Oct 13, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting

YEAH SO I THINK THE-- KIND OF LOOKING BIG PICTURE, A FEW THINGS.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS WOULD BE CREATING AN EXTRA REQUIREMENT ON OUR CITIZENS.

AND THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS LOST ON THE ADVISORY BOARD.

I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT OVERALL, IT'S COMMON FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME HERE IN AMARILLO, WHETHER IT'S YOUR PHYSICAL PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE.

WE DO TELL OUR CITIZENS THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHOOSE TO HAVE A CERTAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW CERTAIN RULES.

AND WE DON'T THINK ANIMALS ARE REALLY ANY DIFFERENT.

SO THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

WE'VE HAD FOR MANY YEARS NOW, AND EVEN MORE SO RECENTLY, AN INCREASED FOCUS ON VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

AND WE STILL ARE SEEING A NUMBER OF ANIMALS WHO DO NOT HAVE MICROCHIPS.

AND THAT'S EVIDENCED BY-- I'M GOING TO REFER TO BRANDY AS FAR AS THE EXACT NUMBER.

BUT HOW MANY ANIMALS DO WE HAVE COME IN THE SHELTER EVERY YEAR? BRANDY FLOOD: OH, BETWEEN 8,000 AND 10,000.

ANDREA GULLEY: BETWEEN 08,000 AND 10,000.

AND SO WE-- CLEARLY THOSE PEOPLE EITHER DON'T HAVE CHIPS OR THEY DON'T KEEP THEIR INFORMATION UP TO DATE WITH THE COMPANIES.

BECAUSE IF THEY DID, THEIR ANIMALS WOULD BE RETURNING HOME FOR THE MOST PART.

AND I THINK WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER IS THAT THERE'S DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THOSE 8,000 TO 10,000 ANIMALS.

AND YES, WE ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO EITHER GO GET A FREE CHIP OR TO SPEND $10.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT-- I THINK IT'S $185 PER ANIMAL-ISH IS WHAT WE HAD HEARD AT ONE POINT TO HOUSE THEM.

SO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE COST OF HAVING UNCHIPPED ANIMALS, THE CITIZENS, THE TAXPAYERS ARE HAVING TO PAY FOR THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S ALSO THAT COMPONENT TO LOOK AT.

I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY, AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS THE MICROCHIP CHECKER FOR SLEEPY HOLLOW WHILE WE LIVED THERE, I WAS COMMONLY CHIPPING ANIMALS.

AND WE DID SEE-- I PERSONALLY WITNESSED AN INCREASE OF DOGS GETTING TO RETURN HOME BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE MICROCHIPS ONCE WE CHANGED THE ORDINANCE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT IF THE DOG ENTERS THE SHELTER, CAT, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CHIP.

SO WE DID SEE AN IMMEDIATE, OR AT LEAST I PERSONALLY SAW IT.

AND I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE STATS TO BACK IT UP.

BUT WE DID SEE AN INCREASE OF ANIMALS RETURNING TO THEIR HOME.

AND SO I THINK IF WE CHANGE OUR APPROACH TO REQUIRE THIS, WE WILL SEE A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS WHO ENTER AND STAY AT THE SHELTER, THEREBY LESSENING THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYERS TO CARE FOR THOSE ANIMALS.

SO THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, MR. SIMPSON, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE WE TALKED I DIDN'T COVER.

BUT THOSE ARE A NUMBER OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT.

LES SIMPSON: SO RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY, THERE ARE CERTAIN LAWS THAT RELATE TO PET OWNERS, CORRECT? ANDREA GULLEY: CORRECT.

LES SIMPSON: AND THOSE ARE RABIES VACCINATIONS? ANDREA GULLEY: YES, THE STATE REQUIRES A RABIES VACCINATION.

LES SIMPSON: YOU GOT OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED.

BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE POLICE THOSE.

I MEAN, I'M JUST WONDERING.

I MEAN, DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT PEOPLE WILL BE CALLING IN ON-- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE SEEN.

WE TALK ABOUT RESOURCES.

I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE FOCUS ON, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT IS A RESOURCE? I WOULD IMAGINE IF-- A BENEFIT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD BE IF YOU HAVE AN ANIMAL THAT HARMS SOMEONE THAT IS CHIPPED, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT ANIMAL.

WHEREAS UNCHIPPED, NOBODY'S GOING TO CLAIM THAT ANIMAL.

ANDREA GULLEY: THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND AS FAR AS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS, WITH RABIES TAGS, I CAN'T SPEAK TO EXACTLY HOW MANY RABIES TAGS CALL-INS YOU GET.

BUT I SUSPECT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE RABIES TAG THAT NEIGHBORS ARE CALLING EACH OTHER IN ON.

IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THEIR ANIMAL.

THEY'RE LEAVING THEM OUT IN THE COMMUNITY TO ROAM, NO FOOD, WATER, SHELTER.

AND THEN THE RABIES IS WHAT YOU HAPPEN TO CATCH WHEN YOU GO OUT TO CHECK THE ANIMAL, OR THEY'VE BITTEN SOMEBODY AND YOU HAPPEN TO RECOGNIZE THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR RABIES TAG, I WOULD JUST GUESS THE MICROCHIP WOULD BE

[00:35:01]

MORE COMPARABLE TO THE RABIES.

I MEAN, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I SUSPECT YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF CALLS SAYING THIS DOG DOESN'T HAVE RABIES TAG ON.

SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A ABUSE OF AN ANIMAL, LACK OF CARE OF AN ANIMAL, LETTING AN ANIMAL ROAM OR, LIKE YOU SAID, IF THERE IS A BITING INCIDENT.

AND I DO THINK THAT WOULD ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEIR DOG, FOR EXAMPLE, MAULS SOMEBODY OR CHASES SOMEBODY AND HURTS THEM.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

LES SIMPSON: SO I GUESS-- AND I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE THE POLICE CHIEF COULD ANSWER THIS.

BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN WE GO DOOR TO DOOR KNOCKING ON DOORS TO SAY, DO YOU HAVE YOUR DOG VACCINATED FOR RABIES? I'M GUESSING THAT WE DON'T DO THAT A WHOLE LOT, BUT IT'S A TOOL AND RESOURCE THAT PROTECTS THE PUBLIC AND-- BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

SO AS I RECALL, I MEAN, FROM 2000 FORWARD TO I BELIEVE '23 OR '24, WE SAW A CONTINUED INCREASE EACH YEAR IN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS WE WERE INTAKING TO WELFARE.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I BELIEVE OUR HIGH WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 9,000 IN ONE YEAR, WHICH THE LAST I HEARD WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THEY TAKE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

NOW, THEY MAY HAVE SOME DIFFERENT POLICIES ON RELEASE.

BUT STILL, THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER OF ANIMALS.

THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN DECREASES IN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN.

AND JUST AS THOSE STATISTICS SHOW, A LARGE PART OF THE DECREASE HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF DOGS BEING RETURNED TO OWNERS BECAUSE OF MICROCHIPPING.

AND THAT'S A MAJOR FACTOR.

THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BEING ABLE TO DO THIS.

SO I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE INSTITUTE FOR.

USED TO BE PEOPLE WOULD NOT WEAR SEATBELTS, AND WE TOLD PEOPLE GOT TO WEAR SEATBELTS.

THERE'S A SAFETY ISSUE INTO THIS.

SO I THINK-- AND PARTICULARLY COMING FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER TO BE EXPERTS THAT HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ENERGY, AND EFFORT ON THIS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS, I PERSONALLY LOOK AT MY DOG MORE THAN JUST PROPERTY.

BUT I KNOW THAT'S HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT IT.

BUT BEING ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS, PROTECT THOSE THINGS, AND PUT IT TOP-OF-MIND AWARENESS SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT, YEAH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANT ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO, I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE-- AND WE'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DONE IT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK IT WOULD HELP TAXPAYERS.

I THINK IT WOULD REUNITE ANIMAL OWNERS.

AND PUTTING THAT EFFORT, EXTRA EMPHASIS, JUST LIKE WE DO ON CERTAIN OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND PET OWNERSHIP, WOULD BE A POSITIVE.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE STATISTICS, THE HARD FACTS ARE SHOWING THAT THESE CHIPS ARE HELPING BRING DOWN COSTS TO THE TAXPAYERS AND RUNNING THE ANIMAL WELFARE MANAGEMENT.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING IT PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING AND SUPPORTING THIS ORDINANCE.

ANDREA GULLEY: AND IF I CAN PUT OUT ONE FINAL THING I KNOW WE DID TALK ABOUT, AS WELL, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I KNOW YOU'RE-- THE WELLBEING OF YOUR STAFF IS ALWAYS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO YOU, AS WELL.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE 9,000 TO 10,000 ANIMALS COMING INTO A SHELTER, AND YOU HAVE A 50% TO 70% LIVE RELEASE RATE, DEPENDING ON THE MONTH OR YEAR, THAT MEANS THAT MANY ANIMALS ARE BEING EUTHANIZED.

AND THAT DOES TAKE A REAL TOLL ON YOUR STAFF.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE TO EUTHANIZE A VERY HEALTHY ANIMAL WHO COULD BE ADOPTED, AND THAT HAPPENS FREQUENTLY.

SO I TALKED ABOUT THE COST OF ACTUALLY HOUSING AN ANIMAL IN YOUR SHELTER.

THERE'S A COST THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY PUT A NUMBER ON WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR STAFF HAVING TO EUTHANIZE A PERFECTLY HEALTHY ANIMAL.

AND I THINK ALL OF US COULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT LOWERING THE EUTHANASIA RATE IS SOMETHING THAT EVERY COMMUNITY STRIVES FOR.

SO THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT THIS WOULD ALSO HELP TO DECREASE THAT, WHICH IS A HUMANITARIAN TYPE OF ISSUE, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE DOGS, OR THE PEOPLE, OR THE CATS.

I THINK THERE'S A REAL VALUE TO LOWERING THAT NUMBER.

AND HOPEFULLY THE STATISTICS WOULD HOLD TRUE, AND THIS WOULD HELP TO LOWER EUTHANASIA RATES.

LES SIMPSON: WELL, I APPRECIATE THE WORK BECAUSE I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MONTHS, AND MONTHS, AND A LOT OF CONSIDERATION.

AND I'VE BEEN THERE FOR, PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

AND ALSO I JUST FEEL STRONGLY, UNLESS THERE'S AN OVERWHELMING REASON WE PUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND OTHERS IN THE POSITION TO GIVE US ADVICE.

AND I APPRECIATE THE ADVICE ON THIS, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD ADVICE.

ANDREA GULLEY: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

DON TIPPS: SO WE TAKE IN, YOU SAID, 08,000 TO 10,000 ANIMALS A YEAR? IS WHAT YOU SAID? ANDREA GULLEY: I DON'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS.

DON TIPPS: SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT.

08,000, WHATEVER.

ANDREA GULLEY: YEAH, AROUND THERE.

DON TIPPS: SO OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE ONLY ONES WE CHIP ARE THE ONES THAT THE OWNERS SHOW BACK UP FOR.

ANDREA GULLEY: SO IF THE OWNER COMES IN TO RECLAIM THEIR ANIMAL, IT'S ADOPTED OR TRANSFERRED, AND WE CHIP THEM.

DON TIPPS: BUT THE REST OF THEM, LIKE YOU SAID, IF THEY'RE EUTHANIZED, WE'RE NOT-- WE DON'T DO THAT UNTIL WE REUNITE THE ANIMAL WITH THEIR-- ANDREA GULLEY: CORRECT.

GENERALLY, YEAH.

DON TIPPS: OK, OK.

AND YOU BELIEVE-- I MEAN, I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU DO THINK THIS.

IF WE PASS THE ORDINANCE OR WE EXPAND THIS ORDINANCE, YOU BELIEVE THAT MORE PEOPLE WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF-- EITHER GO TO THE VET OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU GUYS TO--

[00:40:01]

ANDREA GULLEY: I BELIEVE THAT MORE PEOPLE WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR FREE MICROCHIPPING SERVICES, SO THAT WAY THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND THEN IF WE WERE TO SEE THAT ANIMAL, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RETURN THEM HOME INSTEAD OF BRINGING THEM INTO THE SHELTER.

DON TIPPS: OK, THANK YOU.

COLE STANLEY: COUNCILMAN? ANDREW FREEMAN: WAS THE-- IS THIS IN-- FURTHER IN THE AGENDA LATER? COLE STANLEY: OH, ARE YOU ASKING ON THE BACKUP DOCUMENT? ANDREW FREEMAN: NO, SIR.

IT WOULD COME AT A FUTURE MEETING.

THIS IS DISCUSSION ONLY.

DAVID PRESCOTT: DISCUSSION ONLY.

OK.

COLE STANLEY: SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE IF YOU WANTED TO READ IT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY'S READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

I THINK IT'S, WHAT, DRAFTED? AND THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION.

SPEAKER 3: YES, SIR.

COLE STANLEY: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

A LOT OF THE DETAILS ARE PROBABLY VERY IMPORTANT.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE WEIGHING IN ON ARE SOME OF THE WHAT-IFS THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET.

AND SO, COUNCILMAN, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU HAD IT TO READ IT, I WOULD SAY.

ANDREW FREEMAN: I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ORDINANCE.

COLE STANLEY: I THINK BEFORE WE-- IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION HERE BECAUSE WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

BUT IF WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE ITEM, NOT TO JUST PUT IT UP AS A VOTING ITEM, LET IT COME BACK SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER DISCUSSION IN DEPTH ON WHAT IT REALLY STATES, AS AN EXAMPLE.

COUNCILMAN SIMPSON SAYS, WE ALREADY HAVE RABIES VACCINE, MANDATORY LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

THAT'S PROPERTY IN THE EYES OF THE STATE, BUT THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED.

AND THEN WE HAVE NO PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT.

WE'RE NOT POLICING THAT.

WE'RE NOT GOING OUT.

WE'RE NOT CHECKING ANYTHING.

EVEN IF YOU DO-- LET'S SAY YOUR DOG GETS SICK.

YOU TAKE HIM OR HER TO THE VET.

THERE'S NO COMPLIANCE, REGULATORY AGENCY OVER THAT.

NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU, RIGHT? BUT THEN HERE HERE'S MY CONCERN.

YOU ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT YOU DON'T ENFORCE IN A PROACTIVE, MANDATORY WAY.

IT'S A MANDATORY LAW.

YOU SHOULD COMPLY.

BUT THERE'S NOT A POLICING MECHANISM THERE.

SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE HERE, IF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL LAW THAT WE WOULD EXPAND INTO, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE NO PROACTIVE POLICING ON IT? AND IF SO, THEN WHY MAKE IT MANDATORY? WHY NOT JUST CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE? LES SIMPSON: WELL, ANDREA'S A LAWYER.

MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER THAT.

COLE STANLEY: SURE.

MS. ANDREA, IF YOU DON'T-- LES SIMPSON: A FAIR POINT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE LOTS-- COLE STANLEY: IF YOU DON'T MIND.

ANDREA GULLEY: I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SPEAK AS A LAWYER.

BUT I WOULD SAY, THAT A LOT OF THE LAWS OF WITH ANIMALS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS, WE DON'T GO OUT NECESSARILY AND SAY, HEY, LET ME SEE YOUR WATER, SHELTER, AND FOOD.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG WHEN WE DISCOVER THAT SOMEBODY ISN'T TAKING CARE OF THEIR ANIMALS.

SO TO ME, IT KIND OF FALLS IN THE SAME CATEGORY OF IF WE SEE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE'S NOT FOLLOWING THE EXPECTATIONS OF GOOD PET OWNERSHIP, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF, AS YOU WOULD CALL IT, A STICK TO HELP PEOPLE COME AND BE ENCOURAGED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND I DO THINK BRANDY'S POINT EARLIER ABOUT HOW, EVEN WHEN WE SEE A DOG WITHOUT PROPER SHELTER, THE ANIMAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DOES GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

SO IT'S NOT A BIG STICK.

AT FIRST.

IT'S MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN COMPLIANCE, BUT IT WOULD THEN HELP HOPEFULLY PROTECT THAT ANIMAL IN THE FUTURE SHOULD THEY GET OUT.

COLE STANLEY: AND I LOVE THE DEFINITION BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WITH AN ORDINANCE, AN EXPANDED ORDINANCE, WE WOULD HAVE SOME DEFINITIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SAID, I THINK, MS. ANDREA, IS THIS WOULD NOW FALL UNDERNEATH WHAT WE DEFINE AS GOOD PET OWNERSHIP.

AND SO WE WOULD SAY, IF YOU ARE REFUSING TO MICROCHIP YOUR ANIMAL, THEN YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PET OWNER.

AND EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY LOVE THAT ANIMAL, YOU MAY PROVIDE FOOD AND SHELTER, THE LEASH LAWS, EVERYTHING YOU-- AND SO SOME OF OUR BEST AND FINEST CITIZENS ARE GOING TO FEEL LIKE WE ARE TELLING THEM THAT WE'VE NOW CLASSIFIED YOU UNDERNEATH A POTENTIAL CITATION.

BECAUSE THIS IS A DETERMINING FACTOR OF WHAT IS A GOOD AND A BAD PET OWNER.

NOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BREEDING LAWS, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANIMAL CRUELTY AND LEAVING AN ANIMAL CHAINED IN THE BACKYARD ON THE DIRT IN THE SUN, LIKE 100-PLUS DEGREE DAY, I MEAN, I THINK THOSE ARE VERY MUCH THE RIGHT ROLE OF GOVERNMENT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SEE OVER THAT FENCE OR TAKE THAT CALL AND PROTECT THAT ANIMAL.

NOW WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE SHIFTED THIS OVER TO TECHNOLOGY, AND AN IMPLEMENTATION OF A MICROCHIP IS DEFINING WHAT IS AND IS NOT GOOD PET OWNERSHIP.

AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL.

I THINK THAT IS A GOOD INITIATIVE FOR THE PUBLIC, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD ENCOURAGEMENT.

AND I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE BOARD AND ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO BECAUSE YOU CARE.

YOU WANT TO LOWER THOSE RATES.

WE WANT TO GET THAT EUTHANIZATION RATE

[00:45:02]

DOWN AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

AND SO THERE ARE JUST THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT I THINK, ONCE WE SHIFT THEM OVER TO A DEFINED TERM LIKE THAT, THEN WE'VE STEPPED OUT OF THE RIGHT ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

I KNOW IT DIFFERS FROM COUNCILMAN SIMPSON, BUT WE SEE THE GOOD IN WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I JUST DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT IN THE MANDATORY SIDE, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY UP FRONT AND EVEN PUT IT IN THE ORDINANCE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO POLICE THIS.

WE'RE ONLY GOING TO CONSEQUENCE IT WHENEVER THE ANIMAL COMES INTO THE SHELTER OR INTO OUR CARE.

WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ON THE BOOKS.

WE ALREADY TAKE THAT ANIMAL AND WE DO MICROCHIP IT.

SO WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THAT ANIMAL.

WHAT WE WOULD FIND IS WE WOULD FIND AN ANIMAL THAT SOMEBODY HAD ALREADY COMPLIED WITH, BE THEY DID IT VOLUNTARILY OR MANDATORILY.

WE WOULDN'T KNOW.

ANDREA GULLEY: I WOULD SAY-- AND I DON'T KNOW.

IF I SAID THE WORD GOOD, I SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE SAID RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, LIKE I SAID, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY ARE PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR PETS.

THERE IS A VERY REAL COST TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE, AND THAT'S COMING OUT OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH TO ASK OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

I ALSO THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF CITIZENS-- I HEAR FROM THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS-- WHO ARE FRUSTRATED WITH THE VOLUME OF INTAKE.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT LIKE WHEN YOUR DOG GETS LOOSE, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO RUN ON OVER TO THE SHELTER.

THEY MIGHT BE ON THE STREETS FOR 01, 2, 3 DAYS, THREE WEEKS, THREE MONTHS.

AND SO I DO DISAGREE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME FOR THAT ANIMAL.

IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THEM GETTING CHIPPED WHEN THEY LEAVE.

THEY MAY DIE BEFORE THEY GET CHIPPED.

IF THEY HAVE THE CHIP, EVEN IF IT'S THREE MONTHS LATER, THEY MIGHT RETURN HOME AGAIN, INCREASING LIVE OUTCOMES AND ALSO DECREASING THE COST FOR OUR CITIZENS AND FOR OUR CITY.

BECAUSE IF THEY COME IN AND THEY HAVE THAT MICROCHIP, ON HOUR ONE, THEY CAN GET RETURNED HOME AS OPPOSED TO HOUSING, TRYING TO REHOME THEM, ET CETERA.

SO THERE'S A REAL COST TO THE CITIZENS.

SO I THINK THAT'S YOUR JOB, OBVIOUSLY, AS THE COUNCIL, TO WEIGH, IS IT WORTH HAVING A RULE IN PLACE? OR DO WE WANT TO KEEP DOING WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE, WHICH IS SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY, HAVING ALL THESE ANIMALS COME INTO OUR SHELTER THAT RIVAL THE NUMBERS OF AUSTIN ISD? IF WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS GOT.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY FINAL TAKE ON IT.

COLE STANLEY: WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.

AND THE DISCUSSION, I THINK, IS GOOD AND HEALTHY.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT EITHER IS WRONG.

I JUST KNOW THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES.

AND SO MY APPROACH WOULD BE MUCH MORE THE CARROT AND IN TRYING TO ENCOURAGE.

AND I THINK YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GOOD JOB OF THAT, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

ANDREA GULLEY: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH, SO COUNCIL-- I'M SORRY, [INAUDIBLE]? TIM REID: I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

ON THE NINE CITIES THAT ENACTED THE MANDATORY MICROCHIP, WERE THERE STATISTICS ON THE NUMBERS, SEEING A RISE OR FALL IN THE NUMBERS THAT WERE RETURNED TO OWNERS? ANDREA GULLEY: SO I DID ASK FOR SPECIFIC STATISTICS.

THEY COULDN'T GIVE ME SPECIFICS, BUT THEY DID LET ME KNOW THAT THEIR RETURN TO OWNER RATES HAD INCREASED SINCE THEY IMPLEMENTED THEIR ORDINANCES.

TIM REID: OK.

COLE STANLEY: COUNCILMAN? LES SIMPSON: YEAH, I THINK TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, I THINK I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT THIS IDEA, THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

IT'S OUT INTO THE PUBLIC NOW.

AND SO I HOPE THE PUBLIC DOES TAKE OPPORTUNITY, NO MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU'RE ON THIS, TO SHARE THAT WITH COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE DECISION.

BUT JUST AS I THINK THERE MAY BE PEOPLE CONCERNS, I THINK THERE MAY BE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT SAY, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BENEFICIAL.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED SOMETIMES MORE ABOUT ANIMALS THAN ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

BUT ALSO, I THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE TO-- BENEFICIAL TO THE CITIZENS, TO HAVE HAVING FEWER ANIMALS COME INTO OUR SHELTER, REDUCING THE COST OR BEING ABLE TO REALLOCATE THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN I LOOK FORWARD TO CONSIDERING THIS WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH, WE APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK IF I'M HEARING COUNCIL, DEPENDING ON THE TIME, MAYBE IT'S NOT NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

MAYBE IT'S THE ONE IN NOVEMBER.

LET'S GET THE TEETH THAT WE NEED TO SEE IN THE ORDINANCE.

LET'S GET THE DEFINITIONS, THE TERMS, GET THE ORDINANCE SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW IT.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF COMFORT COULD BE GAINED IN THIS AND WHAT REALLY IS MANDATORY.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? LET'S GET SOME LEVEL OF EXPECTED BENEFIT MONETARILY AND, LIKE, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THESE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ANIMAL MANAGEMENT WELFARE SYSTEM.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS MUCH MORE REUNIFICATION VERSUS EUTHANIZATION.

LET'S ALSO PULL OUR MUNICIPAL COURT.

LET'S SEE ON OUR MUNICIPAL COURT.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ORDINANCES, CODES, AND STANDARDS THAT WE ALREADY ENFORCE.

[00:50:01]

LET'S SEE HOW MANY AND WHAT THE COST IS THAT WOULD WEIGH AGAINST THAT.

BECAUSE IF WE ARE JUST GOING TO MAKE A TRANSACTION DECISION ON MONETARY COST, I MEAN, ONE IS GOING TO BE THE COST SAVINGS IN ANIMAL MANAGEMENT.

BUT THEN THE OTHER ONE WOULD GO THROUGH THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AND THEN WOULD INCREASE THE COST OVER ON THE MUNICIPAL COURT SIDE.

SO IF WE CAN PULL THOSE THREE THINGS TOGETHER-- AND WHEN THEY'RE READY, THEN WE'LL PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA.

ANDREA GULLEY: I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME.

COLE STANLEY: THANK YOU GUYS.

APPRECIATE YOU LADIES.

ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT ONE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? COMMENTS, REMARKS? OK.

FORENSIC AUDIT UPDATE, ITEM 4.2.

[4.2. Forensic Audit Update]

COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT AND MYSELF SAT IN A MEETING EARLIER TODAY.

SO I WANT TO GO BACK A FEW WEEKS, MAYBE A MONTH AND A HALF OR SO, AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE ON, REALLY, LET'S GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WERE SEEING AND WHY WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS AS A COUNCIL AND AS OUR CONSTITUENTS.

THEN LET'S TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND GET THE ROLE THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY PLAYING.

AND THEN LET ME GIVE YOU THE ACTUAL UPDATE.

AND SO I WANT TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ONLY ABLE TO TUNE IN HERE AND THERE, AND THEY DON'T FOLLOW EVERY MEETING.

AND SO THEY MAY NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE WALKED THROUGH.

SO OVERALL, WE AS A COUNCIL, AND AS PREVIOUS COUNCILS THAT I'VE SAT ON, HAVE SEEN SOME MISSTATEMENTS, OVERSTATEMENTS OF FUND BALANCES, SOME CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES IN BUDGETS, EVEN DURING BUDGET PRESENTATIONS WHERE WE'VE THOUGHT ONE THING WAS A HARD AND FAST NUMBER.

AND WE'VE COME BACK AND SAID, WELL, THAT WASN'T THE CORRECT NUMBER.

WE'VE SEEN DONNY HOOPER TAKE ON A LOT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURAL CHANGE, REALLY, IN HOW WE MANAGE CIP MUCH, MUCH BETTER.

WE NOW HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE WHERE WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR ALL OF THOSE CURRENT PROJECTS AND THOSE COSTS.

WE'RE BRINGING THEM BACK, AND WE'RE WEIGHING THOSE AGAINST WHAT WAS THE BUDGETED OR THE APPROPRIATED AMOUNT OF MONEY.

WHEN WE SEE THE SAVINGS, WE'RE NOW SEEING THOSE SAVINGS FROM THOSE PROJECTS OR COST OVERRUNS, EITHER ONE.

BUT PRIMARILY SAVINGS COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR AN APPROPRIATIONS TO GO BACK OUT TO THAT DEPARTMENT OR TO GET TO THAT NEXT PROJECT.

WE SAW PROP 1.

REALLY, THE ROAD MONIES WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST PLACE THAT WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT-- AS PREVIOUS COUNCIL, HAD A SIGNIFICANT FINDING WHERE-- AND I USE THE WORD FINDING LOOSELY, WHERE WE BELIEVED THAT ALL THE MONIES HAD BEEN SPENT ON THE ROADS.

THAT WASN'T THE CASE.

WHEN WE REALLY DUG INTO IT AND WE PULLED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, WE ENDED UP FINDING ROUGHLY $34 MILLION THAT HADN'T BEEN SPENT ON THOSE ROADS.

AND NOW THAT MONEY HAS BEEN BROUGHT BACK THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

IT'S TAKING CARE OF A GOOD CHUNK OF GEORGIA.

IT'S DOING SOME OTHER PROJECTS.

IT TOOK CARE OF A TON OF REPAIRS AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN, I'D SAY, MR. FREEMAN REALLY DIG IN AND PULL SEVERAL OPEN PROJECTS.

AT ONE TIME, WE HAD OVER 450 OPEN PROJECTS THAT WERE JUST KIND OF IN THAT ENTITY THAT WE CALL CIP.

CIP IS WHAT YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT ON THE PRIVATE SIDE OF CAPEX.

THESE ARE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT COUNCILS PREVIOUSLY SAID WE WANT TO DO PROJECT Y, AND THAT'S $1 MILLION.

AND WE'RE GOING TO FUND IT.

AND THEY PUSHED IT OUT OVER THERE.

WELL, A RIGHT OF WAY COULDN'T BE OBTAINED.

AND SO, HAD A HOMEOWNER ISSUE OR HAD AN OWNER ISSUE, HAD SOMETHING ELSE THAT WENT.

SOMETHING CHANGED.

THAT MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT PROJECT SAT OUT THERE AND WAS NOT CLOSED OUT AT THE TIME.

WE'VE FOUND THAT.

WE'VE SEEN THAT THAT'S HAPPENED.

SO IN NEEDING TO GO BACK AND REALLY DO A FULL, COMPREHENSIVE, THOROUGH CLOSEOUT OF THESE PROJECTS, WE'VE SEEN JUST STAFF WITH HONESTLY A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF RESOURCES.

THEY ARE JUGGLING MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME STILL TRYING TO GO AND SIFT THROUGH, ON A LITTLE COMMITTEE, THESE PROJECTS AT A HIGH LEVEL.

WE'VE SEEN WHAT LOOKS LIKE AROUND $43 MILLION THAT'S COME OUT OF THOSE OPEN PROJECTS AND COME BACK.

AND MR. FREEMAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT I WANT TO SAY YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO '23 OR '24 IN THE LOOK BACK? ANDREW FREEMAN: YES, SIR.

THAT'S CORRECT.

COLE STANLEY: SO WE'VE ONLY GONE BACK TO '23, BUT THESE OPEN PROJECTS EXTEND ON SOME OF THE REPORTS THAT I'VE SEEN ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2012.

AND SO WE KEEP FINDING GOOD THINGS.

BUT WHAT WE FIND IN THE GOOD THING OF EXISTING REVENUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED INTO YOUR CITY THAT WERE APPROPRIATED, WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS.

[00:55:01]

AND WE'VE COMMUNICATED THESE CONCERNS MUCH LIKE WE SHOULD, IN AN OPEN DIALOGUE, IN A FORUM WITH YOU, LISTENING, COMMUNICATING, BEING UPFRONT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, TELLING YOU WHAT WE CAN SEE, WHAT WE CAN'T SEE.

ULTIMATELY, WHERE WE ARE NOW IS COUNCIL'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS OPENLY AND IN PUBLIC AND SAID, OK.

LET'S TASK THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

THAT IS A COMMITTEE THAT USED TO JUST MEET ONCE A YEAR.

NOW IT'S MEETING MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR.

THIS IS THE ROLE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

I THINK IT WORKS VERY WELL HAND-IN-HAND WITH OUR INTERNAL AUDITOR, MR. GERBER.

AND SO IN DOING THIS, THIS COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION FOR THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TO GO OUT AND PUT OUT AN RFQ FOR QUALIFICATIONS FROM AUDIT FIRMS. SO I'M GOING TO START GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE NOW THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE'RE COMING THROUGH.

AND THOSE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS.

THOSE ARE LIKE THE ESPN 30-SECOND HIGHLIGHTS, TOO.

THAT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEPTH OF WHAT WE REALLY HAVE THAT WE NEED TO GO SIFT THROUGH.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

13 FIRMS SUBMITTED WITHIN-- I THINK IT WAS A 30-DAY LOOK.

AND THESE 13 FIRMS CAME IN, AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SCORED THESE FIRMS. WE TOOK THE TOP FIVE OUT OF THE SCORING.

AND WE'VE INTERVIEWED ONE, WHICH WAS OUR NUMBER ONE FIRM.

WE DID THAT THIS MORNING.

WE'VE GOT PHONE CALLS INTO SCHEDULES AND CALENDARS ALIGNMENT SO THAT WE CAN INTERVIEW TWO MORE FIRMS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT TOP FIVE.

WE THINK SOME OF THESE FIRMS ARE CLOSER IN TEXAS AND LOCAL, AND THAT CAN BE A BENEFIT.

SOME OF THEM AREN'T IN TEXAS, AND THEY'RE NOT LOCAL, AND THEY HAVE NO TIES.

SOME ARE VERY, VERY TECHNICAL AND THEY BRING SOME SKILLS THAT WE'RE UNFAMILIAR WITH IN THEIR DATA ANALYSIS AND THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE SOME THINGS.

THEY CAN LOOK AT, PICK OUT PECULIARITIES AND IRREGULARITIES, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, SAYING ALL OF THAT TO SAY THIS.

WE HAVE TWO MORE FIRMS THAT WE WANT TO INTERVIEW.

AND THEN WHAT COUNSEL SAID WAS, GO AND GET AN RFQ AND BRING US ONE OR TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT DON'T HAVE THE MAYOR SCOPE THE AUDIT, AND DON'T HAVE THE CITY MANAGER SCOPE THE AUDIT.

LET'S GO AND LET'S ENGAGE WITH THESE FIRMS, AND LET'S LET THEM HEAR OUR CONCERNS THROUGH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND LET THEM RECOMMEND.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TODAY.

WE WERE ON THE PHONE FOR-- IN THE INTERVIEW OVER AN HOUR.

AND I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL IN JUST THE TERM FORENSIC, RIGHT, VERSUS A CONSULTING ENGAGEMENT AND WHAT THOSE TERMS AND DEFINITIONS CAN DO.

AND SO HOW WE APPROACH THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND I WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD ONCE AGAIN-- AND I'VE SAID IT A LOT-- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT-- I, MYSELF, AND NOBODY ELSE THAT I KNOW OF HAVE ANYTHING THAT CONSTITUTES A CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT THEFT CHARGE.

WHAT WE SEE IS WE SEE THAT THERE ARE MONIES THAT ARE IN OUR PORTFOLIO THAT WE CAN'T IDENTIFY, THAT THERE'S AN OWNERSHIP TO THOSE MONIES IN A CERTAIN PROJECT.

AND THEN WE ARE COMPARING THOSE TO EXISTING CIP PROJECTS AND SEEING, WELL, ARE THOSE ACTIVE PROJECTS THAT STILL HAVE VIABILITY? DO WE EVEN HAVE AN UPDATED COST? IS THAT PROJECT, WAS IT SCOPED THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COST BASIS VALUE TO SEE WHAT WOULD WE GET NOW? I MEAN, ROAD CONDITION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COND-- THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

SO ALL SORTS OF DYNAMICS IN THAT.

SO WHEN WE'RE IN THESE INTERVIEWS, AND WE ARE TRYING TO BRING THIS BACK, WE'RE TRYING TO BRING BACK A VERY HEALTHY SCOPE.

AND SO THE HEALTHIEST SCOPE, I THINK, WILL COME FROM THE RECOMMENDED THIRD PARTY.

AND SO OUR INTENTION WOULD BE-- HOPEFULLY ON THE 27TH OF OCTOBER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMEND ONE OR TWO FIRMS. AND THEN THE APPROACH, THE SCOPE.

SO WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GO AND FIND THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK IN LOOKING THROUGH, DOCUMENTATION, BALANCES, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, ALL SORTS OF THINGS? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO FIND THAT BEST BENEFITS THE HEALTH AND THE FINANCIAL WELLNESS OF THE CITY? IF WE CAN DO THAT BY THE 27TH, WE HAVE ONE CONSIDERATION.

WE DO HAVE A GENERALIZED AUDIT THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER FIRM.

SO THOSE OF US THAT NATURALLY ARE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE SKEPTICAL OR CRITICAL OF GOVERNMENT AND ITS MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN-- YOU'VE GOT ONE FIRM THAT DID A GOOD JOB, I THOUGHT, ON THIS PREVIOUS YEAR'S AUDIT.

VERY, VERY THOROUGH.

THEN YOU WOULD HAVE ANOTHER FIRM WORKING NEXT TO IT.

AND SO NOW YOU'D HAVE MULTIPLE EYES, MULTIPLE LAYERS,

[01:00:01]

LOOKING OVER THE SAME SETS OF BOOKS.

THEY ALL HAVE TO MATCH.

THEY ALL HAVE TO LINE UP.

AND THEN THE ONLY THING WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE OF IS THAT WE DON'T DRAG OUT SOME SORT OF A FORENSIC OR AN ENGAGEMENT AUDIT WITH AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY THAT WOULD PREVENT OUR ANNUAL AUDIT FROM HAPPENING.

NOW, IF THERE'S A FINDING AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAUSES GREAT CONCERN, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THAT DEADLINE CONSIDERATION.

WE NOW HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF ISSUES.

BUT IF WE CAN GET THROUGH, WHICH IN THE ENGAGEMENT CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY, THEY FELT LIKE IF THE PROJECT WAS AWARDED IN NOVEMBER, THEY COULD ENGAGE NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND HAVE NO PROBLEM IN HELPING US GET A SCOPE OF WORK WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE DELIVERABLE BY THAT TIME.

NOW, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE LISTENING, OUR GENERAL COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT, WHICH REALLY JUST LOOKS AT THE OVERALL, IT'S NOT DUE TILL MARCH 31.

AND WE PLAN ON BEING ON TIME FOR THAT.

AND SO THAT GIVES US PLENTY OF TIME FOR THAT OTHER AUDIT FIRM TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN HAVE COMFORT AND CONFIDENCE IN THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE REPRESENTED TO THEM, THAT THEY'RE ACCURATE.

AND THEY NEED THAT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK YEARS PAST, MAYBE A DECADE PAST.

AND SO I'M LAYING ALL THAT OUT PRETTY QUICKLY, COVERING A LOT OF GROUND.

I'M LOOKING AT MY INTERNAL AUDITOR, U'NEILL.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARING THAT KIND OF DID CATCH THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU.

IT'S NOT EXHAUSTIVE.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU EVERY CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD.

I'M NOT TRYING TO GET DOWN TO THAT NEXT LEVEL OF DETAIL.

I KNOW THIS WILL BRING ABOUT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

I INVITE THE MEDIA TO FOLLOW UP ON IT.

WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO SPEAK TO IT AND TALK TO IT.

BUT WE'VE IDENTIFIED OUR CONCERN.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED WHAT OUR GOALS ARE.

WE NOW NEED TO IDENTIFY OUR THIRD PARTY THAT WE WANT TO HELP-- HAVE THEM HELP GET US THERE.

AND THEN WE DO HAVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST, AND WE HAVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A DOLLAR THAT DOESN'T IDENTIFY THE DOLLARS THAT WE KNOW ARE IN OUR POSSESSION.

SO THIS IS NOT A WASTED EFFORT.

AND WE HAVE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED TO THE GOOD BALANCE THAT JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

SO IF THERE WAS NO THERE THERE, THEN WE WOULD GLADLY MOVE ON, AND WE WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN TELLING YOU GUYS.

WHAT COUNCIL PLACE 1 SAID STILL RINGS IN MY EAR.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

AND SO IN THIS ENGAGEMENT, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

AND THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL IN US MOVING EVERYTHING FORWARD.

AND WE AS A COMMUNITY, WE NEED THIS.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOUR TRUST, BUT WE NEED CONFIDENCE.

AND YOU NEED TO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE BALANCES, AND THAT THE NUMBERS, AND THE REPORTS, AND THE SPREADSHEETS HAVE ALL BEEN GONE THROUGH, AND THAT THEY'VE RECONCILED THOSE ACCOUNT BALANCES.

AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING.

THIS IS A VERY LARGE EXERCISE OF RECONCILIATION.

AND IF IT DOESN'T RECONCILE, THEN IT WOULD TRANSFORM INTO SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT RIGHT NOW, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

AND SO I'M GOING TO PAUSE HERE REAL QUICK, ASK COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT, DID I SKIP ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTS? LES SIMPSON: NO, I THINK IT'S A LOT OF MATERIAL.

I ECHO WHAT MAYOR SAYS IN WE DON'T FEEL THAT THERE'S ANY FRAUD AT THIS POINT OR ANY CRIMINALITY, SOME SLOPPINESS MAYBE BACK IN THE CIP.

BUT WE'VE RECTIFIED THAT WITH PROCEDURES AND PROCESS NOW.

I THINK THAT THE CONFIDENCE IN LOOKING AT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ARPA, WATER AND SEWER, AND CIP BACK TO 2012 ARE THE THREE AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT AND FOCUSING ON.

THE FIRMS ARE-- THEY SEEM VERY COMPETENT AND AGGRESSIVE IN TAKING A LOOK AT THIS AND MEETING THE DEADLINES.

I THINK IT'S A DOABLE PROJECT.

LET ME GIVE YOU ONE OTHER PIECE FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND I WANT TO USE THIS PUBLIC SETTING FOR NOT ONLY OUR CITIZENS TO HEAR THIS, BUT ALSO FOR COUNCIL TO CONTINUE SO THAT WHEN IT IS BROUGHT TO YOU, WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON IT AND THAT YOU'VE BEEN BROUGHT ALONG.

NOT THAT EVERYTHING WENT ON IN SOME COMMITTEE MEETING AND THEN IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU THE LAST DAY OF THE AGENDA, AND NOW YOU'RE EXPECTED TO VOTE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT.

SO LET ME BRING YOU FORWARD.

THERE MAY BE SOME WISDOM IN BREAKING THIS APART WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT FIRMS. SO IF WE ARE LOOKING AT THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS WITH ONE FIRM, AND THE SCOPE IS ARPA MONIES THAT-- THEY HAVE SOME DIFFERENT REGULATORY CRITERIA AND SOME GUARDRAILS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.

WE WANT TO CHECK THOSE.

WE ALSO HAVE SEWER AND WATER, WHICH IS AN ENTERPRISE

[01:05:01]

THAT THE STAFF HAD COMMUNICATED A COUPLE YEARS BACK WE HAD A SHORTFALL FINANCIALLY IN THAT ENTERPRISE.

AND THEN WE HAVE OUR CIP PROGRAM, ALL OF OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS.

WHAT IF WE SCOPE THIS OUT AND WE'RE ASKING THESE FIRMS, WHAT IF YOURS IS JUST THE CIP AND THE ARPA THAT GOES IN MAYBE OUR NUMBER ONE SELECTION, AND THEN WE GO OUT FOR ANOTHER PROPOSAL? THE COST WOULD PROBABLY BE MITIGATED ABOUT THE SAME.

THE TIMING ON THAT AND THE OVERLAP WOULD BE GOOD.

PLUS YOU'D HAVE ANOTHER LAYER OF EYES THAT ARE IN THERE LOOKING AT IT.

SO I THINK THAT YOU COULD SEPARATE OUT THE SEWER AND WATER ENTERPRISE WITH ITS OWN FIRM.

AND SOME OF THE FIRMS MAY SPECIALIZE IN THAT TYPE OF ENTERPRISE, IN THAT SEWER AND WATER.

AND WE MIGHT LEARN SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW IN PROCEDURAL, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND GROWTH, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN.

SO THE CONSULTING SIDE OF THAT WOULD NOT LOOK MUCH LIKE A FORENSIC AUDIT, I THINK.

I THINK IT WOULD LOOK MUCH MORE LIKE A BUSINESS AUDIT.

AND SO THIS COMMITTEE MIGHT BRING YOU AN OPTION TO HIRE FIRM A ON THAT SCOPE FOR CIP AND ARPA, FIRM B ON SEWER AND WATER ENTERPRISE.

COUNCIL, YOU GUYS COULD SAY NO, PUT IT ALL UNDER FIRM A. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE THE SHARPEST.

THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

OR, YES, THAT IS WHAT WE LIKE.

WE LIKE THAT AND MOVE IT FORWARD.

BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE PUBLIC THAT UPDATE, AND THEN I WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT UPDATE, AND MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE HEARING EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING OVER THERE.

I'LL PAUSE FOR A SECOND, SEE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

LES SIMPSON: JUST TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS. CAN WE GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC WHY THE 331 DATE IS IMPORTANT? AND WHAT WOULD BE TRIGGERED IF WE DID NOT MEET THAT AND THIS SLOWED US DOWN? I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

COLE STANLEY: CAN I TAKE THAT ONE REAL QUICK BEFORE YOU GO TO YOUR NEXT ONE? SO MARCH 31-- AND FORGIVE ME, I DON'T REMEMBER THE RULE, BUT TEXAS STATE LEDGE IMPLEMENTED A RULE THAT SAID, MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOW REQUIRED TO TURN THEIR AUDIT IN ON TIME.

SO EVIDENTLY THERE WAS A LARGE GROUP OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT DIDN'T GET THEIR AUDIT DONE TIMELY.

AND SO THE STATE WANTED TO CORRECT THIS.

SO THEY PUT ESSENTIALLY ONE CONSEQUENCE IN.

IF YOUR AUDIT WASN'T TURNED IN ON TIME, YOU COULD BE SUBJECT BY THE STATE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO RAISE THE TAX RATE.

AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE JUST THE FLAT RATE OR THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AS IT'S WRITTEN IN THE STATUTE.

SO YOU COULD HAVE THAT CONSEQUENCE.

NOW, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO OTHER CONSEQUENCES FOR BEING LATE.

BUT THEN I THINK I SAW ROUGHLY 120-PLUS CITIES THAT THE STATE OF TEXAS ALREADY TOOK ACTION AGAINST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR STUFF TURNED IN ON TIME.

NOW, WE WERE LATE.

AND WE DID GO AHEAD AND WRITE THE STATE AND SELF-REPORT, HEY, THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE DIDN'T GET IT DONE.

WE'VE GOT SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WE'RE PULLING.

PLUS WE HAD NEW SOFTWARE MIGRATION ISSUES.

AND SO THE STATE HAS NOT REACHED OUT TO US, BUT WE NEED YOU GUYS TO HEAR THAT IT'S NOT JUST A GOAL.

IT IS NOW A REQUIREMENT FOR US TO BE TURNED IN TIMELY ON THAT MARCH 31 DATE.

LES SIMPSON: THANK YOU.

I THINK THAT TWO OTHER POINTS THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO REVIEW THE 2024 AUDIT.

OR THE FIRM THAT WE SPOKE TO THIS MORNING, THEY WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT AUDIT.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOSING REVENUE OR EXPENSE THAT WE PAID FOR THE 2024 AUDIT.

THEY DID WANT TO LOOK AT THAT.

AND I THINK AN EXPECTATION-- I KNOW IF I WAS SITTING OUT THERE AND I WAS HEARING ABOUT THIS AUDIT, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW, WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE CHALLENGES? WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE HEADWINDS? AND WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT SOFTWARE SYSTEMS. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT A LACK OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE PRESENT DURING THESE ACTIVITIES.

AND SO BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS ARE GOING TO GIVE US SOME HEADWINDS.

AND IT'S GOING TO CREATE SOME CHALLENGES FOR THE TEAM.

AND I HOPE THAT THIS COUNCIL IS CLEAR ON WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE AS THIS PROGRESSES WITH THESE THREE AREAS.

AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE, FOR A BETTER WORD, WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD AND WHAT OUR EXPECTATION IS AND WHAT OUR DELIVERY IS AS THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH, SO LET ME EXPAND ON THOSE TWO ITEMS REAL QUICK AND THEN OPEN IT UP.

THE REVIEW-- SO WHICHEVER FIRM WE CHOOSE TO HIRE FOR THIS AUDIT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PREVIOUS AUDITS.

AND SO THE ARPA MONIES WERE ALREADY AUDITED, AND CORRECT MY TERMINOLOGY.

IT WAS A SINGLE AUDIT ON THAT ONE.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT THEY CAN EXTRAPOLATE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING AND START FROM SCRATCH.

SO IF THEY GET COMFORTABLE THERE, AND THEY CAN SHOW REVENUES AND WHERE THEY CAME INTO THE ACCOUNT

[01:10:03]

BALANCES, AND WHERE THEY WERE SPENT, THEN ESSENTIALLY THAT ONE PIECE OF CONCERN IS ALLEVIATED.

AND SO THAT COULD BE VERY HELPFUL, NOT ONLY IN US NOT SPENDING MUCH MONEY ON THAT, BUT THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT WERE GIVEN.

NOW THEN, THE OTHER THING IS IF COUNCILMAN IS REFERRING TO IT AS A TALL ORDER, IT IS A TALL ORDER.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF DOCUMENTS TO GO BACK THROUGH.

YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS THAT ARE THE MAIN PROGRAMS, BUT YOU HAVE MULTIPLE OTHER LAYERS OF ACCOUNT SOFTWARE AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT INTEGRATE IN AND OUT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE BANKING.

SO YOU HAVE A DEPOSITORY.

AND DURING THE TIME OF ROUGHLY '22 TO '24, WE CHANGED OUR DEPOSITORY FROM ONE BANK TO ANOTHER BANK.

AND SO YOU HAVE NEW ACCOUNTS THAT ARE OPENED AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS.

AND SO THERE'S A LOT HERE IN THE MIGRATION OF DATA AND THE MIGRATION OF FUNDS THAT THIS ENTITY IS GOING TO NEED TO GO THROUGH.

SO WHAT IS THE DELIVERABLE? CONFIDENCE, VALIDATION, VERIFICATION, AND A NET ZERO ACCOUNT BALANCE.

WE'VE GOT TO KNOW THAT THE BALANCE WE'RE LOOKING AT CONSIDERS ALL THE MONIES, AND ALL THE COMMITMENTS, AND THAT EVERYTHING'S BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR.

SO WHAT IS THAT? ESSENTIALLY, THAT IS RECONCILIATION.

WE DO THIS WITH OUR CHECKBOOKS, HOPEFULLY.

EVERY MONTH WE RECONCILE THAT CHECKBOOK TO SEE, ARE THE MONIES THAT WE THINK WE HAVE IN THERE TO GO BUY GROCERIES STILL IN THERE? OR DID WE DEBIT THAT ACCOUNT, AND WE NEVER DOCUMENTED IT, AND WE DON'T HAVE GROCERY MONEY? AND SO THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

AND I KNOW THAT'S A SIMPLE ANALOGY, BUT THAT IS THE DELIVERABLE.

AND MY HOPE IN THIS IS TO GET TO THAT POINT AND THEN MOVE EVERYTHING FORWARD OUT OF THE FINANCIAL CONCERN THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW.

DISCUSSION? LES SIMPSON: JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

SO THE FIRM AND/OR FIRMS THAT WE END UP USING, IS THAT-- ARE THOSE FIRMS GOING TO BE SELECTED STRICTLY BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND THEN BROUGHT TO COUNCIL? OR WILL COUNCIL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAYBE TALK WITH A COUPLE OF THE FINAL FIRMS AS WE DETERMINE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND THE COURSE IT WILL TAKE? COLE STANLEY: YES, SIR.

SO WE HAVE ALL 13, AND WE HAVE THEM RATED.

AND WE KEPT ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION SO COUNCIL CAN READ IT, AND SEE IT, AND LOOK THROUGH ALL THAT.

SO YOU GUYS CAN GET AS MUCH OF THAT DATA AS YOU'D LIKE.

THEN WE HAVE THE TOP FIVE.

AND ESSENTIALLY YOU'VE GOT, I DON'T KNOW, I'D SAY FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE THAT ARE REALLY STRONG IN SOME DIFFERENT AREAS AND COULD HAVE BEEN RANKED OR SCORED A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS.

SO WE WOULD LIKE, AS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL TWO FIRMS AND TRY TO LET THAT FIRM SHOW UP AND GIVE YOU THE EXPERTISE THAT YOU NEED TO HEAR.

YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR IT FROM ME, THAT FIRM A KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO LET THEM COME IN AND PRESENT.

BUT COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND INTERVIEW OR BRING IN FOR A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ADDITIONAL FIRMS IF YOU WEREN'T SATISFIED.

BUT MUCH LIKE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE'S A PROCESS.

AND WE ARE PUTTING SOME CONFIDENCE IN THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BRING FORWARD STRONG CANDIDATES.

AND TO ME RIGHT NOW, AS A CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE, YOU COULD PICK ANY OF THE FOUR THAT I'VE GOT.

I MEAN, I'D BE HAPPY WITH ANY OF THE FOUR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE AS MUCH ABOUT THE FIRM AS IT IS ABOUT THE SCOPE.

AND SO I THINK THE SCOPE OF WORK, UNDERSTANDING THE TASKS AND THE DELIVERABLES IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

AND THAT COMES FROM A CLARITY OF VISION FROM THIS COUNCIL, NOT NECESSARILY FROM THE FIRM THAT WE CHOOSE, WHETHER THEY'RE HEADQUARTERED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS OR HEADQUARTERED IN A DIFFERENT STATE.

LES SIMPSON: AND HOW MANY FIRMS IS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TALKED TO SO FAR? COLE STANLEY: JUST THE ONE.

WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE INTERVIEWS.

LES SIMPSON: TWO MORE? AND THEN AT THAT TIME, I GUESS YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, HERE ARE THE TWO THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, AND THEN PASS THAT INFORMATION ALONG TO THE REST OF COUNCIL? COLE STANLEY: WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR-- AND THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.

WHAT WE ARE REALLY HOPING FOR, IF WE GO THROUGH THREE INTERVIEWS, AND ALL THREE INTERVIEWS HAVE THE SAME CONCERN, THE SAME QUESTION, THE SAME OUTLOOK, THESE ARE THE THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK THROUGH.

THESE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN DO.

THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE THE BIG HURDLES.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND, MAYOR? DO YOU UNDERSTAND, COUNCIL? THIS IS GOING TO BE A HEADWIND.

THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO-- SO IF WE'RE HEARING THAT AND WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT, THAT HELPS US.

BECAUSE NOW WE KNOW OUR SCOPE IS BEING DESIGNED NOT JUST FROM ONE-- AND I'M POINTING TO MYSELF-- ONE IGNORANT PARTY THAT THINKS THIS IS THE DRAW THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH.

NO, WE WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE FIRMS THAT ARE HELPING US ARRIVE AT A SCOPE OF WORK THAT COUNCIL COULD AGREE ON.

[01:15:02]

LES SIMPSON: AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE GOAL ON THE MEETING AT THE 27TH? COLE STANLEY: 27TH, WE WANT TO GET IT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.

WE COULD GO AHEAD AND PUT IT UP FOR A DISCUSSION AND AN ACTION ITEM, KNOWING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU GUYS PLENTY OF TIME TO SAY, LET'S TAKE NO ACTION.

LET'S BRING IT BACK IN NOVEMBER.

WE CAN ALSO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.

WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE ONE COUNCIL MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

I THINK IT'S THE 17TH.

SO WE'D BE FINE TO CALL AN EARLY FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER COUNCIL MEETING TO BRING ALL THIS BACK AND REALLY FOCUS IN ON AN ITEM THAT IS THIS COMPLEX AND THIS IMPORTANT.

AND SO ACTION COULD BE TAKEN, BUT NOT REQUIRED.

LES SIMPSON: YEAH.

I WOULD JUST LIKE-- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.

AND WHATEVER TWO THAT YOU DECIDE, IF THAT'S TO-- AND/OR THREE, JUST FOR TIME'S SAKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT.

SO I MEAN, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE 27TH, I'D LIKE TO JUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THEM MYSELF SO THAT I CAN GET AN IDEA OF THE LAY OF THE LAND.

BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF WAY AHEAD OF WHAT THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE LOOKED LIKE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT-- COLE STANLEY: SO LET ME MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THIS THE RIGHT PROCEDURAL WAY.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TASKED A COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE WITH THESE FIRMS. AT THE POINT THAT THAT COMMITTEE FULFILLS THAT TASK, THEN I THINK THIS COUNCIL BODY COULD HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING AND ENGAGE WITH THOSE FIRMS, OR COULD LOOK AT OTHER ALTERNATIVES AND SEEING, WILL THAT ENTITY OR THOSE FIRMS ENGAGE WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS? BUT I GOT TO BE CAREFUL.

WE DON'T WANT ANY ONE PERSON AFFECTING WHAT IS AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT.

AND SO I'M NOT ENGAGING WITH THESE FIRMS INDIVIDUALLY.

I'M NOT CALLING THEIR SENIOR OR THEIR FOUNDER.

AND SO COUNCIL WOULDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY, BUT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE SAME DATA THAT WE'RE HAVING.

AND THEN WE AGREED IN THE AUDIT COMMITTEE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT DID NOT GO THROUGH THAT AUDIT COMMITTEE.

SO LET ME HELP SET AN EXPECTATION.

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S ROLE DOESN'T STOP ONCE THE FIRM IS SELECTED.

THE UPDATES NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT AUDIT COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN FACILITATE THAT CONDUIT.

IF THERE IS A CONCERN, THESE ARE THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING, THEN THAT NEEDS TO COME FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL IN A PUBLIC MEETING.

WHAT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE OF IS THAT THERE'S NO DECISIONS BEING MADE BY ANY SINGULAR PARTY OR MULTIPLE PARTIES OF, NO, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

DON'T LOOK THERE.

WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO SHOW OUR CONSTITUENTS, LOOK, THEY LOOKED EVERYWHERE THAT THEY NEEDED TO AND OUR HANDS WERE OFF OF THE INDEPENDENT PART OF THIS AUDIT.

BUT OUR HANDS WERE FULLY ON THE SCOPE.

AND SO WE ARE GOING TO SET THE BOUNDARIES.

THIS IS THE OUT OF BOUNDS, AND THIS IS THE OUT OF BOUNDS.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LET THEM RUN.

BUT YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GETTING ALL OF THAT UPDATED DATA.

YOU CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THAT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH YOUR INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

AND THEN CITY MANAGER WILL STILL HAVE A ROLE IN MAKING SURE YOU'RE FULLY APPRISED.

LES SIMPSON: BUT AS FAR AS REACHING OUT, I MEAN, THAT PART WOULD BE-- ANY PROBLEM REACHING OUT AT THIS POINT IF A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO JUST LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT THIS FIRM AND WHAT THEY-- EDUCATION ON THAT FORENSIC AUDIT PART? COLE STANLEY: SO LET ME SAY THIS.

AND I'M GOING TO LOOK AT DUSTIN AND MAKE SURE WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

IN REACHING OUT TO RESEARCH OR TO GO AND GATHER OR TO DO ANYTHING SHORT OF CALLING SOMEBODY TO INTERVIEW THEM, I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I THINK WE CAN JOINTLY SHARE ALL OF THAT DATA, LET YOU SEE EVERYTHING, READ THEIR RESUMES, READ THEIR RFQS, UNDERSTAND IT.

IN THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH A SINGLE PERSON, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY BECAUSE WE ARE INTERVIEWING AS A GROUP THE ACTUAL FIRM AS AN ENTITY.

AND NOTHING'S BEEN ASSIGNED, SO YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE AN AUDIT-- AN AUDITOR FOR YOU TO CALL YET.

LES SIMPSON: SO WE REALLY WON'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE AUDITOR UNTIL IT COMES BEFORE THIS BODY IN A PUBLIC SETTING? COLE STANLEY: YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE COMPANIES, THESE FIRMS THAT WILL ENGAGE WITH US AS A BODY.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK PRIOR TO THAT.

BUT THEN HEARING THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND THEIR SCOPE OF WORK, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EVALUATE IT AND PROPOSE IT, WE NEED TO BRING THAT NOT ONLY JUST FOR YOU, COUNCILMAN, BUT FOR EVERYBODY.

BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME CONSIDERATION FOR JOE PUBLIC THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE LISTENING TO THIS, AS WELL.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S BROUGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY.

SO IF WE NEED TO SCHEDULE SOME SPECIAL MEETINGS, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO ALLOW FOR THAT INTERVIEW.

NOW, JOE PUBLIC WON'T GET TO INTERVIEW THAT FIRM WITH QUESTIONS PER SE LIKE YOU WOULD.

BUT THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY SEPARATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON SITTING UP ON THE DAIS.

LES SIMPSON: OK.

I'M JUST LOOKING FOR WAYS TO POTENTIALLY-- I MEAN, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE 331 DEADLINE

[01:20:01]

IS A REAL DEADLINE THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF AND MEET, THAT THERE COULD BE SOME CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T MEET THAT? COLE STANLEY: RIGHT.

LES SIMPSON: AND WE'RE LOOKING NOW AT LATE OCTOBER, EARLY NOVEMBER.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, IF I'M ABLE TO DO SOME OF MY HOMEWORK BEFORE WE GET TO A POINT-- BUT IF I DON'T GET TO DO THE HOMEWORK TO THE POINT, THEN I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I'D BE ABLE TO SAY, OK.

YEAH.

THIS DAY, THE 27TH, I'M READY TO GO.

COLE STANLEY: TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

LET ME ASK OUR ACTING CITY MANAGER, YOU WANT TO SHARE.

HAVE YOU ALREADY SHARED ANY OF THE RFQ INFORMATION? ANDREW FREEMAN: NO, I HAVE NOT.

BUT NOW THAT WE'VE GOT IT NARROWED DOWN, I CAN SHARE THAT.

AND THE POINT OF CONTACT THAT WE'VE BEEN SETTLING THE MEETINGS UP WITH.

SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO REACH OUT TO THEM, THAT'S NOT A CONCERN.

COLE STANLEY: ANY ISSUE WITH PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT WITH U'NEILL GERBER, WHO IS OUR INTERNAL AUDITOR? I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

INDEPENDENT PARTY.

THAT'S HERE LOCAL IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU, HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

HERE'S WHY THIS SCORING WAS THIS WAY.

HERE'S THE VALUATIONS.

ALL OF THAT, I THINK, WOULD BE REALLY GOOD TO GET IN Y'ALL'S HANDS AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT WALKING INTO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING BLIND AND GETTING INTRODUCED TO THAT ENTITY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

ANDREW FREEMAN: YEAH, U'NEILL WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP OUT.

YES, SIR? LES SIMPSON: AND THEN THE OTHER THING, I GUESS, IS-- SO ON THE OTHER SIDE, ONCE WE ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT AND WE'RE IN THE FORENSIC AUDIT, ARE WE SAYING THAT ALL THE COMMUNICATION HAS TO GO THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AT THAT POINT? IN OTHER WORDS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HANDLING THIS APPROPRIATELY, THAT IT COMES THROUGH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, IT COMES TO COUNCIL THAT A SINGLE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MEMBERS ARE NOT CALLING THE FORENSIC AUDITOR FOR UPDATES OR TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S IN IT? I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE FORENSIC AUDITOR WOULD BE EITHER, I GUESS, WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND/OR IN PUBLIC.

COLE STANLEY: CORRECT.

SO LET ME GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.

WE ALREADY ARE REQUIRED TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S A DATA SHARE.

SO WE HAVE TO RELY ON STAFF, AND MR. GERBER AND HIS DEPARTMENT, AND OTHER FINANCE STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THAT ENTITY.

SO ALL OF THAT ENGAGEMENT HAS TO GO FROM A STAFF MEMBER TO THEIR AUDITOR.

AND THAT'S THE SAME ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY WITH CLA ON OUR GENERAL COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT.

SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN, I WOULD SAY, THE HANDOFFS BACK AND FORTH.

AND I WOULD SAY THE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AN UNAFFECTED AUDIT AND THAT THE AUDITOR IS THE ONE THAT'S DOING THE WORK BASED ON THE SCOPE, BUT TO HIS OWN DETERMINATION, AND HIS ANALYTICS, AND SOME OF THAT DATA, AND THE TECHNICAL APPROACHES THAT THEY HAVE.

BUT THEN OUTSIDE OF THAT, IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS A CONCERN, OR A FURTHER INVESTIGATION, OR SOMETHING THAT CHANGES, THAT'S ALL GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT.

BUT THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE CHANNELS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE REQUESTS FOR MORE DATA.

AND THEN IF IT DOESN'T ADD UP, THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR CONCERN.

HERE'S WHERE WE'RE NOT GETTING WHAT WE NEED.

AND THEN THAT WOULD BE REPORTED UP THE CHAIN TO THE COUNCIL.

LES SIMPSON: SO ALL THAT WOULD GO-- THE COMMUNICATION IN THIS WOULD GO THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS? COLE STANLEY: YES.

YES.

LES SIMPSON: DO WE HAVE A POLICY ON THAT? COLE STANLEY: NOT A-- LES SIMPSON: DOES THAT-- I MEAN, DOES THAT SAME POLICY APPLY TO OUR REGULAR AUDIT THAT WE'RE NOT-- THAT WE-- COLE STANLEY: I THINK IT'S JUST A TYPICAL WAY WE HANDLE THE AUDITS THAT WE WORK THROUGH FINANCE-- LES SIMPSON: I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

I MEAN, I THINK ON THE AUDIT PART OF IT, WE NEED TO STAY AT ARM'S LENGTH.

COLE STANLEY: AND AT LEAST WE'VE ONLY MET WITH THE ONE.

BUT THE SCOPE IS GOING TO INCLUDE TOUCH POINTS WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SINCE THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED SO FAR.

LES SIMPSON: BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THOUGH, EVEN ON THE REGULAR AUDIT, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS THIS FLOW OF INFORMATION IS GOING TO COME THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE CAN ALL GET THE SAME INFORMATION.

COLE STANLEY: YES.

LES SIMPSON: BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS-- NOT BY INTENT.

BUT WHEN ONE PERSON STARTS GOING THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS, THEN THEY MAY BE LEARNING SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T HAVE LEARNED.

OR I THINK, TWO, WE WANT TO HAVE A HANDS-OFF APPROACH ON THE AUDIT BECAUSE THE AUDIT IS CHECKING UP ON NOT ONLY ON THE CITY, BUT IT'S CHECKING UP ON US.

COLE STANLEY: SURE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE AN INFERENCE THAT THESE ARE UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS.

SO THESE ARE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS THAT ADHERE TO A LOT OF REGULATORY AND GUIDANCE, AND NOT ONLY AN ETHICS CODE OF WHAT'S APPROPRIATE AND INAPPROPRIATE, BUT ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THEIR LICENSE AND THEIR AUTONOMY.

AND SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET US ENGAGE WITH THEM IN AN INAPPROPRIATE WAY, MUCH LIKE AN ATTORNEY OR A LAW FIRM WOULDN'T EITHER.

SO I THINK WE'RE SAYING IT VERY WELL.

BUT THEN THERE'S SOME GOOD PARAMETERS AND CONTROLS

[01:25:05]

THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO HAVE A POTENTIAL FORENSIC AUDIT POLICY INTERNALLY.

THAT OUGHT TO BE EXTERNAL, AND IT IS.

AND I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT METHOD.

WE'RE MOVING IT FORWARD VERY WELL.

WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO HEAR IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH YOU.

SO IT'S NOT JUST AN UPDATE THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT COUNCILMAN SIMPSON HAVING.

IT'S AN UPDATE THAT COUNCILMAN SIMPSON GETS AND YOU GET, AS WELL, SO THAT AS THINGS MOVE FORWARD, HOPEFULLY WE WILL KNOW THE GOOD NEWS AND THE OUTCOMES AS THEY'RE BROUGHT TO US.

ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS ONE? I SAW YOUR LIGHT? OK.

THOROUGH UPDATE RIGHT THERE.

ITEM 4.3.

I LIKE TO SKIP THIS ONE, BUT I SHOULDN'T.

REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANYTHING YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA? OK.

HOW ARE WE DOING ON TIME? 04:30.

I TELL YOU WHAT.

LET'S TRY TO GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT.

I DON'T KNOW.

IS CITY SECRETARY STILL HERE? CITY SECRETARY: I AM OVER HERE TODAY.

COLE STANLEY: HOW MANY DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP? CITY SECRETARY: WE'VE GOT THREE SIGNED UP.

COLE STANLEY: OK, LET'S DO PUBLIC COMMENT.

[5. Public Comment - The public will be permitted to offer public comment on agenda items and items related to City business. Citizens interested in commenting may sign up online at https://www.amarillo.gov/city-secretary/public-comment-registration-form/, by calling the City Secretary’s office at (806) 378-3014, or in person in Room 3500 of City Hall, 623 S. Johnson. Citizens should sign up at least 15 minutes prior to the scheduled meeting start time.]

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE US INTO ITEM 5 AND ASK CITY SECRETARY TO READ US INTO THAT.

CITY SECRETARY: OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE VALUE YOUR INPUT AND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR DURING ANY OF OUR MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY.

AT 2.5 MINUTES, YOU WILL HEAR A SINGLE BEEP TO SIGNAL YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS REMAINING.

WHEN TIME IS UP, THE TIMER WILL BEEP CONTINUOUSLY.

PLEASE TRY TO STAY WITHIN YOUR ALLOTTED TIME.

AGAIN, WE DO HAVE MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY.

SO IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM WITH A PUBLIC HEARING, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU EITHER DO SO DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ITEM TO HELP US ENSURE ACCURATE RECORDS ARE KEPT.

WE WILL USE BOTH PODIUMS TODAY.

WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.

WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN AMARILLO CITY LIMITS BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR COMMENTS.

FOR TOPICS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT LIMITS HOW COUNCIL MAY RESPOND.

COUNCIL MAY PROVIDE A FACTUAL STATEMENT, ASK FOR YOUR ISSUE TO BE ADDED TO A FUTURE AGENDA, OR REFER YOU TO THE CITY MANAGER SO STAFF MAY VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR CONCERN.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK BUT HAVE NOT SIGNED UP YET, PLEASE COME SEE US AND FILL OUT A FORM TO SIGN UP.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL BEGIN INVITING PEOPLE UP.

FIRST IS TIFFANY RYLES.

AND I DON'T SEE TIFFANY HERE TODAY.

SO WE'LL MOVE TO ALAN FEINGOLD.

AND AFTER ALAN WILL BE BETH DUKE.

ALAN FEINGOLD: ALAN FEINGOLD.

I LIVE IN THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

I INTENDED TO CONFINE MY REMARKS TODAY TO WATER AND SEWER MATTERS.

HOWEVER, HAVING HEARD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MICROCHIPPING PETS, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS TO YOU MY THANKS TO MR. SIMPSON FOR RECOGNIZING WHAT THE ISSUE ACTUALLY IS.

THERE ARE CERTAIN FORMS OF PROPERTY THAT CAN BITE, AND THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE ANIMALS.

WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS.

AND IN CASE YOU FOLKS DIDN'T NOTICE OR DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT, WE DO HAVE A BIT OF A FERAL DOG PROBLEM OVER IN THE NORTHEASTERN SECTOR OF THE CITY.

THERE IS SO MUCH OF THAT WHICH IS ABANDONED PROPERTY OR NEARLY ABANDONED PROPERTY, THAT THERE IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PACK BEHAVIOR ON PART OF THE DOGS.

SO DO KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE MICROCHIP PROBLEM LATER ON.

ALSO, I SAW AN ITEM ON 6 POINT-- ON THE PAGE, IT SAYS 6.8.

PURCHASE OF STREET DIVISION CEMENT STORAGE SILO.

I THINK YOU SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF AN AUDIT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AMARILLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHICH IN THE YEAR 1996 GAVE A LOAN OF APPROXIMATELY $250,000 TO AN OUTFIT CALLED SOUTHWESTERN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE.

THE CONCRETE PLANT THAT WAS BEING USED THERE WAS PART OF THE SECURITY FOR THAT LOAN.

WHEN THESE PARTICULAR FIRM COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF EXCESS COMPETITION FROM DALLAS AND HOUSTON, THAT CEMENT PLANT COULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR THE PRICE OF THE LOAN BY THE AMARILLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

SOMEHOW THEY FAILED TO DO SO.

BUT IF YOU GO TO THE SCRAPYARD THAT NOW ENCLOSES THAT CEMENT

[01:30:02]

PLANT, MAYBE THEY'LL DO YOU A FAVOR AND SELL IT BACK TO YOU AFTER THEY ACQUIRED IT.

THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD COMPLIMENT TO THIS CEMENT STORAGE SILO YOU HAVE.

IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE A SPARE CONCRETE PLANT FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ADDRESS THE WATER AND SEWER ISSUES, BUT I AM SO GLAD THAT MR. PRESCOTT MENTIONED THE MATTER OF [INAUDIBLE] AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF YOU HOOK UP WITH IT, IT MIGHT COST AROUND $1 BILLION.

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY.

A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL MONEY.

CITY SECRETARY: NEXT IS BETH DUKE.

COLE STANLEY: MS. AMBASSADOR, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? BETH DUKE: I'M DOING GREAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M BETH DUKE.

I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CENTER CITY OF AMARILLO.

AND TODAY, I WANT TO COME BEFORE YOU AND OFFICIALLY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT.

CENTER CITY STARTED 30 YEARS AGO, AND SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN WITH US MAKING IT BETTER FOR DECADES.

AND I WANT TO OFFICIALLY TELL YOU THAT WE ARE ONE OF EIGHT SEMI-FINALISTS NATIONALLY FOR THE GREAT AMERICAN MAIN STREET CITY.

THIS IS THE TOP AWARD THAT NATIONAL MAIN STREET CENTER GIVES, AND WE ARE ONE OF EIGHT.

THERE WERE 200 APPLICANTS, BUT THERE'S 1,200 MAIN STREET CITIES.

AND I COULDN'T BE MORE PROUD BECAUSE MANY TIMES THESE AWARDS SEEM TO GRAVITATE TOWARD BIGGER CITIES OR TOWARD THE COAST, AND WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COUNTRY, ROUTE 66 AND I-40.

AND I JUST WANT TO CAME HERE TO THANK YOU TODAY BECAUSE I'VE GOT THREE MINUTES AND I GOT 300 PEOPLE COMING FOR JAZZTOBER.

I MIGHT HAVE TO LEAVE A LITTLE EARLY.

I WONDERED IF I COULD ASK THE OFFICER TO GIVE YOU THESE HANDOUTS.

SO, SORRY.

I SHOULD HAVE WALKED THAT WAY.

ANYWAY, WE ARE SO PROUD OF OUR YEAR WE'VE HAD THIS PAST YEAR.

WE WERE A PARTNER IN THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VISIT AMARILLO BLANK SPACES EFFORT FOR THE LONGEST MURAL CONNECTING CENTER CITY AND HISTORIC ROUTE 66.

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE ONE GOAL OF CENTER CITY IS TO BE EVERYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND BRING THE NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER.

NOW, YOU KNOW WE'RE BIG ON REINVESTMENT.

AND AS OF LAST YEAR, I TOLD YOU WE HAD REINVESTED MORE THAN $886,997,000 IN YOUR DOWNTOWN.

WELL, JUST LAST FISCAL YEAR, OUR REINVESTMENT WAS $8 MILLION.

AND WE'RE NOT DONE YET.

JUST SATURDAY NIGHT, WE HAD A LIGHTING CEREMONY FOR THE HISTORIC NEON SIGN AT THE KHIVA TEMPLE.

AND WE JUST KEEP USING THAT FACADE GRANT MONEY TO PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND TO MAKE AMARILLO SO MUCH BETTER.

THE OTHER THING I WANT YOU INVITE YOU TO IN MY LAST 39 SECONDS, I WANT TO INVITE YOU TO BE PART OF OUR STATE CONVENTION.

WE'RE BRINGING THE TEXAS DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION CONVENTION TO AMARILLO NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH 4.

I'M GOING TO BE SENDING YOU SOME EMAILS INVITING YOU.

I KNOW MAYOR STANLEY IS GOING TO MAKE A WELCOME.

I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN SIMPSON AND ALSO JERRY DANFORTH ARE ON A PANEL ABOUT ALL-- HOW FAR WE'VE COME.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR ALL ITS SUPPORT, ITS OPERATIONAL SUPPORT, AND ALSO ITS ENCOURAGEMENT.

YOU HAVE A TREASURE IN YOUR HAND.

YOU DON'T KNOW IT, BUT THE FULL REPORT'S IN THERE.

AND THERE'S THE FIRST SIX OF THE COMMEMORATIVE PINS WE'RE GIVING OUT AT OUR CONVENTION.

SO I WANT YOU TO FEEL SPECIAL, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK BECAUSE YOU MAKE IT HAPPEN.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I APOLOGIZE IF I HAVE TO LEAVE EARLY FOR JAZZTOBER.

COLE STANLEY: MS. BETH, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO OVER THERE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING WITH YOU FOR THE DOWNTOWN.

CITY SECRETARY: NEXT UP, WE'LL HAVE KIM BENSON.

AND THEN AFTER, KIM WILL BE MIKE FISHER.

COLE STANLEY: AFTERNOON, MS. KIM.

KIM BENSON: I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU TODAY-- OH, SORRY.

KIM BENSON, AMARILLO, TEXAS.

YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT.

I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA.

6.7.

LOOK AT THAT.

I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU MIGHT WOULD CONSIDER PULLING THAT AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE BY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT OF EMMA.

[01:35:04]

I'VE EXPERIENCED EMMA A FEW TIMES AS I'M LOOKING UP THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE CITY, AND Y'ALL TRY TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR MONEY, OR YOU ARE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR MONEY.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD STEWARD OF OUR MONEY, TO SPEND $49,500 ON EMMA.

EMMA'S NOT WORKING.

THE PUBLIC KNOWS IT.

THE STAFF KNOWS IT.

WHY ARE WE SPENDING MORE MONEY ON HER? I CALLED YESTERDAY, AND I WON'T BORE YOU WITH WHAT I DIDN'T GET FROM EMMA.

I DIDN'T GET THE ANSWER THAT I NEEDED.

SO PLEASE DISCUSS THIS, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT'S-- I MEAN, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON HER.

AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE THE NAYSAYERS OF THE CITY, AS PEOPLE CALL US, AND WE ARE ACCUSED THAT WE DON'T COME UP HERE WITH SOLUTIONS.

BUT I'VE GOT A SOLUTION FOR WHERE THAT MONEY COULD BE SPENT.

LET'S SPEND IT ON GETTING SOME MORE OF OUR BOARD MEETINGS ON YOUTUBE.

Y'ALL SAID Y'ALL WERE GOING TO BRING THAT BACK UP TWO MONTHS.

IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS.

LET'S BRING THAT BACK UP.

LET'S GET SOME MORE.

THAT'S COSTING MONEY? HERE'S SOME MONEY THAT WE CAN SPEND ON THAT.

BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THOSE TWO BOARDS THAT ARE BEING PUT ON YOUTUBE HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL, BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THE STAFF, BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF THE STAFF ABOUT IT.

SOME OF YOU ON THE COUNCIL MAY BE LOOKING AT THAT.

OUR CITIZENS ARE LOOKING AT IT.

I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT.

AND SO Y'ALL NEED TO PLEASE PUT THAT BACK ON AN AGENDA AND LOOK AT IT.

CITY SECRETARY: MIKE FISHER.

MIKE FISHER: NAME'S MIKE FISHER.

I LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF AMARILLO.

I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT ITEM 6.13 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

YOU'RE PAYING $59,000 TO HOUSE AND TO-- I GUESS TO BULLDOZE OR DEMOLISH A PROPERTY THAT WAS CONDEMNED BY THE CONDEMNATION BOARD, I GUESS, AND JACOB DIAZ OF THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

LAST YEAR, WE GAVE HIM $700,000 IN THE BUDGET TO BUY BULLDOZER.

SO I'M JUST WANTING TO KNOW, WHY ARE WE PAYING A THIRD PARTY? AND WHAT'S UP WITH THE BULLDOZER? TODAY YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT MORE GOVERNMENT.

WE HAD THE ANIMAL PEOPLE UP HERE.

AND I DID APPRECIATE WHAT-- COLE, WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT LESS GOVERNMENT.

AND I THINK RICK PERRY SAID IT WELL, WHEN HE WAS-- THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT OUTLAWING, MAKING A STATE LAW TO NOT TEXT WHILE DRIVING.

AND HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE.

AND HE ALSO SAID IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE TEXTING AND DRIVE.

WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE IT A LAW.

AND HE SAID, WE DON'T NEED TO MICROMANAGE ADULTS.

AND THIS LEADS ME BACK TO YOU, LES.

LOOKS LIKE THAT.

OTHER PERSONALITIES COMING OUT, THE ONE THAT'S TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK.

NOT THE CONSERVATIVE ONE, NOT THE ONE THAT'S CONCERNED ABOUT FINANCES OR CONCERNED ABOUT WATER BILLS.

YOU WANT MORE GOVERNMENT.

YOU WANT TO CHARGE.

YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS GOING TO HURT? IT'S GOING TO HURT POOR PEOPLE.

IT'S 10 MORE BUCKS.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING UP ON WATER BILLS.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A SEWER PLANT.

10 MORE BUCKS.

AND YOU KNOW WHO'S NOT GOING TO DO THAT, KNOW WHO'S NOT GOING TO GET THE CHIP? POOR PEOPLE, JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL OR WHATEVER THE COPS ARE GOING TO DO.

AND NOW THE COPS HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOME OTHER BS.

WE DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT.

WE JUST DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT.

I REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE DOING OUR TOWN A DISSERVICE BY ADDING MORE GOVERNMENT.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT, LIKE I MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BUILDING OF HOMES OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY HAS GROWN.

AND I THINK PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE HERE OR JUST-- I DON'T KNOW.

WHO DREAMS ALL THIS UP? DO YOU GUYS JUST SIT AROUND AND GO, WHAT CAN WE COME UP WITH THIS WEEK? I MEAN, IT'S-- I DON'T SEE PEOPLE TALKING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, MAN, THESE ANIMALS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND.

AND THERE'S-- PEOPLE JUMP ON THERE QUICK, AND THE COMPLAINTS ARE RAMPANT WHEN THERE'S A PROBLEM.

BUT I'M NOT SEEING THAT SO MUCH ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

SO I'M WONDERING HOW ARE WE DREAMING UP ALL THESE NEW GOVERNMENT IDEAS.

CITY SECRETARY: MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES EVERYONE THAT SIGNED UP TODAY.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT DIDN'T SIGN UP TODAY? IF YOU WANT TO RAISE YOUR HAND, WE'LL BE GLAD TO HEAR YOU.

SEEING NOBODY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THEN IT'S 4:50.

LET'S COME BACK 5 O'CLOCK.

[01:40:01]

WE'LL GET INTO THE REMAINDER OF OUR BUSINESS MEETING.

THANK YOU ALL.

GENTLEMEN, IF I CAN GET EVERYBODY HEADING BACK TO THEIR SEAT, PLEASE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL OURSELVES BACK INTO SESSION.

WE'VE GOT OUR CONSENT AGENDA HERE.

[6. Consent Agenda - It is recommended that the following items be approved and that the City Manager be authorized to execute all documents necessary for each transaction. The following items may be acted upon by one motion. No separate discussion or action on any of the items is necessary unless desired by a Councilmember, in which event the item shall be considered in its normal sequence, after the items not requiring separate discussion have been acted upon by a single motion.]

IT MAY HAVE A FEW ITEMS WE'D LIKE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON.

COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD PULLED OFF? TIM REID: YES.

I WOULD LIKE 6.7 AND 6.13 PULLED OFF AT THIS TIME.

COLE STANLEY: COUNCIL, DO I HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU GUYS NEED FURTHER INFORMATION ON? OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL 6.7 OFF AND LOOK AT THAT ONE.

I'M SORRY? GO AHEAD.

OH, YEAH.

ITEM 6.7 IS OUR EMMA PROGRAM.

AND SO, MS. KRISTEN, I SEE YOU IN THE BACK.

IF YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE, MAYBE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

SPECIFICALLY I THINK WHAT WE'VE GOT TO BE REMINDED OF IS HOW WE FUNDED THIS, AND MAYBE WHERE THOSE MONIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS I THINK WORTH MENTIONING.

INITIALLY THE INVESTMENT WAS PRETTY BIG.

I'VE GOT TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE THIS YEAR TO IT.

I WAS ON THE CALLS, BUT I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGOTIATION.

BUT MISSY IN IT REALLY, REALLY NEGOTIATED HARD ON THIS CONTRACT.

AND SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY TRIED TO CHARGE US CLOSE TO $300,000, AND WE GOT TO UNDER THE $50,000.

SO, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

AND A BIG PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE DID STILL HAVE THE ARPA DOLLARS THAT WE COULD USE THROUGH THIS REMAINING CALENDAR YEAR.

AND SO THAT IS THE GOAL, WAS TO USE SOME OF THE REMAINING FUNDS THAT WE HAD IN THE BROADBAND DOLLARS.

AND THEN I THINK MOVING FORWARD, THE GOAL THAT MY TEAM HAS, SINCE WE MANAGE THE WEBSITE IS TO LOOK AT A LOCALLY HOSTED VERSION, NOT NECESSARILY OF EMMA.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT PEOPLE REALLY WANT, WHETHER IT'S EMMA OR WHETHER IT'S JUST A STANDARD CHATBOT WITH THE SAME LLM IN THE BACKGROUND.

BUT OUR GOAL IS TO LOCALIZE EMMA TO WHERE IT'S NO COST, ASIDE FROM JUST STAFF MAINTAINING THAT.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE TALENT IN OUR TEAM WITH OE&I THAT'S ABLE TO DO THAT.

THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PILOTED THAT OUT.

AND SO I THINK MOVING FORWARD, IT'S GOING TO BE A NET ZERO WITH OUTSIDE OF AN FTE COST TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THAT ASSET.

I CAN GIVE YOU JUST SOME GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS FAR AS WHAT THE SENTIMENT IS ON THE WEBSITE, HOW OFTEN SHE'S USED, IF THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT JUST KIND OF WHATEVER YOU GUYS NEED.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH, I THINK SO.

GIVE US THE OVERVIEW AND THE PRODUCTIVITY THAT YOU'RE SEEING IF YOU'VE GOT SOME GOOD NUMBERS.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH.

SO I WILL SAY, ADMITTEDLY, I THINK WHEN WE FIRST LAUNCHED EMMA, SHE WAS VERY BAD.

I THINK OVER THE YEARS WE'VE MADE IMPROVEMENTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE RECENTLY IMPROVED IS HER ABILITY TO RETAIN CONTEXT.

BUT I WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT WHILE MY TEAM MANAGES THE WEBSITE, I DON'T MANAGE EVERYONE'S CONTENT.

AND SO THAT'S ON A DEPARTMENT LEVEL.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A CERTAIN CONTENT ON A WEBSITE AND THE CONTENT'S NOT THERE, EMMA DOESN'T KNOW.

SO WE'VE PUT REALLY EXTENSIVE GUARDRAILS AROUND THAT.

IT IS A LANGUAGE MODEL.

SO WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL SO THAT SHE'S NOT TELLING PEOPLE ANYTHING THAT'S UNSAFE OR UNTRUE.

WE DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE MISINFORMATION.

AND SO IF THERE'S A GAP IN CONTENT, IT'S BECAUSE THE CONTENT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT PART CLEAR.

BUT SHE CAN RETAIN CONTEXT NOW.

AND SO IF YOU HAVE A SESSION OPEN WITH EMMA, SHE CAN REMEMBER WHAT QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING.

SO IF I SAY, HOW DO I GET A HOLD OF THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT? SHE CAN TELL ME AND I'LL SAY, OK.

WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? AND SHE'LL REMEMBER THAT.

SHE DID NOT DO THAT AT FIRST, SO IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING, I CAN TELL YOU, SINCE JULY THE 1ST, UP UNTIL THE END OF SEPTEMBER, WE HAD ROUGHLY 560,000 WEBSITE VISITORS.

THAT'S ON AMARILLO.GOV SPECIFICALLY.

AND OF THOSE USERS, 1 IN 7 HAVE UTILIZED EMMA.

SO THAT ROUGHLY EQUATES TO ABOUT 84,000 SESSIONS.

I DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE THAT WITH 84,000 PEOPLE USING HER.

THAT COULD BE A BACK AND FORTH.

SO THAT COULD BE A USER ASKING HER MULTIPLE QUESTIONS.

THAT COULD BE A ONE-OFF QUESTION.

SO I DO THINK SHE GETS SIGNIFICANT USE FROM USERS.

[01:45:02]

YEAH, ASIDE FROM THAT, I-- WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO YOU MAYBE HAVE? DON TIPPS: YOU KNOW, KRISTEN, NOT TO POKE HOLES.

I MEAN, SHE'S FRUSTRATING.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH, FAIR.

DON TIPPS: SHE'S SO FRUSTRATING.

TO GET ON THERE-- I MEAN, I'VE DONE IT.

I'M SURE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE IT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WATER BILL, WHATEVER.

I THINK THE FRUSTRATION IS WHEN WE SEE MORE MONEY BEING THROWN AND THAT HER CAPACITY-- I THINK MAYBE THE COMMUNICATION OF HER CAPACITY WAS MISUNDERSTOOD.

LIKE YOU SAID, SHE'S IN SOME CONFINES FOR SAFETY REASONS, ACTUALLY, BUT IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING.

AND SO WHEN WE DO-- I KNOW THIS IS ARPA MONEY.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

BUT JUST HER INABILITY TO HELP-- SO WE MAY HAVE 84,000 ENGAGEMENTS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE POSITIVE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH.

WE DO HAVE SOME REPORTING.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CREATING IS A DASHBOARD THAT HELPS US GAUGE SENTIMENT.

AND I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE.

IT'S FUNNY, NOT FUNNY.

BUT I CAN TELL IF SOMEONE'S CUSSING AT EMMA, OK? SO I CAN SEE THAT IN THE BACK, AND IT DOES HAPPEN.

AND SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON ON OUR TEAM.

AND I'LL SAY THIS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ALWAYS MANAGE THAT PIECE.

THERE WAS AN EXTRA EXPENSE.

WE'VE SINCE TAKEN THAT IN-HOUSE, BUT IT GIVES US BETTER CONTROL OVER THE BACK END OF EMMA.

SO I CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT SENTIMENT ENGAGEMENT.

IT IS HELPING OUR TEAM DEFINE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, WHEN THERE IS A NEGATIVE INTERACTION, I CAN GUESS BASED OFF OF HOW SOMEONE'S TALKING.

AND I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOUR PRIVACY REMAINS SAFE.

ALL I KNOW IS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED AND THE RESPONSES THAT ARE GIVEN.

WITH THAT EVALUATION, IT'S ONE OF TWO THINGS.

I CAN START TO DETERMINE WHERE THERE ARE GAPS IN INFORMATION.

SO AS AN EXAMPLE, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK IN THE LAST MONTH, WE HAD 3,600 QUESTIONS THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO UTILITY BILLING AND WATER BILLS.

WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION AND TRY TO GAUGE WHAT GAPS NEED TO BE FILLED ON THE WEBSITE IN AND OF ITSELF.

IT HELPS US FROM A COMMUNICATIONS PERSPECTIVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW.

SO THERE IS SOME USEFUL INFORMATION JUST FROM A COMMUNICATIONS PERSPECTIVE FOR US THAT HELPS US CONTINUE TO BUILD BOTH ON HER FUNCTIONALITY-- BECAUSE IT IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES THAT ARE USING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THOUGH.

I AGREE THAT MAYBE SOME OF HER ABILITIES WERE OVERSTATED.

SHE WAS A BABY THAT WE INHERITED, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HER SMARTER.

AND SO I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE'VE HAD OUR ARPA DOLLARS AVAILABLE SO THAT IT'S NOT A HIT TO THE TAXPAYER.

THIS GIVES US A YEAR TO DO ONE OF TWO THINGS.

TAKE IT COMPLETELY IN-HOUSE TO WHERE WE HAVE A LOCAL VERSION OF EMMA, AND WE HAVE A TEAM THAT'S LOOKING AT THE BEST WAYS TO CONTINUE THAT INNOVATION.

SO IF SOMEONE TELLS ME EMMA IS REALLY CREEPY, WHICH I'VE HEARD-- I DON'T LIKE HER LOOKING AT ME.

I DON'T LIKE HOW SHE MOVES HER HANDS.

I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN MY TEAM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES BASED OFF OF PUBLIC INPUT.

AND SO THE GOAL IS THAT WE'RE CONTINUALLY PILOTING THAT, RECEIVING THAT FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE.

AND I'D HAVE A GOAL LIKE, I LOVE THAT KIM SHARES WHAT SHE SHARES.

LIKE, I KNOW MIKE HAS SAID STUFF IN THE PAST LIKE ONE OF MY GOALS WOULD BE IN THE NEXT YEAR TO HAVE ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE EAGER TO HELP US PILOT FUTURE ADVANCES IN SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD LIKE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT WITH ANOTHER YEAR, KNOWING THAT OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE IT AS A NET ZERO FOR OUR TEAM, ASSUMING THAT WE CAN TAKE IT IN-HOUSE.

DON TIPPS: I THINK AS LONG AS THE PUBLIC HEARS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IT TO SEE IF MAYBE, I MEAN, AT SOME POINT, WE JUST NEED TO CUT IT OFF AND START, LIKE YOU SAID, A CHATBOT OR SOMETHING.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE MONEY.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: SO, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

DAVID PRESCOTT: DO WE HAVE TO USE THE MONEY FROM THE ARPA FUNDS, THE $49,500 FOR THIS PROJECT? CAN WE USE IT FOR SOME OTHER PROJECT AND JUST STOP IT NOW? KRISTEN WOLBACH: I MEAN, I GUESS IN THEORY.

ANDREW FREEMAN: EXCEPT WE'RE VERY LIMITED BECAUSE WE HAD TO PROPOSE WHAT WE WERE GOING TO SPEND THE DOLLARS ON IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND THEN WE HAVE TO SPEND IT BY DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

DAVID PRESCOTT: WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WOULD WE HAVE? ANDREW FREEMAN: IT WOULD HAVE TO FALL INTO THAT BROADBAND IT CATEGORY MOST LIKELY, BUT WE'D HAVE TO CONFIRM WHETHER WE CAN EVEN CHANGE IT AT THIS POINT.

DAVID PRESCOTT: COULD WE TRANSFER THESE FUNDS OVER TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE CIVIC CENTER? ANDREW FREEMAN: NO.

DAVID PRESCOTT: WE COULDN'T DO THAT? ANDREW FREEMAN: NO.

WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR ARPA DOLLARS.

THEY HAVE VERY SPECIFIC USES THAT YOU COULD SPEND THE DOLLARS ON.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: I THINK THESE SPECIFICALLY WERE BROADBAND AND DIGITAL LITERACY.

DAVID PRESCOTT: YEAH.

JUST IF IT'S NOT WORKING, I HATE TO-- I MEAN, $50,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND IF WE COULD FIND SOMETHING ELSE THAT IT WOULD BENEFIT-- AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT, LIKE MAYBE AT MAYBE THE NEXT MEETING.

IF THERE'S AN OPTION THAT MAKES MORE SENSE, IF IT'S NOT WORKING, THEN LET'S GET A NEW PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR AND THEN USE THESE DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

[01:50:01]

KRISTEN WOLBACH: SURE, I THINK MY TEAM FEELS FAIRLY AGILE IN WHAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY ACCOMPLISH IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS IF THAT WAS TO BE THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL.

I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD SINK OUR SHIP NECESSARILY.

IT MIGHT TAKE HER OFF TEMPORARILY, BUT IT WOULD GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER SOME ALTERNATIVES.

DAVID PRESCOTT: JUST KNOWING, MOST LIKELY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEND THESE DOLLARS IN TIME, AND THEY'D JUST GO BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MOST LIKELY.

SO WE WOULD TRY AND PIVOT.

BUT WORST CASE SCENARIO, IT JUST GETS SENT BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

COLE STANLEY: GO AHEAD.

TIM REID: SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE DOLLARS, LIKE YOU SAID, THEY JUST GO BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND WE HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME, THAT IT'S NOT TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS.

BUT IT REALLY IS BECAUSE IT'S FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.

WHAT DO WE LOSE IF THIS ISN'T FUNDED, OTHER THAN WE LOSE THOSE DOLLARS BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE A PROGRAM FOR THEM TO GO TO BEFORE DECEMBER? WHAT DO WE LOSE AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO? KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH.

I MEAN, DAY ONE, WE LOSE THE TECHNOLOGY ON THE WEBSITE.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE END OF THE WORLD.

I LOSE A LOT OF TIME INVESTED FROM MY TEAM, BUT THAT'S A PERSONAL FEELING.

I DON'T THINK THAT HAS A HIT NECESSARILY TO THE TAXPAYER.

BUT ULTIMATELY WE JUST LOSE THE TECHNOLOGY ON THE SITE, IN THEORY TEMPORARILY, UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT SOMETHING ELSE.

DAVID PRESCOTT: CAN WE NOT GO OUT FOR A CONTRACT AND USE THE $50,000 TO BUILD OUR OWN INTERNAL VERSION THAT WORKS BETTER? KRISTEN WOLBACH: WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY TRYING TO DO.

THAT'S WHAT OUR TEAM IS ALREADY DOING THAT.

SO I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO NECESSARILY CONTRACT IT.

DON TIPPS: SO WE COULD USE THAT $50,000 ON WE'RE SAYING EMMA.

BUT WE COULD REALLY USE IT JUST TO COME UP WITH A BETTER-- LIKE YOU SAID, EITHER A CHATBOT-- DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EMMA.

IT COULD JUST BE THE SAME PROGRAM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

EMMA AS IF SHE'S A PERSON.

IT'S JUST A PROGRAM.

Y'ALL COULD TAKE THAT MONEY AND MAYBE HELP DEVELOP A BETTER-- JUST A BETTER BOT.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: YEAH, WE'VE LOOKED AT-- BECAUSE WE HAD SOME-- WHEN WE FIRST SAW THE INITIAL CONTRACTED AMOUNT, WE WERE LIKE, THIS IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.

THIS ISN'T EVEN IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY.

AND SO WE DID START LOOKING AT WHAT HARDWARE WE WOULD NEED INTERNALLY TO SUSTAIN HER AS-- I SHOULD-- I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.

I WANT TO PROTECT THE AI.

BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE METHODS SHOULD WE NEED TO DO THAT.

SO WE DID LOOK AT WHAT THE POTENTIAL COST WOULD BE FOR LOCAL HARDWARE.

ANDREW FREEMAN: WE WOULD JUST NEED TO CONFIRM THAT WE CAN SPEND THOSE DOLLARS ON THAT PIECE? COLE STANLEY: COUNCILMAN REID, FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.

TIM REID: AND WE'RE NOT UNDER CONTRACT AT THIS POINT? COLE STANLEY: NO, THAT IS WHAT'S ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

TIM REID: RIGHT.

SO IF WE DECIDED TO TABLE THIS RIGHT NOW, UNTIL WE FIND OUT IF YOU COULD USE THOSE DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING IN-HOUSE-- THAT YOU'RE WORKING TOWARDS ANYWAY, RIGHT? KRISTEN WOLBACH: CORRECT.

YEAH.

TIM REID: SO THAT MAY BE A GREAT ALTERNATIVE ON THIS.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH.

I THINK WHAT-- PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE, SAME THING YOU ARE, EVEN THOUGH $50,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY.

BUT IT'S DEDICATED, COMMITTED.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS JUST STEWARDSHIP OF THAT MONEY, MAKING SURE WE DIDN'T JUST PUSH SOMETHING FORWARD TO KEEP IT ALIVE, KNOWING THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO HAVE A PLAN TO GO FORWARD.

AND SO IF YOU TOOK A MONTH TO COME BACK, IN THE NOVEMBER MEETING WITH A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE TO US ON, HEY, HERE'S WHAT I THINK I CAN USE THIS MONEY FOR, AND THEN HERE'S WHERE I CAN BE IN A YEAR OR WHATNOT, IS THAT FAIR TO YOU, AND WE JUST TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS ONE ITEM SO THAT WE COULD TRY TO PUSH IT FORWARD WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BETTER STEWARDSHIP ON PLANNING? ANDREW FREEMAN: YES, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FAIR.

WE CAN BRING IT BACK NEXT MEETING WITH AN UPDATE.

COLE STANLEY: OK, IF NEXT MEETING WORKS.

OTHERWISE, NOVEMBER IS FINE FOR US.

ANDREW FREEMAN: YES, SIR.

KRISTEN WOLBACH: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. KRISTEN.

COLE STANLEY: DID WE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER COUNCIL ON THIS? OK, LET'S BRING UP ITEM 6.13.

MARSHAL DIAZ, HOW YOU DOING BACK THERE, SIR? MARSHALL DIAZ: DOING GOOD, SIR.

COLE STANLEY: IF YOU DON'T MIND, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT-- WE'VE SEEN SOME GOOD-- I'D SAY SOME GOOD MEDIA ON WHAT YOU'RE WALKING INTO WITH THE NEW PROGRAM.

LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO IN-HOUSE THAT, MAYBE SOME OF THE FUNDING THAT YOU'RE SEEING, SOME OF THE GOOD THINGS WE'RE SEEING AROUND THE COMMUNITY, AND GETTING THOSE HAZARDS TORN DOWN.

MARSHALL DIAZ: YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

SO YEAH, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED THE NEW INTERNAL DEMOLITION PROGRAM.

SO OUR DEPARTMENT HANDLES ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE PIECES OF THAT.

AND THEN SOLID WASTE ACTUALLY GOES OUT AND DOES THE ACTUAL DEMOLITION AND SO FORTH.

THE PRIMARY BENEFIT TO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND ALSO THE EXPEDIENCY OF BEING ABLE TO DEMO THESE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES.

SO ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AT 715 NORTH DALLAS,

[01:55:04]

I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACK STORY ON THAT PROPERTY.

IT CONSISTS OF 20-PLUS MOBILE HOMES.

THEY'RE ALL VACANT.

THEY'RE ALL ABANDONED, ON ONE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE SOME OF THEM THAT ARE ACTUALLY ALREADY FIRE DAMAGED.

AND THERE'S SOME OF THEM THAT CONTINUE TO BE OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY, OF COURSE.

AND SO WHAT-- CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT PROPERTY IS OUR DEPUTIES MONITOR THAT PROPERTY DURING THE DAY.

WE'LL GO OUT THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS OR RESPOND TO CALLS FROM DISPATCH.

AND THEN ON THE EVENINGS AND THE WEEKENDS, APD DOES THE SAME THING.

SO WE'RE ALREADY SPENDING MAN HOURS TO DO THAT.

AND THAT IS A COST TO THE TAXPAYERS CURRENTLY.

SO AS I MENTIONED, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN ADDRESSING IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, NARCOTICS, OBVIOUSLY ANY OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT COMES WITH THE VAGRANT TRANSIENT POPULATION.

BUT WE'VE ALSO HAD THE FIRES THAT I MENTIONED.

AND AS A RESULT OF ONE OF THOSE FIRES, WE HAD AN ADJACENT BUSINESS THAT WAS DAMAGED AND RECEIVED SOME-- IT DIDN'T DO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO WHERE IT STOPPED THEIR OPERATION.

BUT NONETHELESS, THEY RECEIVED SOME FIRE DAMAGE THAT IS NOW HAVING TO BE ADDRESSED.

SO AGAIN, OUR GOAL, OVERALL GOAL IS SAFETY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AS WELL AS OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.

AS YOU GUYS KNOW, ANYTIME THEY GO INTO HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FIRE DEPARTMENT, THAT'S JUST ANOTHER HAZARD THEY GOT TO DEAL WITH.

SO ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET IT DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

WE COORDINATED WITH SOLID WASTE AND JUST SAID, HEY, WHAT CAN WE DO HERE? AND PRIMARILY, WHAT KEPT THEM FROM DOING IT AT THIS TIME IS JUST THE MAGNITUDE OF 20-PLUS STRUCTURES.

AND I FAILED TO MENTION THERE'S A LOT OF DEBRIS THAT'S BEEN DUMPED OUT THERE-- LANDSCAPING, TREES, YOU NAME IT.

THERE'S A BIG PILE OF TIRES.

IT'S BECOME A DUMPING GROUND.

SO WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS ONCE THESE PROPERTIES ARE ABATED, THEY STAY PRETTY CLEAN.

IT JUST STAYS A DIRT TRACT.

AND THAT'S EASIER TO MANAGE THAN VACANT BUILDINGS.

SO THAT'S OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WAS EXPEDIENCY TRYING TO GET SAFER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT THERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WE WENT WITH THE ROUTE TO AWARD THIS OUT TO A CONTRACTOR.

COLE STANLEY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, COUNCIL? JUST A COMMENT, MARSHALL.

I THINK THE TWO-PRONGED APPROACH IS GOOD.

SO I THINK WHEN WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS OF, WELL, $59,000 SOUNDS HIGH, THEN WHEN WE HEAR, WELL, THAT'S 20 STRUCTURES, ACTUALLY-- MARSHALL DIAZ: YES, SIR.

COLE STANLEY: --AND SOME OTHER DEBRIS THAT'S IN THE WAY.

SO PERHAPS 20 STRUCTURES FOR $59,000 IS A PRETTY GOOD DEAL WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR, EVEN IF YOU WERE TO IN-HOUSE THIS.

BUT THEN THE TWO-PRONGED APPROACH, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY.

AND SO I THINK UTILIZING SUBCONTRACTORS AND DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS IS STILL GOOD.

AND THEN YOU BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE WHAT YOU CAN DO INTERNALLY AND IN-HOUSE, I THINK IS GOOD, AS WELL.

BUT OVERALL-- AND WE DO FEEL A LITTLE BIT OF THE PUSHBACK SOMETIMES FROM A SMALL PART OF THE COMMUNITY WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT.

BUT I WOULD SAY OVERALL, WE GET A LOT OF RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT'S GRATEFUL.

WHEN YOU ELIMINATE SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE HAZARDOUS, AND THEN YOU ALSO CAN ELIMINATE THAT CRIMINAL ELEMENT THAT WILL RESIDE KIND OF IN THOSE PLACES WHEN THEY'RE UNINHABITED.

AND SO AS LONG AS OUR COMMUNITY'S HEARING THAT, I THINK IT PUTS THE RIGHT LIGHT ON IT.

AND SO WE APPRECIATE YOU DOING SOME OF THE HEAVY LIFTING, LITERALLY.

ANYTHING FURTHER? TIM REID: YEAH, I DO HAVE ONE.

SO JUST ONE OTHER, I GUESS, QUESTION, COMMENT.

THE ONLY REASON THIS IS BEFORE COUNCIL UNDER YOUR DISCRETION WITH WHAT YOU DO AT THE OFFICE-- IF THIS WAS $10,000 LESS, $49,000, THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, RIGHT? MARSHALL DIAZ: CORRECT.

YES, SIR.

TIM REID: ALL RIGHT.

AND WE KNOW IT'S A HAZARD OUT THERE.

I'VE BEEN OUT TO THE SITE MYSELF, AND LOOKED AT IT, AND SAW WHAT THE ISSUES WERE.

THAT'S WHEN I CAME TO YOU AND TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT.

SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU DID ON THAT.

AND HOPEFULLY WE GET THAT DONE SOON.

MARSHALL DIAZ: YES, SIR.

THANK YOU ALL.

TIM REID: THANK YOU SIR.

APPRECIATE YOU.

OK, COUNCIL.

WE'VE DISCUSSED ITEM 6.13, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE AGREED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON 6.7.

SO IF I CAN GET A MOTION.

DON TIPPS: YEAH, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA LESS 6.7 AS STATED.

DAVID PRESCOTT: SECOND.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NON CONSENT AGENDA.

[7.1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 09-22-26-1. This item is a public hearing and second and final reading to consider a resolution authorizing the acceptance of federal and state grants and transportation development credits for the Amarillo City Transit. (Brianna Mills, Grant/Compliance Coordinator) ]

ITEM 7.1 IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A FEW.

IS MRS. MILLS PRESENTING THIS ONE? NO? ALL RIGHT, CHRIS.

YOU'RE UP.

[02:00:03]

MR. QUIGLEY, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? MR. QUIGLEY: I'M PRETTY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR LETTING ME SPEAK REAL QUICK HERE.

SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING OUR SECOND AND FINAL READING OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUPPLY FOR OUR FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS, ALSO UTILIZING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENTAL CREDITS TO ACCOUNT FOR OUR LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENTS.

ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE PLANNING WITH THOSE FUNDS ARE OUTLINED IN OUR PROGRAM OF PROJECTS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO ANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WANTS TO SEE THEM.

IT'S ALSO ON THE MPO WEBSITE IN THE [INAUDIBLE].

THAT'S WHERE IT ALWAYS IS, AND THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE OUR PLANS, AND PROJECTS, OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY TO VIEW THAT.

COLE STANLEY: MR. QUIGLEY, WE APPRECIATE THE REFRESHER ON IT.

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM 7.1? ALL RIGHT.

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

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND REQUEST A MOTION.

I'M SORRY.

SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN REQUEST THE MOTION.

TIM REID: I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 0922261 AS PRESENTED.

COUNCILMEN: SECOND.

COLE STANLEY: MOTION AND A SECOND FROM PLACE 2.

COLE STANLEY: ALL RIGHT, MR. KENDRICK, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE UP FOR A MINUTE, Y'ALL.

THANK YOU, MR. QUIGLEY.

MR. QUIGLEY: THANK YOU.

[7.2. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 8272. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance considering the rezoning of 51.94 acres of unplatted land, located in Section 183, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Agricultural District to Moderate Density District 1. (VICINITY: Moon River Rd. & Honeybee Ave.; APPLICANT/S Betenbough Homes for 87th Street Partners, LLC) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner) ]

WELCOME EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE WORLD PRESENTER BRADY KENDRICK, THANK YOU.

THESE ARE SECOND READINGS ON A FEW OF THESE.

AND SO, IS THAT CORRECT? BRADY KENDRICK: ALL THESE ARE FIRST READINGS.

COLE STANLEY: OH, NO THESE ARE ALL FIRST READINGS.

SO FIRST TIME BEFORE US.

ALL RIGHT, ITEM 7.2.

BRADY KENDRICK: YES.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS FIRST ONE IS A REZONING CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 8272, PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING.

THIS IS A REZONING OF 51.97 ACRES OF UNPLOTTED LAND.

THIS IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF MOON RIVER ROAD AND HONEYBEE AVENUE.

APPLICANT IS BETENBOUGH HOMES FOR 87TH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH 308 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, UTILIZING THOSE MD1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND THIS IS ADJACENT TO A NUMBER OF EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS OF FOX RIDGE, SATURN TERRACE, AND THE MEADOWS.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING A MIX LOT SIZES THAT WILL FEATURE WIDTHS BETWEEN 40 AND 50 FEET AND DEPTHS BETWEEN 85 AND 115 FEET.

THE REQUEST WAS FOUND TO CONFORM WITH THE CITY PLAN, VISION 2045.

AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BELIEVES, GIVEN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING PATTERNS IN THE AREA, IN ADDITION TO THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT, IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT.

REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICES ON THIS ONE, WE DID RECEIVE TWO COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION ON THIS ONE, AND A SUMMARY OF THOSE COMMENTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING.

THE REQUEST WOULD LOWER PROPERTY VALUES IF APPROVED.

A BELIEF THAT THE DEVELOPER FAILED TO CREATE A NO-HORN TRAIN ZONE AT THE NEARBY RAIL CROSSING AND DID NOT UPHOLD PROMISE OBLIGATIONS.

AND THAT'S REGARDING THE MEADOWS.

THAT WAS A COMMENT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL THAT LIVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOMES WOULD RUIN THE VIEW OF THE-- FROM THE PREMIUM LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MEADOWS.

AND TRAFFIC IN THE AREA SPECIFICALLY ON GEORGIA WOULD BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED, AND THIS WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL CONGESTION.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH A 7-0 VOTE AT THE SEPTEMBER 9 PNZ MEETING.

AND ON THE SCREEN NOW AS THE LAST SLIDE IS A INITIAL CONCEPT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT DOING FOR THE LAYOUT OF THIS NEW IN ADDITION TO THE PRODUCTS THAT IT WILL FEATURE.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

COLE STANLEY: QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? OK.

THANK YOU, MR. KENDRICK.

ITEM 7.2.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME UP, SIR.

GIVE US YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AFTERNOON, SIR.

SPEAKER 4: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE], AND I'M WITH THE DEVELOPER BETENBOUGH HOMES.

I JUST WANTED TO COME UP HERE AND [INAUDIBLE] TO THAT PRELIMINARY DESIGN, AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COLE STANLEY: WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR DEVELOPER? THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO OFFER A LITTLE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

SPEAKER 4: THANK Y'ALL.

DO I HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? OK, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

[02:05:02]

AND REQUEST A MOTION.

DAVID PRESCOTT: I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8272 AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA.

COLE STANLEY: MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 7.2.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

ITEM 7.3, MR. KENDRICK.

[7.3. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 8273. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance considering the rezoning of Lots 4, 5, and 7 through 12, Block 1, Town Square Unit No. 1, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 63, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Planned Development District 373A to Planned Development District 373E to allow four businesses that are classified as on-premise primary use sales and service of alcohol within the boundary in addition to allowing all other alcohol sale related use categories without a limit on the number of those type of businesses. (VICINITY: Town Square Blvd. & Union Sq.; APPLICANT/S: Tim Ruse for Texas Residences at Town Square LLC) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

BRADY KENDRICK: YES, ITEM 7.3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE REZONING OF LOTS 4, 5, 7 THROUGH 12 BLOCK 1, TOWN SQUARE, UNIT NUMBER 1.

THIS IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNDING STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC WAYS TO CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

DISTRICT 373A TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 373E TO ALLOW FOR FOUR BUSINESSES THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS ON-PREMISE, PRIMARY USE, SALES, AND SERVICE OF ALCOHOL WITHIN THE BOUNDARY IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING ALL OTHER ALCOHOL SALE RELATED USE CATEGORIES WITHOUT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

AND THIS IS IN THE VICINITY OF TOWN SQUARE BOULEVARD AND UNION SQUARE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS TIM ROOS FOR TEXAS RESIDENCES AT TOWN SQUARE, LLC.

AND THIS ONE IS SIMPLY ADJUSTING THE ALCOHOL STANDARDS THAT EXIST OUT THERE AT TOWN SQUARE.

CURRENTLY, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE BAR ESSENTIALLY PER EACH OF THOSE FOUR PRIMARY MIXED-USE BUILDINGS.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THEY ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO HAVE ON-PREMISE INCIDENTAL SALES BY RESTAURANTS, OFF-PREMISE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES, AND TEMPORARY ON OR OFF-PREMISE SALES.

WHAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO, THEY ARE WANTING TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION OF THE ONE PER BUILDING.

THAT WAY, THEY CAN HAVE THE LIBERTY OF WHERE THOSE FOUR BARS GO, ESSENTIALLY, VERSUS BEING LIMITED TO ONE PER BUILDING, SO THAT IF THEY WANT TO HAVE MULTIPLE IN ONE OF THE BUILDINGS AND NONE OF THE OTHERS, THEY CAN HAVE THAT GOING FORWARD.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THEY ALSO WANT TO ADD THE ABILITY TO HAVE ON-PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE, SALES, AND SERVICES BY NON-RESTAURANTS.

A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A GOLF SIMULATOR OUT THERE TYPE BUSINESS THAT ALSO WANTS TO SERVE BEER ON THE SIDE, BUT DOESN'T GET TO THAT THRESHOLD OF BEING A BAR.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THAT GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY'RE STARTING TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT HAVING THOSE TYPE OF BUSINESSES THERE IN TOWN SQUARE, GIVEN THE ENTERTAINMENT NATURE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND ABILITIES OUT THERE FOR THOSE UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOOKED AT THIS, AND THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT-- OR THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE.

SO THEY FOUND THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS FOUND OUT THERE, AND JUST THE CHARACTER OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL.

REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST OF THE MEETING AS OF TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH A 7-0 VOTE AT THE SEPTEMBER 21 PNZ.

COLE STANLEY: THANK YOU, MR. KENDRICK.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, GUYS? LES SIMPSON: SO THE INITIAL, WHICH IS SEPARATING OUT PLACES THAT CAN SERVE ALCOHOL WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND THAT TO BEGIN WITH? THAT YOU WENT JUST ONE FOR EACH? BRADY KENDRICK: THERE WAS A CONCERN SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PRIMARY ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION, ALSO KNOWN AS BARS.

PNZ IN THE PAST JUST HAD A CONCERN ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY BARS OUT THERE, THAT THAT MIGHT BE TOO IMPACTFUL TO THE RESIDENCES THAT LIVE HIGHER IN THOSE BUILDINGS AND THOSE APARTMENTS.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY INITIALLY PLACED THAT LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF BARS THAT COULD BE OUT THERE, AND ALSO WHY THEY WANTED TO ESSENTIALLY MAINTAIN THAT SAME LIMIT TO 4, BUT WHILE ALSO GIVING THAT FLEXIBILITY TO SHUFFLE THEM BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS IF THEY SO SEE FIT.

LES SIMPSON: AND SO WILL THIS ALLOW MORE BUSINESSES TO SERVE ALCOHOL THERE? BRADY KENDRICK: IT DOES ADD THE ABILITY TO DO THAT ON INCIDENTAL SALES BY NON-RESTAURANTS.

SO IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO MAYBE MORE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT COULD SERVE ALCOHOL, BUT IT WOULD STILL MAINTAIN THAT LIMIT ON THE BARS THAT EXCEED 50% SALES OF ALCOHOL.

LES SIMPSON: BUT RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONE PLACE THAT CAN SELL ALCOHOL PER BUILDING? BRADY KENDRICK: ONE BAR PER BUILDING.

THERE IS CURRENTLY THE ABILITY TO HAVE ALCOHOL WITH RESTAURANTS OUT THERE WITHOUT LIMIT.

SO THERE COULD BE AS MANY RESTAURANTS OUT THERE AS THEY WANT CURRENTLY THAT CAN ALSO SERVE ALCOHOL.

DON TIPPS: THIS IS JUST A BAR? LIKE, IT HAS TO BE OVER 50%? IS THAT DEFINITION OF A BAR? BRADY KENDRICK: YES, IF THEIR SALES EXCEED 50%.

LES SIMPSON: BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I COMPREHEND IN THIS, I MEAN, THERE COULD BE MORE-- I MEAN, DOES THIS ALLOW FOR MORE BUSINESSES LOCATED THERE TO SELL ALCOHOL THAN CURRENTLY? ANDREW FREEMAN: FOR ANCILLARY.

SO IT'S LIKE THE GOLF PLACE.

MAYBE IT'S A SALON THAT'S SELLING ALCOHOL AS A COMPLIMENTARY SERVICE, AS FAR AS THEIR BUSINESS GOES.

BRADY KENDRICK: IT DOES OPEN UP THAT ADDITIONAL USE

[02:10:01]

CATEGORY AND THE ALCOHOL USE CHART, THOUGH.

THAT IS CORRECT.

LES SIMPSON: SO WHEN WE WERE SENDING OUT NOTICES, THAT THE NOTICES JUST GO TO PROPERTY OWNERS, CORRECT? BRADY KENDRICK: YES.

LET ME GO BACK TO THAT MAP REAL QUICK.

SO EVERYBODY THAT WAS IN THAT GRAY SHADING ON THAT MAP THERE RECEIVED A NOTICE IN TERMS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THE RENTERS AND THE APARTMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED THE NOTICE.

LES SIMPSON: THE PEOPLE-- ANDREW FREEMAN: [INAUDIBLE] SIGN LIKE OUR OTHER-- BRADY KENDRICK: YES, SO THERE IS A NEW STATE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT PASSED LAST YEAR WHERE WE POST SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE IN ORDER TO DO A HIGH-LEVEL DUE DILIGENCE, WE ACTUALLY PLACED 10 SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE THAT RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO THE DEVELOPMENT WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST OUT THERE, AND THEN GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO SEE THE FLYER AND ALSO CALL US.

LES SIMPSON: AND SO OF SO EVERYONE IN THE COLOR SURROUNDING IS WHO GOT THE NOTICE? BRADY KENDRICK: YES, IN THAT GRAY SHADING THERE ON THE MAP.

THAT'S CORRECT.

LES SIMPSON: OH, IN THE GRAY SHADING? BRADY KENDRICK: YES.

THE YELLOW IS THE APPLICANT PROPERTY THAT'S SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

LES SIMPSON: SO OUTSIDE OF THAT GRAY SHADING, I MEAN, WHO OWNED THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? SO WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL THERE ON SHERIDAN STREET, IT LOOKS LIKE? BRADY KENDRICK: THAT'S CORRECT.

LES SIMPSON: BUT THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED? BRADY KENDRICK: THERE WAS THE FIRST ROW OF TOWNHOMES AND SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE WEST THERE.

IT DID CLIP SOME OF THOSE.

SO A NUMBER OF THOSE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES THAT-- SOME OF WHICH ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION DID GET THOSE NOTICES.

LES SIMPSON: YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS IN THAT AREA.

I MEAN, IT IS-- WE SEE IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE MORE OF THAT.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE OUT IN THAT AREA? DID THAT COME UP WITH PLANNING AND ZONING? BRADY KENDRICK: THE CHIEF CONCERN THAT CAME UP-- BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, I'LL JUST SAY, WAS ALSO REMOVED THE LIMIT ON THE BARS OUT THERE.

BUT WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPER AT PNZ, BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND PNZ, THOUGH, THEY ULTIMATELY ARRIVED AT THAT THEY FELT MORE COMFORTABLE KEEPING THE FOUR-BAR LIMIT IN PLACE.

BUT THEY FELT COMFORTABLE, THOUGH, WITH POTENTIALLY ALLOWING THOSE INCIDENTAL USES FOR NON RESTAURANTS.

SO THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT EXPANDING THE ABILITY OF MORE BARS OUT THERE.

SO THEY DID LEAVE THE FOUR-BAR LIMIT IN PLACE OUT THERE.

SO THAT WAS A BIG TOPIC OF CONVERSATION DURING PNZ.

LES SIMPSON: SO IT'S A FOUR-BAR LIMIT.

BUT IT WAS FOUR-BAR-- A BAR IN EACH ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS? BRADY KENDRICK: YEAH.

SO BACK IN 2015, WHEN THEY SET IT ORIGINALLY AS ONE BAR PER BUILDING.

LES SIMPSON: BUT THIS WAY IF, FOR SOME REASON, TWO BARS WANTED TO GO IN THE SAME BUILDING, THEY COULD DO IT? BRADY KENDRICK: THAT'S CORRECT.

LES SIMPSON: BUT IT'S NOT CHANGING THE LIMIT OF FOUR? BRADY KENDRICK: THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S STILL A LIMIT OF FOUR WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY.

COLE STANLEY: FURTHER QUESTIONS? OK.

THANK YOU, MR. KENDRICK.

BRADY KENDRICK: NO PROBLEM.

COLE STANLEY: ITEM 7.3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST A MOTION.

LES SIMPSON: I'D MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8273 AS PRESENTED.

TIM REID: SECOND.

COLE STANLEY: MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 7.3.

COLE STANLEY: ANY OPPOSED? DAVID PRESCOTT: NO.

COUNCILMEN: AYE.

LES SIMPSON: OPPOSED.

COLE STANLEY: MOTION PASSES WITH A 3 TO 2 VOTE.

CITY SECRETARY: CAN I GET CLARIFICATION? WHO ARE THE NO'S? COLE STANLEY: WE HAVE A NO FROM PLACE 3 AND PLACE 4.

CITY SECRETARY: THANK YOU.

COLE STANLEY: YEAS FROM MAYOR 1 AND 2.

ALL RIGHT, MR. KENDRICK.

[7.4. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 8274. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance considering the rezoning of 17.78 acres of unplatted land, located in Section 65, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change 1.38 acres of land from Agricultural District to Moderate Density District 1 and 16.40 acres of land from Agricultural District to Residential District 3. (VICINITY: Soncy Rd. & John Thomas St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for P DUB Land Holdings LTD) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO ITEM 7.4.

BRADY KENDRICK: YES.

7.4 IS THE REZONING OF 17.78 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND.

THIS IS ALSO IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF SONCY ROAD AND JOHN THOMAS STREET.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE 17.78 ACRES OF LAND, 1.38 ACRES OF THAT BEING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1.

AND 16.4 OF THOSE ACRES BEING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3.

AND THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE TOWN SQUARE-- THE HERITAGE HILLS SUBDIVISION, THAT THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE AREA THERE IN RED ON THE MASTER PLAN IS THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS REQUEST, THAT REQUEST CONFORMS WITH THE MASTER PLAN THAT IS ON FILE AND REPRESENTS A LOGICAL CONTINUATION OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN HERITAGE HILLS, AS FOUND BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH A 7-0 VOTE.

[02:15:01]

COLE STANLEY: QUESTIONS, COUNCIL, ON 7.4? NO QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

TIM REID: MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8274.

AS PRESENTED.

COLE STANLEY: ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, 5-0 VOTE.

ITEM 7.5, MR. KENDRICK?

[7.5. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 8275. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance considering the rezoning of 9.07 acres of unplatted land, in Section 173, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Residential District 3 to Moderate Density District 1. (VICINITY: S.E. 46th Ave. & Stoney Fork St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for PEGA Development, LLC) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

BRADY KENDRICK: YES, 7.5 IS ORDINANCE 8275, REZONING OF 9.07 ACRES OF LAND IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNTY STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC WAYS TO CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3 TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1 IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHEAST 46TH AVENUE AND STONEY FORK STREET.

THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR AND THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE AN UPCOMING PHASE OF THE TRADEWINDS SQUARE SUBDIVISION.

THEY WANT TO REZONE THE MODERATE DENSITY 1 TO HAVE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITY ON THAT WESTERN EDGE THERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE BACK TO THE WEST, THERE IT IS A COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA.

SO A TYPICAL ZONING PATTERN TO ESTABLISH WOULD BE TO INCORPORATE SOME HIGHER-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE LOWER-DENSITY BACK TO THE EAST AND THE MORE COMMERCIAL AREA BACK TO THE WEST.

AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGREED THAT THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL DOES REPRESENT AN IDEAL ZONING PATTERN TO ESTABLISH OUT THERE, AND IT WOULD ALSO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN AS IT HAS DEVELOPED OVER TIME OUT THERE.

PUBLIC COMMENT-WISE, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AS OF THE MEETING TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL THIS ITEM WITH A 7-0 VOTE, AS WELL.

COLE STANLEY: VERY GOOD.

QUESTIONS ON ITEM 7.5? OK.

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

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST A MOTION.

LES SIMPSON: MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8275 AS PRESENTED.

DAVID PRESCOTT: SECOND.

COLE STANLEY: MOTION AND A SECOND FROM PLACE 3.

[7.6. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance 8276. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to consider the rezoning of 24.81 acres of land, in Section 107, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter and Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Residential District 1 to Residential District 3.(VICINITY: Eastern. St. & S.E. 29th Ave.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Christolie Limited) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

MR. KENDRICK, DO YOU NEED SOME WATER? BRADY KENDRICK: NO, I'M GOOD TO GO.

ITEM 7.6.

COLE STANLEY: JUST STAMINA, RIGHT? YOU'RE UP AGAIN FOR A FEW MORE.

BRADY KENDRICK: YEAH, 7.6 IS ALSO A REZONING ORDINANCE, 8276.

THIS IS 24.81 ACRES OF LAND IN POTTER AND RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL COUNTY STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC WAYS, THE CHANGE FROM R1 TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3 IN THE VICINITY OF EASTERN STREET AND SOUTHEAST 29TH AVENUE.

APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC.

FOR CRYSTAL AND THIS PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH 130 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

GIVEN THE CITY PLAN, PLACE TYPE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD LOW, IT DOES CONFORM WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF CITY PLAN 2045.

AND GIVEN THE LOCATION ALONG EASTERN STREET, THAT WOULD BE AN AREA THAT IS FAVORED FOR SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITY.

SO R3 WOULD TYPICALLY BE APPROPRIATE IN SUCH A LOCATION.

AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOUND THAT GIVEN THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS FOUND IN THIS AREA, THAT THIS REQUEST, IN THEIR OPINION, WAS APPROPRIATE.

PUBLIC COMMENT-WISE, WE RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL TODAY, ACTUALLY, THAT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FROM A NEIGHBORING RESIDENT.

AND WITH THAT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A 7-0 VOTE.

COLE STANLEY: QUESTIONS ON ITEM 7.6, GENTLEMEN? IT SURE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GETTING OUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF THAT PNZ COMMITTEE.

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

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

STILL GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

TIM REID: I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 8276 AS PRESENTED.

MOTION AND A SECOND.

BRADY KENDRICK: YES, 7.7.

ITEM 7.7.

[7.7. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance 8277. This item is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance considering the rezoning of 355.40 acres of unplatted land in Section 93, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Agricultural District to Light Industrial District. (VICINITY: Lakeside Dr. & N.E. 24th Ave.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Happy Horizons Properties LP) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

MR. KENDRICK, YOU AGAIN.

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 8277.

THIS ONE IS THE REZONING OF 355.4 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNDARY STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC WAYS TO CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF NORTHEAST 24TH AVENUE AND LAKESIDE DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC.

FOR HAPPY HORIZON PROPERTIES.

AND THIS PROPERTY, THEY DO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT THEY EXPRESSED TO CITY STAFF WHEN ASKED.

THEY ARE, I BELIEVE, ABOUT TO MARKET THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY WANTED TO GET ZONING OUT OF THE WAY AHEAD OF TIME.

[02:20:04]

SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST TODAY.

AND THIS IS LOCATED ACROSS THE LOOP FROM THE CENTER PORT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND ALSO IS ADJACENT TO THE AMAZON WAREHOUSE, WHICH IS THERE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.

ORIGINALLY THE REQUEST DID INCLUDE ALL THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY OVER TO WHITTAKER.

BUT AFTER CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, THEY DID EXCLUDE 600 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THERE.

THAT WAY, IN THE FUTURE, WE COULD BUILD IN AN APPROPRIATE IN TRANSITION BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE EAST RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK TO THE WEST.

SO WE'LL WORK WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE ONCE THEY KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY WANT TO DO WITH THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY.

THAT WAY, WE CAN INCORPORATE SOME APPROPRIATE ZONING TRANSITIONS AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE EAST RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WITH THAT, THEY ARE LEAVING THAT EAST 600 AS AG FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE TIME BEING, AND THEN THE REMAINDER WILL BE THAT INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

GIVEN ITS LOCATION ALONG THE LOOP, AND NORTHEAST 24TH, AND ADDITIONALLY CONSIDERING THE RAIL ACCESS IN THE AREA, THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE SUITED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE TYPES OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BRING-- AND GIVEN THE EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA, PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION BELIEVED THE REQUEST WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.

REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, WE RECEIVED ONE CALL THAT WAS A GENERAL INQUIRY.

AND WITH THAT, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ONE-- 7-0, AS WELL.

COLE STANLEY: REAL GOOD.

QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD REQUEST A MOTION.

TIM REID: I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8277 AS PRESENTED.

DAVID PRESCOTT: SECOND.

COLE STANLEY: ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES,.

MR. KENDRICK, YOUR LAST ONE, ITEM 7.8.

[7.8. Consideration of Ordinance No. 8278. This item is the consideration of the vacation of a 0.02 acre portion of a 10-foot wide public utility easement, located within Lot 1A, Block 8, Western Express Addition Unit No. 27, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 229, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: Interstate 27 and Western Street; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC for Agustin Santoyo Canyon LSI LLC) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner)]

BRADY KENDRICK: SO 7.8 IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE VACATION OF A 0.02 ACRE PORTION OF A 10-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT.

THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN LOT 1A, BLOCK 8, WESTERN EXPRESS EDITION UNIT 27.

THIS IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 27 AND WESTERN STREET.

AND THE APPLICANT IS OJD ENGINEERING, LLC FOR [INAUDIBLE] CANYON LSI, LLC.

AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO VACATE THIS PORTION OF THIS EASEMENT HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN THE BLACK BOX.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A GROCERY STORE.

AND THIS EASEMENT THAT IS NO LONGER BEING UTILIZED DOES LIE WHERE THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.

SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST TODAY.

THAT EASEMENT EITHER CONTAINS UTILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ABANDONED, SO NO OBJECTIONS WERE EXPRESSED BY CITY UTILITIES OR THE FRANCHISE UTILITY COMPANIES.

THEY DID GET AN APPRAISAL DONE ON THIS EASEMENT, AND THEY DID PAY THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $850 TO THE CITY TO FACILITATE THIS REQUEST.

AND WITH THAT, NO COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS WERE EXPRESSED BY THE STAFF OR THE UTILITY COMPANIES.

AND WITH THAT, NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE.

SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

7-0 ON THIS ONE, AS WELL.

BRADY KENDRICK: NO PROBLEM.

COLE STANLEY: QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? OK, WE'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

NO, WE WILL NOT OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS JUST AN ORDINANCE.

BRADY KENDRICK: NO PROBLEM.

THANK YOU, MR. KENDRICK.

COLE STANLEY: GENTLEMEN, ITEM 7.8 IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

TIM REID: I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 8278 AS PRESENTED.

COLE STANLEY: ANY OPPOSED? MOTION IS ADOPTED.

[7.9. Consideration of Resolution No. 10-13-26-1. This item is the first reading to consider a resolution authorizing the execution of an Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) for repairs to the SE 34th Avenue Railroad Bridge. The City's participation in the AFA is $433,250.00 which represents 10% of the estimated project cost. (Alan Harder, Director of Public Works)]

ITEM 7.9.

MR. HARDER, HOW ARE YOU DOING OUT THERE? THANKS, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

I APPRECIATE IT.

SO THIS IS CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION.

IT'S THE FIRST READING WHICH WILL AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

THIS AFA WILL ACTUALLY BE FOR REPAIRS TO THE SOUTHEAST 34TH AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE.

THAT'S THE BRIDGE THAT GOES OVER RAILROAD TRACKS JUST EAST OF I-27.

THE PROJECT GENERALLY CONSISTS OF CONCRETE REPAIRS ON THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, THE BRIDGE COLUMNS, THE BENT CAPS, THE BRIDGE DECK ITSELF.

IT ACTUALLY ALSO WILL INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF ONE OF THE BRIDGE SPANS WHERE IT GOES OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THE PROJECT WILL BE ENTIRELY DESIGNED AND MANAGED BY TXDOT.

THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE 10% OF THE TOTAL COST.

THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS $4.3 MILLION, SO OUR PARTICIPATION WILL BE $33,250.

I WANT TO POINT OUT IN-- THAT THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION THAT'S IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET WAS OUT OF DATE.

THERE WERE SOME TYPOS IN THERE THAT REFERENCED 5% THOSE ARE WRONG.

WE HAVE AN UPDATED VERSION.

[02:25:01]

THAT WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE PACKET WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IN CASE YOU HAD LOOKED AT THAT.

SO WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS? COLE STANLEY: QUESTIONS COUNCIL? IT IS FUNDED RIGHT NOW CURRENT WHAT? WHAT'S THE FUNDING SOURCE? [INAUDIBLE] AND ICIP.

AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT ON THE NEXT ONE? COLE STANLEY: OK.

ITEM 7.9 IS IN FRONT OF YOU GENTLEMEN.

TIM REID: MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 101326-1 AS PRESENTED.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.10.

[7.10. Consider Approval - Water Utilities Capital Project Budget Transfer. This item considers approval for the transfer of budget funds from Capital Project No. 0000131 (Water System Improvements & Repairs) to provide necessary financial support to Capital Project No. 0000247 (VFD Replacement at 34th St Pump Station) that currently requires additional funding. (Shannon Tollison, Director of Utilities – Regulatory Compliance)]

MS. SHANNON TOLLESON, HOW ARE YOU TODAY? SHANNON TOLLESON: DOING WELL, MAYOR,.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

SHANNON TOLLESON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES FOR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE.

TODAY WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER FROM THE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS CIP FUND TO FUND A PURCHASE OF A VFD REPLACEMENT FOR 34TH STREET PUMP STATION.

THE REQUEST OF THE TRANSFER TOTALS $21,499.95.

AND THEN THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST FOR TRANSFER IS TO HAVE A SPARE UNIT OF THE VFD AT 34TH PUMP STREET-- OR 34TH STREET PUMP STATION.

HAVING A REDUNDANCY TAKES THOSE EQUIPMENT FAILURES FROM HOURS-- OR FROM HOURS TO REPAIR TO, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SPARE, IT COULD TAKE WEEKS FOR REPAIRS.

SO SYSTEM REDUNDANCY IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A WATER UTILITY.

THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

SHANNON TOLLESON: YOU'RE WELCOME.

COLE STANLEY: I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY WELL EXECUTED.

SHANNON TOLLESON: THANKS.

COLE STANLEY: SO ITEM 7.10.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? OK.

ITEM 7.10 IS BEFORE YOU.

DAVID PRESCOTT: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7.10 AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

[7.11. Consider Approval - Water Utilities Capital Project Budget Transfer. This item considers approval for the transfer of budget funds from Capital Project No. 0000132 (Wastewater System Improvements & Repairs) to provide necessary financial support to Capital Project No. 0000259 (Lift Station #19 Relocation Design) that currently requires funding. (William Johnson, Director of Utilities - Operations) ]

MR. WILL JOHNSON, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP AND TELLING US WHAT WE'RE DOING IN 7.11.

WILL JOHNSON: OK.

HELLO, COUNCIL.

AND THIS ITEM RELATES TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH JERRY'S GOING TO HANDLE.

THIS ITEM CONSIDERS-- IS REQUESTING A TRANSFER FROM WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LIFT STATION 19 REDESIGN, RELOCATION DESIGN AND THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.

LIFT STATION 19 IS ONE OF OUR OLDEST, BUILT IN 1959.

AND THIS PROJECT WILL EVALUATE UPGRADES TO ENSURE DEPENDABLE SERVICE AT THAT LIFT STATION.

QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, GENTLEMEN? NO? OK, I SAY WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION ON 7.11.

AND THEN WE CAN TAKE UP 7.12 AND SEE HOW WE CAN SPEND THAT MONEY.

JERRY: ONE THING, MAYOR, COUNCIL, TO KEEP IN MIND ON THIS PROJECT AS YOU VOTE ON IT.

WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON THIS, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT EXISTING LIFT STATION AND SEEING IF THE POSSIBILITY OF COMBINING THREE LIFT STATIONS INTO ONE SO THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR EFFICIENCIES.

SO TECHNICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN VOTING ON IS THE TRANSFER OF THE CIP TO FUND THE ENGINEERING PROCESS TO GET THE PROJECT DONE.

COLE STANLEY: YEAH, SO JUST DESIGN RIGHT NOW.

BUT THEN ONCE YOU GET THOSE DESIGNS BACK, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.

JERRY: YEAH.

OBVIOUSLY, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT COMBINING THREE STATIONS, WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT LARGER.

WE'RE LOOKING AT GRAVITY FLOW.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS COMBINING THREE STATIONS INTO ONE.

COLE STANLEY: BUT THE BENEFIT WITH YOU WOULD ALLEVIATE TWO ADDITIONAL MECHANICAL UNITS THAT BREAK DOWN AND CONSTANTLY HAVE REPAIR 20 YEARS FROM NOW? JERRY: ABSOLUTELY.

FOR SURE WE FEEL WE CAN DO TWO, BUT WE'RE STRIVING TO DO THREE IF WE POSSIBLY CAN.

COLE STANLEY: REAL GOOD.

GENTLEMEN, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING FURTHER ON 7.12? OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE UP ITEM 7.11? JERRY, TELL US WHAT'S-- ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT 7.12.

JERRY: THAT BASICALLY COVERS EVERYTHING.

WITH REGARDS TO IT.

WE'LL BE IN THE DESIGN PHASE.

THAT TOTAL EVALUATION OF THOSE EXISTING LINES, KEEP IN MIND WHAT WILLIAM REPRESENTED.

THIS WAS BUILT IN 1959.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE SOME OLD INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.

THAT'S DEFINITELY GOT TO BE ADDRESSED.

IT'S IN A SECTION OF TOWN, AS WILLIAM SHOWED ON THE SCREEN, NEXT TO THE OLD STOCKYARDS THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS.

AND ADDRESS CROSSING THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AS WELL.

COLE STANLEY: SO SOME OF THIS IS SOMEWHAT ADJACENT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE ODOR THAT WE'VE HAD, KIND OF IN THE PUSHBACK.

WOULD COMBINING THE THREE POTENTIAL LIFT STATIONS

[02:30:06]

BENEFIT US IN MOVING WASTE THROUGH THAT? JERRY: IT ABSOLUTELY WOULD.

LIKE I SAID, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOME OF THAT OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE IS SOME CHALLENGES THAT COME WITH IT, OBVIOUSLY.

AND SO IN LOOKING AT IT, IT LETS US PUT IN A MORE MODERN SYSTEM THAT'S CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE FUTURE PROJECTED FLOWS THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THAT AREA AS IT DEVELOPS.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT JUST DEALING WITH WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE IN THE FUTURE.

WELL, WE APPRECIATE THAT.

DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON 7.11 AND THE TRANSFER OR THE PROJECT CONSIDERATION FOR THE ENGINEERING ON 7.12? OK.

ITEM 7.11 IS BEFORE YOU, GENTLEMEN.

TIM REID: MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 7.11 AS PRESENTED.

ITEM 7.12 IS BEFORE YOU, GENTLEMEN.

[7.12. Consider Award - Professional Engineering Services Contract for Phase 1 of Lift Station 19 Replacement. This item considers the award of a contract for complete engineering professional services for a Phase I alternative evaluation and preliminary design of the Lift Station 19 replacement, including evaluation of consolidating Lift Stations 16 and 25, flow monitoring, and Quality Level D SUE. Award to: HDR Engineering, Inc Amount: $319,260.00 Funding Source: Water and sewer fund revenues Is the item budgeted? Yes (Jerry Danforth, Managing Director of Capital Projects, Development & Engineering)]

MR. KENDRICK, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP AND MAKING A MO-- NO, I'M KIDDING.

DAVID PRESCOTT: I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.12 AS PRESENTED.

COLE STANLEY: ALL RIGHT, MOTION AND A SECOND.