PRESENTATIONS

[2. Council consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 23-056, a request for a Rezoning from RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) to RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling-Highest Density) or a more restrictive district for property located north of 2360 S. Major Drive.]

TWO. COUNCIL CONSIDERED ORDINANCE AMENDING HARD THAT'S NUMBER 23 DANCE 056 REQUESTS FOR A REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINK SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INTO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING HEIST DENSITY. OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 23, 60 , 23, 60 SOUTH MAJOR DRIVE AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED ORDINANCE. THERE'S A MOTION FOR ADAM. NUMBER TWO. IS THERE A MOTION? LOOK TO APPROVE COUNCILMAN NEIL THERE A 2ND 2ND DURIO. THERE'S EMOTION IN A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ADAM NUMBER TWO, AND HE DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN GETS WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS MOTION FAILS. IS THIS JUST A MATTER OF NOMENCLATURE? OR IS IT ACTUALLY UP AGAIN FOR CONSIDERATION ABOUT PUTTING DEPARTMENTS OVER THERE ON MAJOR DRIVE. I GUESS THAT'S FOR LEGAL. SO I GUESS JUST TO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IS THAT IF IT BUILDS, THEN IT'S NOT REZONED. SO IF THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS JUST AN AN ERA, BUT IT'S A MENDING AND ORDINANCE. SO TYPICALLY, COUNCILS ALREADY APPROVED, UM APPROVED THE ORDINANCE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS A THE WRONG ADDRESS. AND SO WE AMENDED OR WOULD HAVE REZONED THE WRONG ADDRESS. SO THIS IS A CORRECTION TO THAT. BUT IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN AREA THAT WAS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED WOULD NOT BE REZONED. AND THEN WE WOULD NEED TO REPEAL THAT PREVIOUS ORDINANCE SO THAT THAT AREA IS NOT REZONED INCORRECTLY. SO I SUPPOSE WE DID NOT HAVE A FULL COUNCIL HERE WHEN THAT AH CAME BEFORE US LAST TIME WE DO NOW. UM AND I SPOKE AGAINST THIS AT THE REQUEST OF MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS OUT THERE THAT BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE. AT A RESIDENTIAL

[01:05:06]

SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE OR BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE THERE. THEY DIDN'T BUY THEIR PROPERTY WITH THE EXPECTATION. THAT. APARTMENT COMPLEX IS GOING TO BE BUILT.

THAT WOULD BE LITERALLY AND SOME OF THEIR BACKYARDS. AND ONCE THAT HAPPENED. I WAS CONTACTED BY MANY OTHER NEIGHBORS OUT THERE. THAT DID NOT GET NOTICE OF THE HEARING BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING BECAUSE WE ONLY GO OUT 200 FT AND TO A PERSON THEY ALL SPOKE AGAINST. BRINGING IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OUT THERE. AND SO AGAIN. I WASN'T EXPECTING TO HAVE A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE HERE. BUT SINCE I DO I HAVE TO AGAIN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHAT ARE WE DOING? AND BRINGING IN. ANOTHER STILL ANOTHER. I THINK. LAST TIME I SAID, I ASKED THERE WAS EITHER 13 OR 14 APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE MAJOR DRIVE ALREADY WITH MORE IN THE PIPELINE. WE NEED MORE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. WE DON'T NEED MORE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, ESPECIALLY ON MAJOR TRIBE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY WAY TOO MANY. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AND I WON'T SUPPORT IT. I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT NOW.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN GETS COUNCILMAN NEIL COUNCILMAN, GUESTS. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT THE PROBLEM NOW IS I DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS PROJECT EITHER. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN TOLD TO PROCEED WITH THIS. AND THIS IS JUST MORE OF A CORRECTION ON A CITY SCREW UP. ANYTHING I BELIEVE. SO THE ADDRESS WAS WRONG IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO.

THEREFORE, IT WAS TRANSPOSED WRONG IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. AND SO IT WAS. A TYPO, BUT BECAUSE THE TYPO WAS SO UM BECAUSE OF PROPER ADDRESS WASN'T PROPERLY NOTICED. IT DOES HAVE TO GO. TRADITIONALLY THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE, UH, THE MEMOIR AND THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S MINOR. IT CAN JUST BE CORRECTED MINE EARLY, BUT BECAUSE THE ADDRESS WAS IMPROPERLY UM ADVERTISE IN THE POSTING. THAT'S WHY I HAD TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL. SO WAS THE WAS IT PROPERLY SENT OUT TO THE TO THE CITIZENS WHENEVER IT CAME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING AS FAR AS THE RIGHT ADDRESS? YES THE ORIGINAL. EVERYTHING THAT WAS ADVERTISED AND SENT TO THE NEIGHBORS WAS THE CORRECT ADDRESS. DEREK COUNCILMAN NEIL COUNCILMAN FELL SHAW. THANK YOU . VERY, I AGREE. COUNCILMAN UH, GETS II. WE NEED MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN ATTRACT THAT. BUT UM , THE QUESTION AGAIN, CHRIS, AND I THINK WE'VE ASKED THIS TO YOU BEFORE. IS THERE A DEMAND AND ARE IN OUR AREA FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING? UM. AS FAR AS WE KNOW. I MEAN, I KNOW YOUR INFORMATION IS LIMITED. BUT I'VE HEARD YOU SPEAK TO THAT BEFORE. IS THERE DO WE FEEL AS A CITY THAT THERE IS A DEMAND FOR MORE APARTMENTS? I'LL JUST RESTATE KIND OF WHAT WAS BEFORE WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD, BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THAT KIND OF MARKET DATA. WE JUST DON'T DEMAND IT. BUT WE CAN DO IS AS THAT MARKET DATA IS PRESENTED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AS THEY APPLY FOR TAX CREDITS. WE CAN GET THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT SOURCES. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION WHEN YOU'RE OVER 90% OCCUPANCY. THAT INDICATES A DEMAND FOR MULTI FAMILY. AS MENTIONED LAST TIME. WE'VE SEEN A DROP BELOW THAT 90% NOW IT'S STILL IN THE HIGH EIGHTIES. UH BUT IT IS BELOW 90 . SO IS THERE A DEMAND? UM YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT ALSO, AS DISCUSSED LAST TIME WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? YES THERE IS A PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION. HOWEVER WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NOT THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO SAY YEA OR NAY TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THAT AREA, WHICH MIGHT ALLOW THAT COMPLEX. SO MY POINT BEING IS IT COULD BE APPROVED AND THEY NEVER BUILD THIS COMPLEX WHERE THEY BUILD SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION . THE PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS CORRECT. IT WAS JUST A DESCRIPTION. THE WORD NORTH WAS LEFT OUT. SO IT WASN'T THAT'S THE BIG THING, AND THAT'S A MAJOR. IT'S NOT A MINOR THING, SO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS CORRECT. IT WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED, BUT THE WORD NORTH WITH STUFF AFTER THAT DESCRIPTION, SO WHERE IT SAYS LOCATED NORTH OF WAS NOT INCLUDED. WELL AND I WOULD LOVE

[01:10:05]

TO SEE THIS AS A SUBDIVISION GOING IN WITH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, BUT IT'S NOT SO IT'S LIKE WE HAVE TO TAKE THE GROWTH WHERE WE CAN GET IT. UH, BEAUMONT NEEDS GROWTH. AND IF THIS IS WHAT'S BEFORE US NOW, THEN? IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND I WANT TO SPEAK IN TERMS OF THE NEED BEING IN THE MORTGAGE BUSINESS. I DO HAVE A GOOD VIEW OF THAT, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED AND I BELIEVE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIRING TO BUILD THAT IT IS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IS THINGS GET OLDER PEOPLE LIKE TO LIVE IN NEWER STUFF, AND AS IT'S AVAILABLE, THEY'LL DO THAT AND HOW WE CONTINUE TO REHAB THE CITY BUT IN TERMS OF AT WHAT POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MANY IF WE COULD, IF WE GROW, WE WON'T EVER HAVE TOO MANY AND PEOPLE WILL BUILD THE HOMES. AH BUT THERE THERE'S GOT TO BE THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR THE BUILDING OF THE HOMES AS WELL AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SO GETS TALKED ABOUT GROWTH AND JUST A MINUTE AGO AND YES, MR BOONE SAID. WE'RE SAYING NOW A DECREASE IN DEMAND. IF OUR APARTMENTS IT'S DOWN BELOW THE 90. WHAT HAPPENS HERE REALLY ISN'T GROWTH. IT'S PEOPLE MOVING AROUND. FOR INSTANCE, YOU WILL SEE FREQUENTLY PEOPLE. MOVE OUT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT MAYBE AN OLDER PART OF TOWN.

BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING NEW AND SHINY ER AND BRIGHTER THAT COME UP AND THEY'RE BUILT OVER ALL MAJOR DRIVE. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE BECOMES AN INCREASED VACANCY, WRITING SOME OF THE OLDER APARTMENT COMPLEXES , AND THEY START FALLING INTO DISREPAIR BECAUSE THERE IS NO LONGER THE REVENUES BEING BROUGHT IN TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE APARTMENTS. WHICH LEADS TO BLIGHT AND SOME OF THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN. AND THEY WILL BE IN THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR A WHILE UNTIL. YOU KNOW THAT CYCLE STARTS TO REPEAT ITSELF MIGHT TAKE A LONG TIME SINCE THEY'RE BRAND NEW. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE REALLY SEEING GROWTH COUNCIL MEMBER PHIL SHAW. I THINK YOU'RE SEEING PEOPLE MOVING AROUND BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM OUR CENSUS NUMBERS. THERE WERE NOT GROWING. AND I AND I AGREE WITH THAT PART OF THE PART OF GROWTH AND I'M SPEAKING TO IS THAT THERE ARE TWO BY FOURS. GOING UP. THERE'S CONCRETE BEING POURED. THERE'S MONEY BEING SPENT. THERE'S BUSINESS TAKING PLACE. THERE'S WORKERS BEING EMPLOYED. AND SO I AGREE. I AGREE WITH YOU AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE STAGNANT. AND WE'RE DECLINING AS A CITY. THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS ALWAYS WELCOMED BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP OUR PEOPLE WORKING AND MOVING AND HOPEFULLY WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND I WOULD LIKE I SAID, I'D LOVE TO SEE THIS AS A SINGLE DWELLING SUBDIVISION GOING IN, BUT IT'S NOT. AND SO, UH, WELCOME THIS, AS OPPOSED TO JUST NOTHING AT ALL. COUNCILMAN, UH DURIO. WELL, FOR ONE THERE IS HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE APARTMENTS ON ON MAJOR DRIVE. WELL, THIS IS SOUTH OF COLLEGE STREET. NO APARTMENT COMPLEXES SOUTH OF COLLEGE ON MAJOR AT ALL , CAN'T KEEP ASKING DEVELOPERS TO COME TO OUR CITY. BUT IF THEY DON'T DEVELOP THE STUFF THAT WE LIKED, AND WE SAY NO. AND WE CAN'T BE SEEN AS WELL. PUT APARTMENTS IN WARD FOUR, BUT WE WON'T PUT APARTMENTS IN WAR, TOO. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S JUST JUST NOT RIGHT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A NEED AND HE SAID, THERE IS A NEED THAT'S THERE'S NO DOUBT THERE IS A NEED AND ALSO APARTMENT COMPLEXES. I'M PRETTY SURE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE WITHIN COLD, PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOME VERY NICE BUILDINGS AND SOME OF THE FOLKS WHEN YOU SAY MOVING AROUND IS SOME OF THE FOLKS YOU KNOW THAT MIGHT LIVE ON OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. WHEN THEY REACHED 18 1920 YEARS OLD. THEN THEY'RE MOVING AND THEY'RE FINDING THEIR OWN PLACE AND THEY MIGHT MOVE ON ANOTHER SIDE OF TOWN. BUT JUST LIKE COUNCILMAN PHILLIPS ALL SAYING IT'S TWO BY FOUR IS GOING UP. IT'S CONCRETE BEING POOR. THAT'S GROWTH AND WE CAN'T VERY WELL TRY TO GROW OUR CITY AND ASKED PEOPLE DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, LET'S DO THIS.

LET'S UH, I WANT TO DO THIS AND YOU SAY NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. WHEN THEN THEY'RE NOT GONNA STOP COMING. ONE LAST POINT. EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMAN GUESTS. LET'S GO TO COUNCILMAN TURNER NEXT UH, MR WILLIAMS. MY CONCERN IS, UH, I LOOKED AT, UH, ARTICLE THAT WE GOT FROM THE CITY OF WACO AND THE CITY OF FORT WORTH. WHERE. WITH THESE DIFFERENT HOTELS AND APARTMENTS , THEY SAID STANDARDS OF WHAT THEY WERE WILLING TO ALLOW AND THEY CITY HOW THEY WANT TO LOOK

[01:15:02]

THE AMENITIES, ETCETERA, AND IT KIND OF SPEAKS TO WHAT COUNCILMAN DURIO STATED EARLIER.

EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE LEAVING, SOMETIMES THE OLDER PART OF THE TOWN TO MOVE TO THE NEW GROWTH.

I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOOK AND THE AESTHETICS OF WHAT THEY LEAVE IN THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN. SO EVENTUALLY WE KNOW YOU RUN OUT OF ROOM TO GROW IN BEAUMONT AND YOU'LL START DEVELOPING THOSE OLDER PORTS IN TOWN. I KINDA LIKE TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN STANDARDS IN PLACE WHERE WE CAN HAVE EXPECTATION OF HOW WE WANTED. AND WHAT ARE YOU WANT TO BE THERE? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THINGS LIKE THAT? THANKS CRISTA DEMI OR SOMETHING? SOMEBODY MIGHT CAN CORRECT ME, BUT, YEAH , YOU CAN SIT STANDARDS, OWN CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND CITIES IN PARTS OF TOWN, YOU CAN CREATE CORRIDORS WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA, ETCETERA. SO IT CAN BE DONE. UH THEY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO SAY, BUT BEEN IN PLACES WHERE WE DEFINITELY DID. DID THAT. WAS IT BENEFICIAL TO, UH, DO THINGS LIKE THAT, SPECIFICALLY, ESPECIALLY HELPING SOME OF THESE AREAS WHERE THEY'RE MOVING OUT OF? WAS IT HELPFUL TO KIND OF KEEP YOUR CITY LOOKING? WELL OVERALL? YEAH THAT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU WANT THAT AREA TO BECOME, OR LOOK LIKE ETCETERA. SO YEAH, IT CAN BE BENEFICIAL IF IT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IDENTIFIES THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE HOW THEY WANT AN AREA TO LOOK FOR THE CITY TO LOOK WELL, I WOULD BE SUPPORTED BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS YEAH, WE'RE GETTING NEW GROWTH AND NEW APARTMENTS. BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE LEAVING. WHICH ALL THE PARTS OF TOWN OF THE KIND OF LEFT ABANDONED AND SOMETIMES NOT DEVELOPED. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF LOOKING AT OPTIONS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN TURNER, COUNCILMAN, GUESTS AND COUNCILMAN DORIA. SO UH, COUNCILMAN DURIO. WE ARE BUILDING APARTMENTS IN WAR TWO WERE ABOUT WE JUST OPENED A HUGE APARTMENT COMPLEX. RIGHT NEXT TO WESTBROOK HIGH SCHOOL WOULD SAY SENIOR AFFORDABLE INCOME APARTMENT COMPLEX. UH WE ALSO BUILT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BEHIND, UH, POOR NINE. SO WE DO HAVE APARTMENTS. IN A ADDITION TO THE EXISTING INVENTORY OF APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE MANY, MANY, MANY ALREADY IN WAR, TOO. COUNCIL MEMBER PHIL SHAW. WE'RE NOT VOTING TODAY ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PUT IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT WE, UH, CAN'T REALLY CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS, UH, SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI FAMILY, BUT WE CAN THROUGH ZONING. AND. IT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS SHOULD WE RESIGN FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY? WHO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY NOT RATHER OR NOT. WE SHOULD ALLOW AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO COME HERE AND MY POINT IS THAT YES, WE CAN CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT MORE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO BE BUILT AS OPPOSED TO APARTMENTS. BY MAINTAINING THE ZONING. AS IT ALREADY EXISTS. AND AS THE. PEOPLE THAT ALREADY BOUGHT THEIR HOUSES ARE BUILT THEIR HOUSES OUT THERE. I HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY BOUGHT OR BUILT THEIR HOUSE OUT THERE. THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. EXPECTING THAT. TO CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND NOW WE COME ALONG AND SAY, WELL, SORRY WE'RE CHANGING . I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. GOD'S COUNCILMAN DORIA, MR BOONE. IT'S REZONING. HOW BIG OF AN AREA WILL IT EFFECT? IT'S JUST THIS PROPERTY, OR IS IT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S JUST THIS PROPERTY, UM, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. OKAY MR. WILLIAMS UH, THESE I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. IF YOU COULD CLARIFY OR REPEATED FOR ME, THERE'S A PROGRAM WHEN THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE BUILT WHERE THEY CAN, UH, GIVE MONEY. LIKE TO THE PARKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT TO HELP WITH PARKS IN THAT AREA.

WE'RE BRINGING IN A BUNCH OF FOLKS. COUNCIL MEMBER. A REPORT WAS GIVEN BY STAFF ON DIFFERENT WAYS TO CITIES COULD CREATE REVENUES. AND ONE OF THOSE, UH, TALKED ABOUT WAS LIKE A PARKS IN LIEU, UH, PARKS IN LIEU OF FEE, WHERE ABOUT ONE APARTMENTS ARE BUILT? UH THERE'S AN AMOUNT THIS CHOICE TO THE DEVELOPER. TO PAY INTO THE FUND TO CREATE THAT CAN PAY TOWARD US CREATING OR USING EXISTING OR ENHANCING EXISTING PARKS SPACE. UH YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE THINKING OF THIS IS THAT APARTMENTS COME IN. THEY BRING IN SOMETIMES LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE

[01:20:05]

RECREATIONAL OR PARK SPACE FOR THEIR, UH, FOR THEIR TENANTS. SOME WILL BUILD. IF IT'S BUILT ONTO THE PROPERTY. IT'S OKAY IF YOU IF YOU PUT THAT IN PLACE IF THEY PROVIDED ON THEIR PROPERTY THEMSELVES, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY INTO A PARK AND FEED. BUT IF THEY DON'T THE CITY CAN HAVE A PARKS INTO A FEE THAT THEY CAN PAY INTO FOR THE CITY TO ENHANCE OR PROVIDE PARKS. OPPORTUNITIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO LIKE WHEN THEY COME TO APPLY FOR THEIR PERMITS AND STUFF LIKE THAT? YEAH YOU WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE. I THINK IT'S AN ORDINANCE THAT IT WOULD BE THERE FOR ALL ALL THAT APPLIED, EITHER THEY PROVIDE PARK SPACE ON THEIR PROPERTY. OR THEY COULD PAY INTO THE PARKS AND LUTFI SO IT WOULD JUST BE BY ORDINANCE, AND WE WOULD JUST JUST ENFORCE STARTING IT WHEN THEY CAME INTO APPLIED BEFORE THEY'RE FOUND PERMIT ARE CEO WAS ISSUED. THEY HAVE TO PAY THE MONEY. THANK YOU, SWEET COUNCILMAN NEIL THEN COUNCILMAN SAMUEL MR BOONE JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WILL COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL CORRECT. NO SIR. IT WILL NOT. NO, SIR, IT WOULD. IF IT GETS REZONED OUR MH IT WOULD BE BY RIGHT SO IT WOULD BE JUST A PERMITTING QUESTION. NEXT QUESTION. DO OTHER CITIES HAVE APARTMENT ZONING RULES OR ORDINANCES? THE DID. A COUNCIL CAN START SITTING WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE GROWTH OR HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AS FAR AS THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. GOOD? YES, SIR. THROUGH ZONING. HIS OWN IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLANS , OR YOU KINDA IDENTIFYING THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE APARTMENT OR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ON THE MAP? IT'S KIND OF A GOD. IT'S NOT SET IN STONE, BUT IT PROVIDES GUIDANCE FOR WHENEVER YOU WANT TO MAKE ZONING DECISIONS, I THINK, SINCE THERE IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, SINCE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON, AND A MONTH AGO, WE ALREADY TOLD THE DEVELOPERS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED. I STRUGGLE, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX GOING OUT THERE. I STRUGGLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY TOLD WHOEVER THIS IS THAT IT'S APPROVED AND NOW WE'RE JUST DOING A CORRECTION TO CLEAN UP PAPERWORK. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US AS A COUNCIL HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION HERE SOONER THAN LATER ON. HOW WE CAN BETTER PLAN FOR APARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND UM. GIVE A LITTLE MORE THOUGHT TO IT, OKAY? AND EITHER TALL OR CHRIS CAN HELP ME. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY COME PLAN MADE . WE TOOK OUT OF THE BUDGET. YES YOU'RE JUST IF I COULD JUST HIT JUST SO WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT AT THE LAST MEETING WAS IT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I DON'T THINK THAT MADE THE PROPOSED BUDGET. ONE IDEA, THOUGH, IS, UM IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD DO A ZONING STUDY ALONG THIS CORRIDOR BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING SO MANY APPLICATIONS AND THAT THAT COULD RUN ALL THE WAY FROM. YOU KNOW THIS AREA ALL THE WAY TO ONE OF 4105 RATHER JUST BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING SO MUCH SO MANY APPLICATIONS, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD BE KIND OF A MINI COM PLAN WHERE YOU SAID OK. WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE DEVELOPED ALONG THIS CORRIDOR AND TO THE POINTS ABOUT DESIGNED TO THE POINTS ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE YOU KNOW. WHAT DENSITY OF APARTMENTS? WHERE DO YOU WANT? JUST SINGLE FAMILY, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL. THANK YOU, MAN. UM. THIS IS A PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR IN MY OPINION. I LOOK AT WHAT IT WAS WHAT IT IS NOW AND WHAT WHAT WE HOPE TO BE. UM AS WE LOOK THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, UH, THE HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG THE MAJOR CORRIDORS. MHM AND MAJOR DRIVERS, ONE OF THE MAJOR QUARTERS THAT EXTEND ACROSS BEAUMONT, PARTICULARLY IN THE WEST. RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PHASE IN WHICH, UM, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. UH IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A LAW AS I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE OF INTEREST RATES, BUT THAT TOO WILL CHANGE. SO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BE VISIONARY. YES WE WENT THROUGH A PERIOD IN WHICH WE SAW POPULATION DECREASE. BUT. WE CAN'T BE BLINDED THAT THERE'S STILL A NEED FOR HOUSING IN BEAUMONT SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL AS MULTI FAMILY. I JUST HOPE THAT. AS WE DO THIS, WE WILL LOOK AT THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON ALL THE AREAS OF THE CITY. AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IT NOW. BUT I DO RECALL ON THIS PARTICULAR

[01:25:04]

PROJECT. THE. SURROUNDING AREAS THEIR IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREAS. THAT WAS MINIMAL IMPACT ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT DIRECTLY ABUTTED THAT PROPERTY IN WHICH WAS THE APPLICATION OCCURRED. SO I JUST HOPE THAT WE WILL, UH LOOK AT THE GROWTH OF OUR CITY AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM A HOLISTIC STANDPOINT AND NOT FROM OUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS OF WHAT WE WANT. AS INDIVIDUALS TO HAPPEN, BUT WHAT WE WANT AS AN OVERALL CITY HOW WE WANT OUR GROWTH TO LOOK. AND HOW IT IMPACTS ALL THE OTHER AREAS IN OUR CITY, SO BACK TO MY BASIC POINT IS. HIGHER DENSITY IS NORMALLY ON THE MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS. MOST INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT LOOK TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON MAJOR DRIVE. MAYBE A SPIN OFF, TOO. IN ADDITION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE ON MAJOR DRIVE. THE HIGH DENSITY SHOULD BE TO THE MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS IN THE WEST. AND I THINK THAT'S A CONSIDERATION THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN GIFT COUNCILMAN SAMUEL. THERE'S SEVERAL PRESIDENTIAL DIVISIONS THAT ARE RIGHT OFF OF MAJOR TRIBE. AH YOU KNOW, THEY YOU ENTER THEM OFF A MAJOR DRIVE, AND THEY, UH, SPIN OFF AS YOU MENTIONED INTO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THERE'S NO REASON WHY THIS COULDN'T BE THE SAME. UH MR BOONE, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE APARTMENTS IN THE PIPELINE. DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY OR ANY OF THOSE ALSO LOCATED ON MAJOR DRIVE? SO I THINK THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US, I THINK I ESTIMATED 12 COMPLEXES. FROM 105 OR JUST NORTH OF ONE OF FIVE TO THIS LOCATION ALL THE WAY, ACTUALLY, ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF MAJOR AND I WENT BACK AND COUNTED THEIR 15. AND THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF THE ONES THAT HAVE COME ONLINE OR ARE COMING ONLINE. AS WE SPEAK. IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE ADDED, I BELIEVE 500 UNITS. THE CLOSEST TO THIS LOCATION IS JUST NORTH OF COLLEGE, AND IT'S ABOUT 1.5 MILES. OKAY AH, ATTORNEY. UH, GOTTA REMEMBER NEIL HAS SPOKEN. A COUPLE OF TIMES IS TOO THE FACT THAT THIS CAME BEFORE COUNCIL BEFORE AND, UH IT WAS APPROVED AT THAT NOT UNANIMOUSLY, BUT IT WAS APPROVED. AND HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPER. HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THIS OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO COME IN AND DO THIS WITH THE CITY AND CURRENTLY LEGAL LIABILITY. AH THIS WAS NOT APPROVED. SO IF YOU'RE ASKING ME DO THEY HAVE A LEGAL JUSTIFIED CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY? MY ANSWER WOULD BE POSSIBLY JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY LISTENING, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A ARGUABLE CLAIM FOR DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE. THEY WERE GIVEN ISSUE PERMITS AND ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITH THIS AND IF THEY HAVE, UM, INVESTED ANY CONSIDERABLE PHONES AND CONNECTION WITH THAT, THEN? YES, POSSIBLY OKAY. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION. OKAY ALL IN ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ADAM, NUMBER TWO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, ANY OPPOSED OPPOSED? MOTION IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER

[3. Council consider a resolution authorizing a contract with SETEX Construction Corp., from Beaumont for the City Wide Emergency Water Main Repairs Contract.]

. MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ADAM? NUMBER THREE, MR MAHER COUNCIL CONSIDERED A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACT WITH C TECHS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION FROM BEAUMONT FOR THE CITYWIDE EMERGENCY WATER MAIN REPAIR ITS CONTRACT. STANFORD'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION, AND THIS IS TO HELP CYST WITH THE MANY WANTED BREAKS DUE TO THE DROUGHT. IS THERE. A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER THREE MOVE TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN MOVED , AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SAMUEL. ANY DISCUSSION FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. ALL IN FAVOR OF PROVING ITEM NUMBER THREE. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AH OPPOSED MOTION IS CARRIED, BUT WE HAVE

[4. Council consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Vortex Companies, of Houston, for the Long Street Grouting Repairs Project.]

THE READING OF ADAM NUMBER FOUR COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

[01:30:05]

EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE COUNTRY TRACKED WITH VORTEX COMPANIES OF HOUSTON. FOR THE LONGSTREET GROUNDING REPAIRS PROJECT AND STANFORD'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION. IS THERE. A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER FOUR? OK, PRESIDENT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMAN FELL. SHAW SECOND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DURIO. THERE'S A MOTION AND END A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. ANY DISCUSSION OF SOMETHING? YES, SIR. MR MANAGER. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO CONTINUE TO GO ON THE RECORD THAT I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON SAYING, I THINK AND I BIDDING PROCESS WE NEED TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE ORDERS. YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE BID JUST BE TRANSPARENT UPFRONT. I'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE TRENDS CHANGE WRITERS GET UP TO FIVE AND SIX.

I'M JUST NOT IN SUPPORT OF ANYTHING HONESTLY, BIGGER THAN THREE. IF WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO SEE IF THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO AT LEAST EXPLORE. YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT HOW MANY OF THESE CHANGE ORDERS WE GET BECAUSE I MEAN, THEY CAN GET PRETTY FINANCIALLY HEAVY. IF WE JUST CONTINUE TO LET THEM PILE UP. I'VE SEEN SOME GET AS HIGH AS THE FIVE AND SIX AND WE VOTED ON THIS. I JUST WANT TO SEE IF WE COULD PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE OF LOOK INTO IT. AND COUNCILMAN TURNER. I JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ONE ISSUE. THIS IS REGARDING THE DROUGHT, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO EXTEND, SO I THINK THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT BUT ON SOMETHING WHEN WE WERE RESPONDING TO AN ACT OF GOD OR AN EMERGENCY THAT'S OCCURRING . IT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GONNA GET RAIN. BUT I KNOW WE ARE ALL PRAYING FOR RAIN UP HERE, SO I'M SURE IT'S SENIOR THAN LATER. YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN UREA SO ON THESE TYPES OF DEALS IF WE JUST SAY IF IT'S NOT LIKE THIS PIPE BURSTING OR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH AN EMERGENCY OR GROUND AND THEY COME TO, UH, EMERGENCY. WORD DROUGHT. AND THEY COME TO US AND THEY ASK FOR MORE MONEY. AND, UH, CHANGE ORDER, AND WE DECLINED IT AND SAY NO. DOES THE PROJECT JUST STOP? OR DO WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT? OR JUST IS THE PROJECT JUST INCOMPLETE? WELL IN THIS CASE, UM THE VENDOR WENT AND PERFORMED GROUND PENETRATING RADAR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF LONG STREET, SO WE ATTEMPTED WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WE KNEW OF TO DETERMINE HOW MANY VOIDS EXISTED ALONGSIDE THAT THAT SEWER LINE AND ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF GROUT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. TO FILL THOSE VOIDS AND STABILIZE AROUND THAT STORM DRAIN. UM UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. IT'S UNDERGROUND THERE. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR IS NOT 100% PERFECT. SO WHEN THEY GOT OUT THERE, AND THEY ACTUALLY GOT TO INJECTING THE GROUND, IT TURNED OUT THAT THERE WAS A ADDITIONAL QUANTITY NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK. UM TO YOUR QUESTION, IF WE YOU KNOW, TOLD THEM WE WEREN'T GOING TO PAY FOR ANY MORE THAN WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH VOIDS ALONG THAT STORM DRAIN LINE, WHICH WE DON'T WANT. THANK YOU, BART. I'M SORRY IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT REAL QUICKLY TO ADDRESS THEM CONCERNS THAT COUNCILMAN TURNER BROUGHT UP WE DID HAVE OUR CONTRACTS REVIEWED OUR BID SPECS REVIEWED, UM, THAT'S SOME CONTRACT ATTORNEYS JUST TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO SURE UP OUR DOCUMENTS AND THEY CAME BACK. VERY POSITIVE. THE TAKE AWAY FROM THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD IS THAT IF THE CITY WANTS LESS CHANGE ORDERS THAT WE HAVE TO ASSUME MORE RISK UP FRONT. SO WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE HIGHER BID PRICES FOR PROJECTS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU WORK FOR CONTRACTS. NO OFFENSE, UM, COUNCILMAN NIL, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO FIND A WAY TO SPEND THAT MONEY. SO IF WE COME BACK WITH HIGHER CONTRACTS, HIGHER CONTRACT PRICES, THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD GET A LOT OF MONEY BACK WILL PROBABLY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE CASE. UM THERE'LL BE WORK TO BE DONE. SO A LOT OF THE TIME WHEN WE ESTIMATE UM WE HAVE THESE CHANGE ORDERS. WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WAS, UM, NOT ANTICIPATED BASED ON WHEN THEY OPENED UP THE GROUND. UM WE HAVE, AS BARR SAID, MENTIONED TRAGEDY, SOME ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THAT COST. BUT ONCE YOU GET INTO THE GROUND, AND ONCE YOU CAN START CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS, IT'S IT CAN KIND OF EXPAND AND SO IN SOME OF OUR MORE, UM IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE EMERGENCY REPAIRS, OR, UM, ARE THINGS THAT COME UP THAT WE NEED TO FIX IMMEDIATELY. WE HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO GO OUT AND REALLY ASSESS WITH THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO COST AND SO WE JUST DO A GENERAL ESTIMATE. I'LL USE THE EXAMPLE ON THE ROOF AT THE POLICE STATION OR THE ROOF AT THE ART MUSEUM WHEN THEY GOT INTO THERE AND THEY STARTED DOING NETWORK. THEY WERE LIKE, OH, WE ALSO NEED TO REPLACE THIS LINING, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL COSTS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE HADN'T INVESTIGATED FOR OURSELVES. SO WE WEREN'T PREPARED FOR THAT. ALSO. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE START. WE DO THESE CHANGE ORDERS. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THERE'S WORK THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE HAVING TO DO SO THAT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN OUR

[01:35:04]

BUSINESS BACKS, BUT IT'S NECESSARY TO DO THE JOB AND DO THE JOB CORRECTLY. AND THERE'S ALSO A SITUATION WHERE, UM THE WORK IS JUST MORE EXTENSIVE WITH THEY'VE OPENED IT UP, BUT THE END RESULT IS, IF WE WANT TO SEE LESS CHANGE ORDERS, THEN WE NEED TO ASSUME MORE RISK UP FRONT. IN ORDER FOR IN ORDER TO GET, UM RESPECTABLE, RELIABLE BIDS FROM REPUTABLE COMPANIES WHO WANT TO DO THE WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA WANT TO MISS OUT AND SO WE'RE TELLING THEM WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT ANY CHANGE ORDERS, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO WORK FOR US BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT THEIR NAME ON PROJECTS THAT AREN'T DONE PROPERLY. ATTORNEY READS POINT ON THIS PROJECT IF WE'D HAD REACHED OUT THE VORTEX AND TOLD THEM WE WANTED A FIXED BID TO INJECT THE NECESSARY GROUND ALONG LONG STREET, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH IT WAS THEN THEY WOULD HAVE PUT AN INFLATIONARY FIGURE ON THAT INITIAL ESTIMATE BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY, SO WE WOULD HAVE COME IN WITH A HIGHER INITIAL PRICE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY MIGHT END UP HAVING MORE GROUND IN THERE UNTIL MY POINT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT I'M ASKING. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A CHANGE ORDER. MAYBE TWO WILL CHANGE ORDERS. MY COMMENT WAS WE HAVE VOTED ON THINGS AND I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP AGAIN WHERE WE HAD 567 CHANGE ORDERS, AND THAT'S WHEN IT KIND OF BECOMES AN ISSUE FOR ME. SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING. I TOTALLY DO. BUT ONE MORE. ONE MORE WORD OF CAUTION ON THIS, THOUGH PROJECTS ARE NOT ALL OF THE SAME LENGTH YOU GET TO SOMETHING THE SIZE OF COLLIERS VERY PUMP STATION WHERE WE'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR YEARS. THERE'S GOING TO PROBABLY BE A LARGER NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDERS. IF YOU'RE IN A PROJECT THAT'S 30 90 DAYS, MORE THAN LIKELY, YES. SO BE A VERY SMALL OR NO CHANGE ORDERS ON THAT PROJECT, BUT OKAY? COUNCILMAN NEIL JUST CLARIFY, MAYBE FROM A CONSTRUCT. CONTRACT YOUR STANDPOINT, THE CONTRACTOR ONLY BIDS WHAT THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR SO THAT THE CITY'S PUTTING INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTS OUT FOR PEOPLE TO BID ON THEN THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT GOING TO PICK IT UP AND THERE IS GOING TO CHANGE ORDERS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ROOF THING HERE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, WHERE THE INSULATION NOW HAS TO BE CHANGED OUT. THE CONTRACTOR WAS NEVER TOLD TO BE AN INSTALLATION, SO BY DEFAULT. IT'S GONNA BE A CHANGE OR IF THE IF THE CITY WANTS IT, AND IF NOT SO BE IT. BUT THE WORK WON'T GET DONE. GOT YOU JUST WANT TO TIGHTEN UP POSSIBLE. THAT'S ALL . WE NEED TO TIGHTEN UP THE DRONES AND SPECIFICATIONS FROM THE CITY SIDE AND WITH COUNCILOR CITY MANAGER. POINT WELL TAKEN. UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SURE . AND SO WE'LL LOOK AT DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN HELP WITH THAT. TYPICALLY THE OLDER THE PROJECT MORE SURPRISES YOU FIND WHEN YOU START RIPPING INTO STUFF IN TERMS, STUFF OUT. IT'S LIKE AN OLD HOUSE. ONCE YOU TURN THE WALL OUT, YOU DON'T FIND SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPECT WHEN THERE BUT WE'LL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WILL CREATE AN APPLES TO APPLES , COMPARISONS AND ASPECTS AND YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR . THANKS THANK YOU, MR CITY MANAGER. THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR OF PROVING ITEM NUMBER FOUR. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE AH OPPOSED THE MOTION IS CARRIED MR CITY MANAGER. MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF ADAM NUMBER FIVE

[5. Council consider a resolution approving the emergency repair of a pump for Lawson’s Pump Station.]

PLAYS? COUNCIL CONSIDERED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMERGENCY REPAIR OF A PUMP FOR LOST SINCE PUMP STATION AND STAFFORD'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO BE PAID OUT OF THE CAPITAL PROGRAM. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER FIVE PROOF CIRCUIT, THEN MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ANY DISCUSSION? UH COUNCILMAN NEIL, THEN COUNCILMAN DORIA. YES SIR. THE PUMP WAS INSTALLED ON FRIDAY AND EVERYTHING IS WORKING WELL ON IT. GOOD ALRIGHT. COUNCILMAN GETS, UH, THIS, UH, PUMPING INSTALLED DOES NOT INCREASE OUR PUMPING CAPACITY AT LAWSON'S DOES IT? NOT GREATLY. IT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT WE CAN PUT THROUGH, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT GIVES US THAT REDUNDANCY. UNDERSTAND THERE WERE YOU PROBLEM? YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT BECAUSE WITH TWO PUMPS , IF WE LOST ONE OF THEM, WE WOULD GREATLY REDUCE OUR PUMP CAPACITY. UM, BUT WITH THREE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHUT ONE DOWN. IF NEED BE. YEAH THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. ALSO, BUT THE DROUGHT AND THE DEMAND OF WATER HAS CAUSED US TO HAVE TO USE MORE WATER OUT OF THE WELLS THAT WE HAVE IN HARDENED

[01:40:02]

COUNTY. AND. YOU KNOW, IT WAS MY HOPE THAT BY HAVING A ANOTHER PUP AH, THAT WOULD SOMEHOW INCREASE OUR CAPACITY, UH, OUT OF THE RIVER. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT REALLY GONNA MATTER WHOLE LOT. WE'RE PUMPING 30 PLUS OUT OF THE RIVER. THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT WHAT WE CAN GET OUT OF LAW, SINCE, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE LOW THIRTIES AND IT IS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME IMPEDIMENT TO BEING WHAT'S WHAT IS THE IMPEDIMENT TO GETTING MORE WATER OUT OF THE RIVER? THAT'S THE MAX PUMP CAPACITY OUT OF THAT PUMP STATION. THAT'S ALL WE CAN PUSH WITH THOSE PUMPS THROUGH THAT PIPELINE TO THE PINE STREET PLANT CURRENTLY, SO THE IMPEDIMENT WOULD BE THE PIPELINE BECAUSE MORE PUBS. SHOULD BE UNABLE TO INCREASE YOUR CAPACITY. IF YOU HAVE A BIGGER PIPELINE. I WOULD THINK PIPELINE WAS IMPACTED DURING DURING HARVEY. WE DID DOCUMENT THAT THERE WAS A REDUCTION AND FLOW THROUGH THAT AFTER HARVEY IMPACTED IT. THAT'S PART OF OUR FEMALE PROJECT TO ADDRESS THAT PIPELINE AND OUR RATIONALE FOR GETTING THE FEMA MONEY, UH, TO FIX THAT PIPELINE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. WE CAN'T TAKE LOSSES OUT OF SERVICE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING UNTIL WE GET THE COLLIERS VERY PUMP STATION ON THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN DURIO. SO BORED. ALL THIS WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THIS RESOLUTION. SO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY. WE COME FOR APPROVAL AFTER IT'S DONE. WELL, IF IT'S AN EMERGENCY WERE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY, WHICH THIS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS RELATED TO THE WATER SYSTEM, BUT WE STILL BY THE STATE LAW HAS TO COME TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL ON THE EXPENDITURE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER FIVE. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE AH , ANY OPPOSED THE MOTION IS CARRIED. CITY MANAGER. MAYBE WE HAVE THE READING ABOUT, UM,

[6. Council to consider re-wording Proposition A and eliminating Proposition B on the City of Beaumont Charter changes.]

NUMBER SIX. YES COUNCIL TO CONSIDER REWARDING PROPOSITION A AND ELIMINATING PROPOSITION B ON THE CITY OF BEAUMONT CHARTER CHANGES AND AS RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THERE WAS JUST A RE AWARDING OF PROPERTY AND ELIMINATING BE OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ADAM, NUMBER SIX MOVED TO APPROVE SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ATOM NUMBER SIX. ANY DISCUSSION MAYOR? YES COUNCILMAN FELT LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL AND MAYBE HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY MYSELF AND COUNCILMAN DURIO REQUESTED THAT THIS BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. UH I KNOW THAT THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS OF FAULT ON THIS COUNCIL AND OUR COMMUNITY REGARDING TERM LIMITS. THERE'S THE ONE SCHOOL THAT BELIEVES IN TERM LIMITS. THERE'S THE OTHER SCHOOL THAT DOESN'T AND IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND MAINTAINING THAT CONSISTENCY AND THAT CONTINUITY ON THE COUNCIL I FEEL THAT THIS PROPOSAL THIS BEFORE YOU IS A COMPROMISE AND PERHAPS CAN SPEAK TO BOTH CONCERNS. UM AGAIN, IT'S A FOUR YEAR TERM WITH A THREE TERM LIMIT. WHICH GIVES YOU 12 YEARS PER POSITION OR OFFICE. SO YOU CAN RUN FOR AWARD. IF YOU'RE ELECTED. AFTER 12 YEARS YOU HAVE TO STEP OUT. IT IS A TERM LIMIT.

YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK TO THAT POSITION YOU TRULY TERM OUT. BUT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT INDIVIDUAL COULD RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE BEING AT LARGE OR MAYOR.

AND THEN THAT PERSON COULD RUN AND IF THEY'RE ELECTED, THEY COULD SERVE ANOTHER TERM ANOTHER TO ANOTHER ANOTHER THREE AND THEN THEY WOULD TERM OUT OF THAT POSITION. AGAIN CREATING AN OPENING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE NEW. AND SO BY DOING THIS, I FEEL THAT WE'RE ABLE TO COMPROMISE AND PULL BOTH GROUPS TOGETHER FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WON'T TERM LIMITS. THEN THE TERM LIMITS. ARE THERE 12 YEARS PER POSITION, THEN YOU HAVE TO STEP AWAY, CREATING OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE ELSE. BUT FOR THOSE THAT LIKE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT INDIVIDUAL CAN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER OFFICE. AND RUN AGAIN, AND IF THEY'RE ELECTED, THEY COULD CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE. AH TO THE CITY WHAT WE APPROVE THE OTHER DAY PROPOSITION A YES. A FOUR YEAR TERM. TWO TERMS EIGHT YEARS AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SIT OUT A TERM AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK. THAT'S NOT TERM LIMITS.

THAT'S TAKING A BREAK. AND LITERALLY, YOU COULD RUN FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. AND SO I WASN'T SURE THAT WE WERE ACCOMPLISHING WHAT THOSE OF YOU WERE WANTING TERM LIMITS. I'M NOT SURE WE WERE ACCOMPLISHING THAT THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT WITH 12 YEARS PER OFFICE I FEEL

[01:45:07]

IT GIVES AN INDIVIDUAL THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN AND FINISH A PROJECT. MY UNDERSTANDING LIKE THE EVENTS CENTER LIKE SIDE CENTER BECAUSE THE PURCHASING A PROPERTY, THE CLEANUP CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS A 10 YEAR PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA TAKE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT 12 YEARS GIVES A INDIVIDUAL THE OPPORTUNITY TO START AND THE FINISH AND TO MAINTAIN THAT CONTINUITY AND THAT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE COUNCIL AND THEN TO FEEL LIKE PROPOSITION PROPOSITION B IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING. WE'RE PUTTING TWO OPTIONS BEFORE THE COMMUNITY. I'M CONCERNED IS LOOKING FOR USING. I'VE EVEN HEARD SOME OF THIS COUNCIL CONFUSED WITH PROPOSITION B AND IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHERE CITIZENS ARE CONFUSED. THEY TEND TO VOTE NO. AND SO MY HOPE IS THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THIS FOUR YEAR TERM THREE TERM LIMIT PER OFFICE. HAVE TRUE TERM LIMITS AND YET STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. ELIMINATE PROPOSITION, BE CLEAN IT UP AND PRESENT ONE PROPOSITION AT A TIME TO THE CITIZENS AND HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO, UM WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THAT GO THROUGH SO WITH THAT SAID THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PHIL SHAW. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY COUNCILMAN TURNER, UH, CITY ATTORNEY OR STAFF. SO EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCILMAN FIELD SO I JUST PRESENTED BECAUSE SOMEONE SPEAK TO PROPOSITION B, SO THE VIEWERS IN THE COMMUNITY TO WATCH AND PEOPLE WANNA CROWD MAY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, IN ORDER TO SPEAK TO BE, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND A AS WELL PROPOSITION A UM, IT'S FOR INCREASED TERMS. SO PROPOSITION A CREATES THE ABILITY FOR TO GO FROM TWO YEARS TO FOUR YEARS AND THEN STAGGERED ELECTIONS. CURRENTLY, WE'RE TWO YEARS AND EVERYONE IS ELECTED TOGETHER, SO PROBABLY A AS WRITTEN WOULD REQUIRE WOULD INCREASE THE TERMS AND WOULD ALSO GO TO STAGGERED TERMS. UM PROP B. IT'S FOR TERM LIMITS, AND SO IT PROPPED A PASSES THAN THE TERM LIMITS WOULD BE TWO YEARS. I'M SORRY FOR YEARS. THAT WOULD BE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM IF IT BILLS WILL BE FOR TWO YEARS. AND SO THE TERM LIMITS, UM WOULD IMPOSE THERE, BUT IT DOES HAVE A SIT OUT PERIOD AND THEN YOU CAN RUN AGAIN. UM ALSO, WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE CREATED UNDER THESE CURRENT CONDITIONS. IT'S CREATED TWO PLACES EITHER WARD OR, UM, AND AWARD IN IN THAT LARGER TOGETHER THAN MAYOR IS A SEPARATE OFFICE. UM AND SO THAT'S THE DIP THE MAJOR MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN THAT WIND. UM THE PROPOSAL LIST BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY COMBINED BOTH TERM LIMITS AND INCREASED TERMS INTO ONE PROPOSITION. WHICH MEANS IF I WAS A VOTER WHO SUPPORTED, UM INCREASED TERMS, BUT NOT TURN LIMITS, THEN I WOULD VOTE. NO, BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T WANT TURN LIMITS. I JUST WANT YOU TO KEEP RUNNING AT TWO YEARS AND YOU CAN STAY FOR IN PERPETUITY. IF I WAS A BOATER WHO WHO WANTED , UM TERM LIMITS BUT NOT INCREASED TERMS. I WOULD HAVE THE SAME SITUATION SO COMBINING IT WITH MAKE A VOTER CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS. UM IT ALSO DOESN'T CALL FOR STAGGERED TERMS, EITHER, SO Y'ALL WOULD ALL STILL BE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN WE SAY INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. LIKE YOU SAID AT ANY GIVEN TIME AND THOSE STAGGERED TERMS YOU CAN STILL LOSE THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND ANOTHER THING THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME IS YOU KNOW WHAT? I'VE HAD THE REASON I ASKED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS BECAUSE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY KIND OF ASKED ME FOR. SO THE REASON I ASKED ABOUT TURNING LIVES, THAT'S THE QUESTIONS I GOT FOR THAT OPTION TO KNOW IF THAT COMMUNITY HAS AN APPETITE FOR IT. SO WHEN YOU COMBINE THEM BOTH AND WANT AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS US TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LONGER TERM, BUT THEY DON'T LIKE TERM LIMITS BECAUSE IT'S A 50 50. WE DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY TO GO. SIMILAR WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER PHIL SHAW SAID. SO IF YOU TAKE THAT OPTION B AWAY AND WE DO IT THIS WAY, WOULD IT ELIMINATE THEM TO PICK ONE AND NOT THE OTHER? YES, SIR, BECAUSE IT'S THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE COMBINES BOTH TERM LIMITS AND INCREASED TERMS INTO ONE PROPOSITION. COUNCILMAN GUESTS. UH RIGHT. HELP ME ON THIS. IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THIS AS COUNCIL MEMBER FELL, SHAW IS PROPOSING UM. IT DOESN'T STATE LAW REQUIRE YOU TWO HAVE PLACE.

PRICES BEFORE YOUR TERMS SO YOU STILL HAVE AT LARGE? PLACE ONE AND THAT LARGE PLACE TO GO ABOVE TWO YEARS JUST SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE PLACED ONE IN PLACE TO OKAY? COUNCILMAN FELL. SHAW JUST

[01:50:02]

SPEAK TO COUNCILMAN TURNER. PROPOSITION B IS, YOU KNOW AS IT'S ALREADY PASSED? BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT WE WOULD GET A TWO YEAR TERM MHM WITH A FOUR TERM LIMIT. EIGHT YEARS TOTAL, AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO STEP OUT FOR TWO YEARS. AND THEN YOU COULD RUN AGAIN. SO AS AN ADVOCATE OF TERM LIMITS. I JUST YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT TERM LIMITS. YOU'RE JUST TAKING A BREAK THAT INDIVIDUAL COULD RUN FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES SO IN AND I'M ASKING FOR CLARITY, SO WE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. SO I'M RUNNING THAT LARGE PLACE A AND I DID MY EIGHT YEARS I STEP OUT. WE'RE SAYING I CAN COME BACK AND LEARN FOR A LARGE PLACE AGAIN. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AFTER TWO YEAR BREAK, YOU COULD COME BACK AND RUN AGAIN. THAT'S THE CLARITY I'M ASKING FOR FROM FROM STAFF. BUT SEE THIS PROPOSAL HERE SAYS YOU GET FOUR YEARS.

YOU GET THREE TERMS AT THE END OF 12 YEARS. YOU'RE DONE. YOU CAN'T COME BACK IF YOU WANT TO YOUR OUT, CREATING AN EMPTY SEAT FOR A NEW PERSON. THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE A SHOT OTHERWISE, BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO UNSEAT AN INCUMBENT, AND I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T CARE FOR TERM LIMITS. BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHERS. WELL THIS PROPOSAL SAYS AT THE END OF 12 YEARS, YOU HAVE TO STEP DOWN. FROM THAT POSITION OR THAT OFFICE, BUT YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO RUN FOR EITHER MAYOR OR YOU COULD GO BACK AND RUN FOR AWARD. SO THERE'S THREE OFFICES . I DIDN'T SPLIT THEM UP BETWEEN WAR AND AT LARGE. THE OTHER ONE THERE TOGETHER. THIS ONE. THEY'RE SPLIT. FOR I FEEL THAT AT LARGE IS DIFFERENT THAN AWARD. ME TOO. I KNOW YOU DO. SO MY POINT BEING, THOUGH, IS I SEE THIS AS TRUE TERM LIMITS. WITH A COMPROMISE TO TRY TO MAINTAIN SOME KIND OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THERE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN FELL. SHAW COUNCILMAN GETS AND COUNCILMAN DURIO AGAINST SHARIA. UM SO LET'S TAKE HER. FOR INSTANCE. LET'S SUPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL BY COUNCIL MEMBER BELL SAW WENT INTO EFFECT AND THAT CITIZENS APPROVE IT GOT COUNCIL MEMBER TURNER HERE. HE'S RUNNING A, UH FOR PLACE ONE HE GETS SELECTED. THREE TERMS. SERVICES 12 YEARS. IS IT KIND OF LIKE CLOTHES BEING AT LARGE, BUT I'M TURNED OUT. I'M GONNA RUN FROM AT LARGE PLACE TO CAN HE DO THAT? YEAH SO TECHNICALLY UNLESS WE UNLESS COUNCIL GIVES DIRECTION THE PLATE THE PLACES WILL BE OR THE POSITIONS WOULD BE, UM WARD. AT LARGE AND MAYOR. IT WOULDN'T MAKE A DISSECTION BETWEEN PLACE ONE OR PLACE TO OKAY, BUT YOU COULD, BUT WE COULD, BUT RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT'S WORDED, IT IS BE IT WOULD BE THE PLACES WOULD BE OUR POSITION. SORRY WOULD BE WARD AT LARGE MAYOR. COUNCILMAN DURIO. BUT WHEN IT APPEARED ON A BALLOT, WOULDN'T IT WAS STILL APPEAR AS PLACE ONE PLACE TO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF THEY WANT TO RUN AGAIN, LIKE IF HE WAS PLACED ONE HE COULDN'T RUN FROM PLACE TO BECAUSE AT LARGE, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, IS HE HE WOULDN'T BE IT WOULD IT WOULD STILL COUNT TOWARDS HIS 12? HE COULD. IF HE WANTED TO RUN A PLACE ONE HE COULD. IF YOU WANTED TO SAY I'M OPEN UP MY SEAT AND RUN AGAINST PLACE TO CANDIDATES COULD BUT IT WOULD STILL COUNT. IT'S HIM SERVING IN THE POSITION FOR 12 YEARS. OKAY ALSO, UM, CAN WE AMEND THIS, TOO? INCLUDES STAGGERED TERMS. MY WISH IS YOUR COMMAND. YOUR WISHES, MAC. OKAY I MEAN, CHRIS BY INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. IF IT'S NOT STAGGERED, IT STILL CAN POSSIBLY HAPPEN. THAT'S YEAH, ASK ABOUT AN AMENDMENT. YEAH UH , JUST AN AMENDMENT OR ADD ON TO AH, THAT IT'S STAGGERED TERMS. OKAY WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

THAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT PROCESS RIGHT THERE TO AMEND IT TO HAVE STAGGERED TURNS SO WE WOULD GO BACK AND VOTE ON THE MOTION REQUEST TO AMEND THE CURRENT LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE STAGGERED TERMS THAN HE WE WOULD NEED TO. ACCORDING TO YOUR RULES. WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST AND THEN VOTE ON THE REGULAR THE REGULAR ITEM. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? YOU'RE YOU'RE LOOKING TO STAGGER THE TERMS OR YOUR EXCUSE ME THE ELECTION THE ELECTION EVERY TWO YEARS INSTEAD OF ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS. AND YOUR CONCERN IS INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. SO WE'RE NOT TAKING A CHANCE OF HAVING A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL ON 11 ELECTION. QUESTION COUNCILMAN I MEAN, CAN WITH FOUR YEAR TERMS. CAN'T THEY STILL DO STAGGERED

[01:55:11]

TERMS? YES, BUT THAT'S NOT PROPOSING THIS LANGUAGE. I KNOW WHAT I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ARRIVE IT HOW TO PROCEED, THOUGH. UM BUT THE COUNCIL COULD . OF COURSE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH JUST STAGGERED TERMS RIGHT NOW, WHAT? TWO YEARS? SO SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH A, UH, VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO MHM SAID IN PASSING THE MOTION. IT'S JUST THE MEN ACCORDING TO YOUR RULES. IF THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN VOTE ON THE REGULAR MOTION, EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT. CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? IT'S SOME POINT BEFORE WE VOTE ON. THE UNDERLYING MOTION. WE CAN'T HAVE DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. OKAY YOU HAVE A QUESTION, AMY. AND MY QUESTION IS HOW HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND RUNNING THESE ELECTIONS? I GUESS REALLY. IT'S NOT A CHANGE BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING AN ELECTION EVERY TWO YEARS NOW, ANYWAY, AND THEY'RE ALWAYS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER ENTITIES . AND THAT WOULD STAY THE SAME CORRECT NOT REALLY LOOKING AT INCREASED EXPENSE. ALTHOUGH IF WE KEPT IT AS PROPOSED, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A REDUCTION AND EXPENSE BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE RUNNING ELECTION. EVERY TWO USUALLY BE RUNNING EVERY FOUR.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WE USED TO HAVE. STAGGERED ELECTIONS AND WE WENT TO HAVING A BALL AT ONE TIME. THE SAVE MONEY SO COUNCILMAN DURIO IS THAT EMOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT. OKAY QUESTION JUST FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE ON COUNCIL THEN. UH AND YOU BY DOING IT. STAGGERED DID YOU SEE AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN VOTER TURNOUT? I MEAN, WAS THERE NO, IT WAS JUST LOOKING AT, UM. THE FINANCES BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE WON ELECTION WHERE THE MAYOR AND THAT LARGE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD RUN, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE WAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO WE WERE LOOKING. WE LOOKED AT SAVING MONEY. BY GOING TO THE TWO YEAR TERMS AND EVERYBODY RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY DO SO. EVEN IF YOU DID THE. TWO YEAR TERM. I MEAN, YOU WOULD STILL BE, WE WOULD STILL BE DOING THE TWO YEAR ELECTIONS BE RUNNING FOR FOUR, RIGHT? OKAY THERE'S AN A MOTION THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. IS IF THERE'S CLARITY ON THAT ABOUT STAGGERING THE TERMS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE TO AMEND THE EMOTION. AH HE OPPOSED. NO I'M SORRY. WHO VOTED NAY. WHO MOTION THE ARE NO COUNCIL MEMBER DURIO SECOND, IT WASN'T A SECOND FOR THE AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE MOVE BACK TO, UH, IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION FOR THE AMENDED MOTION FOR ADAM, NUMBER SIX. IF NOT, WE CAN CALL FOR THE VOTE. NOT THAT MANY. NO JUST VOTING ON THE ITEM TO APPROVE SO THAT THEIR MENDED THEIR ADDITION TO INCLUDE STAGGERED TERMS PASSED TO THE LANGUAGE. SO NOW IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THE CHANGE. SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW IS THIS PROPOSAL WITH THE ADDITION OF STAGGERED TERMS? CORRECT CORRECT QUESTION IF WE WANT FOR YOUR TERM WITH THREE TERM LIMIT PER OFFICE IF YOU WANT THIS LANGUAGE YES, SIR. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER SIX. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, UH, ANY OPPOSED THOSE MOTION PASSES MOTION'S CARRIED MR CITY MANAGER. UH, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE US INTO THE

[ Council to hold a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed FY 2024 Budget and the proposed 2024 Capital Program and at the conclusion of the hearing take action to postpone the final vote on the proposed FY 2024 Budget until September 12, 2023. ]

FIRST PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU. YES MA'AM COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. ON THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET AND THE PROPOSED 2024 CAPITAL PROGRAM AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING TAKE ACTION TO POSTPONE THE FOUND VOTE ON THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 12TH 2023 BUT TO PUT OPEN AND CLOSE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALRIGHT, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY MIRROR THAT WANTS TO SPEAK, OKAY? SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. AND COULD YOU READ ADAM NUMBER? SEVEN FOR US. YES COUNSELOR HAS

[7. Council hold a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed FY 2024 Budget and the proposed 2024 Capital Program and at the conclusion of the hearing take action to postpone the final vote on the proposed FY 2024 Budget until September 12, 2023.]

[02:00:13]

HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH UM, SORRY. THE CFO IS SAYING WE NEED TO DO A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. ONE STATE LAW SAYS THAT AFTER WE HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND THE CAPITAL PLAN THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION. BUT DO WE NEED TO HAVE THE AGENDA ITEM? YEAH WE'RE JUST DOING AUTUMN NUMBER SEVEN AFTER THE PUBLIC. GOD'S TOUCH SPEAKS WE ALL LISTEN. READY TO GET SORRY THAT TIME WAS A COUNCIL COUNCIL HOLDING JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET AND PROPOSED 2024 CAPITAL PLAYING PROGRAM WHAT YOU'VE DONE. AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, TAKE ACTION TO PROPOSE POSTPONED TO FOUND VOTE ON THE PROPOSED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 12TH 2023 AND WE'RE RECOMMENDATION IS TO TAKE THE VOTE ON POSTPONING THE FINAL VOTE UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 12 2023. IS THERE. A MOTION FOR ADAM NUMBER SEVEN? I MOVE TO APPROVE . IS THERE A SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. ANY DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN TURNER YES , I JUST WANNA TO A STAFF. THANK YOU GUYS FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT TO DO IT. UH I ASKED. I SEE THE MANAGER PRIOR TO SOME OF THE DECISIONS WE MADE WITH MAKING CUTS. WAS IT GONNA BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY TO MAKE THESE CUTS ON? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING DOING THINGS SUCH AS GROWTH INTO THAT MAGNITUDE. SO I WON'T I WANT IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD FOR ME . YOU KNOW, I WAS IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING WHAT? YOU'RE PLANNING YOUR VISION AND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. WHAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE? YOU KNEW WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, AND WE WOULD THUS MAKING THESE CUTS . I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE, WERE VOTING TO MAKE THE CUTS AND THEN WE'RE COMING BACK PICKING AND CHOOSING CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY. WE SAID WE'RE GONNA CUT FOR SO I'M OPEN TO IT. NOW WE IN THE BUDGET SEASON, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GONNA DO THIS AS A COUNSELOR. SO YOU COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHAT I WANT, BUT I WANTED TO COULD I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR TURNER. THE OTHER DISCUSSION. ALRIGHT SO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS. OKAY? ALRIGHT IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE AH, ANY OPPOSED THE MOTION IS CARRIED MR CITY MANAGER, WOULD YOU TAKE US

[ Council conduct a public hearing and consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and execute a contract with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to receive funds for the Zip.]

INTO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING? COUNCIL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION EXECUTED CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE ZIP AND RECOMMENDATIONS, CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN APPROVED . THE REP RESOLUTION. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE MAYOR PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED MAY WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVING AGENDA. ADAM EIGHT.

MOVED TO APPROVE. SECOND, READ IT FIRST. AFTER AFTER MR CITY MANAGER READS IT. OKAY COUNCIL

[8. Council conduct a public hearing and consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and execute a contract with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to receive funds for the Zip.]

CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SAMANTHA GRANT APPLICATION THAT EXECUTED CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION TO RECEIVE RECEIVED THAT FUNDS, AND WE'VE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION. ALRIGHT NOW I'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR ADAM, NUMBER EIGHT TO APPROVE AGAIN. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, UH , FOR ADAM. NUMBER EIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR YES, COUNCILMAN, DIARRHEA. DIDN'T WE ALREADY APPROVED SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THE ZIP? PROBABLY. THIS IS, UM SO THIS IS I THINK A SEPARATE GRANT. THIS IS EMERGENCY FUNDS THAT I THINK WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE F D A, UM I THINK AS A RESULT OF IMELDA AND LAURA AND HARVEY FUNDS SO ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL 53 39 FUNDS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING. WE APPLY FOR YOU ARE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. IT'S NOT ALL THOSE, UH IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AH OPPOSED THE MOTION IS CARRIED

[PUBLIC COMMENT - MISC]

[02:05:07]