Call the meeting to order. City of Laredo special council meeting Chamber of Com Councils 1110 Houston Street February 11, 2025. All right for a pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. >> Moment of silence, please. Thank you. You may be seated. >> Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. >> Yes, maker. Honorable mayor, Dr. Victor D. Trevinho, >> present. Council member District 1, Gilbert Gonzalez. >> Council member, District 2, Ricardo Ranel Jr. >> Present. >> Council member, District 3, Melissa Cigaroa. >> Council member, District 4, Ricardo Rick Garcia, >> here. >> Council member, District 5, Ruben Gutierrez Jr. >> present. >> Council member District 6, Dr. Tyler King, >> here. Mayor Promp Vanessa Perez, Council Member District 8, Alisa Searoa, >> present. >> Mayor, you have a quarum. >> Thank you. Start with item number five, communications. >> Go ahead, Mr. Neb first. >> Okay. Yeah, mayor. Um, of course, tonight we're going to talk about the bond referendum, uh, potential of the bond referendum and all the projects that are associated with it. I wanted to answer a couple questions really quickly, uh, that had been asked, uh, from the previous meeting and everything. Is that why are we doing the bond referendum? Why now? What what what is triggering all of this? Wanted to share some statistics with you on this slide here. And um these are just some of the the previous numbers that you've seen within Laredo. Uh the population growth, we have an annual growth rate from 2013 to 2023 of 1.7%. Our employment growth has been a 2.2%. I was looking on the screens on there we go. All right. Um of percentage increase for the employment. Our gross domestic product has grown 3.1%. Our real estate market has grown 5.5. These numbers look like they're manageable in in their own right, but what happens is that after COVID, after 2020, our city saw an exponential growth very quickly. Uh I believe that um last year we had an 11.4% budget increase within our expenditures of the general fund. Um what what we're going to see is we're going to see continued growth. So we we think that this growth is going to get faster and more furious. This chart here that I wanted to show with you is that it shows the red line at the top uh showing a service demand cost at a with a with a modest 5% increase every year from 2024 forward. This is how this is where we believe that our services are going to grow uh that are coming out of the general fund. our police, our fire, our streets, our uh our parks and recreation, everything that is funded by the general fund. We we're we're putting in that it's going to see a modest growth of 5%. I'm telling you that in the last four years, we we've been about 11 to 15% increase of that. So, all this conversation about nearshoring, all of this stuff is happening. And you can tell on on the chart here that the the blue line is the statemandated property tax cap. of 3.5%. So we we cannot even though we're a growing community that we're in the high 8 n 10% of growth the property tax cap's going to hold our revenue our available revenue down and with our trip in Austin last year or last week. Last year it felt like last year didn't it? Now, last week when we were in Austin, of course, the legislaturator is going after some additional property tax caps and I had a get chance to talk with Representative Raymond about this and I said, "What is a city supposed to do when all our local services, all of our police, our public safety, our parks and recreation, our our streets, our public infrastructure, how are we supposed to generate the revenue in order to get there?" And it comes down to you need to talk to the voters. that was that that's where the legislature was and that's where Richard Raymond says it needs to go to the voters which means that for bond referendums that this is the system that we have in place if we cannot manage our our service model within the structure that we have within the revenue we have to go to the voters for that as well too for the M side so the the challenge is and that's what the state would like us to do is go to the voters and and voters it's okay if they tax themselves That's in my mind that's the mentality of >> I'm sorry interrupt. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Mayor, >> uh just so Mr. Malo makes note that mayor protest is present. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, and so this chart here I wanted to show you because the red line um is our service demand growth at a 5% going forward. The blue line is where the property tax caps will place us within that structure. The yellow square in the middle or the yellow colored in area is the gap between where we need to be and where we are. And that is the area that we are right now we are actually subsidizing that through our reserves and closing that gap. We're able to manage our balanced budget by utilizing money that we've earned over time to cover for that. As you can tell, as we go toward the right side of the screen, uh that gap gets wider and wider. That's our fear. That's the that in my mind, that's why we're having the conversation about doing our services a little bit differently with the bond referendum. And so, I wanted to lay this out there. I think the picture is fairly fairly good on its own. I had another slide that shows the the trending downward of our reserves, but I I figured I'd just describe it for this one. This one, this chart's really nice to see. It shows what's going to happen as in any growing community in Texas is going to be infected the same way. But I wanted to share this slide with you uh just so you understand. We don't go to the voters just because we we think we we're going because we need their help. We're going and we're going to go seek out the ability to to do some of it's a catchup. We we're we're behind on public safety. We're behind on public infrastructure. We're doing the best we can with what we have. I think we've we've we've done a great job of a lot of that stuff, but we now need the help. And I I think that the bond referendum is meant to put these issues forward to the people and have them tell us if they agree with us or or not agree. And so all this work that you're doing, thank you so much for everything that you're you're doing with that. Um, I did answer uh I I think I got asked the question, you know, what happens if um what happens if it's not all of it? What happens if it's just a little bit of it? Anything that we are able to do is all of our departments believe it's a blessing. It helps take a little bit of that weight off. If we were to not do anything at the time, we will still find ways, but that's where we go into the alternative conversations as well too as to how are we going to make this work. the the I don't want to have conversations about service reductions or anything unless we have to get that's the only option left on the table. The idea is that we go to our people, we trust that they understand what a growing community is and and where we're going. So, I'll leave it at that. I'll get off my soap box for that. But, I did want to share this slide because I I thought it it showed very well this is what's happening to us in the future. And I was going to bring my crystal ball down. I left it upstairs, but but it is really it's like we're projecting out, but you all feel it in the traffic. You all feel it with the bridges. We're doing expansions of those [clears throat] bridges. Near shoring is going to hit in Mexico. We're going to see the impact of that being the number one port in the Western Hemisphere. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Mr. >> Right now, you're saying you're mentioning about u being the the reserves. How much do we have in the reserve right now? So the public will know how much we have in the reserves >> and uh I'll leave that to budget to cover >> Jesus is par with the budget department. General fund reserve has about $54 million. We also have about $ 32 million as well as a reserve that we use during the budget to kind of make sure that we are that we do present a balanced budget. >> So that we're above 30%. We're Yes, we're about 20 uh we're we're about 20% more or less in general fund >> in general fund. We're 20% fund balance >> and and if I could mayor and council member if I could take that just a little bit farther because we have had these conversation with our financial an analyst as well too. Uh don't go anywhere. [snorts] Uh yeah, but we also have to carry a certain amount of percentage for our debt service. And so I wanted to make sure that you covered that because I believe that right now we're around 17% and and we're being told we need to bring that up to about 20%. >> That's if I'm not mistaken by 20%. >> Yeah. So that so we need to keep that in mind in our in our calculations and everything. We need to carry 20% in reserves in our general fund for that year. >> We're at 17 right now covered >> and we're at 17 right now. >> We're at we're at 17 for that purpose >> at least in the last year. But >> the the requirement that we have for general fund is 15%. >> 15 >> but by by uh chartered. However, we are based on the financial financial consultant we are trying to increase that to 22% on the general fund. Now keep in mind that this is only general fund. We do have fund balances in all our other enterprise funds, special revenue funds. So the total reserves that we have are higher than that when we look at our total city. But the one that we kind of keep a close eye is on general fund [clears throat] [snorts] >> question. Go ahead. Um, thank you statement, but um, I did a little research and the last time the city of Laredo passed an Avalorum uh, property tax um, referendum election was 1993. So, we've only, we did, you know, research all the way back in the history that we could find. 1986, 1989, and 1993 are the only three times the city's actually done this mechanism. So, it's been 30 it's been 32 years uh since the cities used this mechanism. For comparison, the city of San Antonio has done this every five years since 2007. Um and then, you know, all the other major cities do them. I I I feel like this council hasn't had a chance to like really debate um you know even bring we all kind of back in just a little June of last year I I asked the mayor and um council member Torres to consider putting this agenda item to get this process going. Um and we did that in June and then you know the in August we got our committee members on there by October they finally met and literally the day of the E.coli coli uh outbreak is when the first subcommittee met and of course all of our focus was um on that rightfully so. [snorts] And then you know we fast forward we let the committee do its work. We're engaging with our committee members but not really talking about it collectively as a council. And then a couple weeks ago, we have two last minute crash course meetings on that Tuesday and Thursday where we're all finally talking about. Of course, we have a new council member as well trying to get his perspective on um and and so I'm part of and then we have a deadline of two days from now to get the exact perfect language ready. And full disclosure, the reason why I want the original reason why I was so f focused on trying to get a bond referendum going back last year when I reached out to the mayor was the concern for um you know, I think it's no secret to my colleagues, you know, a rec center in district 6. We don't we don't have a single indoor community gathering space in the entire district. If you want to meet, if you want to meet in district 6, I know everyone thinks north's wealthy, but there are a lot of people uh living paycheck to paycheck um that don't live in by the country club. And uh there's no um place to actually meet indoors. If you want to have a community gathering, you you have to rent out a private area. There's no public space, indoor space in the entire district, right? Um, and so that was the original reason why I asked the mayor to consider bringing this even process moving forward last June. And you know, I I know we're I just think we should at least have the discussion. You know, we we crash course it two weeks ago. I I would I would love to put this forward in May, but I'm also worried we haven't done enough community engagement to warrant it. And I think the reaction is going to be, you know, that that we're trying to force it um down people. And um I want to do this more more than anything. I I want to do a bond referend. I truly believe that we need it. I'm just thinking that that we might be rushing this this one there. There was more work we could have gotten done up to this point, but I currently believe that it's in the best interest to get the best public engagement uh and make sure that we make this bond referendum just right for the public and where they can actually appreciate it that that we push it back to November for you can only do these in in the months of May and November in any given year. And my current belief is that we should move it towards November. Um, and that's I would like to make a motion uh that we push this election back to November. >> I'll second. >> So we back back in June, we started off with this conversation. We started off with the committees. Everybody was designated three committee members. And I got to disagree with my my colleague. We have a lot of committee members that, you know, went out their way. They did their job. came into meetings, they're sacrificed their time, >> and I think if if they provided this information for us to do what we have to do right now, I think um I think we're ready for it. If they, you know, it's part of their people from the community there, people that uh they gave their time that were there were out there not only as a community members, but as a as a members of of of the citizens of Laredo. So if they think we're ready and we they provided the numbers, you know, they gave their opinion, I think we should, you know, validate that and take it into consideration, you know, so we can right now we have the time to discuss, but I think we have I think everybody has their opinion or where the direction we want to go. So Mr. And that before we go there in November prices are going to change. All the all the numbers that have been put forth may change. Schools are going to have their issues with the state also requiring some funding. So we're going to be in competition with that with that money. So that's my concern if we move it up to November. Mayor, along the same lines, if I may >> go ahead. U that's that's a real big concern. Um, while I wish we had more time, we simply don't. Not only that, but we're going to go be going against the school districts for bonds. So, will the public want to see an enormous increase then and now? Or I shouldn't say enormous, but an increase. That's going to be the problem. If we really want to give the voters a chance, give them a chance to vote for this referendum, whether this bond, whether they like it or they don't like it. At the end of the day, it's their decision. And if the voters vote for it, then we'll go through with They don't. They simply don't. We need to accept that. >> And and and mayor and city council, yeah, the numbers may change from from May to November. At least they have about every six months anyway. Um what will happen if we if we draft the questions correctly? Again, we're just going to be able to borrow up to whatever that amount is that's approved by the voters. And keep in mind that this is not the voters will determine if we are going to go out and and decide this. This is just giving them the opportunity to have that question asked. Are you willing to support this? That I think that's the one thing I want to make sure I keep driving home. They don't feel the debt until we take out we borrow the money to do whatever the project is. So if it takes us two years to do a project, but they've said we can, then they don't feel that tax impact until two years later. So keep that in mind as well too is that it is a very good system as far as we're asking for permission to go out and do this. That's all we're asking for. And then our bond council and everybody will say this is when we're going to trigger those bonds, which then the impact comes at that point in time. >> But I appreciate what everybody's saying. >> Okay. One of the things I did want to put some some points across before we continue. Uh we have to understand that uh I think it's time to step up a plate as a city because we're setting up f for future generations and to continue the cycle with some of the highest childhood diabetes and obesity has detrimental effects. I would like to focus on public health. Now people that say that doesn't impact me because I have good health insurance and I don't we all pay for this. A lot of these healthcare issues are not covered by insurance and self-pay or no insurance is absorbed at at the hospitals and eventually by the state, federal and local levels. So this does not include people that are using the emergency rooms as the doctor's office and showing critical emergency access for everyone else care. So this is our biggest tool in prevention through pro through programs through the health department that we desperately need and prevention saves lives and it's it's all all the money is used up for the rest of the econ for the community. Every dollar invested in prevention like vaccinations yields about a lot of money and savings for the whole country just in vaccinations alone. According to the CDC, approximately 117 million children between the 1994 and 2023 routine childhood vaccination will have prevented approximately 508 million lifetime cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1,29,000 deaths. at a net net savings of 540 billion in direct cost and $2.7 trillion in total healthc care functions. So these are important infrastructure is important but public health should be put up to the forefront that local governments like the city of Larredo typically repay bond debt through ad valorum tax and typically this election is therefore a tax rate election that we need asking voters to approve an increase in property taxes. So, these are things I think we need to put public health at the forefront and I'd like to bring that item first. >> Mayor, you have a motion and a second. >> Okay. Motion and second >> by Dr. King. >> Go ahead. >> I put made up motion for discussion. >> All right. >> Go ahead. >> Boys first. Um, >> so uh my um my concern I I share Dr. King's concern. I don't think the issue is whether we go out for bonds or not. The issue is whether we go out for bonds in May or in November. Um it is not that these projects well many of the projects proposed are vital to the functioning of the city. I mean, we know um the police uh headquarters, the current headquarters is just insufficient for the needs of the police activities now, much less in the future. The fire stations, those substations are part of our obligation as a city because of our growth to provide that protection in different areas of the city. We must extend those the the service through those substations. Um I think and in public health I I agree with the mayor. Um perhaps the funding streams could be better, but since we do not have right now um county involvement in providing public health a collaborative effort, um we are we are providing many public health services that we know that the public needs. And I think the the hesitation for going forward in May is that we have not decided a total cap yet of what we will be funding. We don't have the proposed tax rate. We haven't decided the the comprehensiveness of what the bomb proposal will be to the voters. And so, how do we go out in a not fully prepared way in May and have it pass? I think the voters are going to want to have all of the boxes checked, know exactly what they're f what we're asking from them to provide to our community, have that comprehensive list decided now, and not be making things up in May. And that is my concern that when they see that there isn't as much preparation as there should be, they may decline to allow the the bond to go through and that will substantially hurt our city. We need their participation because there are items that need to that we need to build, infrastructure that we need to take care of to vastly improve the quality of life in this city. And so we want the public to have confidence that that can be done. Can we do that at our level of preparation now for May versus taking a few more months to have [clears throat] those plans fully fleshed out, have the public understand exactly what we we will do with that money and have a complete rate that they'll know this is all the money we're asking for. the the list that we are provided right now, we haven't made decisions to to cut anything and that list is way too much in my opinion um where we need to start. So that is my concern. I share it with share it with Dr. King and I just think we'd be better prepared in November. >> Go ahead. >> Um so I I just want to you know this process is is not an easy process and it's not an easy ask for the public. Um, I disagree that this has happened quickly in the sense that we've known for years, at least the whole four years that I've been on council, that these expenses were necessary. We've tried our best to fund them as much as possible over the years through the the the budget. Um, but it's not enough. It's just not enough. And so, these are not um wants this here. You have some wants and you have some needs. I think if we can cut out the the wants and focus on the needs, um the needs have been evident for many many many years. And whether we pay now or we pay later, we're going to pay. And we're paying in terms of, you know, poor health. We're paying in terms of uh congestion. We're paying we're paying in one way or another. And you know, here we have an opportunity to fix some of these problems that we have that we're not providing the the the the services that the community needs because we can't. So, I don't understand why we would push something out and suffer, you know, higher inflationary costs to do something that we've been needing to do for a lot a lot of years already. So, um I don't really see a point in prolonging this. I think that um it is it is something that um we don't want the public to to feel that we're not um doing or looking out for their best interest. But there are some things in here that can be passed now and some things that can go on future referendums. This is not something that has to happen all at once. But this process is something that we're trying to do. Just like we're trying to fix the water infrastructure, just like we're trying to correct mistakes from the past and get the city on a on a good foot forward, we just need the support from the community to be able to do that at a quicker at a quicker pace. So, I don't really agree with prolonging that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm happy I can sense, you know, I'm happy to remove uh my um motion. I can sense it. I really wanted to do that mostly to get a temperature check of the room because you know we um Texas Open Meetings Act. I can't I can't ask all eight of you how you're feeling about this and I'm violating the law, right? So I just you know it's something we haven't said out loud together. So I just you know appreciate that. Um it seems like majority um wants to move forward with May and I if we pass uh to move forward with May um as much as Zone says we're allowed to I'll um I know there's limits on how much we're allowed to cheerlead so to speak for these like I will push and to the extent the law allows for these um projects. I and I I'm I'm all I'm all for them. I just um want to make sure we have a high chance of success. Um, so apologies if that was a waste of time. Uh, but um I I'll withdraw my motion. >> All right. >> Go ahead. >> No, you're first. >> Thank you. Uh I I see and and appreciate my colleagues uh points here uh and the patience. Uh I know he wants to be conservative and make sure we have one shot at this. Um, but although we're in the final leg, I believe the directors and management and the subcommittees have made their put in the work. We are in the in the in the final leg today. Uh, and we don't want to isolate our bonds. We we want to isolate our bonds from in then in November with the joining with UISD. Uh, I don't know how that would play out. If the vote [snorts] voters don't want it in November, they're not going to want it in May. They're not going to want it in in November, possible. So, um, but if if by Thursday, if we finish today and by Thursday, [snorts] you know, directors and management unions feel that we're not ready, then call us and we'll meet and we can possibly pull out if we fail by Thursday that, you know, there's things missing or that we're not that prepared to move forward. and and mayor and city council, our intent was whatever you did put onto the list, we will draft out all the facts associated with each item as best we can to explain why it was important, why it was within that. Um, we have until Friday in order to complete the questions, the ordinance that will establish the election. Uh and so if we're aiming for May, then the next thing is is that uh what are we putting forward in that in that bond referendum? And so uh that's where we're kind of set for this. And uh the next pieces here and I'm going to step back over into my chair, but mayor and councel, we'll go through each one of these categories again. we'll we'll go through and you tell us u what items you want to add into this and then we'll be able to establish all that information for that. The um the only the only challenge we have is that and we've we've written that ordinance for the the propositions and the bond information as broad as we could right now to give you guys the luxury to determine exactly where you want to be. We may have to spend a little bit of time word smithing within that ordinance to get it to meet bond council's responsibilities and then we'll we can move forward. So I'm not sure I don't know if we'll move into a postponement of this meeting until the next couple days or we set a meeting. It'll have to be Friday based upon our schedule but mayor if you and city council if you're ready to go through this list. Oh, if if I may, mayor, >> we cannot start before. We haven't had citizen comments yet, so we need to bring them up before we start with the with the >> Yes, sir. >> We have one citizen's comment. >> All right, then I will step out of the way for that. >> Oh, just before we officially resend the the motion. Um, I just have a a couple um thoughts on on some of this. Um, I I commend the efforts of everyone involved in the time dedicated um in to to putting these proposals together. Yet that that being said, I I do I do as well believe that the process um has been a bit rushed in the sense that we have not received adequate justification for any of the pro projects identified. Um I feel that there is a lack of a clear lack of strategic planning with no comprehensive assessment of long-term impact and financial feasibility um or alternative funding sources. And given the significant economic uncertainties ahead um you know we we must take a a measured a more measured approach. Um previously the the mayor did acknowledge that that hundreds of millions of are needed for water infrastructure and if it's solely treated as an enterprise fund will will ultimately um increase water rates as well. Um and my worry for you know rushing into a bond before understanding these potential re um resources is slightly reckless um and being and again with the economic uncertainties and um including potential tariffs of Mexican goods. This could also reduce truck traffic um and and cut city revenues, making large scale um borrowing even riskier. And the budget must I I just really feel that we need to review all of this holistically. um council was being sold a simplified $30 a month for a $200,000 um home, [clears throat] but this also ignores other financial pressures like the water system investments, um potential tax cut changes. Um and within what was has been proposed there are there um quite a few items that that are are short-term projects and that is bad financial planning. um issuing hundreds of dollar of millions in bonds now locks the city into long-term obligations potentially jeopardizing its ability to our ability to respond to like the major water um infrastructure failures and really you know we every project should have a clear measurable impact um and I I do sense that what has been presented have are are a bit vague and in asking what management believes is an a necessity rather than a want is has still not been presented. There are clear dis um there's a clear disconnect between what the committee's recommended to what management is presenting that in in and of itself isn't a isn't positive um to take isn't a positive to take to the voters. Um and you you yourself Mr. have mentioned that there are alternative finance financing routes and we should be having that conversation now rather than oh well let's just throw this out to the voters see what sticks and then we'll figure it out. Um, so again, I I I I will be um voting against all of all of all of it because I again I don't I don't I don't see um I it's I do think that there needs to be more a more adequate vetting process and more information. Um so thank you. >> All right. Analyze the last comment or you want to go to >> Yes. Before we proceed, we have to do a citizens comment. >> One aila. [clears throat] >> Good evening, mayor, members of the city council. First of all, >> for the record, please for the record. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon, mayor, city council members. First of all, congratulations to the ones that won their uh their elections and the ones that were reelected. Mayor, I feel that this bond, and I have a lot of family members here, that this bond election should be be placed on hold until November. Right now, what we should focus on is the first 100 days of the new president. Unfortunately, what he's doing right now, everybody is going chaotic. There's tariffs come going to be placed in place. Why how's it going to affect the Larredo uh web county, you know, the transportation? There's a lot of things in mind that you have to think about. I'm kind of and I will be honest with I've always been honest with every single one of y'all. I'm kind of uh uh surprised that you withdrew your motion. It doesn't matter how your colleagues feel. This is your position. This is your citizens that you're representing. It's not about how they feel. It's about what you stand for. Not how they feel. It doesn't matter how they feel. It matters what you do for your for your district. Now, do we need a police station? Yes, we do. They look like sardines in there. I've been there. Visit them. They are like sardines. You're a former police officer. You should know that. Do we need more ambulances? Do we need more fire trucks? Yes, we do. First responders is the first thing. I remember when we were promised back from other city councils. I've seen I don't know how many mayors come through here. We were promised like something like uh Fiesta Texas Park. Where is that? We were promised, you know, the we wouldn't have no water problems anymore. Where is that? Y'all gave them $10. That's why I said I sent uh you know some texts out. Y'all might as well slap the citizens in the face. $10. Really? [snorts] And then you're wanting for them to say, "Oh, yes. I'm going to give you this my my vote. I'm going to say yes to your to your bond election. Where is it? Eliminate where? How many people are losing their houses? But then some of y'all got what? What was it? A $20,000 more money to, you know, jiggle around and then you want to go ask for more money to the citizens. I'm from I'm, you know, I'm from third generation. I'm getting to that 60 year old mark already. I hope so. Mr. Garza, I've known you for many, many years, and you know how the how the how that precinct is, how that district is. I I command you on one thing. You said, and I'm and I quote you, you said, "We'll be ready if something happens on the water." Yeah, we've been ready for 14 15 years back when uh Councilman Roa was here, and I I respect him with all respect, but we've never addressed the problem the way we should. We are always being reactive, not proactive. What is wrong with y'all? It's not for what y'all want. Dr. King, I command you. I know you want a rec center. I have two coaches back here that I've known for 25 years and they know I've been a parent volunteer for 25 years here in Larredo. Yes, you want a rec center. Is that a necessity right now or is a necessity really the water infrastructure? What would be first for you? You know, let's guys, let's let's let's be honest to each other. It's not about what we want or should I say what y'all want. It's about what the citizens out there want. Do you want the third generation loitos, you know, running out of money because they can't pay their taxes because they're going to go up? And then what what are you going to do? Let's take care of the downtown uh uh area uh Hotel Hamilton. How many people go through so many problems there and we haven't fixed it yet. It's been rest in peace. I remember Miss Narvise we were always going out there helping them out. Let's let's look at what really is a necessity here. First responders got to be taken care of. There's no doubt. But we also got to worry about the water problem that we've had over the last Jesus, I don't know, probably Councilman Rael was still in high school. That's how long we've had it. Let's worry about the things that we really need, not what we want or what how we want to spend our money. Let's spend it wisely. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. I just one final comment. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. >> Um I guess uh just sitting here listening to all my colleagues um there's there's u one thing that's different from other bond elections that I've that I've been part of and and one is that on the others there were we ended the whole process without a question all questions were answered before we went to the public. Um I am in agreement with everybody here that uh you know this there's pros and cons about being in May and being in November. Uh but I think everybody in their heart knows that everything and and and by the way there's more than enough length to to go around before all of us were here. Okay. >> Uh about how we got to the state and the conditions of a lot of the buildings and a lot of the infrastructure that was here before us. Um and and uh but that's neither here nor there. we need to react now uh before uh and and as I was telling one of my colleagues earlier, you know, we could have sat here and said uh what happened in 2013 14 and and all those and and why didn't the the police department get fixed then little by little or found property by then? And that's what bond elections do in my experience. you you get to the point where uh you've lived out the whatever property you have or whatever structures you have and then you move forward and you try and get some something else. So I agree with everybody here that that I mean there's not much there's not much wiggle room in a lot of these things that we can do. Everything is absolutely needed. Everything is absolutely needed. What but we haven't we haven't prioritized as to what is needed more than something else. And there's a lot of things that uh I agree with with some of my colleagues that said we there's a lot of information that was just not uh privy to us beforehand. Uh a little bit more structured uh questions that were that that needed to be answered. But and just listening to Mr. Neb right now, we have two days to do it right. We can solve a lot of these problems right now if we have a all of us have an understanding about what we are about to go do. And and so once we go to the public and ask them for this, the questions are going to come to us, not to a lot of you all. So we need to have answers for that. So that's one of the things that worries me about what where we're at today. I mean there's there's uh we we dwindled it down to only certain things. About 90 I'd say 85% of of the questions have been answered what we want to do. We have a a set of goals in front of us as to what we want. But there are those little detailed questions as to whether we can afford this this bond election, whether or not we can afford it, how are we going to pay them back, do we have enough of a fan fund balance uh to cover ourselves in case of anything that happens with rightfully so is as uh Mr. Aila pointed out, we don't know what's going to happen and and miss what we don't know what's going to happen over the next uh two or three months and and how is that going to derail everything that we're trying to do. So the question is very simple to me right now. I think I'm I'm I'm all in on on whatever is needed because I've seen I've I've spoken to everybody about what is needed, but I need priorities to be set as to what we need first. Number one. Number two, we need to figure out how we get all these answers questions to every council person here and and make them understand how to feel comfortable about going out there and asking the public for these monies. It it is only our job to do that and we owe it to our citizens. We are constantly going to be reminded that we are there for them and therefore we need to be very extremely proactive on on on getting those answers before they come in and and and come to us for those for those with those questions. Uh one more thing um this is a covenant with the community. We are we are basically tying ourselves to the community and saying what we need. Uh just so just a little point of reference these bond elections are going to be broken down into what 11 I think was there 11 questions >> mayor that's up to you all tonight to determine okay the number of >> so so what we're going to determine and just so that some of the public can understand right now when you go to vote for these things you're not going to vote on one single package and that's very important you're not so you're going to vote individually and you're going to have the you're going to have to answer and that's what That's the beauty of this bond referendum. The public is going to get to decide this one yes, this one no, this one maybe, and then it just works that way. So, I believe that uh Mr. Le that you all are in the right direction as to where we need to be. But I need I think we need to close the deal with the council first these next couple of days and answer all of these questions that they have because in the end, we are the ones who are going to have to be out there responding to the public about this. And it's and just see it. I mean, you know, all due respect is that we we it's very difficult to do this job or any public office job without having all the proper information first and foremost. So, I think it behooves the um admin and staff to get us prepared for that. So, I would say that with this two-day period, it's going to be very important for all of us to make sure that all of us up here get it. And that's all my question. >> All right. Thank you. Before we proceed, one more citizen comment. Mr. Ector Alanise. Thank you. U mayor and city council. Hector Alanise. Uh I uh [snorts] served on the u health and wellness subcommittee and also in the main committee. And uh and sorry for my mask. I trying to get over cold and don't want to get anybody else sick. But uh Martin Luther King said, "If not us, then who? If not now, then when?" City council, you will be making the decision as to what moves forward. Okay? If we don't do it now, we wait till November or we wait till next year. What we're going to be doing is we're going to be doing what we've been doing in the past. We've not had uh bond referendums continuously or every five years five years like some of the other uh metropolitan cities you know bigger than ours have been doing. It's no secret you know everybody's going through growth development every city Dallas San Antonio Corpus Christi the valley and if we don't do uh you know uh the bond referendums and we do it on a continuous basis and we only do them a real big project and uh and then wait another 10 15 20 years to do another bond referendum we're not you know we're not doing a good job. We need to do a really good job of educating the people and that's part of the bond referendum. Uh subcommittee information was provided to us and the same manual [clears throat] and the same information that's been provided to you as well. Uh the subcommittee when we when we started meeting uh we had a presentation from the city manager and we're told look you guys are going to make recommendations to city council. City Council is going to look at your recommendation and based on your recommendations, they will make a decision on what's going to make it to the ballot and ultimately the voters are going to make that decision. Not the subcommittees, not city council, but the voters. It's it's a key uh you know uh that we do a really good job of educating the community about what's going to be on the ballot referendum and uh and why we need it to make sure that it passes. Not everything's going to pass. When we first started the committee, we were given an astron astronomical number of $844 million to consider. And we all thought the same thing. Wow, that's a lot of money. How are we going to approach, you know, the community and tell them, hey, we've got $800 million that we're going to be asking you for for public infrastructure, health and wellness, uh public safety, and uh and enhancement services. Right? We all knew that we were not going to be putting an $800 million fund referendum to the uh community. Uh what we were coached on and told later is some of those items are going to be prioritized and we didn't get a chance to meet that one last time because of the holidays and a few other things. But we're supposed to have one last meeting where every subcommittee was going to prioritize all the asks from, you know, each subcommittee. and we're going to prioritize all those and bring them to you and and that way make things a little bit easier. Unfortunately, we didn't get to that port. And so that's where we're at right now. I don't believe again that we're going to be able to put a bond referendum of $800 million. you know, it we were realistically probably thinking anywhere between $200 and $300 million, which would identify the top priority projects that are needed, whether it's public safety or public health or or whatever it may be or a combination of all four. And then possibly maybe in November or maybe next year or in a couple of years, look at some of the other items, projects, you know, that came in as a second or third priority and move forward with that. If we compare what we're trying to do here to our homes, when we buy a home, whether it's an existing home or it's a a brand new home, it's going to need maintenance to be done, you know, after 5 years, after 10 years, after 20 years. And if we don't keep up with the maintenance, we're going to be living in a broken home. The same very thing is happening to our water infrastructure. Our water infrastructure has really not been worked on for several years. many councils before you. And so right now we're facing $800 million or more on uh improvements for water infrastructure. And so we've got some problems that is uh separate and aside from what the bond referendum is. Um I uh just want to make sure that uh you all know that all the subcommittee uh members worked really hard. We do appreciate that. It was a learning experience. Uh but we also know that all of you have to make a decision. We look forward to you guys making a decision. But I don't think you know my personal opinion. I don't know how the rest of the subcommittee members feel but I think uh you know we should move forward and present something to the voters. Again not everything's going to pass. Just like in the charter review the voters are ultimately going to decide what moves forward and what doesn't move forward. But we got to meet we got to be careful. We got to educate the community of what we're asking, why we're asking, and then we also have to kind of keep in mind that compared to other cities, uh our uh you know, taxes that we pay for the uh um infrastructure that we're doing, it's uh you know, falls really low on the scale. So, um thank you for giving me some time to speak to you and I appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. And just one thing uh I did want to mention as a result of our Austin legislative trips. We wanted to see how this could impact us. These were su successful because I think we're looking at community needs. This is uh one of the reasons why collaboration was the first step necessary to show our combined effort and the need. And that's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to get ideas from the rest of the world. Bloomberg, Harvard, executive educational programs, teach us how to do this. And they learn from our experiences. We learn from theirs, not to spend a lot of time in politics and spend more time on solutions rather than focusing on the problem. This is what we want to do here. I just want to set the tone so we can move forward on this. >> Sir, mayor and city council, thank you. Um, we're going to proceed forward with our our list of projects that were given to you. Uh, we'll start with health if that's acceptable, uh, as requested. And I'm going to let somebody else run the board here. But essentially, these lists here, they have everything listed out there. We I think we got them out to you in an email as well, too. We're just going to go run down run down each one of the sectors, figure out exactly what is a priority to you and then we'll we'll kind of compile it together. I think the only other housekeeping keeping item I need to state based upon what city secretary just mentioned as well too um we will need to get this work done within this meeting. We don't have time to set another meeting by Friday because it's 72 hour before to get it scheduled for Friday. We should have done it at 5:00 today. Uh so we what we will ask you to do is continue this meeting. If we have to go longer than this meeting, we'll move it to tomorrow and we'll and we'll go through we'll finish wrap up tomorrow. That'll give bond council time to actually make sure the questions are correct. But just for your just so you know that we'll have to we have to continue this meeting through in order to make time for the May meeting based upon all the schedules I believe was what we're hearing. Right. >> Yes. That at most you can recess until tomorrow. After that you have to have >> we have until 10:30 tonight to do that. So all right and but I I hopefully I I think we'll move fairly quickly through this information now. is just I think mayor thank you for setting the table and um I'll get out of the way and let's get to work. >> All right. Thank you. >> And before we go on to health just to make sure that everybody understands where that were medically underserved. We've been medically underserved for decades. Health insurance. We have the lowest percentage of adults in the country having health insurance. This leads to premature death and also lack of physical activity. We have a low percentage of physical active physically active adults. Obesity, we have 45% of the population classified of being obese. And it's also shameful to say that the city historically has spent less than 2% of their budget and public health. So, we need to focus on this. These are real data, real issues. we can't progress as a the most important port of entry in the United States with this health issue. So I think we should go forward with this and I have a motion to just approve this. The the amount of 70 million for health and if anybody would >> I will second that motion >> mayor if I may. The total amount for health is 70,881,000. >> Yes. Okay. >> Motion second. >> Uh can you listen to the presentation? We we don't have a presentation for this. >> We already did it. >> All right. >> Question. >> Question. >> There was talks about the the third floor possibly um being is or is that included in this? >> It's included. It's included. >> Okay. I thoughts about >> Okay. Got it. >> All right. >> Mayor, I have one more question. >> Go ahead. Would you be able to describe because the bond package we have is it has a lot of things jumbled up in it. Could you describe what the 70 million so that the public understands what it will fund the the big picture? It doesn't have to be honorable mayor Jesus par with the budget [clears throat] department. The health department is broken down into three main projects. The first project which is in the front which is the clinical and research building. Uh the total amount for those is 17,833500. Like I mentioned that is a clinical and research building. The second project that they have is a remodeling for floors one and two of the health department. Total amount for that one is 17,925. And the third project that they have is a third floor construction. It's a new construction for the third floor. And the total estimated amount for that is 35,122,000 of the total that that sums up to the 70,881,000. >> All right. Thank you. Motion. >> All right. Motion second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion passes. Next. Public safety. >> Yeah. If if the mayor may allow, let me update those numbers here really quick and I'll have a a subtotal that's going to summarize into our main page. >> All right. >> Mayor, can I question? >> Go ahead. >> Um, Mr. is it is it accurate to say that we're not allowed to u get schematics and designs on a building unless we have the monies to actually construct it? or are we able to get designs and schematics without having a funding source for the project? >> Mayor and city council mayor prom. Um, in in my in my mind, I think you can do design and specifications and make shelf ready projects and not not move forward with the project. I think when you move forward with the project, you have to have the funds in order to get it done. And so I think those are the variables at least based upon how you're asking the question. But you can have you can have design you you can do a design and then not do the project. So you can do a design without having the funds for that final product project. And we have done we've done other projects like that where we're not sure of what the total cost of that project is until after we've completed the construction drawings of that. And so this these renovations um we don't have designs for, but um we're not going to do them all at once. Is that the plan? I mean, that is correct. This is going to be a thing where >> um we're going to design it and we're going to build it within the next three years, three to five, [snorts] three to four years. >> Yeah. I I would say any any construction project that you were we were to place into this thing, we're we're at least two to three years away from actually building based upon doing the design, doing the uh the all that work and then and then triggering the the construction. >> So, if the public gives us the permission to bond for that amount, right, that's what they're giving us is the permission to go out for it. um that still gives us flexibility to um >> when to trigger it >> to to well when to activate it but you know in in the interest of the time factor is it if the longer we wait for these projects then does that affect the numbers >> I mean are these in today's dollars or are these in um you know shovel like at the time when we're planning to bond out is this are these costs going to change >> and and mayor and and city council mayor Pro Tim, these numbers are the best I I don't want to use that word. I was going to say guesstimate. I because we don't know we don't know what the market will bear as we go out there. We these are all based upon construction costs that we've seen in previous projects. All the all that data coming from all those professionals are telling us this is where it's going to be. I mean, to build a new fire station, I think Chief Herd had mentioned it, is that it's a $700 per square foot to build a fire station. And I'm used I'm used to a lot lower numbers. That's probably my age a little bit, but but it is it's um I I think these are these are the best numbers that we can believe. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't change the scope of the project a little bit as long as we meet the expectations of the question. >> Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. I just think it's important that if we're going to bond out for these projects that we do them as quickly as possible and it doesn't turn into something that the public's approving now that they're not going to see for 10 15 years because I feel that that just defeats the purpose of what we're doing. >> I and I mayor and mayor prom that that and that's a very good valid point. I think you heard that in some of the citizen comments tonight as well too. We just need to follow through. We we need to get this stuff done if it's that important. Let's get let's do it right. [snorts] >> Mayor, anybody may add to Mr. NB's uh points um >> the the remodeling of the first and second floor. There is currently some work being done currently with last year's budget on that design. The third floor does not. It still needs to be done. The other thing what we're showing here is just the total projects. The departments did give us a breakdown of a five-year project. So what we would do once the the amount gets uh approved for the referendum and if it gets approved on the referendum we already will go back and we are going to look at the phasing in. So we'll have design maybe on year two and then construction on year three. So when we bond we will only bond and monies that we will need as we go through. And to add on the current 70 million that we have in there Dr. Mr. Chamberlain did provide us a number, a current number, any projected number including inflation and some contingencies. So this 70 million 70.8 million should cover [clears throat] the inflation costs and any contingencies that might come down the the road. And as Mr. Net mentioned, when we do that, we can also move or and adjust as needed to make the project completed. >> So all all the departments do have a a tentative uh we do have five years of information in here. as we once we get this final number, we'll go back and tweak those numbers [clears throat] by year to then work with a financing uh uh advisor to see when we issue those bonds if they get approved. I just wanted to share that information. >> Can I mention something real quick? Uh and it's very important that you mention to the public that um just because you asked for the 70.8 and if it comes down to um and and they approve the 70.8, it can be less. Yes. >> And we we don't have to go out and bond out for the whole 70. So, it has to be very clear to everybody that that that that there's that option. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> I didn't like the wasn't like the idea that the furnishing was there, but I just want to clarify my vote in support of the item. >> All right. Thank you. Noted. >> Just just to add one last thing, mayor. Uh, one of the reasons that we're looking to strategically issue those bonds is because we have three years to spend those monies. So, we want to have them when we do the financing, we're ready to do that next step so we can adequately spend the money within those three years. So, that way we avoid the arbitrage. >> The next department that you want to do, mayor, please. And uh, let's bring >> public safety. Public safety fire. So the the fire proposed um we have some construction costs uh for a total of let me say this construction 42 million in construction costs. We do have some land acquisition of 6 million80. We have vehicles for a total of 28.4 million. We do have some furnishings for new station. The new station may be directed. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Can I can you just uh remind us or just get have that conversation about the vehicles? Once again, I'm still not clear on that. It's still a little bit confusing that if we the bond passes, do they get the vehicles? They get the vehicles. If it don't passes, what happens? We they don't have the vehicles. That's why I'm still, you know, Mr. Can you give me a clarification of that? >> Oh, yeah. Mayor and council member, uh, the conversation with our bond council and I'll let them cover it. >> Rick Benas for the record with JC Law Co-Bond Council. Good evening, council. Um, the way that would work is if the if the bond referendum were to go out and include vehicles and if we're not to pass, then the law says that the city wouldn't be able to go out for cos on those vehicles for the next three years >> now for the next three years. Now, that doesn't mean that there's other financial >> Yeah. When with regards to the equipment though, you can do a tax note, I believe, is what was talked about at one of the last meetings. So just for the record for the public to know cuz they're they're they're watching it's what's a tax note and it's for myself as well. [clears throat] >> You want to better explain >> to cover all right now. So >> it's just a different uh mechanism of financing other than a contractual obligation. Uh so there is a different avenue for the financing of it. >> But that avenue coming from where? From general fund. >> Yes. >> So it's coming from general fund. Yes. So regardless the end of the day, if let's say it doesn't pass, we're still going to get use that from general fund. >> Yes. Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. >> I'd like to make a motion to accept the recommendation from the committee for $85,353,550 for the fire department. >> Second. >> Motion second. >> May clarify. >> Go ahead. >> Uh I think the recommendation is for city administration. >> Is that the one? >> Mayor. >> Yes. I'm sorry that my my correction. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. from the city administration 85,353,550 >> motion second all in favor >> I opposed motion pass one post motion pass >> next please can I make a comment >> sorry sorry >> um just as a as a point U of while we before we go through every single one of them uh you know in essence we can we can pretty much vote as is right now and and get get all of them uh voted in with the numbers we've already discussed I think most of these things at nauseium >> true >> you know and and so um the the interesting fact about this is that you you can always go back and say we are not going to cover uh we're we're above the amount that we need later on. Uh and and and so but this is this is the slippery slope that we can always have the option of saying we're only going to go out to to these bonds uh let's say in this particular case instead of 85 we go down to 60 and that's all we're going to do. Uh and so that's there's an option within that particular option of of how to do this. So, I mean, as we go further into detail right here, if we pull something out, you know, now and we realize that we need it later, you know, where's where's the, you know, the advantage of of just not getting it done the way it is right here. So, in other words, we can sit here for another five, six hours or or 3 hours or whatever it is. I have no problem with it. But I'm just saying that if there's there's once once you vote it in and we remove something from in here doesn't necessarily mean that we can find the monies to get get that that thing back in before we go out for the sale of these bonds. So, I mean, there's that mechanism in there. And so, and it it it kind of puts us in a bind right now to say, okay, you know, we're going to go through all these things and just pull this one out and that out and we don't we know that we we're going to be able to bring it back later on. Am I wrong in thinking that way? Is is that correct? >> No. Mayor and council member, no. That and that is a good strategy as well, too, is that just because we're given the authority to go out and borrow whatever that number is, doesn't mean we go out and borrow that number. the city council will have that opportunity as we pull the information together and say, "All right, we're ready to pull the trigger on this issue. You do another vote in order to determine we're ready to go after that bond." And so when if if you're approved for 90 million, but you do an $85 million bond, that's acceptable within that structure. >> This is just the authority to borrow that much. >> Okay. >> Do you want to put that in a motion or >> Well, no. is going to figure out. I just want to make sure that if if everybody has an agreement, but if it merits further discussion, I just want everybody to be clear on that >> and the public knows about that. >> Go ahead, council. >> Um, Mr. Understanding that uh the I I believe the idea isn't necessarily to pull out items. I think it is a useful exercise. I know that we've seen it a lot and and have gone through numbers, but um for the public that's just finding out for the first time what the items will be, I think it's important to be discussing at even at this date to talk about what the proposals are, what the needs are, why we're going out for bonds, [cough and clears throat] and when we can talk about exactly what the monies will be spent on, what that's the conversation we're going to have between now and whatever date we end up setting for And the other um item that I think we need to be aware of is we need to keep this running cost of what we're approving because at some point the the items that were proposed are have a range of proposed increase in in tax rate, right? and some of us might be less comfortable with it really reaching into um hundreds of millions of dollars that we're just not comfortable going there. So, uh, perhaps after this, um, public safety section, if you could talk about what that is, what the city is encumbering by moving forward with these items and not to prevent the other items from coming up, but for us to understand what type of tax increase we're talking about so that we can have a better idea moving forward what items we really should be focusing on. >> All right. Yes, >> we have a motion in a >> second. >> It was approved. So, we're next to police now. >> Okay. Police. >> So, for police, we have for the construction cost LPD headquarters, we have a total of 110.5 million. For the training facility, we have a estimated cost of 33.4 million. The surveillance facility center 4.9 million >> survival >> survival excuse me. Thank you. For the fleet units, we have a total of 32.8 8 million and that makes a total request or total estimated amount of 1817 181,786,95. >> Mayor. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Make a motion to accept the city administration's >> recommendation. Second. >> Second. Second. >> Motion. Second. >> I do have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Um, we've talked about it a little bit about the fleet units, these their vehicles. Yes. And there are some questions still in the public about why would we propose a bond that is paid over several years for cars that are going to depreciate much more quickly than what a normal bond would be. I there was an explanation given, but perhaps um if you could talk about that so that the public understands that these bonds actually go out for a shorter amount of time because of that depreciation rate. Sure. Hi, good evening. Uh Tony Hasso with Estradi and grateful for the opportunity to be with you all. Um yes, excellent question and and you're right. As as um uh uh Mr. Noso addressed last time. Uh really what we do when we structure this financing is that we take something like for example vehicles uh that have a useful life of let's say maybe seven years and we'll we'll structure the financing so that the principal amounts are paid down in a in a in a corresponding fashion so that you're you're basically advertising those police cars first. It's not something that we would necessarily take, you know, a fleet of a car and basically try to advertise that over over 30 years. We're structuring that uh with uh with useful life of those assets in mind. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Question. >> No sir. >> Any other question? >> Second, sir. >> Motion second. All in favor? >> Opposed? >> None opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Mayor, if you will allow me a couple of minutes, let me update that so I can look at the summary and and give you what that impact is. >> Community development Hamilton next. >> Yeah. Would you like to look at the summary or would you want to jump into the Hamilton? >> We can wait until after that. >> If we're doing Mayor, I'm sorry if I may. >> Yes. >> If we're doing the Hamilton, I I I'd u motion to accept the recommendation from city administration for the $10 million for the rehab of the Hamilton Hotel. It's far elderly there. That's definitely necessary. >> I think we can go that route. Motion second. Go ahead. >> Are we going to have a little bit of a discussion about the Hamilton Hotel so that the public understands the need? >> Sure. >> Go ahead. [clears throat] >> To start this. >> All right. We can do a general statement on it. >> Good evening. Tina Martinez, director for community development. So, the Hamilton estimated cost would assist with some major rehab that the building would need to extend the life of the uh the facility and to ensure that this affordable housing units will continue [clears throat] servicing our communities. >> And can you talk about the number of of uh seniors that are impacted by this? >> Yes. Look, uh, currently there is 165 units, but we are only, uh, renting to 135 tenants, um, because we do have some units that are offline and that this repairs would again put us at full capacity of 165 units for our community. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Just a a general question also. Um, >> can you explain a little bit why we cannot go for uh another property to to build on that for those 10 million? So I believe the question for um that was provided to bond bond council was for this building specifically um and maybe bond [clears throat] council has more information on that but it was geared for there there was some attorney general's request for information to ensure that bonding capacity could be done but for affordable housing for specific project. It has to be identified as a specific project. It can't just be, you know, um, um, a blank slate or a blank. >> And if I could, I might help as well, too. >> Yes. >> We are reacquiring the Hamilton Hotel. It was in a housing authority's hands for a number of years and uh, they they asked to give it back to us. They they've defunct, the housing authority, and so that's why it's coming back to us. and it need, as we know from our conversations with the tenants, it needs a lot of repair and everything. So, because we're acquiring it back and there's about $10 million worth of repairs that need to be done to the building, this seemed to be the best way in order to handle that that whole process. >> Mayor, >> yes, go ahead. >> And Mr. It it is true that that we are tied to the Hamilton Hotel because of that original federal loan that rehapped the bu building 20 years ago for affordable housing. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's that's true. We we own the building. We have we have to satisfy the HUD loan as well too. And this was the best way in order to keep that building in in the in the bring it back to where it's supposed to be. >> Yes. and continue providing the affordability affordable units for our community. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. Go ahead. >> And just to clarify, um how many more um tenants will we be able to service if we do these renovations? >> So, we do have about um I want to say about oh sorry 29 units that are unaved right now. So, 29 I mean they can serve up to two people each of those units. >> So, that would be more >> and you can do 30. Yeah. more affordable housing for our seniors if we invest in this. Plus, we can rent >> the bottom floors, which one of them is currently vacant, [clears throat] >> and this is a re revenue generating project. Stole. >> Yes, correct. I I like >> All right. All right. Call further questions. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> One opposed. Motion pass. >> Next. public infrastruure. >> Public infrastructure. >> I thought we were one order. I think we're that they're going to explain to us uh the the breakdown of where we're at right now. >> Mr. Sponsor, can you also mayor might be directed? So, can you also uh add >> to the the presentation you're going to use right now? >> There's a difference in interest rates. if there is a difference in interest rates. >> This is this is the estimated cost of the of the built itself. The financing [clears throat] charges are not part of this calculations that we have right now. >> Okay. >> So what when when we get ready to do the first financing, that's when we're going to get the interest and actually look at the interest that is going to be charged on this issues. Um if uh the screen and the the screen that you're showing right now this is a summary based on the fire police and health and community on the right side this column the G has what has been tentative has been approved so far 85 mill 85.3 million for fire 181.7 for police 70.8 8 for health and 10 million for community development the Hamilton project a total of 3480314 $455 if we look at the impact right now the impact it would take approximately.9 and the impact to a home would be approximately 20 >> $261 2175 annually and 2175 five monthly. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I think there's a mistake cuz you changed the home valuation from 200,000 to 300,000 for the last one. >> Yeah. >> Um which affects the monthly cost. >> There we go. >> It's [snorts] 1450 estimated annually. I'm sorry. Monthly and 174 [laughter] 174 annually. >> Very misleading. Mr. Spice certainly. [laughter] >> That was the purpose of when you saw that smaller amount it would be easier to do with testing. >> All right. >> Go budget. [laughter] >> We want to continue with >> parks and ricks. May >> go ahead. >> What is the the running total right now? The impact as we stand without parks. without parks is 348 million. >> And what the formula that you just showed, what is the monthly and the and the annual impact? What >> impact is it? >> This is a 9 cents here on the top. >> 9 cents. >> Mhm. This is the 348 that we're looking at of financing. So 9 would get us to 348 and that would have the $14.50 annually on a average home of 200,000. >> Are we at 348 right now? >> Yes, ma'am. All right. Any other question? >> Yes sir. Keep on with the presentation. >> Continue. [snorts] >> Next one is the parks department. Uh thank you. >> The parks has a uh replacing or replacing the administrative building and warehouse at an estimated cost of 12 million. They have the replacement of the synthetic turfs for nine fields at 19.4. The conversion of the LED sports lighting on eight parks 13.8 the surveillance 4 million the Sakati Creek Trail system 1 million the construction of a rec center in district 65 million construction of rec center in district 8 15 million Baskin pool 1.2 2 million, Pascin Bridge 800, and the mountain bike trail on Shiloh 2.5. [clears throat] >> Mayor >> for a total amount of 84.7. >> Go ahead. >> I I'd like to make a motion that we um that we don't proceed with parks um at this time and we push that on to a future future evaluation. motion for discussion. Just >> motion second for discussion. >> You know, parks, we're not trying to be, you know, the bad guys or try not to give you anything. I know that we have a lot of uh there's a lot of needs and in in in parks and u you know, we got got to commend to all the parks that everybody that works in parks, they you know, they help us in events. They they they do a lot for us. But right now, I think the main a main focus should be on on public safety, public health, which something that we that that's going to be the impact the most. um right now with a new sports complex hopefully coming up in April and May. Uh once they see that we once they see that we're starting to move move on that and that we're having good u you know a good feedback with all the the community and seeing the the the great work that you guys are going to be doing. You know I think it's that we're going to have opportunity for for the next time to come in and ask for maybe a little bit more money. Uh you know it was a great presentation. We went to Ron Rock. we saw something that everybody was, you know, we we were shocked the the how much money that went out for uh for bonds, but I think right now it's not the right moment. You know, I think right now it's time for health, public safety and and we should you just, you know, continue with this and you know, appreciate everything you guys did you have done for us and you continue doing for us, but I think right now it's not the right time. I think within two or three year for three years start getting ready start seeing the impact that the complex is going to give us seeing how much the we can change in parks and we will can work we all can work together with our our uh district priority funds and see if we can you know uh enhance our our parks in different ways right >> so that's where I stand >> who was next go ahead >> thank you completely understand we're two colleagues who've spoken So far, um I truly don't believe that parks and recreation are a want. [snorts] I do believe they're in need. You know, we we've mentioned um the mayor, you mentioned the obesity rate, 45% our diabetes rates. You know, we part of fixing that is getting people moving, exercising outside active. you know, when you compare, you know, bonds in other cities, for example, um Dallas's $ 1.4 billion bond last year, it was a parks, potholes, and public safety bond, but five 500 million of that bond was for parks and recreation. And about 350 million of that bond was for streets, sidewalks, bridges, you know, um and then about 100 million was for uh public safety. So, um, so my point is I I understand what we're saying about needs and wants. Um, but part of the point of these, um, items is to put them put them to the public for them to see if they think it's worth it. And I I I have the community needs survey. Uh, mayor, if you mind, I'll um show it to you all. Um, you let me. Okay. So, just >> Okay. >> I don't know if you can zoom in on that or not. >> Anyone? Is this zoomable? >> Is there a way to There should be a zoom button here. Oh, there it is. Oh, okay. >> Can't see it. >> Do I need glasses or is it very blurry? >> Sorry. [laughter] Anyway, long story short, you you all have this. Last year, the community community development team did a survey for all all districts. If you look at the top list, counseling, referral, support services, this is for the whole city, new housing, construction, uh, for low-income households, uh, home home payer, home buyer assistance, rental assistance, homeless prevention, and number six and seven were rec centers and parks and playgrounds. If you go to district 6 specifically out of as you see 28 items, okay, out of 28 items, as you can see the community need and that was the by the community need survey, number one uh was number one was rec centers, number two was neighborhood police stations, number three paved streets, number four community senior centers. And as you can see, you know, number one and number four, because we have neither a rec center nor a community center. [snorts] Um, and I do believe it's a need. Um, and I I would like parks and city management to explain, you know, the progress we've made on getting this done. Um, we we have two land owners who have already committed the land. Uh, one the 10 acres is already there. six of those acres is buildable for a rec center in district six. Um the other one is a potential donation that so it's we're going to if this were to pass we would able to kind of use either option. So we have land already. We don't we're not going to have to buy the land. Um the land's already there. Um and you know my my constituents do do need it and they feel that why does every other district um have it? Of course, district 8's also uh been asked, but um every other district, you know, why why is the maintenance and operations for every other district worth it worth the the maintenance operation costs, you know? So, that's that's what my constituents are asking me. So, I'm asking you to consider um and I'll come back to the to the deis, but I I would like our our park staff if you could possibly, you know, highlight some of the conversations we've had about this over the last two years and um you know, but um but anyway, >> I'm coming back to things, [laughter] [snorts] >> mayor and council. Yeah. So, we've been in conversations with with all of them. They are meeting the conditions of how we operate for rec centers and and now currently as well too. But, right, >> I think you can cover the history a lot better than I can. I've been in a only a couple meetings with the developer. >> Right. Um, good evening, Mayor Council. JJ Owens, parks director. >> Go ahead. >> Um, Dr. King is right. Mr. Mr. Neb is right. We have been in communication with uh with some directors and I have Anita here and Tommy Ram also been involved with the discussions. Dita handles on the uh on the on the land development for park. Uh we do have some uh interested parties that have donated some are willing to donate some land to build some uh a potential rec center in district 6. One of them being towards Harmony Hills. One of them being uh adjacent to North Central Park. Um I think it's called the the property if I'm not mistaken. Uh council me is that the gentleman's name. I didn't want to mention names, but that's in the discussion. Um, but the other the one in Harmony Hills, they're already going to be giving us 10 acres >> uh as part of the um parkland agreement with with parks department, >> right? >> Um so that would be east of the loop. Um so very very symmetrical to Fasin in the sense of Fasin's on the northwest side of town. This would be on the northeast side outside of the loop. So that one is the guaranteed place that we for sure have that would be available to us to build it. Um, and then there is a property adjacent to Johnville's Park that um isn't is has been discussed, but I mean it has not there's not it's a whole family that has to decide that. >> That would be the dream because it'd be connected to North Central Park, but of course that can't happen until there's a funding mechanism moving forward. And um I mean I understand we just kind of went through the rest of the departments quite um quickly and you know we you know we fund you know funded all of those. I I understand I have some concerns as well. Um you know you know perhaps administration building I I mean I I mean I can administration buildings are always hard to sell to people. I understand that. Um and and I [clears throat] also can understand the the question of would would the rest of you all your constituents you know contribute to another district's rec center? But I mean like I said the other well six out of eight other have them. Um, I mean, at the very least, I would I would ask, you know, put it to us, allow allow us to at least put it to a proposition just just for the rec center. And if and if and if we think the other seven districts will vote it down, I mean, that's I'm just asking you to give my constituents at least a fighting chance um at this um you know, this no secret. This was a a campaign commitment that I that I int I wanted to find a way. I did all the research. We looked at finding tur's other grants. I mean, it's it's it's very difficult to come up with the $15 million that's needed for a rec center. I mean, there's no really other realistic way to get it done besides getting the voters permission to do it. Um, I look back, you know, if you go back to 1993, uh, the last time that we did one of these, here were the items. 4.8 million for a police for police station proposition, 2.8 8 million for fire station proposition, 5.2 million um uh also, oh sorry, that was for fire station uh fire training uh 7 million for the ghetto the library the main library 2.8 million for rec center propositions and 4 million for the West Laredo overseas overpass. um you know, very specific, right? Um and you know, I just I'm asking you all to um at the very least give um my constituents who've been asking for this for decades. Again, there's no indoor facility whatsoever uh for recreation or community gathering. Um you know, >> Mayor, I'm next on that. >> You're next. Yes, sir. I'm next. Hold up. >> Mayor, if if I may, please. Thank you. Just a couple things that I I'd like to to make clear. I I'd like to ask my colleagues to please reconsider just the conversation of the LED sports lighting on eight parks, which is all around the city, and the surveillance. The reason why I'm asking for those things particularly is because surveillance, as you all know, our parks get damaged every so often. And what it costs us to repair that is very expensive. And those $4 million will pay for itself within a couple of years. LED lighting, the same thing. LEDs, having those lights on versus any other type of light is a lot cheaper for the city as well. The savings at the end is what I'm talking about. And that's what we need to reconsider. As far as what park is asking a new administration, the warehouse building, Mr. Neb, if you toy with the idea, if this bond passes and the police department has a new station, maybe we can move parks into the old police station and another other another another couple uh uh departments as well in that facility. It's a 65,000 foot facility. It wouldn't cost us a penny, maybe a little bit to move them in there, but other than that, it wouldn't cost us much other than that. So, it'd be they they'd be able to get that administrative building plus of course the surveillance lighting that I'm I'm I'm really really pushing for and and also the u the LED LED lighting and the surveillance as well. >> Yeah, my colleague. Yes. >> So, you know, going back to the the you know, the rec center and I'm not trying to, you know, go with my colleague. Let me let me just ask one question. Mr. Mr. Gomez, the water park the water park gets 15 million. Is that that would be where >> it was proposed the land to be adjacent to the Buenovita sports complex that right now we're using 150 acres for the benevita sports complex. 50 acres of those were supposed to be for the potential build of of a water park in phase two uh or phase three of of uh of whenever if if it decides to be built. So those 50 acres were were were planned to be using for the water park. So what I'm saying I'm trying to say is the water park right now going back to the conversation that I know my colleague is trying to say that you know the rec center is something that the the community from district uh six I'm I'm from sorry six right they're they're really you know they they really need because they need a needing point I've been reached out as as well for the water park and you know but at the same time we got to understand that we don't need it right now we want it but we don't need it a priority already is, you know, I would love a water park. It's so very hot in the rad how hot it is. Get how hot it gets in the rad. So, a water park would be not only for one district, it will be for the whole city. So, we if we're not getting that for the whole city, you know, I'm not trying to be be the the bad person for for district sake and say no. I'm not I'm just saying not right now. Maybe next the next time in the referendum three years from now, we'll go up for now. see how this works with the motion that we have on the floor right now. Accepting the what what is it? Uh the >> 3 348 >> 348. >> So accepting the 348 and continue just and waiting for the next maybe three years hopefully in this passes and you know supporting this and then maybe next next time it passes and we'll go out for the for the for the Rex you know for for district six and district 8. But for right now, I think if we're not considering the water park, which is belongs to what belongs for the whole community, for the whole city, I think it's just we got to, you know, accept the 348 for the 348 for that we have in the motion right now. >> Go ahead. Um, I would just ask all of my colleagues why why I mean we have a huge unfunded capital improvement plan. Um, [laughter] that and with projects galore, but these are not all just random projects. Every one of you up here have projects that are currently unfunded in the CIP pro a lot of them probably being under parks. My my question is, you know, if if we're go so quickly to go out for everything else that's been recommended by city administration. Why would we not do the same thing here? But hey, for every let's every if we give something tangible to every district like we have I mean we've gone through the whole thing really fast. We do have like we have a capital improvement plan that's detailed. Why aren't we giving district 1, district 2, district 3, district 4 specific, tangible projects that's already in our parks capital improvement plan that the people can go vote on. I'm not just trying to get something just for me in district 6. I'm totally I guarantee you, Council Member Gonzalez, I guarantee you have projects that are currently unfunded that you don't have enough and you may never have enough money for for with district priority funds um to to to get paid for. other than through a bond referendum. What would get people interested in voting more than something that tangibly affects their life in the neighborhood they can walk in the park they can walk to? Most we we're actually doing this the opposite right now. We are we are upside down on on on the bond so far. And I mean it's totally fine to have a heavy public safety bond, but to have absolutely no quality of life like parked initiatives that I mean I promise no other city is doing that like that. So why aren't we giving Why don't we each look look at our capital improvement plan that that already exists on our website and look for projects. we can take a 20-minut recess and and figure out why aren't y'all adding projects that are already in our capital improvement plan that may never be funded if we don't give it a try here. Like why don't we why don't we consider that and that actually might get voters excited about voting for things on this referendum that tangibly directly affects their lives. Would that be something you all would consider doing and think about adding things that your constituents want and have always asked for? This is this is our chance. I mean, he mentioned three years. It might be five. It might be seven years. I mean, some people have been waiting decades for some of these things that they've been asking for. I don't believe these are wants. These are needs. And bonds are actually intended to be for the wants more than the needs. Ironically, the point is to see if what the voters are willing to go for, whatever the permission is for. Problem is, we've done we've waited 33 years to actually do it. So, we have so many needs. I get it. But can mayor, would you entertain a motion to recess and everyone go let's look at the capital improvement plan and see what we can add for each district that could be of value to people? >> I don't think we need a recess because uh we're discussing workshops. Go >> ahead. There was a question on the floor before before the the >> motion. >> There's already a motion. >> There was a question on the floor before the motion >> with considerations for recess. >> Okay. >> There's a >> there's a question on the floor. >> Go ahead and finish. >> I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> They're saying there's a there was a motion before this. Uh so, >> but we're still discussing that motion. >> Yeah, we're still we're still discussing that motion. So, what was next? >> Discussion. Mayor just in front of you just >> council >> who was in front you >> yeah go ahead look go ahead I am of the thinking that um you know we we ran we ran through all of this before uh there are some items like u um like Ruben that that I would want to remove from the specifically from this deal but it's not all and I believe that what uh is good in one district may not be good in another I realize that I am proposing Right now I just broke it down into 50% of what is asked here. But it does I mean if if a rec center is included in that area and it is supposed to be of a need for that particular area, people should understand that we need a rec center in that area and that's it. It's not about us. It's about people of that district. And so um you know that do I believe in the in in the synthetic astroturf for the for the other ones? No, I do not. Not right now. that I would say two or three years to do. Uh but if there's such a need for that area that the people of that area are going to benefit from that, you know, who might tell me that that tell district 6 that they don't deserve that. So, and then again, as we mentioned earlier, these things are going to go on a line item basis. If the people of Laredo do not see fit that district 6 does not deserve a rec center or district 8 does not deserve a rec center. After all, most bond issues are for brick and mortar. So, we are telling everybody right now that we'd rather go with something else rather than brick and mortar. There's this this section right here is something that is is what I'm talking about over the next two days. We need to discuss and decipher as to what is needed or not. That's my personal opinion on that on that issue. But if we're going to move if we're going to move on to this and we're going to put it in and as part of the bond election in May, then let the people decide on that because uh you know I I don't want to be the one that says take it out for the next two or three years when it had a living chance. They had a living chance to survive in May. So So that's so I I I just that's my feeling. I think that u if we're going to do this, let's do it right. If if the people of of of the city do not want that, let them speak on this issue and and u and so therefore I would want to leave it as as is. But >> sorry, the American flag is upside down. We had to fix that. >> Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Thank you very much. >> U anyway, my thought my thought my thought process is is that we we're talking simply about the bond election here. So what do we want in there? What don't we want? We can go ahead and take it off if the if this council ch so chooses, but we cannot. If it was already proposed and everybody in this audience and the committee members spoke about it and brought it before us, I think it should live. It should be in there completely. But at this point, I think that the only things that it will not I I think that it this particular item will not survive on its own. I think it needs to be diluted a little bit, but it does have to be in the bond election so that the people can decide what it is that they want and what they don't want. >> All right. Who's next? >> Thank you. Um, so I um have you said I will associate myself with council member Garcas, right? Something like that comments. Um, and and in seeing that I I did want to ask a clarifying question. So the suggestion is that this will all be broken down, but my understanding is that it's not broken down to that degree. Parks and recreation go as one item that's either voted up or down. Is that correct? >> So the the the bomb proposal will depend on the complete package in the parks and recreation proposal. >> Yes. Rick Benvidas for the record. Um, yes. Right now, um, I'm sure you are provided with the draft propositions and and and all of that. So, right now the way they're categorized is based on the actual intent of the bond, right? So, right now it's very clearly organized public health, streets, Hamilton, and Parks and Right. Now, the actual proposition that's going to go to the voters isn't what is isn't the actual referendum language. the referendum language will go in the back of the election pamphlet when the vote when it goes to the voters. But what the voters are going to see is what's in the proposition language. That's usually like a sentence law. Now, right now there's six propositions. I know there's discussion about maybe um I don't know, making them more definite to be more specific. That's something that's up to the council's discretion obviously. Um but it doesn't really require there to be a very like specific line item. Um >> well my my question I guess is whatever we decide as the package for parks and wreck >> will be voted up or down and >> so whatever we include >> if all of it passes or none of it will pass right you can't you cannot take out a single item >> from the proposal >> we would need to change the language of the second we would need to change the language of the measure because right Now, the measure is drafted to encompass everything that was listed that was brought to the council for approval. >> Everything that we decide on now. >> Right. Right. Right. So, if for whatever reason you all wanted to take something off, we would remove that language so that it's it's more accurate to what the voters are going to be voting on. >> So, I do think we need another Thank you very much for that. I I do think we need another um discussion after this about what this does to the tax increase, but I I do see some benefit to putting um parks and recreation items up to the voters. It needs to be clear though what that tax burden will be then because if you look at, you know, the Saki Sakati Creek trail system, if we're talking about public health and getting into outdoor spaces, that uh trail system runs from South Laredo all the way to North Laredo and you can't be on it in um the fall through the spring without lighting. Not not safely, right? And so I think that would be a big um a big draw. And compared to what we're asking for, a million dollars does not seem to be so heavy a price. I know it all adds up in the end. Also, the surveillance I um also will associate myself with the comments of um Council Member Gutierrez that we want people to be out in the parks. We want them to feel safe and that we do need cameras. I know there was some proposals that cameras were coming in. Um the the issue um with this is just making clear the number of cameras. We we have so many proposals that have sort of that minutia and we don't have that for the parks. So it it would be better to have you know what kind of cameras, how many instead of this round number without that minutia. Um, and then the other uh shovel ready project, or at least it seems to me it was pretty comprehensive, was the item that came up last meeting, which was not included in in well, [laughter] I guess it's included now the the mountain bike trails because it's it is um not clear here. It says mountain bike trails for Shiloh, but it also in that 2.5 million encompassed Fascin Fascin area, Chaquon Creek area, a lot of different areas around the city for trail improvements and really enhancing the experience of people that go out to these beautiful spaces. and at 2.5 million, it just seems to me to be an an an easy way to get a big impact for um parks and recreation. So, that's something something else that I would support. Um I think uh Council Member King makes a very good argument for the rec center. Um, I do wish we had time to have a better discussion about maintenance and operations and how parks is going to absorb that into their budget. I think um I don't know if we do that now. It would perhaps calm some of the council members concerns about putting an item out like that. Um, but I I am swayed by by his arguments and would like to see that in in the long proposal. All right. >> Who's next? >> Go ahead. >> Mayor, just a quick question. Um, I know District One is blessed with a with the recreational center and as an ex member of it and as a taxpayer, I want to thank uh the BP Newman family for donating the land. My only question is uh has any rec centers throughout the city been been uh built through a bond referendum? That way if if some of them have then I could tell my constituents uh of district one, well it's our time to subsidize and you know promote this. >> Okay. Uh J Parks and Re in discussion with uh Miss Danny. She has been here longer than I have. I think the the first four, Faras, Margarito, >> uh, Saroa, >> Hillside >> and Hillside, those those did go out on out on the on bond referendum. >> Mhm. >> The council >> and they got approved >> bonds. >> Yes. Yeah. Those those four did. That's And if you notice, if you've been to all of them, they're all cookie cut. They're all kind of the same size of that was passed through this through the same uh through the same design uh for for for the for the for those four. >> They're tiny. was that >> they're small. >> They're small. Yeah. >> And the district. What about >> Elen? Uh to my knowledge and and I was not that was through a capital CIP if I'm not mistaken. >> I let me I want to say capital improvement uh councilman, but don't quote me on that. Let me go back and check on that because we need to go back and check. I I'll find that out here in just a minute. Mr. Gomez, how many parks exist in Larredo >> parks? >> How many parks? >> 122. Uh, mayor, 122 uh parks here here that we that we we have in our in our >> in our park in our in our >> And out of out of those only four went up for bond or more than that? >> Oh, parks. Are you talking about park and rec centers? >> Rec centers. >> Oh, rec centers. We have uh seven rec centers. >> Seven. >> Well, yeah. Six. Six. Seven rec centers. Yes sir. >> And they all went out for bond. >> Only four did. Four. only for the smaller ones we did. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> May. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, so I just kind of want to talk a little bit about this. Um, I understand that we all do have CIP projects that have been unfunded for many years. Like some of us are on our second term and we still have things in our district that are unfunded. I see a few of my items that we haven't funded in four years on here as well. Um, but what I hear from the public right now is that they want us to focus on water. They know that we I don't know if they realize we're not including water because we've already bonded out $300 million. We're working towards bonding out to replace all of our water infrastructure. Um, I hear from public that they want more public safety that they're constantly asking for more presence from police, uh, faster response times from fire. Um, you know, I feel that this bond and public health as well. You know, we're underserved. We're medically underserved. We have a we're uh, you know, have a long a lot of health issues in our community. And also, the Hamilton Hotel has been a long-standing issue that people have have been like wanting us to fix and address. We are, I believe, addressing in the issues in the items that we've already approved. We are correcting a lot of issues that need correcting from that are longstanding. Um we could go out for a parks and wreck bond of you know two $300 million just like we we saw Round Rock does. Uh but we do have to be careful that the public is right now concerned with the high sticker shock of the 500 million. That's the lot of the feedback that I've been getting. I think what we're at right now is something that the public is comfortable with, more comfortable with than what was being proposed initially. Um, my count colleague, Mr. Gara, uh, Councilman Gara com commented that the committees, um, you know, recommended certain things, but I do want to point out that some of these items were not recommended by the committee. If you notice, um, some of them weren't. Uh, so I I just think that at this time parks and wreck can come at a um it's not necessarily it's not that it's a want. I understand that investing in in parks and I I'm I'm a full proponent of that, but we have to prioritize and right now I think our priorities need to be like what the mayor said, health and public safety. And so this I do I would like to modify um Oh, am I emptying right now? There >> I didn't bother you because you [laughter] >> Okay. Okay. Well, I would like to make the motion to modify my motion uh for parks and wreck to include the LED and the surveillance. So, I'm going to I'm going to make that motion. >> I'll second that. >> Yeah. So, that's the motion that's on the floor right now is to >> We had a first one. Go to order. Mayor first uh what's the you know >> my initial motion was to deny everything but I just amended it to actually pass the lighting and the surveillance and deny everything else. That's the motion on the floor. >> Second. >> So we'll call for the question on that. Oh, >> who's next? >> I was just >> Oh, you know, Mayor Pro Tim, I guess. Um, >> yep. I understand you've heard my arguments, everyone. Um Um, my I don't know if it's for my ult, no surprise. My request my my request for an amendment um is to include um you mentioned LED surveillance um and requesting that you consider adding you know an additional $15 million for rec center for district 6. Would you accept the amendment? >> Mayor, I'm not going to accept that amendment. All right. >> Point of information ju just to for clarity I mean you have a motion and then you have a amended motion or a seconded you can also amend that motion and you get a second then you you vote and you go back in line. So you don't have to ask for acceptance just so so you know >> I'll second Dr. King's motion then >> then you all would vote on amendment >> the second amendment and then if that passes then you you vote on the first amendment and that passes then you vote on the original. >> So can I amend this second of the amendment? be >> so I would I would be the fourth. >> Um I wanted to amend it um to include the two trail systems and um and I'm glad to see that the surveillance cameras are going in. But the the reason being because of what Mayor Prom said, you know, this is a health and wellness consideration. So when you think about the rec center, we know so, you know, we can brag about our trail systems and and I think we need to improve them because from fall to spring, people can be outside and that is a healthy activity and we're focusing on health and wellness. So it's a good thing to improve the trails that we have for the public. But we [clears throat] know that from spring to part of fall, it is a little unbearable for some of our population to be outside. And so if district 6 does not have that ability because there is no indoor recreation space, then I think we should include it as part of it's all we all we've talked about is health and wellness and of course security. But um it just makes sense that we would want them to have a place to to be able to exercise and not force them, not that they would be forced to, but be out in the sun that they would have the option like every other district almost to be out there um exercising and and and improving their their health and wellness. >> If I may, let me [clears throat and cough] just call further questions here. >> That would require Dr. King to accept my amendment and then for everybody to vote on that, right? >> So, mayor, we were going to walk you back through this as well, too. So, what what Zone is talking about is that Mayor or Council Member Sigureroa laid out a motion to add the two trail systems. You now would need a second to add those. The the amendments to the motion before. >> Yes. >> Exist though, doesn't it? Yeah. I think I think we can walk it back. >> Um [clears throat] I just want to clarify a few things on, you know, we've talked a lot about equity, equity for the different areas around town. Um one of the concerns that I've been hearing for the past years that I've been on council is that why does everything go to the north? And that's just a thing that I'm pretty sure my colleagues in the south can can can can understand that that or vouch for that they've heard that a lot. And I'm not trying to say, you know, I'm just trying to talk equity-wise. You know, we have two heated pools. One of them is in North Central Park. We have the only ADA compliant playground that was installed in North Central Park. We have the tennis courts at uh um the mer the United School that we rent and pay for and re renovated that are also in the north. Um there are uh I know Dr. Marte when Dr. Marte was on council he renovated one of the pickle ball court or the the the raetball courts at the heated pool that has you know a lot of gym equipment in there. And there's the other room that can also be used either for raetball or for something else. there is an indoor little space there. Um, it's not that we're trying to deny District 6 anything. It's that we're talking about priorities and we're talking about equitable distribution of resources. And that's why I'm in favor of, you know, the items that I motioned for. It's not that I'm trying to say that district 6 doesn't need or doesn't deserve. is that I I mean look at what I'm I these items that are here for my area are on have been on the board for a couple years now and we still don't have them funded and I'm still willing to sacrifice those projects because I don't want those projects and other of these projects to kill the entire bond because at some point people are going to turn it down because of the high amount. So we I think we all have to kind of be realistic about what we can pass so that we don't sacrifice essential projects that have been waiting in the pipeline to have some of these projects that just came up recently jump the line and then kill everything else. >> All right, we need to call for the question. There's several things that >> if I may walk it back uh is there a second to council member Cigarella's third amended motion >> which is the trails. >> Yes. If there's not then that may go back. >> Is there a second? >> Okay. Was there a second on that? >> No. >> No second. So now we go to Dr. King's second amendment >> that which was seconded. So you vote on whether to accept that amendment >> which was has to be >> Dr. King. And there was a second on the motion to add the add the uh rec center >> only. So the first >> and that and that amendment is only for that item. So that's what you're voting on this time. >> Okay. All right. >> And mayor and the first one was to only accept the lighting and the surveillance from parks and >> and we'll go back to that. We'll >> go back on that one. Let's let's vote on this one. >> So the vote that you're going to take is whether or not to add the rec center to the motion. >> Correct. >> All right. >> You have a first you have a motion. You have a second. >> All right. Everybody clear? >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? broke all >> oppos. >> One, two, three, four, five, six. >> So now you have the Now we're back. >> The lighting >> the lighting. >> She has a motion and a second from me. >> Okay, there's a motion. >> The total for that is $17.8 million. Before we vote, mayor, can you give us the total amount we'll be at? I think it's 365831455. just what the impact's going to be from what it was before the 9 cents to what it'll be now with adding this to it. Please. >> And mayor, just to clarify, I had originally made a motion to deny everything just so we could wait until another bond for for these things, but it was requested for these items. So, I amended my motion. >> The 138 plus the $4 million >> LED sport lighting on eight parks and the surveillance those two correct directed. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> So, Mr. W. Sir, which are the eight parks that you considering to light up with the LEDs and change out? >> Uh, okay. So the eight parks that we would that we have have identified are if if passed of course uh if is the three at Benavita softball complex uh community field at uh uh Delmar and Del Marcy one of the most one of the m father magno field uh uh soccer multi-purpose fields because those are one of our ones that we always have the most trouble with. >> Are those aren't okay to wear? >> The soccer the three soccer multi-purpose fields in the very bottom of the father magnol um the I'm trying to work north to south. So those the three the father Magnavable community uh slaughter the the the three fields that slaughter the three multi-purpose fields at slaughter uh those are the the next one and the next one will be the base fields the uh the eight base fields that we have at at uh at the base. >> That's >> the hillside baseball complex. Yes, the Hillside Baseball Complex. >> All right. >> Do we have a cost savings >> uh on the pack on the packet? Let me let me let me have the packet. I can kind of give you a whole >> I'll give you an example. I'm going to give you an example just so that uh mayor council. So one of the one of the one of the represent one of the the requests that you all had asked was to to compare the LED to the metal hallogen that we have after talking to uh various uh uh with with our 86 okay with LED lighting which does a does a proposal. Uh all right here we go. So, I'm I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to read this out or if you don't mind so I can All right. So, I'm going to use the three I'm going to use the example of the three soccer field lights that are father magnol. Those are the ones. We have 90 light bulbs. Okay. 90 light bulbs. Okay. So, metal metal hallogen that we have right now, which is the old school ones. Currently we have total of 90 metal hogen lights that so far run 1,825 hours a year for a total of 246,375 kilowatts that are being used a year. If we go on the average because on the city negotiates with uh with CPNL we might get like a lower rate because we because of the volume that we use. We kind of put it at a 0.5 cent per kilowatt. So we use it the three fields at at father magno we use it $246,375 kilowatts times 0.5 cents. So just on those three fields we pay about $12,318 on electrical bill >> a month. >> No uh a year annually. Annually okay I'm and again I'm using those three fields. So um sir, >> how much money are we receiving back from all the tournaments or >> is there anything >> very minimal what are the fees of those fields? >> Well, the fields is $200. Uh just $200 a day. >> So how many how many times they get rented? Uh Mr. >> for those fields that I'm just I'm just talking about. >> Uh tell me correct am I wrong? I would say maybe they used for soccer tournaments, right? And maybe some flag football tournaments that we actually use them. Uh >> so they're used for flag football for flag football uh tournaments coach. They're also used for league play for soccer as well. >> Right. So >> remember league soccer if they're if they're affiliation. We don't charge them because that's part of the contract. So uh maybe we use it once a month council member Rael that somebody actually pays for it uh for a flag football tournament or or a uh a soccer tournament once a month. Okay. at $200 which we're really discussing now that we currently until we get back. So remember the we pay $12,318 a year just on those three fields. If we were to convert it to LED on the same comparison in comparison LED using the same 1,825 hours a year for a total of 49,275 kilowatts at 5, we would pay 2,463 a year compared to what we pay now of 12,318. [clears throat] >> And I'm just comparing those three fields. I'm just going apples with apples. 10,000. >> All right, just so you can have an idea of the metal hogen that we have with the LED. And if I may add, everybody's converting to LED environmental safely and it's more environmental uh more environmentally, you know, that we're trying to produce less energy and all that. So, it's it's a big sign that we're trying to change out if possible. >> All right, >> mayor. May, >> go ahead. >> Um, okay. Okay. So, you're saying that we'll have a cost savings of if you're >> thinking that that is three fields and you're talking about eight fields. So, maybe please um $30,000 right a year savings cuz you're $10,000 for three fields. >> It's Yeah. So, for those three same fields, we pay $12,318 a year, >> right? >> So, that's 10,000 for three fields. And let's round this up to nine. So, $30,000 a year that we would be saving in electricity costs >> uh for no let me council woman for those three I would probably just easy math about $10,000 a year just for those three fields >> right >> nine fields would be approximately or eight fields would be approximately $30,000 a little less >> yes ma'am >> you're asking for an investment of $13 million >> Mhm. to save $30,000. And it is not that I don't think that $30,000 is not nothing, >> but $13 million to replace these lights. We know that technology tends to create lower prices in the future, >> right? >> As as LED gets to be cheaper. >> And I would imagine the housing. So, you're talking about replacing all the housing for these lights. It's not just the ball. >> That's correct. No, like the old one old school require ballast the the ballast in the back. These LED dings don't require any ballast. You really change that into some kind of chips. Uh and I know Mr. Ro is here. There's a new like you said software. >> I guess my point is when we're talking about cost benefit, >> waiting three years or four years, whatever, whenever the next bond, >> right, >> and not spending $13 million. Yes, it'll cost us $30,000 a year for the next three or four years, >> but either sinking that money into a different project >> or saving it, >> right? >> I just think that the costbenefit analysis really doesn't lend itself to us proposing $13 million to spend on upgrading the light system. Not with that amount of savings, >> right? It's just it it just doesn't make sense when we have so many other needs in our community in my opinion. And I could see I mean if we're willing to do that I could see spending it on the rec center >> or on the trail system. I mean there just other priorities when you're talking about how much money we would actually save. >> Right. All right. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Uh coach, how much do we um spend on replacing the bulbs that we have now? And is there a way to instead of changing the housing, is there a way to as we need to buy bulbs, just replace them with an LED bulb in the existing housing? >> Um, okay. So, we replacing the bulb cost us just a regular bulb because you have to change the balance as well. It's it cost us about close to about $1,000 per light bulb to change it out. All right. About and and we had 90 of them over there. about the years. Last year we played I think we had to fix like about 35 at the same time decided to go >> all so we ended up paying about 35,000 >> just to fix those 35. >> But is there a way to buy LEDs and slowly convert them as the other ones wear out and so we don't have to go with the whole >> full conversion? >> Yes. >> Is Mr. Is that is there a possibility we can use district priority funds to start changing those lights? >> Do we use our district priority funds like every other the year or every year or >> how much does it cost? >> I don't know the district priority but it's brick and mortar. I would imagine >> brick and mortar imagine. So but I'm I'm insane. I'm saying not change the whole fields but maybe one field at a time like you said Benovas. >> Yeah. Yeah. just one one field and then change the other one >> and we'll go on so on so forth. Right. >> That's right. Right. Come up with a plan and and put it in. >> Hey, find me. >> Yes. Go ahead, >> Mr. Gomez. If you know, how long does a typical H hallogen bulb last that cost $1,000 to repair versus an LED? >> Three years. >> Uh a metal hallogen >> a metal hogen light bulb >> lasts three years. Uh an LED light lighting about uh five years. and with the driver the the chip is 100,000 hours. >> What is the replacement cost of an LED light should it go out? >> Uh off the I might be off a little bit, but according to what Mr. Bara said to change it out, it cost about 200 $250 to $300 to change it out and whenever it does >> compared to compared to about $1,000 to change out the office. >> Okay. You said you just mentioned you just replaced 35 of them. 35 out of the 90 yet at Father Magnum. >> This is at one park. $25,000. >> Yes, sir. >> One day. >> Yep. One big hit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other question? >> Just just one, Mr. Um, other than that, everybody in this building was supposed to um, including staff was supposed to direct us to a just in case moment just in case we don't allow this to be on the on the bond election, >> right? >> Do you have an alternate plan of action to support your needs here? Uh, in which way, Council Mard, which >> down the line down the line administratively, I like uh uh Mr. Utter's uh you know idea about going into the forever we're going to have to be put somebody in the police department. So, you might get you guys might go in there, but just down the line is what I'm saying. We have until Friday, if not, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. that we uh are are I I just don't know between now and Friday or now and Thursday what's going to change here >> today is it >> at most you can recess till tomorrow at most. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, I'm saying I'm saying that if uh we just dwindled this down and we just diluted it enough so that we can almost say that we can just get rid of the whole parks Rex and we're gone to this section over here only because I really think that a a certain game plan over the next three or four or five years we can replace or add surveillance and and convert everything to LED. I'm I'm not I'm not completely satisfied that $21 million in and doing this is going to be something that uh um would worth going into parks and rerecks and and getting it done. I think there's uh uh I think there's other options in there, but I think in this short period of time because of these questions that we don't have a direct answer. We can go to bond. We can we can just leave these two in there, but we do have time to say, you know what, we found it elsewhere over the next three or four years. We can remove it. Uh what I'm saying is that can we remove one item later on? >> Uh Mr. Councilman, I mean the be the thing would be to for us to put put it in the budget, right? For us to be adding in the budget that okay, you know what, let's just say father Magnol that's the one that we that gets the most used >> because you know we those things are on for we also use it for security purposes because you know border patrol also helps with with >> No, I'm with you. I'm with you on >> so we can we can we can identify these are the first three that need to go. the next one. These are the ones that are going. I mean, we can we can do that. >> No, but and and so I think everybody can adjust and and and do all those type of things. What I'm trying what I'm trying to get at is that we've diluted it enough already that there's only going to be a small section in there for parks and wrecks >> and it was uh you know, while while it is important, completely important to do, [clears throat] I'm just saying that if if we vote this thing in right now, do we have the ability to scratch it uh later on? because it's 21 million. Uh I don't think it's gonna move the needle. I think it's going to be uh a line item that's going to be checked in automatically. >> Mayor, >> yeah, go ahead. >> I I just just in in mind kind of reading the role. I think that I would like to withdraw my motion and just make the original motion to deny um to put parks and recreck for a future time bond out just for parks and wrecks. to include all of that in a future bond so we can improve our parks and recrecks um and do it right in one shot so the public knows that that's what we're going to be voting on only and just focus like we said on the other items second that's my >> I'll second >> would you accept me my amendment if I add the surveillance >> okay if I may >> yes >> the amendment was withdrawn the second accepted it so that that is withdrawn So now the only thing is the original motion unless you want to do a new amendment. >> Just amendment just to add the surveillance. >> All right, we need to vote >> then then he would need a second. >> He needs a second. >> All right, we have a second. >> I'll second for the surveillance. >> We need that. >> Let's repeat the whole motion. I think everybody's >> ask question about the surveillance. Yeah. >> I just have a quick question about um will the surveillance are is it are you planning the surveillance cameras alongside the um police department surveillance system? >> Uh council mayor council uh council members uh yes ma'am. So we have we have had a task force so to say between parks and recck PD uh it and we've identified we have a we have a plan of action that these are the where we have the most vandalism and most illegal activity. So, we already came up with the first hundred cameras that we put we strategically put in and I and I I I vouched to Tommy because that's his uh he he's handling that project. Uh that we came up with a plan. Is that correct, Tommy? That we came up with a plan that for the next cameras that we get, these are the next areas they're going to go and the next year we get another 100 cameras. This is where the next one going to go because we have met continuously frequently and they're all tied into live streaming I guess and live in real life real life uh uh to where PD can watch that illeg I'd like to accept council member's mo um amendment to just include the surveillance. >> All right. Can we repeat the whole motion? >> Repeat the whole motion >> because it's an amendment and a second you vote whether you're going to >> add the surveillance. >> Yes. All right. >> So now you all vote. >> Motion second. All right. Motion and a second. >> I have one question about the cameras. >> We already have a motion and a second. >> Yes. Could I ask him about the surveillance camera since he brought some up some an item? >> All right. >> Mr. uh Gomez, you said that you have a plan to carry out. So the or why put this $4 million in this plan? Does this cover the exactly the other cameras that are lacking? >> It would cover Yes, ma'am. It would cover the rest of the the next four phases that would that we would would like to implement. >> So you could do it all at once. >> It's well >> have they been well so I guess my question is so if they were budgeted in future budgets is this a cost savings to your budget? >> Um we we Okay. Well, the question is because most of most of the things, not all of them of course are brick and mortar and they lie outside of the regular budget and that's why we want to do it. I understand there's an urgency to get it all because we would like these these parts to be surveiled, right, >> for the safety of of the public, but my I my question is is it something that's going to be a budget savings to you going forward? >> Okay. So, as far as the budget department, the the maintenance and repairs that was mentioned earlier, that comes out of their operating budget. The purchasing of a a the surveillance system like this, which is $4 million, that would probably go into one of our bonds because it would not be able to be absorbed in his operations, $4 million. >> So, previous cameras that we've done, we've done through the uh general obligation, the uh contractual obligation bonds. >> All right. Okay. >> Call for the question. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. >> Motion passes. >> Amendments. >> So now you you vote on the original motion to deny everything but accept the uh >> surround cameras. >> Yes. >> I'll second that motion. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? >> What was this for? Sorry. to deny everything. Oh, >> deny everything except the camera. >> Motion passes. >> Two against favor. >> Everything else was killed. >> Mayor, can we see what our total is for the impact on the project? >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, that was requested. Just to recap >> for the parts and wrecks, which is going to be only the cameras, is $4 million. >> And that brings our total to 352,31,455. The impact would be 9 cents still. >> Mayor, if I may. >> Yes, go ahead. Um, I know we're getting into public works next and I know that we're behind on paving and we've we've seen the presentation and and the plan that was presented was over four four years, but um I think that we could get some improvements now and then reconsider future bonds for the rest. So, um I'd like to make a motion to bond out for $30 million for public works for paving. >> That's my motion. a motion. No second. >> Sure. I'm I'm I'm I'm not clear on the >> You want to repeat your motion? >> My motion is they're requesting 120 million. My motion is to approve 30 million for to bond out 30 million so that they can do some public works paving. Um that's my motion. >> How much would that Well, mayor, there needs to be a second for discussion in discussion. >> Second for discussion. >> Second for discussion. >> All right. Go ahead. >> How much would that end up? >> That would take us to 10 cents. One more cent. >> 10 cent. And it would be a total amount of >> 382 million. [clears throat] Can you go back to the previous >> summary >> or the the impact or the >> Yeah, the impact. There you go. >> Mayor, can I >> Yes. [clears throat] Go ahead. >> Can you show this one versus the one before that if you remove it? >> Yes. So, we're at 350. 352. Yes. Oh, in a separate code. >> 14 to 16. [clears throat] >> Mayor, if I may. >> Yes. Go ahead. Um, the reason why I I'm motioning that is because the presentation showed a lot of streets that were in, you know, disrepair to the point that they need to be completely resurfaced and restructured. And I just don't think public works has enough in their budget, annual budget to do something like that. Um, we could we could not do it and keep it with keep it without it, but um, the public does ask us to recondition our streets and they would see an immediate impact on that. Um, but I I'm just throwing it out there if my colleagues want to amend it or change it. >> I'd like [clears throat] to I'd like to see uh I'm sorry. Excuse me. >> Go ahead. >> I'd like to see if we can I know we're reconsidering it. Um, >> but I I still don't know how we get to the 30 $30 million mark. I know that we we all have a packet here. >> Mine shows uh incredible amount of streets that are in poor condition. Um, and are we saying that they have they do have most of that covered? >> Is that Are we saying that we have most of that covered in their regular budget, annual budget, >> the Richmond which cousin? >> I'm talking about the street paving. >> Mr. Graa, if I may, council, if I may. Yes, go ahead. >> Uh, my motion, uh, council member Garza was based on the presentation from public works in the workshop. They showed, uh, 30 million a year for the next four years. So it was a 120 over >> if they have that presentation if you can. >> Okay, good. I I wasn't privy to that. So >> we I wasn't privy to that. So we >> we have it in one of our slides here. not the presentation but the amount it was 30 30 million per year for the next four years which was a total amount of 120 million that councilman Vanessa was uh >> so what we're saying we're saying that we want we want to we want to bond out for one year so that uh and and and figuring on how we do the third uh second third and fourth after that year >> we would only have monies for 30 million to to start the payment program Okay. >> All right. >> Go ahead. >> I'm just going asking one order of What's >> Where are we at right now? >> The motion and a second for discussion. Correct. >> A second. >> Yes, ma'am. For discussion only. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um, thank you, mayor, since you're the mayor. >> [clears throat] >> But um um yeah, so we talked about utilities and um and what's what are the what are people constantly asking about? Generally, it's you know, fix the water issue and pave the streets, right? Um so that's, you know, top two issues. So for me, um I think this is something people are are willing to invest in. Um, and the 30 million would be great. Um, I know it was recommended 30 million over four years. Um, even that won't won't pave all the streets that need to be paved, right? That's that's just a starting point. Um, and you know, again, this is for street reconstruction, not for resurfacing that, you know, our public work team currently do. This would be for completely reconstructing streets that haven't been reconstructed in over 30 years. So the you know to to to the can getting kicked down the road conversation. Um I mean and you know the cost of paving is only going to be going up, right? So I I mean I'm personally for um you know the full amount that was requested for but um by by public works and um engineering. >> Mayor, just a clarification on that. The initial amount of 120,000 was broken up into two amounts. Preservation of 36 million and rehabilitation of uh 84 million which was 120. So it's a combination and uh our city engineer can explain a little bit more but we want to go ahead and start repaving some of the streets or reconstruction but also we want to maintain some of the streets that still have a useful life so that we delay the process of reconstruction on those. So there is a a portion of that 120 is a 36 million for preservation and the rehabilitation of 84 million. So if we were to do 30 million, we would break down that into the preservation amount and the rehabilitation amount as well. >> Question. >> So what's reconstruction? It falls under preservation or rehabilitation. >> The reconstruction. >> Yes, >> I can I can can you hear me? I can answer that. Uh honorable mayor, members of city council, Roman Chavez, assistant city manager. Uh so uh basically 70% of that is recommended to go into reconstruction or rehabilitation and 30% of the amount to go into the preservation to uh maintain our streets. >> Go ahead. >> I just want to request can you put a third column that shows uh us approving the entire requested amount of 120 million just for comparison purposes? >> [clears throat] >> a little bit over last one last one. >> That includes 120 million. That would take us to 472 million 31,455. And what would that look like? >> The impact analysis that would require 12 cents to get to the $472. >> And it would have an impact of uh a a yearly cost estimated cost of $236 with a monthly amount estimated at the 200 average home of $19. >> Can you put that in the third column, please? And and keep the original column the way it was with the at before, please. >> Just so we can see the what we're >> Yeah. the copy paste numbers, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. I I have a question. How much [clears throat] money would would be able to to to bond for for paving and keep it at 10 cents? Just one second. Was a 30 minute 30 minute. >> 30 million would keep us in 10 cents. 30 million. Oops. with the 30 million. I believe it kept it was right at 10 cents. >> Yeah, >> but I'm sure we can still fun. >> It's not the max. >> Okay. >> Try 40 or 48. >> No, way up higher. >> Huh? >> 42. 42. >> 42. Yeah. >> I'm sorry. 32. >> That's That's at 35. >> Still at 10 cents. >> Okay. That 35 is still at 10. So, it's probably 40 42 or 48. >> 48. >> I try 40. >> 10 seconds. >> Yeah. Try 48. [laughter] >> Do I hear 60? >> Good. >> 52. No, >> that's a 10. >> You might check your formula again. [laughter] >> We copied. We copied one of the columns. >> 150. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Oh, it changes. All right. >> The thing is we have like eight or nine decimals. So, I need to open all the decimals and you'll see them changing. >> So, >> so then uh try 70. >> Can you try 70? >> We're at 80. At 80, we're at 10 cents. >> Oh, at 805. >> 75. >> At 80. No, it's 70. [clears throat] >> 32 missing a zero there, pal. [laughter] Yeah. Uh if you can accept the amendment to uh put 70. >> Okay. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Amendments. >> Second. >> So the mot the motion is to motion 70 for $70 million on saving. >> Okay. >> Right. Is is it is is it 70 for the 10 cents because >> 11 cents? >> We're at 11 cents still. >> No, we we said get it down to 10. >> What's the maximum? We wanted the maximum >> 65 million. Mayor 10. >> All right. >> All right. So, we amend. >> There is. Do you have a motion as amended? >> Any second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? Motion pass. >> One opposed. >> Mr. Sper, can you do us a recap of everything? >> Yes. The starting on public safety fire, we have uh council approved [cough] motions of [clears throat] 85,353 550,000. For police, we have 181,796,95. For health, we have the 70,881,000. The health and wellness community development Hington project, 100 10 million. The uh public works paving program, 65 million, and the parks and recreation 4 million for a total of $41731,455. I do want to add here I do have a column on the right that has to when we finance we find finance in increments of 5,000. So that number would be 417 million with $40,000. So we're running up to the nearest 5,000 increment. >> Let's just make sure those 23,000 don't need to jump us to the the 11 cent. >> Okay. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Question. um for the proposition. So, I guess that's the next, you know, um B or decision. Um like would would fire and police be put together as a public safety proposition or um would they be separate? >> Yeah, mayor, that would be the next part of the conversation is our ordinance to place out there. We right now we have six propositions. Um, we you have the draft document in there and I believe we have I believe we have laid out exactly how that that spreadsheet is, right? Police fire >> correct, health, community development, streets, and so >> correct. Council Rick and I uh for the record, you all have a draft in front of you. Um, the proposed propositions are laid out in a certain order. You have discretion in which order you want to put them in. Um but right now they are listed as uh fire and police separately. >> All right. So So if you look at this this uh spreadsheet Oh, go back to that spreadsheet please. >> Yeah, the one before. So the uh the six categories on the side are essentially the propositions that are on this draft ordinance. fire police health community development, public works, and parks and recreation. I don't know if those terms are used exactly, but that's that's how that's broken down. >> Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. >> Um, I know that the request was like looking at it from, you know, the the penny impact, but uh we're still over the $400,000 mark. And I think um if I can go back to the the yellow the other the other one that you had the impact. Uhhuh. Um this how much did it change the annual and the monthly fee when we went from the initial 30 million for paving to where we're at right now. >> [clears throat] >> I I think it's helpful to see the different columns and options because right now we're just seeing one. >> We've been talking about different options >> and amounts. Just use this one. Put this one. This one. She wants to use >> she wants to see the report before. [clears throat] >> Mayor, can we do like a 5 minute 10-minute recess so they can give us the different column? >> Let me add another column. We need to some of the columns are protected. So I need to go and unprotect some of the columns to create another column. >> Yeah, cuz originally mayor I was I was thinking more like 3 350 to bond out more or less. We're at 44 417 and I understand that the scent impact is the same but I want to see the difference if it's you know a dollar maybe $2. >> Would you need a fivem minute recess for this? Yes, sir. >> Okay, let's do a fivem minute recess. back in session. [clears throat] >> I got to go. 35. >> And this 65. >> All right. Did you get all the numbers? >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, >> honorable Mayor. Uh, Jesus with the budget department. So, the one the one column G here has the 30 30 million of of payment. That's total is 382,40. The 417 is at the 65 million that we talked about for paving. So what I did is I expanded the decimals on the cents. So you can see that it's 9.09551 at the 30 million uh for the payment projects and at the 65 it's 10426. So the impacts there are the difference is$,750 on the annual and then $146 on the monthly difference between the 382 million and the 417 million >> just yeah >> keep in mind that this I do motion for 382 >> 40. Go ahead. >> Second. >> All right. Motion second. >> Go ahead. >> Can [clears throat] you can you show that again? >> Yes. The analysis of the total for the >> So, we [cough and clears throat] were talking about uh public works and I think it was Dr. King or or council member GarcA that spoke about the what what the public looks for and what they ask for. And it's anything is true. I I believe in all our districts they do ask for streets to be paid. This is 65 million does not represent the entire amount that um public works is asking for. It's half that. And um so I feel that it is already a compromise. And when we're looking at the impact, it's negligible. A bond uh a bond election is supposed to give a dramatic impact of what will be improved, what can be improved over the the short amount of time span that we have. And if public works has a plan to spend out that 65 million, I just feel like that will show the public that we can bond out money and spend it in ways that make a a tremendous difference to the quality of the streets that they drive every single day. for the increase in amount um from60313 to 61188. It's negligible impact to what they see every every month and also over the year. I think we get a bigger bang for our buck if we go ahead and and choose the 10 cent increase versus the 9.5 cent increase. I'm not sure if there was a second. Sorry. >> There's a second. >> Go ahead. And my sense is that, you know, there the council is is is focused on trying to get this number, the top number below 400 million. But at the end of the day, if it's 382, the media, the public, they're going to round up and say it's 400. I mean, um, so I I that's and that's just an impression I'm having. Like I I think we also like have to make the decision based on like what the actual need is. And I mean it's and it seems like we're liking even numbers and things like that. The 10 cents is there, you know, if we want to um stick to that. But I mean I don't I you know this is a ch like I don't know when we're going to do this again, guys. Are we going to do this again in three years, five years? 33 another 33 years. Um, so, you know, to to Council Member Garza's point, you know, you don't want to see the progress of the roads being uh reconstructed and then say, "Darn it, I wish we would have went for 65 million back back on uh February 11th, 2025 when we had the chance." It's not like we're going to do this every year. So, I'm just kind of echoing Council Member Garza's point on that. um that and we already cut it down from 120 to 65 to get to the 10 cent number. So I would be in favor of >> All right. Okay. Go ahead, councilman. >> Yeah, I th those are my sentiments as as far as I'm concerned. We we got rid of all parks and wreck, you know, pretty much. So, um [clears throat] I think the good use of our money will be would be in the latter on the 417 uh only because I I think that over a long period of time uh this is what a bond does. This we're going out for a long-term uh for a long-term solution. We're financing a a long-term solution here. And I think if I'm not mistaken, a question for you gentlemen is, are we prepared to finance this ourselves? And probably the answer is no. [snorts] uh over the next 30 years and we are we're able to finance it ourselves. The answer is no. That's why we're doing this, right? So that's why we're going to the public and saying we need this money so we can accomplish our goal and set us up for the next 30 years uh when we do this. Um so you know I I think we uh for for the for the latter's sake to to to short uh to short out a you know paving and and rehabilitation I think is not u uh is not a good idea in my mind but what well doesn't it doesn't mean that this does not mean going from 47 to 382 that only uh the paving or rehabilitation is affected. Right? We're not saying that with this with everybody across the board. We're looking at a total amount of 382 million. We're so to get that everybody's going to take a hit on everything that we went through or just paving. >> The the way the numbers are are presented right now, it's only paving. Paving is either 30 or 65. And those are the numbers, the comparison. >> 30. Okay. >> 30 or 65. The 417 we can do 65 in paving. >> So we could do two years. In my mind, I thought one year was not enough. I think two years of paving was going to be appropriate. All right. Any other questions? >> My question is do you want to motion 382 or do you want to um amend it to the >> 417? All right. Motion second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. [clears throat] One post. Motion passes. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. Yes. >> I think it's important that um the public understands that this would be a public health and safety request and um for them to understand like what the projects are and what they're going to see for their investment and to help us, you know, grow the community. So, um, I'd like to request that PIO start putting together some packages of the projects with some proposals so that the public can start to see this as well. And, um, I think we should have this as one item on the ballot. I don't know what my colleagues believe or think, but um, when are we going to look at the language that's proposed? Tonight. >> Right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. mayor and city council. The next part of the exercise is to uh correct the ordinance. I I stand I I believe that we're optimistic we're going to be done tonight. So, but the ordinance is the next piece. Uh right now the ordinance is drafted with six propositions on it uh broken down in that area. And I think what mayor proim is talking about is is putting them all together into one. >> Right. And so we'll uh I'll leave it to bond counsel and our legal team to actually walk you through that because if we change the questions, we just need to make sure we're very specific about what we're putting into that. Whether we go with six, whether we go with one, whether we go with 12, that that's the next part of this exercise. >> Ricky, this for the record. Go >> ahead. >> Um to answer your question, we can't put all the proposition in one proposition. Um the statute is very clear that each requested bond needs to be needs to be for a stated purpose. And so that's why as stated in the draft that's in front of you, the bond is um associated with a department and for specific projects. So we can't put them all like that. And this is like again because whenever whatever we pass it needs to pass the AG's muster, right? And so the AG is going to look at that and he's going to determine whether it passes statutory requirements or not. if we were to put them all in one, it would not. So, um, on the line we have Rose from McCall Parkhurst also as well. And if she wants to chime in, um, she is the election guru and I mean I I would defer to her. Um, but, uh, just in case she wants to give her two cents on this as well. >> Mayor, I have a question before. >> Yes, go ahead. >> So, my question to you is, can we put public safety together if we should need to, health and wellness together, of course, infrastructure, and then go to parks. Is that a able? Is that uh something we can do? >> So where are you looking at the >> Go ahead. >> If I may, Rick, if this is Rose Keski from McCall Parker Horton. I am an elections attorney with my law firm. I am not co-bond counsel as much as my firm is co-bond counsel with Mr. Benovitz and his firm. Um Jay could not be with you today. He asked me if I could please as the head of our elections department join you this evening to answer any of these questions. We can easily combine police and fire because public safety first responders can be combined. I do urge uh some caution in doing so because the amount of the proposition is much higher than we have traditionally seen across the state. The difficulty with combining some of the other categories is that the nomenclature that you have been using is not the same as the attorney general's approach to these types of projects. So public health and wellness for that office actually breaks down into traditional public health that I know the mayor's interested in and that is different from parks and wreck that type of wellness and it's traditional to isolate out street [clears throat] improvements. They are something very different. We cannot lump all infrastructure projects together. >> Mayor, can I ask a question? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> A question real quick. Uh the the $4 million for the cameras at the parks, can that go under public safety or does that have to go under parks? >> If we categorize that as an item related to public safety, we can include it there. I just urge caution that we characterize those projects as public safety and not as oh improved park lighting because that type of description would would cause the attorney general's office to ask us if we have properly categorized your projects. The downside when we don't properly categorize is that the attorney general will not allow you to spend bond proceeds even if the voters have approved those projects. So for us, we're we're very aware of how important these needs are in your community and we want to ensure that the voters's decision is protected at the end of this process. Thank you, >> mayor, if I may. >> Yes, go ahead. >> The police department has a real-time crime center that encompasses the camera systems. So, it would fit in nicely under public safety utilizing that because that's the goal to be able to monitor uh the cameras for the public safety within the park system. >> Um, mayor. >> Yes. Go ahead. If I may ask Rose on the line, um, how quickly would the attorney general come back with a decision on that or do does the attorney general wait until after the voters's vote or is there >> Yeah. So, Dr. The problem with dealing with the attorney general is that we really won't know what that offic's position is going to be until the end of the election process. So after the May election, when we put together the financial instruments and the election documents to present to the attorney general, it's only then that we will have a clue as to what that office is thinking. We base our advice today on our historical relationships, what has worked for us in the past. >> Right, Chief? Go ahead, Chief. Mayor, good evening, Mayor Council. Uh we can absorb the uh the camera projects for the for the parks under the puppy safety. Uh we'll we'll make make sure that we'll provide the infrastructure and get together with parks and make sure that we deploy those cameras where they've identified that they're needed. Uh we've we've identified some of those parks as well. So, we'll be we'll be able to to absorb that. >> Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to accept that the $4 million to be moved from parks and recreation to be moved into public safety far as a police department. >> All right. Motion, second. All in favor? >> Opposed? Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> I'd also like to make a motion, mayor, if you'd allow me to to combine both police and fire as a public safety one. One one vote both together. Public safety necessary. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Question. Um, I I apologize, but could you remind me of um the the last name of of our >> assist >> Kazinski? >> Kazinski. M Miss Kazinski, can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am, I can. >> Um, you said that generally speaking, you don't see the combination of police and fire when proposing a bond issue. Can can you explain why that has not been your experience or did I misunderstand? >> No, I actually do see public safety as combining >> okay >> both police and fire and in some cities that would also include things like animal control services. >> Okay. Did did you suggest that perhaps the amount would be offputting for the voter? >> I'm I don't know your voters as well as you do. I only know what historically my office has been monitoring across the state and it is very large amount. [snorts] >> Mayor, go ahead. >> Thank you. to to elaborate. [clears throat] You're not talking about the total amount. That's a very large amount. What what specific parts are you referring to as being a very large amount? >> No, I am referring to the total amount and they may be in your community extremely justified. I am not familiar with all the items on the project list and I I know these departments would [clears throat] not have requested the funding if that if these items were not needed. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Mayor, that's my motion. >> All right. We have a motion. We have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. One opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. >> There's two oppos. Sorry, I didn't see it. Two oppos. >> Thank you. All right. >> To Yes. >> Yes, we said that. Mayor, I'd like a motion uh like the motion to >> separate as well health and wellness the health department for $70 million. >> Separate that as well from everything else. >> All right. Motion >> second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> What was that already separated? ask >> what was put together was public safety as far as fire and police is concerned to separate and have it on as a separate bond referendum is going to be the health uh health and wellness facility >> the new facility at that >> it already is separate >> okay but do we need to categorize them every single one or we don't need to now >> okay perfect my motion >> all right as noted >> I'm sorry you can you break it down as to what we have up to now >> yeah I'm I'm also kind of lost so >> can we bring the can we bring the spreadsheet back So what we've done is we've taken parks and we've added that to police. Then we've added police and fire together. So those three now make up one. >> And so now we have uh >> health >> and we have health >> community development >> uh community development and uh public works is separate. So there's four questions now. >> Uh I'm sorry. Do do we still have um uh this person on still on the phone? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm sorry, Rose. Yes, this is Councilman GarcA. Does that have any implication or or breaking it down? Well, let me put it clear. Um, does the public like to have a individual? We have six of them right now. Would the public prefer three or six? So it's a balance between what the public will prefer in terms of choices, what the attorney general will approve in terms of what is a central purpose. And then finally, we also need to consider the practical impact on voters who may just get tired of a long list of ballot items. So, typically we will place the most important item first. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? >> So, Mr. Fa, can you can you just um separate them for us to see what we have? The four individual ones and then we can just vote on that and then go from there. >> The the combination what what I have in green right now. So, we're talking of combining the 85, the 181 and the 4 million would be a total of 271,150,455. Then we have health by itself 70,881. We have community uh community development the Hamilton 10 million you understand by itself and then the 65 million for the paving by itself. >> Motion to accept >> I'll second that >> motion second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. One post. >> One opposed. >> One opposed. >> Mayor if I can ask though bond council are we good with that language? >> Are we >> We are >> all right. able to make the adjustments and everything. Awesome. >> Yes. I do have one question though because those appeared in a different order in which the draft ordinance was drafted. >> Okay. >> And I want to make sure the council is comfortable with the order. This is something totally up to their discretion. There's no hard and fast rule other than it is typical to put the most important item first and then decrease in importance. I know that's a hard ranking decision to make when you have these needs. But I currently have public safety first, healthc care second, what I'm calling the affordable housing component next, and finally street maintenance last. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Just I would just motion that we put streets as second. Um because I think that in in the public's mind that's >> right up there for help. >> For help. Okay that's [laughter] not I'm not making um um a a judgment over streets being more important than public health. The point was being to the people thinking about what what they're voting for. I think when they think of tax dollars going somewhere, I think they think of streets more directly. But I'll be put >> I'll resend my motion. In that case, you can make a a new list possibly. >> Well, just public safety, >> health, >> uh, >> streets, >> streets, >> and community health. >> Mayor, I'll second that motion. >> Motion second. Go ahead. So, um, Council Member Gonzades, my fear is that if we don't show more, um, priority to our affordable housing component because it is such a low smaller item compared, not that it's a small amount of money, but compared to the rest of the list that it will be an easy thing for people to say, not that, I'm done. I think if we give it a little bit more importance, I think by the time they get to the last item, they understand the importance of infrastructure and paving and I it's a psychological thing and it is my opinion, but I I think that the Hamilton has a better chance of being funded and I do believe it is so important to seniors and our affordable housing crunch because what we will see if it doesn't pass is more and more units that are not able to be used by our senior population there and right now the list waiting list is so long to get into other affordable housing projects that essentially we will be having to turn people out onto the street. So I just feel that to give the Hamilton the best chance of getting funded, we [clears throat] do need to include it in the mix. I I I I fear that if we drop it to the last item, it's going to be an easy item for people to say no, not that one. just a psychological shopping thing. Probably shop too much. But that's my opinion. Thank you. >> You know, well, so the the main point right now, the main point that we're trying to do this referendum to do, what's prioritized? What's priority? I'm sorry. What's priority? So, public safety is the main priority. And it's being I know we compare ourselves. They we they compare us to San Antonio, Dallas, you know, um Houston, you know, we're trying to, you know, see what they did. But the difference is public safety for us, it's very crucial, especially because we are border town. We don't see the same impact of I don't want to say uh problems they have compared to us. we have different kind of problems and I think you know public safety should be you know that's the reason that we should go with public safety first and then we we should go with with uh I guess I'm saying paving because without good infrastructure then our roadways we're on remember you got to remember that we're in the the biggest in import and export of the United States so We're always going to have our roads in and and not in very well condition. So right now as it is right now we have I think we have the best roads compared to other cities. I've seen we've been you know traveling around and we do have good roads and you know putting them in in third and in and third and sec and second I think that's going to help us a lot uh in our infrastructure. So for me it's I'll keep it in second. I appreciate my audience comments. Uh hopefully my uh motion's on the table and if it fails then I can consider theirs. >> All right. >> You want to repeat your motion? >> Yeah. It' be first public safety, second health, uh third paving and fourth the uh >> Hamilton. >> Hamilton. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion second. All in favor? >> Opposed? Motion one opposed. Motion pass. passes. Mayor, if I may, um I was just advised that the 271 1504 455 need that's the one we need to round for the financing part of it. So that new number is two 271,160,000 even. So we would need a motion to amend the amount from the two 200. >> So moved >> motion second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Mayor, you have one last item and that's on the consent agenda and that is the city secretary. >> So, just a quick question. Do >> do you want to do we need a vote on the ordinance number number two? >> They already voted. >> Okay. Mayor. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> So, I just want to do I want to see if make a directive to city management and and PIO, but more to city management. see if we can do some town town hall meetings to explain, you know, bring in uh safety, public safety. I know uh public safety has great PIOS. They'll bring go out there and explain why we need this uh all these uh you know, these funds to to support them. And I think Mr. uh Chief Herd and Chief Al Rodriguez will do an awesome job, you know, explain the community especially and also having a uh public works out there saying and uh health department, you know, out there and saying why we need all this to committee and start to look we're starting to look for for venues where we can do this and so we can do it in English and in Spanish. Yes sir. >> So, yes, go ahead. I think we also and I think Z mentioned this. We need legal advice on what we're allowed to do and say >> um us up here but also city like I understand we're not allowed to or the city is not allowed to >> act you know go out there and say vote yes for this type of thing. So just so we don't break any laws can you can you give us some legal guidance >> if I if I may. Thank you for that. Uh I I wanted a chance to to speak with all of you here. So uh we cannot electioneer right which means we can't use public funds to advocate for against tell people how to vote. We absolutely can state facts and provide information only efforts like the town halls and so forth but uh we cannot use city resources public resources to uh advocate. However, uh for one example is like if if you all write letters to the to uh the editor for the Larry Morning Times, that is not considered political activity. Uh if you all in your own individual capacities put a disclaimer, this is your personal opinion that you should pass this should not pass that and and it's your personal opinion, not as a a city council member or the mayor, then that is not political activity. So that that's the line is we cannot advocate we cannot election but you can provide information or as an individual citizen you can speak your mind >> mayor may >> go ahead >> and that would include social media >> Mr. Win. >> Yes ma'am. I would advocate that uh you uh uh speak your mind in your individual capacity. If you want to do something with the city then allow the PIO and city management to uh channel. But on our in I'm sorry. On our individual social media sites, it's okay. We just say we're individually advocating on our own behalf. >> Yes, ma'am. >> As citizens. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> What if you're against it on social media? >> Sorry. >> What [clears throat] if you're against it on social media? >> You can be against it. You can be >> in your official capacity or in your personal >> personal capacity. >> So, what if you go on your campaign page and tell people you're against it? If it's your campaign page, that that's your personal page, but you can't do it in on your city council member page or or through the city. >> A city like city council member of, you know, if you go and put that, then you're not supposed to do that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Only this only the council people can say the personal opinion, not the position of the city. In other words, >> yes. >> And who can say the position of the city? >> The mayor. Well, you all can can uh pass or coordinate what your position is for the city, but actually your your position of the city should be information only uh facts based. >> Is this the mayor's position to give the position of the city? >> Honestly, mayor, uh because it's going to the to the voters, you as the mayor or the city cannot say we want you to vote yes, we want you to vote no. That you're only providing information. And as far as if I may just take one step further as far as the uh employees like we should not say for or against during work hours but if Mr. Neb wants to to uh speak his mind privately he absolutely can as a citizen not as city manager. >> So I have a question. >> So we can go out there and say we're in favor of this >> as a citizen. as as a regular regular citizen. >> As a regular citizen, yes, but >> please make sure the line is very clear that it's as Indian citizen, not as district council member for district 2. >> If I may chime in, if I may. >> So that means facts. That's what we're doing. mayor and city council. What the city will be doing is putting together fact sheets to cover exactly what all will be specific to each one of those things as to what what the impact is, what the cost is, what it's going to do. We'll stay with the facts >> just just for for our information and for everybody up here. Um I'm >> we're not we congregate to speak about um putting all this together in a format we can all understand so that we can go out to the public we have a workshop or something together so that we can just break it down as to how we're going to do this and how not that I don't think that falls under the line of of campaigning but it's just that we do need to get together with everybody here and so we can be speaking the same language and it's going to be very important to do that. Uh, plus giving us all the rules and and and guidelines to not not uh blur the line of what's right and what's right wrong, you know. So, I just want to make sure we're all protected when we do this. I just want to make sure that everybody that's in tune that wants to get this done the right and we do it the right way efficiently because it's going to be very very important that we all speak the same language. Right. >> As far as your social media page from the city as as council members and the mayor, that should be neutral, fact only, information only, right? and coordinate through >> one one more question in regards to >> I said go ahead we may uh my council uh is advising and city secretary is advising that we go ahead and vote on item two and then we can also vote on the consent agenda. Okay, before we go there, one more question. In regards to policy, uh to differentiate from from advocating for a candidate regards to city policy, can council people state the policy of the city or just the mayor? >> In general, we're on this mayor. >> No, not not related to campaigns and policy. >> As a spokesperson, >> as a spokesperson, the the mayor uh is a figurehead for the city. uh the council members uh may echo uh the position of the of the city, but an individual council member cannot on his or her own accord uh dictate what the the city policy is. >> So, okay, >> mayor, question. >> Mayor, real quick, so if we do go on our social media and say like we're in favor or we're against it and we don't clarify that we're not speaking as the politician, what is the ramification for that? Is that an ethics violation? >> Ethics violation. I think it's a class A misdemeanor, one year in jail. >> Really? >> Yeah. [laughter] >> And I may be conflicted out representing. >> Yeah. Rick, can I read this? Um, just really quickly, um, the [clears throat] whole, uh, electioneering issue is very complicated. And so, I would just take caution whenever you're making post or considering making post that you >> pass it to your city attorney and say, "Hey, is this okay?" because um I've seen a lot of decisions where politicians post something that is I mean that they feel I mean that even me feels like isn't really advocating for uh the passage of a proposition but the ethics commission does find that it is indeed a violation of it whether it be because they're using city resources to to make the post um they did it while they're online at the at the city little things like that. So just be very very careful because [clears throat] remember the violation occurs when you're using resources to promote uh the or the passage of the election or if you yourself are advocating for or against >> yes go is it possible or is it allowable that we let's say PIO uh writes down something can we share that >> yes >> because that that would be >> information only fact based and and that could be disseminated yes I I have a I have a Q&A that I'm going to pass around to you all. Just so you all can have it's a quick little summary um front and back to save some trees, but if you have any follow-up questions, go ahead and and pass them on to the city attorney and reach out to me or or the con uh uh co-bond council if you have any questions because you need to be very careful with this. >> All right, go ahead. >> I know we discussed that us as council when we can ask what we can. What about for example uh health employees when they're off the clock or a police officer when he's off the clock? >> Can you explain that? >> Yes. The the the line would be if they're on the clock, they should not do it. If they're off the clock, they may. If they're doing through their union, the union may because that that's separate from the city. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> But but if they're on the clock, it's cuz they're you're using >> No, I get that. Yeah. Just want to make sure uh when they're off. >> Thank you. and not uniform. >> Mayor, if I may. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Like a motion to approve the first and final reading of an ordinance calling a bond election to be held in the city of Laredo, Texas, making provisions for the conduct of the election and resolving any other matter incident u the matter related to the to that election as discussed and presented. Second >> motion second. All in favor? I >> I >> post motion carries. >> One post. Motion pass. >> May I ask a question? >> Go ahead. >> Um to legal. So everything that was just said, it goes into effect now. >> Uh yes. >> Mayor May. >> Yes. >> So I have a question. So if we're sitting here like in a meeting and we're posting on our social media, that's different from posting outside of the social of of of of a council meeting. like if we're pushing for something or pushing against something while we're in a council meeting that's different or >> so that's where the issue arises because I know you're you're kind of trying to make the distinction between being a private citizen and being a council member. I mean yes in theory that that distinction exists but in reality not really. You know I think when you're out there speaking with the public are you really speaking as a public person or a council member? So that's why we always just say take caution when when you're advocating for something because things can be easily mis misinterpreted. Um so yeah I mean yeah go ahead Rose. >> So if I may my background is in litigation and these are areas where I defend our firm's clients all the time. For me the distinction is really are you using >> the city's resources? Are you sitting there in a council member a council meeting typing on your social media instead of paying attention to what's going on around you? Maybe not using city resources, but it's still not going to reflect well on you. It would be better to wait until you're outside city council chambers and no longer raising the spectre the spectre of the appearance of impropriety of using public resources. It's not as much a factor for your job as a council person as much as using those public resources. >> Thank you. Um Miss Mayor. >> All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, so Rose um so a lot was just discussed about social media. It sounds like you don't think using your social media page falls into public resources. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> No, as long as they are your campaign page and not an official city page that's advocating for an outcome. That's a problem here in Laredo is that we don't there's no distinction. Our I think like everybody up here has maybe their personal page like a like as a human just a regular person and everyone [clears throat] has a political page campaign page hybrid. There's no no one has official city individual council member pages. I [clears throat] would say most of everybody up here has campaign Facebook pages. Um, so how can those be used? >> They be they can be used to promote an outcome. >> So >> as long as you're not using city resources when you do that. So is your Facebook account on a city paid phone? Um, were you in the building making photo copies? Those types of things. Time and money. Anything that can be translated into time and money is a public resource. >> If if I may, uh, >> I'm playing it out, right? So, how it would play out is someone's going to challenge you. Hey, you're electioneer and you're using city resources, you're using your position. If you can defend it and and one way you can defend it by saying, I disclaimed it. This is my personal opinion. This is not me as council member. That is a good defense for you. That that's what I believe all of us are saying. thing here. >> Okay. >> Would that apply even if it's within city premises? >> Like Rose is saying it >> could be colored in that is improper. But again, if you can distinguish it, I'm >> I'm here, but I'm I'm using my personal page. I'm I'm not using city resources. I'm going to break. Those are all defenses that will show I'm doing this in my private capacity. I'm advocating or or trying to reject something, not trying to electioneer on behalf of the city using city resources and time. >> The city facilities are always a fine line. If you're standing in front of city hall, any member of the public can do that. When you are in your private chambers where the public is not allowed to go, that's a public resource. It's not a place the public normally can access. >> All right. >> I'm I'm around. [clears throat] >> Any questions? >> There is there is a fine line like you said. What about uh the uh reception area of a city hall? >> Again, that that's what Rose is saying. You know, it's the front foyer uh front of uh city hall. The public can congregate. But, you know, we've seen that blur. If you wear a campaign t-shirt up and down the stairs, maybe it can be blurred, but you know, if you can keep it as distinguished as possible, that would help you. That's all we're saying. All right. >> Fine line. >> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But we're here. >> Outside of the envelope of the building. [laughter] >> Any other questions? >> One more item, I believe. >> One more item, Mayor. >> One more. One more item, Mayor. >> Okay, Mr. Go ahead. I use your >> under city secretary uh u uh consent agenda consideration and authorization uh author authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract in the estimated amount of 140,000 105.37 with the webcounting election admin uh strader for the purpose of uh conducting the bond referendum election on May uh 3rd 2025 including the early voting April April 22nd, 2025 through April 29, 2025. >> Motion. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> Second. >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. One opposed. Motion passes. >> Mayor motion to adjurnn. Motion second. All in favor? I motion passes. The meeting adjourns.