Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 WORK SESSION FOR THE

[00:00:08]

GARLAND CITY COUNCIL.

AS YOU CAN TELL, WE ARE BACK TO MEETING IN PERSON ONCE AGAIN.

SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST ITEM ITEM ONE IS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON WORK SESSION ITEMS, PERSONS WHO

[1. Public Comments on Work Session Items]

DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM ON THE WORK SESSION AGENDA ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

SPEAKERS ARE TAKEN ONLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING OTHER THAN INVITED TESTIMONY.

MADAM SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? YES.

MAYOR LEMAY, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS SHERRY LOCKE.

AND WHEN YOU COME UP, IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD.

HI, MY NAME IS SHERRY LOCKE.

I LIVE AT 1520 ELIZABETH DRIVE 75042.

I ATTENDED COLONY MANAGER TRAINING AT THE PET ADOPTION CENTER IN JULY OF 2017.

I'VE BEEN AN ACTIVE COLONY MANAGER FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

CATS CAN LIVE IN AMAZINGLY VARIED CLIMATES AND LOCATIONS, WHERE WE LIVE.

THEY CAN LIVE.

BECAUSE OF THAT AND THEIR ABILITY TO BREED PROLIFICALLY.

IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF FREE ROAMING, UNOWNED CATS.

IT IS OUR ROLE AS HUMANS TO CONTROL THEIR POPULATIONS SO THEY ARE BALANCED ECOLOGICALLY WITH US.

IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXTERMINATION OF THESE CATS TO ACHIEVE THIS BALANCE.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS BENEFITS TO TRAP, NEUTER, RETURN OR TNR AND SHELTER NEUTER RETURN SNR.

FOR INSTANCE, TNR REDUCES SHELTER.

AND HOLD ON ONE SECOND, MA'AM.

MR. MAYOR COMMENTS DURING WORK SESSIONS HAVE TO BE RELATED TO AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.

AND IF IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE BUDGET TONIGHT, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE RELEVANT.

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE AMENDMENT, BRENDA? IT'S RELATED TO 4A, IN THE CITY BUDGET PAGE 68.

DID YOU FIND IT? YEAH.

OK.

ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD.

OK.

FOR INSTANCE, TNR REDUCES SHELTER ADMISSIONS BEFORE COVID HIT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SHELTER INTAKE OF CATS HAD BECOME A HAD HAD BEGUN TO DECLINE OF CLOSE TO FIVE PERCENT.

THESE PROGRAMS ALSO CREATE SAFER COMMUNITIES AND PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNVACCINATED CATS.

TNR PROGRAMS ALSO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF FREE ROAMING CATS.

WHEN MALES ARE NEUTERED, THEY ARE NO LONGER COMPELLED TO MAINTAIN A LARGE TERRITORY OR FIGHT OVER MATES, AND FEMALES ARE NO LONGER FORCED TO ENDURE THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL DEMANDS OF GIVING BIRTH AND FENDING FOR THEIR YOUNG.

THERE ARE CITIZENS THAT HATE CATS, BUT THE CATS DO PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY IN KEEPING RODENT AND SNAKE POPULATIONS IN CHECK.

THE COMPROMISE IN DEALING WITH THE CATS THAT POOP IN FLOWER BEDS AND LEAD PAW PRINTS ON CARS IS OUTLINED IN THE GARLAND CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 22.08 WHERE THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES IS APPLIED, THERE ARE DETERRENTS THAT CAN BE RECOMMENDED, BUT THAT NUISANCE CAT COULD BE A NEIGHBOR'S PET, A RACCOON, A POSSUM, ETC.

A DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY DICTATED BY THE CITIZEN TRAPPER.

I UNDERSTAND THAT GARLAND ANIMAL SERVICES HAS JUST RECENTLY TAKEN THE STANCE THAT TIPPED EARED CATS THAT HAVE BEEN RE-TRAPPED BY NEIGHBORS WILL NOT BE EUTHANIZED BUT RELEASED BACK INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT TOOK OVER SIX YEARS TO STOP WASTING TAXPAYER FUNDS BY PAYING FOR THE STERILIZATIONS AND THEN PAYING FOR EUTHANASIA.

I DO APPLAUD THAT STAND AND SUPPORT THE RECOGNITION OF TNR, BUT WITHOUT PHYSICAL SPACE TO

[00:05:01]

CONTINUE THE TNR PROGRAM, THE PROGRAM COULD SLOWLY DISSOLVE.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SORRY TO HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS? WE DO MAYOR LEMAY, YOUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHARLOTTE WEISS.

RIGHT OFF THE BAT, YOU WIN FOR BEST MASK.

WELL, YOU KNOW THIS, THIS HAS HAS BEEN TO MY ADVANTAGE AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN TO MY DISADVANTAGE.

NEVER TRY TO MAKE A REAL SERIOUS POINT WHEN YOU'RE WEARING IT.

BUT HERE I AM ANYWAY.

MY NAME IS CHARLOTTE WEISS AND I'M AT 1713 LOMBARD 75043 SOUTH GARLAND.

AND SOME OF YOU GUYS KNOW I HEAD UP GARLAND POSSIBILITIES RIGHT HERE.

AND WE WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE TNR PROGRAM BACK IN 2015 AND BACK IN THE DAY.

AT THE END OF THAT YEAR, WE HAD THERE WERE LIKE 30 COLONY MANAGERS.

AT THE END OF THAT YEAR, IT WAS 98.

CURRENTLY, THERE ARE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY COLONY MANAGERS, AND THEY'RE FEEDING 2000 CATS NOW.

OK, THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE.

BUT OF THAT, TWO THOUSAND CATS, 80 PERCENT ARE STERILIZED, AND THE CITY SUPPORTS THIS THROUGH THE TNR PROGRAM.

WE HAVE OUR EYES ON THAT OTHER 20 PERCENT.

THEY WILL BE TRAPPED.

SO WE WERE VERY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH GARLAND ANIMAL SERVICES AND THE CITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK WHEN WE HAD THE OLD FIREHOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, DONE ADOPTIONS, OFFSITE ADOPTIONS, ET CETERA.

SO I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT ANY FUNDING FOR THE TNR PROGRAM NEEDS TO BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY.

IT IS GROWING EXPONENTIALLY.

AND THE REASON THAT WE ARE ABLE AND HERE COMES A THANK YOU.

THE REASON THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE HAVING THE CITY SUPPORT AND THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE, IT INSPIRED CITIZENS TO VOLUNTEER COUNTLESS HOURS.

AND YOU GUYS THAT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FERAL CATS KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT THE MOST PLEASANT CLIENTELE.

SO THESE PEOPLE PUT IN A WHOLE LOT OF WORK.

WE WERE A BIT SHOCKED, I GUESS, AND VERY CONCERNED WHEN THE NEW SHELTER DID NOT INCORPORATE TNR.

SO WE'VE BEEN REALLY STRESSING OVER THAT BECAUSE MANY PROGRAMS DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE PANDEMIC.

BUT THE FERAL CATS DID NOT GET THE MEMO ABOUT SOCIAL DISTANCING.

THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO REPRODUCE AT A RIDICULOUS RATE.

HOWEVER, TNR DID NOT MISS A BEAT.

WE CONTINUED TO PROVIDE FOR THEM BECAUSE WE HAD THE PET ADOPTION CENTER.

SO MY REQUEST ONE IS A THANK YOU FOR THE ABILITY TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S A WILDLY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO GROW, AS WILL THE NEED FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION.

SO MY REQUEST IS TO CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE ARE NO LONGER AT THE PET ADOPTION CENTER.

WHAT HAPPENS TO TNR? BECAUSE THE STRENGTH OF THE PROGRAM IS THE BRICK AND MORTAR, WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THE CATS.

WE CAN GET THEM STERILIZED AND VACCINATED.

WE CAN DO COMMUNITY OUTREACH.

SO THAT'S MY POINT.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.

AND ANOTHER CAVEAT OF FERAL CATS IS AFTER A WHILE, THE COLONY DISSIPATES, BUT THAT MEANS DIES OUT.

SO AND THAT'S KIND OF THE INTENTION IS TO HAVE THEM ELIMINATED.

SO JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS AND CONSIDER US IN YOUR BUDGET DECISIONS.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

MADAM SECRETARY? MAYOR LEMAY AND THE FINAL SPEAKER IS BRENDA JACKSON.

OK.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BRENDA JACKSON, AND I LIVE AT 5509 SADDLEBACK ROAD GARLAND 75043.

I'VE BEEN A REGISTERED COLONY MANAGER SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE TRAP NEUTER RETURN PROGRAM AND I'VE ALSO SERVED AS A COORDINATOR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

SO WHY AM I HERE AT A BUDGET WORK SESSION ADDRESSING THE LIVE RELEASE RATE AND TNR? WELL, THE CITY BUDGET IS MUCH MORE THAN DOLLAR FIGURES.

[00:10:03]

IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VARIOUS PARTS OF CITY GOVERNMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THEIR FUTURE OBJECTIVES.

ADDRESSING THE COMPUTATION OF THE LIVE RELEASE RATE AND THE TNR PROGRAM IS ABSOLUTELY VALID SINCE THE DATA HAS BEEN LISTED AS A KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURE FOR ANIMAL SERVICES IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS OF BUDGET DOCUMENTS.

TNR HAS EXCEEDED PROJECTED STERILIZATION NUMBERS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.

PAGE SIXTY EIGHT OF THE 21 22 BUDGET SHOWS 860 TNR STERILIZATIONS IN 2020.

DURING THE PANDEMIC, WE INCREASED TNR STERILIZATIONS BY FORTY FIVE PERCENT.

HOWEVER, YOU WON'T FIND ANY TNR ACCOMPLISHMENTS MENTIONED IN BUDGET DOCUMENT SINCE 2017.

WHAT DOES TNR HAD TO DO WITH THE LIVE RELEASE, RATE? WELL, THIS ISSUE CAN'T BE DISCUSSED IN THREE MINUTES, AND THAT'S WHY EACH OF YOU ALL RECEIVED A LITTLE WHITE PAPER REPORT FROM ME THAT I SENT ON AUGUST TWENTY SIXTH VIA EMAIL.

BASICALLY, ALL CATS ARE RECORDED AS INTAKE.

IF A CAT IS RETURNED TO THE TNR PROGRAM OR SENT TO ME TO COME THROUGH, IT'S RECORDED AS AN OUTCOME, WHICH IS TNR THAT COUNTS AS A LIVE RELEASE.

IN 2020 THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TWO EUTHANIZED FERAL CATS WERE NOT INCLUDED AS OUTCOMES.

WHAT DIFFERENCE IS A [INAUDIBLE] CAT VERSUS A DOG THAT IS AGGRESSIVE BITES AND IS DEEMED UNADOPTABLE? IN OTHER MUNICIPAL ANIMAL SHELTERS.

DOGS AND CATS THAT ARE EUTHANIZED DUE TO BEHAVIOR ARE COUNTED AGAINST THE LIVE RELEASE RATE.

AND THAT'S NOT SO IN GARLAND.

I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE TNR PROGRAM IS A PARTNERSHIP.

I'VE TRIED TO WORK THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND SINCE TNR PROGRAM STERILIZATION FUNDING IS PAID FOR BY ANIMAL SERVICES, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE THAT FUNDING IF I ROCK THE BOAT.

FOR THE CITY FUNDED AND CITY SUPPORTED TNR PROGRAM TO NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE NEW SHELTER DESIGN.

IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE, ESPECIALLY AFTER NUMEROUS INQUIRIES ABOUT THAT SPACE AND BEING TOLD YOU WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF.

BOTTOM LINE WITHOUT AN INTERNAL RETURN TO FIELD OR SHELTER, NEUTER, RETURN PROGRAM AND THE CITY FUNDED TNR PROGRAM GARLAND WILL NEVER ACCURATELY ACHIEVE A 90 PERCENT LIVE RELEASE RATE.

A FREE CITY PROGRAM CAN'T BE RUN WITHOUT SPACE FOR TRAPS, AS WELL AS THE CLIMATE CONTROLLED AREA TO HOUSE TRAPPED CATS BEFORE AND AFTER SURGERY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT IS OUR FINAL SPEAKER, MAYOR LEMAY.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL BEFORE WE MOVE ON? SEEING NONE.

[2. Consider the Consent Agenda]

THAT WILL MOVE US TO ITEM TWO CONSIDER THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THIS WILL BE FOR TOMORROW NIGHT.

WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BUMP IN THE CALENDAR WHERE WE WE HAD AN EXTRA WEEK IN BETWEEN OUR MEETINGS.

SO TOMORROW NIGHT OUR CONSENT AGENDA IS EXCEPTIONALLY LONG AND SO IT MAY TAKE IT MAY TAKE A BIT TO READ THROUGH IT.

BUT IF I HAVE NOT, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO BE PULLED AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

BUT IF YOU DO HAVE ONE, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS IT TOMORROW NIGHT.

IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW BEFOREHAND, WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE STAFF.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE WRITTEN BRIEFINGS.

[3. Written Briefings]

AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD AN EXTRA WEEK OFF, WE'VE GOT QUITE A FEW WRITTEN BRIEFINGS ON BOARD AS WELL.

ITEM THREE A ROSEHILL ROAD STREETSCAPE, ITEM THREE B BOBTOWN ROAD SIDE PATH TRAIL.

ITEM THREE C TRANSFER STATION PERMIT MODIFICATION, ITEM THREE D TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 2022 COMPREHENSIVE GRANT.

ITEM THREE E TEXAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE GRANT.

ITEM THREE F EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT CARES ACT REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING.

ITEM THREE G 2021 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT.

ITEM THREE H O'BANION PARKING RESTRICTION MODIFICATION.

[00:15:03]

ITEM THREE I NAME FOR NEW ANIMAL SERVICES FACILITY.

ITEM THREE J 2021 CIP BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, ITEM THREE, ITEM THREE K INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZATION TO CITY OF ROWLETT FOR SUPPORTING THE MASS VACCINATION EVENTS AT HB, HBJ STADIUM FOR OUR COVID-19 RESPONSE AND ITEM THREE L FIRE STATION NUMBER ONE CONDEMNATION.

ITEM THREE M REPLACEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, PAYROLL AND FINANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW WE ARE ON TO VERBAL BRIEFINGS.

[4A. Hold a Public Hearing Regarding the 2021-22 Proposed Budget]

4A HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2021 22 PROPOSED BUDGET, AT THIS TIME.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, EXCUSE ME, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET? WHICH WE ARE SET TO APPROVE TOMORROW EVENING RIGHT HERE IN OUR COUNCIL CHAMBERS .

I SEE NO ONE.

SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[4B. FY 2021-22 Budget Discussions - Final Direction from Council]

ALL RIGHT.

AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR B FY 2021 22 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, FINAL DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS NUMEROUS MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS AND QUESTIONS AND REVIEWS.

I THINK FROM THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD THROUGH OUR COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

I THINK THE ONLY REMAINING THING WAS THE C2W, I BELIEVE WAS THE ONLY UNRESOLVED ISSUE WE HAD, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

I DO HAVE I DO HAVE MY NOTES FROM THE ITEMS WE HAVE DISCUSSED JUST A QUICK WHERE WE STOOD ON THE EMS FEES WE VOTED TO.

I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO POSTPONE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT FOR SIX MONTHS ON THE EMS FEE INCREASE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR AND IT ALSO HAS A SUMMARY.

OH, SHE'S MUCH BETTER AT THIS.

I BET.

GO AHEAD.

AWESOME.

AND I WAS SO PROUD.

I KEPT ALL MY NOTES HAD THEM HANDY.

AND HERE YOU ARE.

GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, MR. CITY MANAGER I'M HERE TO PROVIDE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES DISCUSSED THUS FAR THROUGHOUT THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

SLIDE ONE IS TO DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EMS FEE CHANGES TO MID-YEAR.

THE COST OF THIS DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION IS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT THIRTY ONE THOUSAND.

THIS IS BASED ON A JANUARY ONE IMPLEMENTATION DATE.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND ELECT TO IMPLEMENT THOSE FEES AT AN EVEN LATER DATE OR NOT AT ALL, NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WE WOULD COME BACK TO YOU IN THE REVISED BUDGET WITH A REVENUE ADJUSTMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT WHOLLY NEW TO THIS AMOUNT, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OUR BUDGET TO BALANCE THINGS.

AFTER THE REVIEW OF OUR AUGUST YEAR TO DATE REVENUES, THIS THIRTY ONE THOUSAND WILL BE COVERED WITH SOME ADDITIONAL SALES TAX REVENUE.

SECOND, REPROGRAM ABOUT THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS OF ONE TIME SAFE FLIGHT FUNDING TO BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL STOP BAR, CROSSWALK AND BUTTON MAINTENANCE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

WE WILL REFLECT A TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET OF THIS THIRTY SIX THOUSAND TO BE ADDED TO THEIR ONGOING ANNUAL MAINTENANCE BUDGET.

SO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET WILL INCREASE BY THAT THIRTY SIX THOUSAND.

GENERAL FUND REVENUE WILL INCREASE BY THAT THIRTY SIX THOUSAND AND THEN THE ITEM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED IN SAFE FLIGHT.

THE POLICE NINTH STREET BOXING GYM EQUIPMENT WILL BE FUNDED FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE, SO THE NET IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND IS ABOUT FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.

AND IN SUMMARY, THIS IS THE REVENUE IMPACT OUR GENERAL FUND REVENUES WILL TOTAL ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR POINT FIVE MILLION, OUR FY 21, 22 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES WILL TOTAL ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE POINT TWO MILLION, AND YOU CAN SEE THE

[00:20:03]

CHANGE IN OUR FUND BALANCE RESERVE.

BASED ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S CHANGES DISCUSSED THUS FAR, OUR RESERVE FUND BALANCE WILL BE AROUND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AFTER MEETING OUR FUND BALANCE REQUIREMENTS.

THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT COUNCILS PROVIDE A DIRECTION ON TO DATE.

I KNOW WE STILL HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A VACCINATION INCENTIVE, AND I KNOW MS. SMITH IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT.

SO IF YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS ON THESE ITEMS, I CAN I CAN TURN IT OVER OVER TO THAT DISCUSSION OR ANY OTHER FURTHER DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON THE OPERATING BUDGET.

I HAVE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

AND COUNCIL, THIS PRESENTATION WAS FINISHED LATE THIS AFTERNOON, YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE COPIES OF IT IN FRONT OF YOU AS WELL.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JUST ONE SECOND.

OK, SO IN HOPES OF GETTING FINAL DIRECTION OF HOPEFULLY CAPTURED ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, SO I WILL DO MY BEST.

HOPEFULLY I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN SOMETHING.

SO THE FIRST ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE AN INCENTIVE AND IF SO, WHAT THAT AMOUNT WILL BE.

SO JUST TO KIND OF DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TWO OPTIONS, A LUMP SUM PAYMENT WHICH WOULD BE ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE C2W PROGRAM, OR EITHER A HEALTH FUND, A HEALTH PREMIUM DISCOUNT, WHICH CURRENTLY ANY EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ON OUR HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE THAT ALSO PARTICIPATE IN OUR WELLNESS PROGRAM, THEY RECEIVE A DISCOUNT ALREADY.

AND SO THAT'S ABOUT TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS PER YEAR IF THEY'RE ON THE STANDARD C2W PROGRAM AND THEN THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS ANNUALLY, IF THEY GO THE EXTRA MILE AND DO SOME ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES.

AND SO BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, I THINK I HEARD MOSTLY $500 FOR THE INCENTIVE, JUST GIVING YOU SOME ROUND NUMBERS ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE HAD ABOUT HALF OF OUR EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE, IF THAT WAS EVEN MORE WITH SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT AND IF WE HAD FULL PARTICIPATION.

SO THAT RANGES FROM FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IF WE HAVE ABOUT HALF OF OUR EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE UP TO ABOUT A MILLION AND WE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS TO THIS.

THIS IS BASED ONLY, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE TMR AS CONTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER, BUT A BALLPARK.

SO I'LL PAUSE THERE FOR DIRECTION ON THE INCENTIVE AND IF IT IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

OK, COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

MY SUGGESTION TO COUNCIL WOULD BE THAT THAT WOULD GO AHEAD WITH THE VACCINATION INCENTIVE AND AND THAT IT'D BE A LUMP SUM OF $500.

SO IT'S NOT SO THAT IT WON'T BE LIMITED TO FOLKS WHO HAVE.

IF YOU DO IT AS A HEALTH PREMIUM DISCOUNT, THEN IT ONLY APPLIES EFFECTIVELY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH THE CITY.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T.

SO THIS WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS ACROSS THE CITY.

SO THAT WOULD BE IF WE WANT TO TAKE THIS AS WE GO OR HOW YOU WANT TO DO MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, IS THIS WOULD COME FROM CARES, FROM EXISTING CARES ACT FUNDING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

CORRECT.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY OTHER IMPACTS TO THE CITY BUDGET? RIGHT OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK.

COUNCILMAN MORRIS, YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE AND YOU'RE DID YOU OK? I DON'T SEE YOU, BUT GO AHEAD.

QUEUE UP ONE MORE TIME.

OK, GO AHEAD.

YOU WERE THERE AND THEN YOU WEREN'T THERE YOU GO, LET ME TRY IT ONE MORE TIME.

ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD, GO.

THERE WE GO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I LIKE GIVING MONEY TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL HURT OUR BUDGET.

SO I'M THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF HAVING MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE TO OUR EMPLOYEES.

IT'S A VERY HAPPY ONE FOR ME, HOWEVER I HAVE.

[00:25:02]

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. ENGLUND, ABOUT THE THE WHITE HOUSE'S ANNOUNCEMENT WITH COVID MANDATES.

HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT? AND IS THAT LIKELY COMING OUR WAY AND IMPACTING US IN THE NEAR FUTURE? WE DON'T KNOW YET.

WE'VE LOOKED THROUGHOUT THE DAY TO SEE IF THEY'VE PUBLISHED HIS ACTUAL EXECUTIVE ORDER AND IT HASN'T BEEN PUBLISHED.

AND SO WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE YET, BUT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP CHECKING IT DAILY THIS WEEK, OK? BECAUSE IF THAT WERE TO COME DOWN, I THINK THIS BECOMES SOMEWHAT MOOT.

MY OTHER, MY OTHER CONCERN AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE GREATER CONCERN.

I DID TALK WITH THE GARLAND POLICE ASSOCIATION AND ALSO WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, AND I HAD HEARD THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONCERNS THERE OVER THIS FOR THEIR PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY THAT THIS COULD BE DIVISIVE.

SO THIS COULD, YOU KNOW, THEY WORK VERY MUCH ON TEAMWORK AND THAT THIS COULD DIVIDE PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY LOOK, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO CLOSE TEAMWORK, WHICH THEY ALL HAVE TO DO.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYONE FROM EITHER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEAK TO THAT TONIGHT.

BUT THEY BOTH TO ME EXPRESSED THAT CONCERN.

THAT NUMBER ONE, THEY DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING AND THEY THOUGHT AT MOST IT MIGHT GET ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, MAYBE.

BUT THE BIGGER THING WAS THAT THIS COULD JUST INJECT AN ELEMENT OF DIVISION IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS, AND THAT MAKES ME HESITATE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, IT'S NOT ABOUT.

I WOULD LIKE ALL OF THEM TO BE VACCINATED, AND TO SOME EXTENT, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE PRONE TO JUST THROW EVERYTHING IN THE KITCHEN SINK.

BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THIS BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE AND ESPECIALLY WITH POLICE AND FIRE, THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH COVID FOR OVER 18 MONTHS.

THEY'VE WATCHED PEOPLE DIE.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE IGNORANT ABOUT.

SO IF THAT HASN'T CONVINCED THEM, I I DON'T WANT TO INSERT A DIVISIVE ELEMENT.

SO I WILL GET OFF THE MIC AND SEE WHAT ELSE THE REST OF COUNCIL SAYS.

SO THOSE ARE MY ONLY CONCERNS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS INDICATED THAT IT INTENDS TO CREATE THAT MANDATE THROUGH AN OSHA RULE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BY STATUTE.

OSHA RULES DO NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPALITIES.

AND SO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND CONFIRM, BUT THESE RULES ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO APPLY TO THE CITY IN ANY RESPECT.

BEYOND THAT YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD DISCUSSION WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

WE'VE HAD SOME CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT'S BROUGHT TO US BY STAFF ABOUT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PEOPLE, NON-VACCINATED PEOPLE BEING OUT.

IF THEY'RE EXPOSED TO COVID.

WE WE PUT THEM OUT FOR 10 DAYS AND IT COSTS THIS CITY MONEY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR EACH ONE OF THESE.

AND THAT EVEN GETS BEYOND THE FACT.

I MEAN, AND CANDIDLY, I FIND IT UNCONSCIONABLE THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS ARE EMTS AND THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.

AND I DON'T WANT TO GET ON THE HIGH HORSE HERE, BUT YOU'RE AN EMT.

YOU GO TO A CALL FOR AN ELDERLY SLIP AND FALL AND YOU'RE NOT VACCINATED, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE YOU TO WEAR A MASK AND YOU INFECT SOMEBODY.

YOU COULD BE KILLING THE EXACT PEOPLE YOU'RE TRYING TO HELP.

AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WITH THIS INCENTIVE THAT THAT EVEN IF WE ONLY GET ONE OR TWO AND CANDIDLY, I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE.

I THINK WE'LL GET MANY MORE THAN THAT.

BUT EVEN IF WE ONLY GET ONE OR TWO, IF YOU SAVE ONE OR TWO LIVES, YOU KNOW, OVER SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND AMERICANS HAVE DIED FROM THIS.

AND I FIND THAT INCREDIBLY TROUBLING.

AND THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND HERE WE ARE, WE JUST CELEBRATED OR NOT COMMEMORATED THE ATTACKS ON AMERICA ON SEPTEMBER 11TH.

AND AND I'M SURE ALL OF YOU RECALL, I MEAN, EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHERE THEY WERE AT THAT TIME.

AND I KNOW THAT MYSELF AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT?

[00:30:01]

YEAH, I'LL SIGN UP TO GO TO AFGHANISTAN AND FIGHT.

I'LL DO WHATEVER MY COUNTRY ASKS TO AVENGE THE DEATHS OF SEVERAL THOUSAND AMERICANS.

AND NOW WE HAVE SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS, AND WE CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO TAKE A VACCINE OR TO WEAR A MASK.

INCREDIBLY TROUBLING.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THIS SITUATION OF HAVING TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

BUT HERE WE ARE.

HERE WE ARE.

AND HERE WE ARE AS STEWARDS OF THE CITY AND IT COSTS US MONEY, COST THE CITY MONEY.

EVERY TIME SOMEBODY REFUSES TO DO IT, IT PUTS THEIR COWORKERS AT RISK.

IT PUTS THE PUBLIC AT RISK.

AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE CAN'T MANDATE IT AND JUST END THE DISCUSSION.

BUT IF THERE'S A DIVISIVENESS WITHIN THESE DEPARTMENTS OVER SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THIS, PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.

AND I'LL SAY THAT TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME AND TALK TO ME ABOUT IT.

THE SCIENCE IS THERE.

THE INFORMATION IS ALL OUT THERE.

THESE VACCINES HAVE NOW BEEN THE PFIZER VACCINE HAS BEEN FULLY APPROVED.

AND SO INCENTIVIZING IT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO DO IT, BUT I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND AS FOR MISINFORMATION AND OTHER STUFF, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY.

I SPENT AN HOUR AND A HALF ON THE PHONE A WEEK AGO WITH A FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS VACCINE HESITANT.

AND YOU KNOW, FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT IS A LACK OF INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE IT.

WE ALL HAVE BUSY LIVES AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO AND CHASE DOWN AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S TRUE AND WHAT'S FALSE AND ALL OF THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE.

SO I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE PHONE TRYING TO HELP THIS PERSON DIRECT THEM TO THE INFORMATION.

AND THEN SHE COULDN'T FIND.

AND THEN SHE COULDN'T FIND A PLACE TO GET TO AN APPOINTMENT.

AND THANK GOD FOR OUR GARLAND PUBLIC HEALTH BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO SAY SHE'S NOT A RESIDENT OF GARLAND, BUT I WAS ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO GO.

HERE'S WHERE YOU NEED TO GO.

YOU JUST WALK IN AND YOU'LL GET YOUR VACCINE.

AND SHE DID.

AND SO THE IDEA THAT WE CAN'T CONVINCE ANYBODY.

I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS WITH OUR EMPLOYEES.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE.

AND THIS IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S A BAD PERSON.

I'M NOT SAYING ANY OF THAT.

IT'S LIKE, LET'S SIT DOWN THEN AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

LET'S SIT DOWN AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND OFFER THE INCENTIVE AND TALK WITH PEOPLE AND GET THROUGH THIS STUFF, GET THROUGH THE MISINFORMATION.

BECAUSE AS MUCH AS I HAVE TALKED WITH PEOPLE AND I'VE TALKED WITH FOLKS IN POLICE AND IN FIRE, AND I'M TOLD TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE PROBLEM IS THE MISINFORMATION.

WE NEED TO GET THE RIGHT INFORMATION INTO PEOPLE'S HANDS AND DIRECT THEM TO THINGS, AND WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THIS INCENTIVE AND WE NEED TO JUST STOP THIS INSANITY.

WE'RE GOING TO BE SITTING HERE WEARING MASKS.

I MEAN, IT'S ONLY BE EIGHT MONTHS FOR ME.

I'LL BE OFF COUNCIL, BUT FOR THE REST OF YOU, IT COULD BE YEARS.

THAT'S JUST IT'S JUST NOT OK.

YOU KNOW, WE NEED WE NEED TO STOP THIS.

WE HAVE THE TOOLS AND WE NEED TO STOP IT.

AND YOU KNOW, IF IF AN INCENTIVE THAT DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE COST OF ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES BEING OUT FOR 10 DAYS BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPOSED, THEN SO BE IT.

LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS, YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE AND THEN YOU WERE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T INADVERTENTLY KNOCK YOU OUT OF THE QUEUE.

GO AHEAD AND PUNCH YOU IN FOR ME ONE MORE TIME.

OK, TRY THAT.

AM I IN? THANK YOU.

YOU CAN TELL WE HAVEN'T USED SOME OF THIS EQUIPMENT IN A WHILE.

VERY CONSISTENTLY.

YES.

TRAINING WHEELS ON.

OK.

JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GET [INAUDIBLE].

NUMBER ONE, IF WE ADOPT THE THE LUMP SUM PROGRAM, IS IT OR IS IT NOT STRICTLY VOLUNTARY? WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S VOLUNTARY.

YES, IT'S STRICTLY VOLUNTARY.

RIGHT? SECOND QUESTION.

SO THAT MEANS THAT NO MANAGER OR SUPERVISOR CAN IMPOSE THIS AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OK.

CURRENTLY, DO WE? OUR MANAGERS ARE SUPERVISORS THAT ALLOWED TO ASK ANY EMPLOYEES OR CHALLENGE EMPLOYEES ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN VACCINATED OR NOT.

SO THE CITY HAS NOT PUT OUT ANY DIRECTION ON THAT.

WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED MANAGERS WITH THAT INSTRUCTION.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I LOOK TO THE ATTORNEY, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS US FROM DOING THAT.

BUT WE HAVE NOT.

WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED DIRECTION TO MANAGERS TO ASK THAT INFORMATION, BUT I'LL LOOK TO CORRECT.

SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN OUR PRACTICE AS A CITY.

CORRECT? ALL RIGHT.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

AND MY LAST QUESTION IS FOR THOSE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN WHATEVER

[00:35:05]

IS ADOPTED, IF ANYTHING IS ADOPTED HERE TONIGHT, CAN THEIR DECISION BE AT ANY POINT A FACTOR IN EVALUATING THEIR JOB PERFORMANCE? NO, NO.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD LEAD CONNECT THEM TO THEIR DECISION AND NOTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT THEIR PERFORMANCE BASED ON THEIR DECISION TO VACCINATE OR NOT.

NOTHING AT THIS TIME, NO.

SO IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THEIR JOB PERFORMANCE, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

AND LASTLY, WITH THOSE RESPONSES, SO CURRENTLY WE DON'T KNOW HAVE ANY IDEA IN OUR CITY WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT.

WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT BEEN VACCINATED.

THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE WE DON'T ASK RIGHT, WE DON'T ASK.

AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT WOULD BE IF THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO QUARANTINE, RIGHT? THERE MAY BE SOME INDICATION BASED ON THE NUMBER OF DAYS, BUT NO GENERAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON THAT.

NO.

OK, OK, OK.

AND JUST CIRCLING BACK.

I'M NOT BEING REPETITIOUS.

CIRCLING BACK THAT WHATEVER IS ADOPTED TONIGHT, IF IF THIS IS ADOPTED, IT WOULD BE STRICTLY VOLUNTARY ON EACH EMPLOYEE'S A PERSONAL DECISION THAT THEY WOULD MAKE FOR THEMSELVES.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

YES.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH.

YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE AND DISAPPEARED.

ARE YOU? DID YOU TAKE YOURSELF OUT? ALL RIGHT.

WELL, SOMETHING IS TAKING.

HOW ABOUT NOW.

GO AHEAD.

MS. SMITH.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU ON THE CURRENT HEALTH PREMIUM DISCOUNT.

THE PARTICIPATION OR LACK OF PARTICIPATION BY AN EMPLOYEE IN THAT PROGRAM, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AMONG PEERS OR A PERSONS MANAGER.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

OK, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE AT THE TEAM DIVISION ARGUMENT.

THIS WOULD BE UP TO AN EMPLOYEE, WHETHER OR NOT TO SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN VACCINATED OR HAVEN'T OR WHETHER THEY'VE RECEIVED A BONUS OR HAVEN'T RECEIVED A BONUS THAT ALL OF THAT POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEE.

IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT.

NO C2W OR A HEALTH BENEFIT INFORMATION IS EVER SHARED WITH THE EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS OR ANYONE ELSE, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

GOOD EVENING, MS. SMITH, GOOD EVENING.

I AM CONCERNED.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BECAUSE YOU DID NOT BRING IT FORTH, BUT I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO SPEAK TO THE DIVISIVE NATURE.

WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY THAT IT COULD BRING ABOUT SOME DIVISIVE NATURES AS IT RELATES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES, AND I DEFINITELY DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY MYSELF LOOKING BEHIND ME TO SEE IF.

THERE'S SOMEONE FROM THE ASSOCIATION OR THE CHIEFS OR THE CITY MANAGER, I THINK IS GOING TO SPEAK ON THAT AT ALL.

I DON'T SEE EITHER ONE BECAUSE I SEE THIS AS A CONCERN, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I'M KIND OF THE NOTION AT THIS POINT THAT PEOPLE HAVE KIND OF DUG INTO THEIR POSITIONS.

AND IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING AT THIS POINT, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE VACCINATED, I DON'T SEE ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

HOWEVER, I WOULD BE WILLING TO INCENTIVIZE IT JUST TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY, OK.

BUT I THINK THE REAL CONCERN FOR ME IS WHAT DO WE WHAT, WHAT'S WHAT'S TAKING PLACE THAT WOULD CAUSE SOMEONE TO BELIEVE? AND I THINK I KNOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO IT HERE AT THIS MEETING OR NOT, BUT WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY THAT AS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD CALL SOME DIVISIONS? BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANY OF THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS.

I BELIEVE MR. BRADFORD IS GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

I'LL TRY MY BEST TO EXPLAIN.

I DON'T HAVE TO.

I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO COUNCIL OR TELL COUNCIL.

THIS HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY DIVISIVE ISSUE NATIONWIDE OUR ORGANIZATION IS VERY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATION AS A WHOLE.

THERE ARE VERY, VERY STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS ON BOTH SIDES.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE STAND FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS.

IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THEM TO RECEIVE A VACCINATION.

THERE CERTAINLY BEEN POLITICAL REASONS THAT HAVE HAVE SURFACED, AND THERE

[00:40:01]

HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTED THE WISDOM OF THE VACCINE ITSELF.

I THINK THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM OR THE CONCERN THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSED IS THAT PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE FOR THOSE WHO WHO FEEL COMFORTABLE GETTING THE VACCINE EXCLUDES THOSE WHO, FOR THEIR STRONGLY HELD REASONS, HAVE EXCLUDED THEMSELVES FROM TAKING THE VACCINE.

AND AND SO AS I AS I UNDERSTOOD COUNCIL LADY MORRIS'S CONCERN, IT IS THAT THAT THIS WOULD ADD FUEL TO THE FIRE OF DIVISIVENESS ON THIS ISSUE.

AND I DON'T I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR COUNCIL LADY MORRIS, BUT HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC? MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S BEEN IN OR OUT OF THE QUEUE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THE FIRST QUESTION BEFORE US COUNCIL IS OFFERING A LUMP SUM $500 INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYEES TO GET FULLY VACCINATED, BUT WE WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDING EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ALREADY FULLY VACCINATED.

CORRECT.

AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I GUESS [INAUDIBLE] MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

BOOSTERS AND [INAUDIBLE] DO WE WANT TO GET INTO THAT NOW? OR DO WE WANT TO JUST DECIDE ON DISCUSSION OF YES OR NO, YES OR NO? IT'S WHERE, YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO DO ANYTHING, TRYING TO PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER IN MY HEAD BEFORE WE MOVED ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO AT THIS POINT, I KNOW COUNCIL LADY MORRIS HAS EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN, BUT I THINK THE POINT WE'RE AT NOW IS DO WE, AS A COUNCIL, WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INCENTIVE? SO A SIMPLE THUMBS UP FOR PART OF THAT IS THAT THESE REMAINING CARE FUNDS AND MAYBE CITY MANAGER CAN ANSWER THIS BEST.

BUT WE HAVE WE HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR 100 PERCENT.

100 PERCENT WERE TO PARTICIPATE TO USE THIS MILLION PLUS FOR CARES FROM CARES FUNDING IS NOT EARMARKED FOR OTHER THINGS AT THIS TIME.

NO, SIR, NO SIR.

WE HAVE WE HAVE AMPLE FUNDING LEFT AND SO WE COULD EASILY EASILY ABSORB 100 PERCENT PARTICIPATION.

AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT A VACCINE INCENTIVE, FOR SURE.

I THINK YOU GET MORE MORE OUT OF THE INCENTIVE THAN A MANDATE, A CARROT AND STICK TYPE SITUATION.

SO I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THAT.

OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO.

IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD, A SIMPLE THUMBS UP.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH COUNCIL LADY MORRIS AND COUNCILMAN MOORE IN OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

SO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AGAIN IN CAPTURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

NEXT WOULD BE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE INCENTIVE.

SO IF IT WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE IF THEY'VE COMPLETED THE FULL VACCINATION SERIES, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE MANUFACTURER'S GUIDANCE IS FOR MODERNA AND PFIZER, THAT'S CURRENTLY TWO VACCINES.

AND FOR JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, THAT'S ONE IF THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY COMPLETE JUST THE INITIAL VACCINE ONLY.

AND IF YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION FOR BOOSTERS AND OTHER MANDATES THAT MAY COME OUT AS THINGS ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING AROUND THE VACCINATIONS.

SO IT'S THE NEXT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION? OK.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, THANK YOU, MAYOR, SINCE THIS IS UNDER A COMMIT TO WELLNESS UMBRELLA.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF NUMBERS THAT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT ONCE YOU'VE HAD AT LEAST ONE DOSE, THAT IS GENERALLY ENOUGH TO KEEP YOU FROM BEING HOSPITALIZED.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT THE FOLKS WHO WHO MAY HAVE HAD THE FIRST DOSE HAD A REACTION AND HAD TO BACK AWAY FROM IT.

I WOULD BE OK WITH AN INITIAL DOSE ONLY APPROACH JUST TO REWARD THE FOLKS FOR TRYING, FOR

[00:45:02]

DOING WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AND AND FOR, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TRYING TO STAY OUT OF THE HOSPITAL.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY AREA BETWEEN THAT FIRST AND SECOND DOSE.

AND WHILE IT WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYBODY COMPLETE WHATEVER REGIMEN THAT THEY HAVE OPTED INTO, YOU KNOW IT'S THE IT'S THE IDEA THAT THE PEOPLE WENT DOWN THE PATH THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO GO DOWN.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE STATISTICS LOOK LIKE.

I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE NUMBERS.

IT MAY BE A VERY, VERY TINY FRACTION OF PEOPLE WHO FALL INTO THAT GRAY AREA, AND I WELCOME THE COUNCIL'S INPUT, BUT THAT'S MY INITIAL THOUGHT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE FULL SERIES, WHETHER IT'S TWO DOSES OR ONE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE BOOSTER.

I KNOW THAT THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GARLAND ISD, DID GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE FOR THE BOOSTER.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT I'D ALSO BE WILLING TO TO COME BACK AND CONSIDER THAT SEPARATELY OR LATER AS WE LOOK AT HOW HOW THE PROGRAM OPERATES.

I DO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH IS ON THE INITIAL DOSE.

YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS BEEN.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S I HAVEN'T DUG INTO THE SCIENCE ON THAT.

SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER PER SAY.

I DO KNOW THAT THAT GENERALLY THOSE ARE THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE CONSIDERED FROM A FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHEN THEY WHEN THEY DO THESE PAPERS AND WHATNOT THAT IF YOU'VE ONLY HAD ONE DOSE, THEY BASICALLY CONSIDER YOU UNVACCINATED.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE PUT IT OUT.

I DID LOOK AT A PAPER FROM THE CDC THAT WAS DISCUSSING REINFECTION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, WHETHER YOU'VE BEEN VACCINATED AND WHETHER YOU GET REINFECTED.

AND THEY INDICATED FOR THE GROUP THAT THEY LOOKED AT THIS THE CDC STUDY OUT OF THE BASED ON SOME NUMBERS IN KENTUCKY, THEY DID NOT FEEL THAT THEY HAD ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THAT COHORT TO TO GET SOME REAL EFFECTIVE NUMBERS WITH RESPECT TO SOMEBODY GETTING ONE SHOT.

NONETHELESS, NEVERTHELESS, THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR TWO.

SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT THAT WE THAT WE MAKE THIS ALONG THE LINES OF WITH WHAT THE CDC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OH, AND AS LONG AS WE'RE ON THE SAME SLIDE TIME BASIS FOR INCENTIVE, I MEAN, I THINK IF SOMEBODY IS VACCINATED NOW, THEY GO NOW AND SHOW US THE PROOF AND WE'LL PAY YOU THE INCENTIVE NOW OR HOWEVER, SOON WE CAN GET THE SYSTEM SET UP.

BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DEADLINE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AVAILABLE, WHATEVER, WHATEVER.

I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LEAD TIME TO GET THE SYSTEM SET UP AND TO GET THE WORD OUT.

SO DECEMBER 31ST MAY BE THE BEST DATE OR NOVEMBER 30TH, WHATEVER, PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE TALKING A TWO DOSE REGIMEN.

IF WE'RE ONLY GOING TO SUPPORT A ONE DOSE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS YOU START THE SERIES, THEN I THINK THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT DEADLINE MUCH EARLIER AND CAN MAKE THAT DEADLINE NOVEMBER 1ST OR SOMETHING.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK, YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE AND THEN YOU DISAPPEARED.

DID YOU TAKE YOURSELF? GO AHEAD AND PUNCH IN AGAIN, SIR.

THERE WE GO.

FORTUNATELY, I HAVE A FAIRLY DECENT MEMORY FOR TWO OR THREE NAMES AT A TIME, SO I KNOW WHEN SOMEBODY DISAPPEARS.

GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I THINK FOR ELIGIBILITY, WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT IS CONSIDERED FULLY VACCINATED AT THIS POINT.

I MEAN, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BOOSTERS, IT WAS EIGHT MONTHS RECOMMENDATION.

THOSE ARE JUST COVERING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INITIALLY VACCINATED BACK IN JANUARY.

SO THIS MAY BECOME AN ANNUAL THING WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GET A BOOSTER EVERY YEAR LIKE THE FLU OR SOMETHING.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT THE CURRENT FULLY VACCINATED METRIC IS RIGHT NOW AS A TIMELINE.

YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK THIS DECEMBER END OF THE YEAR DATE IS FINE.

BUT I DO WANT TO HAVE I LIKE THIS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE NEXT UNDER THAT IS CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYEES ADVISED TO DELAY IT.

I MEAN, THERE'S VARIOUS MEDICAL REASONS YOU MIGHT WANT TO DELAY FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND FOR CASE BY CASE BASIS.

WE MAY WANT TO EXTEND THAT DEADLINE FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES.

BUT I ALSO ONE THING I TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME IS THE HAVING COVID AND THEN BEING RECOVERED FROM COVID.

THERE'S SOME AGAIN MEDICAL PAPERS I'M NOT A DOCTOR, BUT WE READ THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE VACCINES, THEY USE THE SPIKE PROTEIN IN THE TO ATTACK THE SPIKE PROTEIN OF COVID.

[00:50:05]

WHILE YOUR NATURAL IMMUNITY MIGHT ATTACK SPIKE PROTEIN, ALONG WITH THE OTHER VARIOUS PROTEINS OF THAT VIRUS AND THE T CELL MEMBRANE MIGHT BE LONGER.

SO I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE HAD COVID AND HAVE SHOWN TO BE RECOVERED.

THEY MAY ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.

I THINK THAT'S ALL THE POINTS I HAD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT DECEMBER 31ST IS ARBITRARY, THIS IS BUT THERE IS AN EXAMPLE.

YEAH, YEAH.

OK.

YOU WERE WORKING YOUR WAY TOWARDS THE PODIUM.

YEAH.

AND I THINK I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS JUST DOUBLE CHECKING WITH STAFF ON SOME OF THAT.

BUT I THINK SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE SOME CHALLENGES WHEN IT COMES TO DETERMINING IF YOU'VE HAD THE SELF IMMUNITY, IF YOU'VE HAD IT.

AND I THINK THAT SOME OF THE THINGS WE AS STAFF ARE LOOKING THROUGH, SOME THINK THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'VE HAD IT IN SELF-QUARANTINE BUT DIDN'T GET TESTED BUT MIGHT NOT HAVE IT.

WE EVEN TALK THROUGH THEN.

WHAT DO YOU DO? I MEAN, YOU DO THE ANTIBODY TEST MY UNDERSTANDING ON OCCASION.

SOMETIMES THAT WON'T SHOW UP, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG.

SO WE HAVE SOME LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES WHEN IT COMES TO THE WHETHER YOU'VE HAD IT OR NOT.

AND HOW DO WE DOCUMENT OR HOW HOW DOES THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE SHOW US THAT IF THEY DIDN'T GET TESTED, IF THEY HAVE A POSITIVE TEST, IT MAKES IT EASY.

BUT IF THEY DIDN'T GET THAT POSITIVE TEST, IF THEY GO GET AN ANTIBODY TEST, IF IT DOESN'T SHOW UP, I MEAN, AND I GUESS THE ANSWER WOULD BE THAT THEY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED.

BUT THAT'S JUST JUST SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE AS STAFF ARE TRYING TO TALK THROUGH, IF THAT WAS ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO CONSIDER.

OK.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO PUNCH IN AGAIN.

YOU WERE THERE AND THEN AGAIN ON.

HERE WE GO.

THIS IS FUN NOW, I REMEMBER WHY WE ALL LOVE COMING HERE.

WELL, I AGREE WITH THOSE WHO SAID THAT, THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND REQUIRE FULL VACCINATION.

AND UNDER CURRENT DEFINITIONS, WHICH WOULD BE THE THE SERIES, THE TWO PART SERIES FROM MODERNA AND PFIZER OR THE SINGLE SHOT FOR JOHNSON AND JOHNSON.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE WISE FOR US TO FACTOR IN BOOSTERS AT THIS POINT, SINCE THERE'S STILL TOTAL CHAOS AT THE TOP OVER WHETHER THEY'RE EVEN NECESSARY AND WHO THEY'RE NECESSARY FOR.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD STEP INTO THOSE WATERS.

THE THE TIME BASIS I'M PROBABLY GOOD WITH DECEMBER 31ST, JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY THROUGH THE DOOR, GET THIS PROGRAM UP AND RUNNING AND THE SEPARATION OF THREE OR FOUR WEEKS MINIMUM.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE DEADLINE.

AND THAT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE HAVING TO WHO CAN'T JUST JUMP ON IT THE FIRST DAY WE SAY IT, WHO WANT TO OR DECIDE TO, BUT THEY HAVE TO TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THEY CAN DO THAT.

SO I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME, SOME PLAN TO CREDIT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED COVID AND RECOVERED FROM IT FOR FOR THE REASONS THAT MITCH BROUGHT UP.

AND THAT JUST MUDDIES THE WATER.

AND I HAVE TOO MANY FRIENDS RIGHT NOW WHO HAVE GOTTEN COVID AFTER HAVING IT ONCE GOTTEN IT AGAIN.

THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF BEAUTIFUL CLARITY ON THAT, AND I HAVE READ A LOT OF RESEARCH ARTICLES ABOUT IT, AND THERE IS NO THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT BEING FULLY VACCINATED WILL, YOU KNOW, LARGELY KEEP YOU OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AND OUT OF THE MORGUE.

THAT'S A CONSENSUS.

THERE ISN'T A GOOD CONSENSUS FOR THE PROTECTION YOU GET FROM SURVIVING A CASE OF COVID, SO I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF GOING THAT WAY.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER VERA.

YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE.

YOU NEED TO.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND PUNCH.

YOU'RE DONE, OK? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT [INAUDIBLE] OK, I'M SORRY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING ANYBODY.

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO RESPOND TO WHAT MITCH TALKED ABOUT

[00:55:07]

WAS THE IT IS AN INCENTIVE.

SO I THINK THERE HAS TO BE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WORK THAT'S DONE ON THE BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEE TO PROVE THAT THEIR NEGATIVE COVID TESTS.

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO EARN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

THEY HAVE TO DO SHOW THIS COVID TEST.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, IF THEIR ANTIBODY TEST SHOWS NOTHING, THEN I MEAN, THEN THEY HAVE NO ANTIBODIES, WHICH WOULD MEAN TO ME THAT THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED FROM THE VIRUS.

SO I THINK SHOWING A NEGATIVE COVID TEST AND THEN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE RECOVERED AND HAVE THEIR QUARANTINE PERIOD OVER AND BACK TO WORK AND THAT'S THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

AND I GUESS I HAVE MYSELF A LITTLE BIT TURNED AROUND, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I CAN ASK THE MAYOR PRO TEM SO.

SO IT'S PROOF OF VACCINATION PLUS A NEGATIVE PLUS AN ANTIGEN TEST OR JUST THE ANTIGEN TEST THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING GO AHEAD.

NO, IT WOULDN'T BE PROOF OF VACCINATION.

OR IF YOU'VE HAD COVID HAD THE DISEASE AND THEN YOU'VE HAD A COVID TEST TO PROVE YOU HAD COVID AND YOU'VE RECOVERED WELL, YOU HAVE NATURAL IMMUNITY AT THIS POINT.

SO THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD GET THE INCENTIVE THOUGH, CORRECT? YEAH, THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD GET THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE A COVID VACCINE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE NATURAL IMMUNITY.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

JUMP BACK, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I APPRECIATE WHERE THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS COMING FROM ON THAT.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.

THE FIRST IS THAT IF THE WHOLE PROGRAM IS COMMIT TO WELLNESS, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE NECESSARILY COMMITTED TO WELLNESS JUST BY GETTING THE JUST BY GETTING COVID.

AND SO THE INCENTIVE IS FOR FOLKS TO GET VACCINATED, THE SCIENCE ON IT.

AND THIS IS WHAT I REFERENCED EARLIER CDC PRODUCED SOMETHING ON AUGUST 6TH, 2021 REDUCED RISK OF REINFECTION WITH SARS-COV-2 AFTER COVID 19 VACCINATION IN KENTUCKY MAY TO JUNE 2021.

SO THIS WOULD BE A STUDY THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THE DELTA VARIANT HAD REALLY TAKEN HOLD.

SO THESE NUMBERS MAY BE EVEN WORSE, BUT THE WHAT THE CDC FOUND WAS THE KENTUCKY RESIDENTS WHO WERE NOT VACCINATED, HAD TWO POINT THREE, FOUR TIMES THE ODDS OF REINFECTION COMPARED WITH THOSE WHO ARE FULLY VACCINATED WITH A 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL.

SO CERTAINLY THE NATURAL THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF NATURAL IMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO WHAT DEGREE, BUT YOU'RE STILL TWO POINT THREE FOUR TIMES OF GETTING THE REINFECTION WITH COVID, THEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED, AT LEAST IN THIS STUDY HERE.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT WE CONTINUE IF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS STOP COVID INFECTIONS AND REINFECTIONS THAT THAT WE GO STRAIGHT ALL THE WAY TO.

YOU HAVE TO BE FULLY VACCINATED.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK AND WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ALL NIGHT.

BUT I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IF SOMEONE HAS RECOVERED, THEY'VE ALREADY COMMITTED TO WELLNESS BECAUSE SOME OF THE LARGEST COMORBIDITIES ARE OBESITY AND HEART DISEASE AND OTHER THINGS SO THAT THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE STEPS THAT THEY NEED TO BE A HEALTHY PERSON TO NOT HAVE THESE COMORBIDITIES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND ALSO ABOUT REINFECTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF DATA COMING OUT OF ISRAEL NOW ABOUT REINFECTION, EVEN WITH ONE OF THE HIGHEST VACCINATED COUNTRIES.

SO I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WITH THE CASE OF REINFECTIONS.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT INFECTIONS NECESSARILY.

I THINK THE HOSPITALIZATIONS AND THE DEATH IS THE ULTIMATE, I MEAN, ULTIMATE STATISTIC WITHOUT THESE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, IT MIGHT BE A THING WE LIVE WITH GOING ON YEAR TO YEAR, YOU MIGHT BE REINFECTED LIKE THE COMMON COLD, BUT AT LEAST YOU WON'T DIE FROM IT IF YOU HAVE THESE ANTIBODIES, EITHER THROUGH A VACCINE OR NATURAL IMMUNITY.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

THANKS, SIR.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

FIRST, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL LADY MORRIS.

I SUPPORT THE PROGRAM.

THE DEADLINE, THE TIMELINE RATHER THAN A TIMELINE.

WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH, I'M GOOD WITH DECEMBER 31ST, BUT I AGREE WITH HER.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS PROGRAM ROLLOUT BE AS CLEAN AND CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.

AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION ON THE VARIABLES, NONE OF US ARE SCIENTISTS.

WE'RE NOT MEDICS EITHER.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE A CLEAN ROLLOUT, THE FULL SERIES OF VACCINATIONS WITH THE TIMELINE.

AND I THINK WE PERHAPS CAN ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM HAS THAT IF IF OUR PROGRAM COORDINATORS, IF THERE'S A POOL OF EMPLOYEES WHO FALL IN THAT CATEGORY THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM TALKED ABOUT AND THEY BEGIN TO REACH OUT TO TO STAFF

[01:00:09]

AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THEN I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND REVISIT THE ROLLOUT AND BE SURE SO THAT WE CAN.

IF YOU IF SHE GETS THAT, THAT DEMAND THOSE QUESTIONS, THOSE PERSONS AND PERSONS INDICATING THAT, HEY, WE SHOULD BE INCLUDED, WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED, THEN I SEE THAT PERHAPS AS BRINGING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL AND AND ADDING THAT FEATURE TO THE PROGRAM.

BUT THE INITIAL ROLLOUT ROLLOUT, I THINK WITH THE UNCERTAINTIES RELATE TO THAT AND THE VARIABLES THAT MITCH HAS TALKED ABOUT.

I THINK, I THINK JUST KIND OF CLOUDS TO ROLL OUT AND I'D RATHER SEE IT ROLLED OUT CLEAN QUICKLY.

AND IF THE NEED BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK UNTIL WE SEE IT'S WORKING AND IF IN FACT, THAT POOL OF EMPLOYEES THAT MAYOR PRO TEM TALKED ABOUT ARE OUT THERE AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PART OF THIS, WE'RE GOING TO BE A PART OF THIS, THEN CERTAINLY STAFF CAN BRING THIS BACK AND HAVE COUNCIL CONSIDER AMENDING THIS ROLLOUT TO INCLUDE THAT GROUP.

BUT SO THAT WOULD BE ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GO CLEAN FIRST OUT AND KEEP THE OPTION AVAILABLE SHOULD THAT THOSE REQUESTS AND DEMANDS ARE INTEREST.

I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD [INAUDIBLE] INTEREST COMES FROM THOSE EMPLOYEES.

THEN WE COME BACK TO ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF THAT BODY OF EMPLOYEES.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE ON THIS DISCUSSION.

MR. BRADFORD.

YOU WERE.

[INAUDIBLE] I GUESS ONE ONE OTHER THING I'D ASK, I'D ASK COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHILE YOU'RE DEBATING THIS IS IS TO ALLOW THE INCENTIVE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES WHO GET VACCINATED WITHIN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT FOR THE LENGTH OF THE PANDEMIC.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE ONE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION I'D ASK OF THE COUNCIL.

PULL IT BACK OVER HERE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US HERE.

WE WANT TO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INCENTIVE.

THERE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR IT GOING FOR THE FULL, FOR THE FULL SERIES, FOR WHICHEVER VACCINE, WHICHEVER VACCINE IT IS.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE EVER.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL EVER COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON NATURAL IMMUNITY.

MATTER OF FACT, I'M PRETTY CERTAIN WE WON'T.

I WILL GO ON RECORD IN SAYING WE WILL NEVER COME TO A SOUND SCIENCE AGREEMENT ON THAT.

I DO THINK IT IS FROM DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS POINT.

IF IF WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT LARGE IS WHO FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, WHO COME FORWARD, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO ADDRESS THAT.

BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'LL EVER WHAT WE'LL EVER BASE IT ON.

SO JUST FROM WHAT I HAVE TONIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF MOVING FORWARD FULL SERIES AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHICHEVER VACCINE AT THE I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT EARLIER THAN DECEMBER 31ST, BUT I'M WILLING TO GO WITH DECEMBER 31ST JUST FOR PROCESSING TIME.

AND THEN, AS MR. BRADFORD ADDED NEW EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

IS THERE ANY? DID I TIDY THAT UP AS BEST AS ANY COVID DISCUSSION CAN EVER BE? [INAUDIBLE] YES.

OK.

THERE'S YOUR DIRECTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT ITEM FOUR C COVID 19 BRIEFING.

[4C. COVID-19 Briefing]

JASON, CAN YOU FOLLOW ALL THAT?

[01:05:04]

I WILL DO MY BEST.

I'M SURE YOU WILL.

AND HERE COMES MISTY TO TAKE PART.

SO WE'VE GOT A WE'VE GOT SEVERAL SLIDES HERE, I'M GOING TO TRY TO MOVE THROUGH THEM FAIRLY QUICKLY AND OF COURSE, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY OR AT THE END.

AS OF TODAY, HERE ARE THE THE NUMBERS FOR, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL COVID 19 CASES THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE PANDEMIC.

AND WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF GOOD NEWS ON TODAY'S REPORT.

YOU ALL MAY HAVE SEEN THE UPDATE ON THE WEB PAGE, BUT OVER THE LAST WEEK WE ADDED 938 NEW CASES.

NOW THAT'S STILL A LOT.

THAT'S TOO MANY NEW CASES, BUT THE SILVER LINING IS, IS THAT IT'S ABOUT 300 OR OVER 300 FEWER CASES THAN THE PREVIOUS WEEK.

SO THE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CASE REPORTS HAVE TRENDED DOWNWARD AT LEAST OVER THE LAST WEEK, AS HAVE ACTIVE CASES.

YOU CAN SEE THAT AT LEAST BEGIN TO BE ILLUSTRATED ON THIS GRAPH.

IN TERMS OF THE THE WAVE.

I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THE DELTA WAVE IS CRESTED, BUT IF IT IF IT HAD CRESTED, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

SO THAT'S AS FAR AS I'LL GO OUT ON A LIMB THERE.

IN TERMS OF STAFFING NUMBERS, WE'RE STILL SEEING FAIRLY HIGH NUMBERS OF STAFF IMPACTS, BUT IT'S BETTER ILLUSTRATED ON THE GRAPH THAT YOU ALL HAVE SEEN BEFORE.

AND AGAIN, YOU SEE THE SAME TREND THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SEE IN CASES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

IF NOTHING ELSE STABLE, PERHAPS EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A DOWNWARD TREND, SO GOOD NEWS THERE AS WELL.

VACCINATIONS, WE PUT THIS SLIDE UP THE I'LL POINT OUT THE THIRD LINE FROM THE BOTTOM, THE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE THAT ARE THAT ARE VACCINATED AND BY THAT BOTH ONE DOSE AND FULLY VACCINATED.

JUST FOR COMPARISON, AS OF SEPTEMBER 4TH, FOR THE RESIDENTS OF GARLAND, WE HAVE ABOUT 74 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION 18 AND OLDER THAT HAVE RECEIVED ONE SHOT AND ABOUT 57 PERCENT THAT HAVE RECEIVED BOTH SHOTS.

SO FAIRLY CLOSE IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL POPULATION FOR ONE DOSE, LAGGING A BIT BEHIND ON TWO DOSES, BUT STILL GRADUALLY RISING.

SO AT LEAST THAT'S A SILVER LINING THERE IN TERMS OF VACCINES THAT WE'VE ADMINISTERED.

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN HERE, THE TOTAL WE'RE APPROACHING 40000 DOSES.

TOTAL DOSES ADMINISTERED OVER 20000 FIRST DOSES, 18000 SECOND DOSES.

OF COURSE, THE SINGLE DOSES WE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE JOHNSON AND JOHNSON VACCINE.

THE THIRD DOSES ARE, OF COURSE, WE'VE BEEN OFFERING THOSE ABOUT A MONTH.

THOSE ARE LIMITED TO LIMITED TO SOME FAIRLY STRICT CRITERIA, FOLKS THAT ARE SEVERELY IMMUNOCOMPROMISED, WHICH I THINK I HAVE A SLIDE IN A BIT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE CRITERIA.

BUT IN TERMS OF VACCINE EVENTS I APPRECIATE THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL OF YOU ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR POP UP EVENTS, AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE.

WE'VE GOT A SHORT LIST HERE OF EVENTS THAT ARE ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.

A LOT OF AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SECOND DOSE EVENTS.

WE HIT THOSE HIGH SCHOOLS, OF COURSE, WITH PFIZER.

SO ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO, WE HIT THOSE HIGH SCHOOLS TO GET THOSE KIDDOS 12 TO 18 AND A SLIDE FOR EVENTS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE VARIETY OF VENUES OR LOCATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN TO FOR THESE POP UP EVENTS.

YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATION HAS VARIED, BUT IT'S BEEN WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER FAIRLY STRONG AT THESE EVENTS.

IF WE CAN GO TO A HIGH SCHOOL AND IMMUNIZE 63 STUDENTS OR, YOU KNOW, A DAY CARE.

WE'VE GOT NAACP BACK TO SCHOOL EVENT.

THERE WAS PETCO.

THERE WE GO.

ON AUGUST 20TH, WE WENT TO A PRIVATE COMPANY AND WE'VE GOT A FEW OF THOSE ON THE SCHEDULE.

VACCINATED 37 INDIVIDUALS.

SO THOSE ARE VERY POSITIVE EVENTS.

WE CERTAINLY INTEND TO CONTINUE THOSE AS LONG AS THERE IS A DEMAND FOR COMPANIES OR ORGANIZATIONS TO ALLOW US TO USE THEIR THEIR LOCATION IN A EVENT AS A VENUE.

BREAKDOWN BY LOCATION,

[01:10:02]

JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE SPAN OF DISTRIBUTION, I GUESS OF THE SHOTS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE A LOT OF THEM AT THE MASS VACCINATION EVENTS, BUT WE CONTINUE TO GIVE OUT A LOT OF VACCINES AT PUBLIC HEALTH AND OFFSITE EVENTS AS WELL.

AND I WILL POINT OUT THE HOMEBOUND VACCINES.

WE STILL PROVIDE THE SERVICE IF YOU ALL COME INTO CONTACT WITH ONE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT.

IS INTERESTED IN A VACCINE AND HAS A LEGITIMATE BARRIER TO GETTING TO OUR LOCATION.

LET US KNOW BECAUSE WE'VE NOT FOUND A BARRIER SO FAR THAT HAS KEPT US FROM VACCINATING INDIVIDUALS LIKE THAT.

SO AND WE CERTAINLY GO TO THEIR HOME IF NEED BE.

HERE'S THE SLIDE I MENTIONED EARLIER THE BOOSTER SHOT CRITERIA.

I WON'T I WON'T READ THE READ THE ENTIRE SLIDE, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S IT'S FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE IMMUNOCOMPROMISED AND WE'VE GONE OVER THIS INFORMATION BEFORE.

IT'S PROMINENT ON THE CDC WEB PAGE, BUT CERTAINLY FOR FOLKS THAT FALL IN INTO THESE CATEGORIES, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO CONSIDER THAT BOOSTER DOSE BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY SEE DISEASE RESISTANCE BEGINNING TO WANE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS.

SO CERTAINLY, IF YOU FALL WITHIN THESE CATEGORIES OF [INAUDIBLE] WE'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THIRD BOOSTER DOSE.

I BELIEVE MISTY IS GOING TO TAKE OVER HERE.

YES, SIR, THANK YOU.

SO THIS IS JUST THE SAME SLIDE THAT WE'VE TRIED TO SHOW FROM MEETING TO MEETING RELATED TO THE HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR THE TRAUMA SERVICE AREA, JUST AS A REMINDER, WE ARE IN TRAUMA SERVICE AREA E, WHICH IS THE RED.

AND RIGHT NOW, AS OF TODAY, OUR COVID PERCENTAGE IS 22.19, WHICH YOU CAN SEE OVER TO THE LEFT IS THE BAR GRAPH.

THE HIGHEST TO DATE WAS BACK IN JANUARY 27.75, THE TABLE AT THE BOTTOM.

THE LINE GRAPH SHOWS THAT WE'RE KIND OF HOVERING OVER 20 PERCENT.

AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THAT WAS CONSIDERED HIGH HOSPITALIZATION WHEN WE GOT OVER 15 PERCENT ORIGINALLY WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THIS NUMBER.

THIS IS JUST THE GRAPH THAT SHOWS WE HAD TO PULL IT DOWN FROM MAY.

SO WE LOOKED AT MAY AND YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE SPIKES THAT WE SAW IN JULY AND THEN JANUARY, AND THIS IS MAY OF LAST YEAR, SORRY THEN JULY AND JANUARY.

AND THEN NOW THIS IS WHERE WE ARE ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT.

AS OF TODAY, WE'RE AT 980 AND THEN THE RED IS 19.28, WHICH IS THE PERCENT OF SORRY HOSPITAL CAPACITY WITH CONFIRMED COVID.

AND THEN THE ORANGE IS 20.89, WHICH IS PERCENT OF ALL IN PATIENTS WITH COVID.

LOCATIONS.

WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE.

THE RED OR I'M SORRY, THE BLUE, A LITTLE COLOR BLIND TODAY, I GUESS, THE BLUE SHOWING FORT WORTH AND THEN MCKINNEY.

THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT ARE CALLED RICK'S OR REGIONAL INFUSION CENTERS.

THOSE ARE SUPPORTED BY STATE FUNDING AND STATE RESOURCES.

THERE IS ANOTHER INFUSION CENTER THAT WAS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO BE A REGIONAL INFUSION CENTER IN ROCKWALL, BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A LOCALLY SUPPORTED CENTER.

IT'S JUST THAT THE STATE PROVIDED A RESOURCE BEING THE TENT, THE LOCATION.

EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PROVIDED BY THE TRAUMA AREA AND THEN ALSO THE PRIVATE PROVIDER, WHICH IS BAYLOR, SCOTT AND WHITE.

THE GREEN ARE FACILITIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THERAPEUTICS.

AND THEN THE YELLOW HOUR.

PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD INFUSION RESOURCES, BUT ARE CURRENTLY EITHER DON'T HAVE THEM OR AREN'T LOOKING TO GET ANY.

WE'VE SEEN A SHORTAGE STATEWIDE, AT LEAST ON THE REGIONAL LEVELS OF GETTING THE ACTUAL THERAPEUTICS IN AND AT THESE SITES.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE STATE IS NOT LOOKING TO OPEN ANY ADDITIONAL SITES UNTIL THAT IS MORE READILY AVAILABLE.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT ONE? OH YEAH.

JUST TO ADD A BIT ON THE INFUSION SITES, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF.

SUGGESTIONS FORWARDED TO US FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON LOOKING INTO INFUSION SITES AND AND OF COURSE, MISTY AND HER FOLKS HAVE REALLY DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH.

YOU KNOW, LIKE MISTY SAID, THE STATE HAS PAUSED THE OR IS NOT CURRENTLY NOT ACCEPTING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL SITES, BUT IN TERMS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

[01:15:05]

THE I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WOULD SAY THAT CONTINUE TO BE BARRIERS THAT WE SEE IN TERMS OF INFUSION SITES.

NUMBER ONE, IT'S MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND THAT'S A THAT IS NOT TRADITIONALLY INSIDE THE REALM OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

SO THE NOT TO SUGGEST THAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY ARE TOTALLY INDEPENDENT.

THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP.

BUT TYPICALLY IN THE REALM OF PUBLIC HEALTH, WE PROVIDE VACCINES.

WE LOOK AT POPULATION HEALTH, DISEASE CONTROL THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF CONTACTS, POTENTIAL EXPOSURES, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO IT'S, IT'S UNLIKE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT DO, BUT IT WOULD BE A FAIRLY RADICAL CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT THE HURDLE THAT WE REALLY RUN INTO IS FINDING A MEDICAL PARTNER FOR INFUSION SITES BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A TREATMENT FACILITY THAT REQUIRES PHYSICIANS OR HIGH LEVEL MEDICAL STAFF TO MONITOR, NOT ONLY MONITOR BUT TO ASSESS PATIENTS TO DETERMINE IF THEY MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INFUSION AND THEN TO MONITOR THE ACTUAL INFUSION PROCESS.

IT'S A CONSIDERABLE PROCESS IN TERMS OF LENGTH.

YOU'RE THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF THOSE HURDLES THAT WE'VE THAT WE'VE AT LEAST ENCOUNTERED THUS FAR WITHIN WITH PERHAPS SEEKING AN INFUSION SITE IN GARLAND PROPER.

NOW I WANT TO MOVE ON TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT WE DO WANT TO THROW ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AT, WHICH ARE ANOTHER VACCINE DRIVE THROUGH EVENT AND POTENTIALLY A DRIVE THROUGH TESTING SITE.

SO IN ANTICIPATION OF BOOSTER DOSES, I BELIEVE THIS THE FDA IS SET TO MEET ON THE 17TH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS FRIDAY, AND WE MAY ANTICIPATE SOME MORE CONCRETE GUIDANCE ON BOOSTER DOSES ON FRIDAY OR PERHAPS SHORTLY THEREAFTER, BUT IN ANTICIPATION OF AN INCREASED DEMAND FOR BOOSTER DOSES AND IN ANTICIPATION OF THE AGE ELIGIBILITY BEING LOWERED, AT LEAST FOR PFIZER AND PERHAPS MODERNA, WE ARE PLANNING TO SET UP A DRIVE THROUGH VACCINE SITE AT THE FIRE TRAINING FIELD, AND THE HOURS ARE TENTATIVE WHERE OUR EXPECTATION IS TO BE ABLE TO IMMUNIZE ABOUT 400 PEOPLE A DAY IF THE DEMAND IS THERE.

THE BIG QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE DEMAND GOING TO BE? AND I JUST DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT TO BE PREPARED TO MEET THE DEMAND AS IT ARISES WITH THIS SITE.

IT'S IT'LL GIVE US THE ABILITY TO BOTH EXPAND OR CONTRACT BASED ON DEMAND.

SO IF WE SEE DEMAND LARGER THAN WHAT WE MAY ANTICIPATE, WE CAN SERVE MUCH MORE PEOPLE.

WE CAN THROW RESOURCES AND EXPAND IT.

BUT IT'S IT'S NOT AS, IT'S NOT AS SPACIOUS AND SPREAD OUT AS THE EVENT AT HBJ.

THEREFORE, IT TAKES A LOT FEWER STAFF.

SO IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES THAT IT TAKES FROM STAFFING.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE EFFICIENT VENUE I THINK.

THE HOURS WE'RE ANTICIPATING THREE FULL DAYS AND THEN PERHAPS HALF DAYS ON SATURDAYS, AGAIN, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE VERY FLEXIBLE BASED ON DEMAND.

THIS IS JUST AN INITIAL SCHEDULE.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK.

WE'LL HAVE BASICALLY TWO TRACKS FOLKS THAT HAVE THEIR VACCINE CARD, THEY'RE GOING TO GET A FAST PASS, THEY'RE GOING TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE VACCINE TENT.

WE'LL ADD THAT THIRD BOOSTER DOSE TO THEIR VACCINE CARD.

THEY'LL GO TO THE 15 MINUTE OBSERVATION PERIOD AND THEY'RE DONE.

THE FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE THAT VACCINE CARD, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THEM TO GET OUT OF THEIR CAR AND COME INSIDE SO THAT WE CAN LOOK UP THEIR VACCINE STATUS TO VERIFY.

SO IT'S A BIT SLOWER, BUT FOLKS THAT MAY HAVE MISPLACED THEIR VACCINE CARDS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY.

WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO SERVE.

YOU MAY JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES LONGER, BUT WE DO HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT.

THE START DATE, WE INTEND ON VACCINATING THE THE FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS, THOSE FOLKS THAT FROM GARLAND, ROWLETT AND SACHSE, THOSE FOLKS THAT WERE IN GROUP 1A, THE VERY FIRST GROUP THAT WE VACCINATED BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S OF LAST YEAR.

THOSE WILL BE THE FIRST FOLKS THAT WE VACCINATE THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 27TH, WE PLAN TO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 4TH, I BELIEVE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH, IS OUR TARGET START DATE AND THEN TESTING SITES.

SO THE, MISTY HAS BEEN CONTACTED TO INQUIRE IF GARLAND COULD SUPPORT A TESTING SITE, AND OUR INITIAL PLANNING OR ASSESSMENT IS TO CO-LOCATE THE CO-LOCATED TESTING SITE WITH OUR VACCINE SITE AND IT WOULD BE STAFFED THROUGH STATE RESOURCES.

WE WOULD PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND OF COURSE, THE VENUE.

BUT WE GOT TO, WE MET AT THE FIRE TRAINING CENTER TODAY WITH ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN SETTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS UP, AND IT APPEARS TO BE FEASIBLE NOW.

IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL, SO I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO LAY THIS OUT AS A

[01:20:02]

GUARANTEE.

BUT IT LOOKS PROMISING, THE PROSPECT OF A TESTING SITE AT THIS SAME VENUE LOOKS VERY PROMISING AND I DON'T KNOW IF MISTY IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD IN TERMS OF DETAILS FOR THAT.

JUST A START.

JUST SORRY.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT THIS CURRENT STATUS IS THAT WE ARE AWAITING THE AGREEMENT FOR WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR US.

OUR AGREEMENT WOULD ACTUALLY BE WITH A PRIVATE VENDOR WHO WAS COORDINATED THROUGH CDC, AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CDC.

SO NO OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES FOR THE LOCAL JURISDICTION FOR US, THEY WOULD DO ALL THEIR BILLING THROUGH INSURANCE AND THEN THROUGH A FEDERAL POT OF MONEY TO PAY FOR THE TESTING.

SO WHAT WE ARE WAITING ON ANXIOUSLY IS THAT AGREEMENT BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, SOME STATE AND SOME FEDERAL ENTITIES, NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE AS FAR AS AGREEMENTS GO.

SO WE WANT TO SEE THAT STUFF IN WRITING.

WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN FOR US LOCALLY? AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE STANDING UP FOR THEIR END OF THE PROMISE.

SO ONCE WE GET THAT, THEN WE'LL KNOW MORE.

AND WHAT I WANT TO CLOSE WITH JUST QUICKLY IS, OF COURSE, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TO GET FULLY VACCINATED AND TO GET THAT SECOND DOSE, THAT BOOSTER DOSE IF YOU FALL WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF SEVERELY IMMUNOCOMPROMISED FOLKS.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE ILLUSTRATED THE POP UP SITES, THOSE ARE POSTED ON OUR WEB PAGE AS FAR AS IN ADVANCE AS WE CAN.

AS SOON AS WE CONFIRM THOSE POP UP EVENTS, WE POST THEM ON OUR WEB PAGE.

OF COURSE, OUR PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC IS OPEN 7:30 TO 5:30 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

IT'S A WALK IN PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC AT 206 CARVER DRIVE.

THERE'S NO COST TO THE VACCINE.

WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IF YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE FIRST DOSE OR THE SECOND DOSE OR THE THIRD DOSE, IF YOU QUALIFY, WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GET VACCINATED.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A SECRET TO ANYONE THE BENEFITS OF VACCINATION.

I KNOW THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE WITH CONCERNS, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF INFECTIONS, HOSPITALIZATIONS AND DEATHS THAT WE SEE AND WE SEE IT ON A DAILY BASIS INVOLVES UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS FOR THE FOR THE PERIOD OF SINCE VACCINES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1ST, VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH CASES REPRESENTED ABOUT SIX POINT EIGHT PERCENT OF THE TOTAL OVERALL NUMBER OF COVID CASES IN GARLAND, SO IT RADICALLY REDUCES YOUR LIKELIHOOD OF BECOMING ILL, IF YOU'RE FULLY VACCINATED.

HOSPITALIZATIONS ARE AGAIN RADICALLY REDUCED AS ARE DEATHS.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO VACCINATED, PEOPLE WHO GET SICK.

THERE ARE VACCINATED PEOPLE WHO END UP IN THE HOSPITAL, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE VACCINATED PEOPLE WHO SUCCUMB TO THE ILLNESS.

BUT THE PERCENTAGES ARE MINUSCULE IN COMPARISON TO THE OVERALL UNVACCINATED POPULATION.

SO BOTTOM LINE, PLEASE, IF YOU'RE NOT VACCINATED, IF YOU'RE NOT FULLY VACCINATED, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AND WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE AS EASILY AS POSSIBLE.

SO I BELIEVE WITH THAT COUNSEL, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

VERY GOOD, ANYONE THE COMMENTS FOR STAFF QUESTIONS? MY PANEL HAS LOCKED UP.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO ON THE HONOR SYSTEM.

WE'LL START AT THE FAR END DISTRICT ONE ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT DISTRICT TWO, AND MAYBE DAN CAN ACTIVATE YOUR MIC FROM BACK THERE BECAUSE I CAN'T FROM HERE.

NO.

THERE YOU GO.

THERE IT IS, OK, WELL, THANK YOU, JASON AND MISTY, AS ALWAYS FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND PRESENTATION.

COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

THE TWO NOW STATE RUN AND FUSION CENTERS THAT ARE IN YOU, SAID MCKINNEY AND FORT WORTH.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO IN OUR AREA NOW? SHEESH.

DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? DO BOTH OF THOSE HAVE DOCTORS ON SITE THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THE PRESCRIPTION AND THEN THE INFUSION AT A ONE STOP SHOP? THAT'S GREAT.

THEY PREFER NOT TO DO IT THAT WAY.

NO, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN TREAT MORE IF THEY ARE NOT HAVING TO UTILIZE THE DOCTORS TO MAKE REFERRALS.

BUT YES, BOTH CAN DO IT.

OK, AND THAT IS FREE OF CHARGE.

OK, SO THERE'S NO INSURANCE REQUIRED.

THERE'S NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE TO SHOW UP.

OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT INSURANCE, I CAN CHECK FOR YOU.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT REQUIRING THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE STATE PROVIDED RESOURCES.

BUT I'LL VERIFY THAT.

OK, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND THAT'S BEEN, AND I KNOW JASON KNOWS THIS.

I RECENTLY HAD TO WALK SOMEONE THROUGH THE COVID INFECTION UNVACCINATED INFUSION PROCESS, AND IT WAS A TOTAL ZOO TO TRY TO FIND A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT THAT WOULD GET TO HER IN TIME FOR HER TO MAKE THE WINDOW FOR THE INFUSION AND THEN TO FIND A FACILITY THAT HAD THE INFUSION.

SO IT'S A MESS, AND I WISH THAT WE HAD MORE OF THESE STATE CENTERS AROUND FOR OUR FOR OUR CITIZENS HERE.

SO TESTING, I HAVE BEEN HEARING SURROUND SOUND FROM EVERYBODY THAT IT IS A SCRAMBLE TO FIND TO GET TESTED.

AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE FIREWOOD WAS DURING SNOWMAGEDDON, WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING, OH, I FOUND SOMEPLACE THEY'LL TEST AND THEY DON'T REQUIRE AN APPOINTMENT.

SO IF WE'RE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT RESTARTING OUR PUBLIC TESTING PROGRAM AGAIN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THE VACCINE DRIVE THRU TYPE OF PROCESS, IS THAT GOING TO BE DAILY HOURS OPEN DAILY? IS THAT GOING TO BE JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK? WHAT ARE WE ANTICIPATING? WELL, INITIALLY, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, MY EXPECTATION, AT LEAST MY SENSE, IS THAT THERE IS A GREATER DEMAND FOR TESTING NOW THAN BOOSTER DOSES OR VACCINES IN GENERAL.

SO THAT WOULD AT LEAST INITIALLY BE ALONG THE LINES OF THE SAME SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE IN MIND FOR THE DRIVE THRU VACCINE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IT COULD BE EXPANDED OR CONTRACTED BASED ON DEMAND.

AND AGAIN, MY I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF DEMAND REQUIRED US TO EXPAND THE HOURS.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN WOULD BE THREE WEEK DAYS AND A HALF DAY ON SATURDAY WITH THE ABILITY TO EXPAND AS DEMAND DICTATES.

OK, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE TESTING REGULARLY AVAILABLE AT THE CLINIC.

IT WOULDN'T BE THAT? NO MA'AM, THIS WOULD BE DRIVE THROUGH ONLY.

OK, JUST MAKING SURE.

ALL RIGHT, APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU BOTH.

THANK YOU, JASON AND MISTY, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING EXTRA IN THE WAY OF MARKETING? I KNOW THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE A VERY NEW MARKETING SCHEME IS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY SET IN PLACE, BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC SUCH THAT WE CAN

[01:25:22]

GET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF EFFECTIVENESS? WELL, AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION.

WE'VE GOT, OF COURSE, THE YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION IS IS WIDELY AVAILABLE.

WE HAVE WE HAVE REVISITED AT OUR PUBLIC FACING WEB PAGE ON IN TERMS OF THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, LISTED OUT SPECIFICALLY ON THE WEB PAGE OR LINKS TO STATE OR CDC, IN TERMS OF MARKETING, THE THE BIGGEST SUCCESS THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR ARE THESE POP UP SITES BECAUSE IT'S WHETHER IT'S AT A CHURCH OR A, YOU KNOW, A BUSINESS OR SOCIAL CLUB, WHATEVER.

MAYBE IT'S PEER PRESSURE.

MAYBE IT'S TRUST OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR FOLLOWING THE LEADER, YOU KNOW, MIMICKING THOSE THAT YOU TRUST.

YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS THAT YOU HAVE RESPECT FOR GETTING VACCINATED.

YOU'RE MORE WILLING TO GET VACCINATED YOURSELF.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASONING IS BEHIND A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GETTING THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO TO MARKET THESE VACCINES IS TO FIND A VENUE THAT'S WILLING TO ALLOW US TO DO POP UPS.

AND PEOPLE TEND TO PLAY FOLLOW THE LEADER, I GUESS, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING.

THAT'S AT LEAST IN OUR EXPERIENCE.

THAT'S THE BEST MARKETING STRATEGY IS TO CONTINUE TO PUSH THESE POP UP EVENTS AND AND GET OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY.

WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE FOLKS COME INTO OUR PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC AS ALWAYS.

BUT THE I THINK WE'VE WE'VE PROBABLY SERVED JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY THAT'S WILLING TO COME TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC AND GET A VACCINE.

AND WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY HAVE A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON DOING IT OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE DRIVE THROUGH.

OF COURSE, THE DRIVE THRU MAKES IT MAKES IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE, AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

SO IN TERMS OF MARKETING, THAT'S THE BEST SUCCESS THAT WE'VE HAD AND OUR INTENTION IS TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING PROACTIVE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

GOOD EVENING MISTY AND JASON TO CALL YOU ALL THE TAG TEAM, THE DYNAMIC DUO.

THREE QUICK QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU TALK JUST BRIEFLY ABOUT THE CITY TSD COLLABORATION? AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR'S DAUGHTER, SHE GOES TO SOUTH AND SHE CAME HOME ONE DAY AND SAID I GOT A SHOT AND SHE SAID, YOU ALL WERE AT MY SCHOOL AND I SAID, WHO'S YOU ALL? YOU KNOW, [INAUDIBLE] SO YOU GOT SOME ATTENTION.

SO CAN YOU BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THAT? THE SECOND THING IS, CAN YOU TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT GARLAND BREAKTHROUGH CASES? ANY UPDATE ON THAT? AND AND I WAS READING INFORMATION THAT THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMING DOWN THE PIKE, TESTING KITS THAT'S GOING TO BE AT RETAILERS LIKE I HEARD THE NAMES I HEARD.

WELL, I DON'T WANT TO MENTION THE BUSINESSES, BUT BUT THE BIG, BIG BUSINESSES, BIG BOXES, THE PHARMACEUTICALS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE TESTING KITS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMING DOWN ANY ANYTHING YOU'RE HEARING ANY UPDATE ON THAT PIECE.

CAN YOU ALL SPEAK TO THOSE THINGS, PLEASE? I'LL TRY TO TACKLE THE FIRST TWO AND THE THIRD ONE I MAY DEFER TO MISTY, BUT IN TERMS OF THE GISD RELATIONSHIP, IT, AT LEAST WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, IT'S AS STRONG AS EVER.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A VERY STRONG PARTNERSHIP USING THEIR FACILITY, HBJ STADIUM, FOR THE MASS VACCINATION EVENTS.

AND OF COURSE, MOST OF THE KIDDOS IN GISD WERE UNFORTUNATELY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR VACCINES DURING THAT TIME.

BUT WE DID, WE DID GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO TRY TO PROVIDE VACCINES TO THE THE GISD STAFF.

NOW, SINCE THE AGE ELIGIBILITY FOR PFIZER WAS LOWERED TO 12, THAT MADE A BIG PORTION OF THE GISD STUDENT BODY AVAILABLE FOR VACCINES.

[01:30:02]

SO WE WORKED WITH NURSE KOTSOPOULOS, WHO IS OVER THE THE MEDICAL PROGRAM FOR GISD TO SCHEDULE EVENTS AT SCHOOLS WITH STUDENTS THAT ARE NOW AGE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PFIZER VACCINE.

AND WHAT YOU SAW ON THE SLIDE EARLIER WERE THE RETURN TRIPS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE MAKING PRELIMINARY PLANS TO SEND WHAT WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO IS STRIKE TEAMS TO PRIMARY SCHOOLS, IF AND WHEN THE AGE ELIGIBILITY IS LOWERED SO THAT WE CAN VACCINATE AS MANY OF THOSE KIDDOS AS THEIR PARENTS WILL ALLOW US TO VACCINATE AND OF COURSE, RETURN TRIPS AS WELL.

SO THE THE RELATIONSHIP AGAIN, TO GET BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GISD IS STRONG AS EVER AND OUR STAFF TALKS ON A DAILY BASIS AND THE LEADERSHIP TALKS AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK.

SO GOOD COMMUNICATION THERE, A GREAT RELATIONSHIP.

IN TERMS OF THE BREAKTHROUGH CASES.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A BREAKTHROUGH CASE UNTIL VACCINES WERE AVAILABLE, RIGHT? SO THE BREAKTHROUGH CASES, WE STARTED TRACKING THEM.

OUR FIRST BREAKTHROUGH CASE WAS REPORTED.

I BELIEVE THE DATE WAS FEBRUARY 3RD, RIGHT AROUND THE FIRST PART OF FEBRUARY WHEN WE GOT OUR FIRST BREAKTHROUGH CASE.

SO FROM THAT FIRST CASE IN GARLAND UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST, OUT OF A TOTAL OF NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN CASES.

SO ALMOST TEN THOUSAND CASES, WE HAD A TOTAL OF SIX HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH CASES.

SO IT'S ABOUT SIX POINT EIGHT PERCENT OF THE CASES THAT ARE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE CONFIRMED CASES ARE BREAKTHROUGH CASES AND MISTY I HOPE YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE RETAIL TESTING KITS.

I KNOW A LITTLE BIT, SO WE HAVE A REGULAR MEETING.

IT'S A VIRTUAL MEETING, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S WITH A WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TEAM FOR COVID.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY UPDATED JUST THIS MORNING WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT, THAT THEY ARE GOING THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING AGREEMENTS WITH RETAILERS.

THEY TENTATIVELY RELEASED A FEW NAMES, BUT I THINK THAT'S STILL UP FOR FINALIZATION.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO OFFER THOSE OVER-THE-COUNTER KITS THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR AT COST TO HELP.

AND THAT WAY IT'LL BE EASIER FOR PEOPLE OF ALL DIFFERENT INCOMES TO HAVE AVAILABILITY FOR TESTING.

SO IF THEY DON'T HAVE AVAILABILITY TO A FREE TEST SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEN THE AT COST KIT IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER OPTION.

SO WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT IS THE CASE.

THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING THE AGREEMENTS AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET A COMBINED LIST OF RETAILERS PRETTY SOON.

OK, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

WORK MY WAY DOWN THE OTHER SIDE.

GO AHEAD, EVERYBODY'S GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST SAY THIS TEAM JUST CONTINUES TO SET THE BAR HIGH FOR EVERYONE.

SO YOU'RE EVERYTHING YOU'RE COMING UP WITH.

YOU'RE ACTING, YOU'RE BEING PROACTIVE WITH ALL OF THESE THINGS.

I CAN'T COMMEND YOU ENOUGH FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF.

WHATEVER IT IS NOW, SOME DAYS IT SEEMS MUCH LONGER THAN A YEAR AND A HALF.

BUT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ON TOP OF THIS FROM THE GET GO AND I HAVE NOTHING AND I STILL HEAR PEOPLE STILL ARE TELLING ME HOW WELL THE MASS VACCINATION SITE WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH IT, AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SIX SEVEN MONTHS AGO FOR SOME OF THEM.

AND AND OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH GISD CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THEM ACTUALLY SAW YOU WERE UPDATING THE TRUSTEES A FEW WEEKS BACK.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S A LITTLE STRANGE SEEING SOMEBODY ELSE'S PODIUM, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING AND DIANA WAS THERE AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

AND MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

[01:35:02]

AND PARDON ME.

I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE, YOU KNOW, I CAN REALLY ONLY TAKE CLAIM TO BEING THE SPOKESMAN FOR ALL OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT OUR DEPARTMENT'S DOING.

YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE STAFF, THE FOLKS THAT WORK EVERY DAY BEHIND THE SCENES, HELPING ONE PERSON AT A TIME, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN.

AND I'M TO BE A VERY SMALL PART OF A LARGE ORGANIZATION AND THE SUCCESS THAT THIS ORGANIZATION HAS HAD OVER THE COURSE OF THE PANDEMIC.

BUT I APPRECIATE YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO SOME WORK ON MY CONTROL PANEL HERE.

LET'S HAVE EVERYBODY BACK AT 7:55 PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, WE ARE COMING BACK FROM RECESS.

THIS IS THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 WORK SESSION OF THE GARLAND CITY COUNCIL.

WE ARE AT ITEM 4D YES, 4D, 2019 BOND PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION OF TRAILS.

MR. HESSER.

THANK YOU, SIR, GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I WANTED TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE TRAIL PROGRAM.

AS YOU MIGHT RECALL, BACK IN MAY OF 2019, $7 MILLION WAS ALLOCATED IN THE APPROVED BOND PROGRAM.

IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT, THE CITY APPLIED FOR SOME MCIP FUNDS FROM DALLAS COUNTY, WHICH IS MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

IN THE SEVENTH CALL, THAT APPLICATION WAS MADE IN OCTOBER OF 2019, AND THEN IN DECEMBER OF 2020, WE WERE NOTIFIED OF THE AWARD OF APPROXIMATELY NINE MILLION IN DALLAS COUNTY FUNDS TO HELP LEVERAGE AND MAXIMIZE THE 50-50 GRANT MATCH OF THE CITY FUNDS.

SO WITH THAT, THERE'S ALWAYS STRINGS ATTACHED TO THESE TYPES OF GRANTS, AND SOME STIPULATIONS APPLY TO THESE FUNDS AS WELL.

AND SO ESSENTIALLY, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT.

WE HAVE TO EXPEND THE FUNDS BEFORE THEY REIMBURSE THEM, AND THERE'S SOME PROTOCOLS FOR THAT.

THOSE FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED ONLY IN TWO CATEGORIES THAT'S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

THAT MEANS THAT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FEES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THAT REIMBURSEMENT.

WE HAVE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS FOR THOSE.

THERE'S AN OVERALL MASTER AGREEMENT, BUT EACH ONE HAS TO HAVE SPECIFIC TERMS APPROVED BY BOTH JURISDICTIONS, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

THOSE AWARDED FUNDS MUST BE SPENT IN CORRESPONDING COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT THAT CANNOT BE MOVED BETWEEN COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS.

AT THIS CALL, WE'VE ALSO BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THE DALLAS COUNTY STAFF WILL GENERALLY TAKE LEAD OR A GREATER ROLE, AS WE'VE LEARNED IN THE PAST ON DESIGN EFFORTS AS WELL AS INSPECTIONS OF OF OUR PROJECTS.

ONE ONE THING THAT A FOOTNOTE AT THE BOTTOM THAT'S WORTH MENTIONING, SO THE REIMBURSEMENT ELIGIBILITY IS ALSO GOING TO BE CONTINGENT ON THEIR INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

SO THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE STARTED DESIGN WISE AHEAD OF THIS OF THIS PROGRAM AND THEREFORE MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SO IN SUMMARY OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND THESE ARE JUST KIND OF GROUPED IN BROAD CATEGORIES, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BREAKDOWN IN A SECOND.

SO WE HAD A LARGE PROJECT TO THE SOUTH, DUCK CREEK SOUTH EXTENSION, SOME FEASIBILITY STUDIES, SOME LOCAL CONNECTIONS AND EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ONE AND SOME LOCAL CONNECTIONS IN COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TWO TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $9 MILLION IN FUNDS.

WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU COUPLE THAT TOGETHER WITH OUR MATCHING FUNDS, WE WERE QUICKLY LEARNING WHEN WE DID THE MATH ON WHAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR THINGS THAT GOT KIND OF OUT AHEAD OF THEM.

WE'VE GOT THE COUNTY FUNDS.

THAT MATCH NOW IS REDUCED TO FIVE POINT NINETY FOUR MILLION.

[4D. 2019 Bond Program - Prioritization of Trails]

THAT WE HAVE THE 50 50 MATCH FOR THE BOND PROGRAM PROVIDED SEVEN MILLION.

THIS NUMBER SHOWS SIX POINT EIGHTY EIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THE MASTER PLAN FROM THOSE FUNDS.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME A COUPLE OF BUCKETS OF MONEY THAT WERE ALLOCATED FOR TRAILS AND WATER WASTEWATER FROM QUITE SOME TIME AGO, AND THEN SOME REMAINING COS FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF MONEY IN HAND OF ABOUT 14 AND A HALF MILLION.

SO WITH THAT, IT KIND OF PUT A PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE KIND OF REALLY NEED TO RETHINK THE PROJECT PRIORITIES WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION IN MIND.

SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROJECTS CHECK SOME BOXES FOR US, AND ARE THEY A TOP PRIORITY IN THE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN? THAT'S IMPORTANT.

[01:40:01]

DOES IT ALSO MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE COUNTY FUNDS? MEANING DOES IT MATCH THOSE PROJECTS IN THE DISTRICT THAT THEY WERE AWARDED? AND ALSO, SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS DOES IT CREATE COMPLETE CONTIGUOUS LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS BOTH BY THE CITY AND THE COUNTY PRIORITIES? SO THERE ARE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT SEGMENTS IN THESE TRAIL PROJECTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE A LOT OF MILEAGE TO THEM, BUT THEY'RE CRITICAL IN HOW THEY MIGHT CONNECT, SAY, SPRING CREEK OR DUCK CREEK TO WHAT'S UP AND DOWNSTREAM FROM THEM.

SO WHAT THAT PRIORITY LIST LOOKS LIKE BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW, AND I WON'T GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE, BUT YOU'LL SEE WHAT WAS KIND OF LUMPED TOGETHER AS THESE LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS.

WE HAVE SEVERAL IN THE DUCK CREEK AREA, THE NORTH GARLAND AVENUE UNDERPASS.

THAT'S ONE OF THOSE, THAT'S A SMALL SECTION, BUT IT'S CRITICAL TO GET PEOPLE UNDERNEATH GARLAND AVENUE RATHER THAN GOING ACROSS IT.

SAME WITH NAAMAN FOREST CONNECTION.

A VARIETY OF ON STREET FACILITIES, WHICH BASICALLY IS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN AS YOU'LL SEE A GREAT DEAL OF MILEAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE STREET MARKINGS, STRIPING SIGNAGE, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FOLKS CAN UTILIZE SHARED USE PATHS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES, BISBEE TRANSMISSION TRAIL, LAKE RAY HUBBARD PARKWAY, THAT WAS NOT A DALLAS COUNTY FUNDED MATCH, BUT IT IS A PARKS AND ENGINEERING CO.

PROJECT AND THEN THE ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE.

SO THAT'S A PROJECT THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE CORRIDOR THAT IS PARTIALLY CITY, PARTIALLY COUNTY THAT YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE ROWLETT, THE DAUBERT FOLKS THAT USE THAT TRAIL CORRIDOR FOR MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS.

THIS IS A PROPOSED 12 FOOT MAJOR PATHWAY THROUGH THAT WOULD GO FROM PLEASANT VALLEY ON THE NORTH END OF TOWN, ALL THE WAY TO MILLER, I BELIEVE, IS THAT CORRECT [INAUDIBLE]? SO GREAT PROJECT, BUT THE RECENT BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR THAT FROM OUR CONSULTANT IS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER $11 MILLION.

SO WITH ALL THAT, YOU SEE THAT THE GRAND TOTAL FOR THAT PROJECT PRIORITY LIST IS A LITTLE OVER TWENTY EIGHT MILLION.

WHEN WE GO THROUGH AND KIND OF APPLY THE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE, WHAT'S IN HAND.

THEN WE HAVE TO UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT MAY NOT MAKE THE CUT, IF WE'VE GOT ONE THROUGH NINE FUNDING STOPS AT BISBEE LAKE RAY HUBBARD PARKWAY AND ROWLETT CREEK RESERVE.

SO THAT'S A TOTAL OF ABOUT THIRTEEN POINT SEVENTY FIVE MILLION.

SO THAT KIND OF PRECIPITATED LITTLE PROBLEM SOLVING, SO WE SUBMITTED ARPA REQUEST THAT WILL BE EXPLAINED LATER, THE NEXT ITEM.

SO I'LL SUMMARIZE THOSE KIND OF BRIEFLY AS OPTION A, THREE POINT NINE MILLION IN ARPA REQUEST WOULD GET THAT LIST COMPLETED, AS WELL AS A COUPLE OF OTHER SMALL PROJECTS LIKE THE SHARED USE BIKEWAYS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND WE ALSO ARE PROJECTING THE DUCK CREEK SOUTH EXTENSION PROJECT MAY EXPERIENCE SOME ADDITIONAL ESCALATION BECAUSE THE LAST ESTIMATE THAT WE HAD FROM A CONSULTANT KIND OF PREDATED A LOT OF THE ESCALATION WE'RE SEEING IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN, AND OPTION B IS THE REQUEST TOTAL FOR 15 MILLION, WHICH IS BASICALLY OPTION A PLUS THE ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE TRAIL.

SO TO GO BACK AND SUMMARIZE REQUEST A GETS ITEM 10 AND 11 PUT BACK ON THE LIST, OPTION B GETS ALL OF THOSE PUT BACK ON THE LIST.

ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR..

MR. HESSER, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE? THAT'S HOW DID YOU KNOW I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT SLIDE? YEAH, YEAH.

ON LINE ITEM ON BULLET, THE BULLET NEXT TO THE LAST ONE.

ALL THE COUNTIES TAKE THE LEAD ON DESIGN EFFORTS.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RECENT POLICY DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ABOUT THAT COULD IMPACT PROJECTS OR A PARTNERSHIP AND DISCUSSING WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THE IMPACT IS OF THAT POLICY CHANGE.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND ANY YOU ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY COUNTY ON THAT POLICY CHANGE? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT OCCURRED RECENTLY WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT IF PROJECTS WERE ALREADY IN DESIGN, THAT COULD IMPACT THE PARTNERSHIP SHOULD PARTNERSHIP.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? YES, SIR, AND THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE THINGS I POINTED OUT THE TIMING OF WHEN THE FUNDS WERE AWARDED, WHEN WE APPLIED IN THE BOND PROGRAM, AND SO ONCE THE FUNDS WERE, WE WERE NOTIFIED OF THE FUNDING AWARD FROM DALLAS COUNTY, THEN BEGAN A SERIES OF MEETINGS WITH THEIR STAFF.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF TEAMS THAT WILL BE OUR LIAISON FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS.

AND SO IN THOSE, AND IT'S BEEN A VARIETY OF MEETINGS.

SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS WERE KIND OF BROUGHT FORTH, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM IS THAT IF THE PROJECT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT.

AND SO IF THE DESIGN HAD INITIATED AND HAD SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS PRIOR TO THEM DISPERSING THE AGREEMENT, THE PSA FOR THE PROJECT, THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE AT RISK OF NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SO THAT FACTORED IN TO KIND OF A SHUFFLING OF THE PRIORITIES OF HOW TO HOW DO WE MAKE ALL THIS HAPPEN AND LEVERAGE THEIR FUNDS WITH OUR FUNDS IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE? OK, AND MY QUESTION IS IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS IN THE DESIGN PHASE? AND MY JUST MY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THAT RECENT POLICY DECISION ON THAT.

HOW FAR INTO THE DESIGN IS THAT, WILL THAT POLICY KICK IN, YOU KNOW, AT THE

[01:45:08]

BEGINNING? TO WHAT EXTENT? AND EXCUSE ME? SO MY CONCERN IS SHOULD WE REVISITING THAT DISCUSSION AND RAISE, I'D LIKE TO RAISE SOME QUESTIONS TO GET SOME CLARITY ON WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE PARTNERSHIP, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE IN THE TALKING STAGE OF DESIGN OR WE MID-POINT IN DESIGN? AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THE POLICY, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE US GET SOME CLARITY FROM THE COUNTY.

ONCE THE PROJECT, ONCE THE...

I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, [INAUDIBLE] YOU KNOW, I JUST LIKE TO SAY AND I MEAN AS THE CITY MANAGER TO CHIME IN ON THIS BECAUSE WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS EARLIER, TO HAVE SOME GET SOME CLARITY FROM THE COUNTY ON EXACTLY WHAT THIS MEANS WHEN THEY SAY TAKE THE LEAD AND HOW MIGHT THAT IMPACT THE FUNDING PARTNERSHIP ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR, AND I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE STAFF LEVEL, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR.

SO I GUESS MY BOTTOM LINE IS I THINK WE NEED MORE CLARITY FROM THE COUNTY ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.

MR. CITY MANAGER, COULD YOU, YOU CAN PROBABLY ARTICULATE THIS BETTER THAN I CAN.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE RAN INTO THIS YEAR AND THE CALL FOR PROJECTS WAS THE COUNTY DISALLOWED ANY TRAILS PROJECTS WHERE WE HAD ALREADY BEGUN DESIGN AND THIS WAS NEW AND IN EFFECT, WE GOT PUNISHED FOR BEING PROACTIVE AND BEING ON THE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE WE WERE WHEN I WAS VISITING WITH WITH COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS AND EXPLAINING THIS TO HIM OVER ONE OF OUR OUR LUNCH CONVERSATIONS, HE TOOK THE INITIATIVE AND CONTACTED COMMISSIONER DANIEL, AND I THINK THE SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS THIS WAS A CHANGE THAT ORIGINATED INTERNALLY AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND WASN'T NECESSARILY EXPLAINED OR THE REASONING BEHIND EXPRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT COMMISSIONER DANIELS COMMITTED TO GOING BACK AND LOOKING INTO.

AND SO WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE AT SOME POINT THIS CAN BE OVERTURNED OR BETTER DESIGNED TO BRING US SOME GUIDANCE IN THE FUTURE AND NOT PUNISH US FOR OUR OUR EFFORTS.

RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT WAS THANK YOU MR. CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, GARLAND, WE ARE PROACTIVE, WE'RE NOT WAITING.

COST IS A FACTOR, ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND I SHARED THAT CONVERSATION WITH HER, AND SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT US REVISIT THAT AND GARLAND THAT OUR CITY DOES NOT BE, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID, NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THAT DECISION.

SO THAT'S THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP.

THAT IS NOT A DONE DEAL, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THE IMPACT ON CITIES SHOULD BE A SET [INAUDIBLE] FOR A POLICY LIKE THIS IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED.

YES SIR AND TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM THEIR STAFF LEVEL AND AGAIN, NOT KNOWING THE HISTORY OF IT, IF THAT'S A STAFF LEVEL OR COMMISSIONER LEVEL ORIGINATION FOR THAT POLICY IS THAT ONCE THEY CONTRACT WITH A CONSULTANT IS EXECUTED, THAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR IT BECOMING INELIGIBLE.

AND THEY WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION OF THE CONSULTANT.

THAT WAS NEWS TO US AFTER A COUPLE OF PROJECTS HAD BEEN STARTED AND THE SAME THING FOR CONSTRUCTION.

IF A IF IT HAD GONE TO BID, THAT WAS THE TRIGGER FOR ANY OF THOSE FUNDS POTENTIALLY BEING INELIGIBLE.

SO THAT WAS THE EDUCATIONAL CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD HAD FROM THEIR STAFF PRETTY

[01:50:03]

RECENTLY .

WOULD YOU DO THAT, PLEASE? YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, THE TRAILS IS IMPORTANT IN A LOT OF RESPECTS.

AND ALTHOUGH I'LL SAY I'M MORE INCLINED TO SUPPORT OPTION A AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE'LL GET INTO IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ARPA.

BUT I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT 11 MILLION IT WAS IT THE ROWLETT ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE.

I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TRAIL AS I LOOK AT THE THE MAP THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ITEM.

BUT AT 11 MILLION, I DO NOT.

I WONDER IF IT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR, SO TO SPEAK, OR TRAIL TOO FAR FOR FOR THE ARPA FUNDS AND PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THAT I'D RATHER SEE SOME SPECIFIC VOTER APPROVAL FOR.

I DID ALSO HAVE A QUESTION AS I LOOK AT THE MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED THE ON STREET TRAILS.

I REMEMBER A DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT THAT SUGGESTED THAT ARE ON STREET TRAILS MAY AT SOME POINT NOT BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT.

AND ARE WE LOOKING AT ON SOME OF THOSE I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ON STREET TRAIL THAT GOES DOWN GLENBROOK.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MOVING THAT FULLY WITHIN THE WITHIN THE CREEK.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT? OR I KNOW IT'S NOT ON THIS PLAN.

BUT.. SO AND ZIAD MAY CAN TALK TO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SO THERE'S A PORTION OF THE TRAIL THAT CONNECTS RICK ODEN WITH CENTRAL PARK THAT IS AN OFF STREET TRAIL SECTION.

THERE ARE SOME SECTIONS THAT MAY BE OUTSIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY.

ZIAD, DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? BUT ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THE SEGMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE GOING TO MEET A CRITERIA THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO SHOEHORN IN A LANE ANYWHERE.

THEY'RE GOING TO MEET A CERTAIN WITH THE RIGHT AWAY CRITERIA WHERE AN OFF STREET RIGHT AWAY MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE, BUT THERE'S ROOM FOR A SHARED USE ON STREET.

BUT MAYBE ZIAD, I THINK HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE SECTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YES, SIR.

THE TRAIL PORTION THAT'S ON STREET ON GLENBROOK, SOUTH OF RICK ODEN, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THOSE AREAS, AND ALONG DUCK CREEK, THAT AREA ON DUCK CREEK BETWEEN RICK ODEN AND, SAY, CENTERVILLE.

THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT FOR FEASIBILITY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CHALLENGES, AS YOU WELL KNOW, OF ALIGNING A TRAIL THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR.

THAT IS ONE THAT'S A PRIORITY AS WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER PLAN.

BUT CURRENTLY WE WANT TO KEEP THE ON STREET FACILITY IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN THAT CONNECTIVITY UNTIL WE DETERMINE A FUNDING SOURCE AND SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPING A TRAIL OFF STREET AND IN THOSE IN THAT AREA.

OK.

NO, I THINK THINGS LOOK GOOD AND TO AS MUCH OF THIS AS WE CAN FUND REASONABLY NOW, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT.

[01:56:07]

I MEAN, LITERALLY JUST LAST WEEK, I WAS DRIVING UP GLENBROOK, TAKING MY GIRLS TO SCHOOL, AND THERE'S SOME GUY RIDING HIS BIKE IN THE GRASS ON GLENBROOK PARKWAY, TRYING TO, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS TRYING TO GET TO WORK OR WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO, BUT PROVIDING THAT MOBILITY TO OUR CITIZENS, WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO USE BICYCLES JUST TO GET AROUND.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE AND I THINK THE OPTION A.

IS A WORTHY SUBJECT TO THE ARPA FUNDS.

APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU, THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANKS, SIR.

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE PRIORITY LIST YOU HAD THERE.

BISBEE TRAIL IS THAT ONE FALL CLOSER TO THE BOTTOM BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED? AND IS THAT A PART OF THE RESTRICTIONS FROM DALLAS COUNTY? A PORTION OF THAT IS GOING TO BE ALSO LOOKING AT THE OVERALL CONNECTIVITY AND THEN WHEN THAT WHEN THAT LINE KIND OF FALLS, IT DOESN'T FALL IN WHOLE UNITS OF A PROJECT, IT KIND OF SPLITS PROJECTS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO BE COMPLETELY DONE, AND SO WHERE THAT RANKING FELL IS KIND OF WHERE THAT CUTOFF HAPPENED.

AND SO IT'S A GOOD TRAIL, IT'S A GOOD PROJECT AND IT'S IMPORTANT SECTION.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE CONNECT ABILITY, COMPLETING THOSE SECTIONS THAT ARE ON THOSE REALLY LONG STRETCHES OF DUCK CREEK AND THOSE REALLY LONG STRETCHES OF WINTERS, SPRING CREEK, THOSE SECTIONS PROVIDED A MUCH HIGHER CONNECT ABILITY FOR THOSE LONG SECTIONS, AND SO BISBEE IS AN IMPORTANT SECTION, BUT IT DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT SAME CONNECTIVITY FOR, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, THOSE TWO WOULD HAVE NEARLY A MULTI MILE LOOP WITH THOSE SECTIONS KIND OF CLOSING THE ENDS OF THE LOOP OUT.

OK, AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT THE NORTH GARLAND CROSSING.

DID YOU CONSIDER AN OVERPASS AS OPPOSED TO AN UNDERPASS THERE? IT'S AN UNDERPASS.

IT'S CURRENTLY THE WAY THOSE FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED.

I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK DOLLAR WISE, AN OVERPASS WOULD PROBABLY BE A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT COST.

I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH HEIGHTS IN THERE.

AND OF COURSE, ONCE THE ENGINEERING IS WORKED OUT WITH THE WITH THE FLOODPLAIN AND ALL THAT.

BUT THAT IS THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT SECTION RIGHT THERE BECAUSE YOU GET TO A WONDERFUL TRAIL SECTION UP TO GARLAND AVENUE AND ANOTHER ONE GETTING YOU TO SPRING CREEK PRESERVE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOU HAVE TO PLAY FROGGER IN BETWEEN.

SO THIS ONE WAS A REAL KEY CONNECTION.

YEAH, IT'S DANGEROUS CROSSING THERE AT THAT POINT.

I APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU.

YES, SIR, ALL RIGHT.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? SORRY, THE FROGGER THING THREW ME OFF.

GO AHEAD AND PUNCH IN...

MY GENERATION.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, COUNCILMAN BASS IF YOU COULD PUNCH IN AGAIN, JUST SO I CAN, WELL NO, HANG ON.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND AS I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS HERE, I SEE THAT THING $11 BILLION, MATTER OF FACT, CAN YOU GO TO THE SCREEN TO SHOW THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, THE TWO OPTIONS? YES, SIR.

AND AS I LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT BEING NEW, IT'S DIFFICULT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND ALL THAT'S THIS BEING PROPOSED.

ONE THING IS CERTAIN, EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL THE UNDERSTANDING, I KNOW THAT YOU DO.

THEREFORE, WHAT IT LIKE FOR YOU TO DO, IF YOU WILL, IS GIVE ME A STAFF THOUGHTS AS IT RELATES TO THESE TWO OPTIONS.

WHY WOULD ONE OPTION A BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OPTION B? I SEE THAT OPTION B BEING $11 MILLION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE TRAIL? IT'S LIKE THERE'S A LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE THERE, SO YOU CAN YOU GET ME SOME DIFFERENCES AS IT RELATES TO WHY ONE VERSUS THE OTHER? SURE, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE A TRAILS MASTER PLAN THAT HAS AS MUCH INTO THAT AS THAT WENT INTO IT, ONE OF THE BEST DESIGN FIRMS THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR IN MY WHOLE CAREER

[02:00:03]

PUT TOGETHER AN INCREDIBLE TRAIL PLAN.

THEY'RE ALL ULTIMATELY IN THE PORTLAND TRAIL SECTION, OR THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THE PLAN BASED ON THE DATA THEY GOT.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE PICKING YOUR FAVORITE KID, WHICH ONE IS MORE WORTHY.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO LOOK AT A VARIETY OF CRITERIA.

SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THIS MAP IS THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE IS THE ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE PATHWAY, THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT REFLECTS A FEW THINGS.

ONE IS JUST THE OUTRIGHT LENGTH OF IT.

THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL TRAIL SECTION.

AND IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL PROJECT SHOULD IT BE FUNDED ONE DAY.

THERE'S ALSO SOME CREEK CROSSINGS OR SOME FLOODPLAIN AREAS.

A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, SOME OTHER INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE WITH THE MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL THAT ALSO OCCUPIES THAT, THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S A GOOD SIZED PROJECT.

WHAT'S IN OPTION A? SO BASICALLY, OPTION B IS A PLUS THIS ONE.

SO IT'S THE WHOLE THING, RIGHT? OPTION A, WE FELT WAS FOR THE FUNDS THAT WERE WITHIN REACH AS A VERY, VERY GOOD BANG FOR YOUR BUCK LIST OF PROJECTS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF THEM THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT BIG FUN PROJECTS, BUT THE CONNECTIVITY IS SUPER CRITICAL BECAUSE IT TIES TOGETHER OTHER THINGS.

SO WHAT WOULD BE IN THAT LIST OF OPTION A HAS A LOT OF IMPACT, AND I THINK OUR BIG CRITERIA WAS IS ON A CITY WIDE TRAIL SYSTEM, WHAT DOES THIS CONNECT? AND THAT'S WHERE WE START WITH IN OUR PRIORITY LIST, THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

IT DOES, AND AS IT RELATES TO THE ARPA FUNDS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE TO SPEND THOSE FUNDS ANYWAY, WHERE AT THIS POINT ALLOCATING THEM.

AND I'M JUST THINKING THAT THE OPTION B MAY BE THE BETTER ROUTE IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE IT.

BUT ARE YOU SAYING, THOUGH, THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH OPTION A AS OPPOSED TO OPTION B? NOW YOU CAN'T BE SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY STATED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.

IT SEEMS TO ME OPTION B IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS, THIS TRAIL WOULD BE A MORE VIABLE OPTION.

TO A PARKS AND REC PERSON, THE WORLD IS ALWAYS BETTER WHEN THERE'S MORE PARKS AND TRAILS, BUT ALSO BEING A TEAM PLAYER AND NOT STEALING THE THUNDER OF THE NEXT ITEM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE A GREAT DEAL OF COMMUNITY NEEDS AND SO THAT'S WHY WE FELT LIKE BRINGING SOME OPTIONS FORWARD FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND SOME OF THE METHODOLOGY ON WHERE SOME TOUGH CHOICES MAY HAVE TO BE MADE, WE WERE JUST HOPING TO, YOU KNOW, ADD TO YOUR WISDOM ON THAT ONE.

OK, SO IT'S SOUNDING LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW ON OPTION A OR B OR WE ARE GOING TO GO FORWARD THEN TO SEE THE REST OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROPOSE.

YES, SIR FOR CITYWIDE YES SIR.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

NO, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION [INAUDIBLE] LET ME, LET ME JUST CORRECT THAT BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.

WE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE AN A OR B.

.

GO AHEAD, MR. BRADFORD, I THINK YOU HAD SOMETHING TO ADD.

I'M NOT TRYING TO ADVOCATE A OR B OR OR ADVOCATE THIS BEING A PRIORITY OVER OTHER PROJECTS.

BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT BEFORE WE GET AWAY FROM THIS, THAT THIS IS AN IDEAL ARPA PROJECT BECAUSE AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON GETTING THE PROJECT'S BID COMMITTED AND BUILT.

AND THESE THE TRAILS ARE VERY, VERY PREDICTABLE.

YOU YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RUN INTO A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION DELAYS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RUN INTO A LOT OF INSURMOUNTABLE TYPE ISSUES THAT ARE EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING TO RESOLVE.

AND SO THIS IS A VERY A VERY STEADY, VERY PREDICTABLE PROJECT, WHICH IS IDEAL FOR FUNDING, WHICH HAS A TIME LIMIT ON IT, SO AND I SAY THAT NOT JUST FOR THIS, BUT AS YOU START TO LOOK AT OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'LL WANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS, WHAT IS THE RISK LEVEL WITH EACH OF THOSE PROJECTS? AND COULD THEY EASILY RUN INTO ISSUES THAT WOULD DELAY THEIR COMPLETION AND THEREFORE MAKE THEIR FUNDING INELIGIBLE? COUNCIL MEMBER BASS.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

ANDY I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING ALL OF THIS TOGETHER FOR US.

A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION.

AND ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT REAL QUICK, THOUGH, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE LIST OF ALL 12 OF THOSE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE ROWLETT CREEK ONE IS, YOU KNOW, HUGE COMPARED TO THE OTHERS.

BUT THE DUCK CREEK ONE IS ABOUT FOUR AND FOUR AND A HALF MILLION.

SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST DIVIDED INTO THREE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT ADD UP A LOT AS WELL.

BUT THE QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, ANDY, IS ON THE RELATED TO THE THE MORE TO THE BIKE LANES.

HOW DO THEY TIE INTO EXISTING BIKE LANES IN THE BORDERING CITIES?

[02:05:08]

WE'LL LET ZIAD TALK TO THAT.

ZIAD IS THE, IS OUR TRAIL GURU AND INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR YEARS.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

YES, THE ON STREET BIKE LANES, THE WAY WE PUT TOGETHER THE MASTER PLAN, WE COORDINATED WITH OUR SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES TO LINE UP THEIR EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES WITH OUR EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE ON STREET NETWORK WILL LINE UP LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RICHARDSON, IT LINES UP ON MULTIPLE AREAS ALONG OUR BORDERS.

THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS ONE MAJOR CONNECTION POINT TO THE SOUTH THAT WE LINED UP WITH, AND WE DID OUR BEST TO LINE UP TO THE NORTH, YOU KNOW, TO RICHARDSON IN THAT WAY.

RICHARDSON HAS A LARGE AREA, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDING US.

SO AND THERE ARE A LOT OF BIKE FACILITIES ALREADY IN THAT CITY.

SO WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONNECTION THERE.

AND SO WITH THE PLANNED FACILITIES IN SACHSE THE ONES IN DALLAS AND THE ONES IN ROWLETT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL GEOGRAPHICAL BARRIERS AND ROWLETT CREEK IS ONE.

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW CONNECTION POINTS BETWEEN US AND ROWLETT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR HIGH VOLUME THOROUGHFARES.

AND SO THEY'RE NOT IDEAL FOR ON STREET FACILITIES.

AND SO WE DID OUR BEST TO LINE UP WHERE WE COULD ON STREETS THAT WERE THAT WOULD LEND THEMSELVES TO THAT KIND OF FACILITY.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? I THINK WE'VE CLEARED THE QUEUE.

AND IF YOU COULD GO UP THERE YOU GO.

NOPE, BACK UP.

I'M SORRY.

YEAH, I WANTED JUST THE OPTION PAGE THERE.

THE A AND B.

YES.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY THE TWO OPTIONS A AND THEN THE B, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS THE BIG TICKET ITEM, IF YOU WILL, IS THE ROWLETT CREEK PRESERVE TRAIL.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW THE OPTION A..

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT IS PROVIDING NOT ONLY ADDITIONAL TRAILS, BUT IT'S ALSO PROVIDING A LOT OF CONNECTIVITY, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH THESE TRAIL PROJECTS.

YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH OPTION A MYSELF BECAUSE I KNOW THAT, OF COURSE, AS WE GET INTO THE NEXT DISCUSSION, AS FAR AS THE ARPA FUNDS, I HAVE A FEELING THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE PLENTY OF USE FOR THE OTHER.

THE REMAINING FUNDS THERE, COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE.

THANK YOU, SIR.

I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ON BISBEE TRAIL IN THAT LAKE RAY HUBBARD YOU HAD IT SCRATCHED OUT ON THE OTHER PAGE.

YEAH, RIGHT THERE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN RIGHT THERE? SO THAT WOULD BE IF WE APPLIED OUR PRIORITY LIST, YOU KNOW, ONE THROUGH 12 BASED ON THE CRITERIA WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE EARLIER SLIDES, UTILIZING THE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ROUGHLY 14 MILLION AND SOME CHANGE.

THOSE, THAT'S WHERE THE LINE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY RUNS OUT IN TERMS OF WHOLE PROJECT.

SO THE THIRTEEN POINT SEVENTY FIVE MILLION THAT'S SHOWN HERE APPROXIMATELY WOULD STOP AT ITEM NUMBER NINE.

AND SO ADDITIONAL FUNDING WOULD BE NECESSARY TO FLESH OUT THE REST OF THE PRIORITY THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO HELP US ON THAT.

SO THERE IS SOME COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN BISBEE, I BELIEVE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOR THAT MATCH.

THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THOSE ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS COME INTO PLAY.

IF A PROJECT WAS STARTED IN DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION AHEAD OF THEIR PARTICIPATION, IT SUBTRACTS THAT FROM THE MATCH.

OK, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

HMM.

BUT IF WE GO WITH OPTION A., THAT BRINGS THOSE TWO BACK IN.

YES, SIR.

RIGHT.

AND OPTION B OBVIOUSLY BRINGS THE WHOLE PACKAGE.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL.

JUST FOR PLANNING PURPOSES MOVING FORWARD, IS THERE ANY SUPPORT FOR PURSUING OPTION B? WE'LL START WITH THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION.

THERE'S ONE, TWO FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH OPTION B THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL MEMBER BASS, COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

I WOULD ASSUME THE REMAINDER ARE IN FAVOR OF OPTION A.

[02:10:04]

THERE YOU GO.

OPTION A IS THE WINNER.

THANK YOU, SIR.

NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM FOUR E!

[4E. Preview of Proposed ARPA Funding List]

PREVIEW OF PROPOSED ARPA FUNDING LIST.

AND COUNCIL, I BELIEVE THE THE IDEA TONIGHT IS TO LOOK AT THE LIST AND THE CRITERIA, BUT NOT NECESSARILY DISSECT, SLICE AND DICE AND DISSECT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS OR THE LIST IN ITSELF.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE SEVERAL WE HAVE SEVERAL MEETINGS COMING UP WHERE WE WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK TONIGHT IS JUST A DISCUSSION ON HOW THE LIST CAME TO BE CORRECT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

HOT OFF THE PRESSES IS OUR FIRST ITERATION OF THE PROPOSED ARPA LIST FOR COUNCILS DIGESTION.

TODAY, I'M JUST GOING TO BASICALLY GO OVER SOME DEFINITIONS AS WELL AS OUR METHODOLOGY FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, THEN QUICKLY GO OVER THE PROPOSED CALENDAR AND IN THE PATH MOVING FORWARD FOR THE ARPA.

SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A REPORT THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER TO TRY TO TAKE ALL OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTION FROM THE JULY RETREAT, AS WELL AS THE WORK SESSION IN AUGUST AND PUT IT INTO A CONCISE EIGHT PAGE REPORT.

AND TRUST ME FOR A BUDGET HERE, EIGHT PAGES IS IS A LITTLE STRANGE FOR ME, BUT TRUST ME, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS, AND I WANT TO THANK ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL THE EFFORTS THEY HAVE HAVE DONE TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.

SO WHAT WE'VE DONE ON THE FIRST PAGE IS YOU'LL SEE KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CATEGORIES THAT WE'VE PLACED EACH PROJECT IN, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE ROUGHLY SIX CATEGORIES.

THE FIRST IS BOND PROGRAM PROJECTS.

WHAT WE'RE CALLING SCOPE CORRECTION.

AND WHAT THIS MEANS BASICALLY IS IS WAS THERE A CHANGE THAT IS NECESSARY FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS OR TO DELIVER THE PROJECT AS IT WAS APPROVED IN THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM? SO INFLATIONARY COSTS OR SOME SORT OF CRITICAL ISSUE THAT'S COME FORWARD AS WE'VE GOTTEN FURTHER INTO DETAILED DESIGN.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY HEALTH AND SAFETY IS WHERE YOU'LL SEE THIS THE MOST IS IN OUR FIRE STATIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, WE WENT FORWARD WITH THE BOND PROGRAM, BUT BEFORE WE HAD A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND WE'VE LEARNED THAT WE NEED TO BUILD A FIRE STATION A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SAY HEALTH AND SAFETY, THAT TOTAL AMOUNTS ROUGHLY ELEVEN POINT FIVE MILLION.

THE NEXT CATEGORY IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING SCOPE ADDITIONS.

AND HERE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS OUR CURRENT BOND PROGRAM PROJECTS.

DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES OR ADDITIONAL DESIGN DETAILS WHILE WE'RE OUT THERE DOING THE PROJECT? SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED ROUGHLY THIRTY POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS OF PROJECTS THERE.

THE NEXT ITEM IS COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, AND THESE ARE THE PROGRAMS THAT WE MOSTLY DISCUSSED IN THE JULY RETREATS, SUCH AS LOW INCOME WORKERS.

YOU'LL ALSO SEE SOME FOOTNOTES IN THAT SECTION RELATED TO SOME OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE ALSO HAD ADDITIONAL RESOURCES PUT TOGETHER FROM EITHER THE CARES ACT OR SOME OTHER FEDERAL SOURCE TO DO THOSE PROGRAMS. IN THE INTERNAL PROJECTS, THESE ARE CITY MANAGER PROJECTS TO BASICALLY SUPPORT FUNCTIONALITY OF DEPARTMENTS AND IN OUR METHODOLOGY, AS WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH THE LIST FROM THE DEPARTMENTS WHICH TRY TO IDENTIFY ITEMS THAT WE COULDN'T OR TYPICALLY DON'T FUND WITH ONE TIME, YOU KNOW, REVENUE SOURCES THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE HAVE BETTER THAN ANTICIPATED BUDGETS OR THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT ON THE HIGHER END WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUING CEOS DURING THE CIP.

SO MOST OF THESE PROJECTS ARE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS OR ARE CRITICAL FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY OR FOR MITIGATING THE COVID PANDEMIC.

WE ALSO HAVE A NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS CATEGORY, WHICH ARE NEW PROJECTS IDENTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL OR THROUGH A MASTER PLAN VERY SIMILAR TO THE BOND PROGRAM ADDITIONS.

IT'S BASICALLY JUST THE COUNCIL.

DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND UTILIZE ARPA FUNDS TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES AND COMMUNITY PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BOND PROGRAM? AND THEN THE FINAL BIG DOLLAR AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE MILLION DOLLARS IS THE PROJECTS THAT WERE PROPOSED DURING THE BOND PROGRAM PROJECT, BUT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE FINAL PROPOSITION.

AND THAT TOTAL AGAIN IS FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE MILLION, WHICH MAKES UP THE BULK OF OUR TOTAL OF SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE POINT FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.

WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED SOME REFERENCES BELOW THAT FOR THE MASTER PLANS.

[02:15:03]

A LOT OF THE PROJECTS REFERENCED THE MASTER PLAN, SO WE HAVE THOSE THERE AND I KNOW THAT WE PASSED OUT A HARD COPY TODAY.

WE WILL AND HAVE CREATED A BOX CATEGORY FOR THE ARPA REQUEST.

WE WILL PUT BOTH A PDF FILE AND A SPREADSHEET FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO WORK THROUGH THE DATA AND MAYBE FILTER IT IN THEIR OWN FASHION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS WORK SESSION ITEM AND.

ONCE WE GET BACK TO THE OFFICE, SO KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT ON PAGE TWO IS REALLY JUST A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECTS THAT A HIGH LEVEL.

WE HAVE EACH CATEGORY, THE PROJECTS, THE TOTAL REQUEST, COUNCIL PRIORITY, IF IT HAS A Y, MEANS THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL RETREAT AND AN ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE, AS WELL AS COUNCIL DISTRICTS.

THEN AFTER THAT, WE GET INTO EACH ONE OF OUR INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES WITH JUSTIFICATIONS AS WELL AS FOOTNOTES TO HELP CLARIFY ANY PROJECTS THAT MAY NEED SOME CLARIFICATION.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY IF YOU UNLESS YOU WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS NOW OR QUICKLY GO OVER THE CALENDAR.

THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I HAVE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE.

SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN CALENDAR.

OBVIOUSLY, TODAY, SEPTEMBER 13, WE'VE PASSED OUT THE THE FIRST ARPA PROJECT LIST.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE'RE VERY FLEXIBLE WITH THIS AND THIS IS ALSO A SCALABLE CALENDAR.

BUT WE HAVE SET ASIDE SOME MEETING DATES THAT FOR TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE AMPLE DISCUSSION AS COUNCIL NEEDS SEES FIT.

THE FIRST MEETING WILL BE ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, WHICH IS AN OFF COUNCIL MEETING WEEK FOR THAT TUESDAY TO GO OVER THIS PROJECT LIST IN MORE DETAIL.

WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AN OCTOBER 9TH SATURDAY SESSION FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS ON OCTOBER 12TH, WE PLAN ON SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING TO GET COMMUNITY INPUT.

THERE'S A WORK SESSION ON OCTOBER 18TH WHERE WE'RE LOOKING FOR FINAL COUNCIL DECISIONS, AND WE'VE ALSO PLACED A PLACEHOLDER FOR AN ADDITIONAL ITEM IF NEEDED.

AND AGAIN, WE ARE FLEXIBLE IF ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE ON THIS OR IN, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS EASILY SCALABLE.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

VERY GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT ON THIS POINT? TRY AGAIN, THERE WE GO, MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK.

IF I'M LOSING A FIRE STATION, DOES IT STILL COUNT IN MY DISTRICT OR DO I GET $2.6 MILLION TO SPEND HOWEVER I WANT? I GUESS IF YOU GET FIVE OF THE VOTES, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

WOW.

I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE MATT HAS FIGURED OUT THE PROCESS.

FOUR OTHER VOTES, I'M SORRY,[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT.

I FAILED TO MENTION, I'M SORRY, I FAILED TO MENTION A FEW OTHER THINGS.

ONE IS...

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN ADD AT THIS POINT.

I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH SUMMED IT UP.

I BELIEVE THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S HAPPY WITH THE ANSWER OR NOT, BUT EVERYBODY'S LAUGHING.

SO AT THAT POINT, I THINK WE HAVE TIME TO DIGEST THIS AND WE HAVE THE MEETINGS COMING UP .

CORRECT, AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE WERE HOPING TO UTILIZE SIMILAR PROCESS TO THE BUDGET TO SEND EITHER THE CITY MANAGER, MYSELF, OR ALISON STEADMAN QUESTIONS, AND WE'LL TURN THOSE [INAUDIBLE] AROUND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BACK TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL.

AND ALSO, THERE IS ONE OTHER PROJECT THAT MAY NEED TO BE ADDED TO THIS LIST RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN SQUARE.

WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE BIDS AT THIS POINT, AND WE'RE EVALUATING THAT.

WE'LL BRING FORWARD THAT AT A LATER DATE IF IT IS NEEDED.

[4F. Amendments to Home Occupations Ordinance to Address Commuter Parking]

AND THAT'S IT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 4-F AMENDMENTS TO HOME OCCUPATIONS ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS COMMUTER PARKING.

MR. ENGLAND.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I WISH WE COULD SAY WE'RE ALMOST THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE.

THIS WAS THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND THE CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO LOOK FOR A VERY SPECIFIC RESOLUTION TO AN ISSUE OF COMMUTER PARKING AND NOT NECESSARILY A BROADER ISSUE OF PARKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS

[02:20:03]

WHICH WE HAVE ADDRESSED.

FOR THOSE OF YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ON COUNCIL LONG ENOUGH, YOU'LL KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THIS AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS, WE'VE GONE FROM TRYING TO TAKE A BROAD APPROACH TO RESOLVE IT.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT NARROWER AND THERE.

AND TODAY, TONIGHT'S THE VERSION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, AND I PRINTED OUT HARD COPIES FOR YOU, ALL THAT LAID IN FRONT OF YOU READ LINE SO Y'ALL CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL HOME OCCUPATIONS ORDINANCE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE RED LINES OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR THE VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE OF COMMUTER PARKING.

AND AS YOU GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, YOU'LL SEE A COUPLE OF DEFINITION CHANGES IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND ONE OF THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IS, OF COURSE, THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS TERM.

THAT TERM WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.

IT GREATLY EXPANDS WHAT A HOME OCCUPATION IS.

CURRENTLY A HOME OCCUPATION UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, A HOME OCCUPATION IS ONE WHERE THE WORK IS PRIMARILY DONE ON SCENE.

THAT IS, IT'S DONE AT THE LOCATION.

SO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BUILDING CABINETS, YOU HAVE SOMEONE PUTTING TOGETHER GIFT BOXES AND USING FEDEX TO SHIP THEM OUT.

AND SO THAT WAS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE.

THIS EXPANDS THE DEFINITION BY USING A PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS CONCEPT BECAUSE THE CHARGE WAS THAT HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE CONNECT PARKING COMMUTER PARKING TO A HOME OCCUPATION? AND REALLY, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUSINESSES THAT MAY BE ADMINISTERED FROM A PARTICULAR RESIDENCE, BUT THE WORK IS PRIMARILY OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF THAT RESIDENCE OFF PREMISES.

AND SO WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR WORKERS SHOW UP IF YOU OWNED A COMPANY, IF YOU OWNED A ROOFING COMPANY OR LANDSCAPING COMPANY OR SOME OTHER CONTRACTING COMPANY, YOU MAY HAVE YOUR CREWS SHOW UP, PARK AT YOUR HOUSE, LEAVE THEIR VEHICLES AND YOU ALL LEAVE ALL IN A COMPANY VAN OR IN A SINGLE VEHICLE.

AND THEN YOU LEAVE SEVERAL VEHICLES LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR ALONG THE STREETS.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, IS YOU ALL RECEIVE THOSE COMPLAINTS MORE THAN ANYONE.

AND SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS DEFINITION.

SO THE HOME OCCUPATION ADDRESSES THOSE BUSINESSES WHERE THE WORK IS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED OFFSITE, BUT THE BUSINESS IS ACTUALLY MAINTAINED OR ADMINISTERED ON SITE.

AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE DEFINITION AS A PLACE WHERE THE BUSINESS BOOKS AND RECORDS ARE GENERALLY MAINTAINED.

ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS FOR THE BUSINESS ARE GENERALLY PERFORMED, THE BUSINESS IS MAIL IS DELIVERED AND THE BUSINESSES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ARE COORDINATED AND CONTROLLED.

AND THEN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS OR ADVERTISING INDICATE THAT THE ADDRESS IS WHERE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE GENERALLY COORDINATED OR CONTROLLED.

SO THAT'S THE BIG CHANGE IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION.

IF YOU SKIP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE NEXT PAGE DOWN TO SECTION SIX, YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE MORE OPERATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE LOCATED IN COMMUTER PARKING AND THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE.

THERE IS NO PARKING, NO EMPLOYEE, NO CONTRACTOR, AGENT WORK OR OFFICER OF A HOME OCCUPATION SHELL PARK OR STAND A MOTOR VEHICLE UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET OR RIGHT AWAY WITH ANY HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE.

NOW YOU MAY BE ASKING WHAT'S A HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE? IF YOU GO BACK TO THE DEFINITION, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT MEANS AN AREA LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

SO IT'S GOT TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATED ON THE SAME STREET AS A HOME OCCUPATION OR WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE HOME OCCUPATION.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE THERE THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT CREATES THE OFFENSE IS TIED TO HOME OCCUPATIONS.

AND SO IF YOU'RE PARKING IN A NO COMPUTER OR A WHAT DO I CALL IT, A HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE, IF YOU'RE PARKING THERE, IT'S OK TO PARK THERE AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT LEAVING THAT VEHICLE, AS LONG AS YOUR ACTIVITY ISN'T RELATED TO THE HOME OCCUPATION ITSELF.

SO JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE, JUST BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A HOME OCCUPATION NEXT DOOR TO YOU DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT AFFECTS YOU.

AS LONG AS YOUR CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OR YOUR GUEST PARKED ON THE STREET AREN'T TIED TO HIS HOME OCCUPATION.

AND WHAT'S DIFFICULT ABOUT THAT WILL BE THE ENFORCEMENT PART IS HOW DO YOU PROVE NUMBER ONE? WE ALL KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO ENFORCE HOME OCCUPATION IN GENERAL, BUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT WHEN YOU'RE TYING IT TO PARKING? SO IT'S A DIFFICULT TASK, BUT IT'S PROBABLY MEANT TO BE DIFFICULT IN SOME WAYS.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM IS THAT IS THE ENFORCEMENT PART.

THE ENFORCEMENT PART IS SEEN IN SUBCHAPTER OR SUBSECTION B THERE, WHERE IT TAKES TWO COMPLAINTS TO WRITTEN COMPLAINTS SIGNED BY TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN ORDER FOR A MARSHAL TO GO OUT AND FORCE IT.

AND THE IDEA HERE WAS THAT IF SOMEONE IF THERE WAS A REAL PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A HOME OCCUPATION WHERE YOU'RE HAVING COMMUTER PARKING,

[02:25:04]

YOU'RE HAVING THE STAGING OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT OR COMMUTING OR RIDE SHARING RELATED TO THAT HOME OCCUPATION, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON COMPLAINING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'LL BE MULTIPLE PEOPLE.

AND THAT ALSO HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE AND ONE NEIGHBOR IS JUST TRYING TO USE THE ARM OF THE LAW TO TAKE REVENGE ON THEIR OTHER NEIGHBOR OR GET BACK AT THE OTHER NEIGHBOR.

AND SO IT HAS THAT ADDED BENEFIT.

IT'S MUCH HOW, IT'S MUCH LIKE THE WAY OUR MUNICIPAL JUDGES INTERPRET OUR LIVE MUSIC DISTURBANCES.

IT ACTUALLY TAKES TWO WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO HAVE A LOUD MUSIC DISTURBANCE, PROSECUTED MUNICIPAL COURT THAT IS TO GET A CONVICTION IN MUNICIPAL COURT.

SO IT'S KIND OF THE SAME IDEA BEHIND THAT IS WE HAVE WITH THEIR LOUD MUSIC DISTURBANCES.

AND OF COURSE, SUBSECTION C IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT ONE.

THIS IS A THE VIOLATION SHALL BE ENFORCED AS A CIVIL OFFENSE AGAINST THE REGISTERED OWNER OR DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE.

AND THAT HAS A LOT OF ADVANTAGES THERE.

NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE HEFTY CRIMINAL PENALTIES THAT YOU WOULD IF IT WAS GOING TO MUNICIPAL COURT.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT AGAIN, THE CIVIL PENALTIES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PARKING PROGRAM THAT THE MARSHALS DO.

SO IT ALLOWS THE MARSHALS TO GO OUT AND ALSO ALLOWS US TO PROSECUTE THESE CASES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, WHICH ALSO IS A LOWER STANDARD OF PROOF.

SO IT DOES HELP WITH THE HOME OCCUPATIONS A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S STILL A GREATER THAN NOT BURDEN OF PROOF THERE.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? HESSER, ROBYN.

I JUST, THANK YOU, MAYOR, I MEAN, I KIND OF HAD A QUESTION RIGHT OUT OF THE START, WHICH IS HOW WHAT IS THE DOESN'T? WHAT IS COMMUTER PARKING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND, EVEN AT THE BASE LEVEL WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T APPEAR TO ADDRESS THAT.

YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT.

AND THAT MAY BE.

GO AHEAD.

OH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

NO, GO AHEAD.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT SUBSECTION 6A, IT GIVES A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT IS AND IT'S NO EMPLOYEE, CONTRACTOR, AGENT, WORKER OR OFFICER OF A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL PARK OR STAND A MOTOR VEHICLE UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET OR RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN A HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE FOR THE PURPOSES OF RIDE SHARING OR COMMUTING, STAGING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL USED IN THE OPERATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION OR FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE OPERATION.

I MEAN, I GET ALL THAT.

I'M SORRY, AND MAYBE THIS IS BETTER DIRECTED TO THE COMMITTEE THEN OR TO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROBLEM IS TRYING TO BE SOLVED HERE BECAUSE TO ME, COMMUTING IS SOMEBODY GETS IN, YOU KNOW, YOU AND I WORK DOWNTOWN AND WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO COME GIVE ME A RIDE OR SOMETHING.

I'M GOING TO DRIVE TO YOUR HOUSE AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ONE CAR AND GO WORK WHEREVER THAT TO ME, IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHAT COMMUTING IS.

AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT THIS IS.

THIS SEEMS TO BE TARGETED TOWARDS HOME OCCUPATIONS AND PEOPLE PARKING VEHICLES AT THE SITES OF WHAT WE ARE THIS EXPANDED HOME OCCUPATION.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

SO AND SO IN THAT REGARD, IF WE COULD GET MAYBE A KIND OF MORE OF AN INTRO FROM THE COMMITTEE OF WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? WHAT WERE THE OTHER THINGS THAT THAT WERE CONSIDERED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'LL DROP OUT ON THAT.

COUNCIL LADY MORRIS? THANK YOU.

OH, AND THE MIC'S EVEN ON HEY, YOU KNOW, RIGHT? YEAH, THE PROBLEM IS NOT THIS IS NOT CARPOOLING.

CARPOOLING IS FINE.

I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT WHO CARPOOL TO GO WORK AT KRAFT OR OTHER PLACES.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

THE ISSUE IS HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY NOT ALLOWED FOR THE MOST PART WHERE WE HAVE AT FIVE OR FIVE THIRTY IN THE MORNING, ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO 12 CARS PULL UP, PARK OUT AN ENTIRE STREET.

AND THEY ARE GONE FOR 10 OR 12 HOURS.

THEN THEY COME BACK AT NIGHT AND THAT'S GENERALLY SIX DAYS A WEEK.

I GET FLOODED WITH COMPLAINTS AND I KNOW WE HAD A CITIZEN FROM DISTRICT THREE THAT WAS HERE LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE PARKING MARSHAL PROGRAM WHO BEGGED FOR HELP WITH THIS.

THIS IS A A HIGH LEVEL AND CONSTANT COMPLAINT SO THAT THE CHALLENGE FOR THE COMMITTEE WAS ONLY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS AND NOT ACCIDENTALLY SNARING PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST SIMPLY CARPOOLING.

WE ENCOURAGE CARPOOLING, AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO DO THAT, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

BUT CARPOOLING, WHERE PEOPLE MEET AND THEN GO OFF TO A SEPARATE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S OPERATING.

AGAIN, IT'S ROOFERS.

[02:30:02]

IT'S CONSTRUCTION FOR THE MOST PART, AND THEY GATHER A LOT OF CARS THAT PARK OUT A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY GO TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS TO WORK FOR THE DAY.

AND IT CREATES PROBLEMS FOR THE WHOLE STREET.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THIS.

AND THE COMMITTEE WORKED WITH MR. BETTS AND MR. ENGLAND TO TRY TO MAKE THIS EXTREMELY NARROW SO THAT IT WOULD ONLY CAPTURE THE HOME OCCUPATION RELATED ISSUES RATHER THAN JUST GENERAL, PERFECTLY LEGAL CARPOOLING.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

OK, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS, YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUNCH IN.

THERE YOU GO.

OK, GREAT, MR. ATTORNEY, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION UNDER THE SECTION B, IT SAYS, AND I'M STARTING MID PARAGRAPH.

IT SAYS HOME OCCUPATION CAN BE REZONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIDE SHARING OR COMMUTING, STAGING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS USED IN THE OPERATION OF A HOME OCCUPATION OR FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES.

EXAMPLE, WHAT IF SOMEBODY IS DELIVERING A BOX OF BALLOONS? OK, WHAT IF SOMEBODY COMES TO THE HOME THEY'RE MAKING A DELIVERY? DOES THAT FALL UNDER AND HOW CAN WE AVOID WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT MATERIALS AND THE.

OPERATIONS.

HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN THIS NET? WHO WOULD I SAY ARE MAKING A DELIVERY TO THAT RESIDENT MAY PARK THERE TO MAKE THAT DELIVERY AND THEN MOVE ON? SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE ANSWER WOULD BE FOR DELIVERIES, IT WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE COMPANY.

NOW THERE MAY BE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.

YOU COULD HAVE A AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S YOUR DELIVERY DRIVER OR WHO IS AN ACTUAL CONTRACTOR WITH IT.

BUT FOR FEDEX OPERATIONS FOR UPS FOR UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED HERE.

BUT YOU COULD.

BUT THAT'S A GOOD OBSERVATION.

YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S YOUR DELIVERY DRIVER PARKING THE VEHICLE OUT ON THE STREET.

THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO HE'S GOT A GUY WHO SHOULD BRING HIM SOME PIPE AND PIPE FITTINGS AND TORCHES, AND THEY JUST DELIVERING IT TO HIM AND HE GOES OFF AND DOES THIS THING WHERE AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GUY WHO'S MAKING THE DELIVERY, HE'S DELIVERING IT.

IN THAT INSTANCE.

IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM.

IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS.

AND I WAS WONDERING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, HOW WOULD WE MAKE THE DISTINCTION? THAT WILL REQUIRE QUITE A BIT OF INVESTIGATIVE WORK ON THE PART OF THE MARSHALS, QUITE FRANKLY.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF THE PERSON DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THE MARSHAL'S QUESTION, THEY CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO.

AND SO IT'S A DIFFICULT IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE TO ENFORCE, MUCH LIKE HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE.

I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE EXAMPLES.

YOU ALL HAVE EXAMPLES IN YOUR DISTRICT OF PEOPLE BUILDING CABINETS AND DOING OTHER THINGS WHERE NEIGHBORS AND Y'ALL KNEW HOW Y'ALL SEEN HOW LONG IT TAKES TO ACTUALLY PROSECUTE THOSE CASES.

WELL, THIS WILL BE SIMILAR IN THE SENSE THAT IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR OUR MARSHALS OR DEPUTY MARSHALS TO ENFORCE.

THEY'LL HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST GOING OUT AND TAKING A PICTURE OF A CAR AND THEN LEAVING THE TICKET ON THE WINDSHIELD.

THEY'RE FIRST GOING TO HAVE TO GET A WRITTEN COMPLAINT, SIGNED A WRITTEN COMPLAINT BY NEIGHBORS, AND HOPEFULLY THOSE WILL HAVE FACTS IN IT THAT WILL HELP THEM BUILD UP THE CASE TO WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY SAY, OK, WE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE HERE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION AND THEN ACTUALLY GOING OUT AND TALKING TO SOMEBODY THERE AT THE LOCATION TO DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A HOME OCCUPATION THERE AT THE LOCATION AND ALSO TALKING TO THE PERSON PARKED, THE VEHICLE PARKED AT THE LOCATION.

SO THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF MANPOWER TO ENFORCE.

YEAH.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

BRYAN, I WANT TO PITCH A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS AT YOU.

THEY'RE THE ONES WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO LET ME KNOW IF THIS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THIS NEW ORDINANCE OR LEGAL.

FIRST SCENARIO'S SELLING COSMETICS SUCH AS NAIL PRODUCTS OUT OF MY HOME.

I SIT AND TAKE ORDERS ONLINE AND OVER THE PHONE.

SOMEBODY COMES TO MY HOUSE TO PICK UP THE COSMETICS AND DELIVER THEM IS THAT PERSON IN VIOLATION? IS A DELIVERY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IF THEY PARK OR STAND IN THEIR VEHICLE OUTSIDE OF MY HOME.

ACCORDING TO THIS ORDINANCE.

POSSIBLY.

THAT'S THE LEGAL ANSWER, RIGHT? RIGHT.

IT DEPENDS ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT PERSON.

IF THAT'S SOMEBODY THAT YOU'VE HIRED.

YES, YOU'VE CONTRACTED.

I HAVE HIRED THEM TO COME BE MY DELIVERY PERSON.

IT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION.

OK, LET'S TAKE THE COTTAGE FOOD INDUSTRY, SOMETHING THAT'S IT'S LEGAL TO DO FROM HOME AS WELL.

I HAVE A HOLIDAY PIE BAKING BUSINESS JUST TO THROW A TOTALLY RANDOM EXAMPLE OUT THERE.

DURING THANKSGIVING CHRISTMAS, I PAY SOMEBODY TO COME, HELP ME CRACK EGGS AND WASH DISHES.

I MAKE MONEY FROM THIS BUSINESS.

ALL THE RECORDS ARE KEPT AT MY HOME.

THEY PARK OUT FRONT OF MY HOME.

[02:35:01]

IS THAT ILLEGAL? YES, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

OK.

LAST SCENARIO, I HOLD A FREE BIBLE STUDY FOR 40 OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS AND FAMILY EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SUNDAY PARK OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE'S NO MONEY BEING EXCHANGED.

NO BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.

THAT'S LEGAL, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

OK.

THAT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

OK.

SO I'M SEEING A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES IN HOW WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO TACKLE TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT ISSUES.

I KNOW THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO TACKLE ILLEGAL HOME OCCUPATIONS, BUT IT SEEMS WE'RE TRYING TO USE PARKING IS KIND OF THE ANGLE FOR ATTACKING THAT ISSUE, AND THAT SEEMS ODD TO ME, BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE INCONSISTENCIES AND HOW THAT WOULD BE APPLIED BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING AS A PERSON AND AND WHAT SORT OF ACTUAL IMPACT YOU'RE MAKING ON A NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A BUSINESS OWNER WHO'S OPERATING ILLEGALLY IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS GUILTY OF A ZONING VIOLATION.

IS THAT ACCURATE IN GENERAL? YES.

UNDER THE CURRENT HOME OCCUPATIONS ORDINANCE, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, YES, THAT WOULD BE TRUE.

ARE THERE OTHER TYPES OF ZONING VIOLATIONS WHERE WE PENALIZE THE EMPLOYEES AS OPPOSED TO THE BUSINESS? AND THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE IF YOU'VE PULLED UP AND YOU'RE PARKING AT THE BUSINESS LOCATION, WE'RE TICKETING THE VEHICLE OWNER AND NOT THE BUSINESS OWNER.

I THINK THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE, IS THAT THE OFFENDER HERE, THAT THIS REALLY ISN'T A ZONING ORDINANCE, THIS IS A PARKING ORDINANCE AND IT'S A VERY NARROW PARKING ORDINANCE, SURGICAL IN NATURE.

AND IT'S JUST ADDRESSING ONE VERY SMALL ISSUE.

AND THAT IS WE WANT TO STOP THESE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS COMING AND LEAVING THEIR VEHICLE AT THE LOCATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT AND I'M USING WE, NOT AS ME, BUT IT'S BECAUSE THE CITY BELIEVES THAT IT CREATES TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND SO IT'S REALLY NOT A ZONING ISSUE.

IT'S IT IS A PARKING ORDINANCE, MORE THAN A ZONING ORDINANCE.

I WOULD, IN MY OPINION.

BUT THE ROOT CAUSE OF IT WOULD BE A, I WANT TO SAY, AN ILLEGAL ZONING, BUT AN ILLEGAL USE IN THE CURRENT ZONING.

IT WOULD ALSO BE A VIOLATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION.

IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION AS WELL AS THE PARKING ISSUE.

THE PARKING ISSUE.

YOU COULD ACTUALLY PROSECUTE THEM BOTH WAYS.

YOU COULD PROSECUTE BOTH THE PERSON PARKING THE VEHICLE AND ALSO THE PERSON RUNNING THE HOME OCCUPATION, BECAUSE ONCE THEY ILLEGALLY PARK, ONCE THEY START ILLEGALLY PARKING VEHICLES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME OCCUPATIONS, IT BECOMES A HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION.

SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE PREMISES OWNER, TOO.

AND IS THAT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? NOT.

IT'S NOT.

NOT FROM THE NOT FROM WHAT THE MESSAGE AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I PERCEIVED.

SO THIS WOULD STRICTLY BE A PARKING, A QUESTION OF PARKING, BUT IT'S RELIANT ON A HOME OCCUPATION.

IT IS.

RIGHT.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE MARSHALS WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN PROSECUTING A HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION THAT WOULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT JOB.

THE MARSHALS WOULD STRICTLY BE DOING THE PARKING BECAUSE THE KEEP IN MIND, THE HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION IS NOT A CIVIL OFFENSE THAT IS ACTUALLY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

DO WE KNOW WHAT WOULD THE MARSHALS KNOW AT THE TIME, EVEN BASED ON THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT, WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE HOME OCCUPATION, YOU KNOW, DAYCARES LEGITIMATE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSED BY THE STATE? YOU KNOW HOW FAR DOWN THE ENFORCEMENT PATH DO WE HAVE TO GET BEFORE WE START ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS? AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF WE IF WE GO OUT THERE AND START TICKETING BASED ON WRITTEN COMPLAINTS, THEN YOU KNOW, WE GET TO THE PART WHERE WE'RE GETTING

[02:40:02]

READY TO ENFORCE THE HOME OCCUPATION THING THAT WOULD GO, OH, WAIT, THE HOME OCCUPATION IS COMPLETELY LEGAL.

DO WE ROLL OUT THOSE TICKETS BACK? I MEAN, THIS IS IT'S GETTING WEIRD.

JUST TO PUT IT PLAINLY, THE WRITTEN COMPLAINTS WOULD BE THE TRIGGER TO START THE INVESTIGATION.

IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE THE TRIGGER TO WRITE A CITATION, AND THAT'S REALLY ONCE WE GOT THERE.

ONCE THE CITY RECEIVES A WRITTEN COMPLAINT FROM TWO INDIVIDUALS, THAT'S WHEN THE REAL WORK BEGINS, AND THAT'S WHERE THE HARD WORK BEGINS.

AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YES, IT WILL TAKE SOME TRAINING TO GET THE MARSHALS UP TO SPEED ON HOW TO INVESTIGATE BOTH HOME OCCUPATIONS AND HOW TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE JUST A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUTER PARKING ASPECT OF IT.

OK.

AND I DO ALSO WONDER, AND THIS IS JUST ME MUSING.

THERE'S NO SPECIFIC QUESTION HERE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO HAVE A BUSINESS IN WHICH FOLKS COME TO YOUR HOUSE TO CARPOOL OUT TO A JOB SITE, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE HEARD SOMEBODY SAID THAT THERE'S NO TRUE SOLUTION TO A PARKING ISSUE.

YOU JUST MIGRATE THE ISSUE AROUND TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND SO I DO WONDER WHERE THESE FOLKS ARE SUPPOSED TO PARK.

YOU KNOW, IF OUR STREETS ARE DESIGNED CORRECTLY AND THE CARS ARE PARKED LEGALLY, THEN IT SHOULDN'T POSE A PROBLEM OTHER THAN VISUALLY, IT'S CLUTTERED AND IT MAY MAKE IT A LITTLE SLOWER TO GET DOWN THE STREET.

I'M ALSO WORRIED AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY GET SOME CLARITY ON THIS IN MY OWN MIND THAT THAT THIS IS IN SOME WAY KIND OF A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE AS WELL.

AND I NEED TO STRESS VERY, VERY STRONGLY THAT I HAVE COMPLETE FAITH IN THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF THAT THERE IS NO ILL INTENT WHATSOEVER HERE.

BUT WHEN I HEAR RESTRICTIONS ON RIDESHARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I IMMEDIATELY START THINKING CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES.

YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF DIFFERENT THINGS AT DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE TO RESTRICT RIDESHARE, AND I LOOK AT HOW THAT HAS DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN OLDER AREAS WITH CHEAPER HOUSING AND NARROWER STREETS.

AND I WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THESE ORDINANCES.

YOU KNOW, I'VE LOOKED AT THIS AS MANY TIMES AS I CAN.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS TARGETING ANYBODY INTENTIONALLY.

BUT THAT CONCERN IS GOING TO SIT IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD AND IT MAKES ME FEEL REALLY, REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THIS APPROACH.

BEYOND THAT, IF WE DON'T HAVE A ROBUST PARKING PUBLIC PARKING PROGRAM WHERE WE HAVE LARGE AREAS FOR PEOPLE TO SIT AND COMMUTE, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE DART STATIONS, WE'VE GOT THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IT'S NOT MUCH.

IT'S NOT MUCH.

AND I REALLY I MEAN, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS THIS WEEKEND BECAUSE IT JUST BOTHERS ME, AND I THINK IT'S THE WRONG WAY TO APPROACH THIS.

I THINK IF THERE'S AN GO HOME OCCUPATION, WE NEED TO GO TACKLE THAT AND THE PARKING AS LONG AS THE VEHICLES ARE LEGALLY PARKED.

IT IS A PUBLIC STREET.

THESE ARE NOT HOAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THESE ARE NOT PERMIT PARKING ONLY TYPE AREAS.

AND I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO TACKLE THIS A DIFFERENT WAY AND GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

AND AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

IF I COME UP WITH SOME BRILLIANT IDEA, I TRUST ME.

I'LL SHARE IT.

AND I DON'T HAVE ONE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M REALLY I'VE GOT A LOT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT US GOING DOWN THIS PATH.

SO THANK YOU, MR. ENGLAND.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANKS, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERA IF I CAN GET YOU TO PUNCH IN AGAIN.

I KNOW YOU.

YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE, THEN YOU WERE OUT.

IF I CAN GET YOU TO COME BACK IN REAL QUICK.

THERE WE GO.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERA? THE DEAL ON THIS IS THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING BUSINESSES ARE LIKE YARD CREWS THAT COME AND PARK ON THE STREET RIGHT TO THE STOP SIGN, RIGHT TO THE CORNER AND BLOCK THE STREET.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING AFTER.

THEY SHOULDN'T BE PARKING INSIDE THE STOP SIGN.

YOU GOT TO PARK ABOUT 20-30 FEET FROM THE STOP SIGN, BUT THEY TAKE ALL OF THAT.

I HAD A WRECK.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I HAD A WRECK ON WESTON BECAUSE I COULDN'T SEE THE MOTORCYCLE COMING AND I TOOK A LEFT ON WESTERN FROM DOSS AND THE MOTORCYCLE HIT ME BECAUSE OF THE PARKING RIGHT TO THE CORNER OF THE STREET.

AND THAT'S NOT ONLY, THAT'S ONLY ONE CASE, THERE ARE A LOT OF CASES LIKE THAT IN MY DISTRICT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT Y'ALL, BUT IN MY DISTRICT, SINCE I'M RIGHT NEXT TO AN

[02:45:03]

INDUSTRIAL AREA, THEY SHOULD RENT A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN PARK YOUR CARS JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

IF YOU'RE A PLUMBER, YOU HAVE A PLACE WHERE YOUR PLUMBING TRUCKS ARE EVERYTHING, BUT THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND IN MY DISTRICT.

EVEN 18 WHEELERS ARE PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA OVER THERE, AND THEY TELL ME WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

WELL, WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING OVER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.

OK, COUNCIL MEMBER BASS? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, BRYAN.

A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, BRYAN, COULD YOU FIRST EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY WHAT IS MEANT BY HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE? IT'S BASICALLY A FEW.

IF THERE IS A HOME OCCUPATION THAT'S CURRENTLY ACTIVE ON A STREET, THAT STREET BECOMES A PART OF A HOME OCCUPATION COMMUTER ZONE.

OR IF IT'S JUST SAY THERE'S AN INTERSECTION AND IT'S STILL IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEN IT COULD BE 500 FEET.

THERE'S A 500 FOOT HALO FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ALL AROUND, SO AS LONG AS IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT'S THE FIRST ELEMENT AND IT'S ON A PUBLIC STREET AND IT'S ON THE SAME STREET, THEN THAT'S PART OF IT, BUT ALSO WITHIN 500 FEET OF THAT HOME OCCUPATION.

OK, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MORE THAN ONE CONSTITUENT ABOUT US TALKING IN TERMS THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND.

SO, YEAH, TRYING TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

ALSO, AND I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS UP AGAIN BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE ANYWAY, IT'S OK FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SOMEONE COME OVER AND PARK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT YOUR CAR IN YOUR GARAGE OR IF YOU HAVE TWO EMPLOYEES COME OVER, THEY CAN PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY.

SO IT'S NOT.

THIS IS NOT REMOVING THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND.

A COUPLE OF THINGS ONE.

SO ON THE WRITTEN COMPLAINTS, IS THERE A LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM RETALIATING? THERE IS NOT.

THERE'S NOT.

OK.

SO I'VE HAD ACTUALLY THERE.

I GUARANTEE THIS HAPPENS ALL OVER THE CITY.

I HAVE THREE IN IN DISTRICT ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF.

THERE'S A ROOFING COMPANY, A PEST CONTROL COMPANY AND A I FORGET WHAT THE THIRD ONE IS, MAYBE LANDSCAPE, BUT ANYWAY.

AND IT IS AN ISSUE, AND I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'VE GOT A PEST CONTROL COMPANY THAT KEEPS THEIR VEHICLES IN BLOCKS THE ENTIRE ALLEY EVERY WEEKEND AND CLEANS THEIR PEST CONTROL VEHICLES THERE, YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY THERE, YOU KNOW? AND WHAT PEOPLE CAN'T GET OUT OF THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY BECAUSE SOME GUY'S TRUCK IS PARKED THERE.

AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE WOKEN UP AT 5:00 A.M.

EVERY MORNING BECAUSE THERE'S LOUD MUSIC AND LOUD CARS AND EQUIPMENT BEING BANGED AROUND AT 5:00 A.M.

AND THEN AGAIN AT 7:30 P.M.

SIX DAYS A WEEK, THAT'S A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN WE BUY A HOUSE, WE'RE BUYING SOME SECURITY AND SAFETY TO GO ALONG WITH THAT HOUSE AND OUR WELL-BEING IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE PURCHASING WHEN WE GET OUR WHEN WE BUY A HOUSE.

AND AS A CITY, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO, YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN THAT SAFETY AND SECURITY AND WELL-BEING FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS FALLS UNDER.

IT'S IT'S AFFECTING PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE WHERE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY CAN ENJOY THEIR OWN HOME.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO.

A QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

SO THIS IT TALKS ABOUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

WHAT ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PROPERTY? AND THE HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE I WOULD GIVE IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY OWNS A ROOFING COMPANY, BUT ALL THE EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, SEVEN EMPLOYEES EVERY DAY GO TO THE MANAGER'S HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AND SO THIS IS THE MANAGER'S HOUSE THAT HAS THE PROBLEM.

HE'S NOT THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY.

RECORDS AREN'T KEPT THERE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO I DON'T SEE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED IN THIS.

THAT WOULD WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED WOULD NOT BE CAPTURED BY THIS.

OK.

WAS THAT DISCUSSED IN THE COMMITTEE THAT SCENARIO? NO.

OK.

I'D LIKE FOR THAT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS LOOKED INTO IF WE COULD COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR THAT BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS AND I KNOW SOMEBODY GOT I THINK IT WAS COUNCILMAN SMITH.

I DON'T WANT TO MOVE THE PROBLEM FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

[02:50:02]

YOU KNOW, THE DIFFICULTY AND YES, THAT IS THAT'S CERTAINLY AN ISSUE.

THE DIFFICULTY IS IS ONCE YOU START BRANCHING OUT TO TRY TO CAPTURE, THE MORE YOU TRY TO CAPTURE, THE MORE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CAPTURE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO CORRECT.

AND SO AND WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED THERE, THAT WOULD BE, IF NOT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE, YOU WOULD CERTAINLY YOU CERTAINLY END UP CAPTURING A LOT OF ACTIVITY THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

OK.

OK.

I'D STILL LIKE TO BRING UP FOR JUST FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU.

I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, BRYAN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANKS, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

FOR A MINUTE THERE.

I THINK IT SHOWED ME IS IN THE QUEUE THREE TIMES.

WELL, IT'S BUT IT'S EVER EVOLVING.

I GUESS THAT MEANS I REALLY WANT TO SPEAK A COUPLE OF THINGS.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SO FAR.

PARKING A SEMI IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CITY MARSHALS OR SOMEBODY HANDLES THAT.

WE WENT THROUGH THIS SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THIS WHOLE EXERCISE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO AND OVERSIZE VEHICLES, BIG PLUMBING VEHICLES WITH ALL THE STUFF HANDING OFF HANGING OFF OF IT, BOX TRUCKS, EVERYTHING ROOFING TRAILERS, ALL ILLEGAL ON THE STREETS AND WE ENFORCE THAT.

SOMEBODY CALLS, WE GO, TAKE CARE OF IT.

AND THAT'S THAT, RIGHT? PARKING TOO CLOSE TO A STOP SIGN, ALREADY ILLEGAL PARKING TOO CLOSE TO AN INTERSECTION OR TO A, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME MAGIC LANGUAGE TO THAT.

BUT BUT THAT'S ALL STUFF THAT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL PARKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, ALREADY ILLEGAL BLOCKING AN ALLEY.

THAT'S THAT'S NOT LEGAL, IS IT? OK, YOU CAN'T BLOCK AN ALLEY.

SO IF YOU HAVE THIS PROBLEM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY HAVE A SOLUTION FOR.

WE DON'T NEED THIS ORDINANCE TO SOLVE THAT.

CORRECT? THOSE ISSUES.

YOU JUST BROUGHT UP.

LOUD MUSIC AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING, 4:00 IN THE MORNING, WHENEVER IT IS.

THAT'S THAT'S SOME, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON NOISE, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE ALL THAT STUFF SOLVED.

AND SO I JUST DON'T SEE THIS ORDINANCE AS PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, JUICE TO THAT FOR THE SQUEEZE.

AND I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT SO IN ORDER TO SOLVE THIS SUPPOSED PROBLEM, WHICH IS AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE PARKING THEIR CARS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND NOT PARKING THEM ILLEGALLY, CORRECT? AND THIS IS EFFECTIVELY, FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK DURING THE DAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS REFERENCE IS PEOPLE COMING DURING THE DAY AND PARKING DURING THE DAY, WHICH.

AND I WILL TELL YOU, I DON'T GET COMPLAINTS ON THIS.

I HAVE NOT HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEOPLE COMING IN, PARKING TOO MANY CARS DURING THE DAY.

THE PROBLEM AND THE WHOLE IMPETUS FOR THE MARSHAL PROGRAM STARTED FROM THE PARKING PROBLEMS WERE AT NIGHT.

THE PARKING PROBLEMS WERE AFTER HOURS AFTER CODE WENT HOME.

ALL THESE ILLEGAL VEHICLES WOULD COME INTO THE CITY AND WHATNOT, AND THEN WHEN WE TALK WITH CODE, THEY WERE NOT COMFORTABLE ENFORCING SOME OF THOSE RULES AFTER DARK, WHICH IS WHAT LED TO THE IMPETUS OF, YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO PUT MARSHALS ON THIS.

BUT THE PARKING PROBLEM WAS NOT DURING THE DAY.

I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH HAS.

AND AND LET ME JUST BE CLEAR, SO IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS ELIMINATING IS EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF HOME OCCUPATION.

CORRECT? SO FOLKS WHO PREVIOUSLY AND THIS IS JUST HAVING A HOME OCCUPATION, NOT LEGAL.

AND SO STUFF THAT WAS OK BEFORE THERE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A HOME OCCUPATION IS NOW GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A HOME OCCUPATION.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND SO SOME OF THAT WILL BE YOUR LANDSCAPERS AND YOUR ROOFERS AND YOUR FENCERS.

BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME IF THEY RECEIVE THEIR BUSINESS MAIL AT HOME.

SO IF I GET IF IT'S CONSIDERED MY PLACE OF BUSINESS TO OPERATE A LAW PRACTICE OUT OF MY HOME, I'VE GOT A HOME OCCUPATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, IF YOU'RE OPERATING YOUR LAW PRACTICE.

AND SO IN WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD ON THIS IS WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT WHAT'S LEGAL AND WHAT'S NOT LEGAL.

SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

WHAT IS NOT LEGAL? OK.

AND SO IF I OWN A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS AND I WANT TO PUT, YOU KNOW, FOUR PEOPLE IN MY CREW CRAB CREW CAB OF MY TRUCK AND WE DRIVE AROUND

[02:55:02]

THE CITY AND DO LANDSCAPING, THOSE PEOPLE CANNOT PARK AT ON MY STREET, IN THE HOME COMMUTER, IN THE COMMUTER OCCUPATION ZONE OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED RIGHT.

BUT IF I DON'T OWN THE BUSINESS, THEN THAT'S OK.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO SAME BEHAVIOR.

IT'S OK.

NOW, LET'S SAY THAT YOU AND MYSELF AND MR. BETTS, WE'RE ALL LAWYERS AND WE'VE DECIDED WE'RE ALL WE'RE ALL LEAVING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE GOING TO GO WORK AT A LAW FIRM IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS.

DEWEY, CHEATHAM, AND HOWE AND WE'RE GOING TO COMMUTE.

WE'RE ALL FRIENDS, SO WE'RE GOING TO COMMUTE TOGETHER, RIGHT? AND SO YOU AND MR. BETTS, YOU COME AND YOU PARK AT MY HOUSE SO THAT WE CAN GO DOWNTOWN DALLAS AND WORK IN SOME TALL BUILDING.

IS THAT ILLEGAL? SO, SO A NICE, SO GOOD OLD WHITE COLLAR FOLKS WORKING JOBS DOWNTOWN FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T OWN, DOESN'T OWN THAT BUSINESS, THEY CAN PARK THERE ALL THEY WANT.

CORRECT.

BUT AS WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED, THE ROOFERS, THE LANDSCAPE FOLKS, THE FENCING FOLKS, THEY CANNOT.

IF THEY OWN THAT BUSINESS, THEY CANNOT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER.

AND THIS DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE STREETS CLOGGED OR NOT CLOGGED, OR WHETHER SOMEBODY JUST DECIDES THEY DON'T LIKE THESE FOLKS.

YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T LIKE THEY DON'T LIKE THESE PEOPLE.

FOR SOME REASON, THEY CAN REPORT THAT THAT'S A VIOLATION.

SURE.

OK, NOW ALSO ADD THAT SO NOW INSTEAD, INSTEAD, LET'S SAY WE HAVE THE LANDSCAPING CREW NOW.

I HAVE LIKE TEN PEOPLE WORKING FOR ME.

OK? AND RATHER THAN HAVE THEM COME TO MY HOUSE AND PARK AND WE TAKE ONE VEHICLE, I'VE GOT A VERY NICE, YOU KNOW, PASSENGER SPRINTER VAN.

INSTEAD OF THAT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO CARAVAN ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WE'RE GOING TO GO.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE GOING TO GO TO SOMEONE ELSE'S NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'RE GOING TO PARK ALL 10, 12 CARS RIGHT THERE ON THE STREET WHILE WE DO OUR LANDSCAPING.

IS THAT A VIOLATION? NO.

I MEAN, AS LONG AS THEY'RE LEGALLY PARKED, BUT I'M BRINGING, WE'RE GOING TO COMMUTE ALL AROUND THE CITY WE'VE GOT.

FORTY EIGHT LAWNS TO CUT TODAY AND EDGE AND TRIM AND DO REAL NICE, AND SO WE'RE GOING ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

WE'RE GOING TO BRING EVERYBODY WITH US.

AND SO WE COULD WE COULD DO THAT? OK.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT.

I THINK AT LEAST TO ME, IT'S VERY CLEAR.

AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY INTENTION HERE, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME WHERE THE POTENTIAL CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES ARE AND WHERE THIS IS TARGETED AND WHO'S GETTING TARGETED AND WHO'S NOT GETTING TARGETED.

AND IT'S ALSO VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE KINDS OF BUSINESSES AND THE KIND OF HARDWORKING PEOPLE, AND WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE THAT WE HAVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND WE'VE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT TRYING, YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ATTACK THE LANDSCAPERS AND THE FENCERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

IF THEY VIOLATE, IF THEY'RE VIOLATING THE ORDINANCES ARE ALREADY OUT THERE, SO BE IT.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN THE CITY INTO A SERIES OF HOAS.

WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT.

THEY PAY.

IF I COME IN PARK AT YOUR HOUSE, YOU LIVE.

LET'S SAY YOU LIVE IN GARLAND.

I LIVE IN GARLAND.

I COME AND PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE ON THE PUBLIC STREET.

MY TAXES HAVE PAID FOR THE STREET THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, IN FRONT OF ALL YOUR HOUSES.

THAT'S WHAT A PUBLIC STREET IS.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

WE'RE ALL PUTTING OUR MONEY IN AND WE OWN A PART OF ALL THESE STREETS.

AND I CAN'T TELL YOU AND WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S TROUBLED ME GREATLY WHEN WE STARTED INSTITUTING VERY SPECIFIC PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO BENEFIT SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT ANYBODY PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.

AND SO YOU DON'T CONTROL THAT.

I'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION TIME AND TIME AGAIN OVER THE LAST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS.

THAT'S A CITY STREET.

IT'S A PUBLIC STREET.

YOU DON'T OWN THAT YOU CAN'T CONTROL WHO PARKS IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE OR WHO PARKED IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE.

BUT NOW IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN.

SO ANYWAY, I IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED, IF HOME AND I AGREE HOME OCCUPATIONS, YOU KNOW, I'M THE ONE WHO HAD THE CABINET MAKER.

I HAD A GUY WHO HAD A 3000 SQUARE FOOT CABINET MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN HIS BACKYARD, BUT HE DIDN'T.

BUT HE DIDN'T PARK ANY CARS OUT FRONT BECAUSE HE HAD A VAN THAT CAME DROPPED OFF 10 EMPLOYEES AT 8:20 IN THE MORNING, WHICH WAS FIVE 10 MINUTES BEFORE OUR CODE INSPECTORS GET INTO THE FIELD.

AND YES, IT WAS VERY METTLESOME AND IT WAS A PROBLEM, BUT WE SOLVED IT AND IT TOOK A WHILE, BUT WE SOLVED IT.

I'M ALL ABOUT SOLVING THOSE PROBLEMS, BUT LET'S SOLVE THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS. LET'S GET TO THOSE ACTUAL PROBLEMS. BUT LET'S NOT TURN THE CITY INTO THIS VERY SELECTIVE HOA THAT TARGETS, YOU KNOW, THE VERY PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE AND THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE TO BOOTSTRAP THEMSELVES AND HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND MAKE A GOOD LIVING.

SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

[03:00:04]

[INAUDIBLE] I APPRECIATE YOU.

I KNOW YOU'RE TAKING SOME.

YOU'RE ONLY THE SCRIVENER, BUT YOU'RE TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF THE HEAT.

BUT I APPRECIATE YOU.

IT'S MY FOURTH ITERATION OF THIS.

I'M USED TO THIS.

BUT YOU HAD A LOT MORE HAIR ON THE FIRST ITERATION.

I DID.

ALL RIGHT.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS? THANK YOU.

MAYOR.

HAD SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

[INAUDIBLE] LET ME ASK YOU JUST A COUPLE OF THREE QUESTIONS, RIGHT QUICK.

GOING BACK TO SECTION ONE, A DEFINITIONS HOME OCCUPATIONS.

DO WE KNOW IN ANY GIVEN NEIGHBORHOOD HOW MANY, BASED ON THAT DEFINITION, HOW MANY HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? WE DO NOT.

DO WE KNOW WHERE THOSE HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE? A FEW, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A MAP THAT WE KEEP TRACK OF THEM, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT I'M AWARE OF.

HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHAT RESIDENCES MEETS THE DEFINITION IN A1? IT WOULD BE PRIMARILY THROUGH COMPLAINTS.

SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

BUT WE COULD NOT DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND SAY THAT HOUSE AT 1221? RIGHT? WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

KEEP IN MIND, HOME OCCUPATIONS AREN'T.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.

IT STILL WILL BE LAWFUL TO HAVE HOME OCCUPATIONS.

IT'S JUST THEY HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THAT YOU SEE DOWN BELOW IN THE ORDINANCE.

AND SO THERE'S A HOME OCCUPATIONS AREN'T PRECISELY ILLEGAL BECAUSE THERE ARE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO IT SO THAT THOSE WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED.

BUT YOU'RE CORRECT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY THAT I'M AWARE OF.

WE DON'T HAVE A DATABASE THAT TRACKS THESE MOST OF THE TIMES WITH A HOME OCCUPATION, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED.

MOST OF THE TIME, NEIGHBORS DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY EXIST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE.

THEY DON'T GENERATE TRAFFIC, THEY DON'T HAVE EMPLOYEES SHOWING UP.

IT'S WHEN WE START HAVING THOSE ISSUES AS WHEN WE START RECEIVING COMPLAINTS AND WE REALIZE, OH, THIS COULD BE A HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION.

HEY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION BY GIVING YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER NEIGHBOR WHO LIVES ACROSS THE ALLEY.

HE'S A PAINTER.

I KNOW HE'S A PAINTER.

DOES AN OUTSTANDING JOB, BUT HE DIDN'T PAY IT AT HIS HOUSE, HE DIDN'T USE HIS GARAGE BECAUSE I KNOW BECAUSE I CAN SEE INTO HIS GARAGE, BUT HE HAS SOME HELPERS THAT COME IN THE MORNING, HE HAS A VAN AND HE GETS UP AND THEY LEAVE.

THEY PARKED THEIR CARS THERE.

THEY COME BACK IN THE EVENING AND GET IT.

UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, ARE THEY IN NONCOMPLIANCE? SO CAN THEY BE TICKETED? MOST LIKELY, ASSUMING YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS IN THAT FACT SCENARIO, ASSUMING THAT HE IS RECEIVING HIS BUSINESS'S MAIL THERE HE DOES ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS, TASK OF THE BUSINESS AT THE HOUSE OR THAT HOUSE IS REGISTERED AS THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WITH THE STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE.

NO, IT'S NOT.

NO, IT'S NOT, THAT'S HIS RESIDENCE.

THAT'S HIS DOMICILE.

WELL, ASSUMING NONE OF THOSE, AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE AN OFFENSE, OK, BUT THEY LEAVE THEIR CARS THERE, RIGHT? THAT'D BE FINE.

AND THEY COME BACK AND GET THEM? RIGHT.

EVERYBODY NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWS WHAT WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING.

SO WOULD WOULD HE BE? AND THE THE FOLKS THAT WORK FOR HIM? BE FOLKS THAT WOULD END UP WITH A CITATION ON THEIR VEHICLES.

UNDER YOUR FACTS, NO, THEY WOULD NOT.

I WOULD SAY THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE RARE SITUATION FOR THAT TO OCCUR.

FOR HIM NOT TO RECEIVE HIS BUSINESS MAIL THERE.

I MEAN, HE COULD ALWAYS HAVE A P.O.

BOX SOMEWHERE TO GET HIS BUSINESS MAIL.

HE COULD ALWAYS DO THE WORK, HIS ADMINISTRATIVE WORK OFF SITE, AWAY FROM HIS HOUSE.

BUT I'M.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE RARE OCCASION I'M ASSUMING IN THE SITUATION YOU JUST DESCRIBED.

MOST OF THE TIME IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO FALL UNDER A HOME OCCUPATION, BUT THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBED WOULD NOT BE A HOME OCCUPATION.

TYPES OF OCCUPATION.

MY NEXT QUESTION.

AND THEN THE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN SMITH'S COMMENT HE GAVE YOU GAVE US SEVERAL SCENARIOS.

AND ONE HE GAVE US WAS THE PRAYER SERVICE, PRAYER MEETING AT NOON AND EVENING.

AND LET'S SAY THIRTY FIVE PEOPLE SHOW UP AND PARK ON THE STREET.

AND YOUR RESPONSE TO HIM WAS THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION.

THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION.

BUT IN THE SCENARIO THAT I JUST GAVE YOU, TWO CARS ARE PARKED THERE AND HE GETS, LET'S SAY, HIS MAIL SAM PAINTER AT HIS HOUSE.

HE COULD, HE COULD.

THE FOLKS WHO WORK FOR HIM COULD STAND IN VIOLATION? UNDER THIS CURRENT DRAFT, YES, THAT'S TRUE.

BUT THEY OWN TWO CARS THEY'RE OWN A PUBLIC STREET.

[03:05:01]

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

AND MY COMMENT IS RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN VERA PEOPLE PARKING.

I GOT FOLK THAT HAVE VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS AND SOME THAT DON'T WORK BUT PARKED NEXT TO THE STOP SIGN.

THEY DON'T HAVE NO KIND OF BUSINESS.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU KNOW, THEY THEY PARK IN BLIND SPOTS ALL THE TIME, CREATE BLIND SPOTS AND THEY GO, HIT THE WRONG DIRECTIONS.

BUT THEY'RE NOT ILLEGAL, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT NOBODY'S EVER KNOW.

NOBODY'S, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS SEE IT.

IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

THERE'S NOT OCCUPATION SPECIFIC.

THAT'S TRUE.

IT'S JUST FOLKS IN IT.

IT'S FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO CALL IN THE COMPLAINTS, BUT THEY PARK LIKE THAT AND ALL OF THIS CITY AND I KNOW IN MY DISTRICT.

OK, SO IF YOU GOT A GUY BECAUSE HE'S A CERTAIN BUSINESS AND HE PARKS NEXT TO A STOP SIGN, WE CITE HIM.

BUT WE GOT A REGULAR JOE SMITH WHO DOES THE SAME THING.

WE CITE HIM TOO.

IN BOTH THOSE SCENARIOS, WE'D CITE BOTH OF THEM.

IN FACT, WE WOULD CITE THE ONES THAT WERE.

IT WOULD BE EASIER TO PROVE THIS STOP SIGN PARKING TOO CLOSE TO THE STOP SIGN THAN IT IS A HOME OCCUPATION.

SO YEAH, BUT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS OCCUPATION, CORRECT? IT WOULD NOT.

RIGHT.

AND THAT'S A CONCERN HERE.

AND THAT'S WHY I GAVE YOU A SCENARIO REGARDING MY NEIGHBOR OF AGAIN, I GO BACK TO MY FIRST POINT.

INITIALLY, THIS IS WE'RE SORT OF WALKING THE EDGE, THE EDGE HERE BECAUSE I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT.

AND YOU'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES THAT MARSHALS WILL HAVE TO UNDERGO, YOU KNOW, SOME INTENSE TRAINING.

AND I'M CONCERNED NOT ONLY FOR THE RESIDENTS, BUT PUTTING OUR MARSHALS IN A POSITION.

ACTUALLY, ON THE STREETS AS THEY ENFORCE THIS, AS THEY INTERACT WITH THIS, ARE WE PUTTING THEM IN POTENTIAL HARM'S WAY? I WOULD.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE ANYMORE THAN JUST GOING OUT AND WRITING A TICKET THAT THEY DO EVERY DAY.

WELL, I'VE GOTTEN SOME 40 OR 60 EVERY DAY.

I THINK IT'S LESS OF A SAFETY ISSUE.

IT WOULD BE MORE OF A HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUE.

A SAFETY ISSUE AND A JUDGMENT ISSUE.

RIGHT.

IT'S A JUDGMENT ISSUE.

WHAT, DO I TAKE IT THESE CARS? AND DO I DRIVE RIGHT PAST THOSE CARS, RIGHT? SO IT COMES DOWN TO A JUDGMENT ISSUE.

SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT ASPECT OF THIS.

WELL, IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU'RE ASKING WOULD THE MARSHALS BE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND SEE A CAR PARKED AND SUSPECT ON THEIR OWN THAT THEY MIGHT BE TIED TO A HOME OCCUPATION, WOULD THEY THEN INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION AND POTENTIALLY WRITE A CITATION BECAUSE OF THAT? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NO, BECAUSE THEY WOULD FIRST HAVE TO RECEIVE A COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO INITIATE THAT INVESTIGATION.

OK, AND LASTLY, GOING BACK TO THE LAWN MAINTENANCE, I'VE GOT A GUY, AND THEN I'M DONE, MAYOR, WHO HAS LAWN, BUT HE DOES MULTIPLE ABOUT 12 13 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HE PARKS HIS TRUCK ON ONE STREET IN FRONT OF HOUSE.

SOMETIMES HE PARKING WITH THE TRAILER ON IT, AND HE DOESN'T MOVE IT UNTIL HE DOES, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE CAN WALK THE DISTANCE.

IS HE IN VIOLATION? AND HE HAS.

HE HAS SOMETIMES ONE, SOMETIMES TWO HELPERS.

IS HE? IS HE IN POTENTIAL JEOPARDY OF BEING CITED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE? HE WOULD NOT BE.

HE WOULD NOT BE? NO, HE WOULD NOT BE.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

COUNCIL LADY MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO KEEP GRINDING ON THIS.

SO THIS HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING PROBLEM.

AND AS MR. ENGLAND NOTES, IT'S AS WAS OUR PARKING GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING.

AND THIS COUNCIL SEVERAL YEARS AGO SAID, OH, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR YEARS AND THERE'S NOT A RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

AND YET WE MANAGED.

SO I HEAR THE OBJECTIONS.

I UNDERSTAND LAWFUL HOME OCCUPATIONS.

THEY CAN HAVE ONE EMPLOYEE AND I MEAN, SOME OF THE THINGS IN OUR EXISTING

[03:10:02]

ORDINANCE SAYS THERE'S NOT MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION LOCATED ON THE PREMISES.

SO THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.

SO OUR CURRENT HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE GIVES A DEFINITION THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE CERTAIN HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS. THEY CAN HAVE UP TO ONE EMPLOYEE WITH A CAR.

SO THOSE AREN'T THE ONES WHO ARE CREATING PROBLEMS AND CAUSING THE THE COMPLAINTS.

AND THIS ISN'T THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ARE BY AND LARGE PEOPLE IN MY OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WHO HAVE NARROW STREETS AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR HELP.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR HELP.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TALKED ABOUT A LOT.

SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN THERE YET.

AND THAT'S FINE BECAUSE THE FIRST RULE IN THIS IS FIRST, DO NO HARM.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO HARM.

WE DON'T WANT TO CAST A NET AND SNEER THE WRONG PEOPLE IN IT.

WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE CARPOOLING.

CARPOOLING IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE.

WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE THAT.

SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

COUNCILMAN SMITH SUGGESTED GRINDING IT BACK THROUGH COMMITTEE TO SEE IF THERE IS INDEED A BETTER SOLUTION.

THERE MAY NOT BE.

THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAS NO SOLUTION, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN LANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT BACK AND COERCE COUNCILMAN SMITH INTO GIVING IT HIS BEST SHOT AND SUGGESTIONS SINCE HE OFFERED.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I HEAR THE CONCERNS.

I ALSO HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD JUST THROW UP OUR HANDS AND SAY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THIS RIGHT.

BUT WE SHOULD NOT DO IT WRONG, AND THAT IS FOR SURE.

SO AND I WILL.

I'M DONE ON THIS.

TOPIC SO WE CAN WE CAN TAKE IT TO ITS CONCLUSION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK.

I BELIEVE I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER BASS AND COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE IN THE QUEUE, BUT COUNCIL LADY MORRIS HAS OFFERED TO TAKE THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE AND DISCUSS THE COUNCIL MEMBER BASS.

GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

I JUST THINK, MAYOR, I JUST HAVE ONE THING REAL QUICK TO SAY.

SO IF I HAVE A BUSINESS AND IT'S NOT A HOME OCCUPANCY BUSINESS, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M IN A STRIP CENTER SOMEWHERE, A LEASED SPACE.

THERE ARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT BUSINESS.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YES.

OK.

BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, IF I HAVE A BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF MY HOME, I MEAN, I'M SORRY.

IF I HAVE A HOME OCCUPANCY BUSINESS, I'M NOT SUBJECT TO ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT'S NOT QUITE.

WELL, IT'S TRUE IN REGARD TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT, BUT NOT IN REGARD TO ENFORCING THE A UNLAWFUL HOME OCCUPATION.

IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS PARKED EITHER ON AT THE LOCATION OR ON THE ADJOINING STREET, AND THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION.

IT'D BE A HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION, NOT A PARKING VIOLATION, RIGHT? RIGHT.

SO BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T WE HAVEN'T PASSED ANYTHING YET.

SO AS IT STANDS TODAY, IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS THAT YOU ARE OPERATING OUT OF YOUR HOME, YOU ACTUALLY, AS FAR AS PARKING IS CONSIDERED YOU HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE COMPARED TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS THEIR BUSINESS IN A STRIP CENTER AND IS SUBJECT TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? NO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK, SO WE'LL TAKE THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A BIT, BUT I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING.

WE HAVE A NATURAL BREAK COMING UP HERE, HOPEFULLY SHORTLY.

THIS BRINGS US TO 4G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT.

[4G. Development Services Committee Report]

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK.

GO AHEAD, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO REPORT ON SEVERAL ITEMS COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE FIRST WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ON PARKING.

WAIT, WHAT? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? AND IT HAD TO DEAL WITH THE DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE AND THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR US TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT IN POSSIBLE COVER OVER THE PARKING DECK ON THE TOP STORY.

[03:15:01]

AND THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE LOOKED AT IT AND CAME BACK WITH A $1.3 BILLION PRICE TAG, WHICH WE THOUGHT WE COULD USE THE FUNDS BETTER IN OTHER WAYS SO THAT WAS THAT ITEM.

I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION.

NO MORE PARKING QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT.

NEXT ONE WAS A DISCUSSION OVER [INAUDIBLE] REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

WE HAD CAPTAIN MCCULLEY COME AND GIVE US A QUITE IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION ON [INAUDIBLE] AND DESIGN, AND AFTER SOME DISCUSSION AFTER HIS PRESENTATION, WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO LEAVE THE EXISTING GDC AS IS AND NOT MAKE ANY REQUIREMENTS OR MANDATES TO INCORPORATE [INAUDIBLE] REQUIREMENTS, BUT LEAVE THAT TO THE ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS TO IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN [INAUDIBLE] REQUIREMENTS AS THEY WISH.

SO THERE WAS NO NO ACTION ON THAT ITEM.

OUR NEXT ITEM WAS CONSIDERING AMENDING A AMENDMENT FOR PREVIOUS OR AMENDING GDC FOR PREVIOUSLY DENIED ZONING CASES, AND WE HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY BACK HERE TO DISCUSS THAT.

ROUND TWO.

YEP, BE EASY ON ME.

I THINK THIS WILL BE A LITTLE LESS CONTROVERSIAL.

THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE WAS LOOKING AT AN ISSUE THAT Y'ALL MAY REMEMBER IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST, WHERE THERE WAS SOME PROCEDURAL CONFUSION OVER HOW WE HANDLE OUR RECONSIDERATION ISSUES ON ZONING CASES.

AND SO THE KIND OF THE GOAL OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO REALLY REDUCE SOME OF THAT PROCEDURAL CONFUSION AND TO DO THAT BY RECONCILING THE COUNCIL POLICY ON RECONSIDERATIONS WITH THE GDC PROVISIONS.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 205 OF THE GDC.

WE TRIED TO RECONCILE THAT.

AND SO WHILE WE DID, THAT WAS HOW THE COMMITTEE DID.

THAT, I SHOULD SAY, IS THEY MADE A DISTINCTION WHICH CURRENTLY IS LACKING IN THE GDC BETWEEN RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUSLY DENIED ZONING CASES AND CONSIDERATION OF A DIFFERENT PROPOSED LAND USE OR ZONING CASE, BUT ON THE SAME TRACT OF LAND.

CURRENTLY, THE GDC DOESN'T MAKE SUCH A DISTINCTION, AND SO THE TERM RECONSIDERATION IS HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED IN SOME WAYS AND FOR GOOD REASON BECAUSE MANY TIMES WHEN THIS ISSUE COMES UP, YOU'RE NOT REALLY RECONSIDERING THE SAME ZONING CASE, YOU'RE RECONSIDERING A DIFFERENT ZONING CASE ON THE SAME TRACT OF LAND.

AND SO WHAT WE DID, WHAT THE COMMITTEE DID IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WAS THEY FIRST ADDRESSED, HOW DO YOU CONSIDER THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED AMENDMENTS? AND FOR PREVIOUSLY DENIED ZONING CASES, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE APPLICATIONS BE FILED WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.

SO IN A TUESDAY NIGHT, IF THE COUNCIL DENIES THE ZONING CASE, THE APPLICANT THEN HAS FIVE BUSINESS DAYS TO FILE A RECONSIDERATION AND THEN ONCE FILED, IT IS SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S AFTER ALL THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT HAVE BEEN MET AND THEN ONCE THE HEARING COMES BACK, THE RECONSIDERATION HEARING, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE THAT WASN'T PRESENTED THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

THAT SHOULD MAKE THE SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO REHEAR THE SAME ARGUMENTS.

IT SHOULD SAVE TIME.

IT SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT FOR THE COUNCIL AND THEN FOR THE RECONSIDERATION.

THE MOTION MUST BE MADE BY A MEMBER WHO VOTED TO DENY IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

AND THIS IS THE PART THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY RECOGNIZE IN COUNCIL POLICY BECAUSE THAT'S CURRENT COUNCIL POLICY.

WHEN YOU ALL DO YOUR OWN RECONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE INITIATED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE THREE QUARTER VOTE WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PASS A RECONSIDERATION.

NOW, FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DIFFERENT PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE SAME TRACT OF LAND WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, THEN FIRST OF ALL, IT NEEDS TO BE WITHIN THE 12 MONTH PERIOD IF THAT HAPPENS, AND THEN THEY COULD ALWAYS DO A CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION TO CONSIDER A DIFFERENT PROPOSED ZONING.

BUT THE USE MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO DECIDE.

CURRENTLY IN THE GDC, WHEN THIS COMES UP, IT'S REALLY A STAFF DECISION, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL DECIDE IS IS WHETHER OR NOT AS YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS AND AS THEY PRESENT IT, WHETHER THIS USE IS REALLY JUST THE SAME USE THAT THEY TRIED BEFORE, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO TRYING TO FRAME IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT IT'S REALLY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

SO FIRST OF ALL, COUNCIL WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT USE AND THEN, IF SO, THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD THEN GET TO VOTE WOULD THEN VOTE ON A THREE QUARTERS VOTE, MAJORITY OR SUPERMAJORITY, BUT NO LESS THAN FIVE IN ORDER TO PASS A ZONING ORDINANCE, A ZONING AMENDMENT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL AND USE ANY

[03:20:02]

QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN? THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND YOU MAY HAVE JUST ANSWERED THIS BECAUSE I ALWAYS GET A LITTLE TIED UP WITH RECONSIDERATION.

SO IF YOU APPROVE THE RECONSIDERATION, ARE YOU THEN ALSO APPROVING THE USE? OR IS IT JUST SAYING WE AGREE TO RECONSIDER THIS? BRING IT BACK AT ANOTHER MEETING WITH FULL NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE? BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ZONING HEARING ON THIS, WHICH DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GETTING AT THERE? THAT'S CURRENTLY THAT'S THE ISSUE WE HAVE, BECAUSE IF YOU'LL RECALL WHEN THIS CAME UP, MOST RECENTLY, THAT WAS THE CONFUSION WAS OK, WHERE WE DECIDING THE CASE OR WE JUST DECIDING TO RECONSIDER AND HOW IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WE DETERMINE THAT YOU'RE REALLY JUST DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO RECONSIDER AND THEY'LL COME BACK.

THE WAY THE AMENDMENT'S WRITTEN IS THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY LOOK TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT HERE.

YOU'LL ACTUALLY DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE ON THE NIGHT THAT YOU CONSIDER, RECONSIDER IT.

SO BASICALLY, THIS IS JUST A STRAIGHT UP SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE? RIGHT, IT IS, AND IT'S BASICALLY DESIGNED IF THEY HAVE NEW EVIDENCE OR THEY FORGOT TO PRESENT SOME FACTS.

BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE NEW EVIDENCE.

IT JUST SAYS THEY'RE PERMITTED TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL.

BUT THERE'S NO CONTEXT THERE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE AND I GUESS THAT'S, YOU KNOW.

I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT.

SO I'D LIKE TO KIND OF HAVE IT.

I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO HEIGHTEN THAT SO THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE YOU PUT IT RIGHT IN THE THE THE SUB THREE.

IF AN APPLICANT HAS NEW EVIDENCE OR FACTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN THE ORIGINAL HEARING AND DESIRES FOR COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINES THAT SO SO IT JUST CREATES THIS CLEAR BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE HAPPEN TO THIS COUNCIL, PARTICULARLY ON THIS STUFF, THAT CAN BE THE STUFF THAT'S MOST LIKELY TO GET SOMEONE COME BACK ON RECONSIDERATION.

MY CONCERN IS YOU GET A BUNCH OF FOLKS WHO COME OUT, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC COMES OUT AND THEY GIVE THEIR INPUT AND YOU HAVE THE HEARING.

AND THEN TWO WEEKS LATER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER HEARING? I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

SO I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST SOME KIND OF PRELIMINARY LIKE YOU MUST HAVE SOMETHING NEW.

I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

I THINK THE LANGUAGE AND SEE THERE'S NOT TIGHT ENOUGH.

IT NEEDS TO SAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

YEAH.

AND I THINK ALSO WHAT I CAN DO IS I CAN ACTUALLY DRAFT IN ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THERE THAT ACTUALLY EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE COUNCIL WILL FIRST MAKE A DETERMINATION TO REHEAR IT AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF.

SO THAT WAY, THERE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE TWO MOTIONS AND TWO VOTES.

FIRST VOTE IS TO RECONSIDER.

THE SECOND VOTE IS ACTUALLY ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, OK, AND IN THOSE WOULD OCCUR AT THE SAME MEETING, THAT SAME MEETING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

ANOTHER MEETING.

OK.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF ME THAT SAYS, I MEAN, NOT THAT I WANT TO HAVE THAT KIND OF BEATING, BUT THERE'S PART OF ME THAT SAYS THAT FEELS LIKE WE NEED TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO RECONSIDER IT AND THEN SEND NOTICE OUT TO PEOPLE.

I WOULD SAY, LIKE YOU SEND NOTICE OUT TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME AND SPOKE AT COUNCIL OR PUT IN THE CARD.

YOU SAID COUNCIL HAS AGREED BASED ON THE REQUEST OF, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE REQUEST OF APPLE.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAME AND SPOKE BEFORE.

X COUNCIL HAS AGREED BASED ON THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO REHEAR AND RECONSIDER THIS MOTION OR, YOU KNOW, HAS GRANTED RECONSIDERATION AND WE'LL HEAR IT AGAIN, SOMETHING I KIND OF FEEL LIKE MAYBE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ALL ARE ON THAT.

I MEAN, I.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT WORK SESSIONS FOR.

LET'S DISCUSS IT.

BUT THIS PART OF ME THAT FEELS LIKE IF THAT I PARTICULARLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FOLKS WHO CAME DOWN AND TALKED DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY GOT SANDBAGGED AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO COME A SECOND TIME KIND OF THING, SO MAYBE PUT SOME MORE PROCESS.

I MEAN, THESE ARE GREAT FIRST EFFORT, DO NOT GET ME WRONG.

I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FILL IN SOME OF THE PITFALLS THAT COME TO MY MIND.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'VE STRUGGLED SOMETIMES WITH THE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

I MEAN, THAT'S A BIT DISCRETIONARY FOR Y'ALL TO DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS.

YEAH.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY MOVED, THEY MOVED TO TREES OR THEY ADDED THREE PARKING PLACES.

[03:25:01]

IS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT? I MEAN, WE GET INTO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THESE CASES.

I MEAN, HONESTLY, IT'S VERY FEW THAT COME BACK.

BUT THESE CASES THAT ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION, THEY ARE THEY ARE RIDING SOME SORT OF LINE TO BEGIN WITH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SORT OF A GIVEN WITH SOME OF THESE THAT.

SO ANYWAY, I'VE GOT PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF THE QUEUE AGAIN.

I APOLOGIZE.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERA? I THOUGHT YOU DID NOT, ID WE DENIED IT.

AND THEY COME FOR LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, COME BACK THEN THEY CAN'T COME BACK UNTIL A YEAR LATER, RIGHT? AND THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT.

AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU HAVE A YEAR, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROCEDURES IN PLACE THAT ALLOW THEM TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT GENERAL RULE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THOSE EXCEPTIONS.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT RECYCLE PLACE, RIGHT? IT IS.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN, WE WILL WORK THE SAME THING.

LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, IT WORKED OUT THE SAME THING.

OK, THANK YOU.

OK.

OK.

I'VE GOT COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH IN THE QUEUE, BUT I THINK DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS AND MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK.

HE'S OK.

ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

BRYAN, JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION, I THINK I'M KIND OF DOVETAILING INTO WHAT COUNCILMAN AUBIN WAS TALKING ABOUT.

ARE WE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT A PUBLIC HEARING EACH TIME WE HEAR THE ZONING CASE? OR DO WE JUST HAVE BECAUSE I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF WHERE RICHARD WAS GOING WITH THIS BECAUSE I DON'T EVER WANT ANYBODY TO FEEL LIKE THEY'VE WASTED THEIR TIME OR WE'VE STAYED.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THE PUBLICATION IN THE POSTING FOR A RECONSIDERATION HEARING AS LONG AS IT'S JUST FOR THE ISSUE OF RECONSIDERATION.

NOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NIGHT THAT YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING CASE ITSELF, THEN YES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO THE PUBLICATION.

OK, THEN THAT I'M COMPLETELY ON BOARD WITH COUNCILMAN.

AUBIN SUGGESTION OF THIS IS GO DOWN THAT PATH.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

VERY GOOD.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS, ARE YOU STILL GO AHEAD AND PUNCH IN SO I CAN GET THIS THING BACK? THERE YOU GO.

YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.

I'VE HAD NOTHING SHOWING IN MY QUEUE.

I JUST DID IT AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT.

OK.

BRYAN, SECTION K.

TO A WORD JUST ABOUT CONSIDERATION FOR A DIFFERENT PROPOSED LAND USE AND PLAN.

WOULD YOU EXPLAIN A FORM OF WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, WHERE IT SAYS FIRST, THE APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE? I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT JUST LIKE THAT? CAN YOU EXPLAIN? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WELL, THIS IS A SITUATION.

ARE WE ADDING A PUBLIC HEARING? CAN YOU EXPLAIN? YES.

WE ACTUALLY ARE.

IN A SENSE, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING OR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT ANY TIME YOU ALL MAKE A DECISION, THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OR ANY TIME YOU ALL TAKE UP AN ITEM, THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK, BUT 2A THERE.

LANGUAGE.

THAT'S CUTTING UP THE LANGUAGE SAYS IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

OK, WELL, OK.

ANY TIME YOU'LL MAKE A DECISION.

OK, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO YES, IT'S ME A QUESTION.

IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THE IDEA WITH 2A IS THAT IF AN APPLICATION COMES BACK ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND THAT YOU ALL JUST DECIDED THE CASE ON WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT LAND USE PROPOSAL.

AND SO THE FIRST LAND USE PROPOSAL WAS, SAY, A BUS STATION.

THEN THEY COME BACK SEVEN.

YOU ALL DENY IT.

THEY COME BACK SEVEN MONTHS LATER AND THEY SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANT A BUS STATION, I WANT A CAB STATION OR UBER OR LYFT, YOU KNOW, DEPOT DIFFERENT LAND-USE.

WE ALL HAVE TO DECIDE THAT.

SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YOU ALL FIRST, THEY WILL COME TO COUNSEL FIRST BEFORE IT GOES TO PLAN COMMISSION, IT'LL GO TO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT USE OR NOT.

AND IF YOU'LL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, THEN AND THE MOTION IS PASSED BY THREE QUARTERS OF Y'ALL, YOU'LL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

IT'LL THEN GO TO PLAN COMMISSION AND FOLLOW THE NORMAL, NORMAL ROUTE.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK.

THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS POINT? I THINK MR. ENGLAND HAS SOME REVISIONS TO GO BACK TO AND WE'LL BRING THAT BACK.

JUST FOR CLARITY, I THINK I HAVE THE ANSWER HERE, BUT THE IDEA IS THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT YOU ALL WANT ME TO MAKE SURE IT'S A TWO STEP PROCESS WHERE THEY COME BACK A SECOND TIME IN THE RECONSIDERATION.

YOU DECIDE, FIRST OF ALL, THE ISSUE OF RECONSIDERATION AND THEN THEY COME BACK.

RIGHT? OK.

I BELIEVE THAT IS.

[03:30:01]

THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

OK.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT.

AND THE LAST BULLET POINT.

ALL RIGHT.

THE LAST ONE WE TALKED ABOUT WAS CONSIDERING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CREATE A DOWNTOWN SQUARE SUBDISTRICT AND ALSO TO ELIMINATE MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

NOW, THIS ITEM HAS HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AT PLAN COMMISSION.

AND JUST SIMPLY, THAT'S WHAT THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO DO IS CREATE THIS DOWNTOWN SQUARE WITH ELIMINATION OF SOME OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEN SEND IT TO PLAN COMMISSION TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WHEN IT WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.

CORRECT.

OK.

SO WE'LL SEE THAT ONE AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

I'M SORRY.

IS ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE? OK? ITEM 4H, REDISTRICTING.

[4H. Redistricting Timeline]

REDISTRICTING TIMELINE.

I'M NOT SURE WHO HAD.

THERE WE GO.

GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M GOING TO PULL UP A QUICK SLIDE HERE.

OK.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

GOOD EVENING.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE CITY CHARTER REQUIRES REVIEW OF THE EIGHT COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THEM AS NEARLY EQUAL IN POPULATION AS PRACTICAL.

IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW AND ORDINANCE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

SO THIS EVENING, THIS IS JUST A TIMELINE BRIEFING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA OR BOUNDARY DISCUSSIONS TO SHARE THIS EVENING.

THIS IS JUST THE TIMELINE AND HEADS UP THAT WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH THE PRESENTATION OF DATA, AS WELL AS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DISTRICT.

ANY DISTRICT CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED.

SO OF COURSE, TONIGHT, SEPTEMBER 13.

WORK SESSION THIS IS THE TIMELINE BRIEFING ON SEPTEMBER 30TH.

WHILE WE HAVE HAD A PRELIMINARY KIND OF RAW DATA RELEASE OF THE 2020 CENSUS DATA AND STAFF HAS SIFTED THROUGH THAT AND AND AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, A MORE USER FRIENDLY DATA SET WILL BE RELEASED.

SO WE WANT TO KIND OF SEE HOW THAT LOOKS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TRACK, MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING, MAKE ANY USER ERRORS BEFORE WE REALLY BRING THE DATA AND ANY NECESSARY DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL.

SO SO AS THIS SHOWS, SEPTEMBER 30TH IS WHEN THAT IS EXPECTED TO BE RELEASED.

SO THEN OCTOBER 18TH, DURING YOUR OCTOBER 18TH WORK SESSION, WE ARE PROPOSING TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT STAFF'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AND OF COURSE, THE DATA OF THE POPULATION NUMBERS AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND WHAT NOT TO SHARE WITH THE COUNCIL.

AND THEN FROM THERE, IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN A GOOD DIRECTION, WE'LL BRING BACK THE FINAL ORDINANCE APPROVAL ON NOVEMBER 2ND DURING YOUR REGULAR MEETING.

SO GLAD TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, MAYOR.

VERY GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN? DO WE HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY IDEAS OF WHERE THOSE I KNOW FIVE YEARS AGO THIS CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND THERE HAD NOT BEEN A SUFFICIENT.

THERE WASN'T PERFECT EQUALITY, BUT I THINK WE HAD DETERMINED IF THEY WERE WITHIN, I DON'T KNOW, REMEMBER WHAT THE NUMBER WAS FIVE OR 10 PERCENT OF EACH OTHER THAT IT WAS FINE.

DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, ARE WE EXPECTING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME ACTUAL REDISTRICTING? OR ARE WE EXPECTING THAT THINGS ARE PROBABLY LIKELY TO STILL SAME, YOU KNOW, EVERY DISTRICT GROWN IN SIMILAR PROPORTION? OR ARE WE? WE ARE EXPECTING SOME CHANGES.

NOT EVERY DISTRICT WILL NEED CHANGES, BUT SOME WILL.

SOME EYE NOT TO GIVE TOO MUCH OF A SNEAK PEEK, BUT IT APPEARS DISTRICTS ONE AND SEVEN HAVE HAD THE MOST GROWTH AND MAYBE A LITTLE TOO LARGE.

SO WE MAY HAVE TO DO A LITTLE SHUFFLING THERE SO THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO.

AND OF COURSE, AS YOU MOVE THOSE INTO OTHER DISTRICTS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE DON'T GET TOO BIG OR OTHERS GET TOO SMALL.

SO.

SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT, SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SIFT THROUGH AND

[03:35:04]

BRING BACK SOME FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL.

DO WE HAVE? ARE WE ARE WE USING? IS THE REDISTRICTING IS A TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED OR I MEAN, DO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC SOFTWARE THAT FIGURES ALL THIS OUT? OR ARE WE GOING TO BE BUSY KIND OF GERRYMANDERING OUR DISTRICTS? YOU KNOW WHO LIKES WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR DOESN'T LIKE WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT A FEW, MAYBE WANT TO GIVE UP? SURE.

NO, IT IS THROUGH GIS THAT WE'RE USING.

IT'S OUR GIS STAFF THAT'S HELPING US SORT THROUGH ALL THIS AND HELP US WITH THE MAPPING RECOMMENDATIONS.

THERE ARE SOME GUIDELINES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SHARED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT JUST SPLITTING NEIGHBORHOODS ON A JUST KIND OF RANDOM LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET.

IT NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF SENSIBLE BOUNDARY, WHETHER IT'S A NATURAL BOUNDARY LIKE A CREEK OR A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.

AND BY THE WAY, THE DEVIATION IS AS 10 PERCENT, THE LARGEST DISTRICT IN POPULATION AND THE SMALLEST DISTRICT BY POPULATION CAN'T BE MORE THAN 10 PERCENT MORE THAN A 10 PERCENT DIFFERENCE FROM THE AVERAGE OF THE EIGHT DISTRICTS.

SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER OR? SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER.

I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S BASED ON THE AVERAGE.

YEAH, IT'S FROM THE AVERAGE.

SO IF THE AVERAGE IS IN, I'M SORRY, THE THE CENSUS NUMBER IS TWO FORTY SIX TO FORTY SEVEN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO YOU TAKE THE IDEAL DISTRICT.

YOU TAKE THE SO SO IF IT'S LET'S CALL IT, TWO FORTY EIGHT TO MAKE IT EASY, DIVIDE IT BY EIGHT.

AND I'M NOT A MATH MAJOR, BUT THAT'S THIRTY ONE THOUSAND.

SO IF WE'RE YOU COULD BE EITHER 10 PERCENT ABOVE THIRTY ONE THOUSAND OR TEN PERCENT BELOW THIRTY ONE THOUSAND.

SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND TWENTY, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TWENTY EIGHT AND THIRTY FOUR? OK, EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ANYONE ELSE? AND THAT HISTORICALLY THE AFTER 2000, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME ADJUSTMENTS MADE BETWEEN ONE AND SEVEN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IS.

SO THAT I, HAVING LIVED THERE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT HAS CONTINUED SO THAT THAT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.

SO.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WILL MOVE US TO ITEM FIVE DISCUSS APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

[5. Discuss Appointments to Boards and Commissions]

TOMORROW NIGHT.

MAYOR PRO TEM HEDRICK AND COUNCIL MEMBER VERA HAVE A GROUP OF FOLKS.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE BALL AS A BLOCK.

SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT PORTION, I'LL HAVE YOU READ THEIR NAMES INTO THE RECORD AND WE'LL VOTE ON THEM AS ONE.

AND ITEM SIX ANNOUNCE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. THERE ANYONE WHO HAS ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? IF YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE, I CAN'T SEE YOU.

SO JUST WAVE, I SEE NO ONE WAVING.

SO IF YOU DO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA.

AND THAT IS MOVES US TO ITEM SEVEN COUNCIL WILL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[7. Council will move into Executive Session]

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO DELIBERATE OR DISCUSS ONE, ATTORNEY CLIENT MATTERS CONCERNING PRIVILEGE AND UNPRIVILEGED CLIENT INFORMATION RELATED TO POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

TWO, ATTORNEY CLIENT MATTERS CONCERNING PRIVILEGE AND UNPRIVILEGED CLIENT INFORMATION RELATED TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF THE GOVERNOR.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AT THIS POINT AND WE WILL RECESS THIS WORK SESSION AND COME BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

LET'S HAVE EVERYBODY BACK AT 10:05, PLEASE.

10:05.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.