Hello. Hello. All right. It's 12:29. I will now open regular city council meeting of the Lok City Council for October 14th, 2025. >> Actually, I think it was 12:30, Mayor, when you opened the meeting. Let me wait a minute. >> Does somebody have 12:30 on their watch? >> It's whatever your watch goes by. So, if you say that your watch is 12:30, then it's 12:30. >> All right. >> We can do this for another 42 seconds. >> We just The only thing we can't >> We have to We have to start it at 12:30. >> You cannot start early. Okay. Start late according to Start early. >> Well, I never trust this time here. >> I I wouldn't either. >> I do not trust this time here at all. It is never right. Well, here >> 12:37. >> See, it still says 12:29. So, >> as soon as 12:30, >> I'm watching it like a hawk. >> And I'm sorry. Remember, watch. >> I would have I would have believed you if you had said 12:30. >> I just can't. >> Of course, the date, >> but if somebody goes back and checks and looks and say, "Hey, time stamp said it was 12:29." He said 12:30. You know, a liar in one, liar in all, right? What's that Latin phrase, David? >> I need to go back upstairs and get my Robert. >> Dad gone, that is the slowest minute. I think it's frozen. >> All right. I will now open the regular session uh regular city council meeting of the love city council for October 14th, 2025, my father's birthday. May God rest his soul. The city council will now recess into executive session in accordance with the Texas government code section 551.071 to consult with and seek the advice of the city's legal counsel section 551.072 072 to discuss the purchase, exchange or value of real property. Section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters. 551.076 to discuss the deployment or implementation of security personnel or devices. 551.0761 to discuss and consider matters regarding the critical infrastructure facility, a critical infrastructure facility, and 551.077 to discuss and deliberate economic development matters. The city council is now recessing at still 12:30 and uh we will be back uh at 2 o'clock. >> Sweet creations. >> Sweet sweet creations. >> Okay. >> Is that cake? >> All right. So, we'll reconvene from our executive session and uh we just enjoyed some wonderful cake from Sweet Creations over on Broadway. If you haven't been there, go there and give her some of your business. She makes incredible uh product over there. Incredible sweet creations. Uh made my birthday cake. So, uh it was very good. It was chocolate. It was wonderful. So, just always trying to get people business here in um in our city. So, uh we're going to take up our ceremonial items. Unfortunately, the Father Pena who was here from uh St. Patrick Catholic Church was going to lead us in our invocation, but he had to leave. So today I'm just going to ask us all to rise and we will just each one say a prayer individually and I will conclude and after that we will say our pledges. Lord give us grace, give us wisdom. Give us humility to serve you with all our hearts and all our souls and all our minds. Lord, hear our prayers. Amen. >> If you'll join me in doing our pledges, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. >> All right. I now call the meeting to order and we'll take up citizen comments. We have two comments today. One in person, one was submitted in writing. Uh so I just remind uh everyone uh who's here today and who's also uh watching online. According to our rules, any citizen wishing to appear in person uh before a city council meeting regarding any matter posted on our agenda can complete the sign up form provided and uh appear. And when you come forward, if you're here in person, please remember to give us your name and address. You will have three minutes to make your comments. Uh there will be a a warning bell when you have 30 seconds left and a final bell uh when you need to wrap up your comments. Uh so our first person I'm calling forward today is uh James Harris members of the back row in the chairs. City leadership were first made aware of these crimes on August 8th of this year. The city is a taxing unit and presenting evidence to the many taxing units that receive more than $50 million per year in property taxes from ECAD. Taxing units collectively control the ELCAD board per Texas law. Therefore, you in concert with other taxing units control everything that takes place at Elcad. The good things, the sloppy business practices, the taxpayer abuse and the crimes. This is a dumpster fire created for you by Elcad to solve. But you have options. Option number one, do nothing. Mailing after mailing, hand delivery after hand delivery, presentation after presentation. Number two, spend 30 to 60 seconds replying to the notice each of you have already received, asking ECAD to comment on one of the laws they have violated. 30 to 60 seconds of your time could end the cover up. months long, many months long cover up. Number three, pass a resolution stating that you want to relinquish your statutory responsibility over LCAD beyond receiving property tax checks from them. Most taxing units appear through their actions and words to want to get away from the fedded brier patch that is Elcad. Your resolution would simply state the truth and will be taken seriously and appreciated in Austin. They know this is a mess. First option of doing nothing isn't really a wise choice. After sufficient time and notice have elapsed, your inaction simply declares that you do not care. You cannot be seen as not caring. Mom and pop suffer greatly to pay these extravagant taxes. and mom and pop expect you to take your statutory mandate seriously. Regarding the third option, relinquishing your statutory responsibility to vote for ethical LCAD board members, consider how you will answer this question from mom and pop in the future. You were warned about the criminality repeatedly and you still voted for the same old guard who allowed the rot in the first place. A responsible answer would be that you formally resolve that the city of Levik no longer wants to any responsibility over ELCAD. Please, Texas legislator, take it away. Is that my final? Uh, you have my contact information. >> Thank you, Mr. >> You're in control of this rot. >> Did you Did you submit that to each of us? >> No, just comments. Uh second, I have a Mrs. Nancy Briggs Briggs who had written comments. Uh she lives at 5109 82nd Street. Uh and she said she received a letter concerning annexation of Highland Oaks. Cost being estimated $8.484 million. Been a resident of this area for over 20 years and bought in the county because I wanted to live in a rural area. Lived in the counties for over 50 years in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tucson, Arizona, and Love. We have fought this process the entire time. It's been a possibility and it did no good. I feel we were ramrotted into this situation. Whether we voted it in or not, I'm 85 years old, recently widowed and now live on one social security check. I will never be able to afford the costs we are expected to come up with. This home was placed in a reverse mortgage by my husband 17 years ago. I'm trapped here as the values have plummeted because of the annexing. I could never sell it for what it is owed what I owe on this home now. Therefore, I have no place to live if I moved from here. Any suggestions as to what me and many other residents options are? Does this mean we are legally bound to pay these fees for water and annexing? And I will be contacting my attorney to see what I can do to remain as is. I cannot come to the hearing. So, I want my voice uh and my concerns to be heard by mail. So, I've read those into the record for Mrs. Briggs. All right. All right. All right. We'll now take up item 4.1. Uh the minutes for the September 2nd, 2025 special city council meeting and the September 9th uh 2025 regular city council meeting. Um is there a motion to approve item 4.1? >> Have a motion to approve. Is there a second? We have a second. Is there any discussion? So all in I hear none. All in favor let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. Uh the motion to approve uh carries unanimously. All right. We now have a consent agenda uh to take up and there's been a request to remove items 5.2, 5.3, and 530 from the consent agenda. So I will entertain a motion now to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items 5.2, 5.3, and 5.30. Is there such a motion? >> Have a motion. I have a second. Any discussion? I hear none. All in favor, let be known by saying I. I. Any oppose, say nay. I hear none. That motion carries unanimously. So, we'll now take up item 5.2. And I'm going to call on uh our city manager, Mr. Atinson, to provide a briefing on this matter. >> Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Um, assistant city manager Eric Reino is going to walk us through this. I think he has a couple of short slides. >> Mayor, council, good to be with you. Appreciate you giving me a few minutes to walk you through item 5.2 on the North Milwaukee uh budget amendment. Just kind of recapping, we've just completed our fourth of 15 bond projects. Now, we're in the process of bidding the next four. Um, this one is in particular, this budget amendments related to North Milwaukee, uh, North City Limits, um, Four Street and North City Limits. We've opened bids and actually have received two bids back. U, one from Lonear Dirt and Paving in the amount of 16.3 million and as you see, West Texas Paving was the other bidder at 18.77 million. and looking at the low bidder and also the highest rank proposal, Lonear Dirt and Paving is who staff will be recommending at the following meeting. Uh before we can get there, we're needing to work through the budget. Um the item before you today is actually related to impact fees and service area A, which we are recommending as staff that you allocate a million dollars from impact fees towards this project to help make up the shortfall. Uh Mr. Turpin, our city engineer, Mr. Kaylor, our assistant city engineer over capital projects, have come up with a plan um to help see this project through and move forward with it. Uh so I'm going to I'm going to walk you through that. Um as far as this particular slide, if you look at the encumbered expended, that's what we've spent to date on design acquisition. Uh then if you scroll down, look at your agenda item, which you have before or you're going to have before you at a later time. Uh 16.3 million for construction. And that takes you to an expense today with the proposed contract that'll be coming to you of 19.293 million. What you have appropriated today in the budget for North Milwaukee is 17 million. So leaves you a little bit of a shortfall. So let's walk through that. So starting at that 19.293 million. Uh we do have another amendment coming related to HDR the consultant. This is for construction pay services. That one will come to you at a future meeting. And we also have to work in staff time. So we're looking at a cost without contingency of 19.628 million uh with your appropriation date being 17 million, leaving you 2.628 million there in red to to work through today. Um we've come up with a plan. Uh impact fee in service area A. Uh there's a little over 2 point uh I'll pull it up here in a little bit. 2.9 million I believe. Uh there's a million there that we're proposing which is the item before you today. That million would in essence if approved would amend the budget, move that million into this capital project. We're also proposing to utilize funds that are budgeted in the storm water fund for arterials. There's a lot of drainage associated with this project with North Milwaukee. There's one coming up that we open bids next week on 34th Street. A lot of drainage. Perfectly acceptable to utilize drainage dollars for that. And that's been part of the plan. So a million from there. And then fortunately we did come under budget in our first couple of major projects 98 street al cove to upland we had already pulled 500,000 in prior fiscal year to move towards this project knowing that the scope was going to be rather large but there's an additional 350,000 you can pull there and then 146th street which we all because we cut the ribbon on both of these 146th street Quaker to Indiana we can move 1.35 million there and that actually takes your appropriation from the 17 million to 20.7 million leaving you a little bit of surplus in the amount of you know a little over a million dollars. Um not uncommon for a project of this size to have a contingency or a change orders in the amount of 5 to 7%. That million71,000 there at the bottom gives you about 6.6%. So this this gets you to what where you need to get to with again I wanted to walk through all of it so you have the big picture but today's item is tied to the impact fees and again this is an impact fee service area A and that I misspoke. You have uh what no 2.8 available um in service area A and this would knock that back down to 1.8. So I'm going to back up to this slide and open it up with questions. Open it up for questions. >> All right. Are there any questions? Mr. Collins. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Mr. Reheno, was the Milwaukee Street or I know the Milwaukee Street had some reduced scope um the elimination of a traffic signal and maybe some work at at the intersection of Marshall. Is that >> Yes, sir. That's correct. and and and is there a ballpark of about how much um how many dollars weren't included in this project that might have been had other um factors remained? >> The the cost primarily would be so there I'm going to back up just a little bit. So there was an amendment that we did which is amendment number two in the HDR contract to redesign the project. That's uh initially the project was going to be you know the city portion was to be done by the city. The county also had a bomb project that was going to go north, pick up where we left off and go north. uh they've indicated they're not going to do that. So, we actually did a little bit of a redesign. We pulled the signal out. Um we actually did build all the way through the intersection, built five lanes, but because there's no connection to tie into, we're having to reduce that the usable lanes to three. So, there was there's reduced usability, but the signal would be the big cost there. And you're looking at about 250,000 for the signal that would have been part of this had that proceeded on. >> Okay. And did you prepare a slide of of the additional projects that we have u upcoming? The ones that are bidding soon? >> I did not, but I've I've got a list here. Um we've got the one that we're bidding right now that's on the street now is 34th Street, Milwaukee to Upland that we open bids on that one next week. Following that one, we do have we're getting very close on being able to let Upland 4th to 19th and then our residential unpaved. So we've got three more on top of this one, four that we're bidding next year and three the following year. And so two of those projects are in uh impact zone A. Is that correct? Two of the additional projects. >> Yeah. And I've got a list all if you look there. Service area 34th Street, the next one that we're going to be opening bids on is also in service area A. But there's the list of of total bond projects that are in the various service areas. >> And so there will be approximately $1.8 million in remaining funds in uh impact fees available for these other two area A projects. >> Yes, sir. Is that all the area A projects that are upcoming? >> No. No, sir. There's there's others. You've got a list. You've got various sections of the Upland projects that are coming up that will be at a later I mean, there's a few that are bidding next year. >> Okay. Well, and I bring this, you know, I bring this to conversation. This is what impact fee money was for. Uh or or at least one of the designated uses that we could that we could use those dollars for. Um the 34th Street project from Milwaukee to Upland is is going to be significant. Um was there contingency originally included in in the 22 bond package? There wasn't a separate contingency like we did in 24, but was there a percentage of contingency made available? We we did work in a contingency but based on the construction prices we're seeing the current and we hope it's you know it's comes under this but the current OPCC for 34th Milwaukee to uplandcc >> opinion of probable cost so construction cost sorry I use an acronym I apologize um so we've got 16.5 million budgeted for that if we assume worst case scenario what we're looking at right now. Um, and this isn't taking into consideration the Milwaukee bids. This is looking at the kind of what we looked at last month. These may need to be recalculated now that we have the Milwaukee bids. Um, but as of last month, we were at 18.3 million total versus the 16.5. Take out all contingency and we were at about 17 million. And that includes that's all inclusive of design, acquisition, and construction. Were there any scope reductions in the 98th Street project or or the other project um that you'd mentioned earlier? One of those first two that might indicate why there was excess or give us other reason for the excess beyond just the contingency that we put in? >> No sir. you know, the the acquisition in this this is one that we tried to plan for, but obviously, as you know, with Loop 88, the acquisition has changed drastically, and I think we're paying a little more on that side and maybe needed a few more parcels than we expected, but that's I would tie the the additional cost more so to increased construction cost and the acquisition that's needed to occur for all the projects to happen, but no reduced scope on on those that you just referenced. And so those last two projects will bid out. You said one will bid next week and the other >> the other ones 34th Street's already on the street now. We open bids next week and then Upland 4th to 19th will bid uh next month and we hope we plan to bring those to council by the end of the year for construction awards all three of those. >> So the other bids in November? >> Yes sir. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, and and I bring again bring this attention because this we mentioned this through the budget cycle and it and it remains a concern of mine as we go through this process. Uh I guess we've got another 60 days or so and we'll have a better idea of where we're standing. Uh but I have I have great concern uh getting through the entirety of this bond package um on budget. And so I just want us to all be very aware as we're working our way through this and seeing this how this could impact uh future bond issues and and what we can and can't u uh get through this process in in the 22 bond package. So thank you for your time and information, sir. >> Thank you. U Mayor Pro, >> I just wanted to add to what Mr. Collins said. I I concur with him on that. I think that's what this is demonstrating what my concern was and I think that you know there will be shortfalls especially with the continued rising costs. I do hope that we have some better months, but at this point, I feel that um all the increasing costs, construction costs, the supplies and whatnot, we can expect to see that our citizens can expect to see stuff like this happen. And I don't think we have that large of a budget left in and impact fees. So, I appreciate your efforts and thank you for a more detailed explanation. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, Mr. Rino, uh, it was my understanding on the 2022 bonds, did we build a contingency into each project, but not then an additional contingency at the end. Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, we did have a contingency built in. 2024, we had contingencies within the projects and then a further contingency at the end. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. If not, I will entertain a motion to approve item 5.2. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion, a second. Any discussion? >> I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That motion passes unanimously. All right. Uh we'll now take up uh item 5.3. Mr. Atkinson. >> Thank you, mayor. Um item 5.3 is being brought to you today. so that the city of Leuk can update its purchasing policies in provision with the recently approved Senate Bill 1173 that was passed um or brought forward by our own Senator Perry. So currently today and truly has been for a very long time. $50,000 is the threshold at which either the manager or the manager's designate can approve a purchase. There are still competitive purchases. they are not necessarily what we would consider a formal sealed bid which brings extensive time and expense to do that. Um we all know what's happened to the cost of goods over the years. Senator Perry brought this forward to allow us to update that policy and any other city really truly any public entity um to $100,000 on that. So, we've gone from when I started for 50,000 I could buy a police car. Um, I can't today, but I could at $100,000. Um, council, if you have questions as to what this would capture from us, uh, Mr. Jimenez, our CFO, chief financial officer, I think has numbers and between the two of us will answer any questions you may have. >> All right. Are there any questions? Mr. Glen? >> Thank you. Uh, I pulled this agenda item from uh, the consent agenda just to talk about it a little bit. The $50,000 limit at the time that it was in place, if you adjusted it for inflation, would be about $76,000 in today's dollars. And so this is this is not just an increase in absolute dollars, it's also an increase in the relative amount of purchasing power we are delegating without any significant amount of oversight from the council. Um, you know, I think that we have a very smooth and efficient system to approve most um contracts and amendments on the consent agenda, but that still gives us as the council oversight on how the dollars are being spent, where they're going, and what sort of trends and projects there are across the city operations. And so, um, given that it takes very little effort for us to to maintain oversight on these transactions, I think it is our most important responsibility to citizens. So, I would recommend that we keep the uh current $50,000 limit in place. If we wanted to adjust it, I would suggest more of an inflation adjusted number somewhere around the $75,000 range. Would you like to make that in the form of an amendment? >> I think the amendment's um appropriate at any time or do we >> do we do we have a motion yet? >> There's no motion. >> No, there's no motion. >> So, he could do it. He if you're ready to call for motions, he could just make that as the very first motion. >> Okay. So, let's see if there's any other discussion before I do that. I'm not seeing anybody. >> And I'll I'll move to disapprove item 5.3. >> So your motion is to disapprove it. Not to >> That's correct. >> Okay. Is there a second to that motion? >> That motion fails for lack of a second. >> Then I'll >> Is there a further motion? >> I'll move to amend item 5.3 to establish a limit of $75,000. >> Is there a second for that motion? >> I will second that motion. Is there any discussion, Mr. Collins? >> Just for clarity's sake, um all expenditures have to come from monies that we have already budgeted. Um is that correct? >> It is. >> So, so it's not like uh the city manager can make an expense that we haven't approved previously. and and so you know it how much uh engagement we as the council I think are required to make has been made through the budget process and so how those dollars are are expended is not discretionary it's it's confined within the things that we've already approved in the budget and the things that we've seen so I personally don't take issue with uh raising raising the number for that reason >> my my comment on that is that and it's a criticism of my that I've expressed in the budget process is that we approve very broad categories of spending professional services for an entire department for example that that doesn't give you any idea on how the money is being spent and you so you can say that okay I approved x number of dollars for the parks department to do professional services right but you don't have any idea how the money is actually being spent when it comes through and you see that there's a mowing contract that's significantly more than last year, then this is our opportunity as as the oversight for how tax dollars are being spent to engage with management on that, get answers about it, and often there's a good explanation for how the money is being spent. But I think this is a very important part of our our oversight that that we shouldn't uh relax. >> Any further discussion on this motion? And I would just I appreciate David's point. It doesn't really take us a whole lot of time to do this oversight. And I'm I'm concerned about overdelegation of our oversight. The $100,000 of course is a um a limiting an upper or a lower upper limit I guess on the amount that can be done. It doesn't really set it. Um, so I think the inflationary part of it uh going up to 75,000 probably achieves uh what we want to not overburden us but also continue to make sure that we exercise the oversight that the people elect us to do. So I'll be in favor of that. So any further discussion? If not, I'll call for the vote. All in favor? And this is a vote on the motion to amend uh to limit to $75,000 instead of $100,000. Is that correct? It's It's not a motion to amend. It's just motion to approve the policy at setting it at $75,000. >> Thank you. Thank you for always keeping me on track there. Okay. It's a motion to set the uh amount at $75,000. Um there's a second further discussion here. I see none. All in favor? Let be known by saying I. I. Okay. Let's see. I can't look two ways at one time. I I Any other eyes down here? Okay. All right. All right. So, that's four to Were you a nay? We I haven't said nay yet. We had four eyes. All oppose say nay. >> All right. It's uh four to three. That motion passes. All right. Now, we'll take up item 530. And Briana, you here to uh go over this? Our business development director. Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon, mayor and councel. Um item 5.30 is amendment two to contract 16316 with the Brousard Group, um TBG Partners, who has been our um primary architectural design firm throughout the uh downtown park construction process. um following the approval by the council at um our meeting a couple of weeks ago to move forward with um an amended design for the downtown park project. We went back to our consultants. Um and so what this amendment does is allows them to go back to the construction documents and amend those documents based on the fact that we removed some significant components of the park, primarily being the splash pad. We're also um adjusting some of the structural components on the restroom structure and the stage structure to um lower the cost of those two items, but it does require us to go back to our architect and then them to go back to their subcontractors um for renovation of those construction documents. Um you will also see in your backup that um we've escalated some or they have escalated some of their fees to 2026 pricing. This contract was originally executed in 2021. We've amended it twice extending the contract and they've never asked for a price increase. So, um they are asking for us to move to today's prices uh with this amendment. And then we also added some design components, $10,000 for the design of our donor wall. that was never included in our original um contract with TBG as we didn't know the scope of how many donors that we were going to have um at what levels we were going to have them and how we wanted to honor them in the park. So now that we are um essentially close to done fundraising for construction, we can now go back and design a wall based on um the donors that we've secured over the last several years. Um with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have. Mr. Basheen, >> what is the source of the funds um that are going to pay for this contract? >> So, the original contract was paid for and that contract amount was $971,000 and that was paid for through the Gateway capital improvement project within the CBD TIP, the central business district tax increment financing zone. Um their gateway fund is not the same as your gateway fund. So, it was bond proceeds from a previous project that we had money left over. Um, and so they used those funds to pay for the original contract. In this year's budget, you all approved a capital improvement project of $1.25 million. Um, that is cash that was moved from their operating budget over to capital to fund public improvements. And so, this amendment will be covered through their public improvement capital budget. >> Whose public improvement capital budget? >> This is CBD TIFF. Sorry. >> CBD tiff. Yes, sir. >> That's the central business tax increment. >> Central business district tax increment financing reinvestment zone >> tours. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> And so this um amendment this will be for an amount an an additional expense of how much? >> 87,000. Is there any um agreement between the city, the TIFF, or the the group that's doing the park that obligates the city to spend this money? >> There is not um the existing contract that this is amending is between the landscape architect and the CBD tiff approved by you all. So, it's really between the city and the architect. Um, this is an amendment to that contract, but it is adding services. Um, the 2026 pricing, I think if we decided not to move forward with this, I don't know that they would continue on the work that they've already started. So, that would be our only obligation. So my other thought is, you know, the one of the selling points of this park was that it's to be privately funded and and privately operated, but you know, the city and its related entities have contributed significant amount of money and and valuable land services to the to the park. Why isn't the group that's developing the park able to pay for this? >> I think um and I do have representation from the downtown tiff board if you'd like to hear from them as well. I certainly don't want to speak for them, but I will try to and then he can step in if you would like. Um, I think the thought was the original agreement between the TIFF and this project was to um oversee or pay for the demolition of the LPNL building and its parking structure and then to pay for construction document development. And so, because this is an extension of an existing contract that they have, they felt like this is what it takes to fulfill the existing contract that they agreed to. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you, M. All right. Do I hear a motion uh to approve item 530? >> Have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, let saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. Motion passes. unanimously. All right, we'll now proceed to our regular agenda and start with items 6.1. The board appointments to the airport board, appointments advisory board, community development services board, urban renewal agency board of commissioners, the health education facilities development corporation board, keep love beautiful advisory committee, lach emergency communication district board of managers, lach economic development alliance incorporated board of directors, lach water advisory commission, market leach incorporated board of directors, model codes and construction advisory board, museum and art standing subcommittee, planning and zoning commission and veterans advisory committee. I'll call on our city secretary now to provide a briefing on this matter and recommendations of the appointments advisory board and the council subcommittee. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh these are your fourth quarter boards with a majority of them having terms starting around December 1st. There are a few in here that were resignations, so their terms will begin immediately. Um I'll run through the list and we'll go from there. Um for the airport board, we have Karen Mitchell to replace James Arnold, Art Quus to replace Grady Sharp. for appointments advisory board in a district one representative position. Raphael Gutierrez to replace Alice Lazada. Community development and services board, urban renewal agency board of commissioners. And um the requirement for this board is a citizen and real property owner. Amy George to replace Roxanna Anita. Health Educational Facilities Development Corporation board. Michael Dean Dearing to replace David Long. Keep love advisory committee. Melinda Richie to replace Janice Henderson and Alisa Palmer to replace Allison Hoffman. Love Emergency Communication District Board of Managers. Um Chief Richard Stewart to replace Deputy Chief Robert Kanist for the Lev Economic Development Alliances Board of Directors. reappointment of Sarah Beavers and Melissa Collier and Chris Chambers to replace Blake Wble. For the Love Water Advisory Commission in a citizen position, Danny Davis to replace Rusty Smith. For the Market Love, Inc. board of directors, the reappoint of Sarah Bevers and Melissa Collier and Chris Chambers to replace Blake WLE for Model Codes and Construction Advisory Board. the reappoint of Wendell Burus and David Small in a citizen position to replace Gordon Wilkerson, Jacob Klene. In a commercial contractor position to replace Parker Hutchkins, Ryan Farquar and the Museum and Art Standing Subcommittee, Tina Fuentes to replace Carrie Serell and Taylor Erns to replace Dory Bosnjak. for the planning and zoning commission, the reappoint of James Bell to replace Tanner Noble, Robert Kirk Franklin. For the Veterans Advisory Committee, Casey Doyle to replace Angela Moore and Dennis Boyd to replace John Martinez and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions? >> I see none. So, is there a motion to appoint the individuals as recommended? So move >> second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor? Let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That motion is uh carries unanimously. All right. We'll take up item U 6.2 now to consider appointments to the electric utility board. >> Thank you, mayor. Um these recommendations come to you from the electric utility boards themselves as well as from your council subcommittee. It is being recommended to reappoint Mike Stevens, Solomon Fields, Edwin Davis, and Edwin Schultz. >> All right. Is there a motion to uh approve the uh appointment of these people to the electric utility board? >> Have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. passes unanimously. All right, we'll now take up item 63. Consider a resolution nominating candidates to serve as appraisal district directors for the love central appraisal district. I'm going to again call on our city secretary to provide a briefing on this matter. >> Thank you, mayor. The two individuals up for reappoint today are being nominated. All you're doing today is submitting names to be submitted for a ballot. I'll come back to at a later time for you all to cast your designated votes. Um, the two directors who are up for reappoint would be Brady Goen and Greg Jones. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? All right, I see none. All right, I'll entertain a motion to nominate uh these two uh persons to the appraisal district directors for the Le Central Appraisal District. Is there such a motion? So >> have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. I hear none. That motion passes unanimously. All right. We move on to item 6.4, Four, public hearing to accept public comments on the service and assessment plan assessment role for the Highland Oaks Public Improvement District and the proposed assessment levy against property within that district and to consider the adoption of an ordinance accepting and approving a service and assessment plan and an assessment role for the Highland Oaks property improvement public improvement district. And as a reminder, the purpose of this public hearing is to hear from members of the public. The council may ask questions of staff during the public hearing, but no discussion of the merits will be conducted by the council during the public hearing. I'm going to now call on our business development director, Miss Brown, again to provide a brief summary on this item. >> Thank you, mayor. Council, um, Alex stated, item 6.4 will be a public hearing and first reading of the assessment ordinance for the recently created Highland Oaks Public Improvement District. um you will consider as assuming we um take action on this today, you will consider the second and final reading of this ordinance at your October 28th council meeting and that will be the final step related to creation for the Highland Oaks PID. As a reminder, this is the boundary um of the Highland Oaks PID and then I've got a little bit of information here for you related to the assessment. So, the first year of the assessment will be 2025. However, because we are so late in the year, we will not actually collect anything in 2025 unless a homeowner chooses to prepay um once the assessment has been levied. Our proposed assessment rate, this is a little bit different than what you all have seen in the past. Um typically, our maintenance and operations PIDs um have a set assessment that's assessed on each home based on their property value. Um, in Highland Oaks, there is a set assessment per unit, which is a lot, and so it's equal across the entire district. So, every homeowner will pay an estimated $33,27059. The reason that that is an estimate is it does include bond issuance costs, which we will not have exact numbers on that until we issue bonds early next year. That is also based on an opinion of probable cost for the cost of the water construction process. We do actually hope that our OPCC is high um and can possibly adjust this number down for homeowners, but by state statute once we levy the assessment, we cannot increase that dollar amount. So, this gives us a kind of safe estimate for homeowners to plan for. And the estimated project cost, and again, this is for the extension of water utilities um throughout this neighborhood is estimated to be $8.48 million. Um, we estimate that based on these assessments, we will generate uh just over $4 million over the next five years. We're required by state statute to give you a five-year snapshot of an estimated budget. Obviously, we will continue to collect um over the 20-year life of the bond. um for your public hearing. Um should you have objections to the proposed assessment, you are required to discuss and pass on any of those objections before you can consider the first reading of the ordinance. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions from Brown? >> Mr. Collins, >> clear. We were going to collect approximately $33,000 per unit and that's over the course of 10 years. So, $3,300 per year is the assessment, >> 20-year bond, more than likely. Um, so they will pay that they have the opportunity to pay that out over the 20-year period, >> not 10. So, it >> correct, >> but with interest acrewing, I'm assuming, on the on the note for the for the work. So, they could pay it up front or they can >> Yes, you can pay any portion of your assessment at any time. Um since it is that set rate, um we will work with a um PID management company that will actually work directly with homeowners as they make those prepayments. So that let's say we had an instance that somebody came in on November 1st and wrote us a $33,000 check and then the project came in lower, then UNICAP, our partner for public improvement districts would issue them a refund once we um had the correct construction amount. So this amount does is subject to change um but can be you could make it in five payments over five years or if somebody needs the full 20 years to pay it off then they have that ability as well. >> So to the yeah so the to the point of the letter writer that the mayor read that particular property would see an increase of approximately then $1600 $1650 in their first year. Is that >> correct? Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. That was the point I was asking. >> Yes. I'm trying to get to >> if property owners are in a position to pay their assessment off early, then they do save um on the management fees and some of that interest costs based on the bond. So, there is an opportunity to save some money if you have the capacity to pay off early. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Mayor Pale. again with this letter writer. Is there a possibility that we could reach out to that individual and just kind of let her know because I think maybe she didn't understand that she doesn't have to pay all that in one lump sum up front, but rather over a course of 20 years and that it would just be a small increase. >> Yes, I would be happy to. And we do anticipate once the assessments have been levied, we will work with Munichap and the homeowners association, you've got representation from them here today, um to send a mailer to all the property owners just to kind of explain in um easier terms to understand than what we tend to use here, what actually happened and what their options are as far as payment. But I can reach out to this individual as well. Yes. >> Any further questions for Miss Brown? All right. Thank you. I'll now open a public hearing on agenda item 6.4. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Anyone speaking in favor of it? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward and give us your name and address. Shannon Hansen, 5502, um 158th Street. It's hard to not say County Road. Um I'm with the water committee, so I'm just here to thank y'all for your time and if y'all have any questions from our committee. >> Any questions for her committee or for her? I've seen it. Thank you for being here. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this? Anyone here to speak uh in opposition to it? I see none. So, I will close the check the time here. I will close this public hearing at 3:31. All right. Is there a motion to approve item 6.4? Have a mo have a motion. I have a second. Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion uh carries unanimously. All right. We'll move on to item 6.4 for to consider a resolution approving and granting a variance from the applicable 300 ft minimum minimum distance provision of the city of Lok ordinance number 2009- 0060 at 6620 Milwaukee Avenue sweet 700 for an alcoholic beverage permit for Shanghai and Tokyo Cafe and Miss Sager is here to uh brief us on this matter. >> Good afternoon mayor and council. As you stated, item 6.5 is a variance request at the property at 6620 Milwaukee Avenue, Sweet 700. The restaurant in question is requesting a TABC permit for wine and beer retailers on premise. This is a map showing the subject property outlined in red. There is a daycare to the south about 125 ft away, measured property line to property line. The school to the west is about 310 ft away. So, it does meet the separation requirement. So, here's an aerial just to give you um a better view. The subject property is outlined in purple. The green suite 100 is another restaurant that was approved for a wine and beer retailers retail dealers permit back in 2016. And then the restaurant in question is looking to locate at suite 700 and then the daycare outlined in yellow. And I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions? >> I see none. Thank you, Mer. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve item 6.5? >> So move. >> Second. >> Our motion and a second. Any discussion, Mr. Glashine? We've we've looked at a couple of these and and the council has made some inconsistent decisions across the different types of categories where we've allowed alcohol variances to take place. And I I think it's important when we look at these in terms of requests for variance is is there something unique or special about this property that qualifies it to be an exception to the rule? And if we want to have a discussion about changing the rules so that we don't have to have these variance requests, then that could be something different because I think many people would look at this situation and say, you know, over 200 feet away from a a daycare, it's appropriate to have a place that will serve, you know, beer at lunch or something like that. Um, but I I don't as a routine matter like for the council to be granting variances just because somebody's come and asked and it's created inconsistent decisions even in our short time here. So, I would encourage us to disapprove alcohol variances and if we need to re-evaluate the larger ordinance, then we do so deliberately. >> Any further comments or discussion? Miss uh Mayor Pro Tim >> is definitely right. There have been inconsistencies, but I think my question is more for um this daycare. And if I could have Kristen, where are you? There you are. Um did this daycare come after and we I know Tika Shack was already there. Were they built later? >> Yes, this daycare was built in 2023. >> Okay. >> Thank you. That that's all I have. Okay, >> Mr. Collins, >> did the um the last one that we we visited, the daycare had actually written a letter of of consent, if you will. Did we receive any communication from this group at all? >> We did not receive a response. >> Okay. >> They were notified. >> Well, and I I can can concur with Mr. Glashene. feel like I I I don't really take any exception to this, but I do think that we need to re-examine the rules and and make a determination to to take this piece out of the out of the process because if if we're going to approve these, then then we're really not giving a variance. We're just saying this is what we're going to allow. And so it might be worth staff time to to look into bringing a new proposal to the table so that we can determine um you know and I think there's a there's a difference in in alcohol by the drink as opposed to a package store as opposed to a daycare which is running you know 7 to 5 or 7 to 6 versus an evening um restaurant. I just think there's a lot more involved in this than just a certain number of lineal footage from door to door. So, um, you know, we we might want to come back with that at some point. Um, and and let us get some clarity there. >> Dr. Wilson, >> I agree with what Mr. Collins said 100%. We definitely need to bring it back. We need to separate these out so we don't have to continue to vote on these. Um, what I'm not in favor of disapproving this and punishing a business who's trying to build in a commercial area where a daycare chose to then build. I mean, obviously, they don't they didn't I I can't guess if they would be opposed. did not respond. But I mean, this is a highly commercialized area with many restaurants that serve alcohol. Um, but I do agree that we need to relook at these so we don't have to be inconsistent. So, I will be in favor of this because I'm not going to punish a small business for the fact they're trying to open a restaurant on Milwaukee. >> Uh, my question uh is the uh Mr. Wade for you is this 300 foot that's just in our u ordinance. It's not any sort of a requirement at the state level or anything. This is something we have set, right? >> No, it's actually 300 ft is actually a state. >> It is a state rule >> and and they they allow you in state law. They allow you to do a variance. They allow a governing body to do a variance. >> And so the point is this is more or less it is a position the state has taken but giving us the ability to vary it based on all the circumstances, the totality of the circumstances and not just a hard fast rule. >> That's correct. And so that's why I say we do, I think, need to take into consideration all factors. I hate that we have to keep dealing with this. I I agree with you, but if we can't change it, it is what it is, Mr. Koseen. >> Mr. Wade, is the state establish the distances for these other land uses like the daycare for example, or is that a local? So, it's my recollection that it does include daycare within the state law as far as the distances from whether it's an educational facility, a daycare facility, private or public school. Um, that's all within state law. They've pretty much preempted us, us being municipalities, from regulating alcohol at all except for these very limited cases. Now, we could have an ordinance, I believe, for schools where we could increase the distance um but um we've kept it at the 300 ft and then it gives us the ability based on the circumstances to create variances if the facts justify. It >> does does the city ordinance have anything that is more restrictive than the state law in terms of geographic limitations on uses? >> Not for alcohol because we can't. Well, thank you, sir. Um, you know, that changes my perspective on it. If if this is not something that the city control can control, then I I think this is an appropriate land use, and I'd support it. Uh, this is this is the type of situation then that I think would be appropriate to grant the variance. Any further discussion? All right. So um all in favor uh let it be known by saying I. >> I. Any oppose say nay. >> I hear none. That motion passes unanimously. All right. And now we've got an interesting item on our agenda here. Uh we're going to take up item 6.6 Six to consider an ordinance on first reading amending several provisions to chapter 4 of the code of ordinances as it relates to animals and adding a division entitled division 2 dangerous dogs to article 4.06. These are all things we've been discussing for a long time here. So I'm going to call on our uh mayor pro Tim. Well, okay. Who who is I >> think I am. >> Are you presenting? >> Yes, but you're answering questions. >> We'll be happy. Uh we'll I I'll address Mayor Pro Tim first to uh provide a briefing on this and then Mr. Green is here to answer any questions. >> Yes, we are tag teaming because this after all is impacting the entire city. >> Pardon me. I was just saying that we are tag teaming because it is impacting all the cities. So public animal services ordinance change. We'll go to the next slide. um the differentiation between dangerous animal and dangerous dog. I know that we've talked about that before, but currently city ordinance does not clearly distinguish between a dangerous animal and a dangerous dog. And the goal is to establish clear and consistent criteria that is that differentiate between a dangerous animal and a dangerous dog. The definition and criteria for a dangerous dog in this ordinance will be aligned with Texas state law. The dangerous dog hearings are no longer required to declare a dog dangerous. And so time to get into compliance would be increased from 15 days to 30 days and a appeal can be filed within 15 days. If neither occurred, then the owner must turn the dog into love animal services and liability insurance would be increased from 250,000 to a million dollars. I know that Dr. Wilson has promoted that in the past. And if a dangerous dog attacks after being declared dangerous, the owner may be fined up to $500 and municipal court may order the Humane Youth in Asia of said dangerous dog. So, right now, there are currently eight eight dangerous dogs in the city of Ligin. I'm sure there's more. They're just not all reported. the dog and cats in a residence. And this has been a topic that we've talked about time and time again, but currently the ordinance is a residential household may have up to four dogs and or four cats with one litter under 16 weeks of age for each species. The proposed change, this ordinance will limit households to a total of four dogs and cats combined. Anyone with more than four dogs or cats in their home must obtain a multi- petet permit. A home inspection by L is required to ensure the animals have a healthy living environment. Keywords healthy living environment prior to permit approval. And to qualify for a permit, the owner must not have had any animal related offenses within within the past year. Each permit is valid for two years and must be renewed by March 31st. There are currently six active multi- petet permits in the city of Leach, which is interesting. The breeders permits. Loc animal service does not currently offer breeder permits. Under the proposed ordinance, a breeder permit will be required for any animals that are kept intact with the intention of breeding. And a living quarters inspection by love animal services will be required prior to permit approval to ensure the animals are kept in a healthy living environment. Each permit is only valid for one year. And these there right now are currently no state approved breeders registered within the city of Leach. And of course the empoundment fees and this is something that we've talked about time and time again. And right now the reclaim fees are $105 which includes $5 for a microchip fee, $15 for a city license fee, $15 for rabies, a rabies vaccine, that is $70 for an empoundment fee. If an animal is impounded two times in a 12-month period, sterilization is mandatory. Now, the proposed change is this. Empelment fees will be waved if an animal gets sterilized within 30 days of the reclaim. Now, proof of sterilization must be provided in order to obtain a refund. And Lach Animal Service has a contract of veterinarian who is amazing that go that does these surgeries on Tuesdays and Thursdays. And I don't mean like one or two surgeries. She's doing them every 15 minutes. And if you have any questions, please refer them to our director of animal services, Mr. Steven Green. >> Thank you. >> All right. Are there any questions? >> Thank you for working on I have a couple of questions. Who who determines uh that a dog is a dangerous dog? >> Currently, we have an administrative hearing and I'm the hearing officer. Uh there's state stipulations that constitute what a dangerous dog can be. >> The state does regulate a lot of what we can do with animals, especially >> Yes, sir. >> because they're personal property under our state constitution, right? >> Yes, sir. >> So, some of the things would be an animal has to be off its property unrestrained, unprovoked, and cause bodily injury. >> Okay. So, it's not enough for them just to menace. They have to actually have caused an injury. >> There's actually a provision that says if they have the propensity to bite, you could declare them dangerous. >> Okay. All right. Because a lot of times they'll run up to you and sir scare the you know what out of you? >> I understand. >> All right. And and is there any provision in there for grandfathering people who already have the four dogs and four cats where they don't have to dispose of an animal? >> No, sir. That would be almost impossible to know who has more than that right now. It would be complaint driven though. If we had a call to a location, they have more than that, we would have to work with them to either get a multi pet permit or to get rid of some of their animals. >> But if they could prove they'd had the animal for before the uh ordinance went into place, they'd still have to get rid of an animal. Is that correct? >> That's my understanding. And and with Mr. Wade, >> that's correct. That's my only problem is just the grandfathering part of it for people who you're changing a law on them and you know and they've got a pet that they've had for forever, >> you know. >> Yeah. And we and we've discussed this and so what normally happens and I'll defer to the management team on how to enforce it. What normally happens on any type of ordinances like this is there's an education period, there's a grace period to come into compliance. And so whether or not any tickets are issued over a period of time, you know, will be up to to management. And of course, in the prosecutor's office, that would some be something that we would also take into account as to whether or not they've had these animals for a long time. But there is it's an immediate it's an immediately effective ordinance once it's passed and published appropriately. >> Yeah. I'd have to I'd hate to have to choose between my animals, you know, which one stays and which one goes. Well, and and as you you do have a multipet permit provision, >> you can do the well, but if you have more than four >> that's you can have multipet permit, >> you can still have you but I think we are limited to the number of >> so without getting a multi-et permit. >> So you can have as many animals as you want if you have a permit >> that there is not there is no limit within within the deal but it's going to be subject to >> the inspection and what's etc. >> Okay. Very good. That answers my question then. Mayor >> Pro Tim. >> No, Dr. Wilson. >> Oh, Dr. Wilson, I see down here. Yeah. >> Uh, can we go back to the slide on the permits? Sorry, I know we just got off of it. Um, first off, Mr. Green, question cost for multipet permanent and multipet permit and a cost for the breeding permit. Do we have a cost laid out like what we're what are we going to charge people? >> I don't know that. I think $100, but I'm not exactly sure on that. The multipet permit is $40. >> The so multi-permit is 40 currently. >> I'm sorry. I'm not sure I have the answer to the question, but what is what is the >> Yeah. What are we going to charge people? What is the what is the permit cost? Yeah, I believe it is $100, but I could be wrong on that. I'll have to defer to my animal experts bill. >> So, that's my question. >> $100 is correct. Yes, sir. >> 100 for both is what we're Okay. >> No, ma'am. 100 for the breeders permit, a multi-et permit would be 40. >> So, 40 for a multi-et, 100 for a breeder. Correct. That's okay. And so, I think my next question is with these home inspections with the language of it being required. So, I have a little bit of concern with that just on staffing, you know, I mean, if we get if we have, you know, 5,000 people that say, "Okay, great. We'll come into compliance. We need a multipet permit. We have five." Um, how are how are we going to manage that? I think maybe we need to change the language on that it's required or that it it can be like something that we can go in and actually do it if we need to, but not all 5,000 may need to have a required inspection because I do worry about you guys are limited in staffing already. trying to put that kind of burden on love animal services to say that they have to all be required. But I do think it's a great tool that way if you've got somebody who is, you know, got multiple animals that is requesting that multipet permit that we know that has been a problem or that we've had issues with or complaints or they're not in compliance that we can then use that as a tool to say now you're going to be required to have an inspection. But requiring every single one of them to have who's going to be permitted to have an inspection I think is unrealistic in a city this size. So, we may need to change the language on that just a touch. >> And my other concern is just the cost of administering that. Even if it is required, uh $40 is probably not going to cover the cost of of the what it's going to take to staff up and do those inspections. So, that's maybe another little part of it that is an issue. Any other questions? Mr. Gos, >> these are really just more comments than questions. Uh, as I've paid particular attention to the stray and loose dog issues for a long time, and it's one of my my top priorities, I don't think that any of the provisions in this proposed ordinance are going to meaningfully reduce the number of stray and loose dogs that we have on the street. It's not going to make our communities safer. Um, but what it does represent is a is an offensive overreach of government authority into people's individual liberty and and the privacy of their homes to whether or not your government nanny will let you have one more pet. Um, just looking at the dangerous dogs for example, you have all these additional provisions about dangerous dogs, but the real problem even as you noted mayor pro is that there are eight listed in the city. And I think your comment, I wrote it down because I thought it was accurate. They're just not all reported. Every single one of these flaws that I'm going to point out in the ordinance, ties back to the ultimate issue, which is manpower and enforcement of stray and loose dogs. If we don't have the manpower to answer the phones when people are making calls to animal services, we don't have the manpower and the dispatch logistics to get officers out to the scene quickly to respond to stray and loose dogs. That's the bigger issue than the fact that we are have only designated eight dangerous dogs. We're not going to have the manpower to go and do insurance liability checks and and the other dangerous dog checkups that are required. The amount of insurance is is pretty arbitrary as well. You right now you you'll struggle. And I'll tell you, I'm in my law practice, I do injury and death cases. I h I've handled dog bite cases. And I can tell you that most insurance policies specifically exclude dangerous dogs. Homeowners, pet owners are not sophisticated enough to go through and read a 50-page contract in the legal definitions and figure out whether or not their coverage is going to apply to the dog that they have. And that's not a criticism. It takes a law degree to figure that out. people genuinely think that they have coverage for for something like a dog and find out that they don't when there is a dog bite. One of the reasons to just compare it to auto insurance, for example, is that the state of Texas requires insurance companies that issue auto policies to use standardized language and consistent terms. So, if you go and buy an insurance policy from one insurance company or another, it's going to be the same definitions and the same terms and the same sort of coverage all the way across. There's no such regulation on dangerous dog insurance coverage. And so even if somebody provides proof of coverage to an animal services officer who's doing an inspection, there's really no one outside the city attorney's office that could tell whether or not that is effective coverage that's going to apply to a potential dog bite. And let's just bring it back to manpower and enforcement, you know, similar issues that this is not really a problem that we're having. The problem that we're having is not the difference between dog bites that are incurring $250,000 in medical bills and a million dollars in medical bills. The problem we're having is stray and loose dogs on the street that are preventing people from walking down the street, going to the park, playing with their kids outside. These are these are solutions to to things that are not the core problem that we're facing. And I mentioned that this is kind of just a very offensive overreach of government authority because to allow you have to allow the government inspector into your home to check on the animal and its space. And I've read the ordinance. There's not any sort of hard and fast guidelines on what's going to be considered, how much space is required, if the dog needs outside space. It's very vague language. It's going to be left ultimately to the discretion of a fairly unaccountable government employee. And so it's going to create it has high potential for inconsistent outcomes if we even have the manpower to go and do these home inspections. The different the problem is not for example talking about the number of pets. The problem is not the number of pets and the people who care enough about following the rules and taking care of their pets to allow the government spectre into their house every other year so that they can keep their five cherished animals. Those are not the people who are letting their dogs run stray down the street and and roam unaccounted for in the in the park. We have six active permits right now for multi multiple pets. That's a law that's on the books and it's completely uninforced. You can go to any neighborhood and there are going to be dozens of homes that have four or more animals right now because this is an enforcement issue. It's not a question of of inventing new laws. It's a question about getting officers into the field to to take care of these issues. And same thing with the breeders pet the permit. The breeders permit portions of this are going to be completely uninforceable. the the ordinance reads that that the it's a an offense to allow a dog or an animal to remain intact for the purpose of breeding. So, you can have any other purpose that you want to to keep your animal intact and you're not in violation of the ordinance. And there's no no animal enforcement officer or police officer who can peer into your mind and determine your intent for it. It's an offense to let an animal breed. Okay. Well, unless we catch them in the act or we start we get Mory Povich down here to figure out who the dad or the dog is, we're going to have a completely uninforcable law. The problem, of course, is not that the law-abiding citizens who are going to go through the time and effort of getting another government inspection into their home by arbitrary criteria, those are not the people who are being irresponsible breeders. It is the hundreds of other breeders in the city who have not currently applied for for any sort of permit or or oversight that are going to be the ones who are continuing to break this law is we're not going to see a reduction in the number of straight and loose dogs unless we focus on the core issue which is field enforcement operations. The mayor mentioned an excellent issue that with this that we need to address is the the grandfathering issue and that without any sort of provisions in place to allow people who are currently responsible pet owners with with more than four pets, they're going to have to pick which of their pets to give up in the face of this ordinance, which is unfair, and it's it's punishing people who are responsible pet owners who are not causing this problem. But the flip side is if you put in a grandfathering provision, you're going to have 20 years of essentially uninforcability because you can say, "Oh no, that's the dog that I had 20 years ago when the ordinance passed and he was a puppy." So it's it's it's an unworkable solution either way, which I say is is a reason that we need to scrap this this limitation entirely. So the steriliz sterilization to to get your dog out if it's gotten out twice is is a real imposition on person's property rights and it's one of the loose it's still it's a loose fit for for the problem of stray and loose dogs to give it the very best argument is that dogs that are intact may be in heat or want to breed and so they try to get out of their yard to to to find a mate there just as many spayed and neutered pets that are on the streets getting picked up on a regular basis sterilization is not is not a tight fit to the problem that we have of getting stray and loose dogs off the streets So, I'm I'm against all the all of these provisions in here. I hope that this has raised some some serious issues that you can address now, these concerns with staff and make up your own mind on it. But I but I think that this is as a slew of proposals would at the very least need more time. And I think that this should be a reminder for us that we we've got to focus on increasing the resources and the accountability of of the department for its field operations. All right, I'm going to we have another matter we need to take up and we're kind of on a time uh frame on it. So, I think there's two ways we can handle it. We can have a motion to postpone the discussion on this or ordinance or any action on this ordinance to a date certain, give us all time to review it, or we can just recess into executive session to deal with what we're going to deal with there and then come back and continue the discussion. You can you can recess into executive session for the other matter and just suspend your discussion of this agenda item and then bring it back up as soon as we're done with executive session. Or if someone made a motion right now to postpone this to a future agenda item, you can certainly do that at any time. >> Okay. Is there a motion? >> Uh Mr. Collins, >> I would move that we postpone this October 28 discussion. >> All right. Is there I have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Yes. I just wanted to say that there are some there is a need to maybe review some of this, but we definitely need to be doing something. This has been an issue that since the mayor and Dr. Wilson and I have been in office, it's been constant. And now you guys have inherited this issue. We have to start somewhere. We need to do something. this these a lot of these recommendations came from our advisory committee and staff and we've got to begin the process. Maybe there are some um there is a little bit of a need to make some modifications, but I do believe that we've got to start somewhere. We've got a big problem with loose loose and stray dogs and the attacks continue. So, I think that's important. But I will call for the motion. >> All right. I still have Mr. Harris and Mr. Rose if you want to speak specifically to the motion to postpone. Uh okay. Not Mr. Harris. Mr. Rose. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um yeah, I'm just not prepared to vote on the I we don't we haven't really looked at the ramifications. I think there's some overreach on this. Um so um I am totally in favor of taking a look at it later date. All right. Um then uh all in favor of uh postponing uh any action on this until October 28th. Uh let it be done by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. >> I hear none. It's done. We are now going to uh uh recess into an executive session and we will come back out of executive session. Uh we're going to be hearing a report uh from a um an assessment on the downtown project and uh when we come out it's my intention then to authorize the um love experience incorporated who we uh hired to do that assessment to release that um assessment to the public so that they can uh see that assessment but our discussion of it as a council because it involves uh uh matters uh under 551.071 071 uh legal matters 551.072 purchase exchange or value of real property and 551.087 discussing and deliberate on economic development matters will be held in executive session. We are now in executive session at uh 401. All right, we're reconvening from our uh in open session from our executive session at uh 519. Um and I'm going to reopen the session. We have a um um a motion. Uh Mr. Glass, >> Mr. Mayor, I move to postpone agenda item 6.6 to date certain November 4th. >> All right. We have a motion to um postpone uh consideration of item 6.6 6 uh to November the 4th. Do I have a second on that? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> If not, all in favor say I. >> Can we not do that? >> No. No. No. >> Yep. >> No, you're good. >> We got four people, five people here. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose say nay. >> I hear none. Okay. That's postponed till November 4th. And uh also we will be releasing the um assessment uh facility needs assessment uh for love Texas that we discussed. Uh we're going to authorize love experience to release that to the public. Uh having exhausted all the items on our agenda, we are adjourned. [Music] [Music]