[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:05]
          CITY COUNCIL. TODAY'S DATE IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 12TH, 2025. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING HERE MAKING THE EFFORT TO BE HERE. TODAY'S INVOCATION WILL BE GIVEN BY REVEREND KYLE TREMBLAY, ASSOCIATE PASTOR OF FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. THERE YOU ARE. AND IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONE. AND IF YOU SO CHOOSE, PLEASE STAND AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE GO TO GOD WITH ME. WONDERFUL. GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS YOUR COMMUNITY, WHERE WE CAN LIFT UP THE PEOPLE ALL AROUND US. WE ASK YOU RIGHT NOW, LORD, JUST TO GIVE US THE GUIDANCE THAT WE NEED TO HEAR YOUR VOICE TO FIND THE BEST WAYS THAT WE CAN LOVE THIS COMMUNITY, THAT WE CAN SHARE THIS LIGHT WITH EACH OTHER, AND SO THAT WE MIGHT BE A BLESSING FOR ALL THOSE AROUND US. GOD, YOU HAVE BEEN SO GOOD TO US. WE JUST ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO GIVE US YOUR BLESSINGS AND GUIDE US THIS DAY AND ALL OF OUR DAYS. IT'S IN YOUR NAME THAT WE PRAY. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WE'LL START WITH ROLL CALL. MAYOR WEST, PRESENT MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER. COUNCIL MEMBER HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. HILLYARD. COUNCILMEMBER. WILLIAMS. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHERWOOD AND COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          CRENSHAW. HERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, RIGHT BEFORE WE GO INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS, I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD THANKING OUR COUNCIL FOR US BEING HERE, THE FOR TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST BOND ELECTION IN 43 YEARS FOR THE CITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME REAL PROGRESS IN, IN MANY AREAS OF THE CITY. AND THANK YOU TO CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF AND ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT IN ON THIS. AND WE'RE MOVING KIND OF FAST AND FURIOUS AND GETTING LOTS OF NUMBERS, AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH LOTS TODAY. SO JUST KEEP IN MIND, BUT I AM GRATEFUL TO GOD FOR THIS COUNCIL AND THIS CITY ADMINISTRATION, FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK AND WILLINGNESS 
          [PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA]
TO BE HERE TODAY. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND YOU, CITIZENS, YOU MAY SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS OR ANY OTHER TOPIC, WHO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE MINUTES, BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU WALK UP TO THE RED LIGHT WILL COME. I MEAN, THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON. AND WHEN YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP, THE RED LIGHT WILL COME ON, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHILE YOU'RE AT THE PODIUM. NOW, IF IT'S ITEMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, WE'LL OBVIOUSLY BE TALKING ABOUT THEM HERE SHORTLY. 
          SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP? YES, SIR. JERRY. JERRY. OH 2308 EUCLID BEAUMONT, TEXAS. HELLO. SO MY NAME IS JERRY RIDDLE, BORN AND RAISED IN BEAUMONT, TEXAS, IN THE SOUTH AREA OF BEAUMONT. MOVED TO THE WEST OF THE CITY FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS, BUT PRETTY MUCH SPENT ALL OUR LIFE ON THE SOUTH. I'VE BEEN A VOLUNTEER COACH IN THE COMMUNITY FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS NOW. STARTED WHEN I WAS 14. I HAVE WATCHED, YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN WE WERE COMING UP, THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS FOR US TO DO A LOT OF FOR THE KIDS IN THE COMMUNITY. WE HAD PLACES TO GO, THINGS TO DO. WE WERE ABLE TO WALK, RIDE OUR BIKES, THINGS LIKE THAT TO THE Y AND ALL THE DIFFERENT FACILITIES AND PLACES THAT WE HAD TO GO. WHAT I WANTED TO SPEAK ON TODAY REALLY IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE SOUTH FOR THE KIDS IN THE SOUTH TO DO. THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING RAISED BY GRANDPARENTS, SINGLE PARENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, PARENTS HAVE TO WORK AND THINGS SO THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE KIDS TO GET TO DIFFERENT AREAS. YOU KNOW, THE BOND IS AWESOME. 
          CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING FOR US TO HAVE IN THE CITY. BUT WE ALSO WANT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE SOUTH THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN, EVEN IF WE'RE ABLE TO HELP PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION, WE CAN GET THEM THERE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TRYING TO MOVE OUT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS SAFE AS IT USED TO BE WHEN WE WERE COMING UP. AND THAT'S NOT JUST THE KIDS, IT'S THE ADULTS. ALSO, THEY HAVE TO DUCK AND DODGE, UNFORTUNATELY, STRAY BULLETS AND ALL THOSE THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL THING IF WE ARE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING AND GET SOMETHING ON THE SOUTH SO THAT OUR KIDS CAN FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE SOMEWHERE TO GO, THEY WON'T FEEL SO UNSAFE MOVING THROUGHOUT THE STREETS TO BE ABLE TO GET DOWNTOWN OR GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO COLLEGE STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT WAS JUST WHAT I WANTED TO SPEAK 
          [00:05:05]
ON TODAY. THANK YOU. JOCELYN VAUGHN, 4855 RICE CIRCLE, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JOCELYN VAUGHN, I LIVE HERE, MY DAUGHTER LIVES HERE. MY HUSBAND WAS RAISED HERE. I'M SPEAKING FOR THE SOUTH END AND FOR COACH RIDDLE. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? BECAUSE OUR CRIES HAVE BEEN IGNORED FOR FAR TOO LONG. PEOPLE KEEP ASKING, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THESE CHILDREN? THEY CALL THEM OUT OF CONTROL, BUT THEY ARE NOT OUT OF CONTROL. 
          THEY ARE CRYING FOR HELP. RIGHT NOW, OUR CITY HAS ONLY ONE RECREATIONAL CENTER AND IT'S NOT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FEW PROGRAMS THAT EXIST ARE TOO FAR TOO EXPENSIVE OR TOO LIMITED TO THE KIDS AND TO KEEP THE KIDS ENGAGED. BUSSES ARE UNRELIABLE AND UNSAFE. WALKING IS RISKY WITH CHILD ABDUCTIONS ON THE RISE. SO WHAT'S LEFT? THE STREETS? AND WE ALL KNOW THE STREETS WILL TAKE THEM BEFORE OPPORTUNITY EVER WILL. WHEN OUR KIDS GROW UP, THEY LEAVE, TAKING THEIR SKILLS, THEIR POTENTIAL, THEIR FUTURE SOMEWHERE ELSE. OUR COMMUNITY LOSES TWICE. ONCE WHEN THEIR CHILDREN WITH NOWHERE TO GO, AND AGAIN WHEN THEY'RE ADULTS WHO NEVER COME BACK. THIS CITY IS PREPARED TO INVEST $55 MILLION IN A POLICE STATION, 7 MILLION IN A FIRE STATION, 6 MILLION IN AN ANIMAL SHELTER. ALL IMPORTANT. BUT OUR CHILDREN ARE WORTH AT LEAST THAT MUCH. 
          AND RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE NOTHING. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER PRISON. WE NEED A PLACE THAT BUILDS OUR KIDS, PROTECTS THEM, AND REMINDS THEM THEY MATTER. I AM ASKING, YOU KNOW, I AM URGING YOU TO FUND AND BUILD A RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN THE SOUTH END BECAUSE PEOPLE INVEST IN WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN AND WE BELIEVE IN OUR FUTURE. THE CHILDREN HEAR THE CRIES OF THE PEOPLE OR FEEL THE WRATH OF GOD HIMSELF. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. JEANETTE RIDOUT, 2215 EUCLID BEAUMONT, TEXAS. 
          GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JEANETTE RIDEAU. I HAVE LIVED IN BEAUMONT, TEXAS FOR ALL OF MY 64 YEARS. I'VE SEEN THE CITY GROW, I'VE SEEN FAMILIES THRIVE, AND I'VE ALSO SEEN THE SLOW DOWN FOR ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY, THE OPPORTUNITIES DRYING UP, THE SAFE SPACES DISAPPEARING, THE SUPPORT OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE FADING AWAY. LET ME GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY. 
          HERE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WE HAVE THREE STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES THE GUEST STATE JAIL, THE STILES UNIT, AND THE LEBLANC UNIT. AND JUST OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, WE HAVE A MASSIVE FEDERAL PRISON COMPLEX WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH SECURITY FACILITIES. TOGETHER, THESE PLACES HAVE THE CAPACITY TO HOLD NEARLY 9000 INMATES. 9000. NOW, LET ME TELL YOU HOW MANY PUBLIC RECREATION CENTERS THIS CITY HAS FOR OUR YOUTH. ONE ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY. ONE PLACE WHERE KIDS CAN GO TO PLAY, LEARN AND GROW IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT. WE HAVE BUILT MORE CAPACITY TO LOCK PEOPLE UP THAN TO LIFT PEOPLE UP. WHEN I WAS YOUNGER, WE HAD PLACES TO GO. WE HAD PLACES TO BELONG. THERE WERE COMMUNITY EVENTS, YOUTH PROGRAMS AND MENTORS WHO WOULD MAKE SURE YOU HAD WHAT WE NEEDED. NOT SURE TO, NOT SURE TO SURVIVE, BUT TO DREAM. NOW OUR CHILDREN ARE GROWING UP IN A CITY WHERE THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO PASS BY A PRISON AND A GRAVEYARD THAN A YOUTH CENTER. THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEE FLASHING BLUE LIGHTS THAN THE MENTORS ENCOURAGING SMILE. WE HAVE CHILDREN WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO FILL OUT A COLLEGE APPLICATION, HOW TO APPLY FOR FINANCIAL AID, OR WHAT TRADE PROGRAMS ARE OUT THERE FOR THEM. I HAVE LIVED LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE STOP INVESTING IN OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. I'VE SEEN THE CYCLE. A CHILD WITH NO SUPPORT TURNS INTO A TEENAGER WITH NO DIRECTION, WHO TURNS INTO AN ADULT WITH NO OPPORTUNITIES. AND TOO OFTEN THAT STORY ENDS BEHIND THOSE PRISON WALLS. BUT I'VE ALSO SEEN THE OTHER SIDE. I'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE CARE ENOUGH TO INVEST, WHEN WE CREATE SAFE SPACES, WHEN WE GIVE KIDS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF, WHEN WE TEACH THEM WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY CAN BE, THEY FLOURISH. THEY FIND PURPOSE. THEY GIVE BACK, THEY BREAK THE CYCLE. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IS NOT ABOUT CHARITY. THIS IS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY. THIS IS ABOUT DECIDING WHAT KIND OF CITY BEAUMONT IS GOING TO BE. ARE WE GOING TO BE THE CITY THAT BUILDS MORE SALES, OR THE CITY THAT BUILDS MORE DREAMS, WHERE WE USED TO BE KNOWN AS THE BEAUMONT, THE FOOTBALL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD, YOU CAN TALK TO 
          [00:10:06]
SOME HIGHER GOVERNMENT PEOPLE AND YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THEM, AND THEY TELL YOU AND YOU TELL THEM WHERE YOU'RE FROM. AND THEY WERE LIKE, OH, THE THANK YOU, MA'AM, THE PRISON CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. ISAIAH JONES, 4345 CADILLAC LANE, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. 
          JIMMY, I'M SO SORRY. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF THAT WAS INACCURATE. 
          GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIMMY JONES, AND I'M HERE TODAY SPEAKING TO THE BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL. NOT AS A POLITICIAN, NOT AS A BUSINESS OWNER, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO WAS ONCE LABELED A BAD KID. I WAS SUSPENDED FOR SIMPLY TALKING AFTER I HAD ALREADY FINISHED MY WORK. I WAS MISUNDERSTOOD, WRITTEN OFF, AND COMPLETELY LET DOWN IN MY OWN HOMETOWN. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE BEEN A PART OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY OUR ENTIRE LIVES, THANKS TO MY FATHER, STEPHEN JONES, AND PEOPLE LIKE PRENTISS SIMEON, THE SOLE OWNER AND CEO OF CRACKLIN KINGS, WHO HAS BEEN SERVING THIS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY FOR NEARLY A DECADE. PEOPLE LIKE DARYL JONES, WHO ALONGSIDE MY DAD, CREATED A NEW TEAM, A BASKETBALL TEAM FOR THE KIDS OF THIS CITY. AND TODAY, MY BROTHER PLAYS PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL IN GERMANY. LIVING PROOF OF WHAT? OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU INVEST IN YOUR YOUTH. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT'S POSSIBLE WHEN YOU INVEST IN KIDS? BECAUSE I'VE LIVED IT. 
          I'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE YOUNG PEOPLE OPPORTUNITY, STRUCTURE AND LOVE. I WAS FAILED, BUT WHEN I WAS PLACED IN A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, I FLOURISHED. AT 23 YEARS OLD. 
          HERE'S MY RESUME I GRADUATED IN THE MIDDLE OF MY CLASS OF 28 PEOPLE FROM SABINE PASS SCHOOLS WITH A 3.5 GPA. I EARNED A APPLIED SCIENCE DEGREE IN KINESIOLOGY FROM LAMAR STATE COLLEGE, PORT ARTHUR WITH A 3.4 GPA. I AM NOW COMPLETING MY BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN EXERCISE SCIENCE AND WILL SOON BE A NATIONALLY CERTIFIED OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT. I HOLD A 3.8 GPA AT THE LAMAR UNIVERSITY IN BEAUMONT, TEXAS WHILE WORKING IN ATHLETICS, SUBSTITUTE TEACHING, VOLUNTEERING, DOING HAIR, SERVING AT MY CHURCH AND I HAVE BEEN A PHOTOGRAPHER FOR SEVEN YEARS WHILE STILL FINDING WAYS TO GIVE BACK. I AM THE REFLECTION OF WHAT A GOOD ENVIRONMENT CAN PROVIDE. I AM PROOF THAT WHEN YOU INVEST IN CHILDREN, YOU CHANGE LIVES. BUT RIGHT NOW YOU ARE CHOOSING TO PRIORITIZE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR CHILDREN? WHAT ABOUT MY LITTLE BROTHER WHO STARTED THIRD GRADE TODAY? WHAT ABOUT HIM? AND I PRAY GOD'S MERCY OVER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO HELP THE CHILDREN OF THIS CITY. AS THE BIBLE SAYS IN MATTHEW SIX AND 26, LOOK AT THE BIRDS OF THE AIR. THEY DO NOT SOW OR REAP OR STORE AWAY IN BARNS, AND YET YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER FEEDS THEM. ARE YOU NOT MUCH MORE VALUABLE THAN THEY OUR CHILDREN ARE? OUR CHILDREN ARE MORE VALUABLE. THEY DESERVE MORE, AND THEY DESERVE IT. NOW, AS I WAS DRIVING HERE TODAY, I WAS BEHIND A POLICE VEHICLE ON THE BACK OF THAT VEHICLE. IT SAYS, IN GOD WE TRUST. I TRUST IN GOD. HE'S MY SAVIOR, MY LORD, MY EVERYTHING. HE IS THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY. BUT I ASK YOU, PLEASE INVEST IN THE YOUTH. I AM AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO BE FAILED, BUT TO BE SAVED BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. THANK YOU. GOD BLESS YOU. THANK YOU. SEAN SAMUEL FOR 50 CATHEDRAL SQUARE, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I'M HERE FIRST AS A CITIZEN, AS A NEIGHBOR TO YOU ALL. SECOND, AS A MEMBER OF THE BOND COMMITTEE AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY, INCORPORATED. AND I WILL HIGHLIGHT WHY I ADDRESSED THAT TOWARD THE END OF MY COMMENTS, AS I WAS PREPARING AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU, I THOUGHT ABOUT A QUOTE THAT CAME FROM A MOVIE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HEARD COME FROM HAMILTON. THERE'S A SCENE, THERE'S A SONG, AND IT SAYS SIMPLY, HISTORY HAS HIS EYES ON YOU. IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF HISTORY, BUT MORE ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY WE ALL HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO DOING AND PROVIDING THE GREATER GOOD. WE HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY THAT, AS MAYOR SAID, WE HAVEN'T HAD IN 43 YEARS. WE CAN CHOOSE TO MOVE THIS CITY FORWARD, OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO STAY STAGNANT BASED UPON WHAT MAY BE GOOD FOR SOME, BUT NOT FOR ALL. AS I APPRECIATE, THERE ARE. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND CHANGES TO SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT MEMBERS OF THE 
          [00:15:03]
COMMITTEE PUT FORTH TO YOU ALL. THAT WAS A RESPONSE FROM WHAT WE HEARD IN THE COMMUNITY. AND THERE'S TWO THAT I DO WANT TO PARTICULARLY ADDRESS, THE SPORTS FACILITY, THE SPORTS COMPLEX. I THERE'S BEEN INFORMATION GOING ONE WAY, GOING THE OTHER, INDICATING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, INDICATING THAT IT'S A BAD IDEA. IT IS A GREAT IDEA. THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE AS THE BOND COMMITTEE CAME UP, BUT THE EXPERTS THAT YOU ALL HIRED, THAT YOU GO TO WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, THIS WONDERFUL CITY STAFF YOU HAD, THAT WAS A PROJECT THEY CAME UP WITH. WHY DID THEY COME UP WITH IT? WE WERE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GENERATE REVENUE DOWNTOWN AND TO GET EXCITEMENT. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BRINGING A HOTEL DOWNTOWN, BUT GUESS WHAT? IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUY IN, WHY SHOULD ANYBODY ELSE? NOW, I'M BEYOND SAYING IT'S JUST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT IS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AND I BELIEVE FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT NOW. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. BUT THE THING THAT I WANT US TO REMEMBER AND CONSIDER IS THE LOCATION. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THIS DOWNTOWN, WHERE WE'RE ALREADY DEVELOPING AND INVESTING IN OUR DOWNTOWN TO BRING BUSINESS, TO BRING PEOPLE. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO MOVE IT FROM THAT LOCATION SOMEWHERE? WE MIGHT OR MAY NOT EVEN HAVE THAT LAND. WE HAVE THE LAND ALREADY. CONSIDER THE LOCATION AS THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE POLICE STATION, I THINK WE ALL SAID WE WANT A POLICE STATION. THAT WAS WE ALL WOULD LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, AT THE OUTSET, EVEN THE CITY DOING THEIR ASSESSMENT, DOING THEIR REVIEW OF EVERYTHING SAID WE WANT IT, BUT NOT NOW. 
          THE BOND COMMITTEE, AFTER WE RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION, WE SAID WE WANT IT, BUT NOT NOW. 
          THANK YOU, MR. SAMUEL. MICHAEL MELANCON 1715 SHIRLEY CIRCLE BY MY TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M A SOUTH PARK KID. I KIND OF CAME UNPREPARED. BUT I WILL SAY GROWING UP AROUND OH THREE, THEY PULLED THE SOUTH PARK BLOCK PARTIES FROM US. THEY LEFT KIDS LIKE ME WITH NOTHING TO DO BUT WATCH THE WRONG CROWDS. YOU KNOW, I ENDED UP ON 69 SIX TIMES, 37 YEARS OLD. NOW THE BACK DOOR. I'M SUMMA LAUDE, LAMAR. I'M A GOOD GUY. I LOOKED AT THE WRONG THINGS GROWING UP. 
          AFTER THEY TOOK EVERYTHING, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE TO SEE. SO PUTTING SOMETHING IN SOUTH PARK WOULD REALLY HELP ALL THE KIDS. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN A LOT OF THE CRIME. A LOT OF CRIME IS FROM THE SOUTH PARK KIDS, AND IF YOU SERVE MORE THAN ONE TERM ON THIS COUNCIL, YOU WOULD KNOW ME ALREADY. YOU KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY AND I JUST NEED HELP. I NEED YOUR HELP. I THINK IT'D BE A SHAME NOT TO DO SOMETHING IN SOUTH PARK. AND THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU, SIR DWIGHT BELLINI, 4555, WHOLE STREET. THAT YOU GET INTO FOR MY HONOR. AND MY TIME IS STARTING. 
          YOU CAN JUST. YEAH. NO, NO TO THE TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. YES. THAT'S ALL MY STUFF TODAY. TODAY. I'LL GET IT IN HAND. SO SOMEONE. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. 
          WELL GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DWIGHT BELLINI. I'M BORN AND RAISED IN BEAUMONT. PRIOR MILITARY PRIOR. WELL, I AM A BUSINESS OWNER. I HAVE 20 YEARS OF VOLUNTEER RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE HERE IN BEAUMONT. I WAS ON ONE OF THE GROUPS THAT THAT MET WITH THE HALF CONSULTANT TEAM THAT CAME DOWN TO BEAUMONT. I REALLY ENJOYED THOSE PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, WE SHARED A LOT OF IDEAS AND COMMON, I'M UP HERE. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE REC CENTER FOR THE SOUTH PARK AREA. I LIVE UP IN THE NORTH END, SO I'M SPEAKING FROM THE NORTH END HOWLING FOR THESE GUYS OVER HERE IN SOUTH PARK. SOUTH END. OKAY. WE HAVE A LOT OF VOLUNTEERS, BUT THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THEM TO DONATE THEIR SERVICES IN SOUTH PARK OR THE SOUTH END. YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP. SO THEREFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO PROBABLY A CITY LEAGUE OF EVENTS. YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WE COULD ACTUALLY START ENGAGING THE KIDS WITH ONE ANOTHER. AND WHAT I DID, I JUST I HAD GIVEN THEM A PIECE OF PAPER, GIVE A TESTIMONY. MY NAME 
          [00:20:10]
IS DWIGHT BELLINI. ONCE AGAIN, I SERVED AND WORKED OVER AT THE FEDERAL PRISON IN 2007. I DID NOT KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF RECREATION, BUT AN EVENT OCCURRED WHERE TWO GUYS GOT DEPRIVED OF ONE HOUR OF RECREATION AND I TRIED TO DEFEND A THIRD PERSON, AND I ENDED UP GETTING STABBED 23 TIMES. NOW, THESE ARE GROWN MEN THAT'S LOCKED UP IN PRISON. YOU CAN'T DEPRIVE THEM OF RECREATION. SO, I MEAN, IT'S A NO BRAINER WHEN IT COMES TO THE KIDS. YOU KNOW, I SIT THERE IN THE HOSPITAL JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHY. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO REFLECT. YOU CANNOT BUILD A YOU CAN'T BUILD A STRUCTURE OR YOU CAN'T REMODEL A HOME. YOU CAN PASS EVERY INSPECTION. IT IS FOR A LICENSED PERSON TO COME IN AND DO. BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU WILL FAIL IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ADDRESS OR A MIRROR IN THAT RESIDENCE IN THAT MIRROR. SO WE CAN REFLECT. AND RIGHT NOW IN THE SOUTH END, SOUTH PARK, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE MIRRORS TO REFLECT. SO I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD. I MEAN, IT'S BEEN MAYBE 16 YEARS IN THE MAKING. THEY ALREADY HAVE PLANS. THEY HAVE SOME MONEY PROBABLY FOR A DOWN PAYMENT, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WISH THAT THIS RIGHT HERE COULD JUST KIND OF LIKE MOVE FORWARD. AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT AT ANY FAMILY EVENT THAT'S OUTSIDE, WE LET THE KIDS EAT FIRST. I MEAN, THE GOLF COURSE THAT'S FOR ADULTS. ALL I CAN SAY. THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO HAND TO YOU GUYS, I WANT TO HAND YOU GUYS SOME GRAPHIC PICTURES OF THE INJURIES, BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT ME RIGHT HERE AND SAY, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS AND THIS AND THAT, BUT TRUE STORY. TAKE AWAY ONE I WRECK AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. DELILAH JOHNSON, 2840 GLENWOOD, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. GOOD DAY. I'M DELILAH JOHNSON. WE HAVE URBAN ROOTS, FARM TO TABLE AND A PEAR ORCHARD COMMUNITY. WE DO A LOT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE. I MEAN, I'M PRETTY MUCH KNOW EVERYBODY HERE. WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER IN THE COMMUNITY. I FEEL THAT THE REC WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE NEED MORE FOR OUR CHILDREN TO DO. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO MAKE WITH, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FACILITATE THIS THING? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT OFF THE GROUND AND GET IT RUNNING EFFICIENTLY SO THAT IT CAN PUT BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY? BUT IF WE DON'T POUR INTO THE CHILDREN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A FUTURE FOR THEM BECAUSE WE'RE IN GENERATION ZEN, WHERE THE KIDS ARE INTO TECHNOLOGY NOW, THEY'RE NOT SO MUCH INTO RECREATION AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO. BUT IF WE BRING IT BACK TO THEM, TAKE THE CELL PHONES AND THE COMPUTERS AND THE STUFF FROM THEM, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON OTHER THINGS LIKE FOLDING TOWELS, COOKING, PLAYING BASKETBALL. I MEAN, WE CAN EVEN BRING KIDS HERE FROM OVERSEAS TO PLAY BASKETBALL. WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WITH OUR CHILDREN, BUT THEY'RE BLINDED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE CELL PHONES AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT'S GOING ON. AND SOME CHILDREN GO HOME TO NO FOOD, NO PARENTS, NOBODY TO REAR THEM WHERE THEY NEED THEM TO BE. SO WE NEED LIKE A SOMEWHERE TO HAVE ALL THE CHILDREN SO THAT YOU CAN GET HELP FROM ALL THESE COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS WITHIN THE FACILITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING THIS BY YOURSELF. WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS TOGETHER. AND LIKE I SAID, I DO BELIEVE YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. AND IT'S NEEDED. YOU JUST GOT TO WORK OUT THE KINKS AND UNDERSTAND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS? BUT IT CAN BE DONE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU MA'AM. BARNEY MENARD, 1035 BROCKMAN STREET, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, IN RESPECT TO THE LADY TO TAKE MY CAP OFF, I CAME IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH PARK. I'M A PRODUCT OF SOUTH PARK HIGH SCHOOL. HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO GO TO HEBREW SCHOOL FOR TWO YEARS UNTIL I WAS STAYING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACK. BUT ANYWAY, I DID NOT KNOW ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES I HAD WHEN I WENT TO SOUTH PARK THAT I DIDN'T HAVE AT HEBREW, AND IN 1972, WHEN I GRADUATED, I THANK GOD THAT I WENT TO SOUTH PARK AND I'M PROUD TO BE A GREENIE. SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, SOMETHING HAPPENED BECAUSE BEFORE THE WEST END WAS WE WERE THE FURTHEST THE WEST END WENT WAS TO 11TH STREET. I KNOW, BECAUSE ME AND A FEW BUDDIES OF MINE WORKED AT THE PANCAKE HOUSE RIGHT THERE. NOW SOUTH PARK. LIKE I SAID, SOMETHING HAPPENED. BUT WE USED TO BE THE PREMIER, THE CREAM OF 
          [00:25:04]
THE CROP OF BEAUMONT. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND CHANGE IS IMMINENT. NOTHING IS CONSTANT BUT CHANGE. 
          COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I APPLAUD YOU FOR LOOKING OUT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE CITY ON THE ROADS. 
          BUT RIGHT THERE ON THAT ROAD, MAN, THERE ARE FLAT TIRES HAPPENING THERE ALSO. COUNCILMAN DELEO, I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE WHEN I GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU, BUT WE NEED HELP AT SOUTH PARK. I HADN'T CAME HERE SINCE BECKY AMES WAS MAYOR. I WAS CAMPAIGNING FOR BROCKTON STREET. WE GOT THE ROAD DONE, CURB AND GUTTED UNTIL FUND, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO GO ALL THE WAY TO HIGHLAND AVENUE. I'VE TALKED TO MR. BOONE HERE, KYLE HAYES, JOSE MILLER. I MEAN, I TOOK OFF FROM WORK WHEN I WAS WORKING, AND I'M 71 YEARS OLD. AND I SAID, IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT WE NEED SOME ATTENTION IN SOUTH PARK. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A HIKING BIKE TRAIL IN THE WEST END HAS TWO. I MEAN, IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING FOR THE ADULTS OR SOMETHING OR THE KIDS, THE ADULTS WILL COME. THEY WILL COME JUST LIKE THE MOVIE. BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME. BUT PUT SOMETHING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN AND I GUARANTEE YOU THE WHOLE CITY WAS SHARING IT. I WAS GOING TO SIT QUIETLY, BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE WATER BILL. I HEARD ON THE NEWS LAST NIGHT THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INCREASE. SO I'LL GO INTO DISCUSSION. BUT YOU ALREADY CHARGING ME TO EVEN PAY MY WATER BILL. I KNOW I CAN PAY IT BY CHECK, BUT WHO USE CHECKS ANYMORE WHEN I GO AND PAY IT ONLINE, THERE'S A FEE TO EVEN PAY MY WATER BILL. SO WHY RAISE THE WATER BILL? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE THE WATER BILL, ELIMINATE THE FEE TO PAY IT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I TRIED TO GET ON THERE JUST BEFORE I CAME IN HERE. I CAN'T EVEN ACCESS. I MEAN, THE CITY OF BOWMAN HAS A LOT TO DO, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF SMART INDIVIDUALS UP HERE. A LOT SMARTER THAN I AM. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THERE. AND WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS YOU AND. AND TO YOU TO GIVE US SOME HELP IN SOUTH PARK AREA FLOODING. WE HAVE A MAJOR UNIVERSITY HERE, LAMAR UNIVERSITY. WHEN IT RAINS 6 OR 7IN IN A FEW HOURS, KIDS CAN'T EVEN GET TO CLASS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, SIR. GWENDOLYN BOYD, 170 MYRNA LOY DRIVE, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. HELLO. AND I GREET YOU ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO IS THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF MY LIFE. I'M A MINISTER AT ANTIOCH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH. I'M A FORMER WNBA PLAYER. INTERNATIONAL BASKETBALL. I'VE COME HERE AND I'VE BEEN IN YOUR CITY FOR 38 YEARS. MY HUSBAND AND I CAME HERE, WE STARTED AAU, BUT THE KIDS THAT ARE HERE, IF YOU OFFER THEM SOMETHING, THEY CAN GO SOMEWHERE. IF YOU OFFER THEM NOTHING, THEY'RE LOST. I'VE WATCHED GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN GROW UP HERE, AND I'VE ALSO WATCHED TOO MANY OF THEM GROW WITHOUT THE RESOURCES, THE GUIDANCE AND THE SAFE PLACES THAT WE NEED. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE CHOOSING TO SHELTER ANIMALS BEFORE WE SHELTER OUR CHILDREN. WE HAVE A POLICE DEPARTMENT, A FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND A DOG SHELTER, BUT NO SHELTER FOR THE YOUTH WHO NEED SOMEWHERE TO GO. WHEN LIFE OUTSIDE THESE WALLS GET HARD. MY HUSBAND AND I, ALONG WITH OTHERS, POURED OUR HEARTS INTO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. THEY HAD A PLACE THAT WAS SAFE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM US. WE HAD A PAL PROGRAM THAT EVENTUALLY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLE OUR MONEY. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN A CHILD HAS NO PLACE TO GO AFTER SCHOOL, THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO A COMPUTER, NO MENTOR, NO ENCOURAGEMENT. THEY DRIFT. THEY GROW UP NOT KNOWING WHO THEY ARE, NOT SEEING THEIR OWN POTENTIAL. IN 2014, OUR LITTLE DRIBBLERS TEAM WON NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP NATIONALS, AND YET MOST OF OUR KIDS NEVER EVEN HEARD ABOUT IT. IMAGINE WHAT THAT RECOGNITION COULD HAVE SPARKED IN THEM. IMAGINE THE PRIDE, THE BELIEF IN THEMSELVES, THE DRIVE TO DREAM BIGGER. BUT INSTEAD WE LEFT THEM EMPTY HANDED. WE ASKED THEM TO SHOW UP, BUT SHOW UP TO WHAT? TO A CITY THAT HAS DONE NOTHING TO INVEST IN THEM. WE HAVE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPLY FOR COLLEGE, HOW TO FILE FOR TAXES, OR WHAT TRADE PROGRAMS. BUT YET WE HAVE A LAMAR UNIVERSITY HERE AND THERE'S NO CONNECTION. WE HAVE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS, BUT NO REAL REFUGE, NO PLACE TO GUIDE THEM THROUGH THE CHALLENGES OF GROWING UP IN THIS WORLD. 
          MEANWHILE, THE PLACES LIKE MINE AND YOU'LL SEE LINING UP KIDS, LINING UP THE DOORS, EVEN ONE HALF HOUR OF THE SPACE AND THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. OUR KIDS DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS. 
          THEY DESERVE OPPORTUNITY. THEY DESERVE SPACES THAT TELL THEM YOU MATTER. WE SEE YOU. WE BELIEVE IN YOU. I'M STANDING HERE TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE OF THIS CITY. I'M NOT FROM HERE. I'M FROM NEW YORK CITY. GOD SENT ME DOWN HERE TO DO. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN. WE CAN'T KEEP TURNING OUR BACKS AND EXPECT THEM TO FIND THEIR OWN WAY. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE. AND I PLEAD TO YOU. I PLEAD TO YOU. WHEN THEY HAVE A PLACE TO GO, THEY GO SOMEWHERE. WHEN THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE NOTHING. PLEASE. THE CHILDREN DESERVE 
          [00:30:02]
MORE. MY PASSION, MY GIFT TO GIVE BACK. AS A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE, I'M NOT GIVING BACK TO THE CITY I CAME FROM. HE SENT ME HERE TO YOUR CITY. I'VE DONE MY JOB HERE. NOW HELP US GET THE REST OF THE WAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU MA'AM. NATHAN HAWKINS, 2375 NORTH STREET, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. THANK. YOU TO THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL? COUNCIL. THANK YOU. I'LL JUST TAKE ONE. GOOD EVENING Y'ALL. FIRST OF ALL, THANK Y'ALL FOR ALLOWING ME AND YOUR I DON'T KNOW, IT'S STILL DIFFICULT, MAN. I SPEAK TO THE YOUTH, BUT LOOKING IN FRONT OF Y'ALL LIKE, IT'S LIKE I'M FIXING TO GO TO JAIL OR SOMETHING, BUT YEAH. SO ANYWAY, MAN, MY NAME IS NATHAN HAWKINS. THEY CALL ME NATE. I'M A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST IN SOUTH PARK. I'VE BEEN DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS. AND WHAT I'M PASSING YOU GUYS IS HOPEFULLY I GOT ENOUGH. I HAD TO BLOW THE DUST OFF OF THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HAVING THAT FOR LIKE NINE YEARS. YOU KNOW, GOD HAD SENT ME TO MAKE A COMMUNITY, PUT A COMMUNITY CENTER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANTED TO MAKE IT SELF-SUFFICIENT AS WELL. IF Y'ALL LOOK AT IT DOWNSTAIRS AND Y'ALL HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT, I'M JUST GOING TO PARAPHRASE DOWNSTAIRS. WE HAVE BASKETBALL COURTS AND A WEIGHT ROOM AS WELL. SHOWER AND LOCKER ROOMS. WE HAVE AN AUDITORIUM FOR EVENTS, HOST PARTIES WITH TWO KITCHENS AND ALSO AN UPGRADED POLICE SUBSTATION. I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE POLICE AS WELL. I KNOW THEY DON'T LIKE TO BE IN THAT LITTLE BUILDING RIGHT THERE UPSTAIRS. I LEFT IT OPEN FOR VENDING AND THOSE DRAWINGS RIGHT THERE ARE ACCURATE. I GOT IT PAID FOR OUT OF MY OWN POCKET. FOR A GUY FROM RICHARD DESIGN DOWNTOWN RIGHT HERE, MR. ZACH CASPER. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. SO IT'S BUILT TO SCALE. I DID GO OVER 200 BY 200, BUT IT WAS TOO MUCH. AND SO WE DECIDED TO GO UP A FLOOR. SO COMMUNITY CENTER MADE IT SELF-SUFFICIENT. OF COURSE. WHY WE NEED IT. WE GOT THREE SCHOOLS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF RADIUS. YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR YEARS AND YEARS, I BELIEVE. I THINK THAT WAS ON THE 17TH WHEN I CAME, AFTER I JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH CHRISTIAN MANUEL, THAT WE WAS AWARDED 2 MILLION TO ASSIST IN ALICE PARK OR WHATEVER. I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH HIM. THANKS TO MR. RJ FOR INTRODUCING ME TO HIM AND GETTING ME ENGAGED. YOU KNOW, HE CAME TO AN EVENT ALONG WITH MR. ROY WEST, WITH MICHAEL MALONE. SO HE DOES FOR HIS BEST FRIEND. EVERY YEAR WE HAVE BLOCK PARTIES AND STUFF AND WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE YOUTH. WHAT ABOUT THE YOUTH? HEY, VOTE FOR ME. AND WE GOING TO DO THIS FOR THE YOUTH. AND THEN YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW ONCE WE VOTE THEM IN THEY DON'T KNOW YOU NO MORE, YOU KNOW. SO BUT NEVERTHELESS THEY CAME TO THE EVENT AND, AND THEY SEEN THE WORK I'VE BEEN DOING IN THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT WAS ON THE 17TH, WHERE WE HAD A 30 YEAR PROCLAMATION FOR THE STERLING PRUITT, I BELIEVE THAT WAS A BEAUTIFUL THING. YOU KNOW, I WISH THAT COULD BE RECIPROCATED IN SOUTH PARK AREA AS WELL. AND WHATEVER Y'ALL ARE DOING IN THE BARN, HEY, I SALUTE Y'ALL, YOU KNOW? HEY, I'M FINE WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT THE SOUTH IS STILL NEEDING STUFF. SOME STUFF AS WELL. YOU KNOW, OLD SCHOOL TOLD ME, I BELIEVE IF YOU SWEEP THE CORNERS, THE MIDDLE WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF, YOU KNOW? YEAH. WE NEED NEW BUSINESSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. WE DO NEED NEW ROLES TO BRING IN REVENUE. BUT PEOPLE DON'T STAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CRIME RATE THAT'S SURROUNDING AROUND THE STUFF, ESPECIALLY IN DOWNTOWN. SO JUST MY PLEA TO YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVE US A HAND WITH THAT. AND I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. NAOMI GALLAGHER'S 3950 IRVING STREET, BEAUMONT, TEXAS. 
          HI. MY NAME IS NAOMI GALLEGOS. I'VE LIVED IN BEAUMONT MY WHOLE LIFE. I'M BORN AND RAISED HERE. 
          I'M A MOTHER AND UNFORTUNATELY HAVE NOT ■SEEN MUCH CHANGE TO TE SOUTH PARK AREA SINCE I WAS A CHILD. I HAVE SEEN SMALL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPRECIATE THE NEW PARK EQUIPMENT, BUT I KNOW MORE CAN BE DONE. HAVING NEW FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWN ARE CLOSER TO MY FAMILY, OR AT LEAST HAVING RENOVATIONS DONE IN SOUTH PARK IS WHAT I SUPPORT. I HAVE TO TRAVEL ACROSS TOWN TO TAKE MY KIDS WHERE THERE IS MORE OFFER VERSUS NOT MUCH CLOSE TO HOME. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ACROSS COLLEGE OR THAT MAJOR DRIVE ISN'T THAT FAR AND IS GOOD ENOUGH. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WHY NOT JUST HAVE SOMETHING IN THIS AREA? BECAUSE I HAVE TO TAKE MY KIDS ACROSS TOWN. THEN THE SAME DRIVE CAN BE MADE BY OTHERS DOWNTOWN FROM THOSE AREAS. FOR THE LONGEST, MY COMMUNITY HAS BEEN NEGLECTED AND THAT'S THE SOUTH PARK AREA. RIGHT NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW LOVE TO SOUTH PARK IN THE NORTH END, WHERE MY SISTER LIVES. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY, WHO LIVE IN BOTH THE SOUTH PARK AREA AND THE NORTH END. THE COMMUNITY IS WATCHING 
          [00:35:05]
AND WE ARE HOPING COUNCIL WON'T DISAPPOINT US WITH THE CHOICES MADE ON THIS BOND ISSUE. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING INTO ITEM NUMBER ONE HERE IN JUST A SECOND. I DO WANT TO REMIND KIND OF HOW THE FLOW IS GOING TO GO. IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DISCUSSING A LOT OF DIFFERENT CHANGES HERE. AFTER WE COME TO CONSENSUS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK, GIVE LEGAL A CHANCE TO GET THE FINAL WORDING FOR US BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO PASS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE. ALL THE VERBIAGE CORRECT ON. SO BEFORE WE MOVE INTO ITEMS TWO AND THREE, WE WILL TAKE A BREAK SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT. IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN FINISH THE MEETING AND THEN WE CAN TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE ON TWO AND THREE AND THEN COME BACK FOR YEAH, TWO AND THREE. YEAH. WE CAN DO THAT. 
          [1. Council to consider approving an ordinance calling a Special Election for November 4, 2025, to be held within the City of Beaumont, Texas, making provisions for the conduct and the giving of notice of the Special Election; and containing other provisions related thereto. (Part 1 of 2)]
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT WOULD YOU TAKE US INTO ITEM NUMBER ONE, MR. CITY MANAGER? THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL, TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025, TO BE HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, MAKING SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT AND THE GIVING OF NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO. THIS IS BASICALLY THE ONE, I GUESS, THE CALLING OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION, BUT ALSO THE PART THAT PUTS TO DECIDES THE PROPOSITIONS AND THE PROPOSITION PACKAGE. WE HAD THE WORKSHOP YESTERDAY GOT A LOT OF THINGS DONE, BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO CONTINUE FOR THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF SOME SORT WITH THAT. WE HAVE QUITE THE LIST OF PROJECTS THERE. WE HAVE TOTALS FOR DOLLARS. COUNCIL'S GOAL WAS TO STAY WITH WITHIN THE $15 RANGE. CURRENTLY, WE'RE WITHIN THE $17.18 RANGE, SO THAT'S APPROXIMATELY $40 MILLION ABOVE THAT $15 RANGE. SO YOU KNOW, AS IT PLEASES COUNCIL TO EITHER CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THAT OR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHOOSE TO STAY WHERE YOU'RE AT, YOU CAN BUT CHOOSE TO WORK THROUGH THAT. WE HAVE GAP STRATEGIES HERE AGAIN TO COME FORWARD. AND THEY CAN SHOW YOU AND TALK ABOUT THE WHERE WE'RE AT AND HOW THE CURRENT SITUATION IS. SO IF YOU'RE READY GAP STRATEGIES, WE'RE READY TO GO. OR YOU CAN GO WHERE YOU LIKE. MAYOR. YES. AND I'D LIKE I KNOW BEING NO. COME ON UP. I KNOW YOU HAD EXPLAINED TO THE BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I'D JUST LIKE FOR YOU TO I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT IN, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS AND THE AMOUNT, Y'ALL SPENT A LOT OF TIME FOCUSING ON THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVES ALL THAT SAME INFORMATION AND MAKING THEIR DECISION TODAY, FROM Y'ALL'S EXPERIENCE, SEEING CITY BONDS. SURE, MAYOR. PLEASURE TO BE HERE AGAIN TODAY. NICE TO SEE ALL OF YOU. MY NAME IS JEFF BARTON. I'M WITH GAP STRATEGIES. WE'RE THE FIRM THAT YOU ALL HIRED AFTER A COMPETITIVE RFP TO HELP YOU THROUGH THE BOND PROCESS. AND WE WORKED AS THE FACILITATORS WITH YOUR BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO, MAYOR, DIRECTLY TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THE BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE EARLY ON, WE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS OF JUST DEVOTED TO HOW BONDS WORK AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE WE DO, AS YOU ALLUDED TO, WORK ALL ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS. YOU CAN CREATE AS MANY PROPOSITIONS AS YOU WOULD LIKE. THEORETICALLY, YOU COULD BREAK DOWN EACH ITEM INTO A SEPARATE PROPOSITION. HOWEVER, IN A PRACTICAL SENSE, WE WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT. AND IT'S PERHAPS AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE. BUT AT SOME POINT YOU GET TOO MANY PROPOSITIONS FOR PEOPLE TO REALLY ABSORB. AND YOU ALSO HAVE PROPOSITIONS THAT MAY THAT MAY BE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER OR THAT MAY RELY ONE UPON THE OTHER, MAYBE IN STREET PROJECTS OR SIDEWALK PROJECTS. SO I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO YOU POTENTIALLY FOUR PROPOSITIONS AFTER YOUR WORK YESTERDAY. YOU ALL ARE AT SIX PROPOSITIONS. YOU SHOULD HAVE A HANDOUT FROM US. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THAT? I HOPE YOU'VE GOT THIS HANDOUT WHICH LAYS OUT THOSE POTENTIAL PROPOSITIONS. THAT WOULD BE THREE KIND OF WHAT I'LL CALL 
          [00:40:04]
CONSOLIDATED PROPOSITIONS THAT INCLUDE A NUMBER OF ISSUES IN THEM. INFRASTRUCTURE AT 58.1 MILLION, PUBLIC SAFETY AND FACILITIES AT 136.1 MILLION. AND YOU CAN SEE NEXT TO THAT THE APPROXIMATE EFFECT ON THE TAX RATE, $3.16 OR 7.39 PARKS AND REC AT 49.7, THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION. THAT WOULD BE A STANDALONE PROPOSITION, THE FIRST OF THREE, TENTATIVELY, THAT YOU ALL ASKED TO SEE SOME NUMBERS ON. SO THAT WOULD BE 52.4 MILLION FOR THE COMBINED DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSIONS. POINT PARKWAY NORTH AT 8.9 MILLION, AND THE ALICE KEITH PARK SOUTH END RECREATION CENTER AT 11.2 MILLION. I BELIEVE THAT ALSO HAS SOME GRANT MONEY THAT THE CITY HAS OBTAINED THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THAT. SO YOU'LL SEE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THOSE NUMBERS FROM WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORKSHOP OR WHAT YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THERE ARE TWO REASONS FOR THAT. IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, THERE IS SOME CONTINGENCY ADDED. THAT CONTINGENCY IS JUST TO BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE STILL EARLY AND WE'RE IN A PERIOD OF VOLATILITY, POTENTIAL INFLATION AND TARIFFS, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF CUSHION TO THOSE NUMBERS. IT CAN ALSO HELP IF YOU NEED OUTSIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT. AND SECONDLY WE HAVE ADDED INFLATION TO THOSE NUMBERS. SO THAT IS OUR BEST ESTIMATE. WORKING ON A SHORT TIME FRAME OF WHAT PROJECTS MIGHT TAKE 234 YEARS TO COMPLETE. AND WE'VE ADDED IN INFLATION DOLLARS AT 3.5% PER YEAR TO COVER THOSE. THAT PUTS YOU AT A TOTAL AFTER YESTERDAY'S WORKSHOP. AND VERY IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE TO PEOPLE WHO MAY BE LISTENING AT HOME AND TO THE AUDIENCE HERE THAT THAT WAS A WORKSHOP AND YOU ALL MADE NO FINAL DECISIONS. SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT TENTATIVELY, YOU ARE AT $316.4 MILLION. THAT WOULD BE $17.18 APPROXIMATELY ON THE TAX RATE. WE WORKED WITH YOUR STAFF LAST NIGHT, SO APPRECIATE THEIR HELP. AND WITH DUSTY TRAILERS HERE FROM RBC CAPITAL AND DEREK MITCHELL, YOUR BOND COUNSEL, FAIRLY LATE LAST NIGHT AND STARTED AGAIN THIS MORNING TO TRY AND GET THESE NUMBERS AS CLOSE AS AS WE CAN. SO RECOGNIZE THAT. THIS MAY NOT BE AN EXACT EFFECT ON THE TAX RATE. BECAUSE AS YOU CALCULATE THAT TAX RATE, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT PROPERTY VALUES ARE IN THIS NEXT YEAR. THERE CAN BE SOME PHASING THAT WE'VE FIGURED IN THAT WILL SAVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, NOT ALL THE BONDS WILL BE SOLD AT ONCE. SO YOU DON'T PAY INTEREST RATE AT ONCE. SO ALONG WITH MR. TRAYLOR, WHO'S REALLY THE EXPERT ON THIS, WE'VE GIVEN OUR BEST SHOT AT THAT. BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD WORKING NUMBER FOR YOU. THAT MEANS, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THAT IF YOU WANT TO. MEET THIS $15 NUMBER, THAT YOU NEED TO CUT OUT ABOUT $40 MILLION. THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT THE $15 NUMBER. OF COURSE, YOU ALL HAVE THE POWER TO SET THE RATE ANYWHERE YOU WANT. FOR THOSE WHO ARE NEW TO THE DISCUSSION, THIS IS JUST A LITTLE INSIGHT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT. 15 AS A AS A ROUGH TARGET, OR AT LEAST THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE USED HOPING TO BE UNDER $15, BECAUSE SURVEYS OF THE COMMUNITY INDICATED THAT THAT'S WHERE THE COMMUNITY FELT MOST COMFORTABLE, IS STAYING UNDER THAT $15. AGAIN, IF YOU THINK THE PROJECTS ARE WORTH IT OR URGENT, THERE'S NOTHING TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM GOING OVER THAT NUMBER. IF YOU DO WISH TO GET DOWN TO $15, WE CAN TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL SAVINGS IN EACH PROPOSITION OR WAYS TO. PERHAPS SQUEEZE DOWN THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSITIONS. THAT'S CHALLENGING TO GET UP TO 40 MILLION. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT BIG TICKET ITEMS, THERE ARE A NUMBER IN THERE WITHOUT WITHOUT PRIORITIZING BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR JOB. BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AT 52 MILLION WOULD GET YOU UNDERNEATH THAT IF YOU WERE TO DECIDE TO POSTPONE THAT FOR A FUTURE BOND OR LOOK TO PAY FOR THAT OUT OF FUTURE REVENUES, THE POLICE STATION OR THE MULTI-PURPOSE REC CENTER. THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE LARGE, SINGLE PROJECTS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED AGAIN. WITH THAT, IT IS THE ONE LAST THING I REALLY 
          [00:45:09]
WANT TO ADD. COUNCIL MEMBERS, I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THIS, BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS TARGET OF $17. THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE NOW $15 A MONTH. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND AND FOR US TO REITERATE NOW THAT THAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT THE MONTHLY IMPACT ON THE TAX RATE FOR AN AVERAGE PRICE HOME. SO IF YOUR HOME IS WORTH MORE, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY MORE PROPORTIONATELY. IF YOUR HOME IS WORTH TWICE THE AVERAGE, YOU WOULD PAY TWICE THAT TAX RATE. IF YOUR HOME IS LESS THAN THAT AVERAGE, YOU WOULD PAY LESS THAN THAT. THE AVERAGE PRICE HOME IN BEAUMONT IS APPROXIMATELY $150,000. SO THIS IS BASED ON THAT, MEANING YOU WOULD PAY $15 A MONTH OR $17 A MONTH TO ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT BUSINESSES ALSO WILL PAY THIS PROPERTY TAX. SO THIS IS NOT JUST ON HOMEOWNERS, IT IS ON BOTH HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESS. WE'RE JUST QUOTING THE TYPICAL EFFECT ON A HOMEOWNER, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST BEAUMONT RESIDENTS ARE, TO TRY AND BE TRANSPARENT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT THOSE COSTS WOULD BE WITH THAT MAYOR. MY ASSOCIATE, KIERA BUFFINGTON, IS HERE, AND I THINK WE CAN PROJECT THIS UP ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE, SO THAT AS YOU MOVE PROJECTS, WE CAN SEE WHERE YOU ARE IN COSTS IN REAL TIME. THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS WE WORKED WITH THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE. I THINK IT'LL TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO GET SET UP. AND IN THE MEANTIME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE'VE GONE OVER SO FAR? WELL, AND LET ME NORMALLY COUNCIL WE DO A MOTION AND FOR YOU KNOW GET A FIRST AND SECOND. WE'RE GOING TO SUSPEND THAT TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT TO DISCUSS IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE. SO WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION FIRST SO THAT WE CAN SHAPE A MOTION AND NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH AMENDMENTS THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO JUST KIND OF AS A HEADS UP, WHY IT'S LOOKING DIFFERENT TODAY. SO. WITH THAT I THINK YES, GETTING GETTING THAT UP THERE AND CLEARLY AGAIN APPLAUD OUR BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DID. AND LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY. AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE SO MANY IMPORTANT PROJECTS HERE IN BEAUMONT THAT WOULD SERVE THE CITY. BUT I THINK YESTERDAY WHEN WE MET, WE STARTED DISCUSSING A LOT OF THINGS. AND I KNOW FOR ME, THIS SEEMS TOO BIG OF A NUMBER TO BE GOING WITH OUR FIRST BOND AND ALSO TOO MANY PROPOSITIONS. FROM LISTENING TO YOU ALL, I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME FATIGUE THERE. SO I THINK OF COURSE THIS WILL BE A COUNCIL DECISION SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I KNOW WE DO HAVE SOME CATEGORIES ALREADY SET UP. SO IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO COMBINE THOSE AND I'LL JUST BE HAPPY TO GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED. AND SO PEOPLE CAN THROW STONES AT ME RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. YOU KNOW SEEING THIS NUMBER OBVIOUSLY THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND THE POLICE STATION ARE THE TWO BIGGEST I KNOW FROM MY CONTACTS. 
          I'VE I'VE HEARD MORE DESIRE ABOUT THE POLICE STATION THAN I HAVE DOWLEN ROAD, AND I THINK THAT COULD BE A FUTURE BOND PROJECT. AND ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE SOME SUCCESS ON THIS. AND THAT WOULD GET US DOWN TO JUST DOING MY MATH ABOUT 1433, WHICH IS STILL HIGHER, BUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SHARPEN OUR PENCIL ON SOME OF THESE OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL. WE COULD GET THERE. AND I REALIZE THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE THE FINAL DECISION, PEOPLE. I'M JUST THROWING MY THOUGHTS OUT THERE TO BEGIN WITH. AND I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE. FOR COUNCIL. I KNOW EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK. AND I'M I'M THINKING WE MIGHT BEGIN BY. YOU KNOW, HOW DOES COUNCIL FEEL ABOUT LOWERING GETTING THIS NUMBER DOWN? I MEAN, IF I, IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW THAT DISAGREES WITH ME AND IS FINE WITH 1718, I, YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL DISPENSE WITH US HAVING TO CARVE THINGS OUT. BUT IF THE YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, THEN I THINK WE CAN THEN START LOOKING AT THAT. YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN TURNER. WELL, I DON'T MIND SPEAKING FIRST, IF THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY WAS TO NOT EXCEED $15, WE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I DON'T SUPPORT EXCEEDING $15. I DON'T MIND STEPPING OUT THERE FIRST BEHIND YOU SAYING, IF WE'RE GOING TO CLAIM FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, LET'S BE WHAT WE WHAT THE COMMUNITY SAID THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT US TO OPERATE 
          [00:50:02]
WITHIN. SO I THINK AND I SUPPORT STAYING UNDERNEATH THE $15 RANGE. SO I DON'T MIND GOING ON THE RECORD SPEAKING SECOND AFTER YOU, BUT I KNOW IT'S A WE DECISION, NOT A INDIVIDUAL DECISION. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. COUNCILMAN DORIA WAS THE FIRST TO GET HIS HANDS UP. I'LL GET TO EVERY ONE OF YOU, I PROMISE YOU. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN TURNER AND YOURSELF. MAYOR, WATCH YOUR MIC. AS FAR AS THE. YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF SHORT, BUT AS FAR AS THE DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION, I ALSO HAVE RECEIVED A NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE POINT POINT PARKWAY NORTH EXTENSION AS WELL. AND I HOPE EVERYONE NOTICED THAT THE SUPPORT FOR THE ALICE KEITH PARK SOUTH END RECREATION CENTER. AND IT'S JUST THE PROPER TIME BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT UNDER THE PROPOSITION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND FACILITIES, INSTEAD OF HAVING A STAND ALONE. ALL RIGHT. I WANT EVERYBODY TO SAY THEIR PIECE, BUT THANK YOU. 
          IF YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY, GO AHEAD AND ADD TO THAT TOO. THAT'S ALL FOR RIGHT NOW. OKAY. 
          ARE YOU READY, COUNCILMAN HILLIER? OKAY, I, I AGREE WITH WITH THE THREE OF YOU ALL AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GET IT UNDER AND I THINK THE DOWLING ROAD AND THE PARKWAY EXTENSION SHOULD BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE PULL OFF. I AGREE WITH CHRIS, AND I FEEL AND HEARD THE COMMUNITY THAT THE THAT THE SOUTH END NEEDS SOMETHING. AND I BELIEVE THE ALICE KEITH RECREATION CENTER WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR KIDS. 
          AND THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR FUTURE. AND SO I WILL SECOND THAT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE MOVED IN, PLACED UNDER THE FACILITIES ALSO. OKAY. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS YEAH, I TEND TO AGREE WITH WITH YOU GUYS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE THAT WE KIND OF STICK TO THE NUMBER THAT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND LOOK AT ALL THE PROJECTS AND WE'RE EITHER, YOU KNOW, UPGRADING CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPROVING DRAINAGE OR PROVIDING DIFFERENT OUTLETS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE DOWLEN AND, AND POINT PARKWAY EXTENSIONS. YOU KNOW, IF I WERE TO CHOOSE ON WHAT TO WAIT ON AND TRIM SOME FAT, I WOULD I WOULD SUPPORT STARTING STARTING THERE. 
          AND, AND YOU KNOW, AFTER HEARING THE PEOPLE FROM, FROM SOUTH PARK AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REAL PRIDE IN THAT COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE THAT ARE FROM THERE, THEY ARE PROUD TO CLAIM CLAIM THAT TERRITORY. AND, YOU KNOW, TO A WAY TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE EXCESS, EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF PROPS TO VOTE ON. I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WITH MOVING THAT IN WITH WITH THE OTHER PROJECTS. YES. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I AGREE. OKAY. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH DELAYING THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND THE POINT PARKWAY. 
          I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WHATEVER WE PROPOSE TODAY SHOULD BE UNDER THE $15 MARK. BUT I THINK TO INCLUDE THE ALICE KEITH UNDER FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY IS DISINGENUOUS TO THE TITLES THAT WE'VE GIVEN PROPS A, B AND C, PROP C VERY SPECIFICALLY IS PARKS AND RECREATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT ALICE KEITH SHOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER THAT. I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YESTERDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME WE PROPOSED THE ALICE KEITH, AND IT WAS $10 MILLION, AND I WAS UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT INCLUDED A $2 MILLION GRANT, AND TODAY IT'S UP TO 11.2 MILLION PLUS THE $2 MILLION GRANT. SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 14 MILLION. AND ANY IDEA THAT ANYONE ON THIS COUNCIL IS NOT WILLING TO INVEST IN YOUTH IS, I BELIEVE, DISHEARTENING AND CONCERNING CONSIDERING THAT THE LARGEST PROJECT IN THE HISTORY THAT I CAN THINK OF, OF YOUTH THAT THIS CITY HAS INVESTED IN IN MY LIFETIME IS GOING TO BE THIS MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER, WHICH IS $50 MILLION, AND WE DON'T KNOW YET WHERE THE LOCATION IS GOING TO BE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE OVER ON COLLEGE STREET, BUT WE'RE NOT DECIDING LOCATIONS TODAY. THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING DECIDED AT A LATER DATE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS AS BEING A VERY POSITIVE THING. WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY 
          [00:55:02]
THAT WE ARE MAKING THE LARGEST INVESTMENT IN YOUTH IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CITY, AND THAT THAT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE AN INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH IS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          THAT NUMBER ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WENT FROM 50 TO 55 YESTERDAY TO 61 TODAY. I GET THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ADD, BUT I THINK THAT WE COULD ROLL THAT NUMBER BACK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 6 MILLION AND BRING IT BACK TO AROUND 55 MILLION. I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO THAT. I THINK THAT THAT WILL HELP SAVE SOME MONEY THERE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS THE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER $13 MILLION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK. I'VE NOT HEARD ONE PERSON CALL. I'VE HEARD A LOT MORE PEOPLE SAY THEY WANT THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT MIGHT PROVIDE, BUT I'VE NOT HAD ONE PERSON CALL AND TELL ME THAT THEY THINK THAT INVESTING THAT MUCH MONEY ADDITIONALLY TO RIVERFRONT PARK IS A GOOD IDEA. 
          SO I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IF NOT AT LEAST A SEPARATE ITEM TO BE VOTED ON. I DO NOT BELIEVE PROP A, B, C, D, E, AND F, THAT'S WHAT, SIX PROPS. I THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE RIVERFRONT PARK BE SEPARATE. THAT WOULD BE SEVEN. I DON'T THINK ASKING PEOPLE TO VOTE ON SEVEN ITEMS IS DIFFICULT. PEOPLE ARE USED TO VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ON A MAYOR, TWO AT LARGE AND FOUR WARDS. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ASKING THEM TO STAND THERE FOR ANY EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AND, AND VOTE ON THINGS. THAT'S GOING TO SOMEHOW BE A DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR THEM AND CONFUSING, IF ANYTHING. SEVEN SOUNDS REALLY GOOD, BUT IF WE'RE REMOVING THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND POINT PARKWAY NORTH EXTENSION, THEN THAT GETS US DOWN TO FOUR PROPOSITIONS. AND SO WE OUGHT TO MAKE IT A MINIMUM RIVERFRONT PARK, I THINK A SEPARATE IF IT'S EVEN GOING TO BE INCLUDED, I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE'RE CUTTING THINGS AT THAT, BE ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT'S EASY TO CUT. IF THOSE ITEMS WITH THE RIVERFRONT PARK ARE LATER DETERMINED TO BE THAT IMPORTANT, THEY COULD ALWAYS BE INCLUDED IN THE BOND THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE POSSIBLY CONSIDERING WITH A DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. THE DRAWINGS THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY WITH THE AMPHITHEATER. AND AGAIN, I'M CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CITY CONTINUING TO SPEND ALL THIS MONEY ON AMPHITHEATERS. BUT THE AMPHITHEATER WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE $190 MILLION WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. SO NOW WE HEAR IT AS, AS AS PART OF THIS. SO WITH THAT SAID, I AGREE $15. I'M OKAY WITH DELAYING THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND POINT PARKWAY. I WOULD ASK THAT WE EITHER ELIMINATE ALL TOGETHER OR MAKE A SEPARATE VOTING ITEM, RIVERFRONT PARK. AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE ALICE KEITH BE INCLUDED IN PARK AND RECREATION, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THAT GET A CLARIFICATION. IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A $14 MILLION FACILITY, OR IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE A $10 MILLION FACILITY WITH THAT? THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MAYOR, THANK YOU. AND. JUST FROM SOME CLARITY, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY SPECIFIC NUMBERS IN TERMS OF THE BONDS, I KNOW Y'ALL PARTICIPATED IN A LOT OF BOND PROJECTS AND CITIES. HAVE YOU SEEN A MAGIC NUMBER OR HAVE YOU SEEN WHERE THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS TENDS TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME? AND AGAIN, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING TO EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, PART OF YOUR FROM BEING AT THE BOND ADVISORY MEETING, THE TWO THAT I WAS PRESENT AT, AND I WATCHED PARTS OF OTHERS ONLINE. THE WHAT IS Y'ALL'S EXPERIENCE WITH THAT? BECAUSE WE'RE CERTAINLY HAVE HIRED Y'ALL FOR YOUR EXPERIENCE AND DIRECTION. SO I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AS WELL. MAYOR, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A MAGIC NUMBER, BUT I THINK THERE'S A REASON THAT RETAILERS TEND TO PRICE THINGS AT 14.99 INSTEAD OF $15, THAT THERE'S JUST PSYCHOLOGY IN ALL OF US, THAT WHEN YOU CAN GET UNDER A BIG NUMBER, YOU KNOW, UNDER 300 MILLION INSTEAD OF OVER 300 MILLION THAT THAT MAKES THERE'S A GOOD BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT THAT MAKES SOME REAL DIFFERENCE. AND THEN AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE THE POINT THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALL MADE, THERE WAS A COMMUNITY SURVEY THAT INDICATED RESIDENTS FELT COMFORTABLE UNDER $15. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS, IT'S JUST A CONTINUUM. I THINK THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE ABOUT MAYBE HAVING TEN, 15, 20 PROPOSITIONS, 
          [01:00:01]
AND THE COMMITTEE FELT PRETTY STRONGLY, I WOULD SAY. AND OUR ADVICE THERE WOULD BE STRONG THAT YOU YOU TRY AND BREAK OUT TOO MANY ITEMS. AND I WOULD SAY WHEN YOU GET INTO THE DOUBLE DIGITS, YOU'RE PROBABLY AT TOO MANY THAT THAT HAS A REAL ADVERSE IMPACT. I DON'T I WOULDN'T TRY AND QUANTIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THREE, FOUR, 5 OR 6, EXCEPT TO SAY THE SIMPLER AND THE MORE CONDENSED YOU CAN MAKE IT, THE BETTER. I THINK THAT'S EASIER FOR VOTERS TO UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE MAY BE VERY GOOD REASONS TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE NOT TWO, BUT THREE OR NOT THREE, BUT FIVE OR. I GOT A QUESTION. YES. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IF WE'RE REMOVING DOWLING AND POINT PARKWAY, DOES THAT REDUCED THE BOND BY ROUGHLY 6060 MILLION? IS THAT WOULD GET YOU BY MY BY OUR ROUGH CALCULATIONS, DOWN TO ABOUT $13.85. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO I THINK, MR. CRENSHAW, YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CRENSHAW, YOU YOU ASKED ABOUT THE NUMBER. JUST TO REITERATE THAT THE REASON YOU SAW THE NUMBER GO UP FROM YESTERDAY IS REALLY BECAUSE WE ADDED AN INFLATION NUMBER TO THAT. SO THERE WAS A 5% ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY ADDED, WHICH YOU ALL WHICH I YOU COULD STRIKE. BUT WE WOULD URGE YOU TO MAKE SURE ON PROJECTS YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THAT. THERE'S ENOUGH MONEY IN THERE NOW YOU COULD SUPPLEMENT IT WITH OUT OF THE BUDGET OR OUT OF CHAOS. AND THEN WE ADDED SOME INFLATION. IF CAN I RESPOND TO THAT THEN? THEN WHY DOES THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX GET A 10% CONTINGENCY? AND THE OTHER QUESTION YOU GET FIVE. GREAT GREAT QUESTION. I WILL SAY THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE, BUT IT IS IN TALKING WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS ON SOME ON SOME PROJECTS, WE FELT LIKE THE NUMBERS WERE TIGHTER THAN ON OTHERS. THERE HAD BEEN ENOUGH WORK DONE ALREADY ON THE BUDGET, AND THEY COULD BE BUILT QUICKLY ENOUGH THAT THE CONTINGENCY COULD BE A LITTLE BIT LOWER. COUNCILMEMBER. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S, AGAIN, I THINK, AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE. RIGHT. BUT THAT WAS OUR CALCULATION. WE HAVE AN URBAN PLANNER WHO WORKS FOR US, WHO'S DONE A LOT OF PRICING, AND WE WENT THROUGH WITH YOUR STAFF AND LOOKED AT WHAT CONTINGENCY NUMBERS HAD ALREADY BUILT IN TO DIFFERENT BUDGETS OR OUTSIDE ESTIMATORS, IF THEY HAD A REALLY SUBSTANTIAL CONTINGENCY BUILT IN AND THE NUMBERS LOOK PRETTY TIGHT, IF THEY'D GONE DOWN TO A SUBLEVEL OR HAD A LOT OF DETAIL IN THE BUDGET, THEN WE KEPT A LOWER CONTINGENCY. OR IF IT LOOKED LIKE A NUMBER WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST GOT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, YOU COULD KIND OF FINISH THERE, RIGHT? YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE SOME COMPROMISES, BUT YOU COULD GET IT DONE. WE KEPT THAT CONTINGENCY LOWER. IF THERE WERE SOME A LITTLE BIT MORE UNCERTAINTY, MAYBE IN THE KIND OF MATERIALS THAT WERE BEING USED OR THE KIND OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WE ADDED A LITTLE BIT HIGHER CONTINGENCY. LET ME ADD TO COUNCIL MEMBER WITH THE POLICE STATION. I DID ADD IN A CONTINGENCY. I DIDN'T DO INFLATION, BUT IT DOES INCLUDE A 10% CONTINGENCY THAT $55 MILLION. AND IN THE POLICE STATION, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, HOW QUICKLY COULD IT BE BUILT? WE SAT WITH STAFF AND HAD SOME ROUGH ESTIMATES. BUT, YOU KNOW, THOSE NUMBERS ARE NONE OF US KNOW FOR SURE YET, RIGHT? THERE'S NOT FINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. WE DON'T HAVE A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. I GET THAT. IT'S JUST ODD THAT SOME PROJECTS GET CONTINGENCIES AND SOME DON'T. BUT YES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          GOOD. IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. WE WENT OVER IT A GOOD BIT WITH THE COMMITTEE AND I. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FUDGE ROOM THERE. YOU KNOW, IF WE IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO CUTTING DOLLARS, I'D BE GLAD TO. WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE EACH INDIVIDUALLY, IF YOU LIKE. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, JUST IN AN EFFORT TO BE FORWARD THINKING, HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE OR DO WE PLAN TO DO BONDS? BECAUSE, I MEAN, I THINK THAT A LOT OF CONTENTION HAS COME FROM THE IDEA THAT THIS HAS BEEN 43 YEARS, AND IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, THEN IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. AND ALL OF THESE THINGS. SO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, IN REFERENCE TO HOLDING BONDS INTO THE FUTURE, GETTING OUR CITIZENS AND OUR COMMUNITY ACCLIMATED TO WHAT THE NORMAL TIME FRAME PROCESS IS SHOULD BE FOR THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. AND JEFF CAN ANSWER HERE, BUT TYPICALLY IT'S AROUND FIVE YEARS, EVERY FIVE YEARS, SOMETIMES 3 TO 5 YEARS. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LOOK AT HAVING BEEN PROPOSALS. I WOULD SECOND THAT. YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS ON THE COMMUNITY. OBVIOUSLY SOME COMMUNITIES GO 43 YEARS, BUT MORE TYPICALLY AS COMMUNITIES SET UP A ROLLING COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN OR CAPITAL 
          [01:05:05]
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, THEN YOU WOULD SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, 3 TO 7, 3 TO 5 YEARS, DEPENDING MAYBE ON THE GROWTH AND THE NEED WE SEE. WE WORK WITH SOME COMMUNITIES WHO ARE REALLY ON A REGULAR PLAN OF EVERY TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF GROWTH OR FEEL THEY'RE BEHIND. 
          BUT 3 TO 5 GIVES YOU A CHANCE TO SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU'VE MADE SOME PROGRESS, THAT YOU CAN BE TRUSTED AND THEN COME BACK WITH ANOTHER PROPOSAL. BUT. COUNCILMAN DURWOOD. DURWOOD. IF THEY'RE DOING THEM EVERY 3 TO 5 YEARS, THEN THE AMOUNT I IMAGINE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AFTER 42 YEARS, TYPICALLY. COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT'S RIGHT. NOW WE DO WE WORK IN COMMUNITIES THAT YOU ALL IN YOUR, YOU KNOW, CHECK SOME GROWTH FOR THE REGION. BUT YOUR POPULATION HAS BEEN RELATIVELY STABLE. YOU JUST HAVE A LOT OF PENT UP NEED. WE DO WORK IN SOME COMMUNITIES WITH A LOT OF GROWTH, AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE DOING LARGER THAN YOU ARE EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS. OH, REALLY? WELL. AND I THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK TO ADD IS THIS IS WHEN THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THIS ONE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS AND HOW THEY FEEL HEARD, I THINK IS, IS CERTAINLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING FOR THAT SAME DIRECTION. YES. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. I'M LOOKING AT THE SHEET AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO HIT THIS $15 NUMBER. YOU KNOW, THAT ONLY I MEAN, IT GOES TO THE BALLOT. I MEAN, THERE'S A CHANCE IT COULD GO UNDER THAT DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. I MEAN, SO YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER SORRY. NO. I'M SORRY. SO EVEN IF, IF EVERYTHING THAT IS PUT ON HERE AS DISCUSSED AND WE SAY, YOU KNOW, LET LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, IT COULD STILL GO UNDER THAT. YES, SIR. 
          YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU ARE AT $17.18 IS THE MAXIMUM THAT THE AVERAGE PRICE HOME WOULD FACE MONTHLY IF EVERYTHING PASSED, IF EVERYTHING PASSED. SO IF IN IF YOU PUT ALL SIX PROPOSITIONS OUT AND ONLY THREE PASSED, ONLY FOUR PASSED, THAT TAX RATE WOULD COME DOWN AND BE LESS. I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR YOU IS THAT AS YOU PRESENT IT TO VOTERS, AS THE NEWS MEDIA PRESENTS IT TO THE PUBLIC, IT IS LIKELY TO BE PRESENTED AS WELL. THIS IS A $300 MILLION PACKAGE WITH A $17.18 IMPACT. YOU CAN HELP EDUCATE FOLKS THROUGH YOUR CITY. 
          PIO THAT WILL. THAT'S ONLY IF ALL OF THEM PASS. SO YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BUT IT IT WILL BE PRESENTED AS A TOTAL OF 316 MILLION. AND I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS A WAY TO THINK MY, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN ON PRESENTING THEM ALL IS WE'RE NOT PRESENTING WHAT WAS PRETTY THOROUGHLY. SAID BY THE SURVEY THAT WAS DONE, THAT THEY WANTED IT BELOW 15. AND I'M JUST AFRAID PEOPLE WOULD, WOULD, WOULD THINK WE DIDN'T HEAR WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AND, YOU KNOW, REJECT MORE OF IT. NOW, PART OF THAT IS JUST MY PERCEPTION. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. SO HOW OTHERS FEEL IS CERTAINLY IMPORTANT ON THAT. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW AND I HEAR THAT AND, YOU KNOW, AND I WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE SURVEY, IT WAS LESS THAN 3% OF BEAUMONT'S POPULATION THAT RESPONDED. SO THAT'S PRETTY ABYSMAL. AND THEN IF WE PROCEED WITHOUT THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION OF THE POINT PARKWAY EXTENSION, WE ARE GUTTING 50%. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE NUMBER ONE MOST POPULAR, MOST POPULAR THING FOR VOTERS. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. AND WE ARE GUTTING OVER 50% OF WHAT THE BOND COMMITTEE PROPOSED BY NOT PUTTING DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND POINT PARKWAY ON THE BALLOT. 
          SO. I GOT THE VIBE THAT THERE ISN'T NOW THE WILL TO WANT TO DO THIS. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONLY ONE TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR IT. IF IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A WASTE OF TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WILL OF THE SURVEY AND THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I'VE BEEN HEARING A UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS FROM THE COMMITTEE BEING THROWN AT ME LIKE I'M SOMEHOW CRAZY FOR BEING AGAINST SOME OF THE PROJECTS IN THE BOND, AND WE NEEDED TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO THE COMMITTEE IN THEIR UNANIMOUS DECISION. WE ARE GUTTING 50% OF THE MOST 
          [01:10:04]
IMPORTANT PROPOSITION. SO I WANT EVERYONE TO BE CLEAR WITH THAT, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE SOME PUSHBACK FROM BOTH THE COMMUNITY. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THE COMMITTEE BY US DOING THAT. 
          THAT SAID, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, I'M FINE WITH PROCEEDING WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AS IS, BUT I'M STILL ASKING THAT WE REMOVE THE RIVERFRONT PARK AND OR IT'S KEPT AS A SEPARATE ITEM AS WELL AS ALICE KEITH. AND IF ALICE KEITH IS NOT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM, IT NEEDS TO BE UNDER WHAT IT IS, WHICH IS PARKS AND RECREATION. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS. WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THIS MINDFUL OF LIKE WHERE WE'RE SPENDING THIS MONEY. SO IF WE COME IN AT $13, SO THEN WE'VE GOT A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS. I'M GUESSING WE CAN KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH. OR MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW ABOUT WHAT PROJECTS WE NEED TO PUT WHERE. AND MAYBE SOME OF THIS NEEDS TO BE MOVED OR REPLACED. I'M LOOKING. BECAUSE, I MEAN, IF WE'RE CUTTING THINGS AND WE NEED TO CUT, THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CUT THINGS. HOW LOW DO WE WANT TO GO? I GUESS AS A COUNCIL, REALLY, ARE WE GOING WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S UNDER $15 OR WE'RE JUST GOING TO CUT PROJECTS THAT WE DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MEET THE MARK OR WHAT WHAT, WHAT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO GOING FORWARD RIGHT HERE? WELL, COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, YOU'RE MAKING A GOOD POINT, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN 43 YEARS THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT. SO AGAIN, WE GET TO WE GET TO DO THAT RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL WANT TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT LINE ITEMS, I KNOW WE ADDED MONEY TO SOME PROJECTS YESTERDAY THAT THAT WE COULD LOOK AT TO. YOU KNOW, GO FURTHER DOWN. YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL AND I THINK EVERYBODY HAS VOICED THEIR OPINION. THE QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF GETTING INTO THE INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS NOW. IS ANYBODY INTERESTED IN DOING THAT OR ARE YOU ALL HAPPY WITH THE NUMBERS THAT ARE HERE? THAT AND YOU KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE WORKSHEET IN FRONT OF YOU? YES. 
          COUNCILMAN TURNER, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO ANY NUMBERS, WE CAN LOOK AT KIND OF WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON YESTERDAY, ALMOST $17 MILLION ROUGHLY, WAS ADDED JUST ON COUNCIL TALKING ON YESTERDAY WITH YOU KNOW, WE INCREASED. ME PERSONALLY I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS THE STREETS THAT WE INCREASE FUNDING TO AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALKS. BUT IT'S THINGS LIKE PARKS THAT WE ADDED MONEY TO. I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WE WERE AROUND 22 FIVE WITH TERRELL PARK AND WE ROUNDED IT UP TO $25 MILLION. AND I KIND OF REMEMBER THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. WE WERE AT ABOUT 1.3 AND WE PUSHED IT UP TO 3 MILLION. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF START LOOKING AT TRIMMING, WE JUST KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT WE JUST KIND OF START ADDING ON YESTERDAY TO SEE WHAT NUMBER WE CAN LAND ON. I GET IT, BUT WE NEED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN LIVE WITH. YOU KNOW, I GET IT, THE GOOD CONTINGENCIES WE PUT IN PLACE, BUT IF WE DON'T NEED THAT MUCH CONTINGENCY MONEY, I'D RATHER BE CONSERVATIVE THAN JUST PUT IT IN THERE. AND I DO WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE, AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS HAPPENING I CAN'T SPEAK TO BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE HAD A BOND, BUT WE WILL BE ESTABLISHING THAT IN FUTURE DEALS. IS THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM THAT WE COULD SPEND WHAT WE'RE PASSING, WE COULD SPEND LESS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND EVERYTHING THAT'S SAID. IF WE FOUND THAT THERE'S A DESIGN AND THE BUILD IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THAT MONEY. AND I THINK TOO, THAT'S A WAY TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD. IF THE SUCCESS WE HAVE, I THINK IT COULD LEND ITSELF TO FUTURE SUCCESSES. IF THEY SEE THAT WE WERE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. BUT COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD. YEAH, COUNCILMAN TURNER MENTIONED PARKS, AND I KNOW WE KIND OF SPOKE ON IT YESTERDAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS 3 MILLION IS SPREAD ACROSS, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL. AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT NEEDED, BUT HOW FAR DOES THAT REALLY GO. AND IMPROVING EACH INDIVIDUAL PARK. AND YOU KNOW, PART OF ME WOULD RATHER SEE, YOU KNOW, TO PICK OUT TWO, THREE, FOUR. AND REALLY IT MIGHT BE A WAY TO, TO LOWER THAT NUMBER AND, AND REALLY MAKE A COUPLE OF THEM SCREAM, YOU KNOW, ONE FOR INSTANCE, COTTONWOOD PARK, IT GOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION YESTERDAY. IT'S JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM BABE ZAHARIAS PARK THAT THAT RECENTLY GOT $75,000 UPGRADE AND EQUIPMENT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT PICKING ON 
          [01:15:04]
ANYBODY THAT THAT CHOSE THESE. I'M SURE THERE WAS THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THAT MONEY REALLY GOES. AND FOR ME AS A COUNCILMAN AND A CITIZEN WHO, WHO MAY VERY WELL USE THESE WITH MY CHILDREN, I WOULD RATHER SEE MORE FOCUS ON FEW AND MAYBE EVEN LOWER THAT AMOUNT BY FOCUSING ON JUST A HANDFUL. AND IF WE COULD GET CLARITY ON BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT THERE. ONE CONCERN I HAVE ON NAMING THE PARKS IS I KNOW THAT IF IT DID NOT PASS AND I DON'T WANT TO BE A DEBBIE DOWNER BECAUSE I'M HOPING EVERYTHING PASSES, BUT IF IT DID NOT, I WOULD HATE FOR SOME OF OUR OUR PARKS THAT ARE MOST USED NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENT IN THEM IN THREE YEARS. SO DOES THAT JUST AFFECT CEOS OR WOULD IT AFFECT OUR, OUR GENERAL BUDGET TO. WE'VE BEEN WORKING YOUR YOUR YOUR BOND COUNCIL HAS BEEN DOING GOOD WORK ON THAT. AND WE'VE SAT IN ON SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH YOUR STAFF AND THE BOND COUNCIL. AND DEREK, THE QUESTION WAS, I BELIEVE, MAYOR, THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND NAMING INDIVIDUAL PARKS AND WHAT THAT MIGHT DO TO POTENTIAL CEOS. YEAH. THANKS. SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL THE AGAIN THE POINT IN BEING SPECIFIC ON PROJECTS THAT CAN ALSO BE FUNDED WITH CEOS. OKAY. THE REASON THAT'S A BIG DEAL IS BECAUSE IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPOSITION THAT THAT TYPE OF PROPOSITION FAILS, THEN THIS COUNCIL COULD NOT APPROVE C OR USE CO PROCEEDS FOR THREE YEARS FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECTS. SO IF YOU WERE VERY GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFIC, THEN THE AG'S OFFICE WOULD THEN QUESTION WHAT PROJECTS WERE YOU PLANNING TO FUND, WHICH MEANS ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH A PARK OR A ROAD OR OTHERWISE RIGHT, WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE FOR THREE YEARS. SO IN IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE'RE TRYING. THAT'S WHY WE I'VE ADVISED THAT YOU'RE MORE SPECIFIC ON PROJECTS THAT CAN BE FUNDED WITH. COS. UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THAT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE ITEMS IN THERE. AND IF FOR SOME REASON IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY GOING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, THAT IF A PROP DIDN'T PASS A PART OF IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND CAN'T WAIT. BUT WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO. SO THAT DOESN'T GIVE US JUST TO BE AWARE OF IT. SO COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, AND IF WE COULD JUST IN THE INTEREST OF HAVING SOMETHING SIDE BY SIDE, CAN WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL PROPS MAYBE NEXT TO THIS OR SOME SPLIT SCREEN OR SIDE BY SIDE WHERE WE COULD SEE WHAT WE STARTED WITH AND WHAT WE NOW SO THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WE INCREASED YESTERDAY, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT TO LOOK AT THEM SIDE BY SIDE? I DO HAVE THE PAPERS FROM YESTERDAY, BUT I DIDN'T BRING THEM. I BELIEVE THE CHAIR CAN CALL UP. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN. MAYBE SHE CAN ARRANGE IT SO WE LOOK AT THEM SIDE BY SIDE. I KNOW THAT SHE CAN PULL UP IF I CAN DO A SIDE BY SIDE. IN FACT, I CAN ADD A COLUMN. OKAY. IF YOU GIVE HER JUST A MOMENT, COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK SHE CAN ADAPT THAT ALL RIGHT. HERE. AND IF NOT, WE CAN CERTAINLY JUST GO TO A SEPARATE PAGE THAT SHOWS THAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS. COUNCILMEMBER JUST IN THE MAYOR. IN THE MEANTIME, IF I MIGHT, I HEARD A COUPLE OF YOU ASK ABOUT BOTH CONTINGENCY AND TERRELL PARK, FOR INSTANCE. AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IS ONE PLACE THAT WE DID HAVE FAIRLY GOOD CONTINGENCY AND ADDED IN SOME EXTRA BECAUSE THERE WAS THERE WERE SOME ISSUES, LIKE THE BOTANICAL GARDEN THAT CAME UP. THERE WERE SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT HADN'T BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. SO THERE I THINK THERE THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM IN THERE. I WAS DOUBLE CHECK WITH MR. RAGUET. WE MET WITH YOUR STAFF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. WE'RE TRYING TO GO OVER NUMBERS AND THESE, THIS, THESE MOVING PIECES. AND THERE DID SEEM TO BE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE 23.92 TO ADDRESS AT LEAST SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. I KNOW DRAINAGE IS SEPARATE, BUT AS WE TALK ABOUT BOTANICAL GARDENS FOR INSTANCE MR. MR. KICKED ME IN THE SHINS. I HOPE IF I'M IF I'M WRONG. BUT I BELIEVE HE FELT CONFIDENT THAT HE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE BOTANICAL GARDENS WITHIN THAT 23.9 JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YES. COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, THEN COUNCILMAN HILLIARD, ALSO IN THAT 1.3 WITH THE DIFFERENT PARKS, I THINK THAT IT WAS 
          [01:20:02]
NECESSARY FOR THOSE PARKS BECAUSE THEY HAD AGED OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE PARKS HERE, BUT THAT WAS NECESSARY. PARK REPAIRS. I MEAN, EVEN IF WE WENT BACK TO WHERE WE WERE, I THINK THAT THAT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. NECESSARY. PARKS MASTER PLAN SAYS THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT, THOUGH I THINK THE QUESTION CAME WHETHER THESE PARKS COME FROM IT CAME FROM THE PARKS MASTER PLAN. 
          WE HAD TO STUDY THE PARKS AND ASSESS THE NEEDS OF THE DIFFERENT PARKS. AND THAT LIST CAME FROM THAT MASTER PLAN OF NEEDS OF THE PARKS. COUNCILMAN HILLIARD. IF YOU IF YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERED, I DON'T NEED TO PUT YOU KNOW, BUT I, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY WE HAD DISCUSSED PICKING THREE PARKS, THREE OF OUR ONE IN THE SOUTH, ONE IN THE NORTH, AND ROGERS PARK TO FOCUS A LOT OF OUR, OUR MONIES ON THOSE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST USED PARKS. I CAN ADDRESS THAT IF YOU'D LIKE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER. WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT WITH YOUR STAFF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. WE DID ADD ROGERS PARK TO THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. IT WAS THE ONE PARK THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED. SO ROGERS PARK WAS ADDED TO THAT LANGUAGE. WE KEPT THE OTHER PARKS IN THERE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T COMPLETELY CLEAR. UNDERSTANDING WAS YOU MIGHT WANT TO MAKE THOSE THREE. 
          PREMIER, AS YOU SAY, RIGHT, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS. BUT IF THERE WAS MONEY LEFT OVER, WE WANTED THAT STILL TO BE ABLE TO FLOW TO THOSE OTHER PARKS OR SMALLER IMPROVEMENTS IN THOSE OTHER PARKS. SO FOR THE BOND LANGUAGE, WE JUST PUT ALL THE PARKS, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, JUST LISTED ALL OF THE PARKS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THROUGH YOUR EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, DURING THE BOND AND THROUGH YOUR OWN POLICYMAKING, YOU MIGHT BE MOVING TOWARDS DOING SOMETHING AT ALL THOSE PARKS, BUT DOING SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR THOSE THREE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? RIGHT NOW WHILE SHE'S WORKING ON THAT, THE. THE QUESTION IS, THE NEXT QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO GET TO IS THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS WE WANT TO GO WITH BECAUSE WE HAVE AND YOU KNOW, AND FOR CLARITY HERE, I KNOW THAT DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'M I'M A SUPPORTER OF THAT PROJECT. IT'S A LARGE PROJECT AND IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE DONE IN TWO PHASES. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAVE SUCCESS WITH THIS BOND, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MOVE TO FAIRLY QUICKLY, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET BELOW THAT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY BELOW THAT. 15 AND TO MAKE IT MORE PRESENTABLE, BECAUSE I DO THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO HEAR THE NUMBER AND NOT AND DRIFT OFF WHEN WE GET INTO THE SPECIFICS. CLEARLY FOR US, WE'RE REAL CLEAR ON IT. BUT HOW WE GET THAT TO THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO. YES. OKAY. WELL, THEN, MR. MAYOR, IF YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION, THEN WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT ON THIS BOND. AND IT SHOULD BE ITS OWN SEPARATE ITEM. IF THE PUBLIC WANTS IT, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO VOTE FOR IT. IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, THEN WE CAN WAIT THREE YEARS AND COME BACK IN THREE YEARS AND PROPOSE IT AGAIN. MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY AND A DIFFERENT PRICE. BUT I GET NOT GROUPING IT IN WITH INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THEN, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC MAY WANT SOME OF THE CURRENT ROADS TO BE IMPROVED AND FIXED. AND SO IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO SEPARATE IT. BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR AS LONG AS IT HAS, THAT IT HAD THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE BOND COMMITTEE, AND THAT IT DOES SEEM TO BE POPULAR. AND I WOULD ASK THAT IT REMAIN ON THE BOND ELECTION AS A SEPARATE ITEM. SO IN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION THAT YOU HAD, HOW MANY ITEMS SHOULD WE HAVE? I'M PROPOSING THAT WE HAVE SEVEN ITEMS PROPS A, B, C, D, E, F AND G, AND THAT G WOULD BE THE RIVERFRONT PARK. 
          ASSUMING THE COUNCIL CONTINUES TO WANT TO SUPPORT NEARLY 13 MILLION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK, IF THERE ISN'T THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE WITH 13 MILLION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK, THEN WE COULD JUST ELIMINATE THAT AND WE'D ONLY BE LOOKING AT SIX ITEMS. BUT I THINK KEEPING THIS LAST SEVEN OR LESS IS VERY FAIR. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE RIVERFRONT PARK ON HERE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING 
          [01:25:02]
DARLING AND POINT PARKWAY. NOW, IF WE WANTED TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS A LITTLE LESS IMPORTANT. MAYBE THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS FIRE STATION. I'M NOT REALLY CERTAIN, BUT RIVERFRONT PARK IS STAYING. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAY RIVERFRONT PARK IS STAYING, YOU WANT IT TO STAY AS A SEPARATE ITEM OR YOU WANT IT TO REMAIN UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION. PARKS AND RECREATION. I WANTED TO STAY UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION. OTHER COMMENTS. COUNCILMAN DARIO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FORGET OR WHAT, BUT PROPOSITION F WILL NO LONGER BE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MOVING INTO ANOTHER PROPOSITION ONE FOR SOUTH PARK. SO THAT'LL BE ONE LESS. THAT'S GOING INTO PARKS AND RECREATION. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT INTO FACILITIES BECAUSE IT'S A RECREATIONAL FACILITY, JUST LIKE THE MULTI SPORTS FACILITY. WELL THAT'S JUST IT. 
          THE WELL MAY I GO COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW. GO AHEAD. I WAS IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCILMAN TURNER. I THOUGHT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER WAS MORE THAN RECREATION, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO MOVE IT OUT OF RECREATION. AND WE WANTED TO INCLUDE IT WITH FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, BECAUSE THIS WAS, YES, AN INVESTMENT IN OUR YOUTH, BUT IT WAS ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CLASSROOMS AND JOB TRAINING AND A CO-OP BETWEEN BISD AND LAMAR. AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE THAN SPORTS AND RECREATION. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT IT WAS BEING CALLED A SPORTS COMPLEX BECAUSE YOU DISAGREED WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. AND SO THAT'S WHY IT GOT ITS DESIGNATION UNDER FACILITIES. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW A RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN PARKS AND RECREATION. SO THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE MORE MAYOR? YES, SIR. IT'S GOING TO BE MORE LIKE THE STERLING CENTER IS. 
          IT'S MORE THAN JUST SPORTS AND RECREATION THAT GO ON AT STERLING PRUITT CENTER AS WELL. 
          AND FOR THE SOUTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, SAME THING LIKE SOME OF THE SPEAKERS SAID, LIKE THE LADY SAID, YOU KNOW, TEACHING THEM DIFFERENT THINGS. YOU KNOW, HOW TO HOW TO HOW TO WRITE A CHECK. WHAT SHE SAID, HOW TO FOLD CLOTHES, COOKING CLASSES, COMPUTER CLASSES, MAYBE TEACH THEM HOW TO DO THEIR TAXES ALONG WITH SPORTS. SO IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BE A SMALLER MULTI USE FACILITY AT ALICE KEITH. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, DID YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENT OR WERE YOU YOU'LL YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE I COME BACK TO ME OKAY. 
          MAYOR. MEANWHILE, KARA HAS ADDED A COLUMN THERE THAT SHOWS SOME ORIGINAL COSTS. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE CAPTURING EVERYTHING YOU WANTED, COUNCILWOMAN. IT'S HARD TO GET IT ON ONE PAGE, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT? THE COMMITTEE'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS, FEEL FREE. OH, I KNOW WHAT IT WAS, MAYOR. I'M SORRY. YES, MA'AM. YESTERDAY WE DID IMPROVE STREETS. AN ADDITIONAL $7 MILLION. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WANT TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT THAT DID GET BUMPED UP FROM ORIGINALLY 13 TO 20. SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP AS A AS A PLACE OF THAT NUMBER JUMPED UP $7 MILLION, YOU KNOW, AND NOBODY REMEMBERED, RIGHT? YES. 
          COUNCILMAN TURNER, THAT'S WHAT I WANT THIS PAPER FOR. YEAH. ME ME PERSONALLY, I KIND OF SPOKE TO THAT EARLIER BECAUSE ORIGINALLY IT WAS PROPOSED AT 13 AND IT MOVED UP TO SEVEN. BUT IF WE DO LAND AND DON'T DO SOME OF THOSE EXTENSIONS, I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION. IF WE DO LAND AND DON'T DO SOME OF THOSE EXTENSIONS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE FUNDING IN IT TO REPRESENT SOME AREAS IN THAT WEST END, LIKE THE GLADYS. AND, YOU KNOW, I SEE WHAT THEY KIND OF FIND THAT ADDITIONAL $7 MILLION TO KIND OF TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WEREN'T LISTED EARLIER. SO IF ME PERSONALLY, I WOULDN'T WANT TO TOUCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT ALL. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND I'M JUST ONE OUT OF SEVEN OF THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMAN, I JUST WANT TO SAY I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DOLLAR ROAD EXTENSION BEING ON A PROPOSITION ON ITS OWN, AND LET PEOPLE VOTE ON IT IF THEY WANT IT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GET IT. COULD COULD STAFF. MY BAD MAYOR. 
          I'M SORRY I DIDN'T RAISE MY HAND BECAUSE STAFF KIND OF SHOW US THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THAT BEING ON HIS OWN NUMBER WISE, WHAT WE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THAT WAS ON HIS OWN. I THINK WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THE OPTIONS AND TO MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO CAN BE PHASED OUT. THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT MUCH. STAFF KIND OF SHOWED THAT IT COULD BE A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. IT SHOWED OPTIONS BECAUSE WE ARE UNDER THE NUMBER. 
          [01:30:06]
I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW CLOSE WE NUDGE UP AGAINST IT. IF IT WAS BACK THERE IN PHASES AND FULL, THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION COSTS YOU APPROXIMATELY $2.85. SO IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU PULL IT OUT, YOU KNOW, THEY GET YOU IMMEDIATELY DOWN TO 1433 WITHOUT ADDRESSING ANYTHING ELSE, POINT PARKWAY OR ANYTHING ELSE. IF YOU IF IT STAYS ON THE BALLOT, THEN YOUR OTHER ITEMS WOULD BE 1433, BUT YOU WOULD STILL TALK ABOUT THE BOND PACKAGE AS A $17.18 TOTAL PACKAGE. SO. SO EVEN WITH THE $8 MILLION CHANGE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT POINT PARK OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOLLAR. IF YOU TOOK OUT IF YOU IF YOU TOOK OUT POINT PARK IF IT STAYED OUT. SO THEN LET ME GIVE YOU SOME MATH. IT WOULD BE 1385 IF YOU TAKE OUT BOTH. SO YOU WOULD BE DOWN AT 1718 -48 WHATEVER THAT. 
          1670, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I'M A PUSH ON YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE. I KNOW NOT NOT PLEASE COUNCILMAN. SO IT'S ABOUT $16.70. OKAY. MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS TWO LEVELS TO DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION. IT'S THE START TO A CERTAIN POINT AND THEN IT TAKES IT TO ALL I-10. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE WITH COLLEGE TO WALDEN, NOT THE I-10 PORTION, BUT AT LEAST THE FIRST STEP. I THINK THE NUMBERS TO WHAT WE NUDGE UP AGAINST IF IT WAS ON THERE. YEAH, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE WOULD NUDGE UP AGAINST BECAUSE I KNOW WE GOT A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM. SO HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THAT 15 IF WE JUST DID THE FIRST EXTENSION. CAN YOU GIVE US JUST A MOMENT OR CAN YOU CALCULATE THAT. YEAH I THINK COULD I'D ASK THIS LET'S KEEP GOING TO HANDS BECAUSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE RESPECTED IN THIS. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TOLD ME THAT ARE REALLY SMART ON THIS. ONE OF THEM SITTING IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW THAT IF DOWLEN ROAD IS GOING TO WORK, IT'S GOT TO GO TO I-10. IT'S THAT IT'S THAT FRONTAGE RELIEF ROUTE. IT GETS TRAFFIC OFF OF I-10 AND GETS THEM MOVING INTO THE CITY. SO I WOULD ASK, AS WE ALL ARE, YES. SO AS WE KEEP OUR EYE ON THAT $15 MAGIC NUMBER OR SLIGHTLY UNDER 1490, WE KEEP ALL OF THE DOWLEN ROAD IN THERE, BUT WE CONTINUE TO FIND THINGS THAT WE CAN PULL OUT TO KEEP US AT THAT $15. JUST MY REQUEST, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO. I THINK IT'S GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSION. IF WE SAY, YES, WE'RE DOING THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION, BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO PART OF IT. YOU KNOW, IT JUST I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO, TO, TO, TO STAY ONE. BUT I THINK WE CAN GET TO THAT $15 NUMBER BY TRIMMING SOME OTHER THINGS. YEAH. WELL I ENCOURAGE THE HEALTHY DISCUSSION BECAUSE AGAIN WE'RE NOT AT THE END. AND IT DOESN'T HURT TO KEEP HAVING DIALOG TO KIND OF SEE WHERE WE CAN LAND. WELL, AND IT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BOONE THE PARK POINT, THE POINT PARKWAY THERE'S A THERE IS SOMETHING BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING RIGHT NOW AT THAT CORNER. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. I MEAN, WE DO. WE'VE HAD A RECENT APPLICATION FOR A BASICALLY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. AND IS THAT AT THE CORNER OF POINT PARKWAY AND NORTHWEST PARKWAY, IT'S ESSENTIALLY AT THAT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF NORTHWEST PARKWAY AND POINT PARKWAY, THAT NORTHWEST QUADRANT. YES, SIR. THAT'S SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ON THE HORIZON CURRENTLY. YES, SIR. YES, COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, AND WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT FROM YESTERDAY AS WELL, IS THAT $10 MILLION FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT, IF WE WANTED TO PULL THAT AND WE'D HAVE $10 MILLION THAT THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WE COULD ATTACK THAT LATER. THAT CAN COME OUT, BECAUSE THAT'S MOVING PEOPLE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER PLACE AND ALL OF THAT. BUT THAT JUST CAME ON YESTERDAY, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ON MY PAPER FROM THE OTHER DAY. YEAH, THAT, THAT ALSO THAT REPLACES THE MAINTENANCE FOR THE EXISTING POLICE STATION WHERE WE HAVE TO GO IN AND FIX THE THINGS BEFORE WE CAN BUILD A NEW POLICE STATION. THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 3.4 MILLION OF THAT FOR THAT. AND THEN PART OF IT WAS FOR THE FACILITIES ASSESSMENT, ALL THE CITY FACILITIES ASSESSMENT BY HALF MILLION DOLLARS OR SO. AND THEN JUST SOME, SOME WORK THAT NEEDS DOING ON OTHER CITY FACILITIES. 
          SO IF WE LOWERED THAT TO 4 MILLION, THOUGH, THAT WOULD STILL ACCOMPLISH OUR REPAIRS IN THE FACILITY. STUDY FOR THE POLICE STATION, BUT NOT THE OTHER CITY FACILITIES. OKAY, I'M JUST SAYING I'M FINDING STUFF I DON'T KNOW AND TELL ME WHAT I'M LOOKING. GOT OUT HER PENCIL. I GOT MY PENCIL, MAYOR. YES, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL STAFF CAN I GET A I JUST LIKE TO SEE ON A 
          [01:35:09]
MAP EXACTLY WHERE THIS DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION IS GOING TO BE. LIKE FROM COLLEGE ALL THE WAY TO I-10. WE COULD WE COULD PULL THAT UP. CHRIS JUNE ON ONE OF THE OLD. I CAN SEND IT TO TINA. 
          I'VE GOT IT. IF WE CAN PULL IT UP. COUNCIL MEMBER, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US A SECOND, IF WE CAN SWITCH OFF THE SPREADSHEET BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE WE SHOWED TO THE COMMITTEE AS THEY WERE MAKING THEIR DECISION. AND FOLKS JUST WATCHING FOR MYSELF AS WELL CAN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SAY THE DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. JUST JUST A REMINDER, WHEN THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT INFRASTRUCTURE, SOME OF THE ROADS THAT YOU'RE TALKING NOW THAT YOU'VE ADDED BACK IN, THE IDEA WAS THAT THOSE WOULD BE PAID FOR OUT OF OTHER CITY FUNDS. SO I THINK THE COUNCIL DECIDED FOR GOOD REASON THAT THOSE MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE ON THE BOND. BUT I JUST WANT Y'ALL TO BE AWARE OF THAT. IT'S NOT THAT THE IT'S NOT THAT THE COMMITTEE SAID THOSE WERE NOT IMPORTANT. THEY AT THE TIME THOUGHT THOSE WERE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE. MAYOR. YES. AS KARA'S PULLING THAT UP, I CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY WE ALL KNOW HOW DOWLEN ROAD ENDS AT COLLEGE STREET. SO THE IDEA WOULD BE TO CONNECT THAT FROM COLLEGE STREET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WASHINGTON STREET, AND THEN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WALDEN STREET AND THEN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO I-10. SO IDEALLY IT WOULD GO ALL THE WAY FROM I-10, ALL THE WAY UP TO DOWLEN CROSSING COLLEGE, CONNECTING WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT ON DOWLEN ROAD. AND WHERE DOES IT CONNECT AT I-10? SO JUST THE FINAL PATH HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED, BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL YEARS AGO BECAUSE AGAIN, AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION FOR REALLY MULTIPLE DECADES. IT'S ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOING BACK FROM 2002, ABOUT 8 OR 9 YEARS AGO. WE DID SOME STUDIES TO LOOK AT SOME POTENTIAL LOCATIONS AS TO WHERE IT LANDS, BUT IT'S SHORT ANSWER IT'S NOT FINALIZED, BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE TO CONNECT AT SOME POINT AT I-10. BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THE MAP UP. YEAH, BETWEEN BROOKS AND WALDEN, ROUGHLY. AND COUNCIL MEMBER. IT'S COMING. IT'S COMING UP. PARDON ME. MAYOR OH GO AHEAD. 
          IT'S COMING UP. I THE INTERNET'S JUST RUNNING A LITTLE BIT SLOW, SO IT'S SPINNING. BUT THAT THAT MAP IS COMING UP. SENT TO YOUR EMAIL. SO. MR. CITY MANAGER, I KNOW STAFF HAS SPENT SOME TIME TO REVIEWING WHAT WE DID YESTERDAY. AND IF WE BEGIN, IF WE WANT TO, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BIG PROJECTS TO CONSIDER REMOVING IN TERMS OF YESTERDAY, WE WERE ADDING MONEY TO SOME LINE ITEMS IN TERMS OF WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PULL OUT AND SEE WHERE THAT LEAVES US. BUT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY WE WANT TO THE THINGS WHEN WE'RE PASSING A BOND, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE WHAT WE ARE PORTRAYING. SO WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SUFFICIENT FUNDS THERE. 
          SO AND CHRIS. OKAY. THIS IS GOING TO CROSS WALDEN ROAD AROUND WHERE CLOSE TO THE FIRE STATION OVER THERE ON WALDEN. YES. YEAH. AND THAT I THINK THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS ALREADY SET APART. BUT YEAH, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THE CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT ON WALDEN, IT'S JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT. OKAY. WELL, I WANT WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AND THAT CAN STAY UP FOR A MINUTE. 
          I'D LIKE FOR US JUST TO WALK THROUGH THE PROPOSITIONS THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF, IN, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK INITIATIVE, YESTERDAY, WHEN IT CAME TO US, IT WAS AT $5 MILLION. AND COUNCIL DECIDED TO UP IT TO TEN. SO AT ONE TIME FIVE SEEMED ADEQUATE. YOU KNOW, CLEARLY SIDEWALK MONEY DOESN'T GO NEAR AS FAR AS YOU'D THINK IT WOULD IN TERMS OF REPAIRS. THEY JUST PUT THE SIDEWALK IN IN FRONT OF BEAUMONT UNITED DOWN FINET. AND THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, $1 MILLION, THAT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THAT PROPOSAL. SO I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT SIDEWALKS ARE CERTAINLY A NEED. BUT THE BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS AT 5 MILLION, AND THAT WAS A NUMBER THAT AT ONE TIME WAS COMFORTABLE, AS ARE WE WANTING TO STAY AT 10 MILLION. AND I APOLOGIZE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS, BUT I WANT TO HIT 
          [01:40:01]
THE ONES THAT WE WENT UP ON BECAUSE I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH GOING BACK WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION. YEAH, THAT. ALL RIGHT. MAKE SURE. ANY OTHER ANY COMMENTS. YEAH. WELL I, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THOSE SIDEWALKS MOSTLY BECAUSE I MEAN IN WARD THREE, THOSE SIDEWALKS. YES, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE, BUT THEY'RE NECESSARY BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET RUN OVER AND IT'S DANGEROUS IN A LOT OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS THAT PEOPLE ARE FREQUENTLY WALKING. I THINK WE CAN NEGOTIATE SOMEWHERE. WE MAYBE HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM TO CUT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED SOME SIDEWALK MONEY. I DON'T. WELL, LET LET'S GET JUST SOME DIRECTION, BECAUSE ONE CONCERN I HAVE BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER IS ON THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK INITIATIVE, IT SAYS MAJOR SIDEWALK INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS SIDEWALK CITY CITYWIDE. 
          SO IF IT FAILED, IT'S GOING TO PRECLUDE US FROM DOING ANY SIDEWALK, BECAUSE THAT'S ANY SIDE THAT COULD FALL UNDER ANY SIDEWALK. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING THAT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ON THAT BECAUSE. WE COULD BE TAKING SIDEWALKS OFF FOR THREE YEARS IN TERMS OF ANY CEOS. THEN WE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, WE ADDED. LOOKING HERE TO. ADDED SEVEN, IT WAS ALREADY AT 13. ADDED SEVEN UP TO 20 MILLION. MAYOR. YES, ONLY STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE DOING STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THE CITY. OTHER THAN THESE STREETS. THAT'S GOING TO BE PAID FOR WITH THE BOND. YES. AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE DOING OUR CITYWIDE DITCHING PROGRAM. AND THAT'S PART OF DRAINAGE, ISN'T IT? IT IS WHAT WHAT WAS. AND WHEN I SAY STILL GOING TO BE DOING IT, I MEAN, IF FOR SOME REASON THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED, WE STILL WILL BE ABLE TO DO STREET IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I MEAN, I, I THINK THIS WAS FOR EQUIPMENT FOR CITYWIDE DITCHING SO THAT IT WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY. BUT WE LET'S GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT. THIS WAS ALSO THIS WAS GOING TO SHIFT THE FUNDING FOR OUR CITYWIDE DITCHING PROGRAM FROM CEOS TO GEOS. SO THAT WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS TO MOVE THAT FUNDING OVER OUR ANNUAL CITYWIDE DITCHING. WE SPEND ABOUT $3.5 MILLION PER YEAR THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE IT FROM CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AND MOVE IT TO GENERAL OBLIGATION. SO IF IT WERE TO NOT SUCCEED, THEN WE WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE WORK THAT THE CITY CREWS WOULD BE DOING FOR THAT PERIOD. SO IF WE REMOVE THE THREE AND A HALF, THAT COULD BE DONE BY CEOS. AND JUST LEAVE THE I THINK YOU'RE MISSING WHAT SHE'S SAYING. OKAY. 
          TRADITIONALLY WE FUND THEM BY CEOS. WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT WE TRANSFERRED HOW WE'RE FUNDING THOSE ANNUAL PROJECTS TO FROM CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATIONS TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS, THIS PARTICULAR BOND. AND SO WHAT SHE SAID IS THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE AT THE SCALE OF WHAT THEY CURRENTLY DO IT, IT WOULD BE REDUCED IF IT FAILED BECAUSE YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO FUND THROUGH CEOS. AND BUT WE FELT LIKE WE HAD THE CAPACITY TO DO IT THROUGH CEOS BEFORE WE DID. 
          THAT'S HOW WE FUNDED IT UP THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THIS ALSO HELPED US GET SOME OF THE REALLY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT THAT LASTS FOR 20 YEARS, THE GREAT BIG EQUIPMENT THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD IN OUR BUDGET. THIS ALLOWS US TO PURCHASE THOSE BIG PIECES OF EQUIPMENT TO. 
          UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE'RE SPENDING. MIKE, I THINK ONE OF THE SECOND COUNCIL MEETINGS, WE HAD TO SPEND, WHAT, 80, $90,000 TO FIX ONE OF THE MACHINES WE USED TO DO A REPAIR ON. SO, I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING YOU KNOW, I GO BACK TO THE SAME THING, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTS THE OLD CAR. THEY KEEP FIXING TO KEEP WORKING, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO GO AHEAD AND BUY THE NEW AND COME UP WITH A 20 YEAR WARRANTY OR A TEN YEAR WARRANTY VERSUS CONTINUE TO FIX. 
          AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS, TO BE CLEAR. BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OUR DITCHING PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT, AND IF THAT PROPOSITION WERE TO FAIL, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO 
          [01:45:02]
SPEND MONEY ON IT, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON SPENDING TO ENSURE THAT IT DID HAPPEN. AND I DON'T WANT AGAIN, I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE THAT THESE PROPOSITIONS WILL PASS, BUT IN THE EVENT THEY DON'T, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT ITEMS THAT WOULD BE A REAL DETRIMENT TO DAY TO DAY LIFE WITHIN THE CITY IF WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT AT THE PACE THAT WE'RE DOING IT NOW. WELL, MOLLY, ON ON THE CITY SIDEWALK INITIATIVE, SOME OF THE SIDEWALK, A LOT OF THE STREETS IN MY WARD HAVE DITCHES. NOW, IF WE PUT SIDEWALKS IN THERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CURB AND GUTTER AND PUT SIDEWALKS ON TOP. ARE WE GOING TO JUST PUT THE SIDEWALKS ON THE SIDE OF DITCHES? WELL, THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT THE FIRST STEP OF THIS INITIATIVE IS BECAUSE IT WOULD ALSO FUND THAT SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. AND SO IT WOULD PRIORITIZE WHERE OUR DESTINATIONS, WHICH PRIORITY DESTINATIONS WE HAVE IN THE CITY THAT ARE PEDESTRIAN GENERATORS, AND THEN IDENTIFY THE PATHS TO GET AS MANY PEDESTRIANS AS POSSIBLE TO THOSE LOCATIONS. AND THEN FROM THERE, IDENTIFY WHERE CAN WE GET THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK? AND BUT THAT WOULD ALSO KEY PIECE OF THAT MASTER PLANNING PROCESS IS THE TOWN HALLS, WHERE WE GET THE COMMUNITY INPUT DIRECTLY FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHICH WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING, AND WE'RE KEEPING TRACK OF THAT. BUT THAT IS A MORE FORMALIZED PROCESS TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, IDENTIFY THE SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR PROJECTS. ADD THAT BACK IN. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WE GAVE IS LIKE HELBIG ROAD, THE NEED FOR SIDEWALK ON THE EAST SIDE OF HELBIG, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU HAVE TO PIPE IN THE DITCH TO AND THEN ADD THE INLETS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT SIDEWALK. AND SO JUST FOR THE STRETCH THAT WE SHOWED, IT WAS $3.6 MILLION, WHICH WILL QUICKLY GOBBLE UP ANY CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS ASSIGNED. 
          BUT IDENTIFYING HOW THAT FITS IN A PRIORITY AS IT RELATES TO OTHER SCHOOLS OR OTHER HOSPITALS OR OTHER SOCIAL SERVICE LOCATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT, RECREATION CENTERS, ALL OF THAT GETS WEIGHTED. AND THEN YOU IDENTIFY A PLAN MOVING FORWARD OF WHERE TO ALLOCATE YOUR FUNDS. 
          SO IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD PROBABLY, I GUESS WHEN YOU GET STARTED TO SAVE MONEY, YOU PUT PART OF YOUR PLAN WILL BE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY CURBS AND GUTTERS, AND YOU CAN JUST PUT A SIDEWALK ON TOP WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT PIPES IN. IT DEPENDS ON THE NEED FOR THE WALKABILITY OF THE PARTICULAR LOCATION IT WE REALLY HAD TO PRIORITIZE. YOU REALLY WANT TO PRIORITIZE BASED BASED ON WHICH FACILITIES ARE GENERATING THE NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS, AND THEN WORK OUT FROM THERE. AND SOME LOCATIONS, THEY MAY HAVE ENOUGH SHOULDER TO ACCOMMODATE A SIDEWALK, BUT EACH EACH LOCATION AND EACH PAD HAS TO BE EVALUATED INDIVIDUALLY. AND ALL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE COST, ALL OF THAT THROUGH THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. YES, SIR. MUCH LIKE OUR PARKS MASTER PLAN GIVES US GIVES US A ROAD MAP. YES, COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, THIS QUESTION IS FOR GAP STRATEGIES. IF WE MADE THE DECISION THAT WE WANTED THIS AMOUNT OF THE TOTAL BOND TO BE AROUND $14.90, KEEPING THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AS A SEPARATE ITEM FOR US TO VOTE ON, WHAT DOES THE ADDITIONAL TOTAL AMOUNT NEED TO BE? AND DO YOU WANT DOWLEN ROAD FIGURED INTO THAT COST, OR IS IT A I DO WANT DOWLEN ROAD FIGURED IN, BUT I THINK THAT THE CONSENSUS IS POINT PARKWAY WOULD COME OUT SO DUSTY. DID YOU HEAR THAT? SO POINT 90 YOU SAY? YEAH, AROUND 1490. JUST SHY OF $15. GOTCHA. DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT, MA'AM? YES. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBER IS THAT WE NEED ON THIS BUDGET TO MAKE THIS WORK WITH THE DOWLAND POINT EXTENSION, WITHOUT POINT PARKWAY AND WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. AND MAYBE THERE'S A CHANCE. COULD WE JUST DO AN ACROSS THE BOARD PERCENTAGE REDUCTION WAY? WELL, MAY I CAUTION YOU GETTING INTO ALL THESE SMALL PROJECTS AND START TO CUT THEM UP, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JEOPARDY AND BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE THOSE PROJECTS. SO I ASK YOU TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND START STARTING TO DIG THAT DEEPLY INTO THESE SMALL PROJECTS, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH MARGIN FOR ERROR IN THOSE PROJECTS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THOSE PROJECTS. SO JUST BE CAREFUL WITH THAT. UNDERSTOOD. COUNCILMAN HILLIARD, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO BE OPTIMISTIC AND BELIEVE THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE 
          [01:50:05]
ARE GOING TO PASS. BUT THESE ARE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO GUT ANYTHING. WE JUST LEAVE IT TO THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT AND THE CHANCES OF THEM PASSING EVERY ONE OF THESE ARE ARE PRETTY SLIM. I MEAN, WE HAD WHAT, 15,000 PEOPLE SHOW UP FOR OUR ELECTION. SO THIS WILL BE A NOVEMBER ELECTION, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW. I MEAN, THAT GETS CLOSER TO 70% VOTER PARTICIPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AS OPPOSED TO 20%. SO WE WILL KNOW HOW MANY WILL GO THAT FAR DOWN THE BALLOT. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE GOING ON. 
          NO. THAT'S IT. YEAH. PRESIDENTIAL ORAL. YEAH. SO IT'S SO THAT THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN 50. I, I SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE, WE ENTRUSTED A COMMITTEE OF THE PEERS AND RESPECTED MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WHY NOT ALLOW THIS TO STAND THE WAY WE HAVE IT AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE? I MEAN, WE MAY CAN CHANGE THE PROPOSITIONS AROUND, BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE HAS TO STAY. I MEAN, THAT'S A BIG ONE. BUT, BUT BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO NICKEL AND DIME IT AND JUST LET IT GO AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WELL, WE JUST DID A POLL AND EVERYONE WANTED TO KEEP IT AT $15. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THAT NUMBER. RIGHT. YOU EARLIER YOU SAID YOU WANTED $15. IT WAS. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT WAS SAID. AND I THINK THAT'S ONE REASON WE'RE WALKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD, WOULD IT BE LIKE AND I. APPRECIATE THOSE WORDS, COUNCILMEMBER CRENSHAW, TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, I THINK WHAT YOU WERE ASKING IS IF WE WERE TO KEEP THE TOTAL TAX RATE FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER AT MORE OR LESS $14.90, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO REDUCE? EVERYTHING, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF EVERYTHING ELSE BUT DOWN THE ROAD TO CORRECT. 
          OKAY. WHAT I, WHAT I'VE CALCULATED IS, IS THAT KEEPING IS TO GET TO 1490. WE NEED TO BE AT ABOUT $275 MILLION TOTAL. RIGHT. AND SO TO DO TO THEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE MAKING SURE WE KEEP DOWLING IN THERE, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE AT OR ABOUT $222.4 MILLION, I BELIEVE. WHAT WAS THAT 41 MILLION? 220 2.4 SO GETTING TO THAT WOULD I MEAN, WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 316, SO GETTING IT TO 75 WOULD BE CUTTING 41 MILLION. SO I HAVE ALL RIGHT LET'S GO TO HAND RAISING JUST SO WE DON'T STEP ON EACH OTHER. YES COUNCILWOMAN. YESTERDAY WE STARTED AT 210. SO IF WE WENT BACK TO WHAT WE STARTED WITH WE'D BE AT 210, RIGHT? YES. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A LOT IN INFRASTRUCTURE ON SIDEWALKS AND STREETS. IF WE CUT JUST WHAT WE NEED TO CUT. WAIT A MINUTE. LET ME GET MY MATH TOGETHER. COUNCILMAN, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION. SO TAKING THAT 22.4, THINKING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE MOST POPULAR ITEM ON THIS ENTIRE LIST, THAT TAKES OUT 58 MILLION, THAT GETS US DOWN TO ONE. WHAT? WE CAN REDUCE THAT TO 50 BECAUSE WE RAISED IT TO 20. REMEMBER? I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WANT TO KNOW, BUT THOSE WERE STREETS FOR WARDS THREE AND FOUR. 13 TO SEVEN IS NOT OKAY. THOSE. OKAY. 
          I'M OKAY WITH IT. I'M JUST OKAY. JUST DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. SO 2. MAYOR. YES. JUST JUST FOR CLARITY. ALSO WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL COST COLUMN. RIGHT. BUT THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF A HYBRID THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT STRICTLY THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL. THAT INCLUDES SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS. WHAT WAS PRESENTED YESTERDAY? AND WE DID HEAR FROM THE CHAIR OF, OF THE BOND ADVISORY, AND I KNOW ABOUT THE BECAUSE THE POLICE STATION IS A BIG TICKET ITEM AT 60 MILLION AND THAT OR ALMOST 61 MILLION. AND THAT WAS NOT A PART OF IT BECAUSE IT WAS $100 MILLION NUMBER. AND THEY JUST IT WASN'T THAT THEY WERE AGAINST IT. THEY DECIDED TO REMOVE IT FOR THAT REASON. SO I'M JUST DOING THE MATH HERE. GAP STRATEGIES COULD HELP ME. SO WITH THE 222 MILLION LEFT, IF YOU TAKE OUT INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS 58 MILLION, THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 164 MILLION THAT WE NEED TO FUND. FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS AND RECREATION. AND WOULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU GOT TO 220. 
          YOU SAID YOU GOT TO 222 MILLION. THAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT Y'ALL JUST GAVE US. THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE 275 LESS DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION, RIGHT? LESS DOWLEN ROAD. THAT'S. SO THEN I'M GOING TO GO ON AND REMOVE INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S PRETTY EASY. SO THAT 
          [01:55:05]
LEAVES US WITH 136 ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND FACILITIES, LET'S JUST SAY 50 MILLION ON PARKS AND RECREATION. BUT THEN I'M ASSUMING WE'RE MOVING ALICE KEATH NOW UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION. SO LET'S JUST SAY THAT'S 60 MILLION. SO THAT'S BASICALLY 130 6.1 PLUS THE 60 MILLION. THAT'S AT ABOUT 190 6.1. SO WE NEED TO COME UP WITH ABOUT 30 MILLION IN CUTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE 275 MILLION WORK. BUT YOU GOT $250 MILLION PROJECTS ON THERE. CAN I, CAN I CAN I TALK? YES. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I THINK REALISTICALLY WE PROBABLY NEED TO CHANGE THAT NUMBER. I KNOW THAT WE DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO STICK TO $15, BUT REALLY NEED TO MAKE IT 17, OR WE NEED TO CUT DOWLING ROAD BECAUSE WE GOT TO. I MEAN, THIS IS MY THOUGHTS. WE NEED TO GO UP TO 1750 AND PUT IT ALL IN THERE, OR WE'RE GOING TO WAIT ON DOWLING ROAD AND WE'RE GOING TO STAY INSIDE THE $15, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE HICCUP IS IN THE GIDDYUP TO ME. THANK YOU. 
          COUNCILWOMAN. MAYOR, CAN I ASK? YES, MR. CITY MANAGER. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YESTERDAY, THE 210 AND WHAT WE CAN AFFORD TODAY? WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THAT DIFFERENCE? THE 210 MILLION THAT THE COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED. SO WHAT WE'VE ADDED. GO AHEAD. CARA. SO THE DIFFERENCES ARE THIS JUST NEED A TOTAL NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 210 AND WHAT WE CAN AFFORD UP TO THE 15. OH I SEE. SO TO 10 TO 75. SO ABOUT ABOUT $65 MILLION. 67 OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO IF I CAN MAKE A PROPOSAL IN ORDER TO SLIM 30 MILLION OFF OF THIS BUDGET TO GET US TO THAT NUMBER. AND THIS IS JUST MY PROPOSAL. I THINK WE BRING 6 MILLION LESS OFF OF THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, WHICH IS NOW INCREASED TO 61 MILLION. 
          THAT WOULD BRING US BACK TO 55 MILLION. MR. WILLIAMS, DON'T YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THE DEPARTMENT BUILT FOR 55 MILLION TOTAL? THANK YOU. I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO TAKE OFF THE 1 MILLION IN CAMERAS. AND THAT SHOULD JUST BE FUNDED THROUGH OUR GENERAL FUND. I WOULD BE VERY SCARED IF THIS DIDN'T GET APPROVED. AND THEN WE CAN'T BUY CAMERAS FOR THE REAL TIME CRIME CENTER BY PUTTING THAT ON THE BALLOT. IT'S ONLY $1 MILLION. NO PROBLEM. BUT THAT'S NOT CAMERAS ANYMORE. IT'S MORE SAFETY RELATED. OKAY, WELL, EITHER WAY, WE'LL MAKE THAT WORK. SO THAT'S 7 MILLION. I WOULD ASK THAT THE. ALICE KEITH PARK COME DOWN SOME TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING THE GRANT. SO IF THAT COULD COME DOWN 2 MILLION, WHICH WILL MAKE UP FOR THE GRANT, THAT STILL GIVES US A $11 MILLION FACILITY, WHICH IS STILL A GREAT FACILITY AND SIGNIFICANT. AND THEN. SO THAT WOULD BRING THAT SEVEN THAT'S DOWN THAT TO 9 MILLION. YES. AND THEN I ALSO PROPOSE ELIMINATING THE 12.5 MILLION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK. AND WE CONSIDER FUNDING THAT IF AND WHEN WE DO THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE TO BORROW CLOSE TO 200 MILLION TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. AND SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE THINK THAT WE NEED FOR RIVERFRONT PARK COULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT FUNDING. SO THAT GIVES THAT BRINGS US TO 21.9 MILLION. THAT'S BEING CUT. SO WE NEED TO FIND AN ADDITIONAL 8 MILLION SOMEWHERE ELSE. I BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD LIKELY TAKE FROM THE 10 MILLION THAT WE SET ASIDE FOR FACILITIES UPGRADES. WE COULD COME DOWN ON THAT SLIGHTLY TO 8 MILLION. I THINK WE COULD STILL GET A LOT DONE FOR THAT 8 MILLION. SO THAT LEAVES AN ADDITIONAL 7.5 MILLION OTHER ITEMS IN HERE THAT I THINK ANIMAL SHELTER. YOU CAN CUT THAT. I DON'T I DON'T AGREE THAT THE ANIMAL SHELTER SHOULD BE CUT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT MAYBE WE COULD SLIGHTLY MODIFY. THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND COME OFF 2.5 MILLION THERE. THAT WOULD GET US DOWN TO 5 MILLION. I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE ON THE CITY WIDE SIDEWALKS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE 5 MILLION. AND THEN WE CAME UP WITH A 10 MILLION. WHY DON'T WE SLIM THAT DOWN TO 7.5? SO THAT WOULD GET US DOWN TO 2.5 MILLION. AND THEN 
          [02:00:08]
FINALLY ON. TERRELL PARK UPGRADES YESTERDAY, IT STARTED AT 23.9 MILLION. I'M THE ONE THAT MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE BUMP IT UP TO 25 MILLION. I THINK I HEARD COUNCILMAN TURNER EARLIER MAKE COMMENTS THAT HE THINKS THAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL NUMBER. 
          SO IF THAT GOES BACK TO THE 23.9, THAT SAVES US AN ADDITIONAL MILLION. THAT LEAVES US ABOUT 1.4 MILLION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT EASILY COULD PROBABLY COME OUT OF STREETS THAT HAVE COME UP TO 20 MILLION. JUST BRING THAT DOWN TO 18.5. SO AGAIN, THAT GETS EVERYONE VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE WITH ALL OF THEIR PRIORITY PROJECTS. THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE REALLY GIVING UP IN THIS WOULD BE THE RIVERFRONT PARK. AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT ONCE WE MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL THAT COULD BE FACTORED INTO THAT. 
          OTHER THAN THAT, IT GETS EVERYONE WHERE THEY NEED TO BE ON THEIR SPENDING. IT GETS US TO THE $14.90, AND IT GIVES VOTERS THE OPTION ON THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION. THAT'S MY PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I THINK THAT THAT'S A NICE PROPOSAL, BUT ORIGINALLY WE WERE TAKING DOWN THE ROAD OUT AND KEEPING THE PROJECTS REGULAR. SO NOW WE'RE CUTTING UP EVERY PROJECT TO MAKE ROOM FOR DARLING ROAD. I MEAN, I GET IT, BUT ORIGINALLY WE WERE REMOVING IT ALTOGETHER. NOW WE SLICING AND DICING EVERYBODY'S PROJECT TO PUT THE ROAD BACK IN. I DON'T KNOW, BUT COUNCIL WEIGH IN. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SHERWOOD. 
          COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS YEAH I JUST I MEAN ROUGH MATH. I MEAN, THERE IS 30 MILLION IN CONTINGENCY. IS THAT DO YOU HAVE A TOTAL FOR CONTINGENCIES IN HERE OR. A CONTINGENCY TOTAL. THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. AT LEAST THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN CONTINGENCIES. YES. SO I MEAN, IS, IS THAT JUST IF WE COME ACROSS SOMETHING THAT I MEAN, YES, THAT'S EXACTLY IT, COUNCILMEMBER. JUST OUR EXPERIENCE WITH BONDS. AND I THINK MOLLY WOULD TELL YOU, JUST IN CONSTRUCTION IN GENERAL, IT'S TYPICAL FOR EARLY COST ESTIMATES TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY LINE ITEM TO BE SAFE, JUST TO BE SAFE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE'S A CHANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HIT A HOME RUN AND COULD COME IN UNDER. ABSOLUTELY. SO I MEAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT I MEAN, THERE IS $30 MILLION IN CONTINGENCY BUILT IN. THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY, IN ADDITION, ON SOME OF YOUR PROJECTS, YOU MAY WANT TO HIRE OUTSIDE PROJECT MANAGERS, AND THAT'S NOT IN THE COST. SO THAT WOULD BE RIGHT NOW MADE UP OUT OF CONTINGENCY. JUST IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS AT ONCE, YOU MAY WANT SOME OUTSIDE FIRMS TO HELP MANAGE THOSE THAT WOULD ALSO COME OUT OF CONTINGENCY, BUT OTHERWISE. YES, SIR. OKAY. WELL, I CERTAINLY AM COMFORTABLE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE BROUGHT YESTERDAY. I MEAN, WE INFLATED SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS WHICH HAVE INCREASED IT, AND I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT. THE BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE NUMBERS. WE WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT AND I'LL GET I'LL PROMISE YOU, I'LL RUN DOWN THIS SIDE NEXT. THE RIVERFRONT PARK EXTENSION. THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WHOLE EVER SINCE AT&T AND HAVING A YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE RIVERFRONT ITSELF OPENED BACK UP. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A COMMUNITY VENUE IN THE EVENT HOTEL, A CONVENTION CENTER. NOW, IF WE HAD THE CAPACITY WITH COS TO ADD THAT IN THERE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER. BUT I DO WANT US TO. NOT BE. I WOULD I THINK THAT PROJECT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF BEING A MORE ATTRACTIVE COMMUNITY AND MORE VIABLE FOR DOWNTOWN AND BRINGING PEOPLE DOWNTOWN WHERE WE'RE ADDING RESTAURANTS. WE'VE GOT SOME MORE. AND SO HAVING OTHER ITEMS FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT ALSO. 
          FOCUS ON THE RIVER, WHICH IS A REAL ATTRACTION FOR PEOPLE THAT BEEN UNDER UTILIZED HISTORICALLY. COUNCILMAN DARIO, SO I WANT TO AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD SAID A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT THAT 15 MIGHT NOT BE A REALISTIC NUMBER, BUT IF DOES ANYBODY UP HERE THINK THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE GOING TO PASS? WITHOUT A DOUBT, ALL OF THEM, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS UNTIL AFTER PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. THEN WE'LL KNOW WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH AND THAT THAT NUMBER OF 315 MILLION IS NOT A REALISTIC NUMBER UNLESS WE UNLESS YOU THINK THAT EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE GOING TO PASS. FROM MY 
          [02:05:06]
PERSPECTIVE, I THINK AS A COUNCIL, WE OUGHT TO PRESENT PROPOSITIONS THAT WE SUPPORT AND THAT WE DO LIKE TO SEE PASSED. AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ALL WILL PASS, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE PRESENTING PROPOSITIONS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PASS AND FEEL THE NEED FOR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF. YOU KNOW, THAT TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT, IT'S IF WE GO TO LOWER THAT. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, MAYOR. THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD THE COMMITTEE, THEY PRESENTED SOME PROJECTS THEY BROUGHT THEY BROUGHT THAT RECOMMENDATION TO US. WE ADDED A COUPLE OTHER PROJECTS TO IT. AND NOW THE NEXT PART OF THE PROCESS IS TO LET THE CITIZENS VOTE ON WHAT THEY WANT. UNDERSTOOD. I MEAN, WE'VE ADDED, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OFF HAND, BESIDES THE LITTLE ONES, THE $55 MILLION, 60 MILLION POLICE STATION AND THE $10 MILLION ALICE KEITH PARK, WHICH ARE BOTH BIG NUMBERS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'VE ADDED. SO, I MEAN, THAT IS HOW WE GOT THERE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THOSE AREN'T IMPORTANT. 
          AND I ALSO THINK PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY WILL HAVE, WOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN HAD THEY HAD MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION ON THOSE, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING. SO I'M NOT PROPOSING TAKING THOSE OUT. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY A BIG CHUNK OF WHERE WE GOT WHERE THE NUMBERS WENT UP. COUNCILMAN TURNER, I THINK LIKE THE BIGGEST HANGUP IS, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY WE WERE AT A NUMBER WITH THE DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION. THEN WE CAME IN WITH THE POLICE STATION THAT WAS SLIGHTLY HIGHER. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE KIND OF STUCK WITH THE BIGGEST HANGUP. AND I THINK COUNCIL SHOWED THAT THE CONSENSUS THAT WE ALL SUPPORT THE POLICE STATION. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN I'M OPTIMISTIC OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AND DIALOG TO SEE WHAT WE CAN PUT THE BEST PACKAGE FORWARD. YOU KNOW, FOR THE CITIZENS. THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF DOING MORE LISTENING RIGHT NOW THAN TALKING, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO HEAR EVERYBODY OUT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. YES, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, I JUST LIKE YESTERDAY WHERE WE TOOK THE PARKS FROM 1.1 TO THREE. I'M ASSUMING THE 1.1 IS KIND OF BASED OFF OF SOMETHING IN THE PARKS MASTER PLAN. THERE WAS WORK PUT INTO IT. I MEAN, DO WE EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ADDITIONAL MONEY WOULD DO? IS THERE A PLAN FOR IT, OR IS IT JUST IS IT BEEFED UP TO BE BEEFED UP? PART OF IT WAS THE RUBBER FLOORING OKAY. IT'S THE YEAH. IT YOU KNOW, SPENDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, ON, ON THE PARKS THAN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. AND ANOTHER PART OF IT, WHEN WE ARE TOLD THE PRICE OF IT JUST DID CENTRAL PARK AND THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A HALF $1 MILLION RIGHT THERE JUST FOR ONE PARK. RIGHT. AND COUNCILMAN TURNER, YOU KNOW, HE, HE SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO THINK ABOUT WITH THAT 1.4 MILLION FOR NINE PARKS, WHAT WERE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET WITH THAT. NO. AND I JUST AND I LOOK AT THE YOU KNOW, WHAT'S LISTED IN THE NEW ONE. IT HAS TERRELL PARK AS A PART OF IT. AND THEN YOU KNOW, BUT THEN THERE'S 20 SOMETHING MILLION DOLLARS TO UPGRADING TERRELL PARK. AND SO I, WE DID TAKE SOME OF THE PART OF WHAT WAS IT, THE PAVILION AND THE, THE, THE TOWER IN THE MIDDLE. THEY ELIMINATED THAT TO FOR MORE CAPACITY ON THE BOTANICAL GARDENS TO MOVE SOME OF THE MONEY FOR WELL BUT VERY LITTLE THOSE BOTANICAL GARDENS, THE MAJORITY OF IT WAS FOR DRAINAGE FOR THE GOLF COURSE AND IT WAS ANOTHER AMPHITHEATER. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY AMPHITHEATERS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IN BEAUMONT? ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO JUST. YEAH. CITY MANAGER AND HEY, I THINK THE, THE EXTENSION OF THE ROAD IS I, I LIKE IT JUST AS MUCH AS I LIKE THE POLICE STATION. SO I WISH WE HAD THE MONEY. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGER GAME CHANGES IN THE HISTORY OF BEAUMONT IF THAT ROAD COULD HAPPEN. BUT I SEE Y'ALL ARE STRUGGLING WITH TRYING TO GET THERE WITH THE DOLLARS, AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER DOING THE POINT PARKWAY AND NOT DOWLING, AND THAT PUTS YOU IN THE DOLLARS TOO. BUT YOU STILL GET A GOOD ROAD PROJECT THAT PROVIDES REAL VALUE TO BEAUMONT AND OPENS UP THAT 105 AREA FOR NOW, UNTIL WE COULD COME BACK AND MAYBE DO ANOTHER BOND WITH YOU, HAVE A PROJECT GOING IN AND OUT THERE, DUPONT PARKWAY FOR NOW, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. JUST 
          [02:10:07]
JUST A THOUGHT. WELL, I THINK THEREIN I WANT US TO GO BACK WITH. TAKING DOWLEN ROAD. IF WE TOOK DOWLEN ROAD OUT AGAIN AND LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD. THAT WOULD LOWER US BY 60 MILLION. YEAH, BUT IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, WE CAN BEGIN CHANGING SOME OF THESE NUMBERS. CARES PREPARED A SEPARATE SHEET SO WE DON'T LOSE THESE ORIGINALS. AND THAT WAY IF YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO JUST TO TRY THINGS OUT, WE CAN MOVE THEM. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREENS HOW THAT AFFECTS THE NUMBERS. AND I LIKE THAT ONE THING I WANT TO WALK BACK THROUGH, BECAUSE WE SEEM TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT ON AND I WANT TO GET CLARITY FROM COUNCIL. SO HOW DEEP OF A DIVE WE WANT TO DO IF WE'RE FOR GETTING BELOW 15, WE'RE GOING TO BE CUTTING THAT. I HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT HERE. HANG ON. ABOUT 40 MILLION MAYOR. RIGHT. I THOUGHT IT WAS 3041 MILLION. NO, IT'S CUTTING 41 MILLION TO GET TO 1490 WAS BECAUSE IT'S TWO 7275 MILLION FROM THE CURRENT THREE. 16 MILLION IS WHAT DUSTY SAID. IS THAT CORRECT? DUSTY? 275. SO THAT'S $41 MILLION CUT. AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, AND AT ONE POINT THAT WAS SEEMED TO BE THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL, IF THE CONSENSUS IS CHANGING, YOU KNOW, WE AND THE VOTES ARE THERE, I'M NOT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO START CUTTING ALL THESE AND GIVE THE VOTERS A CHOICE. BUT. YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT WE HAD SAID EARLIER AS A CONSENSUS, IT SOUNDED LIKE WE WANTED TO BE BELOW 15. IF WE IF THERE'S A CHANGE OF THAT WE NEED, WE NEED TO. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR. VOICED BY. COUNCIL. AND I. GO AHEAD. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I WOULD PROPOSE, AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WHY DON'T WE JUST LEAVE DOWLEN ROAD, POINT PARKWAY AND RIVERFRONT HAVE THOSE EACH SEPARATE ITEMS THAT WE CAN VOTE ON WILL STILL COME IN UNDER THE 15 IF THOSE PROJECTS DON'T GET APPROVED, AND THE VOTERS CAN DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO PAY MORE THAN 15, IF THEY WANT TO PAY MORE THAN 15, THEY CAN VOTE ON THOSE THREE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. WE CAN INCLUDE ALICE KEITH UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION, AND THEN THE ONLY THREE SEPARATE ITEMS WILL BE DOWLEN ROAD, RIVERFRONT AND POINT PARKWAY. THAT WOULD BE MY PROPOSAL THAT GETS US IF A, B AND C, WHICH IS INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PARKS AND RECREATION ARE ALL APPROVED, THAT WOULD BE UNDER $15. BUT IF THE VOTERS DECIDE THEY WANT TO PAY A LITTLE EXTRA, THEN THEY CAN VOTE ON D, E AND F, WHICH WOULD BE DOWLEN ROAD, POINT PARKWAY AND RIVERFRONT. I THINK THAT KIND OF GETS EVERYBODY WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AND SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN TURNER. FOR ME, THIS IS WHAT I ■ACTUALLY STRUGGLE AT BECAUSE ME PERSONALLY, AS A PERSON WHO GETS TO VOTE ON THIS, I DON'T MIND GOING OVER THE 15 IN MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. BUT WHEN YOU DID THE SURVEY, YOU KNOW, THE VOTERS AND I KNOW WE SAID IT WAS ONLY THIS PERCENTAGE, BUT I ONLY KNOW ABOUT 15,000 PEOPLE VOTED FOR US TO BE IN OFFICE. SOMEONE DID A SURVEY. THE VOTERS KIND OF SAID THAT $15 RANGE. SO THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF STUCK AT BECAUSE ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I DON'T MIND GOING THERE AND VOTING AND SPENDING MORE THAN 15 BUCKS A MONTH. AND I KNOW MY HOME IS APPRAISED THERE, SO I'LL BE HIT PRETTY HARD. BUT THAT'S JUST ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL. I GOT TO UNDERSTAND I'M NOT UP HERE AS MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. YOU KNOW, I'M UP HERE, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THAT PUT ME HERE. SO THAT'S WHY I STRUGGLE AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M DOING IT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN TURNER. ALL RIGHT, I DO WANT Y'ALL TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER BECAUSE I AND COUNCILMAN TURNER, AS HE POINTED OUT, I'VE HEARD WHAT COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW SAID. 
          IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FOLLOW COUNCILMAN TURNER, BUT THE CONSENSUS WAS 15, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S. AND THEN HE WENT BACK TO THE SURVEY, AND THEY SAID WHAT THEY WERE LIKELY TO SUPPORT. 
          ALSO, THOUGH, THAT POINT PARKWAY IS ALREADY A PROJECT THAT STARTED AND IT ALREADY HAS PLANS FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD OUT THERE. AND IT'S LESS THAN $10 MILLION. WHY IS DOWLEN ROAD 
          [02:15:03]
EXTENSION? IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT IT'S A BRAND NEW PROJECT. HASN'T BEEN STARTED. DON'T HAVE ANY THAT I KNOW OF PLANS AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. POINT POINT PARKWAY ALREADY DOES, AND THEY SAID IT WOULD HELP OUT WITH A MAJOR 105 TRAFFIC. SO I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA THAT THE MANAGER CAME UP WITH. AND THAT WOULD HELP A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS RIGHT THERE. AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY STARTED, BASICALLY, SO WE CAN FINISH IT INSTEAD OF STARTING A BRAND NEW PROJECT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. 
          COUNCILMAN HILLIARD, I'LL ECHO WHAT THEY SAID. I, I, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT WE TRUSTED THIS COMMITTEE AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH THESE PLANS. AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE COACH LEWIS SAID YESTERDAY, THE REASON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WASN'T INCLUDED BECAUSE AT THE TIME, IT WAS $100 MILLION. NOW, WE FOUND THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD IT FOR A LOT LESS AND PROBABLY EVEN LESS THAN 55. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M ALL FOR JUST LET'S LET'S GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LET'S LET THEM MAKE A CHOICE AND, AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. GO OVER THE 15 I'M NOT CLEAR ON. YEAH. YEAH. 
          I'M, I'M SAYING LET'S, LET'S GIVE THIS TO THEM AND I AGREE I MEAN, THE DOWLEN ROAD, I THINK I'VE BEEN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT SINCE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BRAND NEW PROJECT. WE ALREADY HAVE A POINT PARKWAY THAT'S BUILT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOING IN. WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THEY'VE SUBMITTED PLANS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW. AND MOST OF IT'S I SAY WE FINISH IT. YOU KNOW, I'M ALL FOR THE POINT PARKWAY COMPLETION. BUT I THINK THE $50 MILLION FOR DOWLEN MAYBE WE CAN SAVE FOR ANOTHER TIME. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. SO. AND IS THAT WHERE YOU ARE AS WELL, COUNCILMAN? YES. YES. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMAN TURNER, YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? YEAH. WE UNDER THAT $15 RANGE. I CAN LIVE WITH IT. THE 50 MILLION THAT WOULD BRING US BELOW, I THINK, IF WE DID, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE DO POINT PARKWAY. WE'LL BE FINE. YOU KNOW, I CAN I CAN LIVE WITH IT. THAT WOULD LOWER THE 275 DOWN TO WHAT, 273, BASICALLY, WHICH IS BELOW THE 275. SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD, IT WOULD CUT US. WELL THAT'S NOT. YEAH. 264 YEAH. AND SO THAT WOULD GET US, THAT WOULD GET US PROBABLY TO ABOUT 1480 I GUESS TEN. OH OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS YEAH, I JUST DON'T I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET TO THE 15 WITH DOWLEN ROAD. AND I KNOW THAT WE ADDED THE POLICE STATION YESTERDAY. WERE YOU ARE YOU WANTING TO BE. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. DO WE WANT TO PRESENT A PROPOSAL THAT IS CAPPED AT THE 15, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS ASKING. AND I MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. AND INSTEAD OF PRESENTING THE PROPOSAL AT 17. SO BECAUSE THEN WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE IN CONSENSUS THAT DOWLEN ROAD JUST BE PAUSED TO ANOTHER BOND, WE'RE AT, WE'RE BELOW 15 AT THIS POINT, THEN IT JUST BECOMES WHAT BUCKET WE'RE GOING TO PUT EVERYTHING IN, OR YOU KNOW, HOW MANY BUCKETS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M WANTING CLARITY IN TERMS OF. 
          YEAH, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE. AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT, WE ADDED THE POLICE STATION. AND YOU KNOW, I IN MY OPINION, PUBLIC SAFETY, GIVEN THOSE GUYS THE ROOM THEY NEED TO OPERATE AND PROVIDE FOR THIS CITY, I WOULD FEEL BETTER SEEING THAT ADDITION AND A PAUSE ON DOWLEN ROAD. OKAY. THANK YOU I AGREE. SHE AGREED. SHE DIDN'T HAVE HER MIC ON. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, THE CITY MANAGER, SAID IT EARLIER. THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT IS TRULY THE ONLY PROJECT ON THIS ENTIRE BOND PROPOSAL THAT IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO NOT LET VOTERS MAKE A DECISION ON IT. I THINK IT'S A 
          [02:20:01]
TERRIBLE DECISION TO TELL VOTERS YOU CAN'T VOTE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT HERE'S $12.5 MILLION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK. WE OPENED THIS PARK TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO. WE HAD TO DELAY IT DUE TO WEATHER. SINCE THEN, I PARKED THERE EVERY OTHER WEEK. WE COME HERE FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS. NOBODY'S DOWN THERE, AND NOW WE WANT TO GO AND SPEND $12.5 MILLION TO FURTHER DEVELOP THAT, WHEN WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. BUT IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BORROW 200 MILLION TO DO THAT. AND WE COULD EASILY MAKE THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS THEN. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST THINK THIS IS MISGUIDED. I THINK THE VOTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION IF THEY WANT IT, THEY'LL VOTE FOR IT. IF THEY DON'T, IT WON'T PASS AND WE CAN MOVE ON. AND I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE DECISION. THANK YOU. 
          COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD IT APPEARS THAT PULLING DOWLEN ROAD OFF SEEMS TO BE THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL. UNLESS I GET SOME ADDITIONAL WORDS. AND THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR PROPOSITIONS TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO DIVIDE THOSE UP, LEAVE THEM AS THEY ARE, OR COMBINE ANY. AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT COMBINING SOME. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE REMOVING PROP D AND LEAVING PROP E CORRECT. WELL THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO WALK THROUGH. THE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS. YOU SAID THE ROAD WE'RE REMOVING DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION. SO PROP D. THAT'S CORRECT. WE NEED TO FORMALLY VOTE NO. YOU CAN VOTE. WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE DEAL PUT TOGETHER. AND I'M TRYING TO GET WHAT THAT DEAL IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ALSO NOW COME UP WITH WHAT PROPOSITIONS THERE'S GOING TO BE. ONE VOTE, MAYOR, IF YOU ALLOW, CAN CERTAINLY MAKE MORE THAN ONE VOTE IF YOU ALLOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, COUNCILMAN, IS THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO PRESENT THE ORDINANCE TO YOU, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CORRECT LANGUAGE YOU'LL BE VOTING ON TO APPROVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT TO THE VOTERS AND HOW WE WANT TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT RIGHT. SO WHEN WE BRING IT BACK, THE MAYOR SAY, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK. WHEN WE BRING IT BACK, YOU'LL HAVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE. SO THERE WILL BE A VOTE TO APPROVE THE ELECTION ITEM FOR THIS ONE AS ONE VOTE. I KNOW, BUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE UNFORTUNATE ABOUT THAT IS IF THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE ONE VOTE, OKAY. AND WE'RE TAKING OUT THE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION, IT'S GOING TO PUT ME IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST THAT. SO I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAT WE TAKE THESE INDIVIDUALLY THAT WAY. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A COUNCILMAN IN A POSITION NOW TO VOTE AGAINST EVERYTHING. SO ARE THESE TRADITIONALLY DONE IN ONE? SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, WE WILL STILL NEED A OVERALL COLLECTIVE VOTE. IF COUNCIL IS SAYING TODAY THAT THEY WANT TO LIKE I GUESS MAKE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTES, I'LL TALK TO THAT. IT'S GOING TO SEMI CONFUSE THE RECORD AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHAT WE NEED INTERNALLY. BUT WELL THERE. DEREK AND MR. REED WELL I'LL LET YOU GO. SURE. SO IT. IT'S A BIT UNORTHODOX. 
          BOTTOM LINE TO HAVE TO I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION YOU'RE IN TO SPLIT THEM UP. I MEAN, WE HAVE ONE ORDINANCE FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS. COULD I JUMP IN? SO, SO. AND BEFORE YOU JUMP. 
          SO EVEN IF YOU EVEN IF YOU VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM, PROP A WHICH FOR TINA, THAT WOULD BE A LOT. WE STILL HAVE TO DO. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BREAK, COME BACK IN AND MAKE SURE BEFORE Y'ALL VOTE AND ADOPT THIS ELECTION ORDINANCE, MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CLEAR ON WHAT LANGUAGE YOU'RE ADOPTING. MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS FROM OUR FINANCE ADVISOR. SO THAT'S CLEAR. AND YOU STILL HAVE TO VOTE BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCES SO AND SO MADE A MOTION SO AND SO SECONDED THE MOTION. IT WAS APPROVED BY THIS MANY THINGS. AND IT ALSO INDICATES THAT Y'ALL APPROVED THE RESOLUTION AND PROPOSITION LANGUAGE THAT'S GOING ON THE BALLOT. SO EVEN SO, EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT, AS MR. MITCHELL SAID IN A VERY UNORTHODOX WAY, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. IT HAS TO BE DONE A CERTAIN WAY BY LAW. MAYOR, IF I'M SORRY, MAYOR, I WOULD. I'M STILL NOT CERTAIN OF AND I THINK I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION AND MY, MY THOUGHT WAS WHEN WE CAME UP HERE IS THAT WE NEEDED ONE ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ALL ITEMS. YOU DO, MAYOR. BUT AND WHAT HE'S ASKED TO DO IS HE WANT. I'M SORRY. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW HAS ASKED TO DO IS TO 
          [02:25:01]
VOTE ON THE MICRO CHANGES THAT YOU'RE MAKING. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, HE WANTS THE COUNCIL TO VOTE COLLECTIVELY ON RIGHT NOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE DOWLING ROAD EXTENSION AND THEN, BY EXTENSION, TO VOTE SEPARATELY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO MERGE OR ELIMINATE ITEMS FROM CERTAIN PROPOSITIONS. AND SO HE'S ASKING FOR SINGULAR VOTES BEFORE YOU MAKE THE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER LARGER VOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THERE DOES NEED TO BE ONE LARGE ONE, ONE ORDINANCE VOTE THAT ADDRESSES THE OVERALL ALL THE DIFFERENT BONDS. LOOK AT ME WHEN I SAY THIS. BY LAW, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE VOTE COLLECTIVELY CALLING FOR THIS BOND ELECTION AND APPROVING THE LANGUAGE AND PROPOSITIONS FOR SUCH. SO EVEN IF COUNCIL ELECTED TO DO MICRO VOTES, THAT'S FINE. WE'RE GOING TO STILL NEED THAT BREAK TO COME BACK AND PUT TOGETHER THE FULL ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE ONE YOU WANT. 
          AND MAYOR, I WAS JUST RESTROOM. YEAH, YEAH, BASICALLY THE MICRO VOTE. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. BE VOTING TO WHAT? TO PUT INTO THE ORDINANCE AND THEN COME BACK AND VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE. CORRECT? OKAY. ON THE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS AND THEN. ALL RIGHT, WHAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO GO GO AHEAD. OH, NO. WELL, MAYOR, I WAS JUST GOING TO SECOND THAT I WE'VE SEEN COUNCILS AND IN FACT BEING PART OF ELECTED BODY DID THAT WHERE THERE WERE VOTES BUILDING UP TO THAT, TO THAT FINAL VOTE. SO THERE'S A VOTE OF RECORD, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY. YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE SOME INFORMAL VOTES OR STRUCTURE SOME VOTES ALONG THE WAY OR UNDER ROBERT'S RULES. YOU COULD WE DON'T USE ROBERT'S. YOU COULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT. YOU COULD MOVE TO AMEND THE FINAL ORDER AND THEN HAVE THAT AND HAVE THE VOTE GO HOWEVER IT GOES. OKAY. 
          WELL WITH THAT WE IT'S 358. WE'RE GOING TO WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN 2.5 HOURS. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, BUT SOME OF US NEED TO STRETCH OUR LEGS FOR A MINUTE. FOR MY RECESS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO A ROLL CALL, TINA? MAYOR WEST, PRESENT MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER. COUNCIL MEMBER HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. HILLIARD. 
          COUNCILMEMBER. WILLIAMS. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHERWOOD AND COUNCIL MEMBER. CRENSHAW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE'RE AT A SPOT WHERE WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH PROPOSITION AND DETERMINE WHAT WE WANT, WANT TO BE THERE AND THE AMOUNT. AND THAT WAY WE'LL WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THERE. AND WE CAN TAKE VOTES ON EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS. BUT WE WILL HAVE TO DO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL AT THE END HAVE TO DO A MASTER, ONE MASTER VOTE THAT INVOLVES EVERYTHING. SO PROPOSITION EIGHT, DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THAT UP? WHAT. THE ONE I'M LOOKING AT HAS THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK INITIATIVE FOR 10 MILLION STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FOR 20 MILLION DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 25.6 MILLION. I DO WANT TO ADD PEOPLE WANTING TO IF SOMEBODY IS INTERESTED, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING ITEMS AROUND OR PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING IT, I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT AT THIS POINT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF WE'D BE INTERESTED IN PUTTING POINT PARKWAY IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT SITS ON ITS OWN. AND WHETHER WE WANT TO INCLUDE POINT PARKWAY, WE HAVE OTHER STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THERE. SO. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I WOULD LIKE I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADD POINT PARKWAY TO INFRASTRUCTURE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN DARIO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT EITHER. COUNCILMAN TURNER. I'M OKAY WITH AS LONG AS IT STAYS UNDER THAT $15 RANGE. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. I MEAN, I'M FOR PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, BUT, I MEAN, I'D PREFER TO SEE IT. THE REMOVAL OF DOWLEN ROAD DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE MY OPINION ON WHERE IT'S PLACED. I KIND OF SEE IT AS AN EXPANSION OF A ROAD, NOT IMPROVEMENTS. I WOULD PREFER TO 
          [02:30:04]
SEE IT STAND ON ITS OWN. ON POINT PARKWAY. YEAH. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I BELIEVE BOTH DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AND POINT PARKWAY SHOULD BE SEPARATE ITEMS ON THE BALLOT. AND SINCE IT'S BEING INCLUDED IN INFRASTRUCTURE, I AM AGAINST INCLUDING IT IN INFRASTRUCTURE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO INDIVIDUAL. VOTES ON PROPOSITION A, YES, YOU. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THAT WAY, MAYOR, WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS LIKE HOW WE DO IT FOR ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEETING HAVE YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY HAVE IT'S POSTED SO WE CAN DO PROPOSITION EIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE. AND YOU CAN ASK IF THERE'S A MOTION AND YOU CAN ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT, TO ADD TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. AND THEN WE'LL MAKE A VOTE ON IT. AND IT'LL EITHER PASS UP OR DOWN THE ADDITIONS AS IS OR WHATEVER. YOU CAN HAVE CONTINUED DISCUSSION AS NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR PROPOSITION A. MOVE TO APPROVE. SO WHAT'S CURRENTLY THEY'RE ADDING POINT PARKWAY OR ANY OTHER STREET OR NOT. THAT WASN'T THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE PROP A. SO IF SHE WANTS TO MOVE A MOVE TO AMEND HER MOTION, WE NEED TO BE SHE MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A WITH THE AMENDMENT OF. OR COUNCILMAN, WHOEVER WAS WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION. THE MOTION WOULD BE TO I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A AS STATED, OR I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A WITH THE AMENDMENT OF INSERT WHATEVER AMENDMENT. SO AS IT'S WRITTEN HERE, BECAUSE I DID STATE THE POINT PARKWAY YOU DID I WAS TALKING ABOUT SO BUT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHAT'S HERE ON THE SCREEN. BUT THE MOTION WOULD BE BECAUSE PROPOSITION A IS CURRENTLY SIDEWALK INITIATIVES STREETS IMPROVEMENT AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT. THAT'S PROPOSITION A. SO ANY MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A WOULD BE FOR WHAT'S INCLUDED ON THE SCREEN. IF SHE IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE A MOVEMENT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A WITH INCLUSIONS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TO KEEP THE RECORD CLEAN. OKAY. 
          UNDERSTOOD. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN CURRENTLY, IF THERE WANTS TO BE ANY DISCUSSION OR. OH, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLICATE THE CHURCH TODAY. THE MOTION IS THERE IS A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND. LET'S LEAVE IT SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON LEAVING PROPOSITION EXACTLY AS IT IS. AND THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SECOND MAKE AN AMENDMENT. NO. OKAY. THIS IS TIME OF DISCUSSION MYSELF. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ADDING THAT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ADDING A POINT PARKWAY TO THIS PROPOSITION. POINT PARKWAY EXTENSION TO PROPOSITION A. DISCUSSION. BUT IT'S HER MOTION SO SHE DOESN'T ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BECAUSE WE'RE KEEPING WE'RE KEEPING IT SIMPLE TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE GUYS THAT ARE TAKING NOTES AND FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO CALCULATE. SO IT'S NOT CONFUSING IF COUNCIL WANTS TO VOTE ON THE MOTION FOR THAT AND IT PASSES FINE. IF IT FAILS, THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND DO A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT. BUT THE MOTION WAS TO ADDRESS PROPOSITION A AS STATED. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON PROPOSITION A I HAVE I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON PROPOSITION A BECAUSE, AS STATED, THE PROJECT ISN'T IN THERE. SO THE ORIGINAL MOTION ARE WE SAYING THAT THAT POINT PARKWAY PROJECT WILL BE IN THERE OR IS IT NOT IN THERE? MAYBE I MISSED IT. MOTION WAS TO APPROVE PROPOSITION A AS AS PRESENTED. SO PROPOSITION A AS PRESENTED IS SIDEWALK INITIATIV. 
          STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IS NOT INCLUDE PARK PARKWAY. MY QUESTION IS THOUGH IS IT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL TO GO AHEAD AND ADD POINT PARKWAY BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. RIGHT. YOU CAN IF YOU LIKE. IT'S YOUR MOTION. YOU'D HAVE TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT OR CORRECT. YES. COUNCILMAN TURNER, SO NOW WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION STAGE. WE CAN DO THIS FIRST PROPOSITION. AND SINCE IT'S NOT INCLUDED, IT CAN BE A SEPARATE ITEM. CORRECT. 
          FOR THE POINT PARKWAY. SO WE'RE GOING EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM. SO POINT PARKWAY IS TECHNICALLY ITEM ON THERE. IT'S TECHNICALLY ITEM. IT'S TECHNICALLY ITEM E. SO PARK PARKWAY IS TECHNICALLY ITEM E. SO IF COUNCIL DECIDED NOT TO ADD IT TO PROP A IT'S STILL ON THERE. SO YOU INDIVIDUALLY NEED TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO KEEP PROPOSITION E AS A SEPARATE 
          [02:35:03]
ITEM. COMBINE IT WITH PROPOSITION D OR OR WHATEVER, BUT INDIVIDUAL IT'S STILL LISTED. OKAY, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND NOW WE CAN VOTE. WE CAN VOTE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. I UNDERSTAND. AND MY QUESTION WAS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO KEEP EXISTING STREETS AND ROADS IMPROVEMENTS, DOES IT MATTER THAT WE'RE NOT THAT THAT IT'S A NEW ROAD, OR ARE WE JUST WORRIED ABOUT KEEPING PROP A AS IMPROVEMENTS? SO IF YOU CHANGED IT, IF YOU ADDED IF YOU ADDED IN. IF YOU ADDED PROPOSITION E INTO PROPOSITION A, WE WOULD NEED TO REWRITE OUR STREETS IMPROVEMENT ITEM TO INCLUDE SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR ADD LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT PARK THE PARK PARKWAY EXTENSION. SO WE WOULD NEED TO REWORD THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF THE EXPANSION. SO THE CURRENT RESOLUTION WORDING WOULD BE AMENDED, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IT THIS WAY SO WE CAN. OKAY. THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST GOING TO KEEP IT CLEAN. AND WE'LL DO IT LATER. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE MOTION AS IT IS STATED. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? NO, I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING PROPOSITION A HOW IT IS. OKAY. WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO FOR PROPOSITION A AS WRITTEN AS THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU AND ON THE SCREEN BEHIND US. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S MOVE TO PROPOSITION B. SO CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON PROPOSITION B. AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WANTS TO BE AMENDED TO THAT NOW WOULD BE A TIME. OR IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT, YOU CAN DO IT IN THE MOTION. WELL MAYOR, JUST FOR CLARITY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO WE DID THE LAST TIME. 
          IF YOU IF THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDING SOMETHING, LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. SO THE MOTION IS MADE. IT'S CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEING ASKED. THAT'S FINE. SO ANY DISCUSSION, ANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSITION B IS WRITTEN. YES I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE ALEX KEITH COMMUNITY FACILITY TO PROPOSITION B. OKAY. WE HADN'T DONE A MOTION YET, SO WE'RE JUST GETTING PEOPLE'S DISCUSSION. ANY OTHER FEEDBACK ON. PROPOSITION B. SO WE'RE NOT GOING ALL RIGHT WITH THAT I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. PROPOSITION B WITH PROPOSITION WITH PROPOSITION F THE ALEX KEITH COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY ADDED TO PROPOSITION B. CAN WE CLEAN THAT UP AND JUST SAY YOU MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE PROPOSITION B IN THE ALICE KEITH COMMUNITY CENTER? UNDER THAT ITEM, I MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE PROPOSITION F, WHICH IS THE ALICE KEITH COMMUNITY FACILITY IN PROPOSITION B. WELL, IT SAYS RECREATION CENTER. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK MISS REID. AND MAYBE THE COUNCIL COULD I KNOW THAT, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU SPOKE EARLIER, THAT IT IS MORE THAN A RECREATION CENTER. AND JUST FOR THE BOND LANGUAGE AND OUR WE WOULD AT THE SAME TIME CHANGE THE NAME FROM CALLING IT RECREATION CENTER TO A COMMUNITY CENTER OR MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY, MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY, BECAUSE THAT MATTERS TO AM I UNDERSTANDING THEN THE NAME WOULD BE CHANGED TO THE ALICE KEITH PARKS LAST SOUTH END MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER. YES. MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AT ALICE KEITH PARK. SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AT SOUTH. WE'RE GOING TO WORK THE LANGUAGE WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK. I'M DEREK AND I ARE BOTH TAKING NOTES, SO WE'LL WE'LL FLUSH THAT OUT AFTERWARDS. THIS IS TOO MUCH SAUSAGE MAKING FOR THEM. AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT MOVES F INTO B WITH WITH NO OTHER CHANGES IN AMOUNTS. IS ANYBODY CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION NOW THAT WE'VE WE HADN'T HAD A SECOND YET ON IT. WE. OH SECOND. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO NOW WE KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE MOTION IS PROPOSITION B WITH ITEM F INCLUDED IN IT. SO DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW YEAH I WOULD I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. ALL ITEMS UNDER PROP B, SO WE'VE NOW ADDED IT'S 
          [02:40:11]
BECOME THIS CONGLOMERATE, THIS MONSTROSITY OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED CAMERAS SEPARATE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE ADDING RECREATIONAL CENTERS TO FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, OTHER THAN FOR THE CLEAR INTENTION THAT WE THINK IT HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF PASSING THERE THAN IT DOES IN PARKS AND RECREATION, BECAUSE IT JUST IT MAKES NO SENSE, AS WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THIS THING. AND THIS ITEM TODAY IS IT'S A RECREATION CENTER, AND WE'RE NOW CHANGING THE NAME TO MAKE IT FIT BETTER AND HOPE THAT IT, YOU KNOW, HAS MORE PUBLIC SUPPORT. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S DISINGENUOUS TO VOTERS. AND I THINK VOTERS SHOULD NOW HAVE THEIR THE OPTION TO VOTE ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN TURNER? JUST JUST ONE THING I WANT TO WHILE WE'RE ON THE RECORD, I JUST DON'T WANT ANYONE TO EVER THINK I'M DOING ANYTHING DISINGENUOUS. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A THAT'S A STRONG WORD. MOST OF THESE FACILITIES ARE USED FOR MULTIPLE THINGS, BUT DISINGENUOUS. THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE IF THESE FACILITIES ARE ONLY USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. THAT'S ONE THING. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE SAYING THAT. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THESE KIND OF PROGRAMS, WHICH WE HAVE DONE AT THE PRUITT CENTER, I AM OKAY WITH THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE WHILE WE'RE ON THE RECORD. I DON'T WANT TO NOT SAY ANYTHING. IF WE'RE USING THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE. THAT'S DISINGENUOUS THAT WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE FOR ME. WELL, WE'RE CERTAINLY TAKING PUBLIC VOTE ON IT AND EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE ARE IN IT. SO, COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I, I, I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH IT BEING A MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AND BEING UNDER FACILITIES, AND I'M ALSO OKAY WITH IT BEING INCLUDED IN PARKS AND REC DEPENDING ON THE LANGUAGE, HOWEVER DISINGENUOUS IS SOMETHING WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY EITHER, BECAUSE NOTHING NEFARIOUS IS HAPPENING. WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW ON THE DIE. SO VERY TRANSPARENT. YEAH, WE'RE OUTSIDE WITH IT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. AND I MEAN, WE'RE NOT WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS. WE'RE GOING TO PUT EACH PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT FOR THE VOTE, FOR EACH PROPOSITION, NOT EACH PROJECT UNDER THE PROPOSITION. THAT'S CORRECT. EACH OF THESE PROPOSITIONS, WE'RE WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING TO WILL BE A SEPARATE VOTE. A WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM B. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO COUNCIL IS THE REASON WHY GAP STRATEGIES WAS ASKING ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO BE NAMED IS BECAUSE WE WHEN WE WRITE THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE, WE HAVE TO GIVE A VERY CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THAT MONEY AND WHAT THAT PROPOSITION REPRESENTS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WHETHER IT'S WHAT IT'S USED FOR AND WHAT ITS PURPOSE IS, AND WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE IT DOES NEED TO BE CLEAR TO THE VOTERS WHAT THEY'RE WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. IT'S MAY NOT REALLY SAY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ON THERE AND SAYS ALICE, KEEP RECREATION CENTER. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE IT NEEDS TO BE WORDED SO IT'S CLEAR WHAT'S BEING APPROVED. AND IF WE'VE STRATEGICALLY DIVIDED THESE PROPOSITIONS INTO TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS. AND SO IF IT'S GOING TO BE UNDER THE FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR WHY IT'S UNDER THERE. IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT WE PRESENT TO THE VOTERS, I WOULD JUST ASK, COULD WE FIND OUT WHAT WE GOT THE GRANT FUNDING FOR WHAT WHAT WHAT HOW DO WE DESCRIBE THIS FACILITY WHEN WE GOT THE GRANT FUND? BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE'RE NOW CHANGING THE FACILITY AND WE GOT A GRANT FOR $2 MILLION THAT'S GOING TO HELP FUND THIS, AND THE DESCRIPTION IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE PUTTING NOW ON THE BALLOT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. DO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US? IT WAS ACTUALLY I GUESS IN THE LEGISLATION. IT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE LEGISLATION FROM WHAT I SAW. AND IT DIDN'T STATE THAT IT HAD TO BE USED FOR FACILITY JUST TO BE USED IN A PARK IN, IN SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND IN EITHER BEAUMONT OR PORT ARTHUR. IT WAS WRITTEN AT AT BRAWLEY, AND REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL WAS WANTED TO USE IT TO IN BEAUMONT IN THE PARK HERE. 
          OKAY, SO I WAS TOLD YESTERDAY THAT THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR ALICE KEITH PARK IN THE WRITER. 
          HE PUT ALICE KEITH PARK. AND HE DIDN'T SAY RECREATION CENTER. THE LANGUAGE I SAW DIDN'T SAY THAT COUNCIL. MAYOR. YES. COUNCILMAN TURNER. AND IF IT'S UNCERTAINTY, I WOULD BE COMPLETELY OKAY IF WE TOOK A BREAK WHERE WE CAN MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE PRIOR TO MOVING 
          [02:45:04]
ON. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE IS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHERE WE'RE AT. WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BREAK. YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE WANTING TO GO, THEY CAN KNOW THAT. AND IF THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD LET US KNOW WHEN WE COME BACK. BUT IF WE WANTED TO INCLUDE IT RIGHT NOW, WE CAN WE CAN PROPOSE IT. AND IF WE FIND OUT THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T WORK WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT PASSED, WE CAN BE MADE AWARE OF THAT. BUT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I DO. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, AGAIN, I WAS TOLD THAT THE $50 MILLION WAS GOING TO BE A MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AND THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON CLASSROOMS AND JOB TRAINING AND A CO-OP. I READ THE DESCRIPTION THAT'S GOING TO GO ON THE BALLOT, AND IT SAYS CREATION OF A STATE OF THE ART SPORTS FACILITY DESIGNED TO HOST A VARIETY OF SPORTING EVENTS AND TOURNAMENTS. SO. SO THIS IS THERE. THIS WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED. THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN OUR RESOLUTION IN THE ORDINANCE. HOW WOULD HOW WOULD WE KNOW THAT? WHY DID WE GET THIS IF THAT'S DIFFERENT? LITERALLY WE JUST SAID WE'RE VOTING ON PROP B. 
          THAT'S RIGHT THERE. IT LITERALLY HAPPENED LIKE YESTERDAY. AND WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THE CHANGES DONE. SO THE ORIGINAL WORDING, WE JUST PUT IT IN. BUT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE ORDINANCE IS DIFFERENT. SO I'M BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING I HAVEN'T SEEN. I MEAN, THIS SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF WASHINGTON, D.C, WHERE WE ASK OUR SENATORS AND OUR REPS TO VOTE ON A BILL THAT THEY'VE NEVER READ. DO WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN READ INTO THE RECORD? SHALL THE CITY OF BEAUMONT. SO THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE BONDS? THE CITY COUNCIL MAY BE CALLED THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF 136,000,121, 565,016 CENTS MATURING, BLAH BLAH, BLAH. LET ME JUST SKIP TO THE PART WHERE IT SAYS HOW IT'S HOW IT WILL SEE ON THE BALLOT THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. AND THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT JUST SAYS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, EQUIPMENT OF PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY TO INCLUDE A NEW ANIMAL CARE SERVICES AND ADOPTION CENTER, REPLACEMENT FOR THE FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR, REPLACEMENT OF CITY'S POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, A NEW SPORTS FACILITY, SIX PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPROVEMENTS TO IMPROVEMENTS TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE CITY, AND ALL MATTERS NECESSARY FOR INCIDENTAL HERETO AND LEVYING TAXES SUFFICIENT FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF AND INTEREST THEREON. IT'S CALLED A SPORTS FACILITY. 
          SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD JUST MAKE SURE I WOULD LIKE THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT WHAT WE INTENDED FOR. PRIOR TO ME VOTING ON IT, WE CAN REWORD IT TO CALL IT A MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL DESIRES. OBVIOUSLY, I MADE A NOTE THAT IT NEEDED TO BE REWORDED BASED ON THE NAME CHANGE FROM MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY. WELL, WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND OUR MOTION BECAUSE WE WERE. IT'S ALREADY CALLED A MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY. 
          IF THE CONCERN THE OBVIOUSLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS LIKE THE DESCRIPTION, WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO A REWORD THAT. BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE CALLED A MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND WELL, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE BOND PROPOSAL PROPOSITIONS, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE INDIVIDUAL ONES RIGHT NOW. WE WILL HAVE THE FINAL WORDING, CORRECT? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT OUR GOAL HERE IS FOR PROP B TO PASS, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS HERE THAT ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND IF WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO READ IS GOING TO BE CONVINCING TO THEM TO VOTE FOR IT? AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOTTEN IS THERE IS NOT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR A $50 MILLION SPORTS COMPLEX THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE SPORTS TOURISM, AND THAT'S WHAT'S HERE IN FRONT OF US. THAT'S WHAT'S ON 
          [02:50:03]
THE BALLOT WE ARE ABOUT TO APPROVE. AND I JUST THINK THESE THINGS ARE HORRIBLY IMPORTANT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST SORT OF YEAH, LET'S VOTE 136 MILLION. WELL, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THEY'RE IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THE FINAL LANGUAGE WILL BE THERE IF Y'ALL DO. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THIS LANGUAGE. IF WE WANT TO AMEND IT TO ADJUST THAT LANGUAGE, WE CAN WE CAN TAKE AN AMENDMENT IF IT'S ACCEPTED BY THE, BY THE MOTION. BUT CURRENTLY WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YES. COUNCILMAN TURNER YEAH, I JUST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THE DESCRIPTION WAS, IN FACT WHAT WE INTEND TO USE THIS FACILITY FOR. I HAVE TO SAY, I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW AS FAR AS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M MORE IN FAVOR IF I'M GOING TO APPROVE THIS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DESCRIPTION ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO PUTTING THIS ON HERE. ARE YOU OFFERING A AMENDMENT? AND WE'LL SEE IF THEY IF IT'S ACCEPTED BECAUSE WE HAVE A. SO WE'RE NOT WORKING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LANGUAGE OF COUNCILMAN TURNER SAYING THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE REFLECTS WHAT THE ACTUAL INTENT OF THE PROPERTY IS. WE HEARD IT AND WE'RE WORKING ON IT. SO, MAYOR, NOT ONLY IN DISCUSSION, COULD, COULD COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE SKIPPED OVER AND BROUGHT BACK WHEN WE HAVE THE NEW DESCRIPTION AGAIN, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO APPROVE THE YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE, YOU'RE JUST VOTING ON WHAT YOU WANT IN THAT PROPERTY. SO IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT SPORTS FACILITY OR THE MULTIPURPOSE THING, OR YOU DON'T WANT THE ALICE KEY THING IN THAT, YOU CANNOT INCLUDE IT. BUT WE CAN'T DRAFT THE LANGUAGE UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT'S IN IT. 
          OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT THE LANGUAGE WILL BE ADJUSTED. YES, IT HAS TO BE ADJUSTED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. ALL RIGHT. MIKE. COUNCILMAN, BUT CAN WE BE CLEAR ON THAT? BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN WE VOTE ON IT WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY ALL ASKED TO DO IT THIS WAY. OKAY. 
          WHEN WE BRING Y'ALL ASKED TO DO IT THIS WAY. SO WHEN WE BRING WHEN WE BREAK TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU WANTED EACH PROPOSITION, WE'RE GOING TO DRAFT THE LANGUAGE. AND THEN IF YOU WHEN YOU ADOPT THAT FULL ORDINANCE YOU'LL HAVE WE'LL HAVE IT, YOU'LL BRING IT. WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH PROPOSITION AND EACH PROPOSITION LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORDED THE WAY YOU WANT IT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT BY LAW. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE IS NOT WHAT'S SHOWING ON THE BALLOT, CAN I OKAY. SO THIS IS LIKE THE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. WHY WOULD WE NOT PUT WHAT'S UP ON THE BALLOT UP THERE. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE LANGUAGE YET. LIKE WE HAD A WHOLE MEETING YESTERDAY WHERE WE ADDED AND CHANGED THINGS. SO WE HAD TO ADJUST WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS FROM WHAT WE POSTED FOR THE MEETING PREVIOUSLY. SO WE CHANGED THAT. 
          AND THEN WE HAD THIS MEETING WHERE WE ASSUMED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CLEANUP. SO WE THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY YOUR PACKET IS STILL REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE HAVE. AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT I'M WORKING ON, LET ME GO TO COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN HILLIARD FIRST SPECIFICALLY SAID IT'S WHAT'S UP THERE WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IS BECAUSE Y'ALL DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO IT. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR PROPOSITION B WITH. WITH ITEM F INCLUDED. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO PROPOSITION C. SO. WE'RE GOING TO NEED AND AGAIN WE'LL END UP WITH A FINAL MOTION AND FINAL WORDING BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT. THIS IS JUST GIVING THEM THE FRAMEWORK TO CREATE THAT DOCUMENT FOR US. AND WE'RE DOING SOMETHING IN TWO MEETINGS THAT THEY DID IN SIX MEETINGS. SO I KNOW IT'S A LOT TO DO, BUT WE DID. HAVE A HARD WORKING BOND ADVISORY BOARD. I NEED A MOTION. 
          YES, MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSITION C AS WRITTEN. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE PROPOSITION C AS WRITTEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? MR. MAYOR, I WOULD ASK THAT WE REMOVE THE RIVERFRONT PARK EXTENSION AND MAKE IT A SEPARATE ITEM FOR VOTERS TO VOTE ON. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE. IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. SO I'LL MAKE THE AMENDMENT THEN, OR MOVE TO AMEND. I'LL ACCEPT THAT UNDER OUR CURRENT RULES, IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION MADE, THERE'S DISCUSSION AND THEN A VOTE IF IT FAILS, FOR LACK OF A SECOND, ACTUALLY DOESN'T NEED A SECOND UNDER YOUR CURRENT RULES. BUT IF IT FAILS, THEN THE 
          [02:55:03]
ORIGINAL MOTION IS STILL ON THE TABLE. OKAY, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. YES. DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION. RIGHT. YOU'RE YOU'RE IN DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. BUT THE DISCUSSION WE'RE NOW WE'RE SWITCHING TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDING THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. CORRECT. WELL I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT AMENDMENT MOTION. I DON'T WANT IT TAKEN OUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'LL SECOND COREY'S MOTION. I JUST SEE THIS RIVERFRONT PARK EXTENSION AS BEING TIGHTLY CONNECTED TO THE HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT, WHICH IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE ON THERE. 
          AND SO I, I SUPPORT THIS MOTION. AND SECOND, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WE DIDN'T NEED A SECOND AS I AS I'M GETTING REMINDED WE WILL VOTE ON IT. I'M JUST GIVING A CHANCE. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT THERE. YES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS TO APPROVE PROPOSITION C WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE RIVERFRONT PARK EXTENSION AND MAKE IT A SEPARATE ITEM. I'M NOT SAYING I WANT IT CUT COMPLETELY. I'M SAYING I WANT PARK EXTENSION TO BE VOTED ON AS A SEPARATE PROPOSITION. SO WE'RE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER WE REMOVE IT. WE'RE JUST VOTING ON WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A PART OF PROPOSITION C. SO FOR CLARITY, NO, YOU'RE VOTING TO REMOVE IT FROM PROPOSITION C, RIGHT. BUT NOT REMOVE IT ENTIRELY. YES, SIR. AND MAKE IT ITS OWN SEPARATE PROP. RIGHT. I JUST WANT I JUST WANT CLARITY FOR COUNCIL. SO. ALL RIGHT. SO THE VOTE IS ON THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I. OPPOSED. NO, NO. I'M SORRY. AND I'M ALSO A NO. I MEAN, I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE HAD PLANNED FOR A LONG TIME. SO BUT THAT AMENDMENT PASSES. SO NOW WE NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON PROPOSITION C WITHOUT THAT BEING INCLUDED. NO. 
          BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE PROPOSITION C WITH THE REMOVAL OF RIVERFRONT PARK AS ITS OWN PROPOSITION. SO WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE GOING. ALL RIGHT D. PROPOSITION D IS DOWLEN ROAD BY ITSELF. DISCUSSION OR MOTION? YEAH I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE DOWLEN ROAD EXTENSION AS PROP D. OKAY. THERE A SECOND. NO SECOND ON PROPOSITION D. WITHIN THE. THERE IS NOTHING TO VOTE ON. THE MOTION FAILS. SO IS THERE A SECOND MOTION? YES. NOW PROPOSITION E. POINT PARKWAY AGAIN ONE ITEM. MOVE TO APPROVE PROPOSITION E SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION. DIDN'T WE. DID WE PUT IN WE PUT IN TO A I THOUGHT WE DID. YOU DID NOT. NO. WE LEFT THIS UP. WE DID NOT. THAT WAS NOT THE MOTION. WE VOTED ON IT SEPARATELY. WE WILL CHANGE THE NAME. WELL OKAY. YEAH. YEAH WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DURING THE BREAK WE'LL REMEMBER THE PROPOSITION. SO IT'S FINE. 
          REFRESH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAD A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING PROPOSITION E SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. 
          SO. AND IF WE DID PUT INTO PUT IN BAY. SO WE'VE GOT THROUGH THIS. AM I CORRECT ON THAT. 
          YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S ALL. OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT DO WE WANT TO MOVE ON WITH TWO AND THREE AND THEN TAKE A BREAK FOR THEM TO GET US THE OVERALL MOTION? FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, I NEED A SEPARATE MOTION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK. NO YOU WHEN YOUR VOTE, YOU VOTED FOR IT TO BE A SEPARATE MOTION THAT WAS APPROVED. SO IT'LL BE ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL PROP. OKAY. SO WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE TO MAKE IT ITS OWN. NO, YOU WHEN YOU VOTE, YOUR MOTION WAS FOR IT TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY. AND THAT WAS APPROVED. I GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. 
          [03:00:04]
YES, THAT WAS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. BUT THAT MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR ENOUGH. AND WE GOT IT ON RECORD NOW. SO WITH THAT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO. SO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS BRING US BACK ITEM ONE IN TOTAL WITH THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE. AND WE'LL VOTE ON THAT AFTER A BREAK, BUT SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET ITEMS TWO AND THREE DONE. WOULD YOU COULD YOU BRING US INTO ITEM 
          [2. Council consider an ordinance calling for a Special Election for November 4, 2025, related to a proposed two percent (2%) hotel occupancy tax to finance a Venue Project, a new Downtown Riverfront Convention Center and related infrastructure, pursuant to Chapter 334 of the Local Government Code, the election to be held within the City of Beaumont, Texas, making provisions for the conduct and the giving of notice of the Special Election; and containing other provisions related thereto.]
TWO, PLEASE? YES, MAYOR. COUNCIL, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 4TH OF 2025 RELATED TO A PROPOSED 2% HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX TO FINANCE A VENUE PROJECT, A NEW DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT CONVENTION CENTER AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 334 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE ELECTION TO BE HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT AND THE GIVING OF NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO. AND IT COMES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION. SINCE WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT IS. THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE HADN'T SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING. THERE SEEMS TO BE. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION ON THIS. I MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER TWO. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? CAN I HEAR JUST EXACTLY WHAT THE BALLOT IS GOING TO SAY SO FAR AS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT? AND DOES IT USE THE WORD HOTEL? AND IT DOESN'T? REMEMBER, WE CAN'T USE THE WORD HOTEL BECAUSE THE HOTEL IS NOT GOING TO BE FUNDED WITH THE VENUE TAX. BUT IT JUST SAID, YEAH, IT'S GOING TO THE VENUE PROJECT. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, TINA, COULD YOU SCROLL? IS THAT ATTACHED? I THOUGHT THE DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER COULD INCLUDE HOTEL. THE WAY THE VENUE TAX WAS DESCRIBED AND WHAT IS APPROVED BY THE COMPTROLLER DESCRIBED IT AS A CONVENTION CENTER, AND IT SAID A RELATED AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT WE CANNOT SPECIFICALLY SAY HOTEL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT USING THE MONEY TO FUND THE HOTEL. OKAY. WELL, I WAS TOLD THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE SPECIFICALLY DONE THIS AND UNDER RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE, USE THE WORD HOTEL AND THAT THAT IS PERMISSIBLE. AND. SO THAT VOTERS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE'RE NOT JUST THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN JUST TO BUILD A CONVENTION CENTER. THE CITY'S PLAN, AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO ME, IS TO BUILD A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. I UNDERSTAND THE 2% IS NOT BEING USED TO FUND THE HOTEL, BUT THIS PROJECT IS A DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE WORD HOTEL BE INCLUDED IN RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CONVENTION. SO WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS TO THE COMPTROLLER, YOU ASKED THAT WE ADD SPECIFICALLY DOWN THE DOWNTOWN TO THE RIVERFRONT CONVENTION CENTER, AND WE DID THAT. WE DIDN'T ADD THE WORD HOTEL THAT WASN'T REQUESTED. SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMPTROLLER. 
          RIGHT? SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN CHANGE IT NOW BECAUSE WE HAD TO SPECIFICALLY GET APPROVAL FROM THE COMPTROLLER TO ADD THIS TO THE BALLOT, AND WE HAD TO SUBMIT THAT LANGUAGE TO THE COMPTROLLER THAT WAY. I GET THAT. BUT I WAS TOLD WE COULDN'T ADD HOTEL, AND I'M NOW BEING TOLD HOTEL CAN BE USED UNDER RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THAT NOT ACCURATE. SO YOU CAN YOU I MEAN IT'S GOT TO BE CLEARLY WHAT THE MONEY IS USED FOR. SO RELATED I MEAN IF YOU HAD YOU COULD YOU COULD ADD HOTEL IF YOU, IF IT WAS INITIALLY REQUESTED. SO WE'VE GOT A DISCUSSION ON THE HOTEL NOT BEING IN THERE. IS THAT WE FOR CLARITY MAYOR WE WERE TOLD THAT UNLESS IT WAS GOING TO BE USED TO FINANCE THAT PROJECT, THE VENUE PROJECT COULD ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS WHAT WE WERE USING THE FUNDS FOR. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PRESENTED TO THE TO THE COMPTROLLER AND I BELIEVE MISS O'KEEFE, AND SPOKE THAT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT FINANCING THE HOTEL, USING THAT MONEY, THAT WE COULD NOT SUBMIT IT THAT WAY. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT INCLUDE IT THAT WAY. AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WITH OUR CONSULTANT, MR. JOSLIN, AND ALSO WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL, AND ALSO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MONIES THAT WE WERE RECEIVING FOR THE 2% WAS GOING TO BE DIRECTED TOWARDS FINANCING THE CONVENTION CENTER AND NOT FINANCING THE HOTEL. UNDERSTOOD. SO LEGALLY, YOU CAN'T MENTION HOTEL OR SO. SO LEGALLY BECAUSE 
          [03:05:05]
WE WHAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPTROLLER THAT THE VENUE PROJECT WOULD BE. AND I THINK WE EVEN DESCRIBED TO IN OUR DESCRIPTION TO THEM WE DID SAY THAT IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO POTENTIALLY A HOTEL. SO WE DID USE THAT LANGUAGE, BUT WE DID NOT. WE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED THE VENUE PROJECT AS FOR A CONVENTION CENTER, A NEW CONSTRUCTION CONVENTION CENTER. 
          HOW LONG DOES IT WOULD IF IT WAS IF THE LANGUAGE IS IN THERE THAT IT'S CONNECTED TO A HOTEL AND THAT THE FINANCING IS NOT FOR IT. SO WE WHEN WE DESCRIBE THE PROJECT, WE DESCRIBED IT AS A CONVENTION CENTER. AND WE DID SAY THAT THERE WAS A HOTEL IN OUR DESCRIPTION TO THE COMPTROLLER, BUT WE DID NOT SAY THAT THE FINANCING WHEN WE DESCRIBED THE VENUE PROJECT. THE VENUE PROJECT IS THE CONVENTION CENTER. THE VENUE PROJECT IS NOT THE HOTEL UNDERSTOOD? COUNCILMAN TURNER, I UNDERSTAND, BUT IF THAT WORD HOTEL COULD BE UTILIZED, AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE DIRECTION WE GAVE. I KIND OF WISH WE WOULD. WELL, I WOULD BE FEEL WAY BETTER THAT WE STICK TO KIND OF WHAT THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE THAT WE GAVE AS A COUNCIL. I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER, I THINK IT WAS ME AND COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW WERE PRETTY FIRM ON THAT WORDING, AND THE CONSULTANT THAT THE CITY REFERENCE USED SAID THAT IF THE VENUE TAX WAS NOT GOING TO BE USED TO FINANCE THE HOTEL, THEN WE COULD NOT USE THAT FOR THE COMPTROLLER. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE USED. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY IF THEIR VENUE PROJECT INCLUDED THE HOTEL OR NOT. BUT WHEN WE WERE SPEAKING TO THE COMPTROLLER, THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT THEY ASKED IS YOU HAVE TO, IN OUR CONTACT AT THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, SAID THE ONLY PROJECT THAT YOU WHEN YOU DESCRIBE YOUR VENUE PROJECT, IT HAS TO BE FOR THE DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED TO FINANCE THAT PROJECT. AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE THAT WE WERE ONLY USING THE 2% TO FUND AND PAY FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER AND NOT PAY FOR THE HOTEL. AND SO BECAUSE WE WERE NOT USING THAT MONEY TO PAY FOR THE HOTEL, THEN WE COULD NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE VENUE PROJECT. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS AND COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I MEAN, ARE WE ABLE TO ADD SOME SORT OF REFERENDUM TO THE BALLOT TO GET PUBLIC OPINION ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS, OR IS THAT NOT WE WISH WE COULD. UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT THE STATE LAW SAYS IS THAT HAS TO BE SPELLED OUT AS AN OPTION IN EACH CITY. CHARTER OR CHARTER DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A REFERENDUM LIKE YOU'RE SAYING. AND SO THAT'S WHY PART OF THIS, OF COURSE, IS A FINANCING MECHANISM FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH IS IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED HOTEL. THEY ARE INTERCONNECTED. 
          YOU REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. BUT AS THE CITY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT IN OUR CONVERSATION WITH SCOTT JOSLOFF, BASICALLY BECAUSE THE HOTEL WAS NOT PART OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, IT COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE. THAT WAS THE FEEDBACK WE GOT. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS. THE WORDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMPTROLLER AND WAS APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN CALL FOR THIS ELECTION IF THE COUNCIL HAD INTENDED TO USE OR THE FINANCING PROJECT HAD INTENDED TO FINANCE IT THAT WAY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. BUT BECAUSE WE WERE ONLY FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER WITH THE 2%, WE COULD NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE VENUE PROPERTY. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 
          WELL, AND BUT I THINK OUR BOND COUNSEL JUST SAID THAT WE COULD HAVE IF WE WERE PLANNING TO USE THE 2% TO FINANCE THE HOTEL. YOU COULD HAVE IF YOU. BUT THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE VENUE TAX WAS PRESENTED AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE IT. WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND SAID, LOOK, AND THEY SAID, HOW DO WE DESCRIBE THE PROJECT? THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WHATEVER THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE USED TO FINANCE, IN THIS CASE, IT'S ONLY BEING USED TO FINANCE THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH MEANS WE CAN ONLY INCLUDE THE CONVENTION CENTER IN THAT DESCRIPTION. THE RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT WAS ALL THE OTHER AMENITIES THAT THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE. WE DID SAY THAT THAT THE HOTEL WAS CONNECTED IN OUR DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, BUT THE MONEY IS NOT BEING USED TO FINANCE THE HOTEL. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CANNOT DESCRIBE THE VENUE PROJECT AS A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. I'M NOT SAYING TO DESCRIBE THE PROJECT AS A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE COULD HAVE INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE TO SAY AFTER CONVENTION CENTER AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. IT COULD HAVE SAID COMMA, INCLUDING A HOTEL ONLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THE 2% WITH THE HOTEL, WHICH WERE NOT ONLY IF YOU WERE PLANNING TO USE A 2% TO PAY FOR FINANCE, THE HOTEL, WHICH THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S IT'S GOT TO BE RELATED. I MEAN, THE FUNDS I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE. THE FUNDS HAVE TO BE USED FOR THOSE PURPOSES. OKAY. WELL, IT CANNOT BE USED DESCRIPTIVELY TO SAY WHERE THE 
          [03:10:01]
CONVENTION CENTER IS. NO. SO WE IN OUR DESCRIPTION OF WHERE IT WOULD BE LOCATED, IT'S OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T WANT TO USE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WOULD LIMIT WHATEVER. BUT WE WERE CALLING IT THE RIVERFRONT CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT. WE YOU CANNOT JUST SAY THAT IT'S A HOTEL. DESCRIBE IT AS A HOTEL PROJECT. IF THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR. WE CHOSE RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED, THERE WERE SOME OTHER LIKE KIOSKS AND VENDOR SPACES AND RENTAL SPACES THAT WANTED TO BE APPLIED AS A PART OF THIS, THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THAT, THAT CONVENTION CENTER THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT. THE HOTEL IS NOT GOING TO BE FINANCED WITH THAT 2%. AND BECAUSE THE HOTEL IS NOT BEING FINANCED WITH THAT 2%, WE COULD NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO THE 2% ARE CONNECTED TO THE VENUE. PROJECT HAS TO RECEIVE FINANCING OR FUNDING FROM THAT 2%. UNDERSTOOD. NOW LISTEN TO THIS PART OF THE QUESTION. DOES IT SPEAK OF HOW MUCH OF THAT VENUE TAX WOULD HAVE TO GO TO DEFER THE DEBT IN THE HOTEL, JUST SO THAT IT WOULD? SOME COULD GO TO THE HOTEL? NO, NO, YOU CAN ONLY USE THE VENUE TAX FOR THE VENUE PROJECT. AND THE VENUE PROJECT IS THE CONVENTION CENTER. IT'S NOT THE HOTEL. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T IT CAN'T BE A JOINT PROJECT. IT COULDN'T BE CALLED THE HOTEL WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER. IF IT WAS THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL TO USE A 2% TO FINANCE THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THE HOTEL, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO PRESENT THAT TO THE COMPTROLLER, THAT WHAT WE PRESENTED AS THE VENUE TAX WAS THE RIVERFRONT CONVENTION CENTER AS THE FINANCING MECHANISM. IT WAS NEVER PRESENTED AND NEVER ASKED TO BE PRESENTED. I DON'T THINK COUNCIL UNDERSTOOD THAT, THAT WORDING COULDN'T BE INCLUDED. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I THINK WE DID WANT TO INCLUDE HOTEL IN THERE, NOT FOR A FINANCING OPTION, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A FINANCING MECHANISM, BUT IF WE ENDED UP APPLYING A PART OF THAT 2% TO THE HOTEL, WOULD THEN IT BE A HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT, AND WOULD THAT MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IF THE IF THE VENUE PROJECT WAS GOING TO BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THE HOTEL, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCLUDE THAT DESCRIPTION, WHICH MEANS THAT NOT JUST DEFER IT, NOT JUST APPORTION, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCLUDE THE OVERALL PROJECT. AND SO HOWEVER WE TRIED TO SPLIT THE MONIES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER. BUT BECAUSE THE FINANCING MECHANISM FOR THE PROJECT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, THEN IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE HOTEL LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE FINANCING MECHANISM FOR THE HOTEL. MAYOR, IF I CAN ADD. 
          I THINK I'LL DEFER TO CHRIS ON THIS, BUT I THINK THE 2% IS NOT ENOUGH. YOU KNOW, IT'S NEVER ENOUGH TO PAY JUST FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE EXTRA MONEY OUT OF THE 2%. IT'S GOING TO THE CONVENTION CENTER. RIGHT? THAT'S IT. SO YEAH, THERE'S NO THERE'S NEVER A PLAN FINANCING PLAN FOR THAT TO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOTEL AT ALL. YEAH, THAT THAT'S RIGHT. IN OUR ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS, THIS, IF APPROVED, COULD CONSTITUTE, AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF THE RENOVATION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION, COULD CONSTITUTE EITHER HALF OF THAT DEBT SERVICE OR ABOUT A QUARTER. SO TO DEREK'S POINT, THIS WILL ONLY COVER A SMALL A PORTION, BUT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION, BUT ONLY A PORTION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER. UNDERSTOOD. I MEAN, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST THINK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT THE HOTEL WOULD BE MENTIONED AS A PART OF IT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WOULD THE VOTERS BE CONFUSED OR BE UNCERTAIN? AND AGAIN, WE'RE KIND OF HANDCUFFED BY WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS US TO DO. I THINK WHERE WE MAY BE ABLE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT IS THROUGH EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS TO SAY, LOOK, THIS AS THE VOTERS GO TO CONSIDER THIS VENUE TAX, THIS IS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, WHICH AGAIN, ARE INTERTWINED. YES. ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND, COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, AND I'VE ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PLEASE PULL IT UP. BUT IF THIS COUNCIL WILL RECALL, WHEN WE APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL $450,000 FOR STONEHENGE ON MY REQUEST, THAT'S ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THAT WAS CONTINGENT UPON VOTER APPROVAL OF A DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. AND NOW WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR VOTERS BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING I MEAN, LET'S NOT TRY TO, YOU KNOW, SAY WE'RE NOT THIS COUNCIL IS GOING TO USE THE APPROVAL, THE VOTER APPROVAL, SHOULD IT HAPPEN, OF THIS VENUE TAX INCREASE TO JUSTIFY FUNDING A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL WITHOUT GOING TO THE VOTERS AND SAY WHEN YOU 
          [03:15:06]
APPROVE THE VENUE TAX INCREASE, YOU GAVE US CONSENT TO BORROW ALMOST $200 MILLION TO FUND THIS. AND MY CONCERN NOW IS THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING THE LANGUAGE. SO VOTERS ARE OUT THERE VOTING ON A CONVENTION CENTER, NOT REALIZING THAT LATER ON THIS IS GOING TO INVOLVE NEARLY $200 MILLION IN BORROWING AGAINST THE PUBLIC'S CREDIT TO FUND THIS PROJECT. I GOT TO BE MAKE, MAKE MAKE A CLARIFICATION. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE IT WON'T BE AGAINST THE PUBLIC'S CREDIT. IT'S THE HOTEL WILL BE A REVENUE ONLY DEAL. SO THAT MEANS ONLY FOR USE. THE CAPITAL STACK DOES NOT INCLUDE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. WE WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD, COS WE'RE GOING TO BE USED FOR OVER $60 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. WE CAN CLARIFY. I'LL CLARIFY THAT. I MEAN, BUT I KNOW THAT I WAS TOLD 60 COMING UP. LET'S BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED POTENTIALLY $60 MILLION OF COS FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, NOT FOR THE HOTEL, JUST FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. YEAH. EITHER WAY. SO THAT'S AGAINST THE CREDIT OF THE OF THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? NO, BUT YOU SAID HOTEL, CONVENTION CENTER, HOTEL. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. NO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE PROJECT. WELL, WELL, FROM A VOTE STANDPOINT, THIS IS A WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VENUE TAX, RIGHT. THE VENUE TAX IS GOING FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE, THE AND YOU SAID THE VOTERS, I MEAN, IF THEY VOTE FOR THIS, THEN 200, 200 MILLION WILL BE. 
          YOU SAID THEIR DOLLARS. YOU KNOW THAT'S SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT THE CITY WILL NOT BE ISSUING 212 20, $220 MILLION. THAT IS GOING TO BE AD VALOREM TAX. WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO PAY IF THE FACILITY DOESN'T GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE? WHO'S GOING TO PAY THAT BOND? WHO PAYS THAT MONEY BACK? THE PUBLIC? THE DUSTY. IF YOU'D ADDRESS THE FUNDING OF THE HOTEL VERSUS THE. SO FOR CLARITY, SURE. FOR CLARITY IN TERMS OF CAPITAL STACK, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER. FOR THE VENUE BONDS OR THE VENUE PROJECT GOING OR THE VENUE TAX PAYING FOR THE. THE CONVENTION CENTER ONLY, NOT FOR THE HOTEL. RIGHT. SO IN THE HOTEL FUNDING, DO WHAT NOW ADDRESS THE HOTEL FUNDING. THE HOTEL FUNDING IS SUPPOSED TO BE PAID FOR. THE HOTEL FUNDING IS SUPPOSED TO BE PAID FOR FROM THE NIGHTLY RATES OF THE HOTEL, THEIR BEVERAGE SALES, THEIR FOOD SALES, OTHER INCENTIVES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A PART OF THAT. 
          ET CETERA. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STACK, AND THE HOTEL HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL HAS DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HOTEL. WE'VE GOT TO FERRET OUT THAT ENTIRE CAPITAL STACK AS IT RELATES TO THE HOTEL. BUT OUR DESIRE WOULD BE THAT THE HOTEL WOULD BE 100% SELF-SUPPORTING, NOT TO BE SUPPORTED OFF OF THE BACKS OF THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT. BUT YOU WERE IN THE ROOM WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO US, AND IT INCLUDED FACILITY REVENUE, BONDS AND CEOS. 
          FACILITY REVENUE BONDS SOLELY FOR THE HOTEL PORTION, COS FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BORROW MONEY AGAINST THE CREDIT OF THE PUBLIC TO FUND THIS PROJECT. SO TO, TO FUND A TO. AS, AS PRESENTED AS THAT PROJECT WAS PRESENTED. THE, THE CONVENTION CENTER, THEY SHOWED IT AS BEING SELF-SUPPORTED RIGHT WITH, WITH REVENUES THAT WOULD PAY FOR BOTH THE HOTEL DEBT SERVICE. THEY SHOWED IT AS BEING PAID FOR WITH BOTH THE HOTEL DEBT SERVICE. IN THE CONVENTION CENTER REVENUES. RIGHT. BUT WE ALSO DISCUSSED ISSUING CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION TO FUND. THE CONVENTION CENTER. HOWEVER, IF THEY'RE ASSUMING THERE ARE 
          [03:20:08]
ENOUGH REVENUES THAT THAT ARE COMING OFF OF THE CAPITAL STACK, RIGHT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE AD VALOREM TAX TO SUPPORT THE CONVENTION CENTER, RIGHT? YOU USE IT TO GO OUT AND GET BETTER RATES, USE THE CEOS TO GO OUT AND GET BETTER RATES. BUT THEIR PRESENTATION INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH REVENUE TO COVER THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE CONVENTION CENTER. I AGREE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, BUT IT ALSO INVOLVES THAT REVENUE PAYING SI-O BONDS. 
          IT DID, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. IF THIS PROJECT DOESN'T WORK OUT, THE TAXPAYER WILL BE STUCK HOLDING THE BAG AND HAVE TO PAY THE MONEY BACK. IF WE DON'T SELL $6 MILLION IN PROFIT IN FOOD AND BEVERAGE EVERY YEAR, THAT'S GOING TO BE HAVE TO BE MADE UP BY TAXPAYER MONEY. NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO PAY THAT MONEY. AND I AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AS IT RELATES TO STRESS TESTING THOSE NUMBERS ON THE PROJECT. RIGHT? THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED ASSUME THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WOULD JUST BE PAID FOR WITH THE REVENUES OF THE HOTEL AND THAT THAT ALL OF THOSE REVENUES WOULD COVER THE HOTEL DEBT SERVICE AND THE CONVENTION CENTER DEBT SERVICE. RIGHT. BUT TO FINANCE THE CONVENTION CENTER, WE DID DISCUSS ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION THAT WOULD BE PAID BACK, THAT WOULD BE INTENDED TO BE PAID BACK FROM THE REVENUES OF THE PROJECT. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT, MR. CRENSHAW. IF THE REVENUES OF THAT PROJECT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT, THEN YOU ARE RIGHT. THE DEBT SERVICE WOULD BE HAD TO WOULD HAVE TO BE AUGMENTED FROM OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING TAXES FROM THE TAXPAYERS. AND YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH ME THAT THE NUMBER FOR THOSE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AS PRESENTED TO US WAS 60 MILLION. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF MILLION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $60 MILLION. MR. CRENSHAW. YES, I AGREE WITH THAT NUMBER. OKAY. NOW, AS IT RELATES TO THE VENUE, AS IT RELATES TO THE VENUE, THE IDEA HERE WAS THAT THE VENUE THAT THE VENUE TAX WOULD PAY FOR ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE CONVENTION CENTER, ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN TURNER, I THINK THE BIGGEST HANGUP IS WE WERE LOOKING FOR THAT REFERENDUM LANGUAGE WITH THE HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH IS LEADING TO FURTHER CONVERSATION. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, I THINK IF THAT HOTEL WAS IN THERE, AS WE DISCUSSED, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE WOULD BE IN THE CONVERSATION. THIS IS THE REASON WE'RE GOING IN THIS DEBT TO THE CONVERSATION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BROUGHT TO US THE WAY WE ASKED FOR IT TO BE BROUGHT TO US. AGREED. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. SO, I MEAN, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON A HOT TAX RELATED TO A VENUE. AND IF THE HOTEL DIDN'T HAPPEN, I'M JUST IS THERE A WORLD WHERE THE VENUE HAPPENS AND THE HOTEL DOESN'T DO THESE TWO PROJECTS? ARE THEY MARRIED? LET ME ANSWER THAT. LET ME ANSWER THAT. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS POSSIBLE. SO AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS WE'RE ASKING YOU. THANK YOU. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY AUTHORIZE A VOTE FOR THE VENUE TAX FOR THIS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY IS THE CONVENTION CENTER, ALBEIT TIED TO A PROPOSED NEW HOTEL. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COULD YOU FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. EVEN IF THE VOTERS APPROVED THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AND A LOT OF NUMBER CRUNCHING TO GET US TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER OR THE HOTEL OR BOTH. TAX WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AND IT WOULD BE COLLECTED FOR YOU. IF IT DIDN'T OCCUR, THEN A FUTURE. CORRECT. AND IT COULD BE USED FOR, WELL, IT COULD REALLY BE USED FOR THIS VENUE PROJECT. OKAY, WHICH IS A CONVENTION CENTER. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COULD COULD YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT THE HOTEL? YOU COULD. BUT AGAIN, THE IDEA BEHIND THE CONVENTION CENTER IS OF COURSE, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A NEW VENUE THAT OVERLOOKS THE RIVER, BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE IT WOULD FEED INTO THE HOTEL AND, AND BASICALLY ATTRACT A LOT, A LOT, A LOT OF VISITORS TO BEAUMONT NOW. AND I AGREE, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE. BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THE LANGUAGE WAS IN THERE, I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING IF CITIZENS ARE OKAY WITH TAXING VISITORS AN EXTRA 2%. I DON'T THINK THAT A YES TO THAT IS NECESSARILY A YES TO A HOTEL. YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY CAN LIVE IN SEPARATE WORLDS. AND SO I WISH IT SAID HOTEL, BUT AND I'LL POUND THE TABLE WITH YOU. BUT I 
          [03:25:01]
JUST EVEN IF IT DID AND PEOPLE VOTED YES, THEY'RE SAYING YES, WE WANT TO TAKE THAT 2% AND USE IT FOR SOMETHING. THEY'RE NOT SAYING YES TO A HOTEL. IT MIGHT MAKE US FEEL BETTER AND THINK THAT THEY ARE, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE CASE. COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CONFIRMED THAT OUR PRIOR ORDINANCE APPROVING THE 450 ADDITIONAL THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR STONEHENGE SPECIFICALLY SAYS VOTER APPROVAL OF A HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT. SO I'M GETTING HUNG UP ON THIS, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS 2% IS COLLECTING FROM OUT OF TOWN PEOPLE. AND AS LONG AS THE VOTERS UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE VOTING, WHEN THEY VOTE TO SAY YES ON THIS, THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL THAT ARE TRANSLATING THAT TO SAY THAT THEY NOW GET TO VOTE TO BORROW $200 MILLION FOR A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT IS THE PLAN. AND NOW VOTERS ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US THAT CORRECT INPUT, BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON DOES NOT MENTION A HOTEL AND THEY DON'T KNOW THAT. SO AS LONG AS THAT, AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE VOTER INPUT ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BE BORROWING THIS MONEY FOR A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. I I'M, I'M FOR THE HOTEL. IF THE VOTERS APPROVE IT, I'M AGAINST THE HOTEL. IF THE VOTERS DO NOT HAVE INPUT ON IT AND DO NOT APPROVE IT. AND SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'M STUCK AT HERE. AS LONG AS THIS COUNCIL IS SAYING NO LATER, WE'RE GOING TO LET VOTERS VOTE ON WHETHER THEY WANT US TO SPEND $200 MILLION ON A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, THEN I'LL VOTE FOR THIS AND WE CAN PROCEED. BUT IF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IS THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE VOTER INPUT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BE AGAINST IT, BECAUSE VOTERS DO NOT KNOW THAT THEIR VOTE HERE IS FOR US TO BORROW $200 MILLION FOR A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL. OKAY. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BOONE AND THEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, JUST REAL QUICKLY, AND I UNDERSTAND THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT EXTENSION, BASICALLY, EXPANSION WITH STONE. STONEHENGE WAS TIED TO THIS RESOLUTION. SAID, LOOK, IT NEEDS TO BE A VOTE. THE VOTERS NEED TO SAY WHAT THAT MEANS, THOUGH. AGAIN, THE IDEA BEHIND THIS WAS, WAS TO BASICALLY TAP INTO ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL REVENUE FOR THE PROJECT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY TAKE, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE HAMSTRUNG BY THE STATE LAW. AND IT'S JUST WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT. SO I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THROUGH EDUCATION, JUST LIKE THE BOND ISSUES, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EDUCATION. THE VOTERS IN TERMS OF THIS, WHAT, WHAT WHAT IT MEANS. BUT OBVIOUSLY, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXECUTE THIS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS TO MOVE FORWARD. AND OBVIOUSLY MANY, MANY VOTES. SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO BE THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC HAS. THE THERE IS AND I'M COUNCILMAN TURNER, YOU'LL BE NEXT. I JUST KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT GETTING VOTER APPROVAL IN SOME FORMAT FOR THE HOTEL AND. SO BEING ABLE TO GET THERE, WHETHER IT'S ANOTHER VEHICLE OR NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW IF THE 2% TAX, I THINK, IS A REASONABLE THING TO BE DOING BECAUSE IT CAN HELP FUND THE CIVIC, YOU KNOW, A CONVENTION CENTER IF IT DOESN'T OCCUR IMMEDIATELY DOWN THE ROAD, WE WOULD STILL BE COLLECTING IT AND THE MONEY WOULD JUST BE EARMARKED FOR IT. IS THAT CORRECT, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE BUILT IN A CERTAIN TIME? WE HAVE TO. ONE YEAR? YEAH, THERE'S A TIME. THERE'S A TIME LIMIT. OKAY. IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU CAN START COLLECTING IT. AND I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN, COUNCIL WILL OBVIOUSLY DECIDE. BUT EVEN IF THIS Y'ALL DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CALL, EVEN IF THE VOTE FAILS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO MISS OUT ON ABOUT $1 MILLION A YEAR OF THIS REVENUE FOR THE PROJECT. I KNOW AJ'S NEXT COUNCILMEMBER TURNER'S NEXT, BUT I JUST I WANT US TO TAKE A STEP BACK FROM WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE, OKAY? BECAUSE JUST LAST TIME FOR COUNCIL, WE WERE RIGHT BACK UP HERE, AND I THINK I REPEATED MYSELF SIX TIMES AS TO WHY THE HOTEL COULD NOT BE MENTIONED AS A VENUE TAX PROJECT. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW'S CONCERNS. THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS INTO THIS VENUE PROJECT PROPOSITION AND I HEAR YOU, BUT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING A HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER ON THE 555 SITE FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN THIS 
          [03:30:04]
CITY. RIGHT. AND JUST RECENTLY, AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THE RENDERINGS THAT YOU'RE GETTING A LITTLE AHEAD OF, BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT ACCURATE YET WE HAVE NOT FINE TUNED THESE NUMBERS, WHICH IS WHY THE PUBLIC HAS NOT HEARD OR HAS NOT LEARNED MORE, NOT JUST ABOUT THE VENUE TAXES, BUT ABOUT HB 5012 AND THE REBATES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE ELIGIBLE FOR TO GET BACK. 
          SO BECAUSE OF THE VENUE TAX FINANCING, WHICH AS OF TODAY IS ANYWHERE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1 TO $1.2 MILLION A YEAR, THAT WILL GO TO PAY OFF THE DEBT. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER CRENSHAW. THE PUBLIC DEBT THAT'S GOING TO BE PULLED FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, THAT IS 1 TO $1.2 MILLION FROM THE START OF THIS VENUE TAX GETTING APPROVED. AND THAT IS VISITOR SPENDING. SO IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE ARE ASKING OUR RESIDENTS FOR INCREASES IN THE GEO BOND, WE ARE ALSO ASKING OUR VISITORS WITH AN INCREASE OF 2%, THAT IS GOING TO IN TURN DRAW IN MORE VISITORS MORE CONVENTIONS BECAUSE OUR CIVIC CENTER DOES NOT HAVE BREAKOUT ROOMS. SO THANK YOU. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LACK OF CLARITY ON THE VENUE TAX. I THINK IT INVOLVES GETTING, YOU KNOW, CLEAR DIRECTION ABOUT REGARDING THE HOTEL VOTE. SO I DON'T THINK WE I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY HAS ANY, YOU KNOW, MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE VENUE TAX AND WHERE THE MONEY WAS GOING TO BE FOCUSED TOWARDS, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE THAT A HOTEL IS NOT CONSIDERED A PART OF THE VENUE PROJECT. AND THAT IS WHY IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, WE ADDED THE WORD DOWNTOWN, AS COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW SUGGESTED, BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO ADD THE WORD HOTEL BECAUSE IT IS NOT PART OF THE VENUE PROJECT, AND THAT 2% FUNDING IS NOT GOING TO BE PAID OFF OF THE DEBT OF THE HOTEL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN TURNER. MY, MY THOUGHTS ARE WHEN WE ORIGINALLY KIND OF STARTED DISCUSSING THIS, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE HELPFUL IF WE WOULD HAVE KNEW THAT IT WAS AGAINST STATE LAW, WHAT WE WERE KIND OF HAND STRUCK, HAMSTRUNG TO DO PRIOR TO, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN UTILIZE THIS TO KIND OF GET SOME TYPE OF FEEL FOR THE VOTERS. I'M KIND OF FINDING THIS OUT TODAY VERSUS MAYBE I JUST DON'T REMEMBER. SO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND NOT MULTIPLE TIMES, WE SAID THAT THE 2% WOULD HAVE TO BE WHATEVER THE 2%, WHATEVER THE VENUE PROJECT IS. HOWEVER, THE FINANCING WOULD HAVE TO BE USED. WHEN WE WERE DELINEATING BETWEEN FINANCING MECHANISMS, IT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED TO USE THE 2% FOR THE HOTEL, WHICH IS. WHICH IS WHY IT COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE VENUE PROJECT. SO IT WASN'T THAT COUNCIL WAS DECEIVED. AS THAT COUNCIL SAID, WE WERE GOING TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT THIS WAY. WE'RE GOING TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT THAT WAY. AND BECAUSE THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN BY COUNCIL, IT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THIS. THE SEPARATE RESOLUTION THERE WAS WE WERE HAVING A FINANCING CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO FINANCE THESE MULTIPLE PROJECTS. AND DURING THAT CONVERSATION, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WE COULD DO A VENUE TAX. AND FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER AND STAFF, ALONG WITH TOWN COUNCIL AND OTHER MEMBERS, WENT DOWN THAT PATH TO GET THAT DONE. AND SO THE, THE WORDING IN THIS, IN THIS RESOLUTION FOR HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT APPROVAL BY VOTERS WAS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO UNLESS YOU WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR VENUE TAX AS A FINANCING OPTION. AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SAID. LIKE OUR BOND COUNCIL SAID, THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO PROJECTS TO MAKE THIS CONVENTION CENTER VIABLE AS A VIABLE BUILD FOR COUNCIL. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE 2% IS FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER ONLY, AND THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T USE THE HOTEL IN THAT LANGUAGE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF THE FINANCING MECHANISM FOR THAT 2%. AND MY SECOND UP, JUST TO KIND OF LAND ON SOME FORM OF A SOLUTION, BECAUSE I SEE WHERE WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP. AT THE LAST TIME WE DID A CHARTER REVISION, WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN IT WHEN IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T PASS. WHEN WOULD WE BE ELIGIBLE TO DO IT AGAIN? SO THE LAST CHARTER WAS WAS DONE IN NOVEMBER OF 2023. AND SO YOU HAVE TO DO TWO YEARS FROM THE ELECTION DATE. SO THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE IT WOULD BE AFTER THAT MAY DATE OF THIS YEAR. SO TECHNICALLY YOU'LL BE ELIGIBLE FOR TO DO AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER OF 2026. 
          WHAT ABOUT MAY OF MAY OF 22 DEPENDING ON WHEN THE DAY FAILS. SO IF THE ELECTION THAT'S BEYOND THE TWO YEARS, IT'S TWO YEARS. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BECAUSE I THINK ALTHOUGH IT'S 2026, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WOULD BE MAY 2025. SO YOU COULD DO IT IN MAY, RIGHT? SO MY REASON FOR ASKING THAT IS BECAUSE I HEARD CHRIS OR CITY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CHRIS SAY EARLIER IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHARTER CHANGE TO ACTUALLY DO A REFERENDUM. I THINK THAT STILL GIVES US MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. IF WE DO LOOK AT CHANGING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THAT CHARTER SO WE CAN KIND OF GET WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM VOTERS, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I'M JUST TRYING TO LAND ON SOME FORM OF A SOLUTION, BECAUSE WE KIND OF HUNG UP RIGHT NOW, AND I UNDERSTAND, I AGREE. SO I THINK IF WE DID LOOK AT DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU'VE 
          [03:35:06]
DISCUSSED TERM LIMITS AND EVERYTHING ALREADY, IF WE CAN KIND OF LOOK AT SOME DIFFERENT FORM OF LANGUAGE AND OUR CHARTER SO WE CAN GET REFERENDUMS FROM VOTERS TO GET THEIR INPUT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY FEASIBLE. AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US KIND OF GET OVER THE HUMP THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION AS WELL. COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, I THINK FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE WE WANTED VOTER PARTICIPATION IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER. SO I GET IT. 
          WE WERE TRYING TO USE THIS AS A VEHICLE TO GET THEIR INPUT ON SAID PROJECT. IS THERE NOT AN OPTION FOR US TO GET THIS LANGUAGE PUT INTO OUR NOVEMBER BOND ELECTION AS JUST SOME, SOME AMENDMENT OR OPTION TO HAVE VOTER PARTICIPATION? CAN WE NOT ADD THIS ON THERE WHILE THEY'RE ALREADY GOING VOTE ON SOMETHING? THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. I WANTED TO SAY. AFTER RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING A HOTEL, EVEN IF WE HAVE TO PUT IN PARENTHESES, FUNDED SEPARATELY. 
          THAT WAY PEOPLE KNEW WHEN THEY WERE VOTING ON THE VENUE PROJECT. I'M VOTING ON THE VENUE TAX INCREASE THAT THEY WOULD BE VOTING TO WHAT THIS PROJECT WAS ABOUT. NO, I MEAN LIKE SOMETHING LIKE SO THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE WE HAD TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE COMPTROLLER IN ORDER TO GET AN IMPACT STATEMENT LETTER TO BE APPROVED IN ORDER FOR US TO EVEN CALL THE ELECTION. AND THE COMPTROLLER INSTRUCTED US TO ONLY INCLUDE THE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE VENUE TAX. OKAY, I'M I'M. SO THE ANSWER IS NO, WE CANNOT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO BRING IT BACK TO THE TO THE COMPTROLLER TO GET APPROVAL, TO ADD IT TO THE BALLOT. IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T CALL FOR THE ELECTION LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER TURNER HAD SUGGESTED, THE. IT APPEARS THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO A REFERENDUM ON THE HOTEL WOULD BE TO HAVE A CITY CHARTER CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW A REFERENDUM. IS THAT A FAIR UNDERSTANDING? YES. OKAY. I'M GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE WE GOT CITIZEN APPROVAL FOR THE BOND BY SAYING, COME HERE AND INPUT YOUR IDEA ON THE BOND. IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE JUST WANT CITIZEN INPUT. 
          WE WANT THEM TO HAVE A VOTE ON THE IDEA OF A HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER. COULD NOT WE DO THAT SOMEWHERE SEPARATELY, WHETHER IT'S A PART OF THIS ELECTION OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE PUT ON THE CITY WEBSITE FOR A WHOLE TWO MONTHS OR THREE MONTHS BEFORE WE GET READY TO DO THIS AND SAID, HEY, WE NEED YOUR APPROVAL. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT A HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER? WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP ON THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE WANT TO TIE IT TO THE 2% TAX, WHEN REALLY ALL YOU WANT IS VOTER PARTICIPATION ON A HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER. THEIR SENTIMENTS THAT THEY HAVE AN INPUT AND APPROVAL. AM I MISSING IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED? JUST KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DID WITH THE BOND, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ELECTION TO DO IT. WE HAD 3000 PARTICIPANTS THAT PARTICIPATED WITH THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT WHERE THEY STOOD. IF ALL YOU WANT IS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, WE DON'T HAVE TO TIE IT TO. THIS IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT. LIKE A SURVEY. YES. YEAH. NO, I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO VOTE. YES. 
          OKAY. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I THOUGHT YOU JUST WANTED PARTICIPATION. HAVE A CLUE WHO'S REALLY DOING THAT? BUT I'M SAYING IF THE CITY PUT IT ON. YOU WANT PARTICIPATION? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU DON'T WANT NO NEFARIOUS BEHIND TRICKY STUFF. YOU GO CREATE A WEBSITE OR PLACE OR WHEREVER, OR THE CITY OR WHOEVER AND DO A PODCAST. I WANT YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHY WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY TIED TO THIS, RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING FOR PARTICIPATION PURPOSE. UNDERSTOOD. BUT WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED, WE DIG TO THE VOTERS. WITH THAT. CORRECT. YOU PASSED A RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT THERE WOULD BE BEFORE THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE HOTEL, THE LINE SPECIFICALLY SAYS WHEREAS COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE HOTEL CONVENTION PROJECT WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. YEAH, I JUST A THOUGHT, THEORETICALLY, IF YOU HAD THE CHARTER CHANGED IN THE SPRING, YOU COULD HAVE A REFERENDUM PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE FINAL DOCUMENTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. BUT THAT DOES PUT YOU IN THE SPRING, RIGHT? BUT WE COULD. BUT IF JUST FOR OUR TIMELINE. AND I KNOW THIS IS GETTING COMPLICATED, BUT IF WE DO A CHARTER CHANGE FOR MAY TO ALLOW FOR A REFERENDUM, WE WOULD BE WAITING UNTIL THE FOLLOWING NOVEMBER TO VOTE. YOU CAN CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION, BUT YOU JUST CALL SOME MORE IN MAY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION WHENEVER THERE WOULD BE A POINT IN CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION, UNLESS THE CHARTER, UNLESS IT WAS APPROVED. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PRIOR ACTION TAKEN. BUT WE COULD LOOK AT BUDGETING FOR SUCH. COULD WE DO THE REFERENDUM ON IN NOVEMBER OF 
          [03:40:05]
26 THEN IF THE CHARTER I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY COULD DO THAT. WE DO THE CHARTER CHANGE ELECTION IN THE MARCH PRIMARY. AND THEN IN MAY HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION ON THE PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK SINCE IT'S NOT AN OPEN PRIMARY, YOU CAN EITHER VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT COULD. IF IT COULD BE IN BOTH, IT COULD BE IN BOTH. THE REFERENDUM WOULD BE ON BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT BALLOTS. JUST KEEP IN MIND, WHEN WE HAVE CITY ELECTIONS, THERE'S THERE IS NO PARTY AFFILIATION IN IN THAT THEY WOULD JUST GET THEIR BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AND VOTE ON. OH YEAH. NO, I GET THAT. I'M JUST SAYING. BUT IF WE WERE TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION, SAY, IN MAY, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MARCH. MARCH. NO, YOU CAN ONLY CALL ELECTIONS IN, IN NOVEMBER AND IN MAY. THAT'S IT. AND IF YOU CALLED A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR SAY, MAY OF 2026, JUST KEEP IN MIND HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'RE LOOKING AT SPENDING AT LEAST 100 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ENTITIES TO SPLIT THAT COST WITH. SO YOU'D BE LOOKING AT 111, $112,000 FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IN MAY. CAN WE DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? COULD WE DO A CHARTER CHANGE AND THE REFERENDUM? IF THE CHARTER CHANGE DIDN'T PASS, THEN IT WOULD JUST VOID THE REFERENDUM. 
          SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR IF THEN VOTE BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE VOTING FOR A AGAINST THE REFERENDUM, BUT VOTING FOR THE HOTEL AND THE HOTEL PASSED THE REFERENDUM DIDN'T. AND YOU HAVE A COMPLEX TRYING TO THINK OF US. YOU HAVE TO DO THE COURT, THE COURT AND THEN THE HORSE OR WHATEVER THE COURTS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, THAT'S IT. WELL, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THOUGH, WITH WHAT WE DID WITH THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE RESOLUTION, WE DID INDICATE WE WOULD BE GOING TO A VOTE. SO. IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE CONTRACT WITH STONEHENGE, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO ADD A VOTE FOR CHARTER CHANGE FOR NOVEMBER FOR JUST THAT ONE ITEM? NO, BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAME. TWO YEARS? YEAH. THAT'S IT. THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED NOVEMBER 7TH. NOVEMBER 7TH. IN THIS ELECTION, IT WILL BE NOVEMBER FOR TWO YEARS. WELL, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. JUST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD BE AGAINST ANY FUTURE VOTES TO BORROW MONEY FOR A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL THAT DOESN'T HAVE VOTER APPROVAL. BUT I'M I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST THIS. WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO AND ADDRESS THIS OTHER ISSUE AT A DIFFERENT TIME BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATE ISSUES. YES. PLEASE. I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THE COUNCIL WE WOULD DO ABOVE AND BOARD ABOVE BOARD AND COMMUNICATING HOW THIS IS TO COME ABOUT. YOU KNOW THAT THIS, THIS VENUE TAX WILL BE TIED TO CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT. WE CAN DO THAT IN THE EDUCATION. 
          WHILE IT'S NOT APPROVAL OF IT IT IT IT GIVES COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION OR NOT AUTHORIZATION BUT FEEDBACK ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. SO WE WOULD MAKE SURE THIS IS A PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM GOING INTO IT FOR HERE. BUT THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE CITY TO GET STARTED WITH. RIGHT. AND TO GO TOWARD A PROJECT IF YOU CHOOSE TO IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO, THE MONEY JUST GOES AWAY, BUT YOU'RE TALKING A MILLION PLUS DOLLARS A YEAR. THAT COULD GO TOWARD A PROJECT. BUT WE WILL WE WILL GO ABOVE BOARD WITH TRANSPARENCY AND MAKING SURE THE PUBLIC REALIZES KNOWS WHAT THE COUNCIL'S INTENT WAS, MAYBE JUST TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD. WE CAN SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP JUST ON THAT, ON HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS SO THAT WE COULD BE MOVING AHEAD. AND IN TERMS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE REFERENDUM, BUT GO AHEAD AND PROCEED ON THIS FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. IS THAT AGREEABLE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SATISFIES? IS THERE WOULD THERE BE A REASON NOT DOING A WORKSHOP? ALL RIGHT. SO I KNOW MY SILENCE WASN'T COMPLICIT. IT WAS ME WAITING FOR THE MANAGER TO PROBABLY PIPE IN AND SAY SOMETHING. NO LOVES WORKSHOPS, BUT GO AHEAD. YEAH. 
          SO TO BE CLEAR, I'M ALL FOR. THAT'S NICE. I'M ALL FOR VOTER EDUCATION AND VOTER 
          [03:45:08]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. BUT YOU HAVE TO REALLY BE CLEAR ABOUT LIKE, WHAT WE'RE EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ON AND HOW AND IN WHAT THE PURPOSE IS WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A WORKSHOP ON A REFERENDUM AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND, AND HOW WE WANT TO PUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON ON THE BALLOT FOR THIS UPCOMING OR THE OUR FUTURE ELECTION, WE COULD DO THAT. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE NOT USE THAT PLATFORM TO EDUCATE PEOPLE OR TO ADVOCATE FOR AGAINST AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WORKSHOP? YES, SIR. YEAH. AND I WASN'T THINKING THAT THAT DIDN'T THAT DIDN'T THE DIRECTION I WAS GOING. I WAS JUST FOR CLARITY BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME WHEN WE CLEARLY NOBODY APPEARS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE VENUE TAX ITSELF. IT'S JUST THE LACK OF CLARITY FOR FUTURE DIRECTION. SO THIS IS JUST ON THE VENUE TAX. WE WILL SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP ABOUT A REFERENDUM ON SOMETHING THAT COULD BE. HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CORRECT. NO OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. THIS LAST ITEM IS. PRETTY 
          [3. Council to consider authorizing the City Manager to execute a Joint Election Agreement and Election Services Contract for November 4, 2025, between Jefferson County and the City of Beaumont for a Special Election being held jointly with the City of Bevil Oaks, City of Groves, City of Port Neches, Jefferson County Drainage District 7, Jefferson County Emergency Services Districts No. 1 and 5, Jefferson County Water Control Improvement District No. 10, Port Neches-Groves ISD and Port of Port Arthur.]
SIMPLE. SO, MR. CITY MANAGER, THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL, TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT AND ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR NOVEMBER NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025 BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION BEING HELD JOINTLY WITH THE CITY OF BEVIL OAKS, CITY OF GROVES, CITY OF PORT NECHES, JEFFERSON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT SEVEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER ONE AND FIVE, JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER TEN. PORT NECHES, GROVES ISD, AND PORT OF PORT ARTHUR. AND IT COMES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE? SO MOVED. IS THERE A. THAT WOULD BE GOOD COUNCILMAN. 
          DO YOU ANY DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER THREE, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. I ANY OPPOSED THE MOTION CARRIES. AND SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RECESS TO GET THIS LANGUAGE. HOW MUCH TIME ARE Y'ALL GOING TO NEED. ABOUT 45 MINUTES. SO I WILL SAY MEET BACK AT 620. SIR.D. A SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M SORRY, MAYOR WEST, PRESENT MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER, COUNCILMEMBER DARIO HERE. COUNCILMEMBER HILLIARD HERE. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS, COUNCIL MEMBER. SHERWOOD AND COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW. THANK YOU. MAYOR. 
          [1. Council to consider approving an ordinance calling a Special Election for November 4, 2025, to be held within the City of Beaumont, Texas, making provisions for the conduct and the giving of notice of the Special Election; and containing other provisions related thereto. (Part 2 of 2)]
BEFORE WE HAVE THE READING OR MOTION ON THE ITEM, I DID WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE. FOR EACH PROP LOOK ON YOUR SCREEN OR WHICHEVER ONE YOU WANT TO GO. THERE WAS NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE FOR PROP A. THOSE ARE JUST THE FINAL NUMBERS. IT IS GOING TO BE A JUST KEEP GOING. NO PROB BE SCROLL DOWN IF YOU RECALL AND PROP B WE DID ADD THE LANGUAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTERS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LANGUAGE NOW READS A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR FIVE AND FOR SEVEN, A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AT ALICE KEITH PARK. 
          SO I BELIEVE THAT RIVERFRONT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THIS WINTER FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION ONE THAT'S WE MISSED THAT ONE. SO THAT WILL BE WE'LL REVISE THAT ONE TO ELIMINATE WHERE IT SAYS RIVERFRONT PARK. WRONG DRAFT, BUT KEEP GOING. PROXY. HE'LL EMAIL IT. YOU 
          [03:50:11]
WANTED YOU WANTED IT TO BE SEPARATE. SO YOU HAVE TO TELL ME HOW YOU WANT IT, BUT HOW YOU WILL GO BACK UP BECAUSE WE CAN LEAVE IT. BUT IF YOU SCROLL BACK DOWN. I'M SORRY. NO. SCROLL DOWN THE NUMBERS AND SCROLL DOWN. FURTHER DOWN DOESN'T INCLUDE THE NUMBER. THOSE, THOSE THOSE NUMBERS WOULD CHANGE. SO IF YOU WANTED SOME ROLLOVER. BUT IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PROP, WHICH IS WHY WE TOOK IT OUT. BUT IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PROPOSITION, JUST KEEP GOING DOWN. JUST PAGE DOWN TO PROP E. NEXT RIGHT THERE. THAT'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE RIVERFRONT PARK SEPARATE. SO THOSE DOLLARS AMOUNT WOULDN'T AREN'T REFLECTED IN PROPOSITION C, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO TAKE IT OUT THAT LANGUAGE OUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS PARK. THAT WE KNOW ABOUT IT. SO I'M GOING TO GO TO GAP STRATEGIES ON THAT ONE. MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER. SO WE SO WE'RE GOING TO WE CAN LEAVE IT. BUT DOES THAT IMPACT THE NUMBERS DO NOT IMPACT THE NUMBERS OKAY. THEN WE CAN LEAVE IT. SO YOU SO IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT PROPOSITION C AGAIN IT DOES INCLUDE RIVERFRONT PARK. AND THIS ONE INCLUDES RIVERFRONT PARK EXPANSION. DO YOU NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN. NO. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT'S ON THIS SHEET TOO. 
          YEAH OKAY. SCROLL DOWN. KEEP GOING. AND THEN PROP E WITH THE PARKWAY EXTENSION ON ITS OWN. 
          AND SO IN THE ORDINANCE I'M JUST SHOWING YOU HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. 
          BUT IN THE ORDINANCE ALL OF THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME. IT APPEARS APPROXIMATELY THREE, THREE TIMES IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT ALL REFLECTS THE SAME LANGUAGE. OKAY. THAT'S THE LAST ONE. YES, MA'AM. AND IF COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS, SHOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF THE DOCUMENT. WE KEPT IT IN THE ORDER THAT'S ON THE THAT'S ON THE SHEET THAT WAS HANDED OUT BY GAP STRATEGIES. SO IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS IN PRINTED FORM ANYWHERE IT WOULD TAKE I WAS BEING RUSHED. IT WOULD TAKE. 
          IT'S A FAIRLY LONG DOCUMENT. I HAVE ONE PRINTED COPY FOR YOUR SIGNATURE, WHICH IS WHY WE CAME BACK DOWN. BUT IT DID TAKE. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME ANOTHER TEN MINUTES, I CAN PROBABLY GO PRINT OUT. HOW MANY PAGES IS IT? IT'S 37. IT'S. YES, BECAUSE IT'S THE FULL BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT I PRESENT. IT'S SHOWN IN THREE WAYS. SO IT'S THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT Y'ALL WILL APPROVE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE OF HOW IT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS AND SOME OTHER LIKE STATE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. IF THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS, WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH ONE IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE BALLOT, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. BUT JUST KNOW THAT THAT TAKES SOME TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE TO. ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE HAVE TO BE PLUGGED OUT AND PUT PUT IN THE PROPER PLACE. IT TAKES ME ABOUT YEAH, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT PRINTED OUT. 
          WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SEE? SO WHICH ONE? FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END. OKAY, LET'S GO TO PROP A. RIGHT THERE. SCROLL DOWN. CAN YOU LOSE THE HEADER TO GET US MORE SCREENS? CAN YOU MAKE IT JUST THE PAGE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. SO I GUESS THEY CAN SEE IT ON ONE DOCUMENT. THAT'S IT. 
          [03:55:02]
JUST SCROLL DOWN SO YOU CAN SEE THE FULL FULL PROP LANGUAGE. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. 
          CAN WE MOVE TO PROP B? YES. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON PROP EIGHT. I WOULD SAY NO QUESTIONS. THIS IS PROPOSITION B. ANY QUESTIONS ON PROP B. 
          NO MA'AM. EVERYBODY GET TO BE OKAY PROP C. 
          IN 2007. I DON'T SPECULATE ON PEOPLE'S INTELLIGENCE. I'M ALWAYS DISAPPOINTED. CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON, COUNCILMAN? EVERYBODY, IT'S PUBLIC MEETING. YEAH, WE CAN MOVE ON IF NOBODY SAID ANYTHING. SO I'M GOOD. YEAH, I MEAN, WHAT I MEAN, I'M JUST OUT OF. WOULD IT GET WEIRD IF ONE WERE TO PASS AND THE OTHER FELT LIKE JUST. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. LIKE. LIKE HOW YOU CAN'T ISSUE DEBT. ONE'S AN EXTENSION, SO IT'S JUST. TWO DIFFERENT. YEAH, THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT. OKAY. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, IF THIS ONE FAILED AND THE OTHER ONE PASSED, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AN EXPANSION PROJECT IN RIVERFRONT PARK, BUT NOT IMPROVEMENT IN RIVERFRONT PARK OR THE OTHER PARKS LISTED. IF THIS ONE PASSED AND THE OTHER ONE FAILED, WE'D BE ABLE TO DO IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS PARK AND RIVERFRONT PARK, BUT NOT EXPANSION PROJECT. AND WE COULDN'T ISSUE A CEO TO DO AN EXPANSION PROJECT IN THE PARK EITHER. OKAY, SO IT DOESN'T HAMSTRING. NO. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THREE YEARS? IF THIS IF. THE IF THE IF THE NEXT ONE FAIL. RIGHT. SO. NEXT ONE. 
          NOW THIS ONE IS THE ONE THAT'S DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EXPANSION. SO IF THIS ONE FAILED THEN THE CITY COULD NOT ISSUE COES TO DO AN EXPANSION PROJECT. BUT IF PROPOSITION C PASSED, YOU COULD STILL DO IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PARK, JUST NOT AN EXPANSION PROJECT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE PARKWAY. THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. 
          IT'S JUST EXACTLY HOW IT'S PULLED OUT. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR DOES ANYBODY NEED TO REVIEW ANYTHING ELSE ON THE DOCUMENT. NO. IT'S. TWO 264,167,995. I GET THAT. ONE OH 1080. 14 20 STRATEGIES, APPROXIMATELY, WE'RE FIGURING APPROXIMATELY 1430. BUT DID YOU SAY 14.25? NOW ON REFINEMENT, PERHAPS 14.25. NO. AND WE CAN'T SAY IT ON. SO IF YOU WHAT WE SHOWED YOU WAS THE EXHIBIT B, WHICH IS THE VOTER INFORMATION 
          [04:00:01]
DOCUMENT, YOU CAN PULL IT BACK UP. AND SO WHAT WE SHOW YOU IS THE CALCULATION FOR EACH ONE, THE INTEREST AS OF TODAY, IF YOU SCROLL UP, NO, JUST STAY DOWN IN THAT ONE SECTION TINA. YEAH. SO IT GIVES YOU JUST. YEAH. JUST SCROLL DOWN. IT GIVES YOU THAT ESTIMATED COST, AMORTIZATION COST, WHAT IT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE ON THE BOND. AND IT'S BROKEN DOWN IN THAT TABLE. AND THEN THE EVALUATION IT SAYS. SO ALL OF THAT INFORMATION ONE THROUGH EIGHT IS INCLUDED IN THE VOTER INFORMATION PACKET $100,000. BUT IT DOESN'T TELL YOU LIKE OVERALL, BUT IT DOES TELL YOU THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM THING. AND IT HAS IT'S GOING TO HAVE ALL THAT ON THE BALLOT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSITION, IT'S ESTIMATED THAT THAT IS A 0.00053% INCREASE OR THE TOTAL VALUATION OF THE PROJECT. 
          BECAUSE I DON'T DO MATH. DEREK MITCHELL WITH HOLLAND MAYOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT. IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NOTICE THAT GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S THE VOTER INFORMATION DOCUMENT BALLOTS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO THERE'S NO ONLY IF YOU SCROLL IF YOU LOOK AT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BALLOT. WE CHOSE TO SHOW YOU THIS SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE VOTER INFORMATION DOCUMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT ON THE BALLOT, CAN YOU SCROLL UP, TINA, OR SCROLL DOWN JUST RIGHT THERE WHERE IT SAYS FOR SCROLL UP JUST A LITTLE BIT RIGHT THERE. THAT'S WHAT THEY SEE, RIGHT? JUST THAT ONE THAT BOX FOR AGAINST WITH THAT LANGUAGE. 
          SO WE JUST HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT IN OUR VOTER EDUCATION BECAUSE SO THE NOTICE THIS THE EXHIBIT B WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW THAT IS THE NOTICE THAT GETS SENT OUT TO VOTERS THAT'S POSTED AND CAN BE PUBLISHED FOR INFORMATION THAT LONG YELLOW SHEET. BUT THIS IS WHAT THEY'LL SEE WHEN THEY WALK INTO THE VOTING BOOTH. RIGHT? RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE PROPOSITION AS PRESENTED? WELL, NOW, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, THE MANAGER, IN KEEPING WITH OUR TRADITION, THE MANAGER WILL NOW READ THE ITEM. AND THEN YOU CAN CALL FOR DISCUSSION OR VOTE. MR. TURNER, BECAUSE IT'S FOR YOUR CALLING FOR AN ELECTION AND BECAUSE IT'S RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. NO. OKAY. TAKE FIVE MINUTES, COUNSELOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025, TO BE HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT AND THE GIVING OF NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO. AND IT COMES TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM? I MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE. THERE IS A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW? THIS IS BECAUSE OF HOW THIS WAS GROUPED AND MY CONCERNS THAT ME VOTING YES WOULD MAKE THE PUBLIC THINK THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE RIVERFRONT PARK EXTENSION. I'VE GOT TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS ITEM, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW TO COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS. AND 
          [COUNCIL COMMENTS]
THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO ATTEND. OKAY. SO, COUNCILMAN CRENSHAW, I THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH TODAY. COUNCILWOMAN SHERWOOD, NO COMMENT. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. YOU KNOW, IT'S AN INTERESTING PROCESS TO BE A PART OF SOMETHING. AND YOUR FIRST THREE MONTHS IN OFFICE, SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, 40 PLUS YEARS. 
          AND WHILE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NO EASY TASK AND. YOU KNOW, I KNOW PERFECT WAY TO GROUP THESE THINGS OR PICK THIS APART OR PICK THAT APART. BUT I LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE AND, AND YOU KNOW, 
          [04:05:03]
I THINK THAT WE'RE GIVING VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PICK THE DIRECTION THEY WANT THE CITY TO GO IN. AND SO. I'M HAPPY THAT THAT THE VOTERS WILL GET A SAY IN THIS. AND, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE RESULTS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. COUNCILMAN TURNER, NO COMMENT. 
          THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN HILLIARD, NO COMMENT. THANK YOU SIR. COUNCILMAN DORIA. 
          YEAH, I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL THE CITIZENS THAT THAT PARTICIPATED TODAY AND CAME UP AND SPOKE UP. THAT'S THAT'S HOW THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A PART OF THIS. AND I'M GLAD THAT THEY DID COME. AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR YOU GUYS ANSWERED A LOT OF HARD QUESTIONS TODAY AND EDUCATE US AND APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S IT. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS. YEAH. REAL QUICKLY I JUST LIKE TO ECHO I APPRECIATE KAREN AND JEFF AND DUSTY AND DEREK, BUT ESPECIALLY ALL OF OUR CITY STAFF WHO WORKED A LOT OF HOURS TO GET US TO THIS POINT. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OF OUR BOND COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH US TONIGHT, BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THEY DID. SAM'S HERE, SAM, BUT APPRECIATE ALL THE GREAT WORK THE BOND COMMITTEE PUT INTO THIS PROJECT TO GET US TO THIS POINT. 
          THANK YOU SIR. MR. CITY MANAGER, NO COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND THEIR HARD WORK. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN CHALLENGING AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN TO THE BACK. ARE WE STILL DOING THE BACK
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.