Source: YouTube auto-captions via youtube-transcript-api
Meeting: Crockett City Council, 2025-12-15
Title: Crockett City Council Meeting - 12/15/2025 (Audio Only)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HhkM3S5rmc
Status: verbatim auto-captions. Names are often wrong. Not reviewed. Not for the public site.

[0:00] I call the audience
[0:05] where at this time we have open.
[0:13] Let us pray. Heavenly father we come
[0:15] before you this afternoon. Thank you for
[0:17] the opportunity you guys here this
[0:19] evening pertaining to the business of
[0:20] our city. Lord we just thank you for all
[0:23] that is here tonight. Lord, we just pray
[0:25] that you would just bless us uh tonight
[0:28] with wisdom concerning all the issues
[0:30] tonight. May you be glorified in all
[0:32] that we do. We thank you and give you
[0:34] all the praise. In Christ Jesus name we
[0:36] pray. Amen.
[0:37] >> Amen.
[0:41] To the flag of the United States of
[0:43] America and to the republic for which it
[0:46] stands. One nation under God,
[0:50] indivisible with liberty and justice for
[0:52] all.
[0:58] start out again by saying how excited we
[1:00] are to be back together. I think this is
[1:02] the longest we've been separated for a
[1:04] while. But the good thing about it, I
[1:06] guess the the most wonderful thing about
[1:08] it is that I've been seeing them
[1:10] everywhere. This is really a traveling
[1:13] council. They're at all events. So, we
[1:16] haven't exactly not seen each other, but
[1:18] we have had an official meeting. So,
[1:20] thank you again for all being here and
[1:21] thank you for sharing it with us. And
[1:24] that with that being said, that brings
[1:26] us up to our comments. We have one from
[1:28] the audience,
[1:30] Mr. Scott. Yep. Sheen.
[1:35] That's okay. Don't worry.
[1:40] Merry Christmas to you all,
[1:43] Madam Mayor. And of course, council
[1:45] members as well as Mr. [name] and uh
[1:49] staff. I stand here kind of humbly
[1:51] before you because I'm going to tell you
[1:53] that I'm pretty well I mean obviously
[1:55] always cognizant of you know crime
[1:59] complaints great things good things
[2:01] about about a community and I stand
[2:04] before you to ask that I would like to
[2:06] receive uh an understanding of what it
[2:10] takes to have a neighborhood watch
[2:12] program especially in the neighborhood
[2:15] for which I live in which is basically
[2:18] uh the
[2:20] and pecan circle as well as plum
[2:24] uh homewood and olive. We feel it's
[2:27] important because of just some of the
[2:30] situations that have happened not only
[2:32] in our neighborhood but also uh
[2:34] throughout the city and we'd like to see
[2:36] what we can about um perhaps motivating
[2:40] the entire city to to understand that
[2:42] neighborhood watch it's not a
[2:46] you know a HOA it is a stand and uh
[2:52] support your neighborhood program and we
[2:54] feel that would be something that would
[2:56] be necessary in aiding not only police
[2:59] as well as fire as well as just this
[3:01] community understanding and getting to
[3:04] know some of its own concerns. So um if
[3:07] I could and could be directed and get
[3:10] permission to be able to talk with those
[3:12] who are very educated and um and
[3:17] understanding about this program uh
[3:19] would like to do that as soon as
[3:20] possible. Thank you mayor. I appreciate
[3:23] the opportunity to stand before you any
[3:25] time.
[3:26] >> Thank you.
[3:28] Um,
[3:31] that was the only one. I have time.
[3:34] >> Okay. From the audience.
[3:36] >> Okay. Are we done with audience?
[3:38] >> Yeah. I think that was the only one.
[3:39] Yeah. We have one.
[3:42] >> Yeah. Mayor, I'd like to uh put on the
[3:46] next agenda that uh
[3:49] that um we consider
[3:53] not televising
[3:55] our city council meetings
[3:58] just to save the embarrassment of our
[4:01] city.
[4:03] I'd like to put that on the agenda next
[4:06] meeting, please.
[4:08] A second.
[4:11] That's required.
[4:12] >> Okay. It's been moved and second.
[4:19] >> It's not a discussion. Is you just have
[4:21] to vote
[4:23] >> make that an agenda item?
[4:25] >> I'm sorry.
[4:25] >> Is that correct to make that an agenda
[4:27] item?
[4:27] >> Yes. It cannot be discussed. Yes.
[4:29] >> Yeah. Because it is an agenda. I mean,
[4:32] it's not an agenda item. That's why it
[4:34] can't be. I'm
[4:35] >> just putting it on the agenda. Next
[4:36] meeting. It's to become Yes, sir.
[4:41] vote. Are we ready for a vote?
[4:47] >> Okay. Oppose.
[4:55] >> Did you vote for it?
[4:57] >> Okay. So, you're opposed. Okay.
[4:59] >> No, I'm standing
[5:03] there three ways to vote.
[5:05] >> You just vote.
[5:08] Yes. noise.
[5:14] I sign.
[5:19] >> Okay.
[5:22] And now um uh so mayor and council um I
[5:26] move that uh that we um either make uh
[5:32] make an item to uh bring information or
[5:36] to collaborate about um information for
[5:40] neighborhood watch.
[5:44] >> Okay.
[5:47] You would like to make it an agenda for
[5:50] neighborhood watch. Can we get a second?
[5:54] >> I see.
[5:56] >> Okay.
[5:57] >> Would you stay?
[6:01] Okay. [name] say
[6:06] like I say I said I'm looking back and
[6:08] forth. Okay. It's been moved and second.
[6:13] All in favor.
[6:16] Okay.
[6:18] I I I so um I'm trying to get an
[6:22] understanding of how we place items on
[6:24] the agenda when I currently see an item
[6:27] that's on the agenda that was not
[6:29] brought for the council. Um
[6:32] and I was currently told uh several
[6:35] different ways to get items on the
[6:36] agenda. So are we is this the way we
[6:39] we'll be doing it or let me explain.
[6:42] >> Okay, please explain. If it's an item,
[6:45] you don't have to come for an approval
[6:48] just to be on here. If it comes by way
[6:51] of the mirror that process, but if it
[6:54] comes for just a journal during the open
[6:56] session, that is the way that it has to
[6:58] be done. Well, my understanding is that
[7:00] the the the U council or council person
[7:04] or whoever is allowed to place 91, but
[7:07] what I can understand is if a just a
[7:10] general person sends a request in and it
[7:14] never gets placed before the council to
[7:16] be placed on the agenda uh as an item on
[7:19] the agenda. How does that work? when in
[7:22] fact that person just touched base with
[7:24] their administrator and once they touch
[7:26] base with administrator and my statement
[7:28] is that the council is the one that
[7:31] brings uh items to be placed on the
[7:33] agend. The council does not is not the
[7:36] only one that it does not have to come
[7:39] to the council to be placed on their
[7:46] the mayor can set their agenda. It
[7:48] doesn't have to be voted on if it's that
[7:51] that
[7:54] now during the general what they doing
[7:56] the general discussion here it can be
[7:59] recommended and go on with the vote
[8:03] so did you anything
[8:09] that's the case I would like to um
[8:11] recommend that we have language uh
[8:14] implemented on our um agenda item
[8:18] on our agenda stating that we will have
[8:21] new business so that way we can discuss
[8:23] new business that
[8:26] I
[8:32] >> Okay, let me explain
[8:36] first. New business can't go
[8:39] directly be discussed as an agenda item
[8:43] unless it's on
[8:45] >> the agenda.
[8:45] >> The agenda. Now what you would do would
[8:47] do like this. I mean like you said you
[8:50] had some new business that you want
[8:52] >> during new during new business you could
[8:55] do what they did during the public
[8:56] comment section. No discussion about it.
[8:59] It would simply be you want something
[9:01] put on the agenda with a majority vote
[9:03] of the council it would be put on the
[9:04] agenda the next time. So, so what I'm
[9:07] asking is right here where it says
[9:10] approval of men is uh or even where it
[9:13] says before it says business that we
[9:16] discussed can we get the language placed
[9:19] new business underneath above that or
[9:22] agenda consideration?
[9:23] >> Yeah, I mean that's all that's what I'm
[9:26] asking.
[9:26] >> I mean that's what that's what it would
[9:29] be.
[9:30] >> Okay, we're getting off agenda now.
[9:32] >> Yeah.
[9:33] >> Exactly. is where we are right now. And
[9:36] so we can look at that from the legal
[9:40] side of that and see how to do that. And
[9:42] I'd be happy to do that. And that's why
[9:44] we we have the opinion that it can be
[9:47] brought up during comments that a
[9:50] council member can make a motion to put
[9:52] something on the agenda. And with the
[9:54] majority of the council, it can be. and
[9:58] Miss [name] and I will look at that to
[10:00] see if it is legal to put new business
[10:04] on there and find a way to do that.
[10:07] >> Okay.
[10:08] >> So,
[10:10] we just have to decide whether
[10:11] >> Yes. Put it on the agenda or not.
[10:13] >> Okay. Well, that's going to happen place
[10:15] when it says new business.
[10:17] >> Yeah. And we going to look at that and
[10:19] and find out if we
[10:22] >> right. So, so the council has votes and
[10:25] say how they want to place that on the
[10:28] agenda. Correct.
[10:30] >> The majority of the council vote for the
[10:34] item
[10:34] >> for the item to be placed on the agenda
[10:36] language. I'm asking for the language to
[10:38] be placed on the agenda for that
[10:40] language.
[10:41] >> As long as the language is legal,
[10:43] >> put it on there that way.
[10:44] >> Okay. Okay.
[10:45] >> And as long as the language is legal, it
[10:48] it's okay. But it wouldn't be it won't
[10:51] be written on there. It would be
[10:54] business for but it wouldn't be
[10:56] identified prior to that.
[10:58] >> Correct.
[10:59] >> So that's what I'm asking. So one
[11:01] >> I mean it's just writing. So you lay
[11:02] out.
[11:02] >> Okay. We're getting off the agenda.
[11:06] >> Okay. Well, I mean we're at the
[11:07] discussion part. So this is where we're
[11:09] trying to get it. You know,
[11:12] >> we're basically discussing business is
[11:14] what we're doing at this point.
[11:15] >> Business.
[11:16] >> You want I know. But we're discussing
[11:17] business at this point. We can't discuss
[11:19] business now. We discuss business.
[11:21] >> All right. Okay.
[11:23] >> Well, so basically we can get that
[11:25] placed on the agenda
[11:27] as a consider.
[11:32] Yes, Mayor. Mayor C.
[11:36] Did we finish that?
[11:39] >> I'm sorry.
[11:42] I'm just trying to make sure that we
[11:44] finish it.
[11:45] We will look it out if we can place it
[11:48] the way she's requesting on there for
[11:50] the next time. Yes, ma'am.
[11:54] >> Okay.
[11:56] >> Yes, ma'am. Um, just kind of want to
[11:58] bring uh to the attention of the
[12:00] council. Um, I know that y'all uh looked
[12:04] at the local news and they uh did a
[12:07] little uh information segment about uh
[12:10] highway 287
[12:12] uh trans uh converting it into an
[12:15] interstate. So, um that my state they've
[12:18] done a feasibility study on it and this
[12:21] is a text 21 project. Um I believe that
[12:24] this project mo would our city um as a
[12:28] whole if none uh from my standpoint I
[12:31] think it would improve transportation.
[12:33] It would have job creations. Uh it would
[12:36] allow new industries to come here. Uh
[12:38] being that we had no longer have the
[12:40] economic development. Uh it would expand
[12:43] our growth operations. Uh it also
[12:45] relieve traffic uh congestion. Um I just
[12:50] uh was just bringing to your attention
[12:52] because I had attend numerous uh text 21
[12:56] project meetings and uh met with Mr. uh
[12:59] David Jean and I also um uh gave him the
[13:04] information to contact um Mr. family and
[13:08] also Mayor [name] um uh inquiring about
[13:12] being a part of the test 21 uh highway
[13:18] uh uh 287 transformation. So my request
[13:22] is that um you at this point you can
[13:26] share the information but it's nothing
[13:29] recommendation anything.
[13:31] >> Okay.
[13:31] >> That's a sharable.
[13:33] >> Okay. Okay. Okay. long sheriff, but I
[13:35] will be uh uh touching basic with uh Mr.
[13:39] um [name] so we can see if Mr. Dean can
[13:42] come in and give us educate us a little
[13:45] bit more about the 287 version. Thank
[13:49] you.
[13:51] Okay, there nothing else with comments
[13:55] from council.
[13:58] That moves us to uh item number one,
[14:00] approval of the minutes from regular
[14:02] session November 3rd, 2025.
[14:06] Mayor and council, I um move to uh
[14:12] on the previous minutes
[14:16] where I make a comment strike, I would
[14:19] like to strike waste and uh insert
[14:22] misappropriation of funds. Um,
[14:26] so I'd like to uh approve the minutes
[14:28] with that uh correction.
[14:33] Okay. The the minutes you can not to
[14:37] approve, but we're not we need to make
[14:40] correction.
[14:42] We're not the the correction. You can
[14:44] just make it you can say what you want
[14:46] to say, but they're not the minutes are
[14:48] approved as written or not approved. Do
[14:52] you have a correction if there's a
[14:54] mistake
[14:56] there for you? You can state what I
[14:58] mean. You stated what you thought was
[15:00] mistake.
[15:06] I move that we assert
[15:08] correct.
[15:13] >> Okay. They move
[15:15] and second all in favor
[15:18] motion here.
[15:21] Okay. That move moves us to item number
[15:23] two
[15:26] and uh considering approve engagement
[15:29] agreement with GPNC
[15:32] attorney at law for legal services
[15:34] regarding Lincoln Lumber.
[15:37] >> Mayor and council after our last
[15:40] executive session when we met concerning
[15:44] Lincoln Lumber we have u received
[15:49] legal correspondence from them. They've
[15:51] engaged an attorney as well and we
[15:53] discussed that. So, we need to engage an
[15:56] attorney for that for the city to move
[15:59] forward with our recapture.
[16:06] >> So, there
[16:07] >> we just need to make a motion to approve
[16:10] the engagement at
[16:11] >> D.
[16:13] Do we have the uh
[16:16] >> the attorney is here if if she would
[16:19] like to make some comments about herself
[16:22] or their law firm if if you would like.
[16:26] >> Sure.
[16:31] >> Good evening, parent council. Thank you
[16:33] all so much for having me in your
[16:35] beautiful city all
[16:38] very nice drive in. My name is Kelly
[16:40] Alvin. I am with Denton, Navaro,
[16:43] Rodriguez, Bernell, Santi, and Ze, which
[16:46] is why we have the alphabet soup on
[16:48] there. I don't think they'll say that.
[16:50] Um, I am a defense council um with our
[16:54] firm. We represent local governments all
[16:57] across the state. That is the only
[16:59] business that we do. We do not represent
[17:01] any private entities. So, we're very
[17:03] specialized in the business of local
[17:05] government. Um, I am a trial lawyer and
[17:10] um get calls from uh cities, appraisal
[17:14] districts, counties statewide uh to come
[17:16] in and help navigate through disputes,
[17:20] hopefully get resolutions early on if if
[17:22] that's feasible. And if not, we're
[17:24] equipped to um go to court if we need to
[17:26] to resolve it there. So, I am happy to
[17:30] answer any questions about myself or the
[17:31] firm if the council has any.
[17:35] Okay.
[17:37] >> Um, we feel like this is the best option
[17:40] with us moving forward to uh handle our
[17:44] Lincoln Lumber recapture.
[17:47] >> I I appreciate you coming. Um, I just I
[17:52] I just have a um wanted to see the
[17:55] overall cost and fees that uh we were
[17:59] going to incur on engagement.
[18:02] We provided the city with the engagement
[18:05] agreement that has the um hourly fee. We
[18:09] don't
[18:11] it's hard to estimate what the total
[18:13] cost would be because we don't know
[18:14] whether this will get resolved early on
[18:16] or of course um if it goes into full
[18:19] litigation that changes the the amount
[18:23] of time that gets spent on it.
[18:25] >> It's the normal fee structure when we
[18:27] hire special counsel. It's nothing out
[18:29] of the ordinary. Miss [name] has
[18:31] reviewed that as well.
[18:33] >> Well, I think we should be able to
[18:34] recapture our fees from Lincoln Lumber
[18:39] for us having to go through this. I
[18:40] mean, I would think there would be
[18:42] something in the contract to recapture
[18:43] fees. So,
[18:45] I'd like to go ahead and uh
[18:48] make a motion that we enter into an
[18:50] agreement with BNR
[18:53] BSV, Attorneys Law. I suspect
[19:03] The agenda item is just to engage,
[19:07] >> right? But what I'm what I'm asking is
[19:10] yes. Yes, I definitely understand that.
[19:11] But what I'm asking is that uh about the
[19:14] legal cost and fees. We never received
[19:17] those um that information. So I mean I
[19:22] mean I don't mind and I will uh vote for
[19:25] it, but we we have received that
[19:27] information. So
[19:29] That's my concern.
[19:30] >> Yes, ma'am.
[19:33] We have a motion and a second.
[19:35] >> It's a motion and a second. We're ready
[19:37] for
[19:39] all in favor.
[19:42] Thank you.
[19:46] >> Okay. Is this the time where we're uh
[19:48] due to the now she's officially on the
[19:51] clock?
[19:53] Uh we're going to take a break here and
[19:56] we'll go into executive session which is
[19:58] identified in the left part
[20:01] so that uh she'll be able to express
[20:04] with us while she's engaged and then
[20:07] we'll come back to
[20:19] item
[20:30] Yes.
[20:51] Okay.
[21:02] Our system's a little slow.
[21:16] Don't worry.
[21:20] Okay.
[21:22] Okay. We're officially back in session.
[21:29] >> Yeah.
[21:31] The explanation.
[21:34] Um, we just had consultation with an
[21:37] attorney on
[21:39] the process for moving forward with the
[21:40] recapture on Lincoln Lumber.
[21:45] >> No action taken.
[21:47] >> No.
[21:48] And it moves us to item number
[21:53] receive as information a petition for
[21:56] groundwater conservation district.
[21:59] Mayor and Council, on page seven
[22:05] of your uh council packet, item number
[22:07] three is a copy of the petition that's
[22:09] being submitted to the TCQ.
[22:12] Um there's been a petition that's come
[22:15] about our county and there's been enough
[22:17] signatures that have been presented to
[22:19] submit this to TCQ.
[22:22] The request is to get TCQ approval and
[22:26] to take it to a May election for a
[22:29] groundwater conservation district. So
[22:31] these are the copies of the petition
[22:33] that we received and we're passing them
[22:35] on the offer commission. Initially it's
[22:37] just a certification that's been
[22:39] received. Then we have a letter uh to
[22:42] the city. on page eight explain it.
[22:47] On page n is the actual petition subt
[22:52] and this petition is what all the
[22:55] petitioners the signatures have been
[22:56] signed on to
[23:00] explain and explaining what they are
[23:01] requesting.
[23:03] This is a five member. They've got 50
[23:06] they've got 50 land owners already
[23:08] signed a petition which makes it a valid
[23:10] a valid petition.
[23:13] Um the petition
[23:16] also
[23:18] provides for five board members that
[23:21] were included in the petition. These are
[23:23] people from within our county that have
[23:25] that are land owners and are able to
[23:28] serve on the petition as been presented
[23:31] to us. Uh one item of note as out of
[23:34] these five these five uh members
[23:39] uh the goal is to have
[23:42] five members four of them will overlay
[23:46] the county commissioners precinct.
[23:49] So their districts will align with four
[23:51] members in the county and they will have
[23:53] one additional member to represent the
[23:57] city overlay. So you have one within the
[24:00] city of Crockett and that roughly splits
[24:03] the uh the population up by five
[24:08] precincts even the city's population
[24:11] versus the four others. So those the
[24:14] affidavit of the of the people that are
[24:17] running for and it's a temporary board
[24:20] and then after that is voted on is
[24:22] approved those members can run again as
[24:25] active members. This is for a temporary
[24:27] board not the actual
[24:32] And then
[24:34] >> we included a couple resolutions from
[24:36] the water supply consolidated water
[24:38] supply and from Houston County
[24:42] which if the city wishes to adopt a
[24:44] resolution, we can also draft one like
[24:47] that and add it on the petition, you
[24:50] know, we can add it on later. But this
[24:53] was information that we were to submit
[24:56] to the council.
[24:58] I do have a quick question. Uh if you
[25:00] could get this information for me. Um I
[25:03] was wanting to know
[25:06] has there been a feasibility study done
[25:11] on the
[25:12] >> for the groundwater conservation
[25:14] district?
[25:14] >> Yes.
[25:15] >> Um
[25:18] there will be three items done. Um I
[25:20] think feasibility study, a financial
[25:23] report, and a financial breakdown of the
[25:25] overall cost of the project. Yeah. Um
[25:28] any requirements TCQ would the
[25:30] requirement of the petitioners
[25:33] and I'm not aware of uh I would assume
[25:36] if they're submitting a complete
[25:37] application they would
[25:40] to require them.
[25:43] >> Okay. Cuz I would uh review the
[25:48] um
[25:52] the petition. You had an amount in here
[25:56] and my question is going to be uh are we
[25:59] going to is I think it's 2 billion
[26:02] 578,27,876.
[26:08] So are we what does that refer to? Are
[26:12] we partnering with
[26:14] >> with uh the county or
[26:18] >> this is receiving information only. We
[26:21] played no part in this process. that
[26:24] we're we're not
[26:24] >> No, ma'am.
[26:25] >> Okay. So, we're just getting
[26:26] information.
[26:26] >> We're getting information on
[26:29] >> Yes, ma'am.
[26:29] >> Okay.
[26:31] So, we won't be a part of the
[26:32] conservation district at all.
[26:34] >> You will have a representative that
[26:36] represents that's elected by the city or
[26:39] by city.
[26:42] >> No
[26:44] require.
[26:45] >> No ma'am. No ma'am.
[26:47] >> This is information only.
[26:51] >> Okay.
[26:55] That's it. Just receive as information a
[26:58] petition. So that's information. Okay.
[27:01] >> Okay. Item number four
[27:04] receive as information planning and
[27:06] zoning commission's initial report of
[27:09] zoning code text amendments information
[27:12] on you have it before you may council.
[27:15] This is the initial report. So I'm not
[27:17] going to read it. There's six pages. Um,
[27:20] we wanted to highlight some of the items
[27:22] that are before us. In 2023, we realized
[27:25] we had a problem after the legislature
[27:28] pass some rules that did not align with
[27:30] our city code and planning and zoning
[27:32] ordinances. Um we at that time began
[27:37] receiving permit requests for barniums
[27:41] or tiny homes and we had no zone or
[27:46] permitting process and ordinance um
[27:50] parameters to guide that. Um there was
[27:53] no definition what a tiny home was. If
[27:55] it's a storage building that somebody
[27:57] wanted to put on an lot called it home.
[28:00] There was a lot of it left a lot of
[28:02] things open. We we passed a moratorum
[28:05] for that for us to begin discussion. Um
[28:09] that led to this report. We found out
[28:13] that there's a lot of other things as we
[28:16] do when we look into old text and old
[28:18] zoning ordinances things that do not
[28:20] with
[28:22] regulation. Um so we've kind of broke
[28:25] that down in the processes behind that.
[28:28] Um there's state laws that need to be
[28:30] incorporated in our ordinance. Our
[28:32] ordinance is not complying with state
[28:33] law. Um there's also we passed a
[28:36] comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive
[28:38] plan needs to be updated in our
[28:40] ordinances to reflect it. Um and then we
[28:43] found that there was codes and
[28:45] definitions that we did not have. We
[28:48] said we would require certain things
[28:51] but that theme was not mentioned in our
[28:54] definitions and we did not explain what
[28:56] that meant and left a lot of things open
[28:59] for interpretation.
[29:01] So moving forward some of our objectives
[29:04] are to finalize our our regulations for
[29:08] accessory dwelling units. That's the ADU
[29:10] that as you see there's tiny homes and
[29:13] um make sure that we include standards
[29:15] requirements for what a tiny home should
[29:17] be. Um the state law preemps us in a lot
[29:21] of that too. There's state regulation
[29:23] that says there's certain things we
[29:25] can't regulate. um we're trying to
[29:28] address the housing crisis, but the
[29:30] things that we can address, we're trying
[29:32] to incorporate at least that. on page
[29:34] 28. That's where this legis legislation
[29:39] this year
[29:41] in 2025. They pass laws requiring cities
[29:44] to have
[29:46] by right not for specific use permit but
[29:49] a zone that allow for mobile homes that
[29:52] would not allow someone that wanted a
[29:54] mobile home could go into a certain zone
[29:56] and put a mobile home without going
[29:58] through a specific use permit. Right now
[30:01] that specific use permit is required.
[30:02] State law says a city shall have at
[30:05] least one zone or more that allow them
[30:07] by right.
[30:09] >> So we included some of that.
[30:13] >> What about like tiny homes locations or
[30:16] would we consider a specific zone?
[30:21] specific zones would allow them. Other
[30:23] zones would allow them by specific use
[30:26] permit
[30:28] >> for the gray areas when it may not allow
[30:32] be allowed by writing. But if it fits
[30:34] overall, it's an acceptable thing and
[30:36] and the neighbors are okay with it, they
[30:38] can still apply for a permit. It's kind
[30:40] of like with the mobile one, but we need
[30:42] to have regulation and and provide a
[30:46] wording that allows it. Um, right now
[30:49] it's just it's there's nothing that
[30:52] defines that.
[30:56] >> I saw that they also said something
[30:58] about guest houses. So
[31:01] >> they consider Airbnb or no
[31:03] >> no accessory unit. So mother suites
[31:06] those kind of things where you add on
[31:08] basically a secondary home
[31:10] >> on a primary piece of property.
[31:14] And then a lot of people think you know
[31:16] it's being done and you either rent it
[31:17] out or your home your mother stays there
[31:19] when she moves out you turn around use
[31:21] it as a rental property. So it's
[31:22] splitting the use of a single piece of
[31:25] single lot versus single parcel. So it
[31:27] provides some definition that allows the
[31:30] state in a lot of ways. The state is
[31:32] saying that there's only you have to
[31:35] allow some of these people to put ADUs
[31:37] in, but at least put some parameters in
[31:39] there to where it fits.
[31:42] >> The state legislature has been so pro
[31:46] property rights in the last couple of
[31:48] legislative sessions. It it's made us go
[31:51] back. I mean, planning and zoning's been
[31:53] working on this for for over a year.
[31:57] >> And if they get something ready, then
[31:59] then it's already out of date, you know.
[32:00] That's right. So yeah, property rise is
[32:04] good. So So you're saying if if somebody
[32:07] wanted you had a piece of property over
[32:09] here that's big enough to go in and do
[32:11] like a little subdivision of tiny homes,
[32:15] they'd be able to do it
[32:17] >> potentially.
[32:18] >> Okay. under our current ordinance.
[32:20] There's not a lot of right now. We have
[32:21] a moratorum
[32:23] like like when you're going in on 2 PGC
[32:25] along that road right there on the
[32:27] right, they have about 15 tiny homes and
[32:31] we're trying so what we're trying to do
[32:33] is provide before we before we open the
[32:36] flood gates that we provide some
[32:39] parameters. There's sometimes that it's
[32:40] really classy and it's done right that
[32:42] people can take advantage of that don't
[32:44] want to build an expensive home
[32:46] >> but that it's not a good taste and it's
[32:49] not in cuz your property rights still
[32:53] has to take account of all the property
[32:55] right of people on our street they have
[32:58] rights too. So I was trying to ask too.
[33:00] So um would this allow this allow like
[33:04] say someone wanted to you know of course
[33:07] like with the with the new and things of
[33:09] that nature but with like a mobile home
[33:12] owner will like say somebody wanted to
[33:15] put a mobile home in their backyard.
[33:19] No. So, as long as I as you've got an
[33:24] area designated for mobile homes that
[33:26] they don't have to get a specific use
[33:28] permit permit, you can still use the
[33:31] specific use permit in other areas that
[33:33] where you can regulate that. But you do
[33:36] have to designate at least one within
[33:39] the city that if I want to put a mo a
[33:41] manufactured home in there, I can go put
[33:43] a manufactured home in there. Nobody
[33:45] right now. Our zone, one of the zones
[33:47] that we're proposing is a zone that has
[33:50] nothing but mobile homes in it currently
[33:52] in this boat trail. You know, it's
[33:54] already nothing but homes. So, it
[33:56] doesn't change the use. You don't have
[33:58] somebody that has several homes that's
[34:00] like, "No, we don't want allow that.
[34:01] This is already being done." So, at
[34:03] least by that, none of that has been
[34:05] done yet, though. This is the initial
[34:07] report telling you some of the things
[34:08] that will be discussed and then we will
[34:09] bring a report back to you saying this
[34:12] is what the planning and zoning board
[34:15] recommendations and we're going to have
[34:17] to have workshops and public hearings
[34:19] and then we come to y'all for a workshop
[34:22] and a public hearing as well. So
[34:23] everybody has comments
[34:26] that we need.
[34:27] >> Okay.
[34:31] >> Just received for information. So on the
[34:33] on so if there's a tiny home next to
[34:36] someone else house uh that does that
[34:40] depreciate the property.
[34:42] Well, it can
[34:45] >> and that's why I mean when this
[34:48] >> this process will also have public
[34:50] hearings for the community as well and
[34:52] and that's what planning and zoning is
[34:54] going through all the steps to to make
[34:57] through to go through. But this was just
[34:59] before they even had public hearings so
[35:01] y'all would be aware of some of the
[35:03] process of what they've been working at
[35:05] thus far over a year just so you get a
[35:08] general idea.
[35:11] I I mean I just I think uh I guess too I
[35:15] just think that by the time we get those
[35:18] done it would give it allows to see the
[35:21] pros and cons how how we would benefit
[35:25] from it and what other issues it will
[35:28] possibly go. So that's what I suggested
[35:31] we start doing uh conducting feasibility
[35:34] statement that we studies that way we
[35:37] can understand better how it will affect
[35:40] our
[35:41] >> we just have to make sure we budget for
[35:44] feasibility studies in the future for
[35:49] >> yeah a little bit those don't come for
[35:53] free
[35:55] we stay with state regulations
[35:59] Yeah, neighbors will tell you what they
[36:01] like.
[36:05] >> Okay. Thank you so much for that. Since
[36:07] it's all the information, we don't have
[36:09] to go anything.
[36:11] >> We're the number five.
[36:12] >> We're up to number five. Item number
[36:14] five, considering approve of lease
[36:16] agreement with Texas Workforce Solutions
[36:18] in the city of Target for office space
[36:22] at 1505 Southport Street.
[36:27] Mayor Council, we spoke about this and
[36:28] y'all um approved going out and
[36:32] finalizing this agreement. This is the
[36:34] finalized agreement that's been reviewed
[36:36] by our attorneys, our special counsel as
[36:39] well as our workforce commission's
[36:41] attorneys. And this is the document that
[36:44] they approved. The only other
[36:46] requirement, additional requirement that
[36:48] was told to me at the meeting that y'all
[36:51] told us to do this was enter in that it
[36:53] would be for a year.
[36:55] um it would not be for more than a year
[36:58] and so on page one under terms to last
[37:00] sentence provides that this will expire
[37:05] November 30th 2026
[37:08] if council does not act then it can
[37:10] follow renew but at any point if it
[37:13] needs to be terminated it's not for any
[37:15] longer than one of time
[37:18] so we need to include that to make sure
[37:20] that we can final request
[37:26] and their and workforce commission
[37:28] resolutions and
[37:30] their attorneys and our attorneys are
[37:32] sign
[37:36] okay right now without us they'll be in
[37:38] there
[37:42] we do need a motion to approve the the
[37:44] lease agreement I make a motion to
[37:46] approve the le
[37:48] >> I guess
[37:52] on
[37:54] motion here.
[37:59] Uh item number six,
[38:03] award be gasoline diesel fuel and
[38:07] gutters.
[38:08] >> Mayor and council, there's two bids that
[38:12] we need to um approve. We'll go through
[38:16] the first one which is for our diesel
[38:18] and gasoline.
[38:20] We went through requests for proposals
[38:24] in the published in newspaper twice
[38:28] normal time plus reached out to
[38:31] other people that have bid. We received
[38:34] one bid for our
[38:37] our diesel and gasoline that was
[38:39] Crockett Farm and Fuel and it's in your
[38:42] packet with their rack prices and rates
[38:46] and um we just needed to update that
[38:50] contract.
[38:57] So, we'll need a motion to approve that
[39:01] bid. I'll make a motion to approve on
[39:03] the fuel for our second.
[39:05] >> Okay.
[39:09] >> Motion.
[39:11] >> The second is for our curb and gutter
[39:14] and concrete work in the city. Um if you
[39:18] will read the information letter on bid
[39:21] results, it's not a recommendation
[39:24] by me. It is basically giving you the
[39:26] facts of the the two bids that we
[39:29] received. The bids went out in the same
[39:31] manner. We received two bids and you
[39:35] will see those listed on the breakdown
[39:37] sheet.
[39:40] Velasquez Brothers is $27 a linear foot
[39:44] and site utilities and construction is
[39:47] $25 a linear foot where they've got
[39:50] different minimums. That's about the
[39:52] only difference there. Velasquez
[39:54] Brothers is who we've used in the past.
[39:57] We we know their track record. That's
[40:00] one thing. The other I think there's a
[40:04] opportunity there for some a new scope
[40:06] of work with that contractor. We choose
[40:09] to go with them as well. Uh Velasquez
[40:12] Brothers does purchase their materials
[40:15] locally, but neither one of them are
[40:17] local, so we can't use that. But I have
[40:22] no recommendation either way. It It's up
[40:25] to council to decide which one they
[40:26] prefer to to choose to use.
[40:30] material.
[40:31] >> Yeah, they you know Yeah, it's for
[40:34] concrete uh any concrete work we do or
[40:37] curbs and gutters on new roads.
[40:39] >> Any good recommendations?
[40:41] >> Both have good recommendation. We've
[40:43] used Velasquez Brothers for several
[40:46] years and um then we checked on site
[40:49] utilities and construction and their
[40:50] recommendations were good as well and
[40:52] and they do have a little larger scope
[40:54] of work. I mean, they're um like I said,
[40:58] it was one of those it's it's a couple
[41:01] of dollars a linear foot difference in
[41:03] price. Um but I don't think we go wrong
[41:06] with either one, but it's for you know,
[41:11] Velasquez Brothers does buy they do buy
[41:14] their materials locally. That's the only
[41:16] one thing I would say.
[41:17] >> Where would the other guys get there?
[41:19] They he basically mixes his own mixes on
[41:23] the concrete for curb and gutter.
[41:26] >> He has something called a hydroatic
[41:27] machine. It's a big mixing truck and
[41:30] they bring in raw materials from outside
[41:32] and make their own concrete
[41:34] >> on site
[41:36] and so they're saving some money that
[41:38] way.
[41:44] All right. Uh normally um I mean do do
[41:50] we exceed u
[41:56] when we do it normally how many feet I
[41:58] know that varies but minimum
[42:01] you know like one of them is minimum 200
[42:03] ft the other is 400 ft
[42:05] >> and I think that
[42:07] >> well here and I if somebody's in town
[42:11] already and we have a small job to do
[42:13] they usually mix that in with it and the
[42:15] price is about the same, but you're
[42:18] probably not going to get either one of
[42:19] them to mobilize for a small small job,
[42:23] >> you know, 200 ft. That's what they're
[42:26] basically saying is we will work it in
[42:28] when we're there, but we're not going to
[42:31] >> come all the way
[42:32] >> come all the way for one small job kind
[42:35] of thing. So,
[42:36] >> So, how what are the jobs usually run?
[42:38] >> Oh, we don't very rarely do we have the
[42:42] the minimum will be a problem. It's just
[42:44] what the when you put those RFPs out,
[42:47] you ask for anything specify.
[42:49] >> Yeah. We just want to make sure I mean I
[42:52] I think uh
[42:55] I think just saving
[42:58] two bucks is not enough not to go local
[43:00] with buying our stuff. So So
[43:05] I mean
[43:06] >> the other guys don't they don't want to
[43:07] buy local.
[43:08] >> They have it and we know what the other
[43:11] one does. I'm just giving you all the
[43:13] facts here. And I mean, they buy their
[43:15] rebar and their their concrete local. I
[43:19] mean, our
[43:20] >> That's what we're all about. Yeah. I
[43:22] think
[43:23] >> so $2 more. Well,
[43:26] >> probably buying locals, but $2 more.
[43:30] They're probably pay a little more
[43:32] concrete, but I mean, but
[43:37] the guy they're buying from here spends
[43:38] a lot a lot of money here.
[43:42] and sponsors a bunch of stuff here. So,
[43:45] $2.
[43:46] >> Okay.
[43:47] >> Two bucks.
[43:48] So,
[43:53] >> okay.
[43:56] >> We just need a motion. I'd like to make
[43:58] a motion we go with that Velasquez.
[44:01] >> Velasquez Brothers
[44:03] Construction LLC.
[44:05] >> Okay. It's been moved and second.
[44:09] All in favor?
[44:21] Okay, that brings us to
[44:32] I'm on my third.
[44:37] Okay. Item number seven. Consider and
[44:39] approve amendment number one to drinking
[44:42] water wastewater state revolving fund
[44:46] project number 63201
[44:49] engineering contract with KSA engineers
[44:53] to include Houston County water control
[44:56] an improvement district number one and
[44:58] assess management plan.
[45:02] Mayor Council, this is the uh program
[45:06] that we applied to um with the Texas
[45:09] Farm Board. We received a 70% loan
[45:12] forgiveness. It's a $4 million program
[45:15] to put in a new well is initially what
[45:18] we applied for. as the the the design
[45:21] and engineering on that has progressed
[45:23] forward. Um there has been some
[45:28] push by council to um seek what other
[45:32] options are
[45:34] um can this money be used for? And we've
[45:39] had more and more issues with the water
[45:42] control improvement district that we
[45:43] purchase water from with water quality
[45:46] concerns.
[45:47] um some of their systems are going down.
[45:51] When we're when we're building up our
[45:54] system, we rely heavily on water control
[45:57] improvement district. So we want to know
[46:02] as part of if if we included in this is
[46:05] an asset management plan for the city to
[46:07] where we go in and check every pump,
[46:09] every line of water man, the water
[46:12] towers, the wells, everything that we
[46:14] own when it comes to water and to know
[46:18] what shape it's in. How much is it going
[46:19] to cost to replace it? Where is it in
[46:22] the lifespan? Is it are we on the front
[46:24] end? Are we nearing the end? Are we far
[46:26] past the lifespan of it? And what is it?
[46:29] What is the true cost of operations?
[46:31] When we're looking at just us operating,
[46:34] we're not on an island by ourselves. We
[46:35] rely on water control improvement
[46:37] district. And we would like to know
[46:40] we're capable.
[46:41] >> What are they capable of providing? How
[46:43] long how much how many years they have
[46:46] on their lifespans of their equipment
[46:47] and their their ponds and their filters
[46:49] and their treatment systems and their
[46:51] pumps and the line coming from the lake
[46:54] and coming all the way to Crockett,
[46:56] it's it's bigger than us and we realize
[46:59] that. So, when we're doing our asset
[47:01] management plan,
[47:03] um, and we're knowing to know how to
[47:04] best spend our money, are we going to
[47:07] really look at going and and drilling
[47:09] and building and put a new well in or do
[47:12] we go back to Texas Watering Board and
[47:15] see if we can reinvest that same $4
[47:17] million into our systems and water
[47:20] control improvement district systems to
[47:23] shore up the lake
[47:26] source. So, I went to them. They're
[47:30] dealing with financial issues as well.
[47:35] The engineering estimates was 50. It's
[47:38] $80,000 for us.
[47:41] For them, it would be $50,000.
[47:44] They said they could put up $25,000
[47:47] towards that asset management plan. The
[47:49] additional $50,000 cost.
[47:52] Our engineers said they could build in
[47:53] once they mobilize for the city of
[47:55] Crockett build their program in with it.
[47:57] So our engineers will look at both ours
[47:59] and theirs as one big system to see what
[48:02] the true costs are and what we're
[48:04] looking at. So in that order we would
[48:07] pull we would share from our cost our
[48:10] contingency cost 25,000. They would
[48:13] pitch in 25,000 to cover it. I think
[48:16] we're only getting one side of the
[48:17] picture if we don't figure out how to
[48:20] incorporate their asset management plan
[48:22] with ours. Then we can bring you all as
[48:25] M said, you know, based on a feasibility
[48:29] study, what is the true cost of
[48:31] operations
[48:32] instead of being reactive, we're being
[48:34] proactive. And so
[48:37] um they they've already approved 25,000
[48:40] towards that the additional cost and our
[48:43] engineers um drafted this task order
[48:47] amendment to include the other $25,000
[48:50] out of our contingency budget.
[48:54] >> But this is required to
[48:56] >> we're going to have to assess what we
[48:58] have cuz these pipes are breaking from
[49:00] places. Every time we look up, we have
[49:02] some kind of crisis and we're we're just
[49:05] reacting,
[49:06] >> right?
[49:06] >> And then we're reacting. We digging up
[49:08] holes and trying to find stuff if we had
[49:11] a where the strength is and where the
[49:13] weakness are. And so we would actually
[49:15] know and I am aware that everything
[49:17] around here is old, including
[49:21] we're going to have to look at it
[49:23] because they keep breaking in so many
[49:25] places. I mean, things keep happening
[49:28] that we have no control over. But I
[49:30] think that would be
[49:31] >> so this amendment is for $50,000 25,000
[49:35] that will be contributed by them.
[49:38] >> Well, they're going to they're going to
[49:40] continue to go up every year.
[49:42] >> So there we have enough work we can make
[49:46] another decision but right now we don't
[49:48] know what we have to look at.
[49:49] >> And then we decide which direction.
[49:55] >> Yeah. We don't want to ever lose it. We
[49:58] like, you know,
[50:00] >> and this is a way we can find out what
[50:03] we're dealing with long term.
[50:05] >> Yeah.
[50:05] >> So, we can kind of plan for
[50:08] contingencies as as that comes along.
[50:11] >> Absolutely. Absolutely.
[50:17] >> One one street of concrete.
[50:19] >> We need access to
[50:22] like Yeah, we are.
[50:24] So where number four location?
[50:30] >> So um we had our current proposed
[50:32] location for the well is off of Stoke
[50:34] Street. We have a piece of property
[50:35] there that has been designed for the
[50:37] well. We are also looking at a alternate
[50:41] location at our east tower to provide
[50:44] additional water supply
[50:47] at our water tower source.
[50:50] uh we see that as a benefit if if we
[50:54] drill test we see which one produces
[50:56] better that's an alternate site
[51:01] so across those
[51:09] >> we do need a motion for to include the
[51:13] water control in our asset management
[51:15] plan
[51:18] we're going to move forward with
[51:26] motion.
[51:34] I'll make a motion to move forward with
[51:36] the
[51:38] plan.
[51:46] Okay.
[51:47] Okay.
[51:50] Opposation
[51:59] at this have opportunity
[52:03] that's there.
[52:09] >> Okay.
[52:10] I mean
[52:17] discussion
[52:22] >> and that's one thing we need to do is uh
[52:26] is make a motion first after that as we
[52:30] move forward. So then discuss
[52:31] >> then discuss we're 28
[52:34] >> we're to item number eight.
[52:36] >> Okay. Item number consider approved
[52:38] funding by allocation for new street
[52:40] construction by precinct.
[52:42] >> Mayor and council um we're at that point
[52:47] of the year in the budget where we need
[52:50] to
[52:52] um one Mr. [name] is here. We're going
[52:55] to kind of discuss where we are in the
[52:58] current budget with maintenance cost and
[53:02] those projections as we move forward.
[53:05] And then that total amount that'll be
[53:08] left for new construction of streets.
[53:10] We're not prioritizing the streets
[53:12] tonight. We're going to allocate how we
[53:15] spend the new construction money. And
[53:17] just to give you um this is the current
[53:21] budget for streets. As of today, the
[53:23] original amount was $574,121.
[53:29] As of now,
[53:32] what is remaining is 541 5 or 54422.
[53:40] >> I I can try
[53:43] that a little better.
[53:47] And so that's the this bottom number is
[53:50] where we are as of right now. And I'm
[53:53] going to let Mr. [name] go over and
[53:55] discuss maintenance of existing roads
[53:59] and then we will we've kind of he and I
[54:03] have discussed it and have a really good
[54:06] comprehension of where we need to be
[54:08] with the maintenance side of things and
[54:11] then give you a total number for what we
[54:14] feel will be suitable for new
[54:15] construction and then it'll be for
[54:17] council to determine how to split those
[54:20] funds up.
[54:22] Mr.
[54:23] All right. Uh, as we discussed in the
[54:26] past, uh, when we go ahead and do a new
[54:28] construction on on roads, uh, we have
[54:32] yet to set aside funds to keep those,
[54:37] uh,
[54:39] structures
[54:40] and current. Uh, we don't want to spend
[54:42] a lot of money of on new construction
[54:45] and then fail to keep it up and then
[54:48] lose what we have. So, um we're looking
[54:51] at about uh 116,64422
[54:56] would be for maintenance. That would be
[54:58] for uh taking care of those streets that
[55:01] have been done in the past and also
[55:04] other areas uh within the city that need
[55:07] some attention along with also uh we
[55:11] also have um
[55:14] we have to remove trees and stuff of
[55:16] that nature. We need to take that
[55:18] assessment in as well. We have dead
[55:20] structures. We don't want that falling
[55:22] in the roadway and causing hazards. U
[55:25] with the cost of everything that's going
[55:27] up. Well, we will take and we will
[55:30] identify those those streets or those
[55:34] segments of streets that need
[55:36] maintenance work. Some streets may need
[55:39] uh quite a bit of maintenance work. Some
[55:42] only need just small sections, but we
[55:44] want to identify those sections and
[55:47] those streets. And then what we will do,
[55:50] I have five folders set up so that
[55:52] whenever
[55:54] we go ahead and do maintenance on on
[55:56] certain streets within the precinct, I
[55:58] can keep a tally of the work that's
[56:00] being done in each precinct. uh our
[56:03] total amount of money that's going to be
[56:05] spent or has been spent as far as we and
[56:09] then when we look at our uh new
[56:12] construction, we're looking at about uh
[56:14] $425,000
[56:15] for new construction. But again, we say
[56:18] that we want to make sure that we have
[56:20] monies to take care of those structures
[56:23] and the rest of our system that is
[56:25] already in uh work to it and or the ones
[56:31] that already
[56:32] so we don't lose.
[56:36] If we continue just to build new roads
[56:39] and don't maintain the existing ones,
[56:42] we're going to be always behind because
[56:45] those ones that we've spent the dollars
[56:47] on are going to be back in the same
[56:50] shape and maintenance is pretty
[56:52] critical. The key to that is is I I
[56:56] think that that 116 is that's the best
[57:00] we can get with what we've got in the
[57:02] budget. That number could be a whole lot
[57:04] larger for maintenance without any
[57:06] question. Um, but that still leaves you
[57:10] with $425,000
[57:12] for new constructions in this budget
[57:14] year. In in the past, that that number
[57:17] has been divided between the five
[57:18] precincts equally. Um, that is that's
[57:22] council's decision how those numbers are
[57:24] split up. Mr. [name] and I's job is to
[57:27] to do the new construction that council
[57:30] deems necessary, but that's the number
[57:33] that we have that we feel like we need
[57:37] direction on how you want to divide that
[57:40] up.
[57:42] >> Well,
[57:43] my question is going to be
[57:48] um so we're only going to go 125.
[57:52] Now, if you divide if you divide
[57:55] $425,000 by five, that's $85,000 per
[57:59] precinct.
[58:00] And and if you kept the total original
[58:03] budget of 574,
[58:06] you know, that's
[58:11] 18. You're still under $125,000 then.
[58:15] And then you would be maintaining no
[58:17] roads that we've spent monies in the
[58:19] past on. And so
[58:22] I mean the only way to do more is
[58:25] increase that budget. And but but that's
[58:28] what we're working with in this fiscal
[58:30] year is that total number of 574. I
[58:33] showed you what we've already spent and
[58:35] we're 2 months in on maintenance of
[58:38] roads. And if you project that out,
[58:41] 116,000 is barely enough for the
[58:44] maintenance side. And then you've got
[58:46] $425,000 left for new construction. And
[58:50] so that's what we have to work with.
[58:52] >> I think that when they when you look at
[58:54] new construction, you have to really uh
[58:56] take a good evaluation of what's
[58:58] prioritiz and not what's most but
[59:01] prioritized and really get down to to
[59:04] the cut of what each precinct really
[59:07] needs to
[59:10] >> and and let me explain this part. Like I
[59:12] said, tonight's not prioritization of of
[59:14] the roads we're going to put in new
[59:16] construction. It's for us
[59:19] to get direction from council of how
[59:22] that money is going to be split up. And
[59:24] then between now and the time that we
[59:26] prioritize the roads with each
[59:28] individual council member, you will have
[59:30] that number. We will have figures for
[59:32] you based on roads. And one thing you'll
[59:35] notice is yes, mileage of roads is
[59:39] different than the total square footage
[59:40] of roads. You can have maybe more miles
[59:44] of road, but if that road's an extra 10
[59:46] ft wide, it still requires more material
[59:50] in that. And so we have to figure the
[59:52] surface area we're doing when we
[59:54] prioritize those roads as well. So, like
[59:58] I said, once we get the allocation that
[1:00:02] y'all set tonight, then we'll prioritize
[1:00:05] the roads and you'll be able to go
[1:00:07] through and prioritize where you think
[1:00:09] that money is best spent. And so, that's
[1:00:12] what we're trying to do tonight so we
[1:00:14] can work with you to prioritize those
[1:00:16] streets.
[1:00:18] Well, this is my question and I know
[1:00:21] I've been doing research is I want to
[1:00:24] know why is it that we only get $125,000
[1:00:32] when um there was $5
[1:00:36] million allocated to two precincts that
[1:00:41] I do know of. Um, and I will I'm going
[1:00:44] to get you to explain this to the
[1:00:47] council.
[1:00:49] And then also there's a text grant of um
[1:00:55] 6 million. So I don't know if that $5
[1:00:57] million was taken out of the six or
[1:01:01] what, but there's $5 million in some
[1:01:05] chain u that was spent on streets in a
[1:01:10] couple precincts. And I know that group
[1:01:13] nine was the one. I'm really concerned
[1:01:16] about how
[1:01:18] uh their got done and I was not invest.
[1:01:24] >> Well, this this was actually those uh
[1:01:28] state infrastructure
[1:01:31] after all. This was not out of the city.
[1:01:34] >> City budget. This was uh money that were
[1:01:37] received for the infrastructure along
[1:01:40] with the service being done.
[1:01:42] >> Those are two separate things.
[1:01:43] >> What I was trying to say was my
[1:01:45] understanding is I was told that we had
[1:01:47] uh Cedar Street on on my side of town as
[1:01:51] a SIB U MLK SIB but MLK only got
[1:01:58] partial. So I'm trying to figure out why
[1:02:01] everything else how the other guest I
[1:02:03] needs got done and MLK and we've still
[1:02:06] been in a heart on that and cuz I have
[1:02:09] people asking me why MK was undone from
[1:02:12] start to finish and my understanding is
[1:02:15] that I explained to me that grants when
[1:02:18] a grant is received for a road that
[1:02:22] grant fixes that road that whole room
[1:02:26] but it was not completed
[1:02:28] as far as MLK it was cost funds that's
[1:02:31] that's as far as the funds would go. So
[1:02:35] we look at it on there on this sheet is
[1:02:37] MFK on there and some other
[1:02:41] so when we apply for it what do they
[1:02:44] >> again I think we're getting a little bit
[1:02:46] off the agenda
[1:02:47] >> we're talking about
[1:02:48] >> no we're talking about that's not
[1:02:50] allocating money
[1:02:52] >> but that's money that's not there to be
[1:02:54] allocated
[1:02:58] and what 6 million what we got $6
[1:03:00] million from the
[1:03:02] >> item is allocated the money
[1:03:05] >> current in the current budget.
[1:03:08] >> But that's what I'm asking.
[1:03:10] >> That's not in the current budget. We
[1:03:11] need to work on
[1:03:14] >> Yes.
[1:03:16] >> I I haven't seen that sheet, so I I I
[1:03:18] don't know what's in there, but the
[1:03:20] matter at hand is is we need to have a
[1:03:23] motion on the allocation of the funds
[1:03:28] that are in the current budget that
[1:03:30] we're in right now. And that's not it's
[1:03:33] what we have on hand.
[1:03:35] >> Correct. City funds. I'm not so
[1:03:42] state infrastructure.
[1:03:44] Yes, sir. Basically, majority was used
[1:03:48] in couple precincts. It was not mine.
[1:03:51] >> It was those preced.
[1:03:56] >> Okay. Right. So, we need a a motion. I
[1:03:59] need council's direction on how we
[1:04:00] allocate the 425,000 for new
[1:04:03] construction.
[1:04:04] >> We should take into consideration Mr.
[1:04:06] [name].
[1:04:08] >> I agree 100%. We'll go by what Mr. [name]
[1:04:13] suggests. He He's our shitty street man.
[1:04:16] We We go by what we hired him to do it.
[1:04:18] We go by what he says. If he wants
[1:04:21] something thousand to maintain, I think
[1:04:23] we do it and and spend the rest on city
[1:04:27] streets. Did we divide go? Did we divide
[1:04:31] that 425 equally amongst precincts? I
[1:04:34] agree.
[1:04:34] >> My question is on the on the dividing
[1:04:37] the 425 amongst precincts is that you
[1:04:40] all they remember they redistricted.
[1:04:43] >> Yes ma'am. And I have that information
[1:04:45] up here to redistricting to increase my
[1:04:48] precinct. If you look up you increase my
[1:04:50] precinct. You increase if you increased
[1:04:52] it with precinct 2. And you have with uh
[1:04:55] precede two residents that are coming to
[1:04:58] me because their streets have not been
[1:05:00] prepared. And they stated that they
[1:05:02] called here to the city and talked to
[1:05:05] the previous administrator and they were
[1:05:07] being promised every
[1:05:09] >> budget time that those are going to be
[1:05:11] completed. Okay. Again, we're that's not
[1:05:15] what we're discussing here and and so
[1:05:19] and we need to
[1:05:20] >> we are discussing trying to figure out
[1:05:21] how to
[1:05:22] >> right.
[1:05:24] >> Okay. Well, I think that's my
[1:05:26] >> is that a motion, Mr. [name]?
[1:05:27] >> Yes, it is.
[1:05:36] >> Exactly.
[1:05:40] um things that I I don't want to be out
[1:05:42] of order or anything, but I'm I'm just
[1:05:44] trying to think of um if if there could
[1:05:47] be like anything anything mentioned to
[1:05:50] whereas
[1:05:52] um how these funds are allocated for
[1:05:54] said for our precincts, could there be u
[1:05:58] could there be allocation for monies
[1:06:00] that are left over to be used for other
[1:06:02] prec
[1:06:05] I would that would be a great concept.
[1:06:08] cept and and yes we can that is possible
[1:06:11] but I can I can pull up here let me show
[1:06:15] you real quick
[1:06:17] >> but we have a motion
[1:06:22] >> we already have
[1:06:24] >> yes we can
[1:06:25] >> yeah we have a motion on the floor and
[1:06:28] it's already we have a second
[1:06:31] >> okay are we ready for the vote all in
[1:06:35] favor
[1:06:37] All oppose.
[1:06:43] Okay. So, that brings us to the next
[1:06:44] item.
[1:06:51] Okay. Item number
[1:06:55] nine. I don't mind. Okay. Item number
[1:06:58] nine. consider an approved list of items
[1:07:00] to be declared as surplus and auction or
[1:07:03] to be scrapped.
[1:07:06] >> Yes, ma'am. Mayor, council, I'm
[1:07:08] scrolling down to it. I know it was a
[1:07:11] thick packet, but basically, we have
[1:07:14] some equipment that u
[1:07:18] that the city mechanic and I have looked
[1:07:22] at and you've got a listing there.
[1:07:24] There's 11 items um things that uh no
[1:07:30] longer
[1:07:32] cost effective to keep in the fleet to
[1:07:35] keep using. And so um and so we're
[1:07:40] trying to
[1:07:43] basically declare them surplus so we can
[1:07:46] then turn around and auction and or
[1:07:48] scrap those items and um those and
[1:07:52] receive those funds back.
[1:07:55] And I'll be happy to answer any
[1:07:57] questions best I can about any of the
[1:08:00] items listed there of what the problems
[1:08:02] are. Well, when we receive those funds
[1:08:05] back, how do we how do we use that?
[1:08:06] >> Well, there is a line for uh items that
[1:08:10] have been surplused or sold and and
[1:08:13] again, it's a revenue that, uh, council
[1:08:17] makes, uh, can have that decision of
[1:08:21] where those monies go. And so, um,
[1:08:26] that's what happens to the money.
[1:08:33] So when you take these off, you have
[1:08:34] item numbers, you bid numbers and all
[1:08:38] that.
[1:08:38] >> Yes, ma'am. Yes. That these were just uh
[1:08:42] we took pictures to show you what all of
[1:08:44] them are. I can pull up the the the log
[1:08:47] that's got bin numbers. That's not a
[1:08:49] problem.
[1:08:53] >> Uh some are, some are not. Um, like this
[1:08:57] one, if you'll see right up at the top,
[1:09:00] we'd have to put a new clutch in that
[1:09:01] one for it to be operable.
[1:09:05] This one, um, we spent some dollars on,
[1:09:09] but there's something in the electronics
[1:09:11] and it still is misfiring and it's been
[1:09:14] to cut shaws, whatever else. And we're
[1:09:17] just, this one, the agitator and the
[1:09:19] augur inoperable.
[1:09:22] Um,
[1:09:24] inoperable hydraulics.
[1:09:26] Um, and and you can tell this is a
[1:09:31] pretty new acquisition we have here.
[1:09:36] We're use that for a water truck of all
[1:09:38] things. And so, and now the truck's
[1:09:41] giving us trouble. So, we're kind of out
[1:09:44] on that. So, like I said,
[1:09:47] these are just items that the this is a
[1:09:51] money pit right here. And so, it's just
[1:09:55] things that the city doesn't need to
[1:09:57] spend any more dollars on.
[1:10:01] >> Lights working on that one.
[1:10:03] >> Yeah, the lights do work.
[1:10:11] >> I'll make a motion to shoot this stuff
[1:10:12] out.
[1:10:14] Okay, second
[1:10:18] motion here.
[1:10:22] All right, brings us to
[1:10:26] item number 10. Um considering approve
[1:10:29] an ordinance amending the code of
[1:10:31] audience city of Park, Texas by the
[1:10:34] amendment of chapter 13 license and
[1:10:37] business regulation are replacing and
[1:10:39] leis
[1:10:41] of the entire special events and block
[1:10:45] party orders in its entirety. Uh
[1:10:48] providing definitions, permitting
[1:10:50] requirements, distance and impact
[1:10:53] standards,
[1:10:57] condition of approval of insurance
[1:11:01] andification,
[1:11:05] denial and replication, procedures,
[1:11:08] penalties, set of billing calls, and
[1:11:11] providing
[1:11:14] >> Mayor and council. Um, this item is on
[1:11:18] the agenda. It's been brought before
[1:11:20] council a time or two in the past. Um, I
[1:11:24] think as you
[1:11:27] study the
[1:11:30] and pay attention to what other cities
[1:11:32] are seeing as well as um the world we
[1:11:36] live in. This is one of those things
[1:11:38] that I think in a measure of being
[1:11:40] proactive, we need to kind of get ahead
[1:11:43] of the game of of having a plan in place
[1:11:47] and and the reality of of this ordinance
[1:11:51] is in itself for us to be prepared. It's
[1:11:55] not to limit block parties. It's not to
[1:11:58] limit people from having that
[1:12:00] availability. It is simply more a factor
[1:12:04] of us one knowing it's going to happen,
[1:12:08] two having resources available if
[1:12:11] needed. And and so with that in mind,
[1:12:14] the chief and I have discussed it. I'm
[1:12:16] going to let him make a short
[1:12:18] presentation at this time.
[1:12:23] >> Mayor, council, city administrator.
[1:12:27] As Mr. [name] was saying we the city
[1:12:29] doesn't currently have an ordinance in
[1:12:31] place that addresses special events or
[1:12:34] block party. A lot of cities our size
[1:12:36] and a lot of cities much larger than us
[1:12:38] have went to a docking ordinance. Um
[1:12:42] just like you said to give us an idea
[1:12:44] number one that there's an event going
[1:12:46] on. It's not to shut it down or to stop
[1:12:48] it or tell somebody they can't have an
[1:12:50] event, but it's more so to let us know,
[1:12:52] hey, we're going to have an event at
[1:12:54] this location. we're expecting this many
[1:12:56] people. Currently, what we face is we're
[1:13:00] getting calls in reference to block
[1:13:02] party and when we show up on scene, we
[1:13:06] have entire city streets that are
[1:13:07] blocked. Um, citizens driveways. Uh,
[1:13:11] we're receiving complaints of loud
[1:13:13] music. Um, most recently, uh, we got
[1:13:16] called out at 4:45 in the morning
[1:13:18] because it was party still going on and
[1:13:21] the neighbors were upset about it. So, I
[1:13:23] think having this ordinance in place,
[1:13:25] just like you said, doesn't stop us or
[1:13:27] stop our citizens from having it. It
[1:13:29] just gives them some guidelines to go by
[1:13:31] to let us know, hey, this event's going
[1:13:33] on. We, as the citizens putting this
[1:13:36] home, we understand that we can't block
[1:13:37] driveways. We can't block city streets.
[1:13:40] Um,
[1:13:42] and we're responsible for this event.
[1:13:45] So, um, just a few things that I'll
[1:13:48] touch on that that may be of concern. uh
[1:13:51] permit fee. Um there's no fee required
[1:13:55] for a citizen to come in and get a a
[1:13:58] permit to have a special event or block
[1:14:01] party. Um I know in part of that wording
[1:14:04] it says it refers to the city's fee
[1:14:06] ordinance. Well, if you refer the city's
[1:14:08] fee ordinance, there's no fee for that
[1:14:11] ordinance. So if there ever were to be a
[1:14:13] fee, uh the council would have to set
[1:14:17] that. So there's no charge for someone
[1:14:19] coming in and saying, "Hey, Mr. family,
[1:14:21] Chief [name]. We're going to have a block
[1:14:23] party next weekend. This is where it's
[1:14:25] going to be. There's no need for that.
[1:14:27] It just gives us the information to know
[1:14:29] that this person is having this party.
[1:14:33] This is the location. They thought about
[1:14:34] parking. They talked to their neighbors.
[1:14:36] So, there's no complaints and no issues.
[1:14:38] So, uh that's really one of the main
[1:14:40] things that I felt that we needed to
[1:14:42] touch on. Um the fee or the application
[1:14:47] uh should be filed at least 30 days in
[1:14:49] advance. So, if it is going to be a
[1:14:51] larger event and we need to try to
[1:14:53] schedule more officers or we need to
[1:14:55] meet uh with the citizens that are
[1:14:57] putting this event on to come up with a
[1:14:59] safety plan, we have time to do so. So
[1:15:03] um I'll take any questions you may have
[1:15:05] on
[1:15:06] >> um so with that being said there would
[1:15:10] there be like just for like um
[1:15:13] violations for not having such permit or
[1:15:16] there is so at the uh and I didn't I
[1:15:19] didn't call attention to that. I
[1:15:20] apologize. Uh penalty for a violation of
[1:15:23] that for not getting that ordinance or
[1:15:26] not getting that permit or not notifying
[1:15:28] us or not following those specific
[1:15:31] guidelines uh would be a class C. Mr.
[1:15:34] Mayor, a ticketable offense. It's a an
[1:15:36] ordinance for the city. Um obviously
[1:15:39] that's officer discretion. That doesn't
[1:15:41] mean that everybody's going to get a
[1:15:43] ticket. They could get a verbal warning
[1:15:44] or red warning. We don't do verbal
[1:15:46] warnings, but they can get a written
[1:15:47] warning the first time. If it continues
[1:15:50] to be a problem, then we would likely
[1:15:51] escalate that into a citation.
[1:15:53] >> Is there a limit on how many blockers
[1:15:55] you can have?
[1:15:57] >> I don't recall there being any any
[1:15:59] guideline here at specific number.
[1:16:02] >> If each has a 30-day notice,
[1:16:05] >> it does say that a 30-day notice.
[1:16:07] >> Is that each one of them can say, "Hey,
[1:16:09] I'm giving you a 30-day notice on every
[1:16:11] one of this month." The way I the way I
[1:16:13] inter it was required
[1:16:17] before the event before the event
[1:16:19] >> for each event
[1:16:22] heard say no extra officers. So that
[1:16:25] would require extra payment for extra
[1:16:28] hours. Who would be responsible for
[1:16:30] that? Currently, uh right now, like all
[1:16:33] other events, uh it comes out of our
[1:16:34] overtime budget. Uh for events such as
[1:16:38] the magnitude of breaks that we have in
[1:16:40] the city, uh it comes out of our
[1:16:42] overtime budget. Uh Christmas and
[1:16:44] Crockett and overtime budget. So, uh
[1:16:48] kind of up to us to adjust that and
[1:16:50] determine just what we need. Now, if it
[1:16:52] were a really large event, that may be
[1:16:54] something that that they would have to
[1:16:56] consider hiring security for off duty to
[1:16:59] uh, you know, if I may used to have to
[1:17:02] do that,
[1:17:03] >> right? And if I may interject, speaking
[1:17:05] of parades and how that relates to this
[1:17:09] and the pre-planning part, any parades
[1:17:12] or anything we have now, it is a
[1:17:15] requirement that we pre-plan with any
[1:17:18] organizers of the parades for traffic
[1:17:21] control, for everything else. We we've
[1:17:24] just taken that standard around here of
[1:17:26] pre-planning and afteraction reviews for
[1:17:29] events. And and I think that's what this
[1:17:32] ordinance is designed to do as well is
[1:17:35] to allow us to provide for the citizens
[1:17:37] in case of an emergency. We have to plan
[1:17:40] for worst cases all the time. We don't
[1:17:43] want to think like that, but that's the
[1:17:45] reality of the world we live in.
[1:17:47] >> I think to touch on what you said, I
[1:17:49] think the days of oh that'll never
[1:17:51] happen here or
[1:17:53] >> I think I think we always have to
[1:17:55] prepare. We always have to be prepared.
[1:17:57] And that's one reason we started doing
[1:17:59] just what Mr. Chan said on all events we
[1:18:01] meet prior to we discuss the safety plan
[1:18:04] and uh that gives us the information we
[1:18:07] need to go back and and determine how
[1:18:09] many officers, how many of the fire
[1:18:11] department, how many work members
[1:18:13] insurance
[1:18:14] >> to do that properly and safely.
[1:18:16] >> What about insurance?
[1:18:19] No request requiring insurance when you
[1:18:22] have a special event.
[1:18:26] >> I think a lot of that had to do because
[1:18:29] um if if there's property damage, if if
[1:18:32] there's street sign, city streets,
[1:18:35] manhole covers, uh something of that
[1:18:37] nature, someone has to be responsible
[1:18:39] for that. And I don't think that I think
[1:18:42] it's much cheaper for the citizen
[1:18:45] putting on the event to take out an
[1:18:47] insurance policy for that day or that
[1:18:49] event and having to pay out saying that
[1:18:53] uh I think the uh the language is a
[1:18:55] little vague in there about event. So
[1:18:58] what are you considering an event that
[1:19:01] you have to give up? So,
[1:19:04] is your policy that I believe it's a
[1:19:08] million? You don't have access to our
[1:19:11] policy and it's a million dollar.
[1:19:12] >> It's a million dollars. Anybody that
[1:19:14] rents the million would cost
[1:19:16] >> I can speak from from the county fair.
[1:19:20] We have to get one uh for a week long
[1:19:23] event. It cost us $126 for 1 million.
[1:19:27] >> 1 million. That's for the full week. So
[1:19:29] that tells me someone who has come to
[1:19:32] South.
[1:19:34] So if he happens to put on a ro he has
[1:19:37] to come up here, let you guys know and
[1:19:40] he needs to get a What is it?
[1:19:43] >> That's not a block.
[1:19:44] >> No. So we just talking about block.
[1:19:46] That's saying you said you asking at
[1:19:48] your home at his own at on y'all's
[1:19:52] private property.
[1:19:53] >> That's the key. Private property. Now,
[1:19:55] if your event is going to spill out into
[1:19:57] the public
[1:19:58] >> or you're going to be parking on public
[1:20:00] street side of the roadway, blocking
[1:20:02] neighbor driveway,
[1:20:04] >> then it turns to a special event. That's
[1:20:07] [segment omitted]
[1:20:09] to park outside on the street, then he
[1:20:12] has to get what a million dollar
[1:20:14] insurance fun if if you're going to be
[1:20:17] uh parking on the public
[1:20:20] rideway or in that case that particular
[1:20:22] location will be the state rideway. So
[1:20:24] maybe I'm on different ball game.
[1:20:26] >> So my next question is why would I get
[1:20:29] insurance policy or someone acting out
[1:20:32] someone else acting out of character and
[1:20:34] I have to respond?
[1:20:36] >> Well, we well that's anytime you put
[1:20:39] that you're accepting that liability
[1:20:42] >> because I mean if you at the civic
[1:20:45] center there is a liability policy you
[1:20:48] have to pay for or you don't get the
[1:20:50] civic center.
[1:20:51] >> Okay. So if you just say if I mean
[1:20:53] that's one aspect. So if they're at our
[1:20:55] house that I work around and people are
[1:20:58] parked outside on the city on the state
[1:21:01] cuz he's in I got to get a million
[1:21:03] dollar um insurance and someone happens
[1:21:08] to act out
[1:21:10] we don't know anything about
[1:21:14] we don't know anything about it. Right.
[1:21:16] So why would I be held responsible for
[1:21:19] it? can get hurt though.
[1:21:23] Listen to me. I've been down that road.
[1:21:26] Somebody can get hurt at your event by
[1:21:28] by someone else. Uh or someone else
[1:21:31] could get hurt by someone at your event.
[1:21:34] Then there could be a lawsuit. Okay. So
[1:21:37] everybody,
[1:21:37] >> we're in such a latigious society
[1:21:39] nowadays that you can get sued for
[1:21:41] walking down the street.
[1:21:42] >> So this how this is leaving.
[1:21:47] Let's let's talk about a million dollar
[1:21:49] policy.
[1:21:50] >> That makes it sound really expensive,
[1:21:52] but a million dollar liability insurance
[1:21:55] policy for a one night event, you're
[1:21:58] looking at the average of $25 to $75 for
[1:22:01] that event. And number two, we talk
[1:22:04] about um who's responsible. If I'm
[1:22:07] hosting the event, um the best way I can
[1:22:10] describe that is I've got 14 officers
[1:22:12] that work under my command. If they make
[1:22:15] a really bad mistake, y'all are not
[1:22:17] going to look at them. You're going to
[1:22:18] look at me because I'm their leader. I'm
[1:22:20] the one in charge of them. I'm the one
[1:22:22] responsible for them. So, whoever's
[1:22:25] responsible for those events should be
[1:22:27] held liable should be responsible for
[1:22:30] what's going on.
[1:22:30] >> I think everyone should be responsible.
[1:22:35] >> And if the chief's through with his if
[1:22:37] the chief's through with his
[1:22:38] presentation, I'm not done.
[1:22:39] >> Well, we need to have a motion to
[1:22:41] discuss. I'm not done for you. I'm not
[1:22:43] done. Okay.
[1:22:44] >> Well, I make a motion we move on
[1:22:46] previous
[1:22:48] motion.
[1:22:48] >> I a motion to that. Yeah.
[1:22:51] >> Yeah. I have a motion. You can't just
[1:22:53] move to person.
[1:22:56] But uh according to But anyway,
[1:23:00] according to section of the city,
[1:23:06] >> he can't
[1:23:08] move.
[1:23:09] >> Well, no. Actually, we have to have a
[1:23:11] motion on the floor for the previous
[1:23:12] question. We have to have a motion.
[1:23:16] >> I got a question
[1:23:18] be considered like as a as a block party
[1:23:21] like the amount of people
[1:23:25] >> in terms of
[1:23:28] what would you consider like a block
[1:23:30] party like
[1:23:32] >> you know instead of just a gathering you
[1:23:35] know just people gathering. So I'll read
[1:23:37] the exact um
[1:23:47] special events uh which are covered in
[1:23:49] block are temporary activities that may
[1:23:52] involve gatherings of people, vehicles,
[1:23:55] vendors or equipment on public streets,
[1:23:58] sidewalks, parks or public places and
[1:24:02] may require coordination with city
[1:24:04] departments to ensure public health and
[1:24:06] safety. Uh special events may include
[1:24:08] festivals, block parties, uh parades,
[1:24:11] athletic events, concert, celebration,
[1:24:14] and other promotional activities. No
[1:24:16] special event shall occur in whole park
[1:24:19] on public property without permission
[1:24:22] from this section. So any large
[1:24:25] gathering at a uh residence that spills
[1:24:29] into the public or substantially
[1:24:32] uh prevents the flow of public free
[1:24:34] movement, blocking city streets,
[1:24:37] blocking driveways, uh that's considered
[1:24:39] a special event or block party.
[1:24:41] >> So the the east the the trick-or- treat
[1:24:43] event that goes on here to see how we
[1:24:46] manage that the what
[1:24:48] >> the trick-or- treat event that goes on
[1:24:51] over
[1:24:53] the they have a trick-or-treating event
[1:24:54] in certain um communities and they park
[1:24:59] out on side road and
[1:25:03] >> so we actually have to deal with that.
[1:25:06] Um there's that's not a sponsored event.
[1:25:08] No one's putting that on.
[1:25:10] >> You have you have a community that puts
[1:25:12] that on. No.
[1:25:12] >> So when you have committed community put
[1:25:15] that on and publicized it.
[1:25:18] >> I've never seen the state publicized
[1:25:22] where they
[1:25:24] coordinate with us. Uh we shut down
[1:25:27] traffic. We provide officers. To my
[1:25:29] knowledge they don't have
[1:25:31] >> well we haven't had this ordinance
[1:25:33] before.
[1:25:34] >> Now they will they will now question
[1:25:37] too. So, uh, the Hispanic Hispanic
[1:25:41] herist,
[1:25:42] >> they'll have to pay the they have to get
[1:25:45] the insurance as well.
[1:25:47] >> Yes. This ordinance has passed. Yes,
[1:25:49] that's what
[1:25:50] >> Now, there's another question I do have
[1:25:52] have to ask real quick is that the
[1:25:54] charter states that the parks and
[1:25:56] recreation would be submit uh ordinances
[1:26:00] or submit and work with the community to
[1:26:04] benefit every community to uh get an
[1:26:09] understanding of how they would uh move
[1:26:12] around the process of events and things
[1:26:16] like that. I I'm not sure what the
[1:26:18] charge is,
[1:26:21] >> but this
[1:26:24] passion
[1:26:27] we approve.
[1:26:29] We approve the
[1:26:31] make a motion we approve the
[1:26:32] >> I make a motion that we do not approve
[1:26:35] this ordinance.
[1:26:38] >> I'll make a motion we approve the
[1:26:39] ordinance.
[1:26:40] >> No, he said it first.
[1:26:46] Now he got to see if he's getting the
[1:26:47] second.
[1:26:47] >> He didn't start.
[1:26:48] >> He did. He said it first.
[1:26:49] >> I didn't see that motion. He had a
[1:26:51] motion on the floor to go to his what
[1:26:54] the first question.
[1:26:57] >> He's got a motion. He's got a motion to
[1:26:59] approve the ordinance. Do we have a
[1:27:00] second?
[1:27:01] >> That was a second.
[1:27:04] >> We have a motion and a second. Now it's
[1:27:06] open for discussion.
[1:27:08] >> Okay. Open for discussion. Okay. My my
[1:27:11] sense is that I I did speak with some of
[1:27:13] my sub constituents and they did feel
[1:27:16] like that um that they were uh the
[1:27:20] residents were uh being treated
[1:27:22] disparity uh unfair uh that they were
[1:27:26] just parting the black party issue
[1:27:29] because I did see the film the video and
[1:27:32] only and the thing is is I asked for
[1:27:35] data which we we don't have any data of
[1:27:38] any complaints any data have any
[1:27:40] incidents reported. I don't have
[1:27:43] complaints any complaint call sheets. Um
[1:27:46] the wording was very vague. Uh there's
[1:27:49] no appeal process. Also, what um I'm
[1:27:52] concerned about is that the city manager
[1:27:56] and the chief of police has the
[1:27:58] authority to say yes or no. So that
[1:28:03] means that they don't have an appeal
[1:28:05] process. So, what would be their appeal
[1:28:07] process if they don't agree with your
[1:28:10] decision to allow them to have it or
[1:28:12] not? Okay. First of all, let me let me
[1:28:15] address one thing you said which I take
[1:28:17] great offense to being you in my office
[1:28:20] last week and none of this come up.
[1:28:23] >> I I would be more than happy if there's
[1:28:25] a complaint from a citizen to address it
[1:28:27] and we make those policies very clear.
[1:28:30] >> Um, so that that's very upsetting
[1:28:33] relationship and I had I think
[1:28:38] now we have the previous question. We
[1:28:40] had a previous question.
[1:28:43] >> At this time,
[1:28:44] >> we're not you would made a statement
[1:28:48] statement over
[1:28:50] >> the previous question.
[1:28:52] >> The previous question and then you go
[1:28:54] back.
[1:28:54] >> You vote for the previous question.
[1:28:55] >> For the previous question, I got that
[1:28:57] here.
[1:28:58] >> All of everybody in favor of the
[1:28:59] previous question.
[1:29:01] >> Okay.
[1:29:03] Oppose.
[1:29:05] Okay. Motion carries. Now you vote on
[1:29:08] the approving the order.
[1:29:10] >> Okay. Now we're up to the all in favor
[1:29:13] of the audience.
[1:29:14] >> I'll make a motion. We approve. We
[1:29:16] already did. We're just voting now.
[1:29:21] >> We're vote. You're voting on
[1:29:25] >> four
[1:29:27] oppos.
[1:29:32] Okay.
[1:29:40] Yeah.
[1:29:44] Heat.
