8.E. Update regarding Amarillo Economic Development Corporation in connection to financial assistance previously provided to the Regional Accelerator & New Growth Engine (RANGE)

[8.E. Update regarding Amarillo Economic Development Corporation in connection to financial assistance previously provided to the Regional Accelerator & New Growth Engine (RANGE)]

ITEM 8E IS AN UPDATE REGARDING THE EDC CORP IN CONNECTION TO THE RANGE.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE HERE TO PRESENT THIS.

IDEALLY WHAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO TRY TO DO IS JUST TRY TO BE AS OPEN AND UPFRONT WITH SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AND WHY WE'VE HAD THEM WITH OUR COUNCIL.

WITH YOU GUYS PRESENT, JUST TO KIND OF HEAR HOW WE'RE WALKING THIS FORWARD AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING NOT TO DO.

SO I'LL TAKE A MINUTE TO RECAP.

[01:00:04]

WE HAVE AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE RANGE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY NOTICED UNDER THE AMARILLO GLOBAL FOOD HUB, AND THEN THE NAME CHANGE AT THE STATE BECAME THE RANGE.

AND I WON'T GIVE YOU THE ACRONYM, BUT IT'S A GOOD ONE.

AND SO I BELIEVE ITS VISION IS REALLY TO UTILIZE ALL OF THE RESOURCES THAT THE PANHANDLE HAS ALREADY AT ITS DISPOSAL AND LEAD IN THAT, YOU KNOW, TO BECOME, YOU KNOW, AN ENTITY THAT'S A GROWTH ENGINE FOR FOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER THINGS.

SO THEY HAVE SOME OTHER OUTCOMES THAT THEY'VE DELIVERABLES THAT THEY'VE THEY'VE SENT OVER TO US.

THEY'VE EDUCATED US AS A BODY AND INDIVIDUALLY.

OUR ISSUE WAS I WAS A COUNCILMAN AT THAT TIME, PLACE ONE.

AND SO I DID VOTE FOR THIS.

IT WAS $100,000 MEMBERSHIP FEE.

AND SO IN 2021, I THINK, OR 22, I HAD VOTED FOR IT.

AND SO SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS HAD DISCUSSIONS AND GOT AN APPROVAL AMONGST THEMSELVES TO CHANGE THAT MEMBERSHIP FEE FROM $100,000 TO 250,000.

IT DIDN'T COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

AND THEN THEY THEY NEEDED THE MONEY ADVANCED IN A THREE YEAR UPFRONT PAYMENT.

SO IT WENT FROM 250 TO 750.

AND SO THE ISSUE THAT COUNCIL HAS WITH THIS AND SO YOU GUYS HEAR US SAY IT, WE ARE THE AUTHORIZING UNIT.

AND SO THE STATE LAW COMPELS US TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER OUR EDC, OVER THE AEDC.

AND SO EVERYTHING COMES TO THIS BODY FOR AN APPROVAL.

AND THEN THEY ARE AN ARM AND AN EXTENSION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND YOU WANT THAT.

YOU WANT AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION, A NONPROFIT OUT THERE TRYING TO DO REALLY GOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ATTRACTING NEW JOBS, RETAINING JOBS, GROWING BUSINESS SO THAT WE CAN COMPETE WITH OTHER ENTITIES OR OTHER CITIES ALL ACROSS THE STATE.

WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS YOU DON'T WANT A BUDGET OR POLICY THAT IS SO LAX THAT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, AND THAT THIS AUTHORIZING UNIT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY AUTHORIZED AND WHAT THEY DIDN'T AUTHORIZE.

SO A COUPLE WEEKS BACK, I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH AT THE TIME AND THERE'S FIVE BOARD MEMBERS AT THE TIME, ANDREW HALL AND SCOTT DENTLEY WERE ON THAT BOARD.

THE OTHER ONE THAT'S STILL ON THIS BOARD CURRENTLY IS ADRIAN MEANDER.

BUT YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM BECAUSE HE REALLY WASN'T PART OF WHAT THEY CALL THEIR BUDGET COMMITTEE.

AND SO THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT I CHOSE TO SPEAK TO WERE WERE ANDREW AND SCOTT, AND SO ALSO WITH THEIR DIRECTOR.

AND THEN WE DID HAVE AN EXEC SESSION TO DISCUSS.

THIS IS AN ONGOING ASK.

SO THIS ENTITY IS STILL REQUESTING AN INCENTIVE PACKAGE FROM THE CITY.

SO, IN THAT EXEC WE WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT OR NOT.

AND WE TALKED THROUGH THAT.

BUT THEN NOW WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS LIKE IS THE RANGE SOMETHING THAT THIS COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT.

AND THEN HOW WAS THIS FUNDED.

AND REALLY WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE.

SO I WANT TO SUMMARIZE BY SAYING I THINK WE AS A BODY TAKE OUR JOB AS AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND AN OVERSIGHT BOARD PRETTY SERIOUSLY. AND THE WAY IN WHICH WE'RE BEING COMPELLED UNDER LAW, IT'S THE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS THE AUTHORIZING UNIT MUST OR SHALL APPROVE.

NOW, COULD WE APPROVE THAT IN A GENERAL BUDGET? HEY, HERE'S $20 MILLION.

GO OUT THERE AND DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

I MEAN, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU MIGHT GET CHALLENGED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.

DID WE APPROVE THIS AS A PREVIOUS BODY FOR $100,000 EXPENDITURE? WE DID. DID IT COME BACK TO THEIR BOARD? IT DID NOT FORMALLY.

SO IT WASN'T NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF IT CHANGING FROM 100 TO 250.

SO I THINK THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS EXPENSED CAUSES THIS BODY TO NEED TO WALK THROUGH.

LET'S REVIEW THESE POLICIES.

WHERE HAVE WE NOT HAD GOOD POLICY WITH OUR EDC? LET'S WORK ALONGSIDE AND WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

AND THEN LET'S TAKE THE STEPS TO CORRECT THIS.

SO ONE, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND TWO, IF THERE'S ANY LEVEL OF CORRECTIVE ACTION, IT'S TAKEN IN THE RIGHT MANNER.

NOW THAT ALL BEING SAID I ONLY NEEDED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH TWO ON THEIR CURRENT BOARD BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT WERE WALKING THIS OUT AT THE TIME. AND THAT, ONCE AGAIN, IS ANDREW AND SCOTT.

AND SO I ASKED LES SIMPSON COUNCILMAN SIMPSON IF HE WOULD WORK WITH ME ON THIS.

[01:05:05]

SO COUNCILMAN SIMPSON AND MYSELF HAD A MEETING WITH THEIR TWO BOARD MEMBERS LAST FRIDAY.

AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU KIND OF A QUICK SUMMARY, AND THEN I'LL SEE IF LES WANTS TO ADD TO ANY OF THIS.

IN THE MEETING, WE FEEL LIKE OUR JOB IS OVERSIGHT, AND WE NEED TO COME TO YOU, IDENTIFY THE ISSUE, AND THEN ASK YOU HOW YOU WANT TO RECONCILE IT.

SO RATHER THAN US COMING IN AND SAYING, HEY, HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE FIXING TO DO, OR ELSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SAY HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENED, LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

FIRST OF ALL, LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE IT AND NOT TRY TO SAY IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OR THAT IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

LET'S STATE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW THREE.

HOW CAN WE HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE? HOW CAN YOU, AS THE EDC BOARD, HOLD YOURSELVES AND LET US WORK ALONGSIDE OF YOU, OTHER THAN US HAVING TO BE THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE AND THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSEQUENCES.

SO THAT IS THE PREMISE TO TRY TO GET THIS CONVERSATION KICKED OFF.

I EXPECT A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION HERE, AND I THINK WE'LL WORK THROUGH THIS ISSUE HERE TODAY OUT IN PUBLIC.

SO COUNCILMAN SIMPSON DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

AND I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THAT.

A COUPLE OF THINGS I WILL SAY, JUST GOING BACK TO THE RANGE, ONE ADDITIONAL PART OF THE RANGE HISTORY, A COUPLE OF THINGS I THINK ARE WORTH POINTING OUT.

ONE THAT THE RANGE, THIS IDEA OF CAPITALIZING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THE EDC RECOGNIZED BECAUSE THIS WHOLE PROJECT CAME OUT OF THE EDC.

I MEAN, THEY CONDUCTED A STUDY TO LOOK AT WHEN COMMUNITIES HAVE SYNERGIES, SUCH AS IN NORTH CAROLINA, THEY HAVE THE TRIANGLE AUSTIN, KANSAS CITY HAVE ALL DONE SIMILAR TYPES OF THINGS TO WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED IN THIS.

HOW DO THEY DO THAT? AND WE HAD A WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY SOMETHING THAT VERY FEW COMMUNITIES HAVE, VERY FEW, WHICH IS A VET SCHOOL, A PHARMACY SCHOOL, AND A MEDICAL SCHOOL ALL IN ONE CITY IN ONE LOCATION, AS WELL AS WHAT GOES ON IN THE AGRICULTURE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT SPURRED THIS ON TO GET THIS GOING.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE WORKING TO, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO GET TO FUND THIS.

BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE ISSUE IS NOT NECESSARILY SO MUCH ABOUT THE RANGE.

THE RANGE JUST HAD TO COME UP AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.

BUT IT'S A LACK OF CLARITY ON WHAT THE POLICIES ARE ON, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL OF MONEY SPENT.

MY PERCEPTION AND AFTER THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD IS I THINK BOTH BOTH SCOTT AND ANDREW REALIZED, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY IN THE RETROSPECT, IN HINDSIGHT, THEY HAD A POLICY WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE TWO, THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR WOULD BE A BUDGET COMMITTEE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THEY FELT THAT THEY HAD THE THE AUTHORITY WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE BOARD TO RESHUFFLE MONEY IN THE BUDGET.

IF IT WASN'T BEING USED FOR SOMETHING, IT COULD BE REALLOCATED.

BUT THERE'S NO CLEAR POLICY ON HOW THAT IS TO BE HANDLED AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK FORTH.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT I LEFT THE MEETING FROM WITH WITH SCOTT AND ANDREW WAS REALLY FEELING.

YEAH, IN HINDSIGHT, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A LOT BETTER AND A LOT MORE TRANSPARENT AND RUNNING THROUGH THAT.

I THINK THEY TOTALLY REALIZE THAT POLICIES AT THAT TIME, THEY FELT WERE NOT CLEAR ON THAT, OR THAT POLICIES IN THE LAW WERE KIND OF SILENT ON THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE.

AND THE MAYOR CAN KIND OF GO OVER THIS.

THEY WERE MORE THAN READY TO COME BACK TO US AND SAY, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, AND HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE FEEL LIKE SHOULD BE PUT INTO PLACE TO PROVIDE CLARITY. YOU KNOW, LET'S REMEMBER ON THE COUNCIL, SOMETIMES WE'VE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT ON, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE YOU HAVE TO GIVE STAFF FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE THE DAY TO DAY OF THE BUSINESS WHEN IT COMES TO THE FINANCES, BUT THERE HAS TO BE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

THE QUESTION IS HOW DO THOSE TWO MEET? HOW DO YOU GIVE FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY SO THAT EVERY TIME SOMEONE WANTS TO PURCHASE A PENCIL, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS GROUP TO PURCHASE IT? THAT WOULD NOT WORK.

BUT THEN ALSO THERE HAS TO BE OVERSIGHT AND APPROVAL.

AND HOW DO YOU MATCH THE TWO UP? THE GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY SO YOU DON'T BOG THINGS DOWN WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE KIND OF SEEN THAT HERE WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, UNCLEAR OF HOW THAT GOES AND NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.

AND I THINK THAT THE SAME, THE SAME WAY IS HERE.

AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND LOOK BACK AT SOME THINGS TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS THE FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU NEED TO RUN AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOESN'T BOG IT DOWN, BUT MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FULFILLING OUR OVERSIGHT ON WHAT WE DO FOR THE CITIZENS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THEIR MONEY IS BEING SPENT IN A WAY THAT'S TRANSPARENT.

AND I THINK WHAT THEY WHAT THEY ALSO MENTIONED WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC MONEY, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

[01:10:02]

AND THAT MEANS SOMETIMES THAT MAY EVEN EXCEED WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

IT HAS TO BE ABOVE REPROACH.

AND I THINK THEY REALIZED THEY COULD SEE HOW IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WASN'T TRANSPARENT IN HOW THEY'RE DOING IT.

I GUARANTEE YOU, IF THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO IT AGAIN, THEY WOULD GO BACK AND RUN IT THROUGH THE PUBLIC LIKE WE HAVE TRIED TO DO WITH ALL THAT.

AND SO BUT I THINK IT WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION AND I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME ITEMS TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY GOING FORWARD THAT CAN PROVIDE CLARITY ON THIS, AS WELL AS KIND OF LOOKING BACK TO SEE ARE THERE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT OR OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE US MAYBE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON POLICIES AND PERSPECTIVES THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT. SO I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCIL.

I HAVE A FEW THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO LAY OUT, BUT I WOULD PAUSE AND JUST LET COUNCIL ADD TO ANYTHING IF THEY WANTED TO JUMP IN NOW AND THEN I'LL GO BACK TO DIRECT.

YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TOO.

YES, SIR. I REALIZE THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT IN MY OPINION, THEY CAME AND ASKED FOR $100,000 AND THEN SPENT 750.

SO THEY KNEW THEY NEEDED TO COME.

BUT YET AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY DECIDED TO DO IT WITHOUT A VOTE FROM THEIR BOARD AND WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.

I CANNOT, FROM A CITIZENS STANDPOINT, THAT I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY.

THE CITIZENS DON'T LIKE ANY OF THIS.

THEY SAY IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T SMELL RIGHT.

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG.

WHENEVER YOU TRY TO HIDE $650,000 THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG, AND I THINK IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

NOW, CAN WE FIX IT? THAT'S WHAT WE GOT TO WORK ON.

I THINK WE NEED TO SEE A NEW SET OF BYLAWS THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES THAT SO MUCH MONEY IS LIKE THE CITY.

WE CAN SPEND $50,000 AND IT'S GOT TO COME TO THE COUNCIL.

WE DON'T GET TO SPEND $650,000 JUST OUT OF THE BLUE.

I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE BYLAWS THAT ADDRESS EACH AND EVERYTHING.

NOBODY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE WITHOUT A VOTE OF A COMMITTEE TO GO AND MOVE $650,000.

IF WE ALLOW THAT, NONE OF US SHOULD BE SITTING WHERE WE'RE SITTING TODAY.

AND I KNOW WE'RE COMING UP ON A BUDGET ITEM HERE.

AND THE WAY I FEEL WE DON'T NEED TO APPROVE A BUDGET UNTIL WE SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO TO FIX THIS.

THAT'S WHAT I GOT TO SAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SIR.

YES, SIR. WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION HERE TOO, IS THESE ASKS HAPPENED WITH A PREVIOUS COUNCIL.

THIS WAS NOT THIS COUNCIL.

THE $100,000 ASK WAS NOT WITH THIS COUNCIL.

THE 650 WAS NOT WITH THIS COUNCIL.

WE WERE NOT A PART OF IT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU, I CAN ONLY SPEAK AS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

I WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED THAT.

THERE WERE. I WOULD HAVE WANTED TO SEE AN ROI RETURN ON INVESTMENT FROM THIS THING, TO SHOW THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY PREPAY THREE YEARS MEMBERSHIP FEE TO ANYTHING.

NOT JUST THIS, BUT ANYTHING.

THE POLICIES, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW, YOU VOTED US IN WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR US OR NOT.

I MEAN, THERE WAS A COMPLETE CHANGE UP HERE.

AND WITH THAT CHANGE WAS A CHANGE IN CULTURE.

WE'RE MORE TRANSPARENT.

I FEEL LIKE WE'RE VERY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, AS YOU'VE SEEN US GO THROUGH THE BUDGET.

YOU'VE SEEN US GO THROUGH THESE THINGS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT WITH THE MONEY, WITH THE TAXPAYER MONEY AT EVERY LEVEL.

SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITUATION BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENTITY OUTSIDE OF US.

SO I THINK SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FELT LIKE WE HAD COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER THIS, OR WE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, WE DON'T IF WE DID, WE'D BE TALKING TO GRAYSON AND WE'D HOPEFULLY GET SOMETHING DONE WITH THIS.

WE DO, YOU KNOW, WE DO APPOINT THAT BOARD.

AND THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN THAT TYPE DEAL, BUT WE'LL LOOK AT IT JUST SO YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING AS ONE PERSON.

IN FACT, I HADN'T EVEN TALKED TO ANYBODY UP HERE ABOUT ANY OF THIS BUT DON'T LIKE IT.

DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL. I MEAN, 750,000, AND I'M NOT STIRRING THE POT, BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE 190 THAT WAS SPENT ON THE STUDY BEFORE.

THAT SO REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $1 MILLION WITHOUT BEING ASKED.

BUT AGAIN, THE POLICIES WERE VERY DIFFERENT WITH THE PREVIOUS MAYOR, PREVIOUS COUNCIL.

MINUS ONE. IT WAS JUST VERY DIFFERENT.

I THINK THEY HAD KIND OF MORE OF A CARTE BLANCHE.

THEY COULD SPEND WHAT THEY WANTED TO AT THE EDC.

DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK THE PROCEDURES WE'VE LOOKED AT IT THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF A POLICY THAT WE CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT YOU VIOLATED THIS.

BUT YOU WOULD THINK THAT WITH THAT SPEND OR WE WOULD THINK VERY DIFFERENTLY OF YOU NEED TO ASK AND THAT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[01:15:06]

SO I AGREE WITH TOM ON THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT DIFFERENT POLICY TO PUT THAT IN PLACE THAT SOMEWHAT MIRRORS OR IS SIMILAR TO OURS OF YOU CAN SPEND UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT WITHOUT AN ASK.

RIGHT. THAT'S JUST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

YOU DON'T GET TO JUST DIG IN THE WALLET BECAUSE THERE'S MONEY THERE AND SPEND IT, YOU KNOW, OR OR SHUFFLE IT OR REALLOCATE OR.

WE DON'T LIKE THAT.

AS YOU KNOW, YOU'VE SEEN IT UP HERE, YOU'VE SEEN US PUSH BACK ON THAT.

AND WE FEEL THE VERY SAME WAY WITH THIS.

IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING SITUATION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF AUTHORITY OVER THIS, BUT YET BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE OF US.

SO I WOULD AGREE THAT WE NEED TO COME UP WITH POLICY.

I KNOW MAYOR HAS SOME SUGGESTIONS TO COME UP WITH, BUT I THINK THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO IMPLEMENT THAT AND ASK OR LET THEM COME TO US AND LET THEM OFFER WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.

SO YEAH.

SO I HAVE A LOT TO SAY.

BUT BEFORE I GET INTO IT, DID THEY OFFER A SOLUTION AS TO WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO? SO THEY DID.

THEY WE DID COLLABORATE LAST FRIDAY.

SO THEY BROUGHT A FEW THINGS THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM.

AND THEN COUNCILMAN SIMPSON AND MYSELF HAD 2 OR 3 THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

AND THEY AGREED.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MY POSITION ON THIS IS TRYING TO REMAIN IN A LEGAL POSITION OF REQUIREMENT.

I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT I'M LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO DO.

BUT THEN I ALSO WANT TO DO THIS ONE STEP AT A TIME.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO SIT UP HERE AND FORECAST NINE STEPS DOWN THE ROAD OF DOING, YOU KNOW, THIS OR THAT.

I THINK WE NEED TO WALK THIS OUT TOGETHER.

AND SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT THOSE ARE NOW, OR I CAN LET YOU SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL.

SO I KNOW FOR ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER, THIS IS PRINCIPALLY AN ISSUE.

YOU'RE TALKING BAD POLICY IN PLACE.

ABSOLUTELY NO POLICY.

AND TO ME, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT AS AN AUTHORIZING UNIT, IT IS ULTIMATELY OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITY COUNCIL TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING A MATTER OF NOT ONLY $750,000, BUT OVER $1 MILLION AND PLUS MAKING BUILDING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF BUILDING DEPOSITS ON TOP OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT WILLING TO TURN A BLIND EYE AND NOT LOOK BACK.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS AT PREVIOUS EXPENDITURES.

BUT MOVING FORWARD, THIS IS A VERY, VERY BIG POLICY ISSUE, IN MY OPINION THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY.

MAYOR, I JUST I WOULD IT'S OKAY IF I JUST.

YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I HAD INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS, AND THEN I HAD A GROUP CONVERSATION. SO WHEN I HEAR TERMS LIKE HIDING MONEY OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU THESE ARE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM THAT HAVE SERVED OUR COMMUNITY FOR MANY YEARS, PEOPLE THAT DEDICATE THEIR TIME IN SERVING THE COMMUNITY AND TO INTIMATE YOU KNOW, I WISH, YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW.

I'LL LET YOU FEEL YOUR VIEWPOINT AFTER THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO THEM.

BUT TO INTIMATE THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING UNDERHANDED OR HIDE SOMETHING, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS EVER THEIR INTENT.

I THINK IT WAS A POLICY.

IT WAS A WAY OF DOING BUSINESS.

BUT I THINK TO USE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE HIDING SOMETHING OR DOING SOMETHING, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT PUSHING IT A LITTLE BIT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE DONATING THEIR TIME AND GIVING TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO I THINK IN RETROSPECT THEY WOULD SAY, BOY, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT DIFFERENTLY, BUT THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE GIVING THEIR OWN TIME.

I DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND ANYBODY WAS HIDING THE MONEY OR DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK THEY WERE DOING WHAT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE AT THE TIME THAT THEY NOW REALIZE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE.

CORRECT. AND LET ME AGREE.

BUT LET ME ALSO PUSH BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT.

SO I WANT TO FACILITATE A CONVERSATION THAT'S NATURAL AND ISN'T SO FORMAL THAT WE CAN'T SPEAK FREELY.

SO I DON'T WANT ANY COUNCIL PERSON TO FEEL LIKE JUST BECAUSE THE CAMERA'S ROLLING AND WE'RE OUT HERE IN PUBLIC, THAT WE NEED TO NOT SPEAK THE WAY WE FEEL.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, OUR COMMUNITY CAN BE TRUSTED.

AND WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO HEAR WHAT YOU HEAR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SPEAK FREELY.

AND SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT TO WALK ON EGGSHELLS.

AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE GOING AROUND THE SYSTEM THEN, SPEAK FREELY.

HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT FROM A POINT OF PROFESSIONALISM WE CAN ALWAYS SEPARATE POLICY FROM PEOPLE.

AND SO IT'S NOT THE PERSON THAT I'M LOOKING AT IT'S THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS FOR A BEHAVIOR THAT'S NOT UNDER THE LAW.

AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE WE CAN FOCUS ON POLICY.

BUT THEN I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT I THINK WE CAN SPEAK FREELY.

AND SO THE, THE WORD HIDE IN, AN THAT TERM TO ME, I WOULD JUST TRY TO CLARIFY AND LET COUNCILMAN SCHERLEN SAY ANYTHING ELSE

[01:20:09]

HE WOULD WANT TO. BUT IT WASN'T DONE IN PUBLIC.

AND WE'RE USING A DESCRIPTIVE WORD OF NOT PUTTING IT ON AN AGENDA AND NOT VOTING FOR IT PUBLICLY, NOT BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD IS, IS WHETHER YOU KNEW BETTER OR NOT, YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER.

LIKE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE RULES AND THESE REGULATIONS.

WE DON'T GET THE LUXURY OF WORKING OUTSIDE OF THOSE AND SAYING, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD TRY TO GEAR US OR STEER US FORWARD.

DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THERE? NO. OKAY.

LET ME START WITH THE POSITIVE IN THIS.

SO THE POSITIVE IS THAT THE RANGE IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN OUR DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY.

IT IS THE EVENT THAT HAPPENED, BUT THE POLICIES OF THE PROCEDURES ARE WITH OUR EDC.

WE'RE NOT THE OVERSIGHT BODY OF THE RANGE.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE BETWEEN THIS COUNCIL AND THIS INCENTIVE AGREEMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT PREVIOUS COUNCIL DID.

THIS IS AN ISSUE OF OVERSIGHT.

FROM THIS GOVERNING UNIT TO ITS EDC, AND SO WE'LL KEEP IT TARGETED THERE.

NOW ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE MONEY HAS WENT TO THE RANGE OR HAD TO DO WITH THIS OR THAT IS FINE.

WE HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS, ONE OF WHOM THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR 25 PLUS YEARS, AND I FIND HIM TO BE A EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUAL AND ABOVE BOARD AND A GOOD BANKER AND AN INDIVIDUAL THAT I DON'T FEEL THAT HIS INTENTIONS WERE DECEPTIVE OR DECEITFUL. I THINK HE DIDN'T KNOW MAYBE WHAT HE WAS DOING FULLY AND GETTING ALL THIS DONE.

AND SO I CAN GIVE A LITTLE BENEFIT FOR THE INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE I HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP.

HOWEVER, NONE OF Y'ALL DO.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO WALK THIS OUT RELATIONALLY.

WE'RE GOING TO WALK THIS OUT PROGRAMMATICALLY, PROCEDURALLY, RIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE ONE, THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.

AND TWO, WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

I BELIEVE THAT THEIR BOARD YOU KNOW, WILL MEET AND DISCUSS ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE FIXING TO SAY, AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE.

BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY.

THESE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD TWO I AGREE WITH PURCHASES OR EXPENDITURES THAT EXCEED A BUDGETED LINE ITEM BY $50,000 OR MORE WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO BACK TO THE AEDC BOARD AND THEN FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.

SO LET'S GO BACK TO KIND OF THE STANDARD M.O.

OR METHOD OF OPERATION.

YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD APPROVE A BOARD OR A BUDGET.

LET'S SAY THEIR TOTAL REVENUES ARE $28 MILLION.

THEY MAY HAVE A LINE ITEM OF $500,000 FOR MARKETING OR $800,000 FOR, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS OR WHATEVER.

AND SO WHAT THEY WERE DOING UNDERNEATH THEIR BUDGET WAS MOVING MONEY OR PULLING MONEY FROM A LINE ITEM BUDGET THAT THEY DIDN'T USE.

WELL, WE DIDN'T NEED THAT MARKETING.

SO WE HAD, YOU KNOW, $500,000 AVAILABLE.

SO WE USED THAT TO FUND THIS.

AND SO THAT IS THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE HERE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO CORRECT BY SAYING ANY LINE ITEM, BUDGET OR SPECIFICALLY ANYTHING THAT'S NOT LINE ITEM BUDGET WOULD HAVE TO COME FOR APPROVAL.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO MEET QUARTERLY WITH THE AEDC AND THE COUNCIL TO DO A FINANCIAL BUDGET REVIEW AND TO CONTINUE WALKING EVERYTHING OUT, SHOWING HERE'S OUR PROGRESS.

HERE'S THE THINGS WE'RE DOING.

NUMBER THREE WAS THEY WANTED TO HAVE THE MAYOR AND THE EDC BOARD CHAIR REQUIRED SIGNATURE ON ANY TRANSACTION THAT'S OVER $500,000.

SO IT IS TYPICAL FOR THEM TO MAKE $1 MILLION PAYMENT.

AND THAT MAY BE IN A WIRE TRANSFER.

IT MAY BE IN A CHECK, BUT THEIR BOARD CHAIR HAS TO SIGN AND AUTHORIZE THAT, BECAUSE THAT MAY BE IN AN INCENTIVE PACKAGE TO, LET'S SAY, TEXAS TECH OR WHATEVER.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE ON THAT.

I FEEL LIKE THAT IS THEIR BOARD CHAIR THE MAYOR HAS NO RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY TOGETHER.

AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY REASON FOR A MAYOR TO HAVE A STROKE OF A PEN THAT AUTHORIZES ANYTHING PLUS EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOWARDS RIGHT NOW WILL BE A BUDGETED LINE ITEM.

YOU ALREADY GOT YOUR APPROVAL FROM THIS BODY, AND YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXCEED THAT.

SO I WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH NUMBER THREE.

NUMBER FOUR WERE COUNCILMAN, SIMPSON AND I'S REQUEST.

AND THEY, YOU KNOW, DID SAY, HEY, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON, WE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT TOO.

SO NUMBER FOUR, THREE YEAR FINANCIAL REVIEW, ALL EXPENDITURES AND THE FUND BALANCE THAT THEY COME FROM.

AND SO I BELIEVE WE NEED TO LOOK BACK FOR THREE YEARS TO SEE AND BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU OUR PUBLIC THAT THIS IS NOT A WAY OF DOING

[01:25:08]

BUSINESS. THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S GONE ON.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON IN MULTIPLES.

THIS IS ONE ITEM THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT THEY ARE NOW SAYING, HEY, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS, BUT WE NEED THAT, THAT HEALTHY REVIEW OF ALL THEIR FINANCIALS TO SEE WHERE IT IS.

SO THEY, INVITE THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING IT AT $50,000 AND ABOVE.

I THINK AFTER DISCUSSING IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, MAYBE $25,000 AND ABOVE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE APPROPRIATE.

SO WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DIRECT OUR STAFF TO GO AND GATHER ALL THESE FINANCIALS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN THE PREVIOUS TWO, THEN THE PREVIOUS THREE.

I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT I'D LIKE THE SPREADSHEET TO LOOK LIKE, AND I'D LIKE COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON IT.

WHAT I'M NOT TRYING TO DO IS I'M NOT TRYING TO GET THEIR CREDIT CARD STATEMENT AND GO THROUGH AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ATE DINNER, AND WHY DID IT COST $300.

I'M ALSO NOT TRYING TO GET STAFF INTO LENGTHY REVIEWS OR INQUIRIES WHERE YOU'RE BOGGED DOWN IN CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS.

AND SO $25,000 AND ABOVE FOR AN ENTITY THAT RUNS $28 MILLION A YEAR.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCENTIVE GUIDELINES TO ME, IS FINE.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IF COUNCIL THINKS THAT'S A GOOD MEASURE.

WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE AEDC TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS.

WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR STAFF TO GO OVER THERE AT THE BURDEN OF OUR TAXPAYER OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND.

SO WHATEVER THE COST IS TO DO THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO THIS.

HERE IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE THIS TO LOOK LIKE.

COUNCIL YOU GUYS CAN FOLLOW ALONG AND ADVISE ME.

I AM SEEING A SIMPLE SPREADSHEET.

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT WAS SOMETHING WHERE WE COULD CLICK ON IT AND SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, INVOICE LOOK LIKE, OR THE DOCUMENTATION WAS.

BUT EVEN IF WE JUST HAVE THE NUMBERS.

WHAT I THINK WE WANT TO REVIEW AS COUNCIL IS, YOU KNOW, THE CHECK NUMBER OR THE WIRE, THE DATE, THE VENDOR NAME, THE AMOUNT, THE FUNDING SOURCE, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT SO THAT WE CAN POINT TO, HEY, THIS WAS OUT OF OUR MARKETING AMOUNT AND IT WENT FOR MARKETING TO THIS MARKETING COMPANY. AND THEN THE FUNDING SOURCE WAS IT APPROVED? SO IS THAT A FUNDING SOURCE THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IN A LINE ITEM, OR WAS THIS JUST APPROVED IN THE GENERAL BUDGET? SO IT WOULD BE A YES OR A NO SPECIFIC FUNDING SOURCE AND APPROVAL? A NO MAY MEAN THAT IT IS IN THEIR BUDGET, BUT IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY APPROVED.

IT WAS NEVER NOTICED ON A MEETING.

AND THEN THE PERSONAL CONTACT.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THERE IS, IS THERE AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN ENTITY THAT IS MOVING THROUGH MULTIPLE AREAS THAT SHOULDN'T BE.

AND SO, LIKE IF I'M ALWAYS THE GUY MAKING REQUESTS AND I NEEDED MONEY FOR MARKETING, BUT ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE.

I MAY NOT BE A LEGITIMATE ACTOR IN THAT, SO WE COULD ELIMINATE HOPEFULLY A LOT OF SUSPICION BY BEING THIS INVESTIGATORY AND BY BEING THIS THOROUGH.

AND OUR HOPE WOULD BE, IS THAT WE CAN PRESENT TO YOU THREE YEARS FINANCIALS, SHOWING THAT YOUR EDC HAS NOT BEEN USED AS KIND OF A PERSONAL PIGGY BANK FOR ANYONE.

NOW, WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR IN SAYING, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE HAVE A WHOLE OTHER SET OF PROBLEMS AND THAT WILL BRING ON AN ADDITIONAL MEETING AND WE'LL HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

NOW WITH THIS, IF MY COUNCIL IS GOOD WITH MOVING FORWARD HERE, I NEED ABOUT I'M GOING TO SAY 30 DAYS.

MAYBE WE COULD GET THROUGH THE FIRST YEAR FINANCIALS AND GET THAT INTO OUR HANDS.

LET EVERYONE ON COUNCIL REVIEW IT.

MAYBE WE CAN GET THROUGH YEAR TWO AND KIND OF SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.

SO I'M CURIOUS IF COUNCIL IS OKAY MOVING ONE STEP AT A TIME.

BECAUSE THIS ACTION, EVEN THOUGH IS PRETTY EGREGIOUS, ISN'T SOMETHING THAT I'M TRYING TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP OF HOW DO WE CONSEQUENCE THIS? I THINK WHAT THIS ACTION HAS DONE IS IT'S MADE ME MORE AWARE OF WE NEED TO SET SOME GOOD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

I'D LIKE TO DO THAT IN A IN A MEETING FROM BOARD TO BOARD.

AND THEN WE NEED A THOROUGH FINANCIAL REVIEW.

SO COUNCIL WHERE ARE YOU GUYS AT IN JUST WALKING THIS OUT ONE STEP AT A TIME.

AND THEN WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO IN THIS SPREADSHEET.

I AGREE WALKING OUT LIKE THAT, BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO ADD I KNOW MR. CARTER IS OUR DIRECTOR OF THE AEDC.

HE ALSO SERVES ON THE BOARD OF THE RANGE, I DON'T THINK.

I THINK THAT'S A TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

I THINK WE NEED TO IF THEY WANT TO ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE RANGE BOARD, I THINK THEIR BOARD NEEDS TO DO THAT.

I DON'T THINK JUST BECAUSE OUR DIRECTOR GOES HERE AND GOES THERE, THAT'S JUST BASICALLY TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST MY

[01:30:04]

OPINION. OKAY.

SO WE WOULD WE WOULD JUST GO BACK TO MAYBE WHAT COUNCILMAN SIMPSON SAID, YOU KNOW, LET'S AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE AND BE ABOVE REPROACH.

AND SO IF WE HAVE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN POSITIONAL PLACES, WE WOULD REMOVE THOSE AND CORRECT THOSE OR ASK THEM TO CORRECT THOSE.

ANYTHING ELSE ON THE SPREADSHEET THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF ON? NOT ON THE SPREADSHEET. NO.

OKAY. DID YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST THE INCREASES OR THE ASKS? I MEAN, IF THERE'S A BUDGETED LINE ITEM, ALL EXPENDITURES OVER $25,000.

OKAY. SO IF WE HAVE A $50,000 PAYMENT TO X, Y, Z, AND IT WASN'T APPROVED AT A BOARD MEETING, AND IT'S NOT COMING FROM A FUND SOURCE, YOU'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE A VENDOR. AND YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW, WELL, WHO IS THAT VENDOR AND WHAT DID THEY DO? AND IT MAY BE VERY LEGITIMATE.

WELL, THAT'S THE VENDOR THAT WE USE FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS.

BUT THEN OUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE GIVEN A VERY THOROUGH LOOK AT ALL THE FINANCIALS FOR THE AEDC AND THERE WOULD BE A YES OR NO BOX FOR WAS IT APPROVED AT A BOARD MEETING? GOTCHA. WAS IT APPROVED IN A LINE ITEM OR WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED UNFUNDED EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE WITHIN THEIR OVERALL BUDGET? AND SO WE DID SPECIFY A COPY OF THE ACTUAL INVOICE OR PAID STUB WITHIN THAT SPREADSHEET OR NO.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO STAFF.

SO I THINK IF STAFF HAS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THEIR REQUEST AND IT'S EASY FOR US TO ATTACH IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE GREATLY SERVED TO SEE THAT INVOICE.

BUT AS IT IS WITH THE RANGE THERE'S NO FORMAL DOCUMENT.

THERE WAS NO INVOICE.

THERE'S NOT A MEMBERSHIP CARD.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO LOOK AT.

SO I THINK IT GOES TO SUBSTANTIATING THE LEGITIMACY OF EXPENDITURES.

IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF ALL THOSE, WE WANT TO SEE THEM.

BUT IF YOU DON'T, THEN I THINK IT'S STILL VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO SEE THE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY AND WHO THE PAYEE IS.

MAYOR, IF I COULD REAL QUICK, WE ACTUALLY HAVE U'NEILL GERBER WITH US HE'S OUR INTERNAL AUDITOR.

I ASKED HIM TO COME SO HE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ALL, SO HE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH AND DISCUSS THE THE THOUGHTS HERE ON THE AUDIT.

SO, U'NEILL, COULD YOU COME UP REAL QUICK? AND, AND SO BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU ALL THE PRODUCT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

SO U'NEILL, IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THIS.

AFTERNOON, SIR.

COUNCIL MAYOR.

YEAH. SO YOU'RE THROWING ME INTO THE THICK OF THINGS AGAIN.

AGAIN. [LAUGHTER] BUT YEAH, WE'LL BE GLAD TO ASSIST.

IT'S JUST LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT MY TEAM IS LIMITED, SO.

THANK YOU. RIGHT. HOW'S THAT? THERE YOU GO. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO MY TEAM IS A LITTLE LIMITED.

SO I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING 30 DAYS.

WE'LL PUSH AND SEE IF I CAN GET THAT.

ONE THING THAT WE COULD ASK FOR IS, IS WE WOULD LIKE THREE YEARS REVIEW, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THREE YEARS WORTH OF WORK AND THEN SET 600 PAGES ON OUR DESK.

SO IF YOU COULD DO A YEAR AND THEN HAND THAT OVER, LET US START REVIEWING THAT AND THEN MAYBE, MAYBE WAIT FURTHER NEED FOR THAT OR YOU START ON YEAR TWO.

WE, WE COULD DEFINITELY SEE SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE, OKAY, MAN, WE'VE, SEEN ENOUGH.

OKAY. YOU KNOW, BUT THEN AGAIN, MAYBE WE NEED THREE FULL YEARS.

YEAH. BECAUSE YOUR YEAR ONE SHOULD GIVE YOU AN INDICATION OF THERE'S MORE TO IT.

IT'S NORMALLY HOW AN AUDIT WORKS.

WE'LL LOOK AT ONE SECTION IF WE FIND EXCEPTIONS, WE'LL ROLL IT OUT.

SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO, THOUGH MR. GERBER IS A SAMPLE.

WE'RE NOT SAYING, HEY, JUST SIFT AROUND OVER HERE AND DIG 3 OR 4 RECEIPTS OUT AND LET'S CHECK THEM OUT.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW OUR PUBLIC THAT OUR EDC BOARD IS INVITING THIS LEVEL OF REVIEW.

IT'S NOT A FORMAL AUDIT, BUT THAT THEY WANT TO KNOW AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, HEY, DO WE HAVE A PRACTICE OF BUSINESS HERE THAT IS NOT ALLOWABLE? AND OR DO WE JUST HAVE ONE ISSUE HERE THAT WE NEED TO OVERCOME.

AND THEN I THINK BOTH BOARDS WOULD BE WELL SERVED TO TO DO THAT TOGETHER.

WHAT ARE YOU SEEING IN IN THIS $25,000 TO $50,000.

DO YOU WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S GOING TO GET YOU UP OUT OF THE WEEDS ENOUGH.

YEAH, I THINK 25 MIGHT BE A LITTLE LOW, BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT EVERY LINE ITEM AT THIS TIME, THIS LARGE AMOUNTS THAT'S COMING THROUGH LOOKING AT THE 23 NUMBERS.

SO I THINK THE MAJORITY OF IT WE ARE GOING TO HIT EVEN IF WE GO 50 AND ABOVE THE PERCENT TOTAL.

COUNCIL DO YOU GUYS WANT TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE ANY OF THE LOAD AT 50, OR ARE YOU GOOD WITH STAYING WITH THE 25? THE ONLY REASON THAT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN LES AND MYSELF WENT DOWN IS, IS IT'S EASY TO GET IN YOUR FISHBOWL UP HERE AND YOU'RE RUNNING A $500 MILLION BUDGET AND $50,000 DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT $50,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND I DON'T WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO MY CITIZEN THAT LIKE, WE'RE KIND OF FLIPPANTLY JUST PUSHING 50 GRAND ASIDE.

AND SO THE 25 MARK WOULD KEEP US OUTSIDE OF, LIKE YOUR TYPICAL CATERING EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE LOOKING AT.

[01:35:05]

WELL, AND FROM OUR APPROACH TO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DO SOME ANALYTICAL.

SO WE'LL LOOK BY VENDOR SPEND.

OKAY. SO WE GOT A VENDOR HERE THAT WE'RE ALWAYS USING FOR CATERING.

WE SPEND 200,000.

SO THEN WE'LL LOOK AT THAT ANGLE AS WELL.

SO NOT JUST SPECIFIC TO THAT INDIVIDUAL EXPENSE LINE COULD HAVE A PICTURE OF OKAY HERE'S THE GUYS THAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON.

RIGHT. AND OUT OF THE BUDGET.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST CUT GOES TO ABC.

BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE A SCRUTINY ON THIS WITH SOME CITIZENS THAT ARE JUST LIKE A DOG ON A BONE.

YEAH, LITERALLY.

LIKE, CAN WE RECONCILE THIS TO A POINT OF, OKAY, HERE'S ALL THE TOTALS OF $25,000 AND BELOW, AND THAT'S $4 MILLION.

AND THEN HERE IS YOUR $24 MILLION WORTH OF EXPENDITURES.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE TWO ADD UP AND THAT THE BUDGET RECONCILES THAT WAY WE WOULD AVOID THE SUSPICION OF, WELL, YOU ONLY SHOWED ME THE ONES YOU PULLED ANYTHING ELSE OUT SO THERE WOULD BE A RECONCILIATION.

AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING PRETTY EASY FOR YOU TO DO JUST IN RUNNING IT ON THE SOFTWARE.

AND THE THING IS, I CAN GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT TO TOTAL, SO WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SO A PERCENTAGE, LET'S SAY 50% OF ALL THEIR EXPENDITURES ARE UP OVER 25,000.

YEAH. GO AHEAD AND USE THE SUPPORT.

AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR U'NEILL.

NOW DOES ANY OF THIS STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT IT'S INSIDE YOUR SCOPE CORRECT.

YES. THAT'LL BE IN THE SCOPE BUT THAT'S WITH DIRECTION FROM YOU GUYS.

WE'LL DO WHAT YOU REQUEST US TO DO.

THIS HALF ANYTHING.

OKAY. OKAY.

MR. PATH. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD? NO SIR. OKAY. HEY.

THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE YOU.

SORRY TO PUT YOU IN THE MIDDLE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SHY AWAY FROM IT.

IT'S AN AWKWARD CONVERSATION.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE EASIEST THING TO RUN UP HERE.

AND THIS ISN'T ANYTHING THAT ANY OF US HAVE DONE WRONG.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING'S BEEN DONE WRONG OTHER THAN THESE $750,000 EXPENDITURES.

I WANT TO TRY TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH PROFESSIONALISM AND FORWARD PROGRESS ON THIS AS POSSIBLE WITH MY COMMUNITY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DUCK OR DODGE YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO JUMP TO ANY CONCLUSIONS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THIS THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO WORK THROUGH IT ON YOUR BEHALF.

AT THE END OF EVERY DAY, YOU'RE STILL OUR BOSS, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU AN ACCOUNTING.

SO WITH THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY NEXT STEP.

IF YOU GUYS ARE GOOD WITH THIS.

AND THEN I WOULD ASK IF EVERYONE IS GOOD TO KIND OF LEAVE IT AT THAT POINT, TURN IT OVER TO STAFF, OR IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, WE DO HAVE A BUDGETARY ITEM THAT WE COULD DISCUSS LATER.

WHEN WILL THE POLICY DISCUSSION TAKE PLACE, AS FAR AS WHAT POLICIES ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE? WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO BE ENACTED UPON? IS THAT UP TO THEIR BOARD? WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE AEDC WHEN WE FIRST KIND OF GOT ALL ONBOARDED, AND WE ASKED THEM TO PUT TOGETHER A CONSULTING FIRM AND A AND A STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN.

IN HINDSIGHT, THAT WAS VERY SMART BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO COINCIDE RIGHT ON TIME.

AND SO THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR CONSULTANT READY TO MEET IN OCTOBER.

I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE THE NUMBERS BACK THAT WE NEED.

AND, YOU KNOW, A DIRECTION OF, YOU KNOW, HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THIS ONE ISSUE UNTIL THEN? AND SO I THINK THE POLICY DIRECTIVES COULD BE GIVEN DURING THAT STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING KIND OF CONSORTIUM.

OKAY. MAYOR, I'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS.

ONE IS AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE NEED AEDC TO DO THIS OR US, BUT ONE THING IS, WHEN WE DO LOOK AT THE AEDCS BUDGET, IT'S NOT COMING OUT OF THE SAME FINANCIAL SYSTEM THAT WE ARE USING HERE.

I MEAN, IT'S PUT TOGETHER ON A SPREADSHEET.

SO ONE ADDITIONAL REQUEST THAT I WOULD HAVE IS AND MAYBE IF STAFF CAN HANDLE THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WHEN WE'RE PRESENTED THEIR BUDGET, IT COMES OUT OF THE SYSTEM IN THE SAME FORMAT THAT THE CITY BUDGET DOES.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO.

I KNOW WE'RE HANDLING WE'RE DOING ALL THAT FOR THEM, BUT I THINK JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION IS NOT SOMEONE THAT'S PUTTING SOMETHING IN A SPREADSHEET, BUT IT'S GOING THROUGH THE SAME DOCUMENTATION THAT WE PUT THE CITY BUDGET THROUGH WOULD BE, WOULD BE ONE THING THAT IF WE COULD DO THAT, I'D REQUEST LET ME ASK THE CITY MANAGER A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

AND I UNDERSTAND, MAYOR YOU'RE.

MR. CITY MANAGER IS THERE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON IF A REQUEST COMES OVER TO SEND MONEY WE HANDLE ALL THE

[01:40:01]

FINANCES. IS THERE A CHECK AND BALANCE HERE ON OUR SIDE TO CHECK THAT MONEY OFF TO SAY EVEN IF EVEN IF AEDC REQUESTS IT, IT'S ANOTHER CHECK.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE SUGGESTING.

WHILE I THINK I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR NOT BE THE BEST PERSON TO CHECK THAT OFF AS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

BUT IS THERE A SYSTEM RIGHT NOW THAT IF IT COMES OVER, THAT THERE'S ANOTHER CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MONEY IS AUTHORIZED FOR THE CITY TO SEND OUT TO WHOEVER IT MAY BE? YEAH. THE CURRENT WAY, AS I UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT, IS BECAUSE WE'RE THE FISCAL AGENT.

AND SO THE WAY IT WORKS, IN SUMMARY, IS THEY IDENTIFY FOR US HOW MUCH TO SPEND AND WHERE IT GOES TO.

AND SO AND THEN STAFF WILL VERIFY THE MONEY'S THERE.

BUT OTHERWISE WE DON'T SIT THERE AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE OR NOT.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE AGREEMENT IS WRITTEN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND SO WE DON'T VERIFY WHETHER WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

BUT OTHERWISE WE GET THE REQUEST FROM WHETHER THE STAFF MEMBER, MR. CARTER, WHOEVER IT IS, WHAT THE AMOUNT IS, WHERE IT'S GOT TO GO.

AND THEN WE VERIFY WHETHER IS IN THE FUNDS TO SPEND.

WELL, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.

I GUESS NOT NECESSARILY IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT JUST CONFIRMING THAT THAT IS THAT CORRELATES TO IT.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER MAY BE IN THE AGREEMENT.

BUT IF WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO BE ABOVE REPROACH, SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER CHECK AND BALANCE ON THIS SIDE JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS MONEY THAT IS, THAT WAS APPROVED, BUDGETED, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, OR IF IT'S UNBUDGETED IF SOMEONE OVER HERE WOULD JUST SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NOT IN THERE.

OR IS THAT. YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY CREATE A POLICY TO THAT EFFECT.

YES. IF YOU LIKE, FOR US TO TO HAVE THAT LAYER WE CAN.

AND ONLY ON THE LARGE AMOUNTS.

I'M NOT TALKING I MEAN BUT IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, IS THERE A CHECK AND BALANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE DRAFTED? YEAH. AGAIN, WE THE CITY HISTORICALLY HAS NOT TAKEN THE STANCE THAT WE WILL SERVE AS THEIR OVERSEER WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE THIS IS THIS IS OR IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE, BUT WE CAN [INAUDIBLE] POLICY THAT WHERE WE ADD THAT EXTRA LAYER WHERE WE MAY EXAMINE.

WAS THIS IN A BUDGET? WAS IT NOT? WAS IT DISCUSSED IN MINUTES? WAS IT NOT? THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD ADD.

AND THEN DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR ANY OBSERVATIONS FROM KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS TOPIC? NO, I THINK IT'S ALL BEEN DISCUSSED VERY, VERY WELL HERE SO FAR.

THANK YOU. YEAH. ONE OTHER THING I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO WOULD BE, IS PUTTING IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY A $50,000 OVER REQUIRES THEIR BOARD APPROVAL AND OURS UNTIL WE GET POLICIES IN PLACE. YEAH.

AND I THINK WITH THEIR BUDGET WE COULD LOOK AT APPROVING THEIR BUDGET HERE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS TODAY OR WE COULD NOT APPROVE THEIR BUDGET HERE TODAY, AND WE COULD GO AHEAD AND WALK THIS DOWN.

WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME UNTIL IT'S DUE.

AND SO WE CAN JUST LEAVE THAT AS A FUTURE ITEM, DEPENDING ON WHERE COUNCIL SITS.

AND I'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THAT PRETTY GREATLY IN THE DEAL OF, LIKE, WHAT ARE WE COMMUNICATING TO OUR PUBLIC? WE HAD A PREVIOUS BUDGET.

WE DIDN'T FOLLOW IT, YOU KNOW, SO HERE WE ARE APPROVING A NEW BUDGET AND WE DON'T HAVE THE NEW GUIDELINES OF THE POLICIES.

AND WE REALLY WANT TO DO THIS WITH THEIR BOARD.

AND IT'S GOING TO START TO FEEL PRETTY ONE SIDED I THINK IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL.

SO IN THE CONTINUITY OF WORKING WELL TOGETHER, IT MAY BE OKAY TO NOT HAVE THAT BUDGET APPROVED HERE TODAY AND JUST LOOK AT IT LATER IN THE MONTH, POSSIBLY, OR TO LOOK AT SOME CONSTRAINTS AND HAS COUNCIL GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO MAYBE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

I KNOW YOU SAID $50,000 AND ABOVE.

YEAH. I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH NOT APPROVING THEIR BUDGET TODAY WHEN THAT ITEM COMES WE'LL WAIT.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I AGREE WITH NOT APPROVING THE BUDGET.

I WOULD SAY JUST OPERATIONAL FUNDS THEY CAN GET AND ANYTHING ABOVE 50,000 NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.

LET'S ASK STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF MRS. STORRS OR MAYBE MR. PATH WOULD KNOW.

OCTOBER 1ST, YOU KNOW, IS WHAT THE CITY HAS TO HAVE IN PLACE OR ELSE WE HAVE SOME ISSUES AND YOU GOT TO GO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

THEY'RE A NONPROFIT.

AS AN ENTITY, AN EXTENSION.

SO WHAT TIME CONSTRAINTS DO WE REALLY HAVE WITH THEM? IS IT FINE TO NOT APPROVE THE BUDGET UNTIL WE PUT IN THE NEW GUIDELINES? AND CAN THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE OPERATIONALLY UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING BUDGET? SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON THAT.

IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THE ITEM FOR TODAY, WE COULD BRING SOME MORE INFORMATION BACK, POSSIBLY NEXT TUESDAY AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.

AT THIS POINT, THOUGH, IT'S IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT IT WOULD WORK SIMILAR TO THE WAY LIKE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKS WHERE IT'S VERY HEAVILY TIED TO A PROPERTY TAX RATE. SO IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE RATE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GO BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY.

[01:45:04]

BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT AEDC DOES HAVE OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS AND SEVERAL OTHER OBLIGATIONS, THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HANDLE, EVEN IF WE CROSSED OVER INTO A NEW YEAR.

SO IF COUNCIL'S OKAY WITH IT, WE WOULD APPRECIATE MAYBE A FEW DAYS TO START RESEARCHING THIS AND WE COULD BRING AN UPDATE OR MAYBE WE COULD TABLE THAT ITEM TILL NEXT WEEK AND BRING AN UPDATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AS WELL.

AND MRS. STORRS, YOU'RE THE TREASURER OF THE AEDC.

SO AS THE TREASURER AND AS THE FISCAL AGENT ON THIS SIDE, DO YOU HAVE SOME ABILITIES THAT WE'RE NOT CAPITALIZING ON IN THE WAY IN WHICH YOU'RE HANDLING THOSE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ALREADY? THOSE COULD BE SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, TO COUNCIL EASILY.

YOU COULD HAVE THAT CONSTRAINT OF JUST AWARENESS.

AND THEN WE MORE OR LESS WOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THEIR TREASURER, WHICH IS ALSO OUR CFO, THAT'S WATCHING THE BOOKS WHILE WE PUT THESE IN PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, THEIR OPERATIONAL COSTS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET MET, PLUS THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD MOVE.

YES. I MEAN, WE COULD CERTAINLY PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE FOR THE TIME BEING.

YOU KNOW, I'M THE TREASURER ON THEIR BOARD, NOT A VOTING MEMBER, BUT DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION FROM BOTH THAT POINT AND ON THE FISCAL AGENT SIDE. SO WE COULD PUT PARAMETERS IN PLACE, AS COUNCIL MEMBER CRAFT SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO KIND OF SEPARATELY LOOK AT THINGS OVER 50 IN THE TIME, YOU KNOW, IN THE MEANTIME, UNTIL WE GET SOME BETTER POLICY OR SOME ADDITIONAL POLICIES IN PLACE, I THINK WE COULD ABSOLUTELY ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND I'M SURE AEDC WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON THAT.

COUNCIL ANYTHING ON THAT, OR I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.

YEAH. THE ONE THING I DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOME AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL, I MEAN, THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, TOSSING THE SAME BACK AND FORTH FOR REALLY NO REASON OTHER THAN POLITICALLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS DONE WAS DONE.

IT WASN'T DONE UNDER US.

I'LL BE VERY INTERESTED IN MY TALKS THAT I'VE HAD WITH STAFF AND WITH OTHERS IS IT'S BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT SINCE WE TOOK OFFICE.

LIKE A WHOLE VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

SO I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BECOME A POLITICAL FOOTBALL OR CREATE UNNECESSARY WORK FOR OUR STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A PENALTY OR IF THIS IS A MESSAGE THAT WE WOULD SEND BY SAYING, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE YOUR BUDGET.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE TOO CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO GO OUT AND SPEND ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT US KNOWING ABOUT IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I DON'T THINK IT COULD HAPPEN.

SO THAT'S JUST MY WORD OF CAUTION TO SAY.

BUT IF, YOU KNOW, WE HOLD OFF ON THE BUDGET WE HOLD OFF ON THE BUDGET, BUT IS THAT JUST ARE WE JUST SENDING A MESSAGE OR ARE WE WHAT ARE WE DOING? YOU KNOW, BY NOT DOING THAT, I GUESS LET'S JUST BE OPEN HERE AND DO THIS OUTSIDE.

I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION ON IT.

YES, SIR. I DON'T SEE IT AS A BUDGET ISSUE.

I SEE IT AS THE OVERSIGHT ISSUE.

I MEAN, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE BUDGET.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH IN THE BUDGET, BUT TO ME THE BUDGET'S NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S THE OVERSIGHT.

I YOU KNOW, WHENEVER WE WANT TO APPROVE IT, I WOULD BE READY TO APPROVE IT.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET.

WE'VE HAD THE REVIEW LOOKED AT IT.

I THINK IT'S THE OVERSIGHT IS WHAT WE NEED TO GET A HANDLE ON.

CORRECT. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH CRAFT OVER HERE SAYING IF WE COULD PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATELY OF ANY EXPENDITURE OVER WHATEVER, THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT UNTIL WE HAVE OFFICIAL.

AND I THINK THEY'D BE COMPLIANT WITH IT.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU AND LES WERE TALKING TO THEM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT NECESSARILY WANT TO RESTRICT WHAT THEY'RE DOING OR SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME GOOD THINGS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE DOING OVER THERE. CORRECT? YES, SIR. THEIR BUDGET, THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED IS REAL OPEN.

IT REALLY IN MY OPINION, IT'S NOT A BUDGET.

IT'S A SPREADSHEET, AS LES POINTED OUT.

A BUDGET'S LIKE WHAT WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT 800 PAGES AND IT TELLS YOU EXACTLY WE'RE GOING TO BUY PINS AND WE'RE GOING TO BUY THEIRS JUST SAYS ADVERTISING OR THIS I REALLY THINK WE NEED A BUDGET AND A BUDGETARY PROCESS THAT IS LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS, BECAUSE THIS ONE HAD SO MANY HOLES IN IT, THEY COULD JUST MOVE MONEY AROUND.

NOW, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN SIMPSON HERE THAT A LOT OF THIS IS OVERSIGHT, BUT WE NEED TO BRING IT IN REINS AND SEE. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SPENDING THE MONEY ON INSTEAD OF JUST $1 MILLION HERE OR $1 MILLION THERE.

SO LET ME ADD TO MAYBE WHAT I'M, LET ME CLARIFY WHAT I'M SAYING SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR IT VERY DIRECTLY.

[01:50:07]

I THINK I'M PROPOSING TO GO SLOW AND TO NOT APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON IT.

I DON'T WANT TO MISCOMMUNICATE.

AND SO IF ANYONE HEARD THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE YOUR BUDGET, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

WHAT I'M CONSIDERING IS LET'S NOT APPROVE THEIR BUDGET TODAY, AND LET'S GIVE OURSELVES SOME TIME WITH STAFF TO WORK THROUGH.

DO THEY HAVE ANY EXPIRATION DATES ON THEM AS A NONPROFIT LIKE WE DO AS A CITY, SINCE THEIR RATES ARE ALREADY SET? YOU KNOW, IT'S A PORTION OF SALES TAX.

SO I THINK I WOULD BE GOOD WITH NOT APPROVING THE BUDGET TODAY AND NOT SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE, BECAUSE I COULD SEE HOW THAT GETS MIS MESSAGED.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? WHAT PURPOSE? WOULD WE NOT APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO FIND THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT? SO YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD YOU'VE GOT WITH OVERSIGHT.

WITH OVERSIGHT. WELL, YEAH.

BUT WE GOT TO PUT THE OVERSIGHT IN PLACE BEFORE YOU.

IF I JUST GIVE THEM A BUDGET OF $28 MILLION, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT IN PLACE YET? I THINK UNTIL WE GET OVERSIGHT, WE DON'T NEED TO GIVE THEM MONEY.

SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE PAUSE.

SO YOU THINK THAT WE COULD GET OVERSIGHT IN PLACE? OFFICIALLY BEFORE.

IS THAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT I WOULD TRY TO STEP TOWARDS IS AN APPROVAL OF THEIR BUDGET, WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS UNTIL WE ARE NEWLY SET UP GUIDELINES AND WE HAVE A TIME TO MEET.

AND THESE CONSTRAINTS ARE JUST ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

IT'S NOT CHANGING THEIR ABILITIES TO SPEND THE MONEY THAT THEY'RE ALREADY OBLIGATED FOR.

BUT I AM ALSO AWARE THAT EVERYTHING WE SAY SENDS A MESSAGE.

AND SO I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT SENDING A MESSAGE BY TALKING ABOUT CONSTRAINTS.

WE ARE, BUT WE'RE ALSO SENDING A MESSAGE, I THINK BY JUST APPROVING THE BUDGET.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE MESSAGE I'M TRYING TO SEND EITHER.

DO WE HAVE A WELL, I GUESS WE CAN JUST GO BACK AND FORTH ON THIS.

I GUESS I JUST DON'T SEE.

I AGREE, WE DEFINITELY NEED OVERSIGHT.

WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD UNTIL WE HAVE OVERSIGHT.

PERIOD. AND I WOULD AGREE 100.

LET ME SAY ANOTHER. LET ME SAY IT ANOTHER WAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COUNCIL THAT CAN VOTE FOR ALL OF OUR BUDGETS.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SPLIT A 3 2 OR A 2 3 VOTE ON A BUDGET ITEM AND THAT SENDS A DIFFERENT MESSAGE.

SO RATHER THAN HAVING YOU VOTE FOR OR AGAINST IT TODAY BASED ON, WELL, WE DIDN'T REALLY THIS OR THAT, I THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF WE COULD PUT SOME CONSTRAINTS IN AND THEN EVERYBODY'S MORE EVERYONE'S IN A GREATER LEVEL OF AGREEMENT FOR MOVING FORWARD.

SO IT IS ON MY SCHEDULE HERE TODAY.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING NOT TO DO IS ASK MY COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THEIR BUDGET.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD EVER WANT TO VOTE AGAINST A BUDGET WHEN WE CAN CONTROL IT, SO I WOULD RATHER TAKE A FEW EXTRA WEEKS AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT BUDGET IS THE WAY THAT WE ALL WANT IT. SO MAYBE, MAYBE FROM A POINT OF LEADERSHIP, THERE'S A TACTIC THERE.

ARE YOU ASKING TO TABLE IT? OF COURSE WE'RE NOT THERE. AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE NOT THERE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING.

WE'LL GET THERE. WELL, IT'S A DISCUSSION, SO.

BUT WE'LL GET THERE.

I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, I MEAN, IF THEIR BUDGET TAKES EFFECT OCTOBER 1ST.

WELL, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING ON THE 24TH BEFORE THAT.

BUT WE HAVE TWO, BUT I DON'T WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE RESULTS FROM I MEAN, WE'RE NOT WE MAY NOT DETERMINE THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT THE OVERSIGHT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

I MEAN, BUT WHAT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WITH STAFF EARLIER TODAY, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEIR OCTOBER 1ST IS NOT THE SAME AS OURS.

OURS HAS SOME CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING NOTICED TO THE STATE.

BECAUSE OF OUR TAX RATE AND EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING, WE WOULD HAVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

I THINK WE WANT TO ALLOW STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH THIS AND SEE, DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE A BUDGET IN PLACE OCTOBER 1ST OR DO WE HAVE MORE TIME? YES. JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR, YES, STAFF, WE WANT TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND EDUCATE EVERYONE ON WHAT WE FIND OUT ABOUT AP PROVING OCTOBER 1ST OR NOT, WHETHER THEY DO OR DO NOT HAVE A START LIKE WE DO.

WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT TODAY.

YES, SIR. OH, AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, I KNOW I SAID IMMEDIATE, BUT THE $50,000 APPROVAL FROM BOARD TO BOARD THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BYLAW CHANGE.

CORRECT? AEDC BYLAW CHANGE OR CAN THAT BE DONE IMMEDIATE? I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A BYLAW CHANGE, BUT YOU COULD MAKE IT A BYLAW CHANGE IF YOU WISH.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE OPTIONS THERE.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

CAN WE DO IT IMMEDIATELY? YEAH BUT.

CAN WE DO THIS LIKE CAN WE PUT IT IN IMMEDIATELY? $50,000. REQUIREMENT.

I THINK YOU COULD.

YOU JUST NEED BUY IN FROM THEIR SIDE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE THAT.

SO I AM MOVING US FORWARD IN THE CONVERSATION.

[01:55:03]

I THINK THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM, I DO FEEL IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED TO TABLE THAT GIVE STAFF A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO BRING SOMETHING BACK, AND WE HAVE UNTIL THE 24TH.

YOU KNOW, TO LEARN MORE.

AND I THINK GOING SLOW IS ALWAYS WISE.

ANYTHING FURTHER ON ITEM 8E, GENTLEMEN? OKAY. ITEM 8F ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO REQUEST? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[9. Consent Items]

DO I HAVE ANYTHING IN THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED OFF FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D PULL ITEM 9B.

9B. YEAH.

MINUTES. YEP.

ANY OTHERS? SO TO CONFIRM ITEM 9B.

OKAY, SO I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION EXCLUDING ITEM 9B.

I MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS STATED, ALL BUT 9D.

B AS IN BOY.

AM I CORRECT? B AS IN BOY.

CORRECT? YES. B AS IN BOY.

YES. B. I'LL SECOND.

GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WANT TO TAKE UP ITEM 9B SEPARATELY?

[9.B. CONSIDER APPROVAL - MINUTES]

BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT A CONSIDERATION ON THE WAY THAT WAS NOTICED, SO COUNCILMAN CRAFT.

WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN THERE? JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT MR. DAWSON BROUGHT UP EARLIER IN THE MEETING TODAY.

JUST TO REFLECT THE MEETINGS APPROPRIATELY VERSUS WHAT'S STATED IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

OKAY. SO MAYBE WE CAN HAND THIS OVER TO BRYAN.

BRYAN, I THINK OUR CONCERN IS STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS IN NOTICING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER A WORK SESSION.

MAYBE HOW WE CLOSED THE PREVIOUS WORK SESSION AND ADJOURNED.

AND THEN HAD YOU READ US INTO EXEC, WHICH IS VERY NORMAL.

SOMETIMES THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXEC ON AND YOU CALL THEM ALL.

OKAY, DEPENDING ON WHATEVER COUNCIL DECIDES TO DO.

IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO RUN THAT EXEC THE WAY THEY WANT TO.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS FROM THE COMMENTER WAS THEY WANTED TO AMEND THE MINUTES TO JUST ADD WHO WAS THERE, WHICH YOU CAN DO SO IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU JUST WANT TO ADD THOSE WHO WAS THERE AND AT WHAT TIME, THEN THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

AND YOU CAN DO THAT IF YOU WANT.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE IS THE WORK SESSION FOR THE 2:00 EXEC.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. IT SAYS WORK SESSION, BUT.

AND THEN IS IT NORMAL TO HAVE MINUTES PRODUCED AND PUBLICATED ON EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

NO. OKAY.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ARE UNDER SEAL.

ARE THERE ARE THERE MINUTES PRODUCED HERE? ABOUT OUR EXEC SESSION? NO, IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS CALLED.

CAN WE SCROLL DOWN SO OUR PUBLIC CAN SEE THAT? IS MR. DAWSON STILL HERE? HE LEAVE. HE LEFT.

COUNCILMAN CRAFT DO YOU UNDERSTAND MAYBE WHAT HIS CONCERN WAS SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK HIS CONCERN WAS HAVING THE AEDC DIRECTOR ON THE MINUTES.

I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD BE FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT.

RIGHT. WE DON'T DO THAT THEN.

IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND? SO, TWO.

SO WE CALL TO ORDER, AND THEN WE WENT INTO EXEC AT 206, BUT WE LISTED ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN ATTENDANCE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO, MR. MCWILLIAMS, IS THERE A REASON THAT WE DID NOT LIST THE AEDC DIRECTOR UNDER THAT? I DID NOT.

I DID NOT DRAFT THE MINUTES, SO.

RIGHT. TYPICALLY YOU DON'T DO THAT, BUT YOU COULD IF YOU WANT TO.

OKAY. IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH AMENDING THAT? JUST SO IT'S CORRECT.

IT'S A SIMPLE MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT MR. CARTER WAS PRESENT DURING THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO 087.

THERE YOU GO. AND THE INCENTIVES.

AND THAT'S THE WAY YOUR MOTION WOULD BE.

YEP. SO MOVED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT MY CITY ATTORNEY ONCE MORE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING FURTHER THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO OR TO CONSIDER TO BE FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. NO.

OKAY. UPON THE ADVISEMENT OF OUR LAWYER.

I'VE GOT A MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND?

[02:00:01]

I MEAN, JUST TO ADD.

THAT'S ALL YOU'RE SAYING? JUST YOU WANT TO ADD KEVIN CARTER ON HERE AS IN ATTENDANCE? YES. THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, ON THE MINUTES.

BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

IT IS NOT REQUIRED.

BUT YOU CAN DO THAT IF YOU WISH.

I'LL SECOND. YEAH I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO ASK HERE, MR. FORD, WOULD YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERN WITH THIS ITEM IN HOPES TO MAYBE REFINE IT.

THIS IS MIKE FORD, AMARILLO.

BRYAN, THIS IS A CERTIFIED AGENDA.

YOU CANNOT LIST THE PARTICIPANTS IN A CLOSED SESSION.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN'T.

THAT'S A CERTIFIED AGENDA YOU'RE CREATING.

AND IF YOU PUT A PARTICIPANT IN AS ATTENDING A MEETING, A CLOSED SESSION, THAT'S PART OF THE CERTIFIED AGENDA.

HE CAN COME BACK AND SUE THE CITY.

MR. FORD, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN.

THAT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN THIS.

BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING HIM IN THE 087 MEETING.

THAT'S WHAT FORD. WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU HERE, IF YOU CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, IN YOUR OPINION, FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING PUBLIC MEETINGS, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU SAYING YOU SHOULD NOT AMEND THESE MINUTES? NO, DON'T. YOU CAN'T.

THE CLOSED SESSIONS CANNOT INDICATE PARTICIPANTS.

THAT'S YOUR CERTIFIED AGENDA, MR. MAYOR. AND ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER RECORDING.

AND IT'S CLOSED.

OKAY. ONLY SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY A COURT.

AND A COURT CAN INSPECT IT IN CAMERA AND NOT IT'S NOT PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.

OKAY, SO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, I'M LEARNING.

MR. MCWILLIAMS, IS THERE ANY HARM IN NOT AMENDING THESE MINUTES? NO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. FORD. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU.

OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION, BUT I DON'T HAVE A SECOND.

YEAH. LET IT DIE. MOTION DIES.

OKAY. STILL NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON ITEM 9B AS RECORDED.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 9B AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 9B.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO NON CONSENT.

[10.A. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8150]

APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IN LETTING US LEARN AS WE GO.

THANK YOU, MR. FORD.

ITEM 10A WE'VE GOT A PUBLIC HEARING HERE.

BRADY KENDRICK.

OLD FAITHFUL.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ITEM 10A IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 8150.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF 0.76 ACRES OF LAND THAT IS UNPLATTED IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF BROADWAY DRIVE AND HASTINGS AVENUE.

THE APPLICANT IS OJD ENGINEERING, LLC, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING THIS REZONING TO ZONE THIS PROPERTY APPROPRIATELY IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN AN UPCOMING MULTIFAMILY PROJECT.

THE TRACT IN QUESTION WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC STREET IN THIS AREA.

HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CHANGED IN WHICH IT HAS NO LONGER GOING TO BE A PUBLIC STREET, AND INSTEAD IT'S GOING TO BE A PRIVATE DRIVE INTO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT NEEDS TO BE ZONED APPROPRIATELY TO BE A PORTION OF THE SITE.

IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE CITY PLAN, PLACE TYPES AND THE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIO FOR THIS AREA.

SO THERE ARE NO ISSUES THERE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOUND.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THEY FOUND THAT IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE AND IS COMPREHENSIVE TO GET THIS ALL ZONED APPROPRIATELY.

WE DID SEND NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

AND AS OF THIS MEETING WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON.

WELL, WE DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

HE JUST HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE REQUEST WAS AND WHAT'S EXPLAINED AT THE MEETING.

HE DID NOT EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

MR. KENDRICK, YOU ARE A TRUE PROFESSIONAL, VERY CONCISE AND EFFICIENT WITH OUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KENDRICK? WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

DO I HAVE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 10A? SEEING NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION.

I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8150 AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FROM FOUR I HAVE A SECOND FROM TWO.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

ON TO ITEM 10B, MR.

[10.B. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8151]

KENDRICK. YOU ONCE AGAIN.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 8151.

THIS IS A PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF 203.80 ACRES OF LAND THAT IS IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHWEST 45TH AVENUE AND SONCY ROAD.

THIS PROPERTY IS UNPLATTED AND ALSO INCLUDES THE WEST 50FT OF TARTER AVENUE, AS DEDICATED IN SONCY PARK ADDITION, UNIT NUMBER 10.

[02:05:04]

AND THIS PROPERTY IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS IN SECTION 62, BLOCK 9 BS&F SURVEY.

AND THIS IS A PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED ANNEXATION REQUEST AND THE DEVELOPER INTENDS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A MULTI-PHASE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, A SERIES OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT WILL SURROUND THE PLAYA LAKE THAT IS IN THIS AREA.

THEY INTEND THAT THAT PLAYA LAKE WILL BE A GREEN SPACE OR PARK FEATURE THAT IS AT THIS TIME PROPOSED TO BE EITHER MAINTAINED PRIVATELY OR POTENTIALLY WITH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT MAY BE ESTABLISHED.

THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE ONGOING, BUT IS ESSENTIALLY INTENDED TO BE PRIVATE MAINTENANCE, POTENTIALLY.

AND THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 89 ACRES OF THIS AREA THAT IS DEVELOPABLE BASED ON POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND THE PARK SPACE.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD COME OUT TO ABOUT 1600 APARTMENT UNITS AT FULL BUILD OUT IN THIS AREA.

AT THIS STAGE, THIS IS A STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ITEM.

AS WE SET THIS TODAY AS THE MEETING, PER THE RESOLUTION AT THE LAST MEETING, AND IF APPROVED TODAY, THE SECOND READING WILL BE ON THE 24TH OF SEPTEMBER.

AND AT THAT POINT, THE SERVICE PLAN BECOMES BINDING AND EFFECTIVE, AND THE PROPERTY WILL BE IN THE CITY AT THAT POINT.

REGARDING UTILITIES, THIS TRACT IS ALREADY SERVED WITH WATER AND SEWER, SO THERE WILL NOT BE UTILITY EXTENSIONS NEEDED TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AS IS.

AND AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE DEVELOPERS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSIONS WITHIN THE TRACT.

REGARDING EMERGENCY SERVICES, THIS AREA DOES HAVE FIRE COVERAGE AS IT EXISTS, AND POLICE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES THAT UPON FULL BUILD OUT, BASED ON THE PROJECTED APARTMENT UNITS THAT AND THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION INCREASE, THEY WOULD NEED APPROXIMATELY THREE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS TO COVER THAT ADDITIONAL POPULATION IN THE CITY.

UPON ANNEXATION, WE WILL BEGIN TO COLLECT PROPERTY TAXES.

AND I KNOW ON SOME OF OUR POTTER COUNTY ANNEXATIONS RECENTLY, WE WERE NOT GOING TO COLLECT SALES TAX.

WE WILL COLLECT SALES TAX FOR THIS RANDALL COUNTY ANNEXATION HOWEVER, IT IS NOT THE FULL AMOUNT.

RANDALL COUNTY DOES HAVE AN ASSISTANCE DISTRICT AS WELL, LIKE POTTER COUNTY, EXCEPT THEY ONLY TAKE A 0.5% INSTEAD OF THE FULL 2%.

SO THERE IS STILL THAT PERCENT AND A HALF LEFT OVER THAT IS UP FOR GRABS ESSENTIALLY.

SO THEY JUST DO NOT TAKE THE FULL 2% LIKE POTTER COUNTY DOES.

SO WE WILL COLLECT A GOOD CHUNK OF THE SALES TAX WE TYPICALLY WOULD ON THIS ANNEXATION.

AND THEN WE ALSO NOTE THAT THIS ANNEXATION WILL ENCIRCLE A SMALL TRACT OF LAND ENTIRELY BY THE CITY LIMITS.

STATE LAW DOES ALLOW FOR THIS, PROVIDED THAT THE GOVERNING BODY FINDS THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO.

THIS IS ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA THAT DID NOT CONSENT FOR ANNEXATION.

SO BASED ON TEXAS ANNEXATION LAWS BEING PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE ANNEXATION, BEING AT THE CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE TRACT IN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS ANNEXATION. AND IF THAT OWNER AT A FUTURE DATE WANTS TO HAVE THAT LITTLE SLIVER OF HIS LOT BROUGHT INTO THE CITY, HE CAN DO SO ON HIS OWN ACCORD.

BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY ISSUES WITH ENCIRCLING THIS AREA WITH THIS ANNEXATION.

WE DID POST NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST.

AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS ITEM IS READY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY.

AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WE ALSO DO HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPER HERE AS WELL.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. KENDRICK. I HAVE A QUESTION.

THAT'S A PRETTY LARGE PLAYA LAKE IN THERE.

AND THAT THING HAS FILLED UP A NUMBER OF TIMES.

DOES THE LAKE, WILL IT ENCOMPASS WHO'S GOING TO KEEP THIS LAKE DRAINED? IS ARE THEY GOING TO PAY FOR THE PUMP, OR IS THE CITY OF AMARILLO GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE WATER? SO GENERALLY, WHENEVER YOU ARE MAKING MODIFICATIONS WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN AND ANYBODY FROM CPA CHIME IN, BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT A DRAINAGE REPORT THAT SHOWS HOW THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO IMPACT THIS AREA.

AND BASED ON THE ITEMS IN THAT REPORT, TYPICALLY THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE NOT CREATING EXPANDING THAT FLOOD HAZARD AREA. SO AS THIS AREA BUILDS OUT, THEY WILL, AT THE BASE, HAVE AN ENGINEER SUBMIT A DRAINAGE REPORT PROVING WHAT THEY WILL DO WILL NOT CREATE ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. BECAUSE FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, IF YOU PUT APARTMENTS ALL IN THAT AREA, YOU'RE CREATING A MASSIVE, MORE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE WILL LOOK AT UPON OR PRIOR TO THEM ACTUALLY DEVELOPING AND BREAKING GROUND OUT THERE.

BEFORE WE APPROVE IT DO WE WANT TO KNOW THAT OR.

KYLE, DO YOU MIND TO SPEAK TO THAT FOR US? KIND OF TELL US WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO REQUIRE FROM THEIR ENGINEERING FIRM.

[02:10:03]

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

SO AS BRADY MENTIONED, THEY WILL HAVE A DRAINAGE REPORT THAT GETS SUBMITTED WITH THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

AND WHAT'S EVALUATED IN THAT DRAINAGE REPORT IS CAN BE A MYRIAD OF THINGS.

BUT NUMBER ONE, IF THAT LAKE IS FULLY MAPPED, MEANING IT ACTUALLY HAS A DEFINED FLOODPLAIN THEN IF IT DID NOT IF IT DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINED ELEVATION ASSIGNED TO IT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE DRAINAGE REPORT IS TO ACTUALLY DEFINE THE 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY.

THAT 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY THEN ESTABLISHES MY AS THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER OVER THAT LAKE.

AND SO I CAN REGULATE ANYTHING INSIDE THAT 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY.

BUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THAT 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CAN BE UTILIZED AS SEEN FIT TO BY THE DEVELOP THE PERSON WHO'S DEVELOPING THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND SO EXCUSE ME WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THOSE REGULATIONS ARE MET INSIDE THE FLOOD BOUNDARY.

NO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOOD BOUNDARY.

IF THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE FLOOD BOUNDARY, WELL, THAT'S A MISNOMER, BUT THEY CAN DEVELOP WITHIN THE FLOOD BOUNDARY IF THEY DO OFFSETTING EXCAVATION OR RAISE CERTAIN AREAS OUTSIDE THOSE FLOOD LIMITS.

BUT ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS WOULD BE ENFORCED AND IDENTIFIED IN THAT FLOOD DRAINAGE STUDY SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER.

THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING IS, FOR INSTANCE, THE GREENWAYS.

YEP. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

WE'VE HAD TO REDO WE HAD TO DIG DOWN IN THE CITY HAS PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THAT.

YES, SIR. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS CUT BACK.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO GET TAXES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE AREN'T IMPACTED WITH MORE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, MORE FLOODING PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING.

SO, I MEAN, IS THIS NORMAL PROCEDURE WE HAVE? WE APPROVE IT FIRST AND THEN WE GET TO STUDY OR.

WELL, SO IN THAT IN THE PATH OF DEVELOPMENT, ANNEXATION DOES COME FIRST AND ANNEXATION TYPICALLY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT FULL DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, BUT DEVELOPMENT DOES.

AND SO ANNEXATION, BRINGING THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY LIMITS IS STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND AND THEN WHEN THAT OWNER DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING, SUBDIVIDE THEIR LAND, PUT A BUSINESS ON IT, PUT A HOME ON IT, THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE.

BUT YOUR CONCERN, IS STILL VALID IN THAT THERE ARE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WITH DEVELOPMENT IN AND AROUND A FLOODPLAIN, AND THOSE ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY RISKS.

AND SO OUR REGULATORY AUTHORITY IS THE 100 YEAR BOUNDARY IN NOT THE 100 YEAR BOUNDARY OUT.

AND OUR DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ARE SET UP TO KEEP THAT RISK ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS VERSUS THE CITY.

BUT WE DO HAVE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT OUR DRAINAGE POLICY MANUAL.

I'M GOING TO TAG ALONG WITH TOM AND SAY, I THINK WHERE HE'S GOING WITH THIS, BECAUSE AS WE INHERITED A LOT OF THINGS, WE HAVE TO DRAIN SOME LAKES THAT ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IT'S TO A GREAT EXPENSE.

YES. I THINK THAT'S HIS INITIAL QUESTION, IS WE ANNEXED THIS THING AND IT BECOMES OURS EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON PERSONAL PROPERTY.

ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING A TEMPORARY PUMP, SPENDING $100,000 A MONTH TO RENT THAT THING, TO PUMP IT AGAINST WHERE IT'S NATURALLY SUPPOSED TO GO? SURE, IT'S NOT ON THESE GUYS.

IF THEY DEVELOP IT AND THEY AND I GET THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY BY THE, YOU KNOW, THE FLOOD PLAIN AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING DON'T MEAN IT'S BAD, BUT THAT'S ON Y'ALL.

I MEAN, THAT'S IT'S UP TO YOU. THAT'S YOUR RISK.

THAT'S NOT THE CITY'S RISK.

THE CITY'S RISK IS WE PAY $100,000 A MONTH FOR THESE PUMPS TO DRAIN THIS DOWN.

I DON'T WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT ENOUGH, AND IT'S RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE.

AND WE'VE DONE IT WITH 100 YEARS.

THEY'RE IN THE 100 YEAR PLAIN, AND WE'VE BEEN OUTSIDE OF THAT A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN 100 YEARS.

YES, SIR. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING IS, ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUMPING THAT THING? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

IF BY LAW AND BY YOUR POLICY NO, SIR.

YOU ARE NOT. ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUMPING BENNETT? BENNETT LAKE BY LAW OR POLICY? NO, SIR. THE 100 YEAR BOUNDARY IS DEFINED.

SO WE DO IT OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF OUR HEART.

WE DO IT AS A OPERATIONS CRITERIA.

[02:15:02]

YEP. WE DO IT AS A PUBLIC SAFETY.

PUBLIC SAFETY.

OKAY. WE DO IT AS AN OPERATIONS GOAL.

LET ME REDIRECT HERE YES. BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A WE HAVE AN EXPERT HERE.

AND WE MAY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT COULD SPEAK TO THE INTENTIONS.

SO DO YOU HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF EXCAVATING, LOWERING THE LAKE, WORKING YOURSELF TOWARDS A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, FLOOD BOUNDARY.

YES, SIR. MY NAME IS WILL STEVENS WITH AMD ENGINEERING, 6515 68TH STREET.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I JUST WANT TO BRING UP IN THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT WE AGREED TO WITH THE CITY.

IT CALLS OUT THAT PLAYA LAKE, THE EXISTING BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

EXCUSE ME. THE CURVE NUMBER AND THE REQUIREMENT OF US TO EXCAVATE ANY DIRT THAT IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THAT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

SO ANY IMPERVIOUS AREA OR ANY CONCRETE OR ROOFTOPS, WE ADD, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE DIRT OUT OF THAT LAKE TO MAINTAIN THAT WATER SERVICE ELEVATION.

SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF OUR STUDY.

YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH DIRT DO WE NEED TO TAKE OUT TO MAINTAIN THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. SO AND ALSO WE PLAN ON BUILDING APARTMENTS ON THE ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, ENTIRE USABLE ACREAGE.

SO WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT OUR APARTMENTS TO FLOOD.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HARM OUR INVESTMENT AS WELL.

SO ARE YOU GOING TO RENT A PUMP? PUMP IT OUT IF IT NEEDS IT? IF IT NEEDS IT. WE'LL RENT A PUMP AND WE'LL PUMP IT OUT.

OKAY. THAT'S ON RECORD. YES.

YEAH, THAT'S IN THE MINUTES.

WE WOULD OFFER TO YOU GUYS THERE.

THERE ARE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND THEN THERE'S JUST GOOD OLD FASHIONED TEAMWORK.

AND SO THESE GUYS ARE SUPER SMART.

THEY'VE BEEN TAKING CARE OF AMARILLO FOR A WHILE AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR DRAINAGE PAYERS.

AND SO IF WE CAN COOPERATE WITH YOU AND MAYBE IMPROVE SOME OUTCOMES OVER THERE, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE BUILD ONE INCH ABOVE, SOME PEOPLE 18IN.

IT CAN BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER.

SO IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO COLLABORATE OVER THERE IN ENGINEERING, WE WANT TO.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH. BUT I DON'T THINK I DON'T WE DON'T WANT YOU TO HEAR US SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO.

WE DON'T WANT YOU TO ANNEX.

WE DO. AND WE WANT THE HOUSING.

BUT WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT YOU GUYS SEE US AS A PARTNER AND NOT AN ANTAGONIST.

AND WE'D LOVE TO HELP YOU GET A GOOD DEVELOPMENT IN THERE THAT DRAINS APPROPRIATELY.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH, IT ONLY IT RAINS EVERY NOW AND AGAIN.

BUT YEAH, A LOT.

THAT'S THE ONE THING.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE GENTLEMEN? WELL, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT JUST A STATEMENT, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS, AND THIS IS JUST HOW IT HAPPENS, WE'RE ALL IN THE ROOM, AND WE ALL GET TOGETHER.

YOU GUYS WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE, AND THEN WE DO IT.

IN 20 YEARS FROM NOW, IT FLOODS.

AND THEN SO WHOEVER OWNS IT THEN SAYS, WELL, I'M NOT CLEANING IT OUT.

IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.

THEN WE COME OVER HERE. THEN EVERYBODY'S SAYING, WHY IN THE WORLD DID THE CITY LET SOMEBODY BUILD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BY PLAYA LAKE? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? SO AS LONG AS WE CAN GET ALL THESE KIND OF WORKED OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVERYBODY'S.

WE'RE CLEAR ON WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS.

I THINK WE'RE ALL ENTERING IT WITH THE GOOD INTENTIONS.

BUT IF SOMETHING DOESN'T HAPPEN TO FIRM THIS WHERE WHEN SOMEBODY'S LOOKING AT WHEN WE DO GET FLOODING IN THAT AREA AND IT STARTS TO FLOOD.

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT? AND EXACTLY HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK? YEAH, AND JUST ONE THING I'LL POINT OUT TO THE MUNICIPAL ROAD THAT WE HAVE GOING AROUND THE FLOOD ZONE IS THERE ON PURPOSE.

WE WANT TO KEEP.

I THINK I MAY JUST CLICKED AWAY FROM OH, THERE IT IS.

YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO KEEP KIND OF THAT SEPARATION, SO WE'RE NOT EVEN TECHNICALLY REALLY DOING ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO OUR ROAD IS SURROUNDING THE FLOOD ZONE.

THAT WAS INTENTIONAL.

AND THEN ALL OF OUR APARTMENTS WILL BE FURTHER UPSTREAM.

AND WE'LL OBVIOUSLY DO A DRAINAGE REPORT AND ANALYSIS WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO FLOODING CONCERNS.

SO YOU GUYS AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THAT, LIKE YOU SAID, FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE, THAT YOU HAVE TO EXCAVATE TO KEEP IT AT THE SAME LEVEL.

ARE YOU PLANNING ON MAKING THIS LIKE A FEATURE OF YOUR ALL YOUR COMPLEXES, LIKE, HEY, WE KIND OF HAVE A NICE LAKE, RIGHT? SO YOU PLAN ON EXCAVATING THIS AND MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT NICER THAN WHAT IT IS, OTHER THAN JUST A NATURAL PLAYA? IS THAT THE GOAL? AND WE'RE AND WE WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE TO EXCAVATE A GOOD PORTION OF THAT DIRT TO MAINTAIN THAT WATER SURFACE ELEVATION.

THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF IT. BUT THAT IS THE INTENT.

YOU'RE MAKING THIS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN WHAT IT IS TO JUST PLAYA LAKE.

SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN OKAY.

[INAUDIBLE] YEAH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? HEY, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

VERY PRODUCTIVE. MR. KENDRICK, YOU ARE BACK UP.

ANYTHING YOU NEED TO ADD? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD UNLESS THERE'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

OKAY, SO LET ME ASK YOU.

SO WITH THE ANNEXATION TODAY, DOES THIS DOES THIS PROJECT COME BACK TO COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE OR IS IT UP TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT ALL THESE? SO IN THE FUTURE YOU WILL SEE ITEMS LIKE THE REZONINGS IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE FUTURE.

OTHER THINGS LIKE THE SUBDIVISION PLATS AND THE DRAINAGE REPORTS, THOSE ARE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH CITY STAFF, AND THEN PLATS WILL PROBABLY GO TO PLANNING AND

[02:20:03]

ZONING COMMISSION IN SOME FORM.

BUT REGARDING YOU GUYS, THOUGH, IT'D BE JUST THE REZONINGS.

OKAY. LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? MR. JAMES SKANK, TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

I LIVE IN THE CITY IN A NON PLAYA ZONE, WHICH I LIKE.

ARE THESE JUST APARTMENTS EVEN MORE SCARY BECAUSE YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA? AND MY CONCERN IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE REST OF THAT AREA? BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU BLOCK OFF SOMETHING THERE, IT GOES SOMEPLACE ELSE.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER PROBLEM, LIKE THEY HAD OUT AT THE VILLAS OR WHATEVER IT WAS WITH ALL THAT WATER WAS RUNNING DOWN INTO ACROSS ST. FRANCIS.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST I LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT APARTMENT LIVING IS NOT FOR ME ANYWAY.

BUT BE CAREFUL AROUND THESE PLAYA LAKES.

WE'VE LAUGHED ABOUT THEM OVER THE TIME.

I REMEMBER WHEN GUYS WERE SKIING OUT THERE, 58TH STREET AND GEORGIA.

WHEN I CAME TO COLLEGE.

YOU HAD BOATS AND RAMPS AND SKIING AROUND, SO.

AND WE HAD A COUPLE OF ALMOST 100 YEAR RAINSTORMS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IN THE LAST 4 OR 5 YEARS.

SO HERE WE GO, I REMEMBER.

YES, SIR. JUST TO ELABORATE ON THE FLOODING CONCERN, A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE PLATTING PROCESS THROUGHOUT EACH PARCEL.

WHEN WE GO TO DEVELOP, WE'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT THE PLATS, DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE, REPORTS, ALL THAT WILL BE HANDLED ALONG THE WAY.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE APARTMENTS, JUST KIND OF AN FYI, WE PLAN ON BUILDING CLASS A THREE STORY.

THEY'LL BE NICE MARKET RATE.

SO I MEAN, IT'LL BE A NICE, NICE PROPERTY.

WELL SAID. THANK YOU SIR.

CAN I GET YOUR NAME, SIR? AUSTIN MARTIN. AUSTIN MARTIN.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE FURTHER, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE ACCEPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8151, AS STATED.

SECOND. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES ON TO ITEM 10 C SOME GOOD OLD FASHIONED BALLOT LANGUAGE.

[10.C. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 09-10-24-1 (Part 1 of 2)]

WHO DO WE HAVE COMING UP HERE? MISS COGGINS, ARE YOU RUNNING THIS ONE? YES. OKAY.

THIS IS.

ALL RIGHT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

WE TALKED AT YOUR LAST MEETING ABOUT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE LENGTH AND TALKED ABOUT CONDENSING AND SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR RESOLUTION FOR THE SANCTUARY CITY, FOR THE UNBORN PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

WE WERE ASKED TO BRING BACK SOME OPTIONS.

SO WE'VE BROUGHT THOSE BACK FOR YOU TODAY.

AND SO I'M GOING TO IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT, I'M GOING TO FLIP BRIEFLY THROUGH A FEW SLIDES SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

AND THEN WE CAN LAND ON WHICHEVER ONES YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

YOU'VE GOT AT YOUR PLACE AS WE GO THROUGH THESE SAMPLE BALLOTS.

AND I DO WANT TO MENTION WE HAVE SHANNON LACKEY AND WE HAVE CHRISTY BENGE HERE.

SO SHANNON LACKEY IS THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR FOR RANDALL.

CHRISTY BENGE IS THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR FOR POTTER.

SO THEY'RE HERE IF WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THEM TODAY.

THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH US A LOT ON THIS.

SO YOU'VE GOT SOME SAMPLE BALLOTS.

THE FIRST ONE IS YOUR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND WHAT I'VE DONE ON THE SCREEN TODAY.

TO TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENT FOR YOU IS I USED THE BIGGEST SIZE FONT I COULD TO MAKE THIS ONE WORK, AND WE USED THAT SAME SIZE FONT ON EVERY SLIDE.

OKAY, BUT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NO GOOD.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS REJECTED.

IT'S THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH IT.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE, SHANNON.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN JUST A LONG PROCESS, I STARTED TO SAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, BUT GOOD EVENING NOW. GOOD EVENING.

IT HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT IN ANY WAY IT CAN BE DONE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.

ONCE WE STARTED INPUTTING THIS DATA, WE SAW HOW PROBLEMATIC IT WAS, AND WE FELT THAT YOU ALL NEEDED TO BE AWARE THAT WE COULD SEE PROBLEMS WITH IT APPEARING ON THE BALLOT AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO US.

[02:25:03]

OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE OUR STANDARD THREE COLUMN BALLOT, WHICH YOU'RE PROBABLY USED TO SEEING WHEN YOU GO TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION.

THIS ONE MARKED ORIGINAL HAS TO GO DOWN TO FOUR POINT FONT IN ORDER TO FIT EVERYTHING.

CAN YOU PUT THAT UP THERE? I DON'T HAVE IT TO PUT UP THERE.

WELL IT'S RIDICULOUS. IF YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER HERE, I CAN.

OR WE CAN PASS ONE AROUND, BUT IT WOULD TAKE GLASSES OR A MAGNIFYING GLASS FOR MOST ANY PERSON TO READ IT.

YOU'RE 29.

SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE BROUGHT YOU THREE OPTIONS.

WE TALKED ABOUT OPTION NUMBER THREE.

KEEP THIS IN MIND. WE TALKED ABOUT OPTION NUMBER THREE AT OUR LAST MEETING.

BUT WE'VE BROUGHT YOU TWO OTHER OPTIONS AS WELL.

SO THIS FIRST OPTION AND I'M GOING TO LEAN TO BRYAN TO INTERRUPT ME OR INTERJECT ANYTHING ON THIS.

THE FIRST OPTION IS SIMILAR TO WHAT LUBBOCK USED, WITH A LITTLE MORE LANGUAGE ADDED TO BE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE THIS SO IT'S A SHORTER ONE.

OPTION ONE ON YOUR HANDOUT.

IT FITS NICELY ON THE PAGE AND IT FITS WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE.

THIS IS THE SCREEN. SO THE COUNTIES HAVE TAKEN WHAT A VOTER WOULD SEE ON THE ELECTRONIC SCREEN.

AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU THAT TOO.

SO IT WOULD FIT ON ONE PAGE.

OPTION TWO IS THE MEDIUM LENGTH OPTION.

I'LL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ THROUGH THAT ONE.

IT ALSO FITS ON A SINGLE PAGE ON THE ELECTRONIC SCREEN.

THIS IS CUT OFF.

AND THEN OPTION THREE.

THIS ONE FITS ON YOUR PAGE THAT YOU HAVE HERE.

IT WOULD SCROLL ON THE ELECTRONIC SCREEN.

SO YOU'LL SEE A PAGE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

YOUR VOTER WOULD SCROLL THE MACHINE TO HAVE TO READ ALL OF, SO THEY HAVE TO TOUCH IT TO LIKE READ MORE, CLICK HERE KIND OF A THING.

YEAH, WE WERE GIVEN ONE TODAY.

HERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THAT ONE FITS THE BALLOT.

AND IF WE'D HAVE TO TAKE THIS BACK AND TEST IT, WE'D PROBABLY ALSO HAVE TO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL LOOK AT IT TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF INCLUDING EVERYTHING.

IT SOUNDED PRETTY GOOD.

WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS TIME.

YEAH. I HAVE TO HAVE MILITARY AND OVERSEAS BALLOTS OUT BY THE 21ST.

THAT GIVES ME TEN DAYS TO DO ALL OF THE TESTING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO AND TO PRINT ALL OF THESE BALLOTS. I CURRENTLY HAVE 1500 CITY BALLOTS TO BE PRINTED, AND I HAVE ABOUT 200 MILITARY BALLOTS, AND THAT IS FEDERAL LAW THAT I MUST GET THEM OUT.

SO IN ORDER FOR US TO TAKE THIS BACK, TEST IT AGAIN, BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL THERE IS SIMPLY NOT TIME.

THANK YOU.

WELL, I'VE READ THROUGH THESE MY VOTE IS FOR OPTION TWO.

IT'S A LITTLE MORE LENGTHY, OBVIOUSLY, THAN OPTION ONE.

BUT I THINK IT'S THE FONT IS GOOD.

THEY CAN IT'S NOT TOO MUCH THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'LL READ IT.

I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE THE FULL ORDINANCE AT THE POLLING PLACE AND WE HAVE THE ALL OF THAT THERE, THAT THEY CAN READ IT IF THEY CHOOSE TO READ THE 18.5 PAGES. AND WE'LL PUT THEM ONLINE.

PUT IT ONLINE, SO WE'LL HAVE AS MANY RESOURCES AS POSSIBLE TO PUT IT ONLINE.

I THINK IT'S ON THE CITY ALREADY.

YEAH. AND IT WOULD BE ON THE CITY WEBPAGE AND BOTH OF THE COUNTY'S ELECTION PAGES.

YEAH, BUT WE'VE SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS SPEAKING TO ATTORNEYS, HAVING ATTORNEYS WORK ON THIS.

WE THOUGHT WE CAME UP WITH A GOOD ONE AND IT WASN'T.

SO, I MEAN, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

I'M FOR OPTION TWO.

I'M FOR OPTION THREE.

SHEESH. BUT MAKE YOUR CASES, GENTLEMEN.

[LAUGHTER] YEAH, WELL, MY CASE IS THAT IT'S I THINK OPTION TWO IS SUCCINCT.

I THINK IT HITS ALL THE ISSUES THAT I THINK THAT NEED TO BE OUT THERE FOR SURE.

OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT NEARLY AS COMPREHENSIVE AS WHAT WE HAD INITIALLY PUT OUT THERE.

OPTION ONE I THINK IS JUST TOO SHORT.

IT JUST DOESN'T I DON'T THINK IT ADDRESSES ALL THE ISSUES.

SO THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S MY POINT.

I WOULD. I ALWAYS THINK MORE IS BETTER.

WE KNOW BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE.

AND WHEN YOU START CHOPPING IT UP I HAVE A PROBLEM.

[02:30:05]

I MEAN, WE WORKED HARD TO GET THAT FIRST ONE DONE.

I MEAN, TWO IS CUTTING OUT A LITTLE BIT.

SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

NOW I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO USE NUMBER FOUR, BUT WE'RE TOLD WE AIN'T GOT NO TIME.

SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

SO. OTHER COUNCIL.

I THINK THE MORE INFORMATION YOU PUT IN THERE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIME THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST TIME PEOPLE READ IT.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH OPTION THREE AS WELL.

COUNCILMAN. YEAH.

THREE IS GOOD. OKAY. GOOD ENOUGH.

OKAY. I'LL JUST MAKE IT ALL GOOD AND SAY WE'LL JUST TAKE THREE.

ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE.

WELL, WE FINALLY GOT DON ON BOARD, SO.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MA'AM.

SO WHAT WE WOULD NEED IS A MOTION FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION WITH OPTION NUMBER THREE.

NOPE. NOT DOING IT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION GENTLEMAN ON ITEM 10 C, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE ACCEPT OPTION NUMBER THREE FOR THE WORDING ON PROP A.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

ITEM 10 C IS IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR.

ONCE AGAIN. PLEASE DON'T.

THANK YOU LADIES FOR BEING HERE.

APPRECIATE YOU. ON TO ITEM 10 D MRS.

[10.D. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8152]

STORRS. YOU GOT A BUDGET THAT NEEDS APPROVING.

YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SO I HAVE A PRESENTATION.

AND AS YOU ALL CAN RECALL FROM EARLIER TODAY, WE'VE MADE A COUPLE OF TWEAKS TO THIS SINCE THAT POINT IN TIME.

SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO OVER THAT A LITTLE BIT WITH YOU GUYS AS WELL.

ALSO OF NOTE WHEN YOU GO TO MAKE A MOTION RELATED TO THIS ITEM, THERE IS MOTION LANGUAGE AT YOUR SPOT BECAUSE STATE LAW DOES OUTLINE HOW THE MOTION HAS TO BE MADE.

SO WOULD APPRECIATE Y'ALL WORDING IT THAT WAY.

SO THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS I JUST WANT TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO OUR FINANCE TEAM, OUR BUDGET TEAM, AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS. THERE HAVE BEEN HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS OF WORK PUT INTO THIS BUDGET, AND OUR BUDGET TEAM HAS WORKED PRETTY MUCH AROUND THE CLOCK TO MEET CERTAIN DEADLINES. SO A HUGE THANK YOU TO JUSTIN BLACKSTOCK AND KATRINA OWENS, NICK BONNER AND BRYAN CORTEZ HAVE JUST GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND, SO WE WOULD NOT BE HERE WITHOUT THAT TEAM.

SO JUST WANT TO SAY A HUGE THANK YOU ON THAT.

ALSO WANT TO THANK COUNCIL FOR THE MANY DAYS OF BUDGET REVIEW WE GOT THROUGH.

I THINK WE'RE AT A GOOD SPOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO WANTED TO GO OVER SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

SO WE DO HAVE FUNDING INCLUDED FOR A NEW FIRE BATTALION CHIEF THAT'S GOING TO SERVE ACTUALLY AS THE FIRE MARSHAL.

WE HAVE FUNDING FOR THREE NEW FIREFIGHTERS AND ONE NEW INTELLIGENCE LIAISON POSITION.

WE DO HAVE BUDGETED IN HERE FOR THE LARGEST SALARY INCREASES IN DECADES FOR OUR POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE OVER $22 MILLION BUDGETED IN STREET PROJECTS.

WE DO HAVE SOME SOLID WASTE FUNDING CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR A DEDICATED BULK WASTE PROGRAM IN THE ALLEYS, AND TO CONVERT THE REMAINING HANDPICKED SERVICES OVER TO POLY CARTS.

WE HAVE ALSO INCREASED ANNUAL FUNDING FOR THE PARK'S CAPITAL PROJECTS.

AND THERE'S 19 MILLION IN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS INCLUDED AND 13 MILLION IN DRAINAGE PROJECTS INCLUDED.

AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, THERE IS $1 MILLION IN DEDICATED FUNDING FOR A WOMEN'S CLINIC AT PUBLIC HEALTH.

THIS STILL WOULD LEAVE APPROXIMATELY.

THIS NUMBER IS GOING TO CHANGE JUST SLIGHTLY, BUT APPROXIMATELY $6.4 MILLION.

IN A WORKING BUDGET, ABOUT HALF OF THAT WOULD BE ONGOING FUNDING.

HALF OF THAT WOULD BE ONE TIME FUNDING, AND THAT COULD BE ALLOCATED AT A FUTURE POINT IN TIME.

AND THEN THIS ALSO INCLUDES A 50% TMRS COLA, I'M SORRY, A 50% COLA FOR TMRS FOR RETIREES.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT A 50% INCREASE.

THAT'S 50% OF WHAT A COLA WOULD BE.

SO ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, AND THIS NUMBER HAS MOVED JUST SLIGHTLY SINCE OUR CHANGES THIS AFTERNOON.

OUR CURRENT YEAR APPROVED BUDGET IS $531 MILLION.

WE ACTUALLY SUBTRACT ABOUT 31.5 MILLION OR SO FROM THIS TO EQUAL OUR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR, AT 499.3 MILLION.

IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO COME IN ABOUT 499.6 MILLION AFTER WE MAKE THE CHANGES FROM EARLIER TODAY.

[02:35:04]

SO I WANTED TO QUICKLY STATE, WHY ARE WE GOING DOWN, BUT WE'RE ADDING THINGS IN.

THE REASON WE'RE GOING DOWN IS, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THIS YEAR, WE HAD I THINK IT WAS ABOUT $28 MILLION IN STREET CIP, PARTIALLY DEBT FUNDED.

WE HAD A LARGER AMOUNT IN WATER AND SEWER CIP OR, I'M SORRY, CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO OUR ANNUAL AMOUNT WENT DOWN BY ABOUT 13.2 MILLION.

AND THEN DRAINAGE CAPITAL, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THIS WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST YEARS WE DID A LARGE DEBT ISSUANCE FOR DRAINAGE CAPITAL.

SO ALL THAT IS, IS YOUR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE GOING DOWN SLIGHTLY IN THIS NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON ALL THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE GREAT THINGS THAT WERE ADDED INTO THE BUDGET.

I REVIEWED THOSE ON THE LAST PAGE, AND IT DOES CONTINUE US AT OUR CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS.

SO FROM THE REVENUE STANDPOINT, THE SAME IS TRUE.

WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING OUR REVENUE BUDGET.

OUR CURRENT YEAR REVENUE BUDGET IS AT $495.5 MILLION.

WE'VE REDUCED THAT DOWN ABOUT $27.5 MILLION TO OUR PROPOSED BUDGET OF $468.1 MILLION.

SO WE DID HAVE INCREASES.

NOW, THE REASON THE REVENUE WENT DOWN IS BECAUSE WE PROPOSED BOND PROCEEDS COMING IN TO FUND A LOT OF THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT YEAR.

THE BIGGEST PIECE WAS THE DRAINAGE CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO OUR REVENUES HAVE ACTUALLY GONE DOWN, BUT WE'RE STILL SEEING SOME GROWTH IN OUR REVENUE.

OUR SALES TAX BUDGET HAS GONE UP 2.1 MILLION.

SO WE'VE SEEN THAT SALES TAX NUMBER MAINTAINED AT A A GOOD, HEALTHY LEVEL.

THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE WOULD PRODUCE ABOUT $3.3 MILLION MORE FOR OPERATIONS BASED ON THE RATE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

AND WE'LL GO OVER THAT IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAS HAD SOME RESTRUCTURING OF THEIR RETAIL FOOD PERMIT FEES TO ALIGN BETTER WITH FULL COST RECOVERY.

SOLID WASTE.

WE ARE LOOKING AT ABOUT $1.28 PER MONTH INCREASE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AND ABOUT A 16.7% INCREASE ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

AND WE TALKED EARLIER. THAT RANGE IS A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THOSE SERVICES ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, AND THAT'S TO FUND THE BULK WASTE PROGRAM AND THE ALLEYS AND THE POLY CART SERVICE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE HAND PICKED UP SERVICES IN THE CITY.

THEN ON THE WATER AND SEWER RATES WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE PROPOSED TO IMPLEMENT A NEW TIER FOR COMMERCIAL USAGE.

THAT IS OVER 10,000 GALLONS.

AND SO WE HAD GOTTEN DIRECTION TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN TO ONLY EQUAL WHAT WE NEEDED FOR A DEBT ISSUANCE FOR A LINE WATER LINE EXTENSION.

AND SO THAT WOULD INCREASE OR IT WOULD CHANGE THE RATE TO BE $4.15 PER THOUSAND GALLON OVER THE 10,000 GALLON AMOUNT.

SO WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ABOUT 495 PREVIOUSLY.

WE WERE ABLE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO ABOUT 415 PER THOUSAND GALLONS.

AND THEN ON DRAINAGE, THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE USER FEES.

BUT AS A REMINDER, DRAINAGE WILL START PAYING A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF FRANCHISE FEE AND A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAX OVER TO GENERAL FUND.

SO WITH THAT, WHAT COMES NEXT? SO WE HAVE OUR FIRST READING ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND WE WILL ASK YOU ALL TO RECORD YOUR VOTE.

AND AS I MENTIONED, PLEASE FOLLOW THAT LANGUAGE THAT THAT'S THERE AT THE DAIS FOR YOU.

THAT HAPPENS TODAY.

AND THEN NEXT WEEK ON TUESDAY AT 3 P.M.

WE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND WE WILL DO THE SECOND AND FINAL READING TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

AND WE HAVE POSTED NOTICES IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE ASKING OR INFORMING CITIZENS THAT WE'LL BE DOING A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKING THEM TO COME AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 17TH.

AND AS ALWAYS, ALL OF OUR INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS POSTED OUT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

IF YOU GO TO OUR MAIN PAGE UNDER THE CITY.

IF YOU GO TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE SECTION, THE BUDGET IS RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP OF THAT SECTION THERE.

SO IT'S HOPEFULLY VERY EASY FOR EVERYONE TO FIND.

SO WITH THAT, I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF WORK RECAPPED IN A VERY SHORT PRESENTATION, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER FROM COUNCIL I'D BE HAPPY TO.

QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.

SO MRS. STORRS WE'VE GONE OVER IT IN DEPTH AND AT LENGTH.

SO WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

GOOD JOB.

I FEEL LIKE IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF ON THE WAY THIS BUDGET TURNED OUT.

SO WE'RE.

YEAH, I THINK WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE TAKING US THIS NEXT YEAR.

WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION ON ITEM 10 D.

I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WHICH REFLECTS AN INCREASE IN REVENUE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY TAX REVENUES OVER THE LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 10 D.

[02:40:03]

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM 10 D PASSES ON TO ITEM 10 E MRS.

[10.E. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8153 APPROVING THE CITY OF AMARILLO TAX ROLL, SETTING AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RATE AND LEVYING A TAX ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE 2024 TAX YEAR]

STORRS. ALL RIGHT. AND IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, I'M JUST GOING TO STAY UP HERE BECAUSE I'VE GOT, I THINK SEVEN PRESENTATIONS IN A ROW.

SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUICK PRESENTATION HERE ON OUR PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION.

AND SO THIS WILL BE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE 2024 PROPERTY TAXES.

AS A REMINDER, EVERYTHING IS IS DICTATED BY STATE LAW.

WE HAVE A VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE THAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS FOR 3.5% MORE REVENUE ABOVE THE PRIOR YEAR ON YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION.

IF YOU GO ABOVE THAT, YOU HAVE TO CALL AN ELECTION, AND WHICH WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO DO OBVIOUSLY THIS YEAR.

AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND HOLD ONE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO WE WILL HOLD THAT PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK.

AND I'LL ASK, WE CAN ANNOUNCE THAT AGAIN AT THE END OF THIS ITEM TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON THE 17TH.

SO ON OUR PROPERTY TAX RATE.

SO OUR CURRENT PROPERTY TAX RATE IS 39.195 CENTS.

OUR 2024 VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE ACTUALLY HAS TO BE PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT.