City Council - Regular Meeting

call the regular meeting of the San Marcos City Council to order. Today is Tuesday, May 16th of 2023. The time is 6 p.m. Mr. Vigneault, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. Prather. Here. Mr. Scott. Here. Mr. Gleason. Here. Mayor Houston.

Here.

Ms. Garza. Here. Mr. Gonzalez. Here. Mr. Mendoza. Here. We have a quorum present.

Tonight our invocation is being given by Lancifer Longinus, I hope I pronounced that right, co-congregation head of the Satanic Temple.

Let us stand now unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful mind in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the tree of knowledge and dissipate our blissful and conforming delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of one or all. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is done, hail Satan.

Next, we will have our pledges of allegiance to the United States and to Texas.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Next is our citizen comment time period. The City Council welcomes speakers at work sessions and regular meetings. Persons wishing to speak during the citizen comment portion of a regular meeting must sign up at the City Clerk's office prior to 5.45 p.m. or if they want to be online, email citizencomment at sanmarcostx.gov prior to noon and a call-in number and link are provided. Speakers may speak once during the citizen comment time period and may not yield time to others. If you speak about a public hearing topic, we ask that you not repeat the same comments again during the public hearing on the same topic. You have three minutes to speak when you state your name. A timer is displayed on the screen here and here. You start in the green and the countdown begins. When you get to yellow, you have 20 seconds left, so it's time to wrap up. When the timer is red, your turn to speak is up. The mayor and council will endeavor to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. I will call out a number of names if y'all would be ready to speak. I'll call the first five. We have a David, and I hope I get your name right. If I don't, I'm sorry. David Boga, Debbie Adams, Tristan Cleave, Dustin Enderman, Jim Davis. And David Boga will be first. And the timer starts when you state your name.

My name is David Boga. And I do have some documents that reference what I'm going to be speaking about as far as a YouTube site and a book. And I'm going to give you these documents after the talk. But what I want to address tonight is the Satanic Temple's Seven Tenets of Belief. And I want to address the fact that there is a video in which Lucian Graves, their co-founder, discusses what he did after confrontation with a Baptist minister. He found the minister's mother's grave site and held what he describes as a homoerotic ritual, after which he declared her a lesbian in the afterlife. He then exposed himself and rubbed his testicles on her headstone. They have their own definition of compassion and tolerance. As far as them not believing in the supernatural, the name Lansifer Ilogis Longinus, which refers to Lanzifer is, Lanzifer Longinus basically is the lance of destiny, which is supposed to have magical powers. It's a spirit that was thrust into Christ's side to see if he was dead. Longinus is specifically the name that they gave to the Roman soldier who did this. Elogus is a demon. One of his names is commander of Beelzebub's armies who personifies war and conflict. In their April menstruating with Satan campaign, they had tampons dropped off at three local sites. One site on their website identifies as witches who teach sex magic, spell work, and how to channel spirits. They use magic witch okay, which pagans use to differentiate real magic from stage magic. Another one sells occult items and identifies as a vampire parlor. What I will cite is excerpts from a book written by one of their chapter leaders who writes, we love deviancy and lust in the book on page 138. She states that she has studied the occult for years and borrows from Aleister Crowley, who's been called the most evil man who has ever lived. They refer in Latin to Satan as our Greek god Satan and ask, would Satan revive us in their rituals? yet they say they do not believe in the deity. The excerpts from a 2017 ritual show urine being poured over a naked man who's supposed to represent the wafer used in Christian communion, and it gets worse as wafers are placed in his buttocks, reference page 97-98. In the Yule Goat ritual, which starts on page 131, A goat skull stuffed with pages of the Bible was consecrated with blood and burned. In the First Amendment's original intent, I don't believe this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind for freedom of religion. This is the same group who are trying to start after-school Satan clubs. I don't believe they should be allowed to give an invocation and a seat of power, and I don't believe they should be allowed to teach children. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Debbie Adams.

My name is Debbie Adams. I'm here with a group of citizens to speak with you because we're concerned with the growing political influence and pressure that Mano Amigos wheels over members of the Hays County leadership and the city council. We want the city council members and every citizen to know that there is more to Mano Amigos' story that they aren't telling you, and that we've uncovered information that we believe you must consider before you deliver any policy recommendations made by Mano Amigos. Because the policy changes they want you to implement will affect every citizen in the city, not just the ones that yelled the loudest, and we all have a say in these matters. And what I hope you come away with is understanding that what Mono Amigos is doing is employing lawfare against our government officials in order to implement policies that usurp state law and cater to a Marxist agenda that they don't share publicly. That slowly and systematically they are changing numerous policies with a stealthy endgame in mind that they're not even going to disclose to you. That tonight they are going to wield pressure against you to get you to assist them as they look to hinder our police officers and destroy officer morale. What you and the rest of the county need to wake up to is the fact that the policies they're influencing are likely going to lead to harmful results for Hays County and its residents in the years ahead. Mono Amigos fights for these policy recommendations on behalf of their stakeholders and the donors that funded their policy change initiatives, but who are not members of this community and who they never tell you about. And you have to understand who those stakeholders are and what they expect to get for the millions of dollars they have donated. I am concerned that the only stakeholders that should be implementing policy changes in Hays County are its residents, the people that live here, who vote here, and who pay taxes here, not someone back in New York, California, or DC. I hope that you understand that it's irresponsible for public officials to force citizens to live with policy changes that are rooted in a dangerous philosophical ideology without placing those policy initiatives on a ballot for all citizens to have a say in the matter. For the past 16 months, we have watched their activism here in the City Council as well as over in Commissioner's Court. We paid close attention to their policy initiatives, especially those that will impact the safety of our citizens or dictate how taxpayer money is being spent. And what we concluded is that we're not comfortable with the outside influence Mono Amigos and the donors have over our city or our county. Especially when it comes to how we police our community, about our jail population and their hyper fixation on seeing our jails emptied back into the streets. or about their policy proposals that reduce arrests for petty crimes, eliminate cash bail, or that endorse a refusal to prosecute entire categories of criminal offenses as they have done. All of this got us wondering how a group like Manos Amigas came to wield such power and influence over our political landscape in just six years. So we looked into them, and tonight you're going to see what we've uncovered. Those that speak after me will tell you about Mono Amigas, how they're so well organized, and about who's paying their bills to do the work they're doing. You didn't really think this was a group of do-gooders whose mission was simply done out of goodwill, did you? Mono Amigas is well-funded and well-organized because of the people who want power and influence over Hayes County, made sure of it, and it's time everyone knows about it. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tristan Cleave.

Have handouts for the council?

If you'll hand them to the clerk, please, sir.

Council, my name is Tristan Cleave, and I'm here to tell you what I know about Mono Amigas and what we think that they're up to. If you read their website, they appear at first glance to be a well-intended group of freedom-focused young people that are vigorously exercising their voices. They're highly engaged and laser-focused on accomplishing their agenda. But what agenda is that exactly? Well, their stated mission according to their Twitter profile is that they are a grassroots community organization in Hays County advocating for the rights of free movement of people of color and immigrants. While that sounds noble on its face, it came to news to me to learn that people of color and legal immigrants living here in Hays County are not permitted to move about freely. Council members, are you aware of any restrictions that prohibit the movement of black and brown citizens or for those who have immigrated to the United States lawfully and reside here in Hays County? I'm not because there are no such restrictions on these individuals. They're citizens just like you and me, and they're free to move about just like you or me. So what exactly is Mano Amigas talking about? Actually, their stated mission is about allowing immigrants to move about freely refers to immigrants who have entered the country illegally and who are here in violation of the state's Operation Lone Star program. And we believe that by implementing Mano Amigas endorsed policies, our elected officials are setting themselves up to counteract their own goal of maintaining public safety by creating a de facto policies that hamper policing and ignore laws that are on the books and that are constitutionally left up to the Texas legislator. And we mean to say this council must not usurp those authorities that are granted to the Texas legislators, not to mention implementing most of Mono Amiga's agendas only serves to exacerbate the already strained Hays County jail resources by not turning unlawful immigrants that are housed in our jails over to border patrol for appropriate processing. Instead, Mano Amigos wants you to release these people back into the public unlawfully because they believe in open borders. I'm not a lawyer, but I did ask one, and he did confirm that cities and counties may be held liable for implementing unlawful policies that act to usurp state law, which led to or leads to the release of a person that goes on to commit a crime against one of your citizens. This raises additional questions about Mono Amigas and what you need to understand. Like, Mono Amigas seems to be very well funded. How does that happen? How does a group of college kids come up and have the money that they have? Well, let's answer that right now. Mono Amigas gets their funding from the very Institute of Justice, another organization that harbors open border and Marxist-like beliefs, and who they also have questionable donors themselves. And what do they do with the money that they receive besides pressuring our political officials? Well, if you look at the article I've handed you in 2020, Jordan Buckley, then the communications director of Mono Amigas, tells you how they plan to spend the money. In a quote, Mono Amigas will devote funding towards expanding our recent victory with the first site and release ordinance in Texas restricting law enforcement from making arrests for numerous petty offenses in other parts of the Lone Star State by coordinating with activists.

Your time is up.

Thank you very much.

Next is Dustin Enderman. If you'll give it to the clerk, please.

My name is Dustin Enderman, and I'm here to talk about the Vera Institute of Justice and its deep ties they formed with the Hays County both directly as vendor and indirectly through their local agency, Mono Amigas. According to their own website, the Vera Institute claims to be a reform change agent. Vera produces ideas, analysis, and research that inspire change in the systems people rely upon for safety and justice. We're here because tonight several policy changes that impact the current system people rely on for safety and justice, our police department, are being dictated by a group of people that we believe are slowly introducing a Marxist agenda into the city and county. And what gives Mon Amigos the right to interrupt those services and call for repeal of police contract and to demand that our city adopt a site and release ordinance that gives, um, that leave people guilty of crimes and offenses on the street when the state statute already dictates that they should be arrested for what they had done. Understand this, these policies really are not for the benefit of the citizens. They are for the benefit of the stakeholders. Vera claims to collaborate with the communities most impacted by these systems and works in close partnership with the government and civic leaders to implement change. When the very people most likely to be negatively affected by the adoption of a catch and release program are neighborhoods of color and immigrants. Vera goes on to claim to be committed to explicitly and effectively reducing the burdens of the justice system on people of color and ending the misuse of jails. But if you look at the statistics, it shows that adopting these policies only destroy these communities and the lives of the residents in the cities where VERA already exists. Especially those communities made up of immigrants and people of color because of those neighborhoods have the highest reported crime rates. VERA has offices in Brooklyn, New York, Washington DC, New Orleans, Los Angeles, California. And don't overlook the fact that every county where VERA policies are implemented are now experiencing a significant rise in crime. Businesses are leaving those cities, and I don't think that we want that for San Marcos. One final thing, where does Vera Institute of Justice get their money from? They get it from the Open Society and from George Soros and others who have radical ideologies that call for dismantling of borders, elimination of cash bail, a reduction in policing or social policies that the citizens of San Marcos must be consulted with before they're implemented. You represent also conservative constituents And they're watching this. I sure hope they pick up the telephone and let you know that they also support what we are discussing here tonight. And we don't support the adoption of any policies that experiment with the releasing of criminals onto our streets and that hamstrings our police officers or endangers our citizens. We believe that our elected officials are here to serve the best interests of the communities and not the personal ideologies of Mono Amiga's hidden agenda that they support. Thank you very much for your time.

Our next speaker will be Jim Davis. If you'll hold on just a minute. If you have handouts, you can give them to the clerk. Our next speakers in order will be Stephanie Korchick, Eric Martinez, Sam Benavides, Barbara Smithson, and Betsy Singleton. So if you're any of those folks, if you'll get ready back there by the door. Mr. Davis.

Thank you. I want to thank I give thanks to you, the mayor here and our city council, for your sacrificial service for our city. And I wanted to pray a prayer for you, if I might, during this time. Almighty God, you rule in heaven and the earth is your footstool. We give thanks that you so love this world that you gave your only begotten son. We give thanks that Jesus Christ came down from heaven and and took upon himself flesh and bore our sins in his own body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for it was by his wounds that we are healed. And in your justice and full penalty for our sins was paid by his substitutionary atonement. And whoever will may come to your salvation in Christ Jesus. Lord, you have said, about nations that at one moment you may speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom or perhaps a county or a city to uproot and pull down and destroy it. And yet, if that nation against which I've spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity that I plan to bring on it. Lord, we pray for our city council and all those who represent us in the government of San Marcos. Deliver them and give them strength and make righteous judgment. What would you require of them but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly before you, our God? Protect their lives and give them sound judgment. Give our city council courage, Lord, to do right and banish any curse or wicked intentions directed at them or to San Marcos. Lord, our God, men and angels have rebelled against you. what can they do to you? For you are seated on your throne in glory and you are perfect in holiness and goodness and righteousness and justice. Show us your glory and majesty and let your holiness be seen that we may fear you, almighty God, and show the proper reverence to your son. We give praise to you that at this very moment, Jesus who gave his life for us has been resurrected and is at this moment seated at your right hand and making intercession for us. And we call upon the name of Jesus, that name that you have sworn to exalt above every name, and that at that name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and of things on the earth and of things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to your glory. Let it be known this day that you are Lord and God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath, and there is no one else. In your hand is the soul of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. In your hand is life and strength and wisdom. Who can strive with you? It's in Jesus' name I pray. Amen. God bless you.

Our next speaker is Stephanie Korchick.

Mayor Houston council members. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Korchick and I am pleased to speak with you tonight on behalf of Frank Arradondo, Bucky couch, and Nathan Kindred, who are here in the chambers tonight, as well as Nico Castilla. We are citizen members of the chief of police advisory panel, and we support the renegotiated contract between the city and the San Marcos police officers association. As you may know, the advisory panel was created in August of 2018 to serve as a resource for the chief in the development of policing strategies, solicitation of community feedback and enhancement of community trust. Panel members represent both citizens and sworn and civilian San Marcos police department staff who represent the city's diverse population. My remarks tonight represent the position of only the previously mentioned citizen members. During our meetings, panel members engage in robust discussions regarding police training, conduct, and accountability, staffing shortages and allocation, increasing rates of violent crime, staffing and budget needs, and the challenges faced by the department in striving to keep our city safe. We don't always agree with each other and we don't always agree with chief Standridge, but we honestly and respectfully express our views mindful of our shared commitment to enhance the quality of the department services to our community. We thank city manager Reyes assistant city manager, staff chief Standridge and the representatives of the police officers association. for diligently working together to achieve compromise on many of the issues brought about by the repeal of the original contract. As with all negotiations, no one got everything they wanted. We are confident, however, that the issues were taken seriously by all parties. Excuse me. and negotiated in good faith. It is important to note that state statute prohibits consideration of some of the issues raised. These remedies need to occur in the state legislature and not at the city council. We citizen members of the chief's advisory panel respectfully ask you to approve the new contract. Let's now focus on the challenges facing the department and engaging with the community to make San Marcos a safer place to live and to visit. Thank you for your diligent service to our city and for your thoughtful consideration of the contract before you.

Our next speaker is Eric Martinez is okay. I see her go ahead.

Good evening council. Today I stand before you to address a fundamental issue that affects our community's faith in our city government. It all comes down to one essential question. Should the most privileged, well-paid, and powerful members of our city government be exempt from full transparency and accountability when they govern our community improperly? Simply put, the community demands more than token gestures of transparency. We are no satisfied with mere glimpses of information while the larger picture remains hidden from public view. We deserve full transparency, a full adoption of all Hartman reforms to get a clear understanding of how our government operates and how our public servants are held accountable. When those who swear an oath to serve and protect hurt, harm, and mislead, these reforms would help ensure accountability and restore faith in our community. Because when transparency is compromised, so too is the trust of the public. And a vote to approve this police contract today is a vote in favor of compromised transparency. But a vote to reject this contract today is a vote that embraces a better path, one of actual transparency. I can easily say we all here want a safer and more prosperous community. I have no doubt about that. But we can't get there until we rebuild the trust that has been eroded due to the historical lack of transparency and accountability. So I implore you, as STEM members of San Marcos City Council to consider the profound impact your decisions have on the community you serve. Embrace the call for transparency in the contract negotiation, vote to reject the contract as it's written, and allow us to witness the full scope of decision making. to hold those in power accountable and to build a stronger, more just community together. Because we as a community should and will aim higher than the crumbs that have fallen from this table of negotiations. Instead, we'll go after the whole loaf. And with my remaining time, I will say that under the Chapter 142 contract, it actually allows you to supersede provisions of state law. So it is against the law until they build it into the contract to supersede it. So all the Hartman reforms can and should be adopted and any excuse is pure misleading and misguidance. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sam Benavides.

Good evening, Council. Chief Sanders has now presented on the Hartman reforms three times, each without any room for community input. Instead, the individuals responsible for moving the needle on this issue have been muzzled. Even after hearing and reflecting on his presentation four times, each without any input of our own. We still believe that these reforms are not only necessary to improving officer accountability, but are actually attainable, and if only there was political will from you all to change the status quo in policing. On the 180-day rule, Chief argues that it's already been extended to 360 days, then talks about how the statute of limitations for most crimes is two to three years. But one, we are not talking about criminal investigations, we are talking about internal personnel investigations, two very distinct things. And two, if I found out that a colleague of mine, for example, sexually assaulted someone more than 360 days ago, which is just less than a year, I would very much like my supervisor to look into that. And cops should especially be questioned for misconduct at any point, given the nature of their job and how much unchecked power they have over our community. I just think about how many issues will continue to go uninvestigated because they're able to keep it quiet for just under a year. And the older I get, the more I realize a year really isn't that long of a time. When it comes to the delay of interviews to misconduct, Chief argues that officers aren't allowed to plead the fifth. This is an unfair comparison because one, sure, civilians can plead the fifth, but cops can still take that person to jail where they will be booked and locked up for years on end waiting for their day in court, especially common here in Hayes County. And two, even Chief has said that their statements in these internal investigations cannot be used against them in criminal investigations. On the issue of vacation for paternal suspension, the point still stands that sending a suspended officer immediately back onto the streets is dangerous. And I hear Chief's concerns about the financial issues. But given that SMPD has by far the largest budget of any other department in our city, there must be another way to cover the overtime pay for other officers. We believe that the safety of our community should come first and foremost. And it is extremely disappointing that an agency that claims they care so deeply about public safety doesn't feel the same. On public transparency or personnel files, Keefe says that this goes against state law. However, as we've said multiple times, and as Eric just said, Chapter 142 contains a provision that allows it to supersede state law. That's how we were able to double with a 180-day rule. So there's no excuse for cops not welcoming more transparency other than the fact that they probably have a lot to hide. So the only things preventing these reforms are one, our city leadership currently lacks the political will to challenge the status quo in policing and cops are never going to give up these special protections themselves. During negotiations we actually heard them say they don't want to implement these changes because they don't want to be the first department to let it happen. We believe that San Marcos should take pride in leading the way to a world where police abuse is actually addressed in a meaningful and proactive way. And if you continue to lack the political will to advocate for real police accountability, then we will once again take matters into our own hands and opt our cops out of Chapter 143. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Barbara Smithson, to be followed by Betsy Singleton.

Hi, I'm Barbara Smithson, Mayor Huston and members of City Council. I urge you to approve the meet and confer agreement with the San Marcos Police Officers Association. We need to support our police officers and ensure that San Marcos is a safe place to live as well as a safe place to attend college. The police are an essential part of any community just as are the fire department and the schools and the hospitals. If we disrespect the police or hamstring them with arbitrary restrictions, they will be unmotivated or unable to do their important job. I moved here from California. I've seen what can happen. We need the police to do the job we pay them for to protect and defend the citizens. If not, we are turning our city over to the criminals. They will be emboldened. More of our citizens and visitors will become victims of crime. I am not sure who would want that, but certainly not me. I've had the opportunity to hear Chief Standridge on several occasions, and I believe he has the best interests of our community at heart. He is a strong leader with innovative ideas that will help our community. He and his officers deserve our thanks and our support. Let's stand by our police. Thank you.

And after Ms. Singleton will be Noah Brock, Annie Donovan, Pamela Watts, Nathan Pino, and Karen Munoz.

Ms. Singleton. Good evening council members. I'm Betsy Singleton, not a native of San Marcos, but I've been a proud citizen for 20 years. First, I would like to thank you on the city council for the volunteer service. that you provide for our community just by serving on the council. And also, I would like to express my sincere concerns for our police officers. In a culture that is so saturated by guns, a police officer doesn't know when he's dispatched whether or not he's going to be confronted by a gun in his face. Nevertheless, I do think that accountability is a must. And transparency is created when law enforcement and the community work together. Our city policies, I don't think, should overlook wrongdoing or protectionism. I assume that the recent negotiations were conducted in good faith, but I do find them lacking in accountability and transparency. And I would encourage you to reconsider the points that were put forth by Mono Amiga because I think they are reasonable and worthy of your support. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Noah Brock.

Good evening members of the city council. My name is Noah Brock and you probably already know I'm here to talk about the smart terminal or actually it's called access logistics park now, which happened last week. You know how I found out about that? Because some random person told me that it was on your webpage, not city staff, not anybody else that works for the city. A random person pointed it to my attention, even though city staff told me that they would keep us informed. So let's get back to this development agreement. This was voted on January 17th with very little public input. Mr. Mendoza, you asked the developer, will you be having public meetings with the neighborhoods? They answered they're not required to, but they'd have open dialogue. Mr. Prather, you asked, is this just dialogue or do we need to put these environmental standards into this agreement? How do we make this top notch? And if we pass this, there's no way to make changes to it. This is January 17th. I think we got the answer to that last week. There are many things that are wrong with this development agreement, but I want to point out the biggest one. Contract zoning. Contract zoning is when there is a contract between a municipality and a developer with certain zoning is agreed upon in exchange for something. What makes this practice illegal is when that municipality bargains away its power of authority in return. The contingency in the Smart Terminal Development Agreement states this agreement and any annexation contemplated herein are specifically contingent upon city zoning. So let me put this in perspective for all of you that are here. If council voted to annex the property, but then voted to deny zoning, what happens? This triggers the contingency, which states that the annexation could never have happened. But there's the problem. Annexation has to happen before that zoning vote. So this is in direct conflict and has removed the power of the city council to actually pass that. How did this happen? How did we get into this situation? It was the failure to get enough public input on a massive 2,000 acre heavy industrial development that's right next to my house. Under common law reserve powers doctrine, the government may not contract away its police power but must retain right to modify regulatory requirements as needed to respond to important public health and safety concerns. It may not waive that right in return for private concessions. With this development agreement, the city cannot make changes to protect public health and safety if they arise in the future. Please don't underestimate our tenacity and don't underestimate our resources. It should be very clear by now that we are not going to step down from this fight. We have not missed a single council meeting since we found out about this proposed development, and we have not missed a single opportunity to keep you all informed. So just ask yourselves, would you rather have a legal battle with an outside developer or the people that you represent? Thank you.

Our next speaker is Annie Donovan.

Good evening, council members. My name's Annie Donovan, and first I want to thank you all for your service to the city of San Marcos. Over the past few months, we've attended every 6 p.m. council meeting since February 7th together. I can imagine how stressful being a council member must be with all the decisions that weigh over your shoulders. It feels like we've been talking about the massive 2,000-acre Smart Access Heavy Industrial Park forever. I understand for some of you it's been years. I received an opportunity this weekend to skip town and shake some of the trauma out of my bones, so I jumped on it. I took a brief road trip down to Goliad to visit the historic sites and read about and listen to stories from the Texas Revolution. On my way back, I also visited Gonzales and Palmetto State Park, both of which are about a 30 to 40-minute drive from here. During the trip, I began to notice a trend. At Mission Espiritu Santo in Goliad State Park, I learned that today, we know nothing of the many tribes that the Spanish conquistadors attempted to convert to Catholicism. Their entire culture has been lost. At Palmetto State Park, I learned that the mud boils along the trails officially went extinct in the 1970s due to drilling and pumping oil. The only reason the swamps and other areas in the park are sustained is because the Civilian Conservation Corps came through in the 1930s and built artificial structures and water features to forcefully pump water into them. SCARBOROUGH LANE DEVELOPMENT DESCRIBES THE SMART TERMINAL ACCESS LOGISTICS PARK AS, QUOTE, ONE OF THE LARGEST MASTER PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PARKS IN THE NATION. DOES THIS NOT GIVE YOU PAUSE? THEY ARE PREDICTING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE MASSIVE, AND I IMPLORE YOU, WHAT IS STOPPING THE DEVELOPER FROM BUYING UP MORE LAND TO ADD ON AND TRULY MAKE IT BE THE LARGEST HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE NATION? Have you all heard of the great Southwest Industrial District in Arlington and Grand Prairie, where I grew up, over there between Dallas and Fort Worth? When it was first established in 1955, it comprised approximately 2,387 acres of land. Sound familiar? Today it encompasses over 8,000 acres because the developers bought up land over time. 8,000 acres is equivalent to roughly 14 miles. If one drives around the industrial district, it is the same distance one has to drive from City Hall here in San Marcos to get to Fentress. That's about a 22-minute car ride. Who's to say the developer is going to stop at 2,000 acres? If it isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when, there is a disaster. What recourse does a developer have when this happens, or is it the city that is responsible for remediating a release of toxic waste, heavy metals, or gas plumes? What about the adjacent Superfund site that was proven to contaminate the land and water underneath the Smart Access property? Does the city have the resources, staffing, and attention when it's forced to face a disaster? Does the city of San Marcos want to continue the trend of erasing our culture and history and contribute to our beautiful San Marcos River going extinct? It happened in the Palmetto State Park. It happened at Jacob's Well and Blue Hole in Wimberley. What makes you think it won't happen here too, and at what cost? Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Watts. That ding was the time-up ding. Is Pam Watts here? Pamela Watts. All right. Uh, then we will go next with, uh, Nathan Pino.

Uh, good evening council. Uh, I am here to ask that the meet and confer agreement be voted down this evening and that the council insists on including the five Hartman reforms in a renegotiated agreement. The current agreement does nothing significant to improve democratic oversight of the police. Weighing letters of reprimand in promotion decisions is an internal process and therefore not an adequate enough form of oversight. During discussions on the current agreement, there has also been some obfuscation regarding personnel file transparency as well as the blurring together of internal officer personnel investigations and criminal investigations. The police should obey the law while enforcing it and be accountable, transparent, and subordinate to civilian authority. But under the current agreement, the police can continue to flaunt these democratic values with impunity at the expense of their fellow citizens that give the police their authority. Under this agreement, police get legal privileges their fellow citizens do not, even though the police are tasked with the very important job of upholding the rule of law and serving their fellow citizens. Police are able to wait 48 hours after an incident to review evidence against them before providing statements. And this allows police to work together to align their stories and avoid legal scrutiny, something average citizens are not allowed to do. There is a 180-day statute of limitations on internal investigations of wrongdoing by officers, so it is easy to let internal investigations lapse until that period has expired. In addition, third-party arbitration is not really locally accountable. Even if police are found to have committed wrongdoing, they can still avoid legitimate accountability by forfeiting vacation time in lieu of serving a suspension. Letting police back on the streets instead of suspending them can endanger citizens and even the police themselves. The current ability of the police to flaunt the law while being tasked with enforcing it is something we would expect to find in places like China and Russia. But we are also seeing it right here in San Marcos by the city council and the police leadership if this isn't voted down. If there continues to be inadequate accountability, oversight, and transparency of the police, citizens aren't really living in a democratic society. At the bare minimum, we need to end the 180-day rule, end the delay of interviews for misconduct, allow public transparency for personnel files, and third-party arbitration and replace it with the Civil Service Commission and vacation forfeiture as a replacement for suspension. All these needed reforms are currently legal despite claims you've heard to the contrary. Thank you.

After Karen Muñoz will be Jean Harris, Joanne Salas, Jeff Latham, Maxfield Baker, and Bruce Jennings.

Good afternoon. My name is Karen Muñoz. I'm one of the co-founders of Mono Amiga. I've known several of you for, I've lived here for 10 years. I've known several of you for quite a few. So I'm just here to say we're not scary. We're normal people. I'm just a girl. And so I want to speak specifically to arbitration. I did the same thing on January 17th, but I'm going to again educate the council and the public about what it is. Arbitration really is a glaring example of how police face an entirely different system of accountability than the rest of us do. So a little bit about arbitration first. So Texas is an at-will state, which means that people, civilians, can be fired at any time for any reason. Police officers, however, are treated much different than the rest of us. When an officer is terminated, they can appeal that decision, and then the Police Officers Association and the city will come together to decide on a third-party arbitrator. The decision is not at all and cannot be independent when the parties come together to decide who that arbitrator There's no true independence with third party arbitrators or a system like that. Further, arbitrators get paid by the case or per arbitration, which means they are naturally incentivized to come to a decision that pleases both parties. An arbitrator who sides against the police officers association, for example, is unlikely to be chosen again by that same police officers association, so losing a paycheck. An article published in the Vanderbilt Law Review drawing on a data set of 624 arbitration awards issued between 2006 and 2020 found the following. That arbitrators on appeal reduced or overturned police officer discipline in 52% of these cases. In 46% of cases involving termination, arbitrators ordered police departments to rehire previously terminated officers. On average, arbitrators reduced the length of officer suspensions by approximately 49%. I know that Chief Stanridge often says that, you know, arbitration actually worked to remove Ryan Hartman, right? The secret's out. Hartman lost his arbitration hearing. The activists thought that he was going to lose, but it actually worked, right? That's often what he says. And this, of course, is something that people in this community know. Many of us followed the arbitration hearing. many of us sat and actually like sat through the hours of the arbitration hearing, right? There was a whole campaign around it. Pam watched all of it. And we're glad it worked out, of course, but that doesn't mean that any of the statistics I just told you aren't true. What that only proves is that Hartman, that was a really bad case. Like maybe it's the fact that actually he had done several things wrong, right? And he wasn't actually brought to arbitration because of the crash, right? He wasn't brought to arbitration because he killed Jennifer Miller. He was brought because of some paperwork issue, at least on paper. So again, I just don't think it's fair for us to use that example. I agree, too, that the Civil Service Commission is a much more democratic way to do this. I think this whole contract, it's just not fair to the community that people fought for the five Hartman reforms and that Pam Watts has had to come here and re-traumatize herself so many times and shouldn't even have to be here today and isn't, right? for this contract that doesn't include any of those. So for Jennifer Miller, for Pam Watts, for Al Leyva, for John Kelly, all people brutalized by San Marcos PD, please throw out this contract. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gene Harris.

I'm Gene Harris. Mayor, council members, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm grateful that our founding fathers gave us a representative republic and that we have the privilege of freedom of religion. And I'm also thankful that God has given us free will to choose good over evil. Lord, I pray that all will see that good things come from you and that bad things come from Satan. Lord, I ask for your blessings for the council. God, please give the council knowledge, wisdom, discernment to be able to choose from evil be able to choose good over evil. I ask you that the council be able to make the best decisions possible for the city of San Marcos and its people. I pray for the council members, the first responders, city workers, and the citizens of San Marcos that we all might have safe and peaceful lives. Lord, we know that with the resurrection of Christ, the battle was won and Satan was defeated. Lord God, these things I ask in Christ's name. Amen.

Our next speaker is Joanne Salas.

Good evening, Mayor Hewson and City Council. My name is Joanne Salas, and I'm here again to speak to the Smart Access Terminal. The fact that Scarborough Lane is promoting the industrial development as open for business suggests that they are confident you will approve their annexation and zoning requests. This is incredibly disrespectful to your authority as a city council and to the community that has spent countless hours researching and developing ideas for making this development less harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods and the environment. The developer's brazen refusal to open the development agreement for negotiation is enough reason for you to deny the request for additional industrial zoning. The refusal to negotiate does not bode well for their assertion that they want to be good neighbors. I'm asking you to honor your responsibility to protect the residents of this community and our environment by refusing to green light this heavy industrial development. While the existing agreement meets and in some areas exceeds city code, it does not specify how the developers or tenants will be held accountable for failure to abide by the agreement. Given that San Marcos currently has little to no heavy industrial development, it's hard to trust that city staff have the expertise or resources to monitor 2,000 plus acres of heavy industrial development that carries the risk of causing significant harm to life. Scarborough Lane does not have a history of developing industrial sites. 14 of their 19 projects are for developing infrastructure for single family residential lots. The others are for a parking lot, offices, and retail space. Nothing comes close to what they are planning to develop here. Are you okay with San Marcos being a guinea pig for what you hope is a model industrial development? Access Logistics is promoting itself as one of the largest, I repeat, one of the largest industrial parks in the nation. According to their recent press release, the site will be serving as a hub for products traveling from China to Mexico. This should give us pause. What are the implications for all of San Marcos? How much will 18-wheeler traffic increase on I-35, our major thoroughfare? Will local traffic spill over onto Hopkins, Hunter, and through the historic district? As detailed by numerous residents over the past few months, the current development agreement carries significant risk for irreparable damage to people's health and the environment. We are counting on you to protect the well-being of our incredibly beautiful city. Thank you.

Next is Jeff Latham. I thought I saw him in the lobby.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to say thank you for your work and your dedication to San Marcos. And I think you guys need to know that at Westover Baptist Church, where I'm the pastor, I went to school here. I graduated here. My kids went to school here. And my daughter plays college basketball as a result of going to school here in San Marcos. I just want to tell you all that we love you. And we want to hope the best for our city. We love our city. We love our people. And I know that we've had a rough go here lately. Our police department has gone through a lot. Our fire department, our EMS has gone through a lot. All of our people are in a point of frustration after COVID. There's been so much struggle, guys. And I just wanted to lift you up and encourage every one of you tonight that you might be able to smile again. And Mayor, I'm praying for you, for your foot. I'm praying for you, for your aches and pains. We are praying people, okay? So I want you to know that at West Florida Baptist Church, we're praying for you guys. And we pray every Sunday night and every Wednesday night. And I want to keep it that simple. We love you. Can I bless you with a prayer? Gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. May your spirit of love just be here tonight, Lord. We've got to learn how to forgive, Lord. I was visiting with a couple in a nursing home that was married 76 years. And I asked them, how did you stay married so long? Lord, you know what they said? One word, forgive and love. And so, Lord, I pray that we know how to forgive in this wonderful city that I was brought up in and have been around here since I was a little boy. I thank you for this place. I thank you for these folks and their servant heart, Lord. In the name of Christ, I pray. Amen. Thank you.

Would you state your name for the record for us, please?

My name is Jeff Latham, pastor of Westover.

Okay, I think I may have missed it earlier. Our next speaker is Maxfield Baker.

All right, hi council, Maxfield Baker. So I wrote you all the longest letter that I've ever written and was not satisfied with the response that I've got. And this is the experience that many of us working in criminal justice reform have gone through, right? I sit down and I write you tons of questions and I dare any of you council members to ask some of those questions tonight because last time I was super disappointed that you guys didn't ask anything. I had a whole page of stuff. You guys are acting like there's no questions when a ton of community members literally got a petition, worked their butts off to make it happen, and you all ignored them. And you continue to ignore us, Ms. Reyes. We ask so many questions and I have asked the Police Officers Association for data and they don't give it to us. You've asked us to work in good faith through these negotiations, and yet we don't receive that same favor. And I really wish you guys would pay attention when we're talking. I know you're busy trying to get ready for the meeting, but it's really disrespectful when we're coming here, pouring our heart out, and some of y'all are scrolling on your phones and stuff. Sometimes what you all need to hear is that us in the community have been abused by the police officers. And what are abusers known for? Abusers are known for grooming gatekeepers of accountability. And I've said it in so many different ways. I've asked and pleaded that you all listen to the community, that you reach out and answer our questions. I asked so many questions, Ms. Reyes, and instead you dug in on the thing that you've said a million times. which is that cops feel unheard. And yet, I would like to point out that they have a majority of elected officials on council, and they have a union to do all their footwork. But the last time we saw the Police Officers Association Union speak up when it was about site and release, they said a bunch of ignorant and racist things. That our own police chief agreed was stupid and racist, and turned around and said, hey, dummies, don't do that stuff anymore. You're eroding trust in the community. and it was in an email that I don't have access to anymore so maybe there's a public information request out there or maybe director Stapp would like to come forward with that email and acknowledge the trauma that we have gone through as a community that's one of the main things I've asked I know you weren't the chief when a bunch of this stuff went down but you were the chief when some of the bad stuff went down you were working there when some of those people that are now promoted into positions of power were there and yet you didn't do anything you're complicit in the issue right and so I wanted to see if I can pull it up quickly enough. I wrote so much in the email, but I'm only going to read one part. Instead of simply using your expert-level understanding of the criminal legal system to gatekeep solutions from the public, it would serve our community better to work to help them understand the issues, where the accountability sits, and if we can all agree on that, work to change those things at the higher levels of government. We know not everything is in your laps. But it would make a huge difference if you'd say, oh, but we actually agree with you. And we'll fight that at the state because when you all approve our legislative agendas, I've asked for years to have police accountability and stuff put on there. But no, we need to worry about airports. Get it together, y'all. Get it together. Will any of you ask the questions tonight? I don't think so, but I hope you do.

Our next speaker is Bruce Jennings. And I, again, if those in the lobby were not here... when I asked earlier that you be silent in all ways because the glass between us and you is not soundproof. I will ask that of you now. Mr. Jennings.

Everybody take a deep breath. Just breathe.

You'll state your name for us, please, sir.

Hopefully, I think I'm the last one for you.

Oh, no, sir. There's... There's ten more after you. I'm 20. Thank you for reminding me. If you'll hold just a moment. Following Bruce Jennings will be Andrew Moglic, John Clark, Lisa Marie Coppoletta, Zachariah Al-Natur, and Mary Beth Harper. I'm sorry for the interruption, Mr. Jennings.

No, no, it's great. Just reset me and we'll go. We're ready. All right. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm not here to nag you, but I am here to remind you of several things. I hope you've had time to look over some of the documents that I've sent you regarding testing for pollutants in and around the old San Marcos landfill. Specifically on 421, I sent each of you a copy of the Department of Labor Environmental Assessment for the Gary Job Corps Center, dated July of 2022. Additionally, on 5-5-23, I sent each of you copies of the original EPA inspection report from 9-1-95. I would also like to remind you that both of these federal documents address the hazardous chemicals found leaching from the landfill and the old military base. Chemicals found in the shallow groundwater and the private wells within a one-mile radius included volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyl, PCBs, cadmium, iron, phosphorus, and manganese. I also want to point out that phase one of the smart terminal access development is within the identified area of pollution. Now, over the past two weeks, I've had several conversations with the EPA regarding the potential harm of allowing heavy industrial development in this area and the potential for further contamination from soil to water. Now, you may recall that the documents clearly stated soil testing was not done because the area was undisturbed farmland. However, the shallow water contamination was repeatedly stated to be a significant concern and the highest one in those reports. It is in the best interest of the safety to the San Marcos River and to those who live in the surrounding community that testing for volatile organic compounds, PCBs, cadmium, lead, iron, phosphorus, and manganese be completed at each construction site within the development before being permitted. This was recommended by the EPA. Furthermore, TCEQ should be contacted immediately to supervise the testing of each site prior to any construction. I ask that you delay this project. Expand the San Marcos River corridor protection zone to include the creeks and springs that feed the river and amend the development agreement for the smart terminal and access development to ensure the safety of our water. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrew Mollick. Following him will be John Clark, Lisa Marie Coppoletta, Zachariah Alnator, and Mary Beth Harper.

Good evening, Council. My name is Andrew Maglich. I'm an organizer with Mono Amiga, and I'm here to stand with my community in strong opposition to the renegotiated meet and confer agreement you will be voting on tonight. This agreement has failed to address any of our community's concerns and instead is a slap in the face to the thousands of San Martians who expressed discontent with the former agreement and desire for a new one with real, meaningful reforms and protections against brutality and misconduct. Make no mistake. The Hartman reforms as proposed are all perfectly permissible to be negotiated into this agreement. While state law does not mandate these policies statewide, meet and confer agreements can. Meet and confer agreements override state civil service laws, so policies included in these agreements can override them. Chief Standridge is attempting to gaslight and mislead our community by claiming SMPOA's hands are tied, that they can't make any meaningful reform, and that the problems that plague SMPD aren't there to begin with. At the beginning of the renegotiation process, I sat in on the first meet and confirm meeting where the SMPOA and the city laid out their priorities for negotiations after the city had already held the same meeting without the public being notified. What happened in this meeting was so jarring and bizarre. Theoretically, the city and the SMPOA should have been laying out their priorities and negotiating amongst themselves. Instead, Sandridge spent the entire time going through slides to one by one disingenuously discredit each of the Hartman reforms, clearly aiming his remarks at the community members in the room rather than at the city. Meanwhile, the city manager seemed to take Stanridge's false statements, which mixed and conflated internal employment rules with the rights of civilians in criminal investigations as fact, offering no challenge to them. During this meeting, Stanridge seemed to gloat about insubordination already being a cause for discipline or firing, and yet made no mention of the fact that Officer Ryan Hartman was not actually disciplined or discharged for far more than insubordination when he killed Jennifer Miller and brutalized and violated Albion Leyva's civil rights. All of this is to say that the new agreement provides no real change for our community and is a slap in the face to the entire city. Any city that gives a damn about its people would do a better job of providing basic protections from harm for those who are supposed to protect us. But this contract does not end the 180 day rule, does not end the delay of interviews for misconduct, does not make personal files publicly transparent, does not end third party arbitration, and does not end vacation forfeiture as a substitute for suspension. In short, the new contract doesn't mean a damn thing. SMPOA will pat themselves on the back for only now reviewing letters of reprimand during promotions, but that bare minimum reform is one that they would have never even considered if we didn't force them back to the table. They'll dangle this new policy in front of the press as a sign that they care, but the reality is that their fight against the most basic of accountability measures show that they see themselves as being above any accountability or community control. I urge you to vote against adopting this new agreement so that the city can continue to push for a better contract ASAP. Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Clark. Okay, we'll circle back around. It'd be Lisa Marie Capaletta. And she joins us online.

Can you give me one second, please? You skipped the turn. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Can you guys hear me okay? Yes, we can.

Good evening, my name is Professor Lisa Marie Coppola, they call me LMC. You let the chambers clap when it's an anti-Alyssa Garza speech, but then you shut them down otherwise. City staff are really good at acting like they listen, but they don't. We are just peasants, we are just plebeians, and shame on you for not contacting those residents of Martindale. The proposed AXIS terminal will be four times the size of Disneyland in California, ten times the size of Fiesta Texas in San Antonio, 80 times the size of the outlet mall in San Marcos, and ten times the size of Six Flags in Arlington. AXIS Logistics, a master planned heavy industrial, think about that. You should know better if you are from San Marcos, and you should know better if you've been flooded out. The Martindale citizens never voted for you. The elected officials from Martindale have passed a resolution. The Hispanic community has sent you a letter, including the chief of staff for Aaron Zwiener, not to mention the federal elected officials that I have contacted and the federal agencies who are very concerned, representatives here in Texas with the connections with China and Mexico. This includes state and federal representatives. This is a nonpartisan issue. Some of you have never even attended a public meeting, not to mention speaking at a public hearing, and you have lost and forgotten your promise to protect the neighborhoods. Staff are refusing to give us the drive-out price for the access project. This includes the fee waiver. City staff are trying to charge me $40 for emails between them, the developer, and you. And city staff would never act this way with their own finances. and I'm sure you would not either, Mayor. The community where a majority of the students are on free lunch, now you want us to front millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure and fee waivers and two fire stations for a developer. Where is he getting his money? Legal battle, you guys better buckle up. I'm the one that found the lawyer for the Woods residence, and then we had a local attorney come in. That's not gonna happen this time. In addition to the contract zoning, there's other issues that are in violation. We don't understand why they have changed their name. Maybe it's a situation of optics, but I find it very troubling that some of you who would put yard signs up in front of your yard, your elected campaign signs, are refusing to answer the text and messages. I want to thank Saul, Alyssa, and Shane for fulfilling their promise to protect the neighborhoods. Jude, you always say that you listen to the community, and I don't appreciate the individual who posted on October 17th when he said his highest priority was to protect the rivers and the neighborhoods. And you know who you are, Mr. Gleason. And all this reminds me of Psalm 5521. His mouth was as smooth as butter, but his heart was at war. His words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords. It is very disrespectful what you had done, and this is going to change the entire dynamic of the Texas Hill Country. Thank you for your time, and God bless San Marcos.

Next is the car. I'm sorry. I don't know how to pronounce that. And we have someone coming from the audience. If you'll state your name for the record and I'll try to learn how to pronounce it.

Good evening. I hope today has found you all. Well, my name is Zachariah on this tour. I'm here on behalf of mono Amiga to speak about chief sandwich and the presentation he gave as a rebuttal to the five Hartman reforms. These were originally put into place as a response to Sergeant Hartman running a stop sign and striking and killing Jennifer Miller. There's body cam footage of a 24-ounce Dos Equis with alcohol being poured out as well. He was cited for running a stop sign and is yet to be held accountable for the killing of Jennifer Miller. Chief Stammeridge, in his presentation, completely misunderstood the difference between officer misconduct and a criminal investigation. In response to a push to end the 180-day statute of limitations and the officer's ability to review evidence 48 hours more in advance to giving an official statement, Stanridge cites that most crimes have a statute of limitation of two to three years and that officers are allowed to access evidence as they cannot plead the fifth like citizens. In both cases, Chief Stanridge treats the officer misconduct issues as solely criminal matter and not one of workplace misconduct. Officer misconduct should be addressed as such without the protections in place enabling departments to circle the issue or allowing officers to get a story straight to align with evidence and what it shows or does not show. Secondly, Chief Stammeridge has addressed the concealment of documentation of officer misconduct from the public, citing that he cannot legally release them while having the ability to pass a contract which would allow for him to release these documents. Regarding vacation forfeiture in lieu of suspension, which allows officers to maintain a clean record regardless of discipline, granting them the ability to maintain seniority positions and promotion opportunities. Chief Stammerges in the presentation acknowledged the pros of such a policy, but omitted a con slide from his presentation. The pro's slide consisted of unverifiable budget claims, which is a sad and subpar excuse for continued condonement of such policies which allow for exploitation to once again avoid discipline. Finally, with third party arbitration, chief once again treats the matter as a criminal matter and not at all one of officer misconduct, saying that officers are not allowed to appeal if it is filed for a criminal conduct, lying or insubordination, which fall under dishonorable discharge on an F5. So unless the officer is grossly violating ethical conditions, lighter infractions still grant the officer the opportunity to appeal the decision. A civil service commission, allows for issues regarding local police impacting local citizens to be handled by a commission of local individuals. Local democracy is one of the most important things granted to us and circumventing that once again leads to lack of officer discipline for workplace misconduct. I plead that you contemplate the idea of instituting this new contract and head back to the meeting room and more accurately address and acknowledge the reforms being pushed for. Chief Stanridge treats the officer of issue misconduct as one of criminal stature, allowing officers protections from being disciplined for workplace misconduct. The issue of police abuse and departments exploiting policies to protect from discipline is unacceptable, but the stark reality that with this current trial and contract, it will continue. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Beth Harper. Oh, I'm sorry. You are? I'm Ramona Brown. I'm number 26. I don't have you on my list, so if you'll hang loose for just a minute, we'll let Ms. Harper speak. And at some point, our last group will be Cassidy Arterjohn, Ralph Abides, Olivia Fatale, and Sam Evans. And I thought I said Abigail Milam first. If I didn't, I should have. It was Abigail before Cassidy. Thank you.

Yes, I'm Mary Beth Harper, and I live in Martindale, ETJ. And I'm here to speak to the taxpayers of San Marcos. And also I'm going to give you a math lesson. I taught science for 48 years, but you're getting a math lesson. Okay, anyways, smart terminal equals the access park equals higher taxes. In order to build two fire stations, the fire chief gave us an estimate of $16 to $26 million just to build one fire station. Oh, excuse me, that's for two fire stations. To equip two fire stations is going to take about $5 million for the personnel. And that's not including the trucks and all the other equipment in there. So right now, that's a total of about $20 million, $30 million. That's, again, without fire trucks in there. OK, now the water and wastewater lines. OK, supposedly the developer is going to pay for the wastewater lines on his property. OK. And this is a statement from Amanda Hernandez, the planning director. The city will be involved in making the pipes larger to accommodate more stuff, and there will be costs to the city in the future. Okay, in your agenda packet tonight, item number 21 discusses the Blanco River Rain Flood Mitigation Project. Okay, there's also something in there about the Highway 80 utility project in that same packet. And there's a picture on page 1326. Okay, this was agreed to and voted by the city council back in 2018. This was before the first smart terminal. Okay, so the city already knew the extent of water and sewer lines. Okay, this property is going to have a 12-inch water line for fresh water, an 18-inch force main, and a lift station. That's for sewer lines. that goes from the Smart Terminal property all the way back to the San Marcos Septic Sewage Plant. That cost is $20 to $25 million. And adding those up, that's $40 to $60 million. That's additional tax money y'all are going to have to pay. Also, there's increased police personnel that the city's going to have to provide. The roads are going to be needing to be repaired more frequently because of heavy trucks. These trucks are going to wear down the roads much faster. They're built, they're old country roads, they're two lanes, and they're built to last 25, 30 years. If you have farm trucks and combines and farmers out there driving on them, but not the heavy industrial trucks. And right now it's estimated, this engineer from A&M said that after seven years those roads will wear out. Even new Loop 110 that's out there will not withstand those heavy trucks. Anyway, that's my math lesson for you all. You have $40 to $60 million in tax money. And this is on page 1326. This is the water and sewer lines, which Steve's going to have to pay for. Thanks.

Ms. Trevino, did you? We found her. Okay. Ramona, if you'll state your name for the record.

Yes, my name is Ramona Brown. I live at 332 Perry Street. I'm here to comment on access, also known as smart. However, before I do, I want to acknowledge this region's land, waterways, and original stewards. Central Texas is home to many sacred waterways that have been resources of life and community for original peoples of this land and region. We honor the original peoples, including the Coyotecan and Miocan Garza, all federal and state-recognized tribes, and all the American Indian and indigenous peoples and communities who have been or have become a part of these lands and territories in Texas. I am tired and confused as to why you trust these developers with our community and our sacred rivers. I can't believe all the news I have been reading about the new Access Smart Terminal. If you have not seen it yet, I would like to quote something that I read that made me want to move away from San Marcos. I just moved here. The website I read stated, formerly known as the Smart Terminal, the 2,000-acre park will be one of the largest master-planned industrial parks in the nation. I want you all to know that this mega-industrial development is going to leave our sacred river in the shadows. San Marcos will no longer be known for its beautiful, clean water after Franklin, Partners, and whoever else has done with it. The only growth coming to San Marcos is the growth of the pocketbooks of corporations and investors that don't even live here. I ask you, who is representing us, the community? Nobody wants this here, and for good reason. This development will cost the community so much more than just taxes. The potential for the mental and physical health and well-being of the community are at risk. Already many people are worried about where they will live or how they will move. Our elders in the community that can't afford to move or have the ability to move are already worried about what they're gonna do when a disaster occurs. Then everyone knows what is going to happen when it floods and the mental impact that that has on someone is forever. Who is supposed to be protecting us? Furthermore, I would like to share one of the reasons I moved to San Marcos is because of the diversity and large Hispanic population. It's comforting for me and familiar. However, another thing familiar about living in areas that have a large Hispanic population is environmental racism. If you are not familiar with the term, I will read it to you. Environmental racism is a form of institutional racism leading to landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste disposal being disproportionately placed in communities of color. So as historic data demonstrates with the location of the super fund near the smart terminal, it's obvious to me that if the council approves access mega industrial development, you will be perpetuating this form of racism that the community will have to endure physically, emotionally, and financially. This type of historical systematic oppressive city planning must end. It's 2023. Someone has to be the one to change how things have always been done. A very wise woman told me, if you do what you've always done, you're going to get what you've always gotten. Thank you.

Our next speakers in line will be Abigail Milam, Cassidy Arterjohn, Raul Ibides, Olivia Fatal, and Sam Evans. If you all could come on up into the room, and also John Clark that I didn't see earlier. Next is Abigail Milam.

Hi, thank you so much for having me here today. It's always a pleasure to speak with y'all. First, I want to start by asking why the talks about the reforms to the police union contract happened in executive session behind closed doors and not with the community members involved every step of the way. We should have a say where our tax dollars go. We should have a say in how we are policed. And I think it is absolutely terrible that we were not included in these conversations. Next, I'm going to read, on behalf of Pam Watts, I'm going to read her letter to the editor in the San Marcos Daily Record that was published on May 14th. On June 6, 2020, off-duty SMPD Sergeant Ryan Hartman sped down a one-lane gravel road 50% over the speed limit, passed two stop signs, and slammed his truck into my vehicle, killing my life partner, Jennifer Miller. He had an open 24 can of Dos Equis in his cup holder, refused to prove his sobriety at the scene, and took over three hours to get a blood search warrant, tainting the accuracy of all blood evidence. As a sergeant who performed DWI sobriety tests, Hartman knew how to cheat protocol. A two-month investigation led by Lockhart Police Department charged Hartman with criminally negligent homicide, but the DA substituted his own opinion and presented it to the grand jury as distracted driving. I doubt he showed them the body cam footage of Hartman confessing. I caused the death of someone by me not paying attention. There was no indictment, and three years later, I'm still fighting for justice. On the anniversary of Jennifer's death, I held a peaceful vigil to honor her life. SMPD Stanridge appeared uninvited and claimed his hands were tied due to the 180-day statute of limitations for investigating wrongdoing by officers having expired by the time he joined his department. a lie. In the last years of fighting for Jen, I've learned that the very people tasked with upholding the law are often not held to the same standard. I propose the Hartman reforms on the two-year anniversary of Jen's death because I don't want anything resembling this tragedy to happen again. There needs to be transparency and civilian oversight. There needs to be no time limit on investigating wrongdoing. Officers should not give up vacation time rather than serve a suspension. A suspension means you leave the building and take that time to consider the ramifications of your actions and how it impacted the department, the city, and its victims. It is my hope that SMPD and city officials live up to their oaths by learning from their mistakes. And I just would like to add, I am the proud daughter of a police officer for Bear County in San Antonio. I do not expect that people in my father's position, my father who is also a sergeant are held to a different standard than I am. I am here today because I know it is the right thing to do and I expect every one of you do the right thing.

Our next speaker is Cassidy Artichon. If you'll state your name for us, and I'll try to learn. Cassidy Anderson. Oh, I'm sorry. OK.

He sounded fancier when he said it.

Please go ahead.

Okay, so good evening, mayor, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of item 22, ending the declaration of local state and disaster. My name is Cassidy Anderson. I work for a small property owner here in San Marcos. Been in the property management business for 17 years and eight of them here in San Marcos. I have firsthand knowledge of how the disaster declaration remaining in place is negatively impacting residents and business owners here in San Marcos. And while the disaster declaration was implemented with good intentions, allowing it to remain in place past its need has unintended negative consequences for the residents and businesses in San Marcos alike. The disaster declaration remaining in place is making it difficult to obtain stability within our business here in San Marcos and making it even harder to obtain financing to grow our business here in San Marcos. In summary, the moratorium served its purpose as a protection for the businesses and residents of San Marcos, but it's time now to lift it and let the citizens of San Marcos get back to the pre-pandemic procedures that have served this community well for many years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of item 22.

Our next speaker is Raul Ubides.

Hello, it's Raul Ubides. Hello, Mayor and City Council. Again, my name is Raul Ubides. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Austin Apartment Association. On behalf of the Austin Apartment Association Board of Directors and our nearly 600 rental housing providers, we are pleased to know that the City of San Marcos is taking steps towards ending the declaration of a local state of disaster. And we just ask for your support on Item 22, approving Resolution 2023-98R. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Olivia Fatal.

Hey, guys. My name is Olivia Fatal, and I am a resident in San Marcos. And boy, it's been a couple of weeks. I got in an accident. It wasn't that bad, but it was. It was scary. What had happened was my window was open, and my Side mirror flew into the car. It hurt my hand, hurt my head. I had a concussion. But this is what troubled me. The part that troubles me is that the police department was called, there was bodily injury, and the police never showed up. Um, so that's what I wanted to share with you today because this is the system, the clear, I don't know if it's clerical or it doesn't sound like a bad day. I had glass stuck out on my hands. I still have scabs. It's not that big of a deal, but I was alone also with a male trying to figure out our insurance and he was a little gruff. And so I was, you know, a little gruff. because I was a little scared and it would have helped to have an officer there to kind of with the thing. And that's what I come to expect. You call the cops, you get the cops, you get what you ask for, but apparently not in this police department, not in the city. Um, basically what we've been trying to fix is a broken system and what we're getting instead of putting, we're putting a, a gold star, not even a Band-Aid, over the tough issues that the Police Association refused to deal with. Basically, I saw winting, I saw sighing, I saw I'm really not gonna deal with the issue of transparency. And I want these stories to be told like mine. I want people to be able to see that it's not just them. It's not your fault. It's the way maybe the answering systems are or the way that the dispatch is or something because sometimes you feel inside yourself that it's your fault. They're ignoring me, and sometimes you want them to ignore you, but there's two different situations. Basically, the government here seems to work on a system of checks and balances like the judicial, presidential, and lawmaking branches of the federal government, and what I see here is a play of One, what the people want, and yes, we have spoken on each side very loudly, so everybody knows what we want at this point. What the police association wants, basically it lurks in the shadows until it takes over the whole city. It's the systemic things that are very, very hidden that cause things like racial injustice in policing and... you know, not answering a police phone call with a lady. Thank you.

Your time is up. Next is Sam Evans.

Last but not least, I guess.

Oh, and if you'll hold one second. Sure. Is John Clark here? One more round. Okay. My apologies. Please continue.

My name is Sam, and I am a midwife and nurse working on my doctorate of nursing and family practice. I am living in San Marcos. I have been living in San Marcos for over 25 years now. I am raising four children here in Rio Vista, one minute from our sacred river. I moved here because of that river and the protections that I saw all the citizens rallying around, Republicans, liberals, anarchists, and moderates, all rallying around our river. We came together on the river always. Climate change is real. Our community will continue to get hotter and our river will get lower and lower. Do not allow anything to increase that disaster for our sacred springs. No amount of money or capitalist ideals is worth losing the greatest sacred spring in North America. Also, America was founded by people who fled other countries in order to protect their beliefs. who fled the oppressive Church of England, they called themselves separatists. Not all of the pilgrims were Puritans. My family, the Quakers, also came. And they believed that all men and women were equal in the eyes of God and should be protected to listen to their individual inner light or their consciousness to guide their spiritual connection. They fought against slavery in the 16 and 1700s. They ran the Underground Railroad at great peril to their safety. Because of those beliefs, Quakers were persecuted and they were forbidden to worship freely. They became early advocates for the First Amendment of the Constitution. They wrote to protect your rights to free speech, to protect minority voices against the oppression of the church and the governments that perpetuated slavery and the harm of women and children and anyone who was not a white land-owning male. You can thank Quakers for your Bill of Rights that states all Americans are created equally. Thomas Jefferson and John Locke wrote of the importance of a wall being built between the church and the state. Because of this, we are guaranteed a secular government, a government that is no more controlled by Christian law than it is by Sharia law. The people of San Marcos are united by our love for the river, our kids, and our diverse neighbors. Let's put an end to religion and fanatical politics dividing us. The best way to do this is by continuing to honor our secular government with a wall between beliefs, either religious or political. I would like to be free to practice my Quaker beliefs and protect my neighbor's desire to have none. I would also like to push city council to do more to peacefully, I'm sorry, to protect my children's right to assemble peacefully at school and not be shredded into a million pieces by an assault rifle like recently at Robb Elementary. Last week, all of my children were locked down at the school for over four terrifying hours.

Ms. Evans, your time is up.

I'm going to take one more second, because I'm the last speaker, if I could.

One sentence, that's it.

OK. Why does a psycho with a gun, why does a psycho with a death wish, outfitted in full body Kevlar and a bulletproof vest, who is going into the school with the intention of killing as many children and police as possible, have more rights than I do and my children do as taxpaying citizens of San Marcos.

Thank you. Ms. Trevino, are there any others who signed? Okay. So it is 7.30. It is our practice to take a break every 90 minutes. It's been 90 minutes. So, Council, I will give you seven minutes if you'll be back at 7.37 by this clock up here. And we're in recess. The time is 7.10. Mr. Vino, would you tell us what number one on our agenda is?

Yes, ma'am. I receive a presentation from Deloitte & Touche LLP on the quarterly internal audit report and provide direction to staff.

Ms. Reyes? Mr. Locke? Hi, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. We have Kathy Schwartfeger of Deloitte & Touche on the line via Zoom with us, and she will be introducing the audit report this evening.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. Today, I have the pleasure of reporting the results of our quarter one of the 2023 fiscal year report of the internal audit of the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Action Plan. The period that was audited for quarter one is October 1st of 2022 through December 31st of 2022. As in prior reports, and if you're following along, it's on page three, each area that is evaluated is evaluated for the design and operating effectiveness of the city's internal controls over its finance and purchasing departments. We also evaluate compliance with overall federal program rules and regulations over the program, as well as compliance with the city policies and procedures governing this particular program. We also are evaluating the city's compliance with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's action plan that was approved for use of the funds related to the past floods. During this review, we evaluate several areas. We look at overall procurements that happened during this period and all contracts originating during this period or change orders or amendments to those contracts. We also evaluate all of the expenditures that were made by program staff during the period to ensure compliance and reasonableness of the expenditures, as well as ensuring those expenditures were well supported and that the funds to reimburse those expenditures were drawn down in accordance with the federal program guidelines. Lastly, we evaluate the corrective action of all prior findings from our audits and any prior findings of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in past reviews. I'll call your attention to page four, which we've spoke about before. The last HUD report was issued in December of 2022, at which time they issued five concerns and three findings related to the administration of the community development block grant. The city responded in February of this year, which included four contested concerns and one contested finding. It is a waiting response from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a result, we will hold our follow-up until the federal grantor has responded to the city's contested findings, and then we will follow up based on any closed responses at that time. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Carlos Diaz from our staff who will go through with you the one issue that we identified during this quarter related to the draw down of federal funds to reimburse the city for its expenditures. Carlos.

Well, uh, thank you for the introduction. Kathy. Uh, good evening. Uh, mayor, Houston city council, city staff and citizens. Uh. I hope everybody's doing well today. Um, as Kathy said, I'm here to present the observations. For this, uh, quarter is a review audit report. Uh, so. This quarter, the city, we've seen a lot of progress. They made this report a lot easier because it was really squeaky clean. The files were presented in a really well format. So I'm going to give a shout out to the whole city staff for providing us really well documentation and assisting us whenever we had some questions. So I wanted to recognize that. And so the... The only instance that we had on this quarter, we had a minor detail on the drawdown review. There was a late drawdown and voucher creation outside the quarter. This has been a finding we've noted on previous quarters. The city has made a lot of progress on this one. This was just a segregated case of late timesheet submissions. And the city has expressed their concerns over the situation. And they've counseled the individual staff member. And this has been addressed. So going in the future, I would not expect to see this problem going forward as the city is really well on advancing these items. And that's it for my side. Again, they made it really simple for me. So if anybody on the city, John, has any questions, feel free to ask. We'll address them accordingly.

All right. Council, are there any questions? If not, item two.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for joining us online. Thank you.

Have a great night.

Receive a staff presentation on the quarter ended March 31, 2023 financial report and provide direction to the city manager.

Thank you again, mayor and city council. Uh, this presentation will provide an overview of the general fund, our five enterprise funds and the hotel tax fund through the quarter ended March 31st, 2023. Next slide please. At this point of the year, we're halfway through our fiscal year. So when we talk about how far, how much revenue we've collected or where we are in our expense budget, we are being 50% through the year. That's something that you can keep in mind as we progress through the presentation. This first slide is for our general fund. It's our largest operating fund. And before beginning, just walking through the layout of the slide, the green is for revenues and the blue is for the expenses. The solid color is the actual activity and the stripe color is the budget. So beginning and on the left-hand side, you have the 2023 year-to-date activity through March, and on the, I'm sorry, I said the right side. On the left side, you have the 2023 year-to-date activity, and on the right side, the 2022 year-to-date activity for comparative purposes. So looking at our 23 activity, On the revenues, we have collected about 66% of our total revenues, or $63 million of our $96 million revenue budget. It's common for us to collect a large portion of our general fund revenue in the first six months of the year. This is because our second largest revenue source is property tax, and property tax becomes delinquent on February 1st, so we get the majority of property tax collections through January. Looking at our expense, we're 41% through our expense budget at this point in the year, which is similar to where we were at this point last year for comparative purposes. There are some programs that are more cyclical, like, for instance, parking recreation that doesn't pick up until the summer months. Next slide, please. The next couple of slides provide some additional detail about the general fund. The first, our general fund revenues. Just a couple revenues that I'd like to point out. What this slide will show is the major revenue categories, and it shows what the 2023 budget is, shows the 2023 actual, and it compares that same information to 2022. Looking at our property tax, We budget less than 100% of our property tax revenue, and we've collected almost all of that through March. As you can see, we've collected nearly 100%. On our sales tax, our budget for sales tax is 38.8 million, and we've collected $19.9 million. So at this point in the year, sales tax is $2.1 million higher than what it was at this same point last fiscal year. And we have actually collected $950,000 more than what we would have expected to have collected at this point in the year. I also wanted to point out interest income, which is in the middle of that report. We'll talk a little bit about this later, but with the Federal Open Market Committee increasing interest rates, it has a positive impact on the investments that the city is able to invest in. Our 2023 budget for interest income is $190,000, and we have collected $935,000 through March. Next slide, please. Moving on to general fund expenditures. Personnel makes up the largest category of expenditures. In total, it's just under two-thirds of the total general fund budget. And as you can see, out of the $68 million, we spent about $30 million out of about 44%. In total, we have spent 41% of our budget at $45 million of the $108 million, which is close to where we were at this point in last year. Our next fund is the first enterprise fund that we'll discuss is the electric utility. And the budget for electric utility revenue is $65 million. And we've collected 46% of that, or $30 million. For this fund, as well as for the next fund that we're going to talk about, the water wastewater fund, we typically collect most of that revenue in the summer months. For electric, people tend to run the air conditioning during the summer months. And that's where we generate more revenue for the electric fund. For on the expense side, we have spent 43% of our expense budget, $29 million of the $67 million. Next slide, please. On the Water Wastewater Utility Fund, mentioned it on the last slide, we have collected 47% of the budgeted revenues of $27.5 million. We have spent 33% of our budget, which is a little higher than where we were at this point last year. And that is attributable to a bond payment that I posted during the March quarter that posted in the April quarter the prior year. So by the end of the year, that'll self-correct itself. Next slide, please. And our stormwater management fund, this fund generates revenue more evenly throughout the year. So you can tell we're about 50% collected. The only growth in this fund is the number of accounts that are added to the fund throughout the year. When you compare that to where we were last year, we're in a similar place. On the expense side, the same is true. We spent about 31% of our budget. A lot of the expenses in this fund are for projects that occur during the summer months, so we haven't got to that point yet. Next slide, please. In our resource recovery fund, we have collected 48% of our $7 million budget, which is a total of $3.4 million. We're collected slightly under from a percentage perspective of what we collected last year at this point. Our budget, there was a rate adjustment, and as you can see, our budget is higher, so we have collected more revenue, even though it's a lesser percent. On the expense side, we're About where we were at this same point last year, we spent 39% of the budget, which is $2.9 million. Next slide, please. The final enterprise fund that we'll go over is our airport fund. We have collected 42% or $328,000 of our revenue budget, which is about $14,000 higher than the revenue we collected at the airport at the same point last year. On the expense side, we have spent 47% of our budget, which is about $9,500 higher. At this point in the year, we're in a better financial position at the airport than we were at the same point last year. And the final slide that we'll go over is our hotel tax fund. We have collected about half of the budgeted hotel tax revenue at $2.2 million of the $4.4 million budget. When comparing it to last year, we've collected less from a percentage perspective. That's a slightly different approach in budgeting. Instead of budgeting ultra conservatives, it's conservatives. As you can tell, the revenue budget is higher. This is as the industry starts to rebound from the impact that COVID had on the tourism industry, we had a really conservative approach to budgeting our hotel tax fund, and we're about 50% at this point in the year. On the expense side, we spent 34% of our expense budget which is under where we were at this point last year, we were at 41%. That is mostly attributable to capital expenses and the total capital expense budget is $900,000. And the two biggest projects that make that up are the way finding, which is 500,000 and the arts master plan, which is 200,000. And that concludes the financial report. I'd be happy to address any questions that city council may have.

Council. we like to hear the good news and yes it is very well laid out so it's easy for us to follow so thank you thank you all right mr vina we'll move on to item three receiving staff presentation of the quarter ended march 31 2023 investment report and provide direction to the city manager thank you again mayor and city council this will provide uh

at the investment results through that same point, March 31st, 2023. We'll begin with just the overview of the economy and and talk a little bit about what is impacting our investment results. As we mentioned during the financial report, The Federal Open Market Committee increased interest rates again, another 25 basis points, to a target range of 5 and 5.25%. This happened during this current month. That has been the talked-about range that the committee wanted to get to, so that may be the last increase we see. We'll have to see how inflation reacts to it. The reason that the rates have been increased is trying to combat inflation. The Federal Open Market Committee is trying to get that down to about a 2% inflation over a period of time. In March of 2023, the consumer price index was at 5%, and when you remove food and energy, which is typically the more volatile items, it was actually higher. It typically isn't like that. It was 5.6%. This is due to the increase in housing costs. That's what's really driving inflation right now is the increased housing costs. Looking at unemployment, San Marcos and nationwide had the same unemployment rate as of March 2023 at 3.6%, and the state of Texas was at 4.2%. Next slide, please. This slide provides an overview of all the city's portfolio. It has a snapshot as of March 31st and compares that to the prior quarter and December 31st. Uh, there were three major categories that are, uh, displayed, uh, investment polls and money market accounts, the securities and demand accounts. Demand accounts aren't investments. Those are the accounts that the city makes payroll from and pays accounts payable from. So you can see from December to March, the total amount in the portfolio increased from 334 million to $366 million. Looking at the yields, if you move to the center column or center row, the total portfolio yield was just over 3%. And to the right of that, you see what the rolling 12-month average is, and that's 2.4%. So we are beginning to recognize higher returns as some of those older investments begin to mature and we can invest it at the higher rates. Um, at the very bottom, you'll see our total entrance earnings through the second quarter. This is citywide was 2.1 million. I'm looking back at the same point last year, our total interest earnings was $79,000. So that tells you the big swing and the impact that the increase in races had positively on our investments. Next slide, please. This slide breaks down the investment value by the two different fund types that we track our investments in. We track our enterprise funds separately from all of our other governmental funds. So on the left-hand side, it has our consolidated funds, and the solid color is the current quarter as of March 31st, and the stripe to the right of it is the previous quarter as of December 31st. The blue is what we refer to as our regular cash and the green color is our reserve. So that's the money that's set aside for, um, an emergency or a rainy day. So you can look at the, for, um, our consolidated funds and see that our balance increased from 117 million to 151 million from the end of December through the end of March. This, again, is largely attributable to the influx of the property tax revenue that the city receives through the March quarter. On the right-hand side, the two right-most columns, those are our enterprise funds, and that was mostly unchanged from the end of last quarter at $216 million to this quarter, end of March quarter, at $215 million. Next slide, please. This slide takes that 151 million that we saw in the previous slide and just breaks it down to the different funds that make up that 151 million. You can tell the general fund is the largest piece of that at 46 million, followed by our governmental capital improvement program fund and our general fund reserves. Next slide, please. This slide shows the same thing except for the enterprise portfolio and by far 77% of that 215 million is made up by our capital improvement program funds for the enterprise funds. See with the water, wastewater, electric utility and the storm water utility. Next slide please. The investment diversification slide shows how the city's investments are diversified and it shows what is in the current policy that is investment policy that's improved by city council, how much is allowed to be invested in each one of those security types and where we were. It also shows where we were as of the previous quarter quarter one, which was December and where we were as of quarter two in March. Um, you can tell that, um, we finished March well within any of the parameters established by the investment policy. Just a couple notable changes, you'll see the local government investment polls decreased from the prior quarter to this quarter by about 25% and the federal agency securities and the money market mutual funds increased by about that same amount and that was shifting money that had come in and into the local government polls into a higher investment securities to earn more interest. And the final slide of the investment report just compares the yield of our different portfolios. The top two, the green and the pink color, those are the one-year treasury bill and the six-month treasury bill. Whenever the feds increase rates, those are going to react immediately. So they're always going to be ahead of the city's investments when we're in an interest rate increasing environment. You can see, though, that the city's investment are also increasing. If you look at the purple and the yellow, that is our regular cash. The regular cash can only be invested up to a two-year weighted average term, and the reserves can be invested up to three-year. So that's the reason at the right you see that the purple and the yellow is having higher returns currently than the blue and the red, which are the reserves, as those securities begin to mature, we'll be able to invest those in higher interest rates. And that concludes the investment report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Council, questions?

Thank you so much, Mr. Locke.

Mr. Vino let's, uh, oh, uh, next up is our consent agenda. The following items, uh, number four through 14 may be acted upon by one motion. Unless we pull something council, I'm going to pull item 10 simply for a statement. Um, do y'all have anything else? All right. Then I would entertain a motion to approve items two through nine and 11 through 14. I said, I'll accept a motion, but I'll give you the motion. All right. Mr. Mendoza makes the motion and Mr. Prater seconds it. Mr. Vini.

Mr. Scott. Mr. Gleason. Mayor Houston. Ms. Gorza. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Mendoza. Mr. Prater. Motion passes seven to zero.

All right, and as we usually do, we'll hold that item that was pulled until after our public hearings. So we will continue with item 15.

Receive a staff presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against ordinance 2023-39, amending the official zoning map of the city in case number ZZ-23-13 by rezoning approximately 104.179 acres of land, journey located southeast of the intersection of FM 110 and Staples Road from CD4, character District 4, and CD five character district five to CD three character district three are subject to consent of the owner and other less than 10 zoning district classification, including procedural provisions and provide an effective date and consider approval of ordinance 2023-39, the first of two readings.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Amanda Hernandez, Director of Planning and Development Services. Next slide, please. The subject properties associated with this zoning request total approximately 104 acres. They're located along FM 110 between Staples Road and the San Marcos River. Next slide. The properties are currently vacant and are part of the settlement agreement for the project currently known as River Bridge Ranch. The surrounding area consists of vacant and residentially used properties. One of the adjacent developments in the ETJ is called River Bend Ranch, but we are talking about River Bridge. Next slide. The River Bridge Ranch development was zoned to character districts three, four, and five in 2020. And at this time, the applicant is requesting to down zone the character district four and five areas to character district three in order to construct a single family subdivision. Next slide. The properties are in a low intensity zone on the preferred scenario map. Next slide. And table 4.1 sends us to the next slide, which is table 4.6. Table 4.6 is provided to determine compatibility with the comprehensive plan in low-intensity areas for character district zoning changes, but this table is not applicable because it does not have character district to character district zoning on the table. It's to take legacy districts to character districts. So what staff did, just to provide an example of what this zoning might be, this zoning change might be, is we looked at what is allowed in character districts four and five, which is really mixed use, multifamily, those types of things, to character district three. And if you see where the little arrow is pointing, if this were a legacy district to character three, it would be considered. But this table is not applicable. Next slide. Looking at character district three, the primary land use is residential. It allows single family duplex and zero lot line houses. Next slide. The majority of the project is not located within the floodplain. The zoning change will actually reduce the amount of impervious cover which would be permitted compared to what the current zoning districts of character district four and five would allow. Next slide. Infrastructure will be required during the development process. Next slide. During their regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the potential lack of commercial services in the area, and if there were any plans for the industrial portion of the development on the other side of FM 110. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this zoning change request, and that concludes my presentation.

Okay, and I will open the public hearing. And we have a Chase Kolhoff online. We'll need your name and your address. And you have a maximum of three minutes. And please continue, or please start.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Chase Koloff. I represent Lennar. Our address is 13620 North FM 620, Austin, Texas, 78717. The purpose of tonight's zoning request is, as mentioned by staff, is to downzone this project from a multi-use to a single-family use in Character District 3. We're trying to build a full on master plan community here from entry level houses to first time move up and second time move up. We feel that this is a great location for this community and as staff said, I believe we're doing a great job here in following all applicable codes and we're requesting just to down zone this. And that's all I have for tonight.

All right, next is Dan Ryan. Is he on? Okay. Dan Ryan, name and address, and you have three minutes.

Hello. My name is Dan Ryan. I'm with LJA Engineering. Address is 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 150, Austin, Texas, 78735. And really, the purpose of my speaking here is to answer any potential questions that you may ask. But again, staff did a great presentation regarding the zoning change. We think it's completely non-controversial. And in keeping with the proposed master plan for the community, again, I'm happy to answer any questions that may come up about the change in zoning. Thank you very much.

Okay, is there anyone in chambers wishing to speak far against or about this project? Seeing none, we will go to Ms. Capaletta online.

I do not see her online.

Okay, well, we may hear from her during question and answer then. Okay, then I will. close the public hearing and I await a motion on this item. Motion to approve. Motion from Mr. Gleason and a second from Mr. Mendoza. Council, questions, concerns, comments? It's unusual for us to have one such as this.

Yeah.

All right. Presentation was great. We have no questions. Mr. Vina, we will vote.

Mr. Gleason.

Aye.

Mary Houston.

Aye.

Ms. Garza. Aye. Mr. Gonzalez. Aye. Mr. Mendoza. Aye. Mr. Prather. Aye. And Mr. Scott. Aye. Motion passes 7-0.

All right. We'll move on to item 16.

Receive a staff presentation to hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Substantial amendments to the Community Development Blog Grant entitlement CDBG action plans for program years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 to reallocate funding from the Southside Community Center Housing Rehabilitation, Emergency Repair, and Priority Repairs programs to the CDBG owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program administered by the city.

Ms. Hernandez.

We have Carol Griffith who's joining you online this evening. All right, Ms. Griffith.

Hello, I'm Carol Griffith. Housing and Community Development Manager. This evening I am requesting council direction on two items. Sorry, just checking something. Staff is proposing amending CDBG entitlement action plans for four years, different years, to combine owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funding into one city-administered program for each year. Separately, staff is requesting council direction on the terms for liens placed on houses that are rehabilitated. Next slide. Under the direction of Ruben Garza, Southside Community Center administered an owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program using CDBG funding from the city for many years. The Southside program has been allocated funding each of the past four years, totaling $433,000. Since Mr. Garza retired as executive director last year and unfortunately died, Southside no longer has the in-house expertise to run a housing rehabilitation program. And the Southside Board has decided to focus on other services to the community instead. Therefore, a city staff is proposing reallocating Southside's funding to an owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program administered by the city. Next slide. Since the reallocation of Southside's funding was necessitated by the change in their programming, staff proposes taking this opportunity to combine city-administered emergency repair funding from the same years into the city-administered owner-occupied housing rehab program as well. This totals about $183,000. The policies and procedures for the city's rehab program provide for funding smaller emergency repairs as well. Next slide. The city's owner-occupied housing rehab program received funding in two of the four program years, and this would be combined in as well for an additional $248,000. Next slide. Combining funding from these three programs into one would result in a single city-administered owner-occupied housing rehab and repair program with the amount shown here for each program year. As city council is aware, all four funding years have been on hold pending substantial program revisions and procurements. Revisions are complete and three contractors have been procured who can each handle rehabilitating three to five houses at once. As soon as a final procurement for an independent estimator is finished in the next couple of months, the program will restart and staff anticipates that all of this CDBG funding will be spent within 12 months of restarting the program. Next slide. Council direction is requested after the public hearing that is required for these proposed CDBG action plan amendments. And with council direction, what we'll do is put this proposal into the amendments that are posted online for citizen comment over the next 30 days. Next slide. Separately, staff is also requesting council direction on setting lien terms for the houses that are rehabilitated using these funds. Typically, CDBG programs stop being grants and start being deferred forgivable loans at about $25,000. This is not a direct CDBG requirement, but is considered a best practice to protect the real property investment in affordable housing over time. Staff recommends setting a five-year lien term reduced monthly by a percentage of the loan amount. The proposed five-year term is the same as city council approved for homes constructed on the owner's lot with CDBG disaster recovery funding. Because this would be a deferred payment forgivable loan, the homeowner would not have to pay the costs of rehabilitation back unless the home is sold, at which time the remaining balance on the loan would be paid to the city. Staff is requesting direction on the number of years for the lien term. Once council direction is provided this evening, this lean term will be made part of the policies and procedures of the program. This is not part of the action plan amendments. It's just part of the administrative details. Next slide. Our next steps, um, this evening, it is required by HUD that city council hold a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed action plan amendments for the four years to combine the funding into one owner occupied housing rehab program. And in addition, staff is requesting that council provide direction to staff on this proposal. Let's see, upon, I guess I already said this, but upon receiving council direction, we'll finalize the action plan amendments and we'll post them for public comment for 30 days. And then we'll bring them back for a final council decision on July 3rd. And then once again, this evening, staff is also requesting council direction on the length of the lien term. And this concludes my presentation.

All right. Is there anyone in chambers or lobby who wish to speak far against or about this item? If so, please approach the podium. Seeing none in house as Ms. Kapileta online.

No ma'am.

Okay. So I will close the public hearing and I seek a motion on this. This is not a motion though, is it? Okay. But do we do need to answer two questions? Uh, council member, council members, we had the two questions. One is, are we good with combining all of these into one effort? I'm seeing yeses from almost everyone. Okay. So we're, we're yes on that. And then there's the, if we could go to the other slide, about a five-year lean term, lean term for $25,000. Five years, 25. Are you good with the five years? Are you good with the 25? Five years. Five years. Anybody want $10,000? Instead of 25? No? I'm good.

Let's say that the owner owns his home.

Okay, can you move your microphone over because we want to hear you.

Question, let's say that the owner owns his home. I don't think he should have a balance, period. What do you mean? Of the 25 years, of the $25,000. We're talking about a balance if they trade off, maybe I misunderstood it.

Okay. Let me make sure I understand this. Ms. Griffith, exactly what does this mean? It means the payback time goes down over five years, correct?

Correct. So if we spend 25,000 or more on the rehab, we'll place a loan and a lien on the property for five years. It's reduced monthly is what we're proposing so that if the home sells during that time period, we would know exactly how much is still owed on the home for that rehab. And we would ask for that out of the proceeds of the sale.

Right. So they're not going to be paying anything, but yet if they sell that home for a profit, then whatever in less than the five years, right. Then that's what we would ask to recover at the time of sale.

Yeah. And it'd be, I guess it'd be probated.

It's prorated. Yes.

Yeah. That's fine. I'm sorry.

Good with the 25 or would you like to see it lowered?

I like to see it lower to 15.

Well, but that would put a lean on it at a lower number, not a higher number.

Right. It generates, it generates the lean.

Well, well, let's just leave it the way you discussed the way it's been discussed.

Cause I'm talking about 10, but Ms. Griffith is talking about 25. So which, as we discussed, are you going with? I get, Oh,

Well, can I hear some comments from my colleagues?

I think Ms. Garza has something she wants to say, and then I'll check to say.

Well, I'm just wondering what the rationale is for 10 versus 25 or 15.

It's only if they sell the home, because if that's money a little bit more that we can recover, assuming they're making money on that sale. Ms. Griffith, if any money comes back to us, where does that money go? Does it go back in this pool? To help others, that's going to be a big influence on how I go with this.

So correct. It goes into what's called program income, and it goes back to this specific program.

OK. And we can help more.

Thank you for clearing that for me.

OK. Ms. Garcia? I'm comfortable with the $25,000. You like the $25,000? OK.

Just out of curiosity, so let's say the homeowner passes away within that five year time frame and they pass it on to their children. Are there any penalties or is it still going to be on that five year plan if it switches over to a different owner?

That's a good question.

That's a good question.

So it gets more complicated at that point for certain, but what the basics are that if the heir is a low to moderate income person, they can just assume the documents as it is. If not, I think it would get more sticky, but the city is really not in the business of foreclosing or asking for money back from the heirs. So what we would do is work with the legal department on that just to make sure. We have a lien on the property, but we don't have to enforce it. And so in those circumstances, I would not anticipate us enforcing the lien. Thank you.

I just want to make sure that it doesn't scare anybody off from this. Thank you very much.

Good point. Good question to put out there. Hold on. Mr. Blason.

My only thought of keeping it at $25,000 is since we're kind of amending what we're trying to do here and not just patchwork projects, it sounds like the scope of these are mostly going to be in the $15,000 to $25,000 to $30,000 range because we're trying to fix the whole house, not just one project, that more than likely a lot of these projects are going to be in that $25,000 range. If I thought a lot of them were going to be lower than I might lower it, but I'm fine with $25,000.

You go with the 25. Mr. Mendoza, let's go with the 25. 25.

Okay.

I'm not trying to limit the work that we're going to do on the house. I'm trying to increase the money that we might get back if they make a profit on that house that we can put back into the program. That's my intent. So are you still at 25? Yes. All right, 25 is fine. Mr. Scott? 25. 25?

That's well stated, Mayor. Yeah, 25 as well.

All right. Ms. Garza? 25. And I'll go with the will of the group. Ms. Griffin, is there anything else you need from us?

So I just want to verify that you're giving staff direction for a five-year lien term if it's $25,000 or over?

$25,000 or over, yes. I did have a question for Ms. Griffith. Oh, go ahead.

And I have one as well.

When we talk about the action plan amendments, this is, okay, so today we're doing the public hearing and council direction. Then we're having a 30-day public comment period. And then on July 3rd, we're going to vote on the reallocation of the funding?

Is that correct?

Correct. Okay. Yeah, I'm supportive of whatever we can do to get these programs on the road. I think three years in limbo is unacceptable, and we should do what's necessary to get these programming to our neighbors. Mr. Gonzalez.

Actually, similar to the same question you just had, when will those funds be able for our residents to apply for that? We talked about it before, and we thought it was going to happen that year, and it doesn't. And then we talked about it the following year, and it doesn't.

You're ready to roll, aren't we?

Yeah. Do we have a more or less when we can tell our constituents, hey, go apply for this. It's there now. Do you have an idea?

No, I'm for it. Unfortunately, I don't have great news. The step that we're on is to procure an estimator. We have to have an independent estimator, as you know, for the scopes of work and the cost estimates. We received one proposal in our recent request for proposals and it did not qualify because it was from one of the contractors that does the work and we are not allowed to have, that's not independent. We can't have the same company doing the estimates. But unfortunately, because we have to deny that proposal, we have to take that before council. It was intended for this evening's agenda. However, it will actually be on the June 6th agenda for the denial. And then immediately after that, we are going to issue an invitation for bid. What I am sincerely hoping. is that by issuing an invitation for bid, it will be a much simpler process and it will be much more relatable for the estimators, kind of something more in their world. And they can see that we're actually asking for a pretty simple process. We just need an estimator and a company that will do it. And so I hope that we get responses through that process instead of the request for proposal process that we did that was unfortunately I think a little too complicated.

Are we still going to have the same problems we had in the past about the ownership of the home? Like I stated before, that a lot of people in my culture don't make wills. They just leave it to their offsprings and they leave it to theirs. Is that still going to be an issue with people like that that apply for this?

It does seem like a pretty big issue in San Marcos. What we found out of the, we had 38 applications when it was open in 2022. Um, and out of those, I want to say four or five had title issues. And so we simply couldn't serve them. But what we have in place now is a program to try to work with those owners to clear the title, basically to go through all the forms. They have to go through the affidavits of airship to set up, uh, the, the legal, uh, title of the property. Corridor Title has volunteered to help us with that, and we have a couple of realtors who have volunteered, who also speak Spanish, who have volunteered to support the homeowner through that process. So we feel like we have a good program in place now, and we are working on that behind the scenes. That doesn't have to wait, you know, until the funding's available. It's just a process. That's what we have.

It's a process.

Yeah. It really is. Yeah, we are all learning about title issues now.

Thank you very much. Great information.

Ms. Griffith, did you say that, I'm sorry, let me put it this way. Did I understand that you said that we have to wait for the June 6th meeting to close out the process that you've already done where the estimator was not qualified in order for you to start advertising again?

Unfortunately, yes, because it's my understanding from purchasing that all denials have to go before counsel. And that has to happen before we can issue another procurement.

And those people that got denied, can you send them a letter back, tell them to reapply? Is that possible?

The denial is actually for the contractor, and they have been informed that their proposal did not qualify. Why? It's not for the homeowner then.

No, I think Mr. Gonzalez was asking about those four or five homes that didn't qualify because of the title issues. I think that's who you're wanting to notify. I guess you'll notify all 38, or do they need to reapply because so much time has passed, or can you use the application that they had?

We can use the application. The problem is we have to completely recertify their income. And we need to wait until the program is about to start before we can contact them for that information. And yes, definitely, we are already starting to contact the ones that have title issues because we have this new program in place where we can work with them. We have worked really well with Code Compliance. And they are out there in the field talking to these people directly. And so it's a great partnership.

Okay, so there's some things that can get going even though we're waiting on June 6th for some formal legal tasks to be accomplished. Okay.

Right, we're definitely working on the title issues.

All right, that's wonderful. I just have one more question. Just given that I received a lot of community feedback and emails that I forwarded up to leadership and they did a good job answering. First, thank you, Ms. Griffith. This is the type of energy I think we all appreciate, finding creative solutions to barriers. So working with corridor title, having those community partnerships. So I appreciate that hard work. I understand we can't go back in time, but I think we can make a commitment to acknowledge areas of growth, which I think we have been. But also to move with a sense of haste to get these services out to the community. So I still struggle to understand how there was little to no activity for over three years. But I just wanted to say that I think it's clear that this body wants us to move with a sense of haste. And thus far, what you have presented to us, gives me hope that we're going to start seeing these services available to our neighbors. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. I completely agree. And what we're hoping for now is early July. So we'll have the denial June 6th and roll right into an invitation for bid that has a few weeks to be out on the public, and then we'll get a bid and go. That's what we're hoping.

All right. And I believe that closes this one out. Correct. Okay. Then we will go back. That concludes public hearing portion of our program. We'll go back to item 10 that I pulled from the consent agenda. Mr. Bean.

I consider approval of resolution 2023-91R authorizing the use of power of eminent domain to acquire a 1.501 acre wastewater line easement as depicted in exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, determining the public necessity for this acquisition to advance and achieve the public use of the Staples Road Wastewater Improvements Project to extend public wastewater lines to provide wastewater services to the area south and east of the intersection of Staples Road and Old Bastrop Highway. Authorize city manager or her designee to take all steps necessary to acquire the needed interest in the property in compliance with all applicable laws. Authorize the city attorney or his designee to institute condemnation proceedings as necessary to acquire said property interest in the extent negotiations are unsuccessful and declare an effective date.

I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Gleason. Ms. Reyes, I pulled this because this is talking about eminent domain. For the public, could we have a few sentences to whomever you directed to explain that we don't start with eminent domain?

Exactly, Mayor. Joe Pantaleon, Assistant City Manager. Please be assured that eminent domain is not our first option. get an appraisal, offer fair market value, and work cooperatively with the property owner to purchase the property. So in the domain, getting this approval is for entirely contingency purposes, just to accelerate the schedule, should we not be able to reach agreement on a fair market value price.

Thank you so much, sir. Other questions? Mr. Vigneault, let's vote. Oh, did you have something to say? Okay. Mr. Vigneault, let's vote.

I want to start with Ms. Mayer.

Right.

You said Ms. Garza, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Mendoza, Mr. Prather and Mr. Scott motion passes six to zero. I am so sorry, Mr. Gleason.

Mr. You said my name.

He's seconded. Sorry about that.

All right. And then we will move on to item 17.

Consider approval of ordinance 2023-40 on the first of two readings, amending the city's 2022-2023 fiscal year budget to authorize mid-year adjustments to facilities maintenance costs, programming costs, adding personnel to authorized schedule, and carry forward funds from the 2021-2022 fiscal year encumbrances, including procedural provisions that provide an effective date.

Mr. Locke. Thank you again, Mayor and City Council. This is the mid-year budget amendment, and it amends the budget for facility costs, program costs, and to increase the authorized personnel schedule. I'll be providing a summary of exhibit A that provides the most detail to the budget amendment. The total budget amendment for expenses is just under $2.8 million, and the total increase in revenues is $1.7 million. Of that $2.8 million, the general fund makes up $1.7 million of that amount. Just to highlight some of the major increases in that 1.7, there's a total of 16 and a half positions being requested to add to the authorized personnel schedule, 14 and a half, and that half just being a part-time position. Um, it's in the general fund. Um, the police department would receive six and a half of those positions. That's four and a half civilian positions and two officers. The fire department would receive four positions, planning and development, two positions, engineering, one position and human resources, one position. And that's, it's really a shared position is for the commercial driver's license driver instructor. It's a part-time position. Um, so in total, the costs associated with those positions is around $400,000. Um, other major, um, expense increases in the general fund include $500,000 for the, um, office remodel and relocation. This is a citywide expense. This is, um, moving the departments, uh, clock, um, into, uh, the same building. and making small adjustments that will allow some growth for those departments for the years to come. This is in preparation for sometime down the road that a new city hall may be built and that everyone would move into. This will hopefully get us to that point. In addition, there is $236,000 of an increase to a citywide janitorial and mowing contract. Of that $236,000, 121,000 is a janitorial piece of that. Uh, that's just to pay for the final two months of the fiscal year. Um, that cost was increased due to bringing on the public services center, um, needing to be serviced as well. So it increased the cost. Um, and the mowing the right away in the medians is $115,000 of that amount to cover the cost of the general fund. We touched on earlier in the financial overview that sales taxes are estimated to finish $2 million ahead of what we budgeted, and we're requesting to add $1.6 million of that amount to this budget amendment. There are some one-time costs in that $1.7 million as well. Certainly the $500,000 for the office remodel, that could also come from a fund balance because it's not a recurring expense. Just highlighting some of the other fund increases. The center section of Exhibit A is special revenue. And the biggest piece of that is the hotel occupancy tax fund. In total, there's $808,000 being requested in that fund. The biggest piece of that is some maintenance that is required at the conference center. In total, that's $634,000. That is to repair, repave, and re-stripe the conference center parking lot. This is only the parking lot belonging to the conference center. It's not the parking lot for the entire hotel. It's just the conference center itself. The city is responsible for the capital expenses related to the conference center. The plaintiffs use fund balance for this. There is a total of a $3.4 million fund balance in the hotel occupancy tax fund. There are two other positions being added. One is the community enhancement technician, and that's in the community enhancement fund. This is just transitioning a contract position to a city employee. It's transitioning the final contract position. The final position is one that city council has already approved, and that is the diversity, equity, and inclusion coordinator. City Council has already approved the ARPA dollars for that position. This is just authorizing the FTE. It was missed during the budget process. And the final category to touch on is for our tax increment reinvestment zone number five. the board approved some expenses and prior to many of the budget city council must also approve that expense change out of the 257 000 that the board approved 169 000 of that amount was for courthouse sidewalk demolition and replacement downtown and 77 000 for crosswalk restriping and there's another piece to that in downtown lighting So that, that that's an overview of what the budget amendment will do and then approve. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that council may have.

And I don't believe I got a motion in a second cause I was in public hearing mode. So I'm looking for a motion in a second. Okay. Motion by Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Prather. Questions, comments, concerns? I'm just so thrilled we have a little bit of money we can do something with, so this is great. All right. No further questions? Mr. Pena will vote.

Ms. Garza.

Aye.

Mr. Gonzalez. Aye. Mr. Mendoza. Aye. Mr. Prather. Aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Gleason. Aye. And Mary Houston.

Aye.

Motion passes seven to zero.

I know you're not going to spend it all in one place because you've given us the details. So thank you. Item 18, Mr. Vino.

Consider approval of ordinance 2023-41 on first and final reading, authorizing issuance and sale of an amount not to exceed $4,060,000 of combination tax and surplus revenue certificates of obligation series 2023A for one, planning acquisition design and construction of certain drainage and flood control improvements, and two, the payment of professional services in connection therewith, including legal, fiscal, and engineering fees, and the cost of issuing certificates of obligation and other matters related thereto, providing for adoption of Ordinance 2023-41 on one reading only in accordance with state law.

Motion to approve.

Seconded. Motion by Mr. Gleason, seconded by Mr. Scott. Now we can go ahead.

Thank you again, Mayor and Council. Just a bit of background on this item. In August of 2022, Council authorized an application to the Texas Water Development Board for financial assistance for the Wallace Offsite Drainage Improvement Project. In December of 2022, the Texas Water Development Board approved financial assistance in the amount of $5.8 million. Of that amount, $4,060,000 is financing, which is at 0% interest, and $1,740,000 is a grant to the city. In March of 2023, council approved a resolution directly directing the publication of a notice of the intent to issue the certificates of obligation. That notice was ran in two consecutive weeks in March. And this is the final action required by city council. The ordinance authorizes the issuance of certificates of obligation and awarding them to the Texas Water Development Board at 0% interest. I'd like to also mention that our bond council, Bart Fowler of McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton, It's also here this evening of city council has any questions of bond council.

Okay. That's it. Questions.

I'd just like to thank staff for getting this application into the Water Development Board. The Water Development Board has been good to our city, and we've been very fortunate to receive a lot of these, even though we have to do a certificate of obligation on this, at 0% interest. So this is a significant project that's going to get done in a neighborhood that needs it at a zero interest rate. So we can thank the taxpayers of Texas for this.

I just want to say that I am so grateful that Barrio Pascal, the Wallace addition, is getting the attention that it so very much has needed for the years. I thank the previous council for doing that, the gentlemen, my colleagues now and staff for doing that. Thank you so much for everything you've done for that neighborhood.

Just to echo those sentiments, this is a big infrastructure investment in our community. It's working with state partners and it's affecting our local community. I'm glad to see we got this grant. Thank you, staff, for putting in the paperwork to make it happen. It's a big deal.

Thank you. And I would just like to add that it was the engineering team that submitted the application and got the grant for us. So that was Sean Condor and Ray Garcia and Rookie. And so it's the engineering team that did that for us.

All right. Thank them for us. We'll vote, Mr. Venue.

Mr. Gonzalez.

Aye.

Mr. Mendoza. Aye. Mr. Prather. Aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Gleason. Aye. Mayor Houston.

Aye.

And Ms. Garza. Aye. Motion passes 7-0.

On to item 19.

Consider approval of ordinance 2023-42 on first and final reading, authorizing the issuance and sale of an amount not to exceed $1,120,000 of combination tax and surplus revenue certificates of obligation series 2023-42 for one, planning, acquisition, design, and construction of certain drainage and flood control improvements, and two, the payment of professional service in connection with therewith, including legal, fiscal, and engineering fees and the cost of issuing the certificates of obligation and other matters related thereto, providing for adoption of Ordinance 2023-42 on one reading only in accordance with state law.

Motion to approve. Motion from Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Gleason.

Mr. LaValle.

Thank you. One last time, Mayor and City Council. This is a similar item as the last one. In April 2022, Council authorized an application to the Texas Water Development Board for financial assistance in connection with the Castle Forest drainage improvement project. And in December of that same year, the Texas Water Development Board approved a financial assistance in the amount of $1.6 million, including $1,120,000 at 0% financing and a $480,000 grant to the city and March of 2023 council approved the resolution authorizing the publication of a notice to have intent to issue certificates of obligation. And that notice did run in two consecutive weeks during March. And this item is the final action required by city council. The ordinance authorizes the issuance of certificates of obligation and awarding them to the Texas water development board at 0% interest. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. And Bond Council is here as well.

You know what they said before, but put this neighborhood down.

And a shout out to the engineering and CIP staff for getting this in. And I'll just kind of reiterate what I said in the past, that, you know, the Water Development Board, these are interest-free loans on top of the one-third of this being a grant. And these are extremely important projects that need to be done in the community. So kudos for staff for finding this and the water belt and board for working with us and the communities to get some of these projects done. So this is, this is good stuff.

Mr. Vania will vote.

Okay. Mr. Mendoza.

Aye.

Mr. Prater. Aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Gleason. Aye. Mayor Houston.

Aye.

Ms. Barza. Aye. And Mr. Gonzalez. Aye. The motion passes seven to zero.

Next on to item 20.

Consider approval of resolution 2023-96R, approving a meet and confer agreement with the San Marcos Police Officers Association, providing an effective date for the agreement, authorizing the city manager or her designee to execute the agreement on behalf of the city and declare an effective date for this resolution.

Motion to approve.

I'll give that one to Mr. Gleason. Who was the second? Mr. Scott? Okay. So he has the second. Ms. Reyes?

We aren't planning to do a presentation tonight as we did last weekend or last week, sorry, uh, last meeting. And, uh, just to allow more time for council discussion, if you so desire, we are here for questions that you may have.

All right. Council, questions, comments, thoughts?

I'll start out that I previously stated last time during the presentation that I appreciate staff's time on this. I know this was not an easy thing to do, and I know it took a lot of time and effort, and I'd also like to thank the the Officers Association for sitting down and negotiating on this. And I think this is a fair agreement. I really do. And I think both sides got some things they wanted and some things that they didn't. And I do hope that the criminal justice reform movement that has been pushing a lot of this stuff realizes how important some of the things that you did get. that you probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And I know there's a push to potentially get away from meet and confer to understand that you're probably going to lose some of the things that you pushed for this time around if it goes back to civil service. I know there's been some talk of that. So these are tough decisions, and this is a tough negotiations. And these are emotional topics. And I'd just like to thank the community for all the input. everyone that's been here and participated in conversations and speaking, and that I do think, I know you don't feel like you possibly were heard, but you were. And, you know, and these are just difficult things to deal with. And I do hope that this isn't going to be the end of it. There will be another negotiations in a few years. And the needle is always moving, right, one way or another. And it's important for our community to come together. That's one of the things that I wanted to reiterate is that The division is not helpful, and I know these are tough things to sit down and negotiate, but we have to do it in good faith and understand that we are a community as a whole. Um, and, and of all the things we've been seeing in the community when it comes to violent crime and all the other things that have happened on the negative side for the officers, um, that we can, that we can sit down and discuss these things and negotiate them and, and move on, um, until the next time around. So thanks to everybody who put on all the time and effort in this and the community input and, uh, and I'm, I'm ready to vote for this time.

I have a comment and a couple of questions. Go ahead. So, um, Thank you for stating that community division isn't helpful. I agree. However, I do think it's important to note that community input is substantially different from a community dialogue, right? So I wrote down a couple thoughts just because I got that ADHD so I could stay on task. So I don't doubt that everyone here navigates with our neighbor's best interest at heart, right? So regardless of any difference of like policy opinions, I worked alongside everybody here to ensure the safety and well-being of our community. And this goes like beyond the comfort of the diet. So I'm talking, we go out on the streets during winter events, flooding, and so on and so forth. So what that tells me is, Oh, just kidding. Let me back up. And then when neighbors come to me with immediate safety concerns, I reach out to chief staff and city manager Reyes with full confidence that they're going to take care of it. Right. Um, I have worked alongside folks that are here to push for the repeal of the police contract, but I've also worked alongside folks that are here to push for the approval of the, of the, um, police contract. And what that tells me is that, um, to Mr. Gleason's point, we are stronger together. We all love our community and we're willing to get our hands dirty and get uncomfortable. if it means showing up for each other. So that's why I fundamentally cannot support the renegotiated contract. So instead of capitalizing on this unique strength only found in San Marcos, we chose to have behind closed doors conversations regarding the reforms, instead of having a dialogue to ensure all our neighbors on either side had a fuller understanding of the contract and the process to learn from each other, We sat through a presentation by Chief Standridge, an executive session, where he provided his perceptions of the operational implications of the reforms. We hear, at least I hear, and I'm pretty sure I've heard my colleagues express that, contradictory claims on all sides of the issue, from folks that support the contract, from folks who want to reject the contract. And we navigate in silos, and this is what happens, right? Neighbors who have previously worked alongside each other sit here at City Hall, in opposition of something that's supposed to be rooted in the safety for everybody. All of this could have been avoided with open dialogue. And so I guess my question is, because I fundamentally believe that our neighbors have the right to know, is how did we end up choosing this path instead of choosing to have like an intentional dialogue. And what, I guess, legal parameters prohibited facilitating community dialogue. Because I remember hearing a lot, and the thing about executive session, y'all, is that we're not really provided a lot of handouts. It's presentations. We're taking down notes. And I remember just hearing all the boogeyman rationale as to why we couldn't engage in a town hall, for example. And so I just want... some rationale as to why we did it this way and not in a format where we can exchange ideas and make sure everybody understands the rationale. And if somebody feels it, like, genuinely that stuff that we're saying is disingenuous or not factual, like, they can check us, right? Or that we could back it up? Like, how did we do this instead of that? that's like to staff to everybody who basically voted to go this way and not the other way like how do we end up here and why I still like it's hard for me to explain to our neighbors it seems like such common sense to like let's have a town hall or let's have a community forum but we didn't

So I don't see anybody else jumping to answer.

Well, I can just jump in here and say I wanted to take this to the voters. I really did because this was such an important, very important thing. I wanted to, you know, that they were able to get the petition. They were able to get those signatures. I really wanted to hear everything from them. That's why I really wanted to go to the voters. That's just from my point that that's what I wanted.

Right. But it didn't. And so then it's like, even with it going to the voters or whatever, like, I feel like there's still such a lack of understanding amongst all our neighbors, even amongst ourselves. And when we talk about this is going to come up again, like, how are we preparing for that? You know, like.

I think we are with the conversations we've been having.

And I think we are with the management that we've hired with Chief Stambridge. I think that he's heard a lot of the community's concerns, and he's incorporating it in how he's going to run out policy for his troops.

And let me just say, at the very beginning of this process, I came to you as counsel and I asked, yeah, do you want to have a community dialogue? Do you want to do it in a meeting? Do you want to do it in executive session? And the direction I received was these are the parameters that you need to go out and do that. And so that was the direction that we received. Was it unanimous? No. but that was the overall majority of the consensus. So we went forward with the process and then you directed us to bring forward a public presentation before the adoption of the agreement so that that would allow for citizen comment. All the meetings have been open. We streamed the meetings. And so there has been more transparency, if you will, in regard to how the meetings have been held this time than there were last time. Now, is everybody happy with the agreement? Of course, there's not. We don't have everybody happy with the agreement. But it definitely wasn't for lack of wanting to have a process, have it clearly defined, and us clarify what process you as council wanted us to do with this new agreement. And so that is the reason that we took the process in the way that we did.

It's definitely on that, I mean, a lot of the stuff that y'all worked out in the meet and confer wouldn't have happened without their protests and that you were able to work into it. Even though they don't see it, it's actually in there and you were working on it. So the people who are protesting and bringing up these ideas or concerns are being heard. They're being heard by staff, and they're being heard by council. So they're being heard. But we do need to have safety in this community. It's critical. It's gone to the roof. In 2010, when I first got on council, San Marcos was the safest place in the United States to live. It was even recorded that way. It's a magazine somewhere. Now we've got crime rates through the roof. And that's just not what I want to see in this community. I want it to be open to everybody, and I want it to be friendly. I want it to have a small-time feel. I want my kids to be safe. You know, I just really believe the culture that we have here in San Marcos is a really good one. So we do need to have that security, making sure that we are safe in the whole process.

Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you, Mr. Prater? Thank you.

Can you hear me now? Yeah. The best way I can describe this, this is measured progress with criminal justice reform. You're not going to change things overnight. You're going to keep moving the needle forward. We want a police department that attracts the best. We want a police department that's going to lean forward and lead the way here in Texas on how we see policing in the 21st century. But as our other colleagues have mentioned and what's going on in our community, Our town is becoming less safe every day, and we have to have other approaches, data-driven crime policies, recruiting the best officers. And to do that, this contract, this Meet and Confer contract helps provide our police department the ability to recruit, train, and keep the best type of police officers you want to keep your community safe. I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE. I SAID THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING. POLICING IS VERY DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS WORK. SNPD KNOWS THIS ALL TOO WELL. IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THEY'VE HAD FIVE OFFICERS SHOT OR KILLED OR SERIOUSLY WOUNDED IN CAR ACCIDENTS OFF I-35. IN A DEPARTMENT OF AROUND 100 OR SO, THAT'S A 5% CASUALTY RATE. given that it's one of the largest departments in our, in our city, you know, our community, we need to come together and support our law enforcement. We need ideas. We need, uh, on how we can improve policing. And that's what y'all have helped drive that where we're at today. Um, so I think like any negotiations, you don't get everything you asked for, but this is measured progress.

Right. I guess the comment to that is I hear you, I feel you, but I don't understand how any of the Hartman reforms would be an impediment to any of those things that you just talked about. Does that make sense? Like, yes, we need to recruit the best officers, right? We also have to make sure that the not-so-good officers are held accountable. And so accountability measures that aren't, in my opinion, so far out of this world were proposed by our neighbors. Like, to your point, we need ideas. I mean, our neighbors outline ideas, right? And so it's just difficult for me to... understand how we're okay with essentially no difference between pre-community led ballot initiative and post community ballot initiative. And again, I'm not trying to be shady. I know everybody who speaks up loves our community, but it's like y'all are only able to make policy decisions that are best for our community when you have all the information in front of you. And I think without community dialogue, we don't, right? Like we don't. Folks who emailed in support of the meet and confer contract, those I made time to reply to, and I kind of asked, like, okay, what parts of the contract do you appreciate what types of the contract do you support, they were really gracious in outlining that for me. And so that was something that I can have on my toolbox to understand where they're coming from. Imagine how much more powerful it would have been if we could all sit down and talk instead of these one directional conversations. In lieu of that, it would just make sense to have more intentionally contemplated the reforms, but instead we didn't. The documents are online. Compare what we had, which I acknowledge. What did you say? Measured progress. It was a lot of progress. I'll acknowledge that. But compare that to what we have right now, and there's very few edits. And what kind of message does that give to our neighbors? It's kind of messed up. But yeah, I just... Trust in the police is important for safety, but there's not going to be trust if people are still felt like they're being unheard.

I don't think this has been one way at all. I think they have been heard. I mean, we've been hearing it, right? We've seen it. We hear about it. I've talked to people about it and this hasn't been one sided at all, but it is a two way street too. We can't just push so-called reforms on an apartment. If, if, if they're not going to work and officers don't want to work under those rules, we can demand all these reforms we want. But if, the officers association doesn't agree to it and officers walk away, what do we have? You have an agreement for a department that doesn't have any staffing. And that's why it's a two-way street, right? No one is completely happy with this. No one. But there's a lot of good things in here that are moving the needle. whether it's a little bit of additional pay, some opportunity for part-time, some reforms, some accountability measures. When we say there's no accountability here, I beg to differ. I think there's extreme accountability, and I think the chief has shown that he's willing to use that accountability. And I think there's been a dramatic change. and the discussions in the country and also in our community about exactly where our department is compared to 10 or 20 years ago. And it's measured, and I think it's going in the right way. But you can't go all the way and expect to have a department. That's just the reality. We're already having a hard time recruiting and retaining. And the retention is one of the most important parts because those are your experienced officers. Those are your trainers. Those are the ones that have experience in the community and the connections to the homeless community and the people that live here and know our streets. And those are the ones that I'm worried the most about losing. And it's a difficult thing to do. I've had a very good friend who shot in the line of duty and is lucky to be alive. And he sacrificed a lot. And, you know, kudos to anybody who's willing to work in law enforcement these days. And I've got several friends that are. And it does take a real sacrifice, not just from the officers, but the officers' families, too. And those people who serve our community deserve our support. You know, it's a battle during these discussions about the contract. But when the contract is signed, we need to support them. And those are the most important things. And then The next time around we have negotiations, we can have that discussion and that fight. And as far as the voice and the message, we're the voice and message. We're the elected body. And we're elected to portray that. But to say people haven't been heard, I just don't think is correct. But I do hope that... As many things as we have going on in this community, including with violent crime, and my neighborhood has been dealing with it. I can't even begin to describe all the things that have happened within two blocks of my house in the last six months. It's absolutely crazy the things that have changed in the last several years. I don't know exactly why. I don't want to put my finger on one thing, but... I just hope that we could all come together and say, you know, the next time there's a negotiations, let's sit down and talk about the tough issues. We're willing to have those discussions, but to understand no one is ever going to get everything they want or the other side will give up, whether it's the reform side or the officer side. So I'm, you know, kudos to my colleagues as we've been really civil about this. And I know a lot of us have struggled with this and And so I just want to give a shout to my colleagues, too, because I know this hasn't been easy on all of us with the communications and how we deal with this individually. So I think that's all I have.

Mayor, I'd like to say a couple words.

Mr. Gonzalez.

Thank you. Well, I wanted to go back to the committee because I thought we could come up with a win-win of some sort, and I think we did. And like my colleague just mentioned, you cannot hit. HAVE EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK IT'S A START. AND WE'RE GOING TO LEARN QUITE A BIT FROM THIS EXPERIENCE FOR THE NEXT NEGOTIATION. AND PROBABLY HALF OF US OR MAYBE A COUPLE OF US MIGHT STILL BE HERE. BUT IF I'M NOT, I'LL BE OUT THERE SAYING, HEY, REMEMBER THIS, GUYS. But I think it's a start. And to be a police officer is really, I'll be perfectly honest with you, it's a terrible job. You know, my son's a police officer and I just worry about him. After stories after stories that he tells me, his son, why do you want to do this? It's because his heart's in it and he wants to make a difference. And this is where I'm going to support it. I think we came out with a win-win. And it's not a perfect world, but we're going to keep on trying. And that's all I have. Mayor.

I just want to point out, Mr. Gonzalez, that you weren't there on the meeting that I was specifically referencing. The meeting that I was specifically referencing was the one where we went down each Hartman reform. And then we, I'm like, I'm almost positive you weren't there. And then we voted to whether we were going to do other formats or decide. So, yeah, just FYI. Okay. And, yeah, no one's doubting the dangers of being a police officer, but we owe it to our police officers to create systems of accountability.

And I agree. I think our chief has created that responsibility. He's taken that responsibility of accountability, because I've seen it. And we got to work as a group and support our San Marcos PD and our fire department and the city in general. That's all I have. Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Just one thing here. I actually want to thank the group that came out here and got the signatures and has been fighting for the reform. It may not come across as I appreciate it, but I really do. It's something that's very important, and it's an evolution that needs to happen in society. I hope, no matter how this vote goes, I hope this program, Voices, will be successful, and I hope there is an open heart and open arms from the department to hear the citizens on this and to really make this Voices program successful. I have faith, not just so much as the chief, but I have faith in him as a man as a person and as a man that I know personally, that I hope that you will fulfill our hopes that VOICE's program will be successful and maybe bring in further discussions if we come back with this meet and confer later on through the years. But again, I want to just very much express how grateful I am for you guys being active in the community and making sure that we are made fully aware of what needs to be changed and kind of jumping on us and making sure that we do our job. Thank you to everybody.

I know we don't need a reminder, but I'm going to say this anyways. A contract is an agreement between two parties, and they each have to agree as to what goes in that contract, which means there's going to be some things that each side wants. It's not going to happen. You have to go with what you agree on. I will say that I have learned from everyone who has spoken and everyone who has emailed in. And we have heard from those who are good with the contract. We've heard from those who want changes to be made. This contract is better than no contract. So I will be supporting this contract.

I just want to, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I keep going on and on, but this is a substantial portion of our budget. It is a substantial charge that we have that is public safety. So I just want to appreciate y'all's grace and me just like having word vomit. But yes, negotiation is like everybody has to be in it to win it, whatever. But officers, I heard if officers don't want to do it, if they don't agree with it, it's not going to work, right? But we didn't even give that conversation an authentic chance to happen because we, like this body, decided to have a conversation, an executive session, and put forth which ones we already supported. I do appreciate that during the negotiations, it seems like all the heart memory forms were discussed. However, when... The people in charge are already saying nah to all the Hartman reforms. How does that affect an authentic conversation to happen even within the contract negotiations? Because we gave the direction that basically was like, okay, let's go through all the reforms, nah, nah, nah. And then we tell them that, and they're supposed to sit down and do what? They talked about the Hartman reforms was not like they could say, oh, actually we wanna do this, we wanna do that. When the people in charge are already telling them that we don't feel that any of these, essentially any of these reforms are worthy of serious consideration. So it's like, they didn't even, and then this, oh, in a couple years when we all come back, let's meet at the table, let's have these conversations, let's engage. For what? That happened right now, right? That happened this whole time. So I feel like it's very disingenuous and just, I just don't understand how we're inviting the community to continue to have this discussion when It seems like there's no point, right? And we can't even sit down at the table and have a conversation. We didn't vote for that format. We talked about it behind closed doors. We gave direction. And that's how it proceeded. But we want to sit down and have a conversation next time.

Well, you and I are both on the CJ reform, so it's going to be up to us to continue on.

The CJ reform committee who missed several consecutive meetings within the very recent future, that one?

Yeah, the one that had back surgery. Was it doctor's appointments? That one.

No, not you, Shane. Not you personally. They weren't scheduled. I'm like, you went to the meetings. I'm not coming for you. I would have that discussion with you on the background if I had an issue with your attendance on anything, for the record. I'm talking about we didn't meet.

All right, okay, yeah, yeah, I remember.

No, I think the CJR committee as a mechanism for change is not one I have much hope in, so. I guess my last question to my colleagues is, so right now, you all feel like you have a fundamental understanding, given everything folks from both sides have presented, y'all have a fundamental understanding. of the Hartman reforms and why or why not you don't want to support them, right? Because I'm over here like, we should have a conversation so we all have a better understanding. But what I'm hearing is that y'all are like, we get it. We just don't believe in them.

Nobody's saying we're not believing them. We just said that there was a negotiation between the two entities, and this is the agreement we came up with. And it's the same way I would say for the criminal justice reform movement that do we understand that we're having a hard time retaining officers and recruiting officers, right? Like there's lots of nuances on both sides of it, of the discussion. And it's always going to be difficult. This has been a difficult discussion since they created prison systems and we created law enforcement, right? It's always been in a flux of change. If you've taken criminal justice one-on-one, nothing is the same as it was in 1800 when, when all this was kind of started up. So it's, it's, it's difficult and it's emotional, but I still think this is a fair agreement all the way around.

So just for clarity, you're talking about you. It's not that you don't agree with it, but there was a negotiation process. You're talking about the first round or the second one.

Both.

Gotcha. Because again, we decided what they were going to take into consideration.

Because we're the elected body.

Right. And so we decided not to have them consider the Hartman reforms in the renegotiation process.

I remember specifically the chief going over each of them and explaining the legalities or the, you know, and coming up with his solutions that were, you know, working even better and looking to get extending, you know, stuff. I sent him an 80-day thing. I think he doubled it or something, you know. I mean, just that's, you know, him trying to, you know, find something to work with. So I think everybody's listening. I'm sure we don't know all... What the chief knows as far as what he can do, he tells us, but I forget it because it's always state regulated or something.

Okay. Just for clarity, Ms. Reyes, would you clarify what the chief's role was or was not in the negotiations?

Yes. The chief was not part of the negotiating team. The negotiating team for the city was myself, Mr. Stapp, Linda Spacek, and John Locke. Who's the HR director. Who's our HR director and John Locke, our finance director. And we took the direction from council as far as the five Hartman reforms that Chief Standridge provided information about. and ask for parameters. And then that's what we went back with. And we did get direction to move forward with the arbitrator, um, with what we were doing on the arbitrator. And so that was one that we brought forward to them. Um, we wanted to keep the 180 days and that's what y'all asked for. And so, so that that's the second, the second 180 days, um, you asked for letters of reprimand to be considered during the promotional process. And we even asked if they could be considered public file versus G file. Right. And so we did ask for that, they said no. The video review was something that we thought that because of the difference and the nuance with that, that was one that council said, okay, no, let's go ahead and keep that. The vacation, that was one that I will say that the discussion was very split on because there's the financial aspect of it, but it's also the fact of coverage and the fact that discipline doesn't happen right after an action has happened. And so it's not the go think about it right after it's happened. It's something that happens down the road. And so if there was a mental health crisis or something that someone was going through, there are other systems in place to put that person to get the treatment that he or she needed during that time frame. So that was some of the discussion that went back and forth on that. So I don't think that it was... what I heard from the council discussion wasn't just like, oh, no, no, no, we don't care about what anybody says. It was more about the fact that, you know, it was trying to find that give and take. Because when you go, a negotiation is a negotiation. You cannot go in and say, I need all of these things, or I'm not going to participate or I'm not going to be happy with it. And that's just simply not what happens. And it is a situation that is very difficult as staff that we're the ones negotiating the contract. Ultimately, they report to us. And we have to work. This is not an adversarial process. This is not a system of them calling the shots or us calling the shots. We've got to work together. We're a team. Ultimately, this is about the betterment of San Marcos. We have to represent all interests. It's not just the interest that we hear from. It's all the interest that we hear from because we, at the council meetings, I mean, you know, it's not, it's all the interest that we hear from and trying to create some balance. And so that was the negotiation was the balance of it. And no, not everybody's happy and people are going to be, you know, saying you don't hear me just because something didn't go exactly a certain way, but that's not true. There was a lot of, I don't think we would have gone into the negotiation in the way that we did and spent the time. I'm sorry, I was the lead negotiator. I have a very busy schedule and it's very difficult to just be focused on this. I was at the high school earlier today talking about the CTECH program and how we can try to link you know people that that come from homes that don't always offer the most nourishing and support services how can we help and provide an environment that does those things there's other things in this community that we need to work on and it makes it very difficult when we're only working on this one issue and this is the only issue that shows whether you're supporting the community or not supporting the community that that's a very um short-sighted way to look at it. There's a lot of things that we work on on a day-to-day basis. And this is not the only job that we have. And it makes it very difficult when there's no thought of all of those other things that are happening. Is it real that people have been hurt by police officers? Yes. And people have those personal reasons. I'm not going to make excuses for that. I'm not going to say that that was right. But all we can do now is it seems like we're very stuck in a narrative. on past and I want to focus on how do we move forward. And so it doesn't mean that because this agreement goes into place that there's still not work to be done. The chief has already said I'm committed to having these voices meetings. I'm committed to having open dialogue with our community members to find out how we can understand each other better about what are the points of pain and how do we try to move through those challenges together. So I think there's still that willingness there from what I understand from what I've heard from my team. It just seems like it's throwing things out and saying, hey, you've got to do it our way. or no way, or you're not listening to us. And that's not, that's honestly, that's not true. You know, I mean, I've got kids in this community. That's my most important resource. That's my most important, you know, prize in my life. And so I want what's good for St. Marcus. I'm not here negotiating as somebody who's on the outside. I care about this community, you know, in all shapes or form. So... That's honestly the God's truth. It's not a matter of not wanting to side with any particular side of this. It's a very complicated and emotional issue, and I get that.

Okay. Do we have any other questions, comments from the council member, not from audience members? We'll vote now, Mr. Vigneault.

Okay. Mr. Prather, Mr. Scott, Mr. Gleason, Mary Houston, Ms. Garza was chief trying to talk.

Cause you stood up there. Oh, gotcha. Yeah.

Um, no, Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Mendoza. Okay. The motion passes six to one.

Okay. And I had written myself a note that our next break was due at nine 20. It's nine 20. So we will start again at 930. We have returned from our break. And I believe, Ms. Trevino, we're on item 21, correct?

Yes, ma'am. Consider approval of resolution 2023-97R, approving the change in order number one to the contract with M.A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. for the Blanco Riverine Flood Mitigation Project in the estimated amount of $1,980,209.25, authorized the city manager or her designee to execute the contract on behalf of the city and declare an effective date.

Motion for approval by anyone? Motion by Mr. Mendoza, seconded by, I'll second it. Any questions? No, ma'am. Thoughts? Mr. Vino will vote.

Okay, Mr. Scott, Mr. Gleason, Mayor Houston.

Aye.

Ms. Garza. Aye. Mr. Gonzalez. Aye. Mr. Mendoza.

Aye.

And Mr. Prather. Aye. Okay, the motion passes 5-0.

On to item 22. I need to go find our... Would one of you gentlemen go find my other two council members, please?

Yeah.

Well, with this particular item, I'm hoping we will all participate. Mr. Feeney. Uh-huh.

When they consider approval of resolution 2023 dash 98 are ending the declaration of a local state of disaster in the city due to COVID-19 pandemic and declaring effective date.

Okay. I am looking for a motion on item 22.

Mayor, I have a question before we start.

I need to get a second and then I will. Is there a second on item 22?

All right. For the city attorney. I GUESS IF IT GOES TO THAT DISCUSSION, I CAN DO IT THEN. THIS IS STRICTLY IF WE WANT TO OBEY WHAT'S ON THIS SIDE.

Of course, I hate to give legal advice right here in public, but this item specifically has to do with just ending the declaration of state of disaster.

It doesn't have anything to do... I'm with you. All right. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry to put you in that spot.

Oh, wait. Sorry. Were you going to...

I was just going to say, but it does include the eviction delay, such that if the declaration of...

Well, I already signed the proper paperwork. I just go ahead and excuse myself. And the reason is to not make an appearance of propriety.

I'm just confused because I thought the last time we discussed that we were going to have the, what someone calls it?

Eviction? Eviction.

Yeah. And that we were going to allow for 45 days and like a parameter so that our neighbors had some time to get their plans together. Right. Um, but instead we're doing this. So I'm just like confused to how we got here.

So if I, if I could chase tap assistant city manager, the, um, The resolution, as it's currently worded, has the effective date post-dated to June 30th, and you all could certainly change that if you want, but we took y'all's direction at the last meeting on May 2nd to be that you wanted that sort of grace period built in, delayed effective date, if you will, and legal wrote that into the resolution.

I was surprised that eviction wasn't in this because that's not telling people. If you're just looking at the agenda and you're looking for eviction things, you would not necessarily have seen it for this.

Right.

But that's a concern that I have. I'm just putting that out there.

Well, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Stepp. I think then... Given that it wasn't posted in a way that, I mean, or the agenda item, at least, in a way that alerts people to understand this is about evictions. And also, given the fact that our rental assistance monies that we voted on in February or March probably not going to be live until August. I'm wondering if my colleagues would entertain making this effective like July. And so here's the reason. Because it impacts the eviction moratorium. Specifically, there are very limited, what's it called, apartment complexes that aren't super student-centered, that are for the average folk, that are for families and stuff. And there's usually really high demand for them, and it's hard for folks to snag a spot. Right now, it's the time where it's like they're, some of our neighbors, most vulnerable neighbors, most negatively impacted by COVID, those neighbors are nearing the end of their lease. And some of them just need a little bit more help to, not help, but time to secure help to be able to finish out their lease and not have an eviction on their record. So that's what comes to mind. I let Stephanie know specifically of a family that came to me on Mother's Day, which was a super bummer, explaining that to me, explaining that, hey, like we've been able to maintain our rent thus far, but we're getting a lot of pressure to vacate or evict. We just need a little bit more time. Literally, if we get an eviction on our record before lease ends, There's no way we're going to secure a spot somewhere else. And then the lease that they signed into for the future, they're also giving that up. It's like a weird limbo phase. Before their lease is over? I mean, with only... Why are they being evicted if there's current on their payments?

You just said they're on their payments.

No, they've paid on time until recently. It's like the end of the year... Folks are always really struggling around this time, like going into summer, end of the year stuff. That's just something I want to consider. Also because we haven't even, honestly I would be more comfy pushing this until we gave people the chance to secure rental assistance in August.

Can you speak up Mr. Mendoza?

Councilman Garza, would you be interested in maybe going to 60 days instead of the 45 days that we talked about last time?

I'm trying to do like a mind map of like when Lisa's start and end.

Many in August. And then the 90 days. Yeah, because we said we were going to talk about the date tonight that we kind of came up with one last time, but I think we all knew that we would talk about it and quite possibly change it as you told us.

I have a question for legal.

Wait, how long?

I'm still doing like a number of methods.

Okay, we'll give you a moment for that.

So is there a way we can put a contingency on this saying that people that are under this category don't get eviction marks on their credit?

I don't think we can do that because the eviction delay ordinance is linked specifically to the local state of disaster and that's what really gave us the ability to impose you know that restriction on evictions so they're kind of linked it is it is attached in the RF2, the ordinance, and it basically says it expires once we eliminate the state of disaster.

That makes sense. I have a question for staff. What are we planning on doing to get this information out there if this does pass? What kind of plan do we have in place for that?

We would work with our communications team to make sure that we have some really strong outreach out there just to make sure that people know. Will there be a press release? We can definitely do a press release, yes, ma'am.

And I'm going to bring back up the reason that I kind of pushed for this June 30th was if we go much past that, we're really pushing into the possibility of not having some of this stuff cleaned up by August 1st. And that is going to have an impact on freshmen who are moving to town or people moving around town when their leases are up. And it's having an impact on affordable housing, right? If these apartments are sitting and not being, and people aren't paying rent or they're sitting abandoned or they have construction work to to remodel them it's not just hey somebody moves out somebody moves in there's a there's a several week to month long process and and so that's the main thing is i wanted to get this done and cleaned up by july 1st to give some time for potential leases on august 1st to be ready for moved in and get this kind of so i'm for june 30th at this point six weeks should be enough notice

And I hear that, but I think because the implications of folks having an eviction on their record is just so detrimental for families who are already struggling to find spots. And I'm not even considering student evictions. students right now I'm considering just like those handful of apartment complexes that are affordable who have like multiple bedrooms who aren't paid like what is it by the bed prices like that's what I'm having in mind is that some folks are just like so close to to ending their lease and um it's like if we just like give them a little bit more time for some folks who maybe are defaulted by like a month or so they could catch up, especially if we let them know, Hey, effective dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. There's no moratorium, which comes to my next question. Okay. So if we, the effective date is June 30th, right? Is what it says here.

That's what's proposed at the moment.

So whenever the effective date is like, Anybody who, let's say, has owed money since the month before, right? Let's just say they owe May, right? They owe May. June 30th comes. That means that those 90 days... that they were given a notice from their apartment. They should be given a notice. Some people aren't being given a notice. I just want that on the record. They're supposed to get a notice that says, like, you have, you know, per the city ordinance, you have 90 days to figure this out. Those people, then it's like, just kidding. They're going to have to be notified by their apartment complex that, you know, remember that one time I told you a month ago that you had 90 days, now you don't? Is that how that works? Like,

That's the question that I asked on the message board, which I thought was going to go to the attorney, but instead it went to one of our JPs. And I'll read you the response.

Sure.

Okay. From Maggie Moreno, Justice of the Peace. In reference to the eviction process, the landlord could give the tenant the remainder of ‑‑ oh, I'm sorry. I asked this about if somebody's 30 days into that 90 ‑‑ And we do this, that was what happens. Okay. So, uh, the landlord could give the tenant the remainder of the 60 days, or they could proceed with starting the eviction process. The answer to this is based on several factors. There's not one answer and it all depends on what is stated in their written lease and what the landlord wishes to do. And I don't, it's been a long time, a really long time since I've seen an apartment signed an apartment lease. So I don't know.

And there is also, of course, the state law, the residential, the rental code, which has protections as well as far as notice requirements and other things, appeal rights and so forth for evictions. So, you know, those are still going to be in place.

And that's something I've brought up in the past. This is still, if something were to potentially happen, still has to go through the JP process. And Judge Prado and Judge Moreno are not just going to throw somebody out if they're down to their last two weeks. I just don't see that happening. So there's still safety procedures in place here. We're just setting a timeline to start to clean this stuff up. That's why I'm at where I'm at.

I have great compassion because there's a lot of people in our town that are suffering, that struggle, that need help with utilities, rent, you name it. I try to look through the lens of compassion with these kind of items, but also understanding government's authority. I think we've over... OVERPLAYED OUR EMERGENCY. THE POWERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO ALLOW US TO DO THIS, THAT EMERGENCY IS BASICALLY NOW BEHIND US. I think it's just time to end the declaration of emergency.

I guess I would have to do more digging into what the conceptualization of emergency is and emergency disaster relief. Because when we talk about the emergency is over, demographers, folks that study the economy, everybody can still cite demographers. that COVID-19 had direct implications to the workforce, to people's working conditions, to people's health and ability to maintain work. You know, we're still figuring out what long COVID is and so on and so forth. So I guess... Oh, I get it.

I get it. You know, COVID has been probably the most disruptive things in the world in a long time. But I just think the pandemic-related emergencies, we don't want people evicted because then they start having to move around. They're going to spread COVID. I think just the premise for the authority to do this kind of stuff, I think we've outstated.

Right. I will respectfully disagree, not disrespectfully agree, respectfully disagree. I think that there's still negative implications that the pandemic has had.

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Any a long COVID and heck we could have another COVID outbreak, you know, who knows? Um, since we're talking about the rental aspect of this, when, when do we expect BR three T to get stood up with their rental assistance program?

Um, Joe Pan town assistant city manager, uh, our staff communicated with BR three T and they anticipate that they could start advertising in August. there's a chance that they could do maybe a soft opening in late June, early July, but they are talking about actually advertising in August.

Is there any way we could press on them? You know, is it, yeah. Is it possible you can get this program like up, you know, the week after next?

We have been pressing in the, they were trying to fill some positions to be able to fully staff this program. So again, I think they were going to try to do a soft opening and, sometime in late June, early July. But in terms of a hard commitment, August.

I mean, we could say, hey, look, we're losing our emergency authority. We're going to potentially have a disruption in the rental markets, people needing help with rental assistance. Can you all get this program ready tomorrow?

Or at least advertise it now. Let people start filling out applications, because I suspect that's not one you fill out in three minutes. I'm guessing you have to gather some data. So if people could start that process and whenever they are ready, be ready to start talking to the customers and not wait until they're fully staffed to even put an application out there, that would be helpful.

Yeah. During the discussion that staff had with PR three T what they indicated is that as soon as they advertise, they will get a deluge of, of applications that they'll get so many applications. I'll have to go through and screen in that. Typically the people that contact them before being advertised or people that are the highest need that are already actively looking for rental assistance, as opposed to seeing something on, you know, uh, being advertised to the masses. So again, that, that was just their candid feedback. Certainly we can ask them to see if they can move out that advertising process. But essentially that was their recommendation.

Even if it's two weeks before they're ready to start taking them, again, it's going to take people time to fill anything they can do to work in parallel and not have everything have to be, this has to happen before this one. Can we do two things at once would be helpful.

I guess we voted for rental assistance broadly. We didn't, like, categorize, like, is this, like, back rent? Like, for, like, the county? I know there's been, like, the county one and the state one. So do we know if BR3T, if that application is going to be, like, let's say folks owe two months of rent, could they apply, get those two months of rent, and then they're, like, they're done with their lease and then they can figure out what to do right because we're this is my thing is like I hear all of y'all yes but we're at the the way we are in like terms of like lease cycles we're right at people at the end of people's leases so like some people are this close to finishing out their lease on good terms but maybe they're behind like a month or two you know Give us some dates.

Yeah, I've got little boxes here. I've got Mr. Gleason down for the 30th, and I'm waiting to hear from everybody else.

I guess what impacts the timeline is whether BR3T is going to even be able to give assistance for back pay rent.

And we'll need to check on that. That's a very good question. Sorry, I don't have that answer right now.

Right, because if they're going to be able to only do that month and then this ends on whatever date, then it's kind of useless. At that point, you have an eviction on your record. At that point, you don't need rental assistance. You need Jesus because good luck finding a place to live if you have that on your record, especially if you're a family and you need multiple rooms. I don't know, August? August 30th is the date. That gives people the chance, if there's a soft opening, the people who would really need it would have the time to get their applications in. And they're really good at processing their paperwork, right? That's their reputation, BR3T.

That's correct, and remember, these are CDBG coronavirus funds, so there's a lot of federal guidelines and protocol to follow, and that's why their expertise in having already administered some of the state funds, the county funds, they were just well-positioned to do this work and get it out as soon as possible. CDBG funds?

The one thing I'll say, again, is what I said earlier, is if we push this past August, that's when thousands and thousands, if not tens of thousands of apartments and leases come up is typically about August 1st. If you delay this past then, what about the people who don't apply, who walk away, and now those apartments are sitting and then they can't be leased? What about all the students coming into town? I mean, I really think it's important that to get this cleaned up before that August 1st deadline.

So you've got that. I'm looking for numbers, dates from the rest of you.

I agree with that as well. I think six weeks is plenty of time.

Give me a date.

August 30th.

I mean, sorry, the 30th. June 30th.

June 30th. And with that, I do want what we had said. what the mayor said about them filling out applications right away.

See what can be done.

That can be done way before that other step comes up.

Yeah. Mr. Prather?

I certainly ask.

All right.

Mr. Mendoza.

I'd like to go to July 30th.

I was going to say July 15th, but you wanted to July 30th. Okay. I mean, just like, I don't know, a little bit more time to give people opportunity to apply for the funds. Because then the people are going to get their money, right?

If they apply and if they qualify, and there's a lot of questions about the handful of people that might be helping, but what about the thousands of people that are going to be moving around town and moving into town in August that are going to be impacted by this? if this is left in place. I don't want to hear from everybody except the kids that move here and say, I couldn't find an apartment. There wasn't any available. They said, go live in a motel for a month until September 1st when this eviction moratorium... I mean, I can see that can happen.

I don't understand the connection. I don't think anybody's ever had an issue finding somewhere to live. When they have to go live in a hotel, it's because they're... their apartment complex didn't have it because it's like a new build or something. What does that have to do with giving people some more time? I'm struggling to find the connection between that and extending it a little bit to align with the application.

So what's your latest date? Did you change from August 30th?

Well, I wanted to, like, even though I struggled to understand it, I wanted to hear what Mr. Leeson is saying and maybe do, like, I don't know, July 15th, end of July. Because when is the soft opening again for the BR? In June, early July?

End of June.

We're hoping. Okay.

Open for applications.

Yeah. I don't know, July 30th, July 15th, somewhere around there.

Put you down for the 15th.

Okay, we've got three people ready to go with... June 30th, we've got two for July 15th. Mr. Gonzalez is not here. Yeah, I know. And I was originally at later June 30th. I'm going to split it and say what about July 10th? Can we agree on July 10th?

Students are coming. He's 100% right, and I've seen this before. I just don't understand.

That's why I'm putting it in early July. I mean, I'm willing to commit my own time to helping people apply for the money. I'm willing to help people.

If we think that there's a possibility that there could be some help July 15th, I could go there, but I think it's going to create some issues. I'm just worried about the backlash of it. But the timing of it kind of stinks. BR3T has been amazing. I worked with them during the flood. They have been great. And so when they give us a time frame, I kind of expect them to stick to it.

And I'm going to stick with June 30th because we can talk this to death, but let's not.

I know. That's why I'm...

I know you said the same thing three times and it's important, but I think we're, I think we got it. So, um, we've got four, I want to pray for you for June 30th. So what that means, Oh, we don't need to motion to amend. Cause that's what's in there.

Okay. Did you say June 30th? I, It's in here. We don't need to amend it.

That's what I just said. It's in there. I was trying to think, do we need an amendment? We're trying to remember what was in here. It is June 30th. We're good. As far as not needing an amendment to do June 30th. Therefore, Mr. Vigneault, we will vote now.

Okay. Mr. Gleason.

Aye.

Mayor Houston.

Aye.

Ms. Garza.

No.

Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Mendoza? No. Mr. Prather? Aye. And Mr. Scott? Aye. Okay, one, two, three, four. The motion passes with 42 and then one absent.

There were four ayes, two noes, one absent, therefore the motion passes. All righty, we're on to item 23.

Okay. Discuss and consider appointment to fill a vacancy on the convention and visitors bureau and provide direction to staff.

All right. Council. We were, uh, we needed someone to fill the Texas state, um, slot. I think it's Texas state athletics. We do have a name. Um, I don't know if he volunteered or if, if, uh, they asked, Hey, who's willing to do this? Don't care. We get, we've got a guy, um, who's willing. I will put that name forward, which is John Carwin. Are there any others? We're going to vote, Ms. Trevino.

Okay. Mayor Houston?

Aye.

Ms. Garza?

I'm not knowledgeable enough on this to vote. Honestly, I don't know. I didn't look up. No.

No? Okay. Mr. Gonzalez? Aye. Mr. Mendoza? Aye. Mr. Prather? Aye.

Can you vote present or something?

It's not a yes. It's not a no.

I mean, she wants to know or she could say yes or no because I honestly didn't look into it. I don't know. It's a I don't know. Attorney? I thought you had said, I vote no. I mean, I thought those were my only options. I don't have the, I don't know enough about this to vote on it. Like, I don't know who that person is.

So I would say this is, if you have a, yes, but I was going to say, if it's a tiebreaker vote, it would be essential. But if it's not a tiebreaker, it's kind of a moot point. Okay.

All right. I just don't want the dude to think I'm a hater. I just don't know enough to make like a, I don't know.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Gleason. Okay. The motion passes six to zero to one six to one. We're going to do no. Okay.

The vote being six. Yes. Zero knows. And one abstain. It passes item 24.

Okay. Hold discussion on the city council committee policy and procedures and provide directions to staff.

That came from Mr. Scott, Mr. Gonzalez.

Yeah, I put this on here. I think there's been a certain way that this practice was done, actually, with the smart terminal. I asked Mr. Baker, you know, you were on the committee. Why didn't you flush the stuff out? And he said that he wasn't allowed to at the time, that he said that he wasn't only allowed to talk to people staff and he wasn't allowed to actually talk to the developers. And when I was on council, when we put a committee together, those are a negotiating team that worked out all these details and they said eye to eye with the developer. And so I called Ms. Amanda Hernandez and said, hey, what changed? And she says, well, it's policy. Mr. Lombrez had put this in place. And that was what they were using. And so I said, well, I'll put it on the discussion so we can talk about that. I think we need to go back to the way we used to do it. We appoint our council group to talk to these developers eye to eye so all this stuff can be ironed out and we can trust that it's been taken care of and not have to hear about it after the fact. So that's why it's on there. So I guess they want to bring something back as a motion. I don't know.

Do you have something concrete to propose to change in the rules?

I think it's a policy, isn't it? I don't know if you have to...

If they're council committees, they go, they follow under our new council committee rules. Okay, I make a motion that all... We can't, we're just having a discussion.

Oh, okay.

So, but I'm trying to get some specificity and... how you might see this. I have brought one example of how we might be able to solve it. But I'm going to see if Ms. Hernandez has anything she wants to add.

So I don't have the policy in front of me, I apologize, but as we were looking at potentially bringing a developer into the room on actually a completely different project, as I was reading through the current policy, it says if you have any external participants that you have to post an agenda, record the meeting, post the recording, and sometimes when we're having the negotiations with the developer, specifically about 380s and development agreements, we're not quite ready to have those open for the public, and that's the challenge that we had with the most recent committee that we had. So we did not invite them to the meeting and we just had the staff interaction and then staff took the direction back as we've been doing for the past year or so.

But in that case, I think that's what would have happened regardless. Potentially. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Okay.

So I got a question.

Go ahead.

And just to make sure we're in the same page, I thought we were also discussing about a contractor that At one time in point, there's only two cities in the state of Texas.

No, that's the next item. We're still on item 23. I'm sorry. 24 that you seconded.

Since you said I was part of it on this one, I figured this was it. Well, thank you.

Hold that thought. I will come back to you on the next one.

Thank you.

Yes. Ms. Hernandez, are you talking about item F, the meeting type, that chart?

The table, yes, ma'am.

Okay. I have a suggestion, and that is to make the internal to where those who receive the agenda invitation would be staff, council members, and subject matter experts. That would be the, um, that could be the, uh, housing committee when they're talking to the light seat, low income tax credit folks as to one of those, what 23 things, and you have to do 17 or something. When they go through all of that, the applicant would be the subject matter expert. In this particular case, the developer would be the subject matter expert. If it's the homeless committee, then the person, someone on the homeless coalition. Or hear me out, somebody who's homeless. Could attend.

Who knows better than their experience, except for people with lived experience.

So... I just started with the ones that I knew we could start with. I'm just getting excited. That's a thought. Uh, I realized defining who the subject matter experts are may be easy in some cases and less so in the, uh, in another. Uh, but that's one way that I think we can alter these rules. So you're saying three council members of the committee members and the experts and the subject matter experts could meet.

Okay, that'll work.

And this would be a modification to the internal meeting type.

Mayor?

Yes, sir?

If you all have to define which type of meeting the following meeting is going to be anyway that fits into the matrix, could you, at the meeting that you're making that determination, decide which subject matter experts you bring to the next meeting?

We could do that.

Okay.

I'll make a note. I thought we already had the subject matter experts thing in there. Didn't we talk about that? Because I remember being like, who's a subject matter expert? Like, when we talk about CJR, y'all think their Institute of Justice is the devil, in my opinion. But I think they're a subject matter expert. So, like, I remember having this conversation. We did. About, like, but we never had, we just never approved it?

The matrix came in later. Right. And so this was kind of like version three. And I believe that came in when the rule was written in such a way that the committee members would decide

to make a portion of the following meeting public a presentation for example and then who would be invited oh then why do we need subject matter experts if we can decide who's going to be invited next time uh the difference is well that's a heck of a good solution i mean we already have that like if we had another committee and we felt, okay, we need to invite this person or that person, couldn't we just be like, let's invite them because we're voting on inviting them as a committee?

We just have to watch it that we don't end up over quorum doing that.

No, you can only have three council members. That's it.

Well, but if you had three council members on, say, the smart terminal committee, and then you had a couple different ones on, say, say it was a housing issue, and you bring in people from the housing committee, you could be...

It's not other council members that we're bringing in.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure we weren't doing that. I thought that's the path we were going down.

Those words never passed my mind.

Okay, I was going... I thought we were going down that path.

I think you were down the... You went down a bunny trail that we didn't need to go down.

I just wanted to make sure and clarify.

That's good to make sure. Because we ain't violating Tama.

May I offer a couple of points? So if you're inviting someone to the meeting, the way I interpreted the table in Section F is that that's specific participation, those invited to speak, which is the third line, which requires all of those things that with a developer we might not be ready to do. As I was looking through it, I thought maybe we needed a different type of committee that would be a development-specific committee, but also think that your option...

But there's times when there's others that you're going to need that.

Right.

So that was one of the thoughts that I had, but I thought this might be better. I think it would be even better to do. The only thing is, is if you want to do this, you've got to have a committee meeting to decide how you're going to do the next committee meeting, which requires us, but, and getting even three council members together at the same time, I think y'all know that that's not always easy. Um,

And we can definitely work that into our process. Usually we wait until we have everything we need from the developer to come to y'all. Maybe we meet with you first with the preliminary and then get some direction and then have that second meeting.

So in the long run it doesn't take any longer?

Right. We can have more meetings. It would require more meetings, but we can plan in our internal schedule to do that earlier. It would be early. Yes, ma'am.

I have a question. The way you're talking, is this... You have to post it and all this and have it open to the public?

There's four different types of meetings. Some are internal, which is the three council members and staff only.

Okay. Well, that's what I'm talking about.

That's the one you're talking about?

That's the one I'm talking about.

That's the one we're talking about changing. But I like... I like Ms. Hernandez's thought. What we have done with council meeting, I'm sorry, council committee meetings is at the end of each meeting, and it should be on every agenda so we don't forget, what type of meeting do you want to have next time? Because there's sometimes, like for CJR, the chief's got a presentation that he wants to give, and we would like for that to be open. to the public. You know, it's posted with general participation, posted with specific, posted for the public, but they don't get to participate in that one. And you can choose at the end of each council committee meeting what type of meeting you need for the next one, for the next one. And it can vary.

Okay.

It can vary into the different types.

I guess it's like aren't the committee meetings Policies already outlined in a way that meets your desired goal. Mr. Scott, right? Because you just want to know they're not.

Say that again, what?

I'm just trying to figure out. how to amend or edit or flip it and reverse it.

Well, we can't edit it tonight. I'm just trying to figure out where we might want to go, and then I can come up, I can put it in here and do the track changes version.

Well, one of the things that to me is very important is when we send the committee in there with the staff, it doesn't need to be public. It needs to be where Staff is telling us what they have to have, and we're telling them what they have to have, and we're trying to work out what we can do to make all that work. And we don't need extra people there. We just need what staff is telling us because we're going to have to follow what they're... Now, wait a minute.

Say that again because that's just the opposite of where we started.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

I said three committee members. go in onto the meeting with the developer.

Oh, you just said it should be staff and council members only.

Did I?

Yeah. Oh, but we want you to send us right before this one.

It's 10.09. Is the goal that you guys are able as a committee to meet alongside staff and the developer?

Yes, that's what I want. Right.

And doesn't this allow that already? No, it does not. They can't be like, we're going to invite somebody to a future meeting? That's the problem. It's not in here. I can put it in here. It's not in there now.

We need that in there. The red is what the amendment is. I think Ms. Hernandez's compromise here is a good one.

Well, I can put it in there. When you choose what type of meeting you're going to have next time, it can be internal with the subject matter experts, and you choose who those people are going to be.

Yeah, I can see on a development committee where it's pretty cut and dry. We don't feel like we need to sit down with the developer. We might have some questions about some things we might want to hash out, and to have that ability to schedule that the next meeting I think is okay.

This has given us the most flexibility.

That's exactly right. So I think that's good.

Are you good with that? Are you good with that?

No, I think that's passing the buck. No, it's not. No, what it's doing.

What?

That's passing the buck. That's passing the buck. If you don't want to be on the committee to do the job, don't do it. No, no, no.

That's got nothing to do with this.

What it would do is say, so what you want is you want us to have that potential ability to sit down with a developer. We could do that if we add this by just scheduling it. We would tell staff the next meeting. It would be the next, it would just be.

But that's not going to be here. What's going to be in here is that for an internal meeting, you can choose subject matter experts, but you have to say who they're going to be. So having the two meetings is not part of the rules. Hold on. Work with me here. But the effect is in order to determine that meeting, you're going to have to have a meeting that's internal only to figure all of that out. Yeah.