM WITH THAT ANSWER.

I COME FROM THREE DECADES OF HAVING PERFORMED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDITS.

AND WHEN SARBANES-OXLEY BACK IN 2000 ALL OF THAT STARTED, IT WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT THIS ROTATION OF AUDITORS WAS MANDATED BY PCAOB FOR PUBLICLY HELD COMPANIES, AND I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT.

AND I STILL DON'T, BECAUSE I THINK, NUMBER ONE, YOU GET AN EXTERNAL AUDIT FIRM THAT UNDERSTANDS CITY GOVERNMENT, CITY ACCOUNTING, CITY REPORTING GASB 34, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

YOU DON'T JUST KICK THEM TO THE SIDE AND PICK UP SOMEBODY ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PICK UP SOMEBODY ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE MANDATED TO DO SO.

IF THERE ARE ISSUES, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT A PARTICULAR AUDIT FIRM IN YOUR HISTORY, AS YOU GO THROUGH DIFFERENT AUDITS, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THAT OPTION.

BUT I WOULD SUPPORT AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOUR AUDITORS ARE.

I WOULD SUPPORT STAYING WITH THE FIRM AS LONG AS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING.

IF THEY'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, FINE.

THEY CAN ROTATE PARTNERS.

THEY CAN DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO HAVE, QUOTE, WHATEVER THAT FRESH SET OF EYES MIGHT BE WITHOUT LOSING THE FIRM HISTORY.

WITH WITH THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

SO THE LONG, SHORT ANSWER IS I WOULDN'T ROTATE JUST TO ROTATE.

WHY WOULD YOU ROTATE? ONLY IF THERE'S DISSATISFACTION OR I MEAN, YES.

OKAY. DISSATISFACTION.

YOU GET INDICATIONS OF INCOMPETENCE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM COUNCIL? I HAVE ONE, ONE, ONE REQUEST THAT I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO MR. DAWSON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

HERE'S PROBABLY WHAT I WOULD WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR.

MR. INTERIM CITY MANAGER, BEFORE YOU HAND THE REINS OVER TO OUR NEW CITY MANAGER, I FIND IT GREATLY HELPFUL IN A, IN A HARD CONVERSATION LIKE THIS TO HAVE VERY CLEAR EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT THE STANDARD WILL BE MOVING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT IF WE DO LESS THAN THIS WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP WITH OUR PUBLIC TO DEBIT MAYBE THE ACCOUNT.

ON COUNCIL THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE WE ARE NOT TRULY VESTED OR MAYBE MAN ENOUGH TO DO THIS JOB.

SO HERE'S WHERE I WOULD BE OKAY.

COUNCIL. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE WILLING TO, I WOULD ASK FOR A COMMITMENT FROM YOU GUYS THAT WE WILL HOLD STAFF ACCOUNTABLE MOVING FORWARD. THIS IS A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED.

SO NOBODY IS TRYING TO POINT THE FINGER AT ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL.

BUT WE ARE NAMING THE DEPARTMENTS CP, D AND E FINANCE OUR ACMS. ANY OTHER DIRECTOR LEVEL, HIGH LEVEL INDIVIDUAL.

I'D LIKE TO SEE A ZERO TOLERANCE, A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY MOVING FORWARD.

AND I WOULD ASK STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THAT MEANS ON YOUR BEHALF IS YOU WOULD WILLINGLY OFFER YOUR RESIGNATION SO YOU DON'T DO YOUR JOB.

YOU DON'T FORCE US TO PICK ANYONE OUT.

YOU DON'T FORCE GRAYSON TO SHOW UP AND HAVE TO BE THE GUY WITH THE AX IN HIS HAND.

YOU UNDERSTAND? IF YOU CAN'T BE A BETTER TEAMMATE THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, YOU NEED TO MOVE ON.

AND I'D SAY THAT'S A PRETTY DECLARATORY STATEMENT.

YOU FEEL LIKE STAFF IS AT THAT LEVEL.

MAYOR, WE CAN GET YOU A POLICY.

THAT'S WHAT I JUST HEARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO END IT.

COUNCIL YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? NO, SIR. NO, SIR. OH, OKAY.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU, MR. DAWSON. THANK YOU, SIR, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON AND MOVE BACKWARDS TO ITEM SEVEN.

[7.D. Discuss Charter Review Citizen Committee recommendations and alternative proposals as requested by City Councilmembers]

D WE HAVE MR. HAWKINS. SO WELCOME TO OUR AFTERNOON COUNCIL MEETING, SIR.

WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT GEARS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

MY APOLOGIES FOR BEING LATE TODAY.

CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND MY CONTROL.

[02:25:03]

BEFORE I BEGIN, I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO BE SURE TO ADDRESS. WELL, I WOULD SAY I THINK WE DO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

I THINK WE'VE PROBABLY KIND OF WORKED ON OUR SIDE AS MUCH AS WE NEED TO.

IT WOULD IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL, I BELIEVE, TO ALLOW YOU TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AS YOU'VE GOTTEN IT PREPARED, AND THEN MAYBE LET US RESPOND. CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU. SO OVER THE LAST WEEK, WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF AND WE'VE WORKED WITH YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, MR. HYDE. AND SO LET ME START GOING THROUGH A BRIEF PRESENTATION.

THIS IS JUST A RECAP OF WHAT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE.

JUST TO REFRESH, WE HAD PROPOSITION A, WHICH WAS REVISING THE RECALL PROPOSITION PROVISIONS.

PROPOSITION B, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH FOUR YEAR STAGGERED TERMS FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, WOULD UPDATE THE VACANCY PROVISIONS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW DUE TO THE LONGER TERMS, AND IT WOULD INTRODUCE A RESIGN TO RUN PROVISIONS.

SO A SITTING MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, WITH 12 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OR MORE REMAINING IN THEIR TERM, WERE TO ANNOUNCE AS A CANDIDATE FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICE, THEIR OFFICE WOULD BE DEEMED VACANT.

PROPOSITION C WOULD INCREASE THE COUNCIL TO SEVEN MEMBERS, AND IN THIS VERSION WE HAD IT PAIRED WITH CREATING COUNCIL, SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AS AT LARGE, THE MAYOR AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE, AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS COMING FROM SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT THERE.

PROPOSITION D WOULD CLARIFY THE CITY MANAGER'S DUTIES WHEN HIRING EXECUTIVE LEVEL EMPLOYEES, SO UNCLASSIFIED EXECUTIVE LEVEL EMPLOYEES SUCH AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS DEPARTMENT HEADS.

THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSULTATION WITH THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL UPDATING THE POLICY TO OF THE GOVERNANCE AND POLICY TO ESTABLISH A REGULAR REVIEW CYCLE FOR THE CHARTER.

SO WE DON'T HAVE BACKLOGS OF UN UNEXAMINED ISSUES AND UPDATE THE GOVERNANCE AND POLICIES AS A BOOTSTRAP TO THE CONSULTATION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE STAFF, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED NO CHANGE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POSITION.

CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK INDICATED THAT ITS TOP PRIORITY WAS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE WANTED TO SEPARATE PROPOSITION C, WHICH WOULD BE INCREASING THE COUNCIL FROM 5 TO 7 AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFICE.

WE WANTED TO PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES TO TERMS AND TERM LINK FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

LAST WEEK THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THE MAYOR AND SOME OTHERS SEEM TO PREFER KEEPING THE MAYOR'S TERM AT TWO YEARS VERSUS FOUR YEARS FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THEN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CHANGING THE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND SO WE WERE DIRECTED TO WORK WITH YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, HYDE KELLY, AND WE HAVE DONE SO.

SO. SO WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF SEVERAL CHARTER AMENDMENTS. FIRST IS TO RECALL THE ELECTED OFFICER.

THAT'S A PROVISION THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE, INCREASED THE.

AND WHAT WE'VE DONE BASICALLY IS WE BROKE APART SOME OF THE MEASURES THAT WE INTRODUCED LAST WEEK.

ADVICE OF COUNCIL.

SO WE WOULD INCREASE THE COUNCIL IN ONE MEASURE TO A MAYOR AND SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE CHANGED THE TERM OF OFFICE TO FOUR YEARS.

WE'D REVISE THE VACANCY PROVISIONS TO INTRODUCE THAT RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION AND MAKE IT A VACANCY.

PROVISIONS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

CHANGING THE CITY COUNCIL QUALIFICATIONS IS THE MEASURE THAT WOULD HAVE THE MAYOR AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS BE ELECTED AT LARGE, AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS BE ELECTED FROM GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.

PROPOSITION F WOULD ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS ON THE MAYOR, SUCH AND COUNCIL, SUCH THAT NO PERSON COULD SERVE MORE THAN EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS ON THE COUNCIL. THEY COULD SERVE AGAIN IF THEY HAD A TWO YEAR BREAK IN SERVICE.

AND I WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS A DETRIMENT IN MANY CITIES THAT HAVE TERM LIMITS IS THAT ONCE YOU REACH YOUR TERM LIMIT, THE ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN NEVER SERVE AGAIN.

SOME CITIES HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE'S A VALUE IN HAVING EXPERIENCED COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYORS, AND SO THEY'VE CREATED A HIATUS PERIOD

[02:30:02]

TO ALLOW THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL TO AGAIN SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK THAT'S A BEST PRACTICE.

PROPOSITION G IS AGAIN A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE, A CLARIFYING THE CITY MANAGER AND HIRING AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF EXECUTIVE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS.

AND LASTLY, A NEW MEASURE THAT WE'RE INTRODUCING TODAY IS DESIGNATING THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THESE.

THE RECALL PROVISIONS ARE IN CHARTER ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 24.

PRINCIPALLY, THIS CHANGE MAKES IT SOMEWHAT EASIER TO QUALIFY A RECALL PETITION FOR THE BALLOT.

CURRENTLY, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT A RECALL PETITION MUST HAVE SIGNATURES OF 30% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS, WITH ONE FIFTH OF THOSE SIGNATURES CERTIFYING THAT THEY VOTED FOR THE OFFICE HOLDER.

THERE'S NO WAY TO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID OR DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OFFICE HOLDER, AND IT CREATES ANOTHER BURDEN FOR THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIAL.

THE CHANGE WOULD REDUCE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO 30% OF THE NUMBERS OF VOTES CAST IN THE LAST ELECTION.

SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 100,000 REGISTERED VOTERS IN AMARILLO.

30% OF THAT WOULD BE 30,000 SIGNATURES REQUIRED, ONE FIFTH OF WHICH, OR 6000 WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY VOTED FOR THE OFFICE HOLDER.

THE NEW REQUIREMENT 30% OF THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN THE LAST ELECTION.

APPROXIMATELY 20,000 VOTES CAST IN EACH ELECTION.

SO THERE WOULD BE A 6000 VOTE REQUIREMENT TO QUALIFY A MEASURE FOR THE BALLOT.

THE COMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDED EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FROM 30 DAYS TO 60 DAYS, FELT THAT THIS WAS A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME TO ALLOW RECALL PROPONENTS TO GATHER THEIR SIGNATURES.

WE INCLUDE LIMITING THE FILING OF RECALL PETITION AGAINST AN OFFICEHOLDER DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THEIR OFFICE, WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE END OF THEIR TERM, AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS THAT THEY HAD BEEN RECALLED PREVIOUSLY.

AND THERE WERE SOME SLIGHT UPDATES IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE IN THE IN ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 24.

PROPOSITION B IS WHERE WE AMEND CHARTER SECTIONS FIVE, SECTIONS ONE AND FIVE.

THIS IS WHERE WE PROPOSE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE COUNCIL TO SEVEN MEMBERS, THE MAYOR PLUS SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND SPECIFY THAT BECAUSE THE COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL IS ADDRESSED IN TWO SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER.

SO WE ADDRESS IT IN THIS SECTION.

SECOND SECTION.

SECTION FIVE OF WHAT IS THE RULING BODY OF THE COUNCIL? AND WE ALSO SPECIFY THAT ALL THE MAYOR AND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELECTED BY A CITYWIDE VOTE.

HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING IN MEASURE C, CHANGING THE TERM OF OFFICE.

SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO TO FOUR YEAR TERMS, WITH THOSE TERMS BEING STAGGERED.

THE STAGGERED TERMS WILL BE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE IF THE CHARTER WERE CHANGED.

WE ARE PREPARED AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD BE MAINTAINING THE CURRENT TERM OF THE MAYOR AT TWO YEARS AND CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO FOUR YEARS, AGAIN ON A STAGGERED BASIS.

AND THOSE TERMS WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE AND WOULD TAKE EFFECT IN NEXT MAY'S ELECTION.

SO THERE WOULD BE A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL, SEVEN MEMBERS.

EVERY SEAT WOULD BE ELECTED NEXT MAY.

AND HERE'S A CHART JUST LAYING OUT WHAT THE TRANSITION PLAN WOULD BE FOR THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OFFICES.

BASICALLY, SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE ELECTED IN 2025 BUT ONLY SERVE A TWO YEAR TERM UNTIL THEY COULD GET INTO THE REGULAR FOUR YEAR CYCLE.

SO THAT'S A SMALL TRANSITION PERIOD TO GET EVERYBODY BACK ON A FOUR YEAR CYCLE, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL.

THE VACANCY PROVISIONS AND PROPOSITION D BASICALLY CHANGE IT SO THAT IF A VACANCY OCCURS WITH LESS THAN 12 MONTHS IN TERM OF TERM OF OFFICE REMAINING FOR EITHER THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER, THE COUNCIL WOULD MAKE THE APPOINTMENT. IF THERE'S MORE THAN 12 MONTHS REMAINING IN THE TERM, THE COUNCIL WOULD CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TO FILL THAT VACANCY.

AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S A RESIGNED TO RUN PROVISION IN STATE LAW THAT WE WOULD INTRODUCE IN THE CHARTER HERE THAT IF A COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR

[02:35:05]

WERE TO ANNOUNCE RUNNING FOR A DIFFERENT POSITION AND THEY HAD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME REMAINING IN THEIR TERM, THEY WOULD BE VACATING THAT OFFICE.

PROPOSITION E IS THIS IS WHERE WE SEPARATED THE AT LARGE MEMBERS AND THE PEOPLE ELECTED BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA. WE SEPARATED THAT FROM THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE TERM ADVICE OF COUNCIL WAS TO SEPARATE THOSE ITEMS. AND SO AGAIN, WE HAVE THREE, THE MAYOR AND THREE MEMBERS ELECTED ON AN AT LARGE BASIS.

THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE ELECTED SUBJECT TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.

THE COUNCIL WOULD RETAIN A DEMOGRAPHER AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO HELP DRAFT THAT CHANGE, WHICH WOULD BE DONE CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR VOTING.

AND THEN THE FIRST CYCLE, THE COUNCIL WOULD ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THOSE BORDERS OR BOUNDARIES.

AND THEN BEGINNING IN 2031, AFTER THE NEXT FEDERAL CENSUS, EVERY TEN YEARS THEREAFTER, THERE WOULD BE A CITIZENS COMMITTEE THAT'S APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL THAT WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THOSE TERM ABOUT THOSE BOUNDARIES.

PROPOSITION F INTRODUCES THE TERM LIMITS.

AND SO BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE FROM TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS TO EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

SO THAT WOULD ADDRESS IF THE MAYOR HAD A TWO YEAR TERM OR COUNCIL HAD FOUR YEAR TERMS. IT EQUALIZES THINGS BETWEEN THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND AGAIN PERMITS COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THE MAYOR TO SERVE AGAIN AFTER A TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD.

AND HERE WE HAVE A CHART THAT SHOWS KIND OF THE FLOW.

IF YOU HAD THOSE LIMITS IN PLACE GOING FORWARD.

AND I WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS WOULD BE A PROSPECTIVE CHANGE.

SO MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THE COUNCIL NOW WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THE EIGHT YEARS.

SO THERE WOULD BE FROM GOING FORWARD, STARTING IN MAY, GOING FORWARD, THERE WOULD BE EIGHT YEAR TERM LIMIT.

CITY MANAGER DUTIES.

THIS IS WHERE WE ASK THAT THE CITY MANAGER CONSULT WITH THE COUNCIL.

THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS ADVISE AND CONSENT, WHICH IS A LITTLE NEBULOUS.

AND SO BASICALLY, WE'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS TO CONSULT WITH THE COUNCIL PRIOR PRIOR TO MAKING APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES, WHICH ARE UNCLASSIFIED EXECUTIVE LEVEL POSITIONS AND MEASURE AND MEASURE H ADDRESSES.

THERE WOULD NEED TO BE TWO STEPS.

ONE IS THE CHARTER CHANGE.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED AS WELL.

AND SO WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF A CHARTER CHANGE, WE'VE TRIED TO FOOTNOTE THAT SO THAT THE COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT THERE WOULD BE KIND OF A TWO STEP PROCESS IN THIS.

BUT IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED IF THE CHARTER CHANGE WENT FORWARD.

AND THE CHARTER CHANGE WOULD BE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS NOW APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO IN SECTION THIS, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 21, WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS ABILITY TO APPOINT ALL EMPLOYEES EXCEPT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE CREATE A NEW SECTION 34 THAT ESTABLISHES THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO SELECT AND HIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND A NEW SECTION 35, WHICH WILL CODIFY THE LANGUAGE, ESTABLISHING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER SECTION.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ON THE SCREEN.

THAT'S WOULD CALL OUT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE SPECIFICALLY.

AND SO THAT'S A CLARIFICATION OF THE CHARTER LANGUAGE.

AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDING A REGULAR CHARTER REVIEW CYCLE AND SETTING UP A PROCESS WHERE THERE'S A COMMUNITY BASED ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL THAT WOULD DO THAT ON A PERIODIC BASIS, AND THE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE GOVERNANCE AND ZINS POLICY BOOTSTRAPS THE CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT BEING GIVEN TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMITTEE FELT WAS THAT CHARTER CHANGE IS PROBABLY MORE CLEAR, BUT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE AN OPTION OF JUST ADOPTING THE GOVERNANCE AND MS POLICY CHANGE.

BUT BUTTRESSING THE TWO TOGETHER IS PROBABLY MORE CONSISTENT IN A TIGHTER WAY TO DO THINGS.

[02:40:04]

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS MADE OR TO PUT ON THEIR OWN BALLOT MEASURES AS THEY AS YOU SO CHOOSE.

AND SO SUMMARY OF THE BALLOT MEASURES.

PROPOSITION A WOULD CHANGE THE RECALL PROVISIONS.

PROPOSITION B WOULD INCREASE THE CITY COUNCIL TO A MAYOR AND SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS.

PROPOSITION C WOULD CHANGE THE TERM OF OFFICE TO EITHER.

EVERYONE HAS A FOUR YEAR TERM, OR THE ALTERNATIVE MAYOR HAS A TWO YEAR TERM.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE FOUR YEAR TERMS. REVISING THE VACANCY PROVISIONS SO THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

PROPOSITION E CHANGES THE CITY COUNCIL QUALIFICATIONS WHERE WE INTRODUCE THE GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ELEMENT.

PROPOSITION F ESTABLISHED TERM LIMITS.

PROPOSITION G CLARIFIES THE MANAGER'S HIRING AUTHORITY, AND PROPOSITION H PROVIDES THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THEN THE TWO POLICIES THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.

SO OUR TIMELINE AS CURRENTLY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS PROBABLY LOOKING AT AUGUST 6TH FOR THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE CALLING THE ELECTION THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE ON AUGUST 13TH.

THE RESOLUTION IS DUE AUGUST 19TH.

SO THAT WOULD GIVE US GIVE THE COUNCIL TIME TO DO THOSE DECISIONS.

AND NOVEMBER 5TH IS THE ELECTION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS, OR ARE YOU GUYS WANT TO JUMP IN TO DISCUSSION? MAYBE ON YOUR PREFERENCE WHERE YOU THINK YOU YOU WOULD PRIORITIZE THESE? AND IF YOU'D MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THEM, OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THESE YOU'D WANT TO PUT UP.

YEAH. MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD ADD JUST ONE COMMENT LAST WEEK WHEN WE WERE TALKING, I SAID THAT IDEALLY WE SHOULD LOOK AT 3 OR 4 MEASURES.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE MORE MEASURES TODAY, BUT THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT IS EACH MEASURE IS DISTINCT AND IT'S VERY CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

SO IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT THAT, THAT ACTUALLY COULD SIMPLIFY THE VOTING OF THE PUBLIC AND ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING OF THE BY THE PUBLIC OF WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON.

SO THERE'S A GIVE AND A TAKE.

BUT I THINK IN THE END HAVING MORE MORE MEASURES BUT MORE CLEARLY DEFINED.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE FOR ONE THING AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMETHING ELSE, PROVIDES MORE CLARITY IN WHAT THE COUNT THE COMMUNITY IS VOTING ON.

REAL GOOD. I THINK THAT YOU GUYS DID VERY WELL.

I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN IT AND THEN ALSO REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE AND THEIR TIME.

SO WE'RE WE'RE TAKING WHAT THE COMMITTEE'S PUT OUT HERE SERIOUSLY.

AND I THINK WE REALLY WANT TO CONSIDER AND CONTEMPLATE TRYING TO DO AS MUCH AS OF THEIR RECOMMENDING COUNCIL QUESTIONS.

WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION REGARDING MAYOR GOING TO TWO YEARS? WHAT WAS WHAT WHY? WELL, I THINK MAYOR STANLEY RAISED THAT QUESTION AT THE.

I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. SO LET ME STEP AROUND HERE.

SO MY MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A POTENTIAL MAJORITY TURNED OVER AT ANY GIVEN ELECTION.

SO YOU WOULD ALWAYS HAVE FOUR UP AT THAT POINT.

SO, SO THE FOUR YEAR EXTENDED TERMS WITH STAGGERED TERMS IS A BIG PRIORITY FOR ME.

AND SEEING HOW DIFFICULT THIS IS TO HAVE THE CONTINUITY MOVING FORWARD THAT YOU NEED ON THIS COUNCIL.

AND WE'VE DONE THIS HISTORICALLY NOW THREE TIMES OVER THE LAST 18 YEARS, EVERY SIX YEARS, KIND OF LIKE CLOCKWORK.

YOU'VE CLEANED EVERYBODY OFF AND BROUGHT EVERYBODY IN NEW.

IT'S DIFFICULT FOR STAFF.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE LEADERSHIP.

SO IN STAGGERING THESE, THE ONE THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS YOU'D HOLD THE MAYOR TO A TWO YEAR TERM AND HE, HE OR SHE WOULD ALWAYS RUN EVERY TWO YEARS. SO YOU'D ALWAYS BE UP, YOU'D ALWAYS BE AT LARGE.

AND IT WOULD ALWAYS HAVE FOUR THERE.

SO THAT, THAT THERE'S A LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY THERE.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS, IS I KNOW FIRST HAND THE, THE AUTHORITY THAT IS THAT IS, THAT RESIDES WITH THE MAYOR IN THAT OFFICE. AT THE ABSENCE OF COUNCIL.

SO STAFF IS FORCED TO TAKE A LOT OF DIRECTION FROM THE MAYOR.

AND THE MAYOR CAN BE HERE, NOT NOT WELCOMED TO BE HERE 40 HOURS A WEEK, BUT CAN BE HERE 40 HOURS A WEEK.

SO WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE YOUR PROXIMITY IS THAT CLOSE AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE WITH THE STAFF THAT MUCH I THINK IT'S NICE TO HAVE A BALANCE IN POWER

[02:45:03]

FROM THE WAY THAT MAYOR HAS TO RUN AND THE WAY THAT IT BALANCES SOME OF THE POWER OVER TO COUNCIL.

DOES THAT ANSWER IT? THAT ANSWERS IT.

THANK YOU. CITIZEN. YES, SIR.

TAXPAYER. BY THE WAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

ITEM A, I BELIEVE ON THE RECALL.

YES, SIR. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TIME LIMITS PUT INTO THAT THAT THE RECALL CAN TAKE PLACE.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE 60 DAYS OR WHATEVER, AND THEN CITY SECRETARY'S GOT SO MANY DAYS TO PROCESS.

I THINK WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE LANGUAGE THERE.

I BELIEVE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THERE IS A TIME LIMIT ON REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVES.

IS THAT RIGHT? SO WE CAN LOOK AT ADDING THAT LANGUAGE OR INCORPORATING THAT SIMILAR LANGUAGE.

I BELIEVE IT'S 21 DAYS.

IT IS. IT'S 21 DAYS.

OKAY. CAN I.

I DON'T GO AWAY? OH, BUT LET ME LET ME LET ME START A DISCUSSION UP HERE.

COUNCIL. COULD I GET MAYBE EACH ONE OF YOU TO SUMMARIZE YOUR TOP 3 OR 4? YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR ALL OF THEM, PLEASE DO.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF GET A LIST OF OF PRIORITIES FROM YOU GUYS AND SEE WHERE WE HAVE SOME COMMONALITIES AND WHERE WHERE WE COULD PUSH FORWARD WITH A FEW OF THESE KNOWING THAT WE WOULD ALL AGREE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAFT.

YOU GO FIRST, SIR.

WHOA, WHOA. LET ME READ IT ALL ONE LAST TIME BEFORE I OPEN MY MOUTH.

START FOR HE'S UP.

SO, I BELIEVE RECALL OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO INCREASE THE COUNCIL SIZE.

SO THAT WOULD BE AN I'LL GIVE YOU WHAT.

SEE HOW MANY WE HAVE HERE.

EIGHT. HEY.

SO I'LL GIVE YOU MY TOP FIVE.

OKAY. SO RECALL OF AN ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THE TOP PRIORITY.

INCREASE THE COUNCIL.

YEAH B C CHANGE THE TERM OF OFFICE.

WHICH ONE IS WHICH PREFERENCE HERE? BASICALLY, I'M JUST ASKING MAYOR AT TWO YEARS.

MAYOR AT FOUR YEARS.

ACTUALLY SKIP THAT ONE.

SO I ALREADY WROTE IT DOWN.

SORRY. WE CAN'T CAN'T SKIP THAT.

IS THAT THE KNOW? GIVE BACK OR NO TAKE BACK RULE.

NO TAKE BACK RULES.

WHICH ONE? WHICH ONE'S NUMBER? THREE. THEN YOU THINK.

CITY ATTORNEY.

SO H.

OKAY. AND THEN.

I GUESS. E BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT SEPARATING THAT ONE OUT.

CORRECT? YEAH.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO COUNCIL QUALIFICATIONS WOULD YOU WANT C AS YOUR FOURTH ONE.

EXTENDED STAGGERED TERMS. YEAH C AND D WE CAN DO THOSE AS TOP FIVE.

SO OKAY SO LET ME LET ME MAKE SURE I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT.

A AS YOU KNOW FOR THE RECALL NUMBER ONE B INCREASE SIZE TWO MEMBERS.

H APPOINT CITY ATTORNEY C EXTEND THE TERMS STAGGER.

AND THEN YOU SAID D REVISE VACANCY PROVISIONS.

OKAY. SO D BRING THEM IN LINE OKAY.

OKAY. ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO ANY OF THIS OR ANY DISCUSSION FROM YOU ON ANY OF THESE? NO. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN TIPPS I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEPARATE YOURSELF AS WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST THIS VERSUS WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT TO VOTE ON.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? MAKING THAT STATEMENT.

IT'S DIFFICULT TRYING TO DO WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

I WOULD SAY YOU WANT IT IN ORDER OF PRIORITY.

I WOULD LIKE THAT. AND THEN I'M GOING TO RUN A LIST HERE TO SEE WHERE MAYBE OUR ONE TWOS AND THREES LIE.

[02:50:04]

OKAY. HOW ABOUT C G? A B B? B? B, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

C G A B.

AND THERE'S LOTS OF DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR IT, BUT IT'S AT LEAST WE CAN GET PAST THIS POINT.

I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET TO OUR TOP 4 OR 5, AND THEN LET'S SEE IF WE COULD WORK A FEW OF THOSE TOGETHER IN MORE DETAIL.

OKAY. SO TODAY IS DISCUSSION ONLY.

YES, SIR. COULD I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

COUNCIL MEMBER TIPPS C G A B? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.

WE'D STILL HAVE TIME TO WORK.

LANGUAGE AS WELL.

TITLE ADD TO TAKE AWAY COUNCILMAN.

I'M GOOD WITH THE ONLY THING I THINK I'D WANT TO PULL IS THE.

ESTABLISHED TERM LIMITS.

I DON'T LIKE THAT.

SO YOU TAKE IT THE WAY IT IS.

YOU'RE A THROUGH H, BUT DELETE E CORRECT OR F I'M SORRY.

CORRECT. SO A B C D E EXACTLY.

DELETE F G H OKAY.

COUNCILMAN SIMPSON.

SO I'LL KIND OF I HAVE THREE OF THESE THAT ARE AT THE TOP.

I DON'T HAVE FIVE.

AND HOW CAN I GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW I'VE COME TO WHAT I'M THINKING.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO ECHO THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THE COMMITTEE AND DONE BY BAKER TILLY.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK THAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS.

I THINK I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN SOLVE BY CHARTER, AS WELL AS AS THE GOVERNANCE AND MS POLICIES.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT VOTING, I AGREE WITH, I THINK THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ITEMS WE CAN PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR THE MAXIMUM EFFECT IS THE BEST STRATEGY.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE MORE MOVING PARTS YOU PUT TO IT, THE MORE SOMEONE COULD PICK SOMETHING TO BE AGAINST.

AND MAYBE THEY GO, OH NO, INSTEAD OF DOING THAT.

SO I'M KIND OF OF THE LET'S PERFECT IS GREAT, BUT SOMETIMES PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

AND SO I'M LOOKING AT THESE AND THINKING, WHAT ARE THE MOST CRUCIAL, WHICH ONE OF THESE THAT ARE THAT THAT REALLY WOULD MAKE THE BIGGEST SHIFT IN IMPROVING GOVERNANCE. AND FOR ME, A THE RECALL OF ELECTED OFFICIAL, I THINK WHAT'S I CAN'T BELIEVE IT GOT PASSED BEFORE, BUT IT DID.

SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

I THINK INCREASING THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SEVEN MAYOR AND SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CHANGING THE TERM OF OFFICE WOULD BE MY TOP THREE. I WOULD I DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH, WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS AND THAT I, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF CHANGING A MAJORITY IN EVERY ELECTION.

IF YOU LOOK AT COUNTY COMMISSIONS, SCHOOL BOARDS, YOU KNOW, NO ONE CHANGES A MAJORITY IN ONE ELECTION.

I THINK YES, IT COULD BE GOOD.

THE DOWNSIDES ARE SOMETIMES IN A CHANGE ELECTION PEOPLE THINK THEY'RE GETTING ELECTED FOR ONE REASON, AND THAT MAY NOT BE THE REASON, AND THEN THEY GET HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT. I THINK IF THERE'S CHANGE NEEDED TO ELECTION CYCLES AND I THINK IT JUST, I THINK HAVING EVERYONE ON A FOUR YEAR TERM PROVIDES THAT AGAIN, THAT CONTINUITY.

I ALSO GO BACK AND LOOK AT HISTORY.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE MOST MAYORS HAVE SERVED, YOU KNOW, TWO YEAR TERMS. I MEAN, IT HASN'T SEEMED TO BE A REAL PROBLEM OF OF A MAYOR NOT SERVING A TWO YEAR TERM.

SO I, I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THEM ALL AT AT FOUR YEARS.

SO FOR ME, A, B AND C WERE THE ONES THAT I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST PUTTING ON THE BALLOT.

IF YOU HAD A FOURTH ONE, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU GO WITH? WELL, LET ME TELL YOU MY REASONS WHY I DON'T HAVE A FOURTH ONE.

THAT'D BE EVEN BETTER. OKAY.

I MEAN, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO PUT THE D ON THERE FOR SOME.

I MEAN, DO THINGS CHANGE IF WE DON'T PUT D ON THERE? I MEAN, DOES THIS I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND D IS KIND OF A HOUSEKEEPING THING, BUT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH I MEAN, IS IT OKAY IF WE IF THAT IF IT STAYS THE WAY IT IS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK THAT D IS THERE JUST TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

BUT STATE LAW WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE CHARTER.

SO YOU COULD DO AWAY WITH D AND STILL GET TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

THE ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW, YOU THAT WOULD GET YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO BE IN TERMS OF FILLING VACANCIES.

IT BASICALLY GIVE YOU WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE.

YEAH. YOU WOULD STILL SORRY FOR BUTTING IN, BUT YOU WOULD STILL YOU WOULD STILL NEED SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD APPOINT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, BECAUSE STATE

[02:55:10]

LAW REQUIRES THAT.

SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT IN YOUR CHARTER ABOUT HOW YOU'LL, YOU'LL APPOINT WITHIN THE 12 MONTH PERIOD.

SO THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU'D HAVE TO ADD.

BUT BUT THAT'S JUST TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER DOES IT HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM? CAN IT BE FOLDED UNDER ANOTHER ITEM IN THE DETAILS OR IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER? I THINK THAT'S THE WAY STATE LAW.

I MEAN, WE LOOK AT IT, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S THE WAY STATE LAW READS.

SO. OKAY.

GOOD QUESTION. THE THE E WHY? I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF IT AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF IT.

I THINK IT'S JUST GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN.

AND WHILE EVERYBODY WATCHING THIS AND LOOKING AT IT THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDS IT, AND I THINK SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK ON WHAT IT REALLY IS.

AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT COULD WEIGH IN THE BALANCE OF GETTING SOME OF THESE CHANGES APPROVED.

SO I THINK LEAVING THAT I'M A TERM LIMITS AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE STAYING IN TOO LONG.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYONE THAT HAS SERVED MORE THAN 6 OR 8 YEARS IN A COUPLE OF DECADES.

SO, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A PROBLEM TO FIX THERE.

AND I'M IN AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, LET IF SOMEONE WANTS TO IF WE HAVE A GOOD COUNCIL MEMBER THAT IS INSANE ENOUGH TO RUN FOR A THIRD TERM, THEN LET THEM HAVE THEIR FUN.

THE LAST TWO, I THINK WE'VE KIND OF FIGURED A WAY AROUND THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS REALLY A NEED IN THE CHARTER ISSUE.

I THINK WE'VE, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, IS IT A IS IT A MUST HAVE OR NICE TO HAVE.

I THINK A, B AND C ARE MUST HAVES AND HAVING A MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT I THINK THE, THE G AND H.

WE'VE ACTUALLY I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE ARE REALLY NECESSARILY CHARTER PROBLEMS. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE GOTTEN KIND OF COMPLICATED THAT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT I THINK WE'RE WE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO RESOLVE THOSE.

SO I WOULD KIND OF LOOK AT A, B AND C AND I GUESS IF WE NEED TO INCLUDE D AS A AS A HOUSEKEEPING, JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO THAT, THEN I WOULD ADD D TO THAT AS WELL.

A, B, C AND D.

AND I WOULD ECHO YOUR STATEMENT.

I THINK THAT SPEAKING TO THE COMMITTEE, THE TIME THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE INVESTED IS NOT WASTED.

IF WE STOPPED AT D A LOT OF WHAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO STILL MOVE FORWARD ON IS GOVERNANCE AND ENDS POLICY.

TO GO AND CLEAN UP SOME OF THESE ITEMS WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE IT TO A CHARTER ELECTION.

SO THIS IS VERY HELPFUL.

MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD.

YES, SIR. IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN HAVING THE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU WOULD NEED THE CHARTER AMENDMENT H FOR THAT.

CORRECT. THAT COULD NOT BE DONE THROUGH GOVERNANCE AND ENDS.

G COULD BE ADDRESSED THAT WAY, BUT H WOULD NEED A SEPARATE MEASURE.

I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, ESPECIALLY FOR, YOU KNOW, THE THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

SO MINE WOULD BE B PRIORITY NUMBER ONE, INCREASE THE COUNCIL TWO MEMBERS A RECALL OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL C FOUR YEAR STAGGERED TERMS, AND I WOULD GLADLY MOVE AND BEND FROM THE TWO TO THE FOUR IF COUNCIL DOESN'T AGREE WITH THAT.

SO IF I'M THE ONLY ONE, OR IF IT'S JUST ME AND ONE OTHER THAT WANT TO HOLD THE MAYOR TO TWO, THEN THEN LET'S AGREE ON FOUR AND MOVE THAT ONE FORWARD AS A PRIORITY.

AND THEN D BECAUSE IT'S A HALF TWO.

OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T PUT D UP, I'D JUST LET STATE LAW SPEAK.

BUT I THINK IT IS A HOUSEKEEPING PROVISION THAT SHOULD BE MADE.

I BROUGHT UP ORIGINALLY, I BELIEVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY BY COUNSEL QUESTIONED THAT WITH THE CONSULTING FIRM.

I'VE SINCE MOVED AWAY FROM THAT ONE.

I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE COULD PUT FORWARD TO OUR CITIZENS.

AND WE COULD ADD THIS ONE AND THAT ONE.

AND THEN THE MORE WE REACH FOR, THE LESS WE COME DOWN WITH.

I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR HAVING 3 OR 4 KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SANCTUARY CITY PROPOSITION AS WELL UP THERE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD WORK THROUGH OUR GOVERNANCE AND ENDS POLICIES AND THEN CONTINUE TO, TO WORK THE WAY WE HAVE.

I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

HE'S WORKING WELL WITH INSIDE COUNSEL.

I THINK STAFF APPRECIATES THE ADDITIONAL EYES AND RESOURCES.

SO I KNOW THE COUNSEL DEFINITELY DOES.

THOSE ARE MINE.

THE FOR YEAR TO YEAR.

NOT A BIG DEAL.

AND I APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO SET ASIDE THE GEOGRAPHIC QUALIFICATION IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, NOT TYING IT TO ANY OF THESE.

AND IF I HAD TO PUT A FIFTH ONE DOWN, THAT WOULD BE THE ONE I'D PROBABLY GO WITH.

BUT I'M, I'M OKAY WITH NOT PUTTING THAT REQUIREMENT IN.

[03:00:04]

MR. MAYOR, BY MY COUNT, I SEE EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAS PLACED A, B, C, AND D ON THEIR LIST.

SO IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT OF HAVING NO MORE THAN FOUR, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.

I LOVE THAT SIR.

SO IF YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO FIGHT FOR IT RIGHT HERE.

SO TELL ME WHICH ONE YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT OR WHICH COUPLE.

AND LET'S HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT.

COUNCIL HANK THOMSON ONE THAT HAS MORE THAN FOUR.

SO ESSER COUNCILMAN YOU GOT ONE THERE THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KEEP? WELL, YEAH. I MEAN WE'VE GOT THESE.

I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY.

DALLAS JUST DID THIS.

DALLAS HAD 21 PROPOSITIONS.

ALL OF THEM PASSED.

SO, I MEAN, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ASKING.

IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO READ EACH OF THESE SENTENCES AND LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK.

I MEAN, BY PUTTING THEM ALL ON THERE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE OVERDOING MY ELECTORATE.

NOW, DURING THE COMMITTEE, EVERYBODY WAS WORRIED ABOUT VOTER FATIGUE.

I DON'T THINK WE GIVE OUR VOTERS ENOUGH CREDIT.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE VOTER FATIGUE NOW AFTER WE READ THAT SANCTUARY CITY DEAL, YOU MIGHT.

BUT BUT TO BE TRUTHFUL, ALL WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO IS TO SAY FOR OR AGAINST AND, YOU KNOW THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON THIS THING.

OKAY. SO YOU YOU WOULD DO THEM ALL? LESS F NO TERM LIMITS.

STILL, LIKE YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR, YOU'RE JUST ARGUING AGAINST THE ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, LESS IS MORE, AND WE'RE GOING TO COME AWAY WITH MORE IF WE ONLY PUT FOUR OF THEM UP.

BECAUSE I THINK I THINK WE COULD ARRIVE AT FOUR.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO SAY ONLY THREE.

DO ARE WE WILLING TO DO MORE COUNCIL ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MAYBE SHIFT THAT DIRECTION? RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, I SEE WHAT I SEE TOM'S POINT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A THAT'S THEIR VOICE.

I MEAN, OUR CITIZENS, IF THEY WANT TO VOTE AND THEY WANT THIS STUFF, THEN LET THEM HAVE IT.

BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T I'M MORE I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT IT AS VOTER FATIGUE AS I AM NOT ALLOWING THE CITIZENS TO GET WHAT THEY WANT OUT OF THEIR CITY GOVERNMENT. DID YOU HAVE E ON YOURS? YOU DID NOT.

WELL, I MEAN, I HAD I ONLY GAVE YOU FIVE, BUT I C COUNCIL MEMBER SHIRLEY'S POINT ON ALLOWING THEM ALL TO VOTE ON ALL OF THEM.

YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING THAT I HAD ADDED WAS H.

AND THAT WAS TO DESIGNATE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A AUTHORITY FOR CITY ATTORNEY.

WELL, LET ME TAKE THAT ONE JUST IN THE WAY IN WHICH I FEEL WE'VE SOLVED THAT.

BY BY HAVING THE ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY, I STILL FEEL, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE CITIZENS POINT OF VIEW, YOU DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE THAT ATTORNEY AS A REPRESENTATIVE, BUT IT DOES COST SOME ISSUES, I THINK, FOR THE ROLE OF THAT TYPICAL CITY ATTORNEY.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO LET THAT ONE GO.

THE GEE, I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD HANDLE THROUGH GOVERNANCE AND ENDS.

F DOES ANYBODY HAVE F? NO ONE DOES.

SO WE WE REALLY AREN'T LOOKING AT THAT ONE.

AND THEN REALLY THE THE ARGUMENT MIGHT BE E HOW MANY E'S DO WE HAVE? MR. CONSULTANT IS WE, I HAVE ONE E SO JUST TOM.

YES. YES, SIR.

JUST. TOM. TOM, ARE YOU WILLING TO LET THAT ONE GO, OR DO YOU WANT TO STAND ON IT? I MEAN, I COULD LET IT GO, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD MOVE BY GETTING MORE REPRESENTATION IN AREAS.

BECAUSE WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS IN COMMITTEE, AND IT WAS IN LESS THAN I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE DID.

AND THEY WERE REALLY INVOLVED IN TRYING TO GET MORE REPRESENTATION IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.

AND THAT'S WHY THEY INCLUDED THAT.

AND AFTER LISTENING TO THEM FOR FIVE WEEKS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A COUPLE THREE DIFFERENT TIMES, DIDN'T WE? YES. IT WAS A VERY VALID POINT.

AND THEY ARGUED IT.

BOTH SIDES ARGUED IT VERY WELL.

AND IT CAME UP THAT THE MAJORITY WANTED IT THERE SO I COULD LET IT GO.

[03:05:05]

OKAY. I MEAN, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSESS A COST FOR DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY, ACCORDING TO OUR ATTORNEY, MR. HYDE. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP TO PUT THAT ON.

AND WE WOULD HAVE TO NOTICE THE PUBLIC OF THAT ACCORDING TO HIS ADVISEMENT EARLIER TODAY.

YES, SIR. ASK A QUESTION.

SO DOES E DOES THAT IS IT DEPENDENT ON B OR IS IT.

NO. SO LET'S JUST SAY E PASSES DO THREE OF THE FOUR COUNCIL.

IT IS DEPENDENT ON B.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO IF B FAILS E WOULD BE THE ONE THAT IS A STANDALONE THAT WOULD BE WRITTEN IN A LANGUAGE THAT IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PASS OF B, SO YOU WOULD NOT END UP WITH FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS.

NOW, IF YOU ENDED UP WITH FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU COULD END UP WITH STAGGERED TERMS WITH FIVE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL. BUT THEY WOULD BE THE FOUR YEAR TERMS, SO YOU COULD NOT END UP JUST AS AN EXAMPLE FOR FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

YOU COULD NOT END UP WITH STAGGERED TWO YEAR TERMS. WE'VE TIED THOSE TWO TOGETHER.

SO IF YOU PASS FOUR YEAR TERMS, YOU'RE PASSING STAGGERED TERMS. YOU WOULD NOT PASS A FOUR YEAR SEPARATE FROM A STAGGERED TERM PROPOSITION.

SO THOSE TWO ARE TIED TOGETHER, BUT THEY'RE IN ONE PROPOSITION.

AND I THINK THAT'S EASY TO FOLLOW.

WHAT IS NOT EASY TO FOLLOW IS GOING TO BE THE QUALIFICATION MEASURE THAT IS TIED TO THE INCREASE OF COUNCIL WOULD PROBABLY BE ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST IT AND JUST MESSAGING TO THE PUBLIC.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

OKAY. WE HAVE A COUPLE THINGS HERE, SO WE WOULD NEED TO CONFIRM HEADINGS, TITLE LANGUAGE AND THE ORDER.

RIGHT. WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

CORRECT. AND THEN WE COULD LOOK AT AUGUST 6TH AS THE SCHEDULED MEETING CALL A SPECIAL MEETING TO DO THAT.

GO 613 OR IF COUNCIL SO WANTED I WOULD I WOULD ASK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE AN APPETITE.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEED THIS UP AND DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING DURING THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, MEANING WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL PROBABLY THAT FRIDAY, WE WOULD NOTICE THE PUBLIC THAT THAT FRIDAY WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WHICH WOULD BE NEXT FRIDAY.

SO COULD YOU MOVE THAT QUICKLY OR DO YOU NEED MORE TIME? WELL, WE'VE DRAFTED AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE SPECIFIC BALLOT LANGUAGE.

I THINK IT NEEDS SOME FINE TUNING.

SO WE'D BE WORKING WITH MR. HYDE ON THAT. BUT I THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO DO THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY.

SO WE COULD MAKE NEXT FRIDAY WORK.

ANYONE NOT AVAILABLE TUESDAY THE SIXTH.

SIX. YEAH. SO WHAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING IS WE'RE ALMOST BACK TO THE LAST PROPOSITION THAT PASSED THAT SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MEET EVERY WEEK, BUT NOW WE'RE MEETING EVERY WEEK JUST VOLUNTARILY.

SO IN ORDER TO TO DO THIS, I'M OKAY WITH MEETING, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT FREQUENT AND NOT TRYING TO COMBINE IT BECAUSE BUDGET IS A HEAVY LIFT AND IT'S NICE TO NOT BE PUTTING OTHER THINGS INTO BUDGET.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL IS AVAILABLE ON THE SIXTH.

THEN WE WOULD HAVE UNTIL THE SIXTH OR UNTIL THE NOTICE IN ORDER TO GET THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT AND TO CONTINUE TO HEAR COUNSEL'S PREFERENCE ON ORDER.

AND ANY OTHER TITLES SPECIFICS.

AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON.

YES, SIR. SORRY.

I'M GETTING A TEXT FROM MY WIFE ABOUT MY CALENDAR.

I SAW THAT, YEAH.

YEAH. THAT'S NOT THE SIXTH.

OH. IS IT? I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN COUNCILMAN TIPPS QUITE SO DISTRAUGHT OVER A DECISION UP HERE AT THE DAIS.

MAYBE WE DID GET IT ON THE SIXTH.

YEAH. YOU'RE GOOD ON THE SIXTH.

AND DOWN HERE.

YES, SIR. I MEAN, YEAH, AND I KNOW THIS HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, BUT DO WE ANTICIPATE TWO HOURS TO DISCUSS THIS? IS IT? I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE KIND OF NARROWING DOWN TO THE END.

I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE, LIKE, A LONG DISCUSSION ON THIS.

AGREED. I WOULD HOPE WE COULD DO THIS IN AN HOUR.

QUESTION WOULD BE, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE AN HOUR OUT OF YOUR BUDGET WORKSHOP, OR DO YOU WANT TO SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING TO COME TOGETHER? WELL, IF WE COULD, IF WE COULD, AND I KNOW I'D RATHER NOT HAVE A MEETING ON ANOTHER DAY, BUT, I MEAN, IF WE COULD GET IT DONE ON THAT FRIDAY.

[03:10:01]

BUT IF EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO IT ON THAT TUESDAY, I'M FINE.

EITHER WAY. WE HAVE TIME ON THAT.

I THINK WE CAN DO IT ON THAT FRIDAY.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO COST US SOMETHING.

AND A RECAP AND IN BUDGET DISCUSSION, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE MUCH BETTER AT THE BUDGET DISCUSSION THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR.

AND SO PLUS, IF WE HAD TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME TIMELINE ON THE BUDGET THAT YOU DO ON THIS GUY.

SO YOU'RE PRIORITIZING THIS ONE JUST IN CASE SOMETHING WENT WRONG.

ANYBODY? NOT GOOD FOR PUTTING IT ON THAT FRIDAY.

GREAT. WE ARE AT A CONSENSUS.

WE WILL DO THIS ON FRIDAY.

WHAT IS THAT THE SECOND OR IS THAT THE THIRD? SECOND? SECOND FRIDAY? THE SECOND WOULD ASK YOU TO BRING THIS BACK.

AND THEN MR. HAWKINS, LET ME ASK YOU WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, MAN A'S AND B'S ALL PRETTY MUCH TOP TWO PRIORITIES.

WE'VE GOT A C UP THERE THAT I UNDERSTAND.

BUT A, B AND C ONE, TWO AND THREE.

PRETTY CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

D WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT WE FEEL LIKE IS KIND OF A HALF TWO.

AND THEN ARE WE ARE WE GOOD TO LEAVE IT AT THAT COUNCIL.

OR DID WE WANT TO STRETCH FOR GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

IS IT E THAT IS THE ONE.

THE DISTRICT? YEAH.

THE YEP.

TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY.

DO WE WANT TO PUT E OUT THERE.

DO YOU WANT. WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT.

YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO DECIDE TODAY.

DO YOU WANT HIM TO BRING BACK THAT LANGUAGE AND GIVE YOU ANOTHER WEEK TO THINK THROUGH THAT ONE? MAYBE LISTEN TO YOUR CITIZENS FOR A WEEK, SEE WHO REACHES OUT.

OR WE. OR DO WE WANT TO DIRECT HIM BASED ON THE FOR? I'D SAY GIVE US A WEEK TO LISTEN TO OUR CITIZENS.

I LIKE IT. MR. HAWKINS, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU NEED FROM US? WE CAN DO A B C D E PRESENT IT TO THE COUNCIL.

YOU CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT WHETHER YOU WANT TO INCLUDE E ON THE BALLOT OR NOT.

BUT WE'VE GOT A DRAFT NOW ON E, SO I THINK WE COULD FINE TUNE THAT AND HAVE SOMETHING BACK TO YOU IN PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE SECOND.

SO ONE OTHER ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO CATCH HERE I WOULD MOVE TO THE FOUR YEAR TERM AS MAYOR SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE THAT ONE.

I WOULD ASK TO KEEP THE MAYOR AT A TWO YEAR TERM THIS FIRST GO ROUND.

SO LET HIM STAGGER.

LET ME STAGGER AT A TWO YEAR.

AND THEN I WOULD ASK THAT WE, WE, WE LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL TWO POSITIONS.

SO THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL FIVE AND SIX IS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE FOUR YEAR TERMS FOR FIVE AND SIX.

THOSE TWO NEW POSITIONS WOULD BE FOUR YEAR TERMS. I WOULD NEED TO KNOW IF, IF ANY COUNCILMAN WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THEIR POSITION TO A TWO YEAR AND DIRECT YOU TO GO AHEAD AND REARRANGE THAT CHART TO REFLECT THAT IN WHICH ONES WOULD BE MOVING TO A TO A TWO YEAR IN THIS NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, AND WHICH ONES WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A FOUR? SO FIVE AND SIX.

ARE WE ALL AGREED WE WOULD LIKE THOSE TWO NEW POSITIONS TO BE FOUR YEAR TERMS, CORRECT? IF THAT PASSES RIGHT.

IF THAT PASSES, CORRECT.

SO ASSUMING WE, WE, WE ADD TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS, THEY WILL BE FOUR YEAR TERMS. ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HOLDING THE MAYOR EVEN THOUGH HE WILL GO TO A FOUR YEAR, HE OR SHE WILL GO TO A FOUR YEAR.

BUT THIS NEXT MAY WOULD BE A TWO YEAR TERM.

AND, MR. MAYOR, SO THEN IN 2027, THE MAYOR WOULD BE A FOUR YEAR TERM, BE BACK UP IN 2027 AND WOULD THEN GO TO A FOUR YEAR TERM, BUT WOULD BE ON THAT FIRST CYCLE OF THOSE THREE INDIVIDUAL SUNNY, TWO OTHERS.

I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL I'LL TAKE IT.

I'LL TAKE WELL, LET ME LET ME JUST SAY THIS THOUGH I'M FIRST TO MANY I NOMINATE TOM FOR.

DON'T EVEN KID YOURSELF.

WELL, HERE'S THE THING.

THIS IS IN NOVEMBER, RIGHT? WELL, YEAH. ELECTION.

OKAY. I MEAN, TO BE FAIR, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR REELECTION BY THEN.

SO THAT'S ONE THING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE 2 OR 4 YEAR.

BUT THE OTHER THING IS I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE OPEN FOR ANYBODY.

I MEAN, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE NO MATTER WHAT SEATS THAT ARE.

I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE IN PLACE FOR PLACE ONE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T MEAN IF IF WHATEVER IT IS, I MEAN, WE WOULD CHOOSE WHICH ONES WE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE TWO NEW ONES.

SO I MEAN, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AT THAT TIME AS TO WHETHER YOU AND IF IF BY DRAW OR BY BALLOT, WE JUST ASSIGN EACH ONE OF THESE.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE WHATEVER IT IS.

AND THEN EVERYBODY'S OPEN FOR RUNNING WHICHEVER ONE THEY WANT TO.

SO I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH THE MAYOR STICKING TO.

OKAY. MUST BE IF I COULD CLARIFY WITH BRIAN, I THINK THAT THE TERMS WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE.

THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER.

[03:15:01]

SO WE WOULD JUST SET IT UP WHERE WE'D HAVE CERTAIN NUMBER OF ELECTED IN 2025 FOR A TWO YEAR TERM, AS THE CHART DESCRIBES, AND A CERTAIN NUMBER THAT WOULD BE ELECTED FOR FOUR YEAR TERMS IN 2025, WHOSE TERM WOULD NOT EXPIRE UNTIL 2029.

SO THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED BY ORDINANCE.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR MY EDUCATION, BECAUSE I THINK I WAS UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THAT WORKED OUT BY THE READING ON THE SECOND.

NOW YOU'RE YOU CAN DO IT A NUMBER OF WAYS.

YOU COULD DRAW LOTS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE COULD YOU COULD ACTUALLY ASSIGN THE NUMBERS AND PUT IT IN THE ORDINANCE IF YOU WANTED TO.

SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT NUMBERS WILL GO TO FOR THE STAGGER.

SO THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO DO IT THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON TO GET THAT DONE FOR YOU.

OKAY. WELL THEN I THINK WE'VE GIVEN YOU WHAT YOU NEED AS A DIRECTIVE.

YOU BRING THIS BACK ON THE SECOND WE COULD REVISIT THIS TOPIC.

BUT IF WE'RE NO CLOSER TO KNOWING WHICH ONE OF US IS IS GOING TO GO TWO VERSUS FOUR, THEN WE WOULD LEAVE IT TO, AFTER THE NOVEMBER DISCUSSION, PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD DICTATE THAT.

RIGHT. OKAY. MR. HAWKINS, I FEEL LIKE THAT WAS PRETTY PRODUCTIVE.

WELL, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU THINK ARE THERE? IS THERE ANYTHING WE'RE MISSING? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

I THINK WE JUST NEED TO TIGHTEN UP SOME LANGUAGE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE FOUR YEAR TERM FOR THE MAYOR, BUT DO THE ROTATION, AS YOU SUGGESTED.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, WE GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

YOU'RE BACK ON THE SECOND.

I WILL BE BACK ON THE SECOND.

OKAY. AND THEN I THINK WE'LL HAVE YOU.

YOU DONE? OKAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SIR.

GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND.

I BELIEVE WE ARE ACTUALLY THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. WOULD ASK IF ANYBODY HAS A REQUEST FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.

[7.G. Request future agenda items and reports from City Manager]

I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING, SO I'M GOING TO SAY WE DON'T I, I DO HAVE ONE ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO PULL OFF ON CONSENT.

SO I THINK WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS, COME BACK AND DO CONSENT QUICKLY, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE THROUGH NON CONSENT, TEN MINUTES.

THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU BOB.

OH, YEAH. EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE.

SO WE GOT A COUPLE MORE TOPICS HERE.

COUNCIL, WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEMS EIGHT.

[8. Consent Items]

ALL OF THE EIGHTS CONSENT ITEM OR CONSENT AGENDA.

DO I HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO PULL OFF? NO, SIR. OKAY, I AM GOING TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION.

ITEM EIGHT L AND THEN I'M GOING TO PUT IT BACK ON.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SOMETHING HERE.

SO I BELIEVE IF I COULD HAVE MRS STORRS MAYBE DISCUSS WITH US WHEREVER YOU'RE MOST COMFORTABLE, THERE OR OUT THERE.

DOESN'T MATTER. YOU'RE GOOD RIGHT THERE.

WE CAN SEE YOU. WE HAD A CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY.

I HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, LOOK, THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY HAS AUDITED THE CITY OF AMARILLO FOR 22 YEARS IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.

AND SO I BELIEVE THE COMPANY'S BEEN BOUGHT, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME COMPANY.

AND I'M NOT EVEN QUESTIONING PERFORMANCE.

I THINK THEY PROBABLY ARE DOING A FINE JOB.

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW.

RIGHT. THE AUDIT COMES BACK AND IT'S CLEAR, AND WE GET A FIVE STAR AND WE JUST MOVE ON ON THIS ONE.

I HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT SAID, HEY, I'D LIKE TO NOT AWARD THAT.

AND WE DON'T WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AT WHICH THE TIMING TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE AND, AND TO PUT OUT AN RFQ AND HIRE ANOTHER FIRM, IT WOULD REALLY CAUSE THE ORGANIZATION, I THINK SOME PROBLEMS INTERNALLY.

SO HERE, HERE WAS THE, THE POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, AND I JUST NEED YOU TO TELL ME IF I'M MISLEADING ANY OF MY COUNCIL MEMBERS RATHER THAN TRYING TO PULL THIS OFF AND SAY, HEY, LET'S HOLD OFF ON AWARDING THIS TO OUR CURRENT AUDITOR.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WITH THIS BEING THE CURRENT YEAR.

BUT THEN LET'S GO TO MAYBE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH MR. DAWSON OR A FIRM LIKE HIS, WHERE IF WE DID HAVE REASON TO QUESTION SOMETHING ELSE, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, A PROCEDURE, WHATEVER WE LEAVE COUNCIL THE ABILITY. WHICH COUNCIL HAS THIS ABILITY.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH STAFF TO DO A SINGLE AUDIT.

MRS. STORRS. AND I'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW SINGLE AUDITS ARE ALREADY TAKING PLACE IN, YOU KNOW, SOME FORMS AND FASHIONS AND, AND FOR COUNCIL TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO AUDIT THIS DEPARTMENT OR WE'D LIKE TO LOOK DEEPER OVER HERE.

WE DO HAVE UNIL WHO CAME WITH SOME VERY, YOU KNOW, HIGH MARKS HERE TODAY FROM SOMEBODY THAT I BELIEVE IS VERY WELL REPRESENTED IN THE DAWSON AGENCY.

SO MRS STORRS WE WOULD THEN BE LOOKING AT THE NEXT YEAR, PUTTING THIS OUT FOR AN RFQ AND ALLOWING

[03:20:05]

COUNCIL AND OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS BEING PUT ON AND I DON'T BELIEVE.

TELL ME IF YOU HAD ANYBODY ELSE LOOKING AT IT THIS YEAR OR IF THIS WAS JUST KIND OF A RE-UP.

YEAH. SO AT THIS POINT WE WERE LOOKING BECAUSE WE HAD THIS OTHER AUDIT THAT WAS GOING ON.

AND SO WE WANTED TO KIND OF SEE HOW WE GOT THROUGH THAT.

AND AT THIS POINT IN THE YEAR FOR AN AUDIT OF THE SIZE OF THE CITY OF AMARILLO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THEY WOULD HAVE TO START SOME SORT OF INTERIM WORK, PROBABLY LATE SUMMER OR EARLY FALL, TO GO THROUGH AN RFQ PROCESS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY AT LEAST A 90 TO 120 DAY TIME PERIOD.

WE WOULD IF WE WENT WITH ANOTHER AUDIT FIRM.

WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AN AUDIT FIRM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AMARILLO BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF OUR AUDIT.

THE FIRM WE'RE WITH RIGHT NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ONLY ONE LARGE ENOUGH DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ACQUIRED, I BELIEVE, OR MERGED OR SOMETHING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

SO THEY'RE MORE ON A NATIONAL SCALE NOW.

THEY'RE THE ONLY LOCAL PRESENCE THAT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE AN AUDIT OF OUR SIZE.

AND SO WHICH IS FINE.

WE CAN WORK THROUGH ALL OF THAT.

THERE'S LOTS OF CAPABILITIES FOR REMOTE WORKING, ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT DOING A GOOD RFQ PROCESS WHERE WE ASK FOR QUALIFICATIONS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE STAFF, THEY HAVE THE TIMING TO FACILITATE OUR AUDIT.

WE WOULD NEED PROBABLY 90 DAYS AT A MINIMUM, PROBABLY 120 DAYS.

SO THE PLAN WAS AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE YEAR, WE WOULD GO OUT AND START AN RFQ IN THIS COMING SPRING AND LOOK TO BRING IT FOR AWARD IN EARLY SUMMER.

WE MIGHT EVEN BACK IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND START IT IN KIND OF END OF WINTER, MAYBE JANUARY, FEBRUARY, TIME POINT.

YEAH. AND I THINK WITH ELECTION BE IN MAY I THINK FOR THIS COUNCIL, WHAT I'M ASKING THEM TO DO IS MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO SELECT POTENTIALLY THE, THE, THE AUDIT FIRM.

BECAUSE I THINK STAFF HAS JUST MOVED ON THAT ALREADY AND WE DIDN'T REALIZE THE TIME FRAME.

SO WE WOULD WE WOULD PROBABLY REACH OUT IN JANUARY RFQ WE COULD DO THAT, TRY TO GET THIS TO WHERE IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF OR I MEAN, THAT COUNCIL COULD AWARD IN MAY PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

OKAY. AND THEN THAT WAY WE HAVE A HAND IN IT MAY VERY WELL BE THE MOST QUALIFIED COMPANY.

MAY NOT HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO AUDIT US OUTSIDE.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CONTINUE WITH THIS UPFRONT TRANSPARENCY MODEL OF BE BEHOOVED TO DO A SINGLE AUDIT.

AND I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S GOOD FOR, FOR OUR STAFF TO KNOW AND TO BE LOOKING FOR THAT AND THAT THOSE ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THE REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING AUDIT, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS AUDIT ONLY LOOKS AT THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF THE ORGANIZATION.

WHAT WE WOULD BE AWARDING TODAY, IT'S NOT A SINGLE AUDIT.

IT DOESN'T DRILL DOWN TO PROCEDURES AND TO, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE MAY BE NEEDED.

AND MAYOR, IF I CAN CLARIFY JUST A LITTLE BIT, AND IT'S JUST A TERMINOLOGY, WE ACTUALLY, WITH OUR EXTERNAL AUDIT ANNUALLY DO RECEIVE WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A SINGLE AUDIT.

AND THAT'S A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TERM.

AND ANYONE THAT RECEIVES OVER 250,000 IN GRANT AWARDING EACH YEAR HAS TO GO THROUGH A SINGLE AUDIT.

I MAY HAVE MY NUMBER WRONG JUST SLIGHTLY, BUT AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO IN AND LOOK AT THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES OF SPECIFIC GRANT PROGRAMS THROUGH THE YEAR, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY BROUGHT FORWARD.

AND I KNOW IT'S JUST A TERMINOLOGY.

YOU JUST HAPPEN TO USE THE EXACT SAME WORD THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USES FOR THAT.

SO WE DO GET A SINGLE AUDIT EACH YEAR ALONG WITH OUR ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT.

BUT I THINK TO YOUR POINT IS, WE COULD DO KIND OF A SEPARATE ENGAGEMENT WITH EVEN A DIFFERENT AUDIT FIRM.

SOME AGREED UPON PROCEDURES.

IF IF COUNCIL HAD AN AREA THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT, SPECIFICALLY A DEEPER DIVE INTO IT.

YOU KNOW, WE COULD CERTAINLY I MEAN, JUST LIKE THE PROP ONE AUDIT, WE COULD CERTAINLY COME INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH AN AUDIT FIRM ON THAT AND THEN LET THEM WORK THROUGH THAT AND THEN PRESENT THEIR RESULTS TO CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S GREAT. AND I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOU CORRECTING KIND OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE VERBIAGE THAT'S WRONG, BECAUSE I THINK IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC IF WE DON'T.

SO THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING THAT.

I'M I'M GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

I MEAN, AS AN EXAMPLE, THE ARPA MONIES AND WHAT WAS THE TERM FOR THE, THE 19 MILLION PREVIOUSLY.

IT'S ALL COVID RELATED.

WHAT WAS THE.

SO THERE WAS THERE WAS CARES ACT AND THERE WAS ARPA AS WELL.

CARES AND ARPA. GREAT EXAMPLE OF AN ORGANIZATION LOOKING INTERNALLY AFTER ALL THIS BECAUSE MOST OF THAT MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT BY 25 OR 26, RIGHT?

[03:25:06]

YES. BY THE END OF, I BELIEVE, 2025.

SO DO WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF 25 TO GO? OH, DANG, IT SHOULD HAVE HAD SOME CONTROLS IN PLACE.

OR DO WE GO AHEAD AND LOOK NOW AFTER WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH WHAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND WE SAY, HEY, LET'S GET IN FRONT OF THIS GUY AND LET'S LET'S LOOK AT ARPA MONIES.

AND SO THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, I THINK THE WAY IN WHICH WE ARE JUST VOCALIZING IT, MOVING THIS FORWARD THIS WAY AND KEEPING THE BALANCE THERE WITH JUST ALL EYES ON DECK.

SO IF I AM I SAYING ANYTHING ELSE THERE THAT YOU WANT TO CORRECT IN TERMINOLOGY? NO, THAT'S I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

I, I WILL SAY JUST BECAUSE YOU CALLED OUT CARES AND ARPA THEY ARE GRANT DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEY REQUIRED THEM TO GO THROUGH SINGLE AUDIT PROCEDURES THE LAST FEW YEARS.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT COUNCIL COULDN'T HAVE ANOTHER FIRM LOOK AT IT AS WELL, JUST KNOWING THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE DOING SOMEWHAT SIMILAR PROCEDURES.

BUT BEYOND GRANT DOLLARS OF ANY SORT THEN? YES, THAT IS I MEAN, IT IS LOOKED AT AT A, AT A HIGHER LEVEL, A MATERIALITY LEVEL.

AND SO IF COUNCIL WANTED TO GET DOWN INTO THE MINUTE DETAILS OF IT IN AN AUDIT, THAT MIGHT BE A SEPARATE ENGAGEMENT THAT WE COULD WORK WITH A DIFFERENT FIRM ON.

I LIKE IT. WELL, WE'RE WE'RE LEARNING AS WE GO HERE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S EVIDENT.

AND IT'S GOOD BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION.

SO ITEM EIGHT L I'M COMFORTABLE WITH.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING FOR MRS. STORRS ON THIS ITEM? NO, NO.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO PUT EIGHT L BACK ON, AND I WOULD REQUEST A MOTION FOR CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

NON CONSENT.

[9.A. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 8143]

ITEM NINE A IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE MR. KENDRICK COMING DOWN HERE TO WALK US THROUGH THIS GUY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM IS A FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF 4.29 ACRES OF LAND.

AS A PORTION OF TRACT FIVE OF CR AUSTIN SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF TRACT FIVE K OF CR AUSTIN SUBDIVISION NUMBER THREE.

THAT IS ALL LOCATED IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF SCOTTIE DRIVE AND WRANGLER TRAIL, AND THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ONE TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT IS FIRM AND LAND SURVEYORS, INC.

FOR B AND M EQUITIES, LLC, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS CHANGE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

AT THIS MOMENT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SERIES OF DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX TRIPLEX STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL OF 43 DWELLING UNITS, WHICH THAT WOULD COME OUT TO TEN UNITS PER ACRE AND IS NOTED AT MODERATE DENSITY, WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 24 UNITS PER ACRE IF APPROVED.

IT IS NOTED THAT THE REQUEST WOULD NOT CONFORM WITH THE 2010 OR THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OR THE CONCEPTS OF DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED BY THOSE GUIDING DOCUMENTS, WHICH INCLUDES THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT CONCEPT, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, AND THE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIO.

THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

ON JUNE 17TH, THE ITEM WAS TABLED AT THAT MEETING AS THE DEVELOPER AND HIS AGENT CAME TO THAT MEETING WITH THEIR INITIAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT THAT STAFF WAS SEEN FOR THE FIRST TIME, AS IT WAS NOT PROVIDED PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, SO P AND Z FELT THAT THE ITEM NEEDED TO BE TABLED SO THAT STAFF HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS PROPOSED, WHICH IS ON YOUR SCREEN CURRENTLY.

NOW. THAT'S THE CONCEPT THAT WAS BROUGHT AT THAT MEETING.

AND IN THE CASE AT THE JULY 1ST MEETING, STAFF RECOMMENDED TO DENY THE REQUEST DUE TO THE REQUESTED ZONING, NOT CONFORMING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED BY MODERATE DENSITY, THE COMMISSION DID DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO POTENTIALLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS, BUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE FOR THE TWO TO RECOMMEND THE CASE FOR APPROVAL TO COUNCIL.

AS PRESENTED AS THERE WERE CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL TIME AND COST THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD INCUR IF DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE CURRENT MODERATE DENSITY REQUEST.

AND NOTICES WERE SENT AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND AS OF THIS MEETING WE HAVE RECEIVED 12 COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST, AND I WILL SUMMARIZE THE THOSE COMMENTS NOW INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE DENSITY ALLOWED WOULD BE TOO HIGH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS 24 PER ACRE AND WOULD RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO EXISTING HOMES IN THE AREA.

AN INCREASE IN DENSITY WITH MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, ACCORDING TO CALLERS IN AN AREA THAT DOES HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES ALREADY.

[03:30:07]

THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT COULD IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES NEGATIVELY.

CONCERNS ABOUT THE GENERAL UPKEEP OF RENTAL PROPERTIES.

POTENTIAL INCREASES IN CRIME.

SOME SOME CALLERS NOTED THAT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THIS AREA IS AT CAPACITY, AND FOR FUTURE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT COULD MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE.

CONCERNS THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL SPOIL THE NATURE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, ACCORDING TO CALLERS, AND CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE HELD TO THE DRAFT PROPOSAL.

AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND POTENTIALLY DEVELOPING AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS EXPRESSED AS WELL AS, IF APPROVED WITH MODERATE DENSITY, THE DEVELOPER WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE HELD TO THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S BEEN DISPLAYED.

HE COULD THEORETICALLY DECIDE HE WANTS TO DO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX INSTEAD.

SO THAT IS A FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT WAS EXPRESSED BY THE CALLERS.

I WILL ALSO MENTION THAT COMING INTO THIS MEETING TODAY, WE DID RECEIVE A PETITION FROM NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA SIGNED BY 24 PEOPLE.

OUT OF THOSE, TEN OF THEM DID FALL WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AREA, WHICH IS THE GREAT SHADING ON YOUR MAP ON THE SCREEN NOW.

AND STAFF WAS ABLE TO DO A A REVIEW OF THAT PETITION, AND THEY DID HIT THE THRESHOLD TO TRIGGER THAT.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE A THREE FOURTHS MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, TO VOTE, TO APPROVE THE ITEM, IF YOU WANTED TO APPROVE IT.

SOME, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HIT A MINIMUM OF 20%.

THEY HIT 34% WITH THEIR PETITION.

SO JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS A VERY RECENT DEVELOPMENT THAT WE DID.

IT APPEARS WE HAVE RECEIVED A VALID PETITION ON THIS ONE TO TRIGGER THE THREE FOURTHS VOTE ON THIS.

WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR THAT YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS.

BRADY. DOES STAFF RECOMMEND THIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS TO DENY THE REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THREE FOURTHS VOTE WOULD REQUIRE FOUR OUT OF FIVE.

VOTE IN FAVOR OF CORRECT THREE OUT OF FIVE.

NOT GOING TO MEET THE MEASURE, RIGHT? OKAY. AND THAT'S THE PETITION.

YES. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY SUBMITTED THAT VALID PETITION.

THAT'S CORRECT. WAS IT VERIFIED BY STAFF? YES. OUR STAFF DID HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT BEFORE COMING TO THIS HEARING TODAY.

AND BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY RECORDS IN THAT AREA AND THE ADDRESSES AND SIGNATURES OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE LISTED HAVE SIGNED IT, IT DOES APPEAR TO US TO BE VALID. OKAY.

Jul 23, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item