Okay. Calling the meeting to order. City of Laredo special council meeting Houston treat Thursday 11 April the 16 2026 12 p.m. All stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Texas pledge honor flag Ice Texas one state under God one and indivisible. >> Moment of silence please. Thank you. May be seated. >> All right, Mr. Secretary. Roll call, please. Yes, mayor. >> Honorable mayor Dr. Victor D. Trevinho >> present. >> Honorable mayor Potam and council member district 1, Gilbert Gonzalez. >> Honorable council member district 2, Ricardo Richie Vanel Jr., honorable council member district three, Melissa Cigaroa, >> present. >> Honorable council member district 4, Ricardo Rick Gara. I'm here. >> Honorable council member district 5 Ruben Gutierrez Jr. >> present. >> Honorable council member district 6 Dr. Tyler King >> present. >> Honorable council member district 7 Vanessa Perez. >> Honorable council member district 8. >> Present. >> Mayor you have a quorum. >> Thank you. We'll proceed with communications. Number one, mayor's presentation. Good afternoon and thank you everyone for being here today. To those watching at home, thank you for your continued interest in the local government and our special called meeting. Before we begin, I'd like to share a few announcements. As mentioned, we're launching the mayoral neighborhood challenge along with our walks with the mayor initiative. These efforts are designed to promote health, wellness, and community engagement across the city. You can find more information at the city of Laredo and Laredo Health Facebook pages. We had great attendance on our last walk at Mallorte and I encourage everyone to join us next week at the Chakon Bat Park located at 11:04 South Meadow on April the 21st from 900 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. There will also be a bridge uh the distance 5K this Sunday, April 19th at Treselos Park starting at 8:00 a.m. Whether you choose to run or walk, I encourage everyone to come out and enjoy this beautiful riverfront event. Additionally, during the National Police Week, May the 10th through May the 16th, the Laredo Police Department will host a back to blue 5K on May the 9th and more information will be presented at April 20th city council meeting. Treasury notice. I also want to address the recent press release from the US Department of Treasury regarding sanctions on cartel linked businesses and key associates along the US Mexico border. The city of Laredo was formally notified. As a border community, we understand that criminal activities such as human trafficking and narcotics trafficking can sometimes operate what appears to be legitimate businesses and stash houses. We can't be naive to this and it is something we need to take seriously. I want to assure the public that the city of Laredo and our police department are working closely with our federal partners including the DEA and the US Department of Treasury to ensure our community remains safe. Laredo continues to be one of the safest cities because we work collaboratively and proactively to protect our residents. At this time, how many uh general citizen comments do we have? >> Mayor, we have eight citizens that signed up for public comment. >> All right. Are there an items or general? Mayor, we have uh two that signed up for public comment and the rest are on item number one of the of the agenda. >> All right. If there's some two general will proceed with them and any other further comments are that are agenda related, we can take them up with a corresponding agenda item. So, we'll start with the two general sites comments. Mayor, the mayor. >> Yes, go ahead. >> The two uh citizens that signed up for public comment, uh Victor Trevinho and Jesse Era. >> Okay, we'll start with Jesse Era. Some call me a poet, some call me the dude, but I've always been Jesse Gera. Anything you might have heard about me is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. They took They took our feathers. They took our buffalo. They took our water. They took our land. They took and took and took. They took in the name of the father and the son. They took in the name of the US Constitution. They took in the name of manifest destiny and the treaty of Gualupe Dalgo. And now national security. So they say as a whole world's ablaze. Gracias to that presidential thing in Washington DC who believes he's Jesus Christ but not his brother's keeper. How can such a progressive community How can such a progressive community be so regressive? That's one step for humanity and one leap into stupidity. While some have had enough double speak, others stand in the rain mouths wide open until they drown obedient to big brother to the very end with their hands held out for federal funds. Yet haven't you learned big brother keepeth and big brother taketh. They took our feathers. They took our buffalo. They took our water. They took our land. No border wall. They take and take and take. Big brother always taketh. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face forever. George Orwell big brother always taketh. Gracias. Thank you. All right. Any other general comment? >> Mayor uh Victor Trevinho. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon, uh mayor, uh council, staff. Uh my name for the Rictor Jr. I stand here today to commend this council for encouraging thoughtful discussion on this very sensitive issue because through thoughtful discussion we have this great discourse of what we call this great experiment which is democracy and through participation we move our community forward. As I prepare to take uh my trip later on today to the 130th uh Boston Marathon, I am a proud son of Laredo and I'm proud to represent our community that which is was founded on bational values, but that doesn't mean that we we don't have our issues and we can discuss them amongst each other. And it is with the same pride that I stand before you celebrating our 271st uh anniversary of the founding of our city which is an incredible thing because it predates our country. And so we we have a lot of experience to share and a lot of great things. And I think this is what we should highlight and instead of basically focusing on focusing on just division, we should basically focus on unity and respect each other's opinions and viewpoints because in the end we all live here. We all have to see each other. We all have family here and at the end of the day we all all Laredoans at at the end of the day. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We have now executive sessions, but Mr. Neb, would you like to do your presentation first? >> Yes, sir. Mayor, the presentation, happy to do that first. Uh, if you'd like to take the communication on the item prior to the presentation would be okay as well, too, because I think you do have some public comments on the individual items. >> Motion to bring up item number one. >> All right. Motion. I'll second that. >> Second. All in favor? I >> post. Motion passes. Item number one, >> discussion with possible action regarding border wall developments, including federal and state coordination, local impacts, infrastructure considerations, and the city of Laredo strategic response and any matters related there too. I know we have had some discussions with Homeland Security and Border Patrol and there has been some movement on some of the concerns. we that were brought up by the city and as mentioned the city has brought up design proposals that are being reviewed. We have also been in contact with Laredo College was also employing the same directive and negotiating and dialogue as their initial step. That's item number one. >> Mayor, can we hear the uh before the presentation? Can we hear the comments prior to? >> All right, we have >> Mayor, we have uh six comments on item number one. Correct. >> All right, we'll go with uh Maxim RLes public comment on the item. >> Hi. So, my name is Maxine Traz for the record. Um I wish he would have gone done the presentation first. That way we could know like if we're saying stuff that would have been answered there. But I digress. Um I don't know what he's going to say. So just right now I know some of our city council members aren't here because they're in DC talking about the border wall issue from my understanding. So I don't know why we're having this uh meeting here when they could be focusing on that. Uh how many times are we going to waste money to find the same results? Like we have a geomorphologist that that gave us results already. they did a study. So, I don't understand why we keep spending money. Even LC spending money like they're going to get the same results. So, I'm not sure. Um, and in your words, Mayor Travin, we can't be naive to this. Like, I I was I worked for the government. I was in the Navy for six years. You know, we were looking for weapons of mass destruction for how many years and we never found any. They will lie straight to your face and you will have to deal with the consequences. I deal with the trauma of my actions every single day for for following their orders, you know, and you think you don't have a choice. I thought I didn't have a choice and I see now with everything going on that we did have a choice and military members right now still have a choice, but some of them don't feel it. So I I just I don't I don't see how we can say that we're having thoughtful discussion when it becomes thoughtless with all the money that we're wasting. All these discussions leading to the same point is is wasteful in my opinion and we're just dragging this out. If you all want to keep kicking the can down the road, but don't like you just mentioned, you're going to have two events. one inch bat park which I was down there and I've seen the destruction that they've already made with that like can you imagine like if they get their wall and their buoys in there how many events are people going to want to go to there and right now like at the park you know we can enjoy the Rio now but what are y'all trying to build there you know so you keep trying to give us all these good things but at the same time you're you're trying to destroy it and allowing people to even get a foot in the door to destroy it so so I'm asking you like like to stop. Like I'm I'm asking you all to stand with the community that's saying we don't need a border wall. Like it it's going to destroy our environment. This is unprecedented and the government won't care. They don't care. They they've shown us how many times they will break the law while we're forced to follow it. Like and I I I don't know h how much more I could say to to get y'all to to open your eyes because they are going to lie to us. They we're never going to be them. They're never going to accept us. They're going to use us for what they want. And once we follow it and turn our backs on our family, San Antonio's not going to want us. Houston's not going to want us. If we destroy our only source of water, who is going to take us? And y'all don't see that. Those people in Novo Ledo that we're risking their lives. Also, they're definitely not going to want them. They're already showing us, you know, and you can have as many bridge ceremonies as you want, but your actions are so much louder than your words. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> We have five public comments that are left. >> Would you all rather hear the presentation prior to you all speaking as Mr. was asking? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mayor, can we have that then? We'll have the presentation before continue. >> Yes. A motion. >> Second. Second. >> Second. All in favor? Opposed? >> Motion pass. Mr. N. >> Thank you, Mr. All right, Mayor, uh, City Council, thank you for the opportunity. Um, we're going to do a little bit of a history lesson for for what we've been working on since, uh, November of 2025. uh walking all the way through that. I I hope to uh tackle a couple of the current events and where we're at in the processes as well too and explain some of our positioning within the conversations that we are having uh that as it relates to our strategy as to how we are negotiating and how we are working through this difficult situation. So right now we will do an update on the federal coordination. I also want to get into the city approach of the evaluation and the engagement and then some of the next steps for data review and policies. Um I I think uh I do want to state that we hear everyone's position on this matter. It doesn't matter which side of the equation that they are on. We try to incorporate every one of those voices into our conversations as we move forward. And you'll see a little bit at in in this presentation as well too. Uh we keep walking through this thing with the uh the sensitivity and the u the the desire to get positive resolution out of the situation. Really quickly, uh, just walking all the way back, these are the expected border patrol standards. Uh, it's just a picture of the standardized border wall, 28 to 30 foot high, as well as what the type of buoys are that they are putting into the uh, the river down in the Rio Grand Valley and what we anticipate we'll see. You will notice that this style of buoy is different than the style that the state used up in Eagle Pass. So, as we as we walk through these things, I just wanted to make sure that we started with that understanding what their standardized process is as to where they're where they're moving from or going to. This is a smartwall overlay. So, as if you go on to the Border Patrol's website and everything, you will find a map that shows this yellow line that runs along the Rio Grande River. Uh, as to what their general location they want to put the smart wall, the smart wall of course is a physical barrier plus technology plus the manpower that is utilized in order to secure the border. this uh this actual map because we are awaiting an updated map from the from Border Patrol which they have pro they stated that they would get for us. This is the map from 2017 2018 but it hasn't changed a lot. Um, and I think those are the things that we see, but I just need to we need to wait until we get the actual document in order to be able to overlay and and say these are the adjustments that have happened from 2017 to to today in in 2026. So, um I I I I utilize this one as a good example though to see that if you look at the red section that is up on the north end of the of the map, that is about 220 foot wide path. If you look down right there across from Father Magnabo, it is less than 220 foot. And I believe this is something that we wanted to make sure that we we acknowledge within that because this goes into the conversation with Big Ben and everything else. The Border Patrol is trying to make those adjustments within the conversation for what they need in order to do their security of the border. So it doesn't all it will not always be this full 220 250 foot swath with roads on either side with the barrier wall in the middle. And we believe that that is our opportunity that they are making adjustments within their model on on a regular basis as well too. That's why we believe that our conversations have went as well as they have that there are alternative possibilities within this whole conversation. And this is why we continue to sit at the table with them and and try to discuss how border security should look for the city of Laredo. wanted to look at this uh I wanted to share this map. Uh this is this is the general alignment of areas that they are looking at. This is the riverbend area and this is again the old map but the map that Mr. Chavis and I have seen with the border patrol and with their consultants it follows a very similar format. The difference is is that and this is what I'm trying to draw out into this conversation with this slide as well too. If you look at the Riverbend area, they have actually two areas that they are looking at uh that they're needing support on within that structure. The one that's on the farthest south, the one that is closest to the river is actually not a purchase of that land. It is for an easement for a road to which is already there existing that that is going along the river. So when we talk about uh the the I would say that the the the the area that is up further or closer to the housing that is where they want to put a physical barrier along that riverbend area. The area down on the south is for a road infrastructure. And if you look underneath the colors in there, there is a road already existing there that they are already utilizing. >> Mayor, I I I apologize, my my deep apologies for the interruption. We cannot see any of the maps um through Zoom. >> Is there a possibility to have the maps seen through that? I'm asking it or anybody else. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> council member. You have them now? >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. And I did receive uh Mayor, if I could, I I did receive a text from Council Member King. He wants to make sure that he is able to be heard and and is is present. >> Okay. >> All right. Council member King, we we have we have you uh recognized. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. >> And so this is this is this is the older map, but this this is exactly what they were looking at as well too. and our our conversations with them uh is is understanding exactly what they are wanting to look at and why they are wanting to look at these. >> Mr. N. >> So, let me let me back up. Yes, >> I just sorry to interrupt you. I just want to acknowledge that Council Member Gon is here just in time for the presentation. >> Thank you. >> Noted. Thank you. >> Yes, mayor. >> Mayor, I wanted to walk back just really briefly on this as well too because we have been active. We've been up to DC at least twice now. Uh once in January to talk with Commissioner Scott with the Border Patrol and again in March as our as our delegation went up there. Back in December, we established our evaluation framework which stated from from the city's perspective that we will negotiate and we will find a solution that works in partnership together for border security and and and as long as as long as we're they're willing to talk with us about alternatives and about different models in order to get there, we're happy to do that. We did the community polling and surveying uh which which helps set that tone of of exactly it meets up with our framework exactly where we want to go. Nobody wants a physical structure. A majority of the people don't want a physical structure. Nobody really wants to pay for it either. And so I I think those are those definitive things that we have to walk through there. We are coordinating with the border patrol on a regular basis. Bowman Consulting and of course we we hired our legal firm Jackson Walker who is actually walking through all the mechanics of this and um I will say at this point in time and I a little bit later I'll talk a little bit more about it but the request for hiring another geomorphologist was presented to Jackson Walker as well too. they have they are looking into that consideration. There are some things and I will share those at a little bit later in this report that uh that are that are very challenging within that that structure and I' I've shared shared it with emails with the council as well too but we'll walk through those things and we are doing an initial technical review uh and the right of right of entry structure and one of the things that I I I will share with everybody is that right now of course the documents that everybody that has live that's living along the river or the city and in the case because of our five parks and our three utility plants and our our other our other wreck paths areas the right of entry that they are requesting is an ROEC which is the most uh expansive right of entry for that. They also have layers of right of entry and so the conversation we will have on Monday as well too is that we are talking about splitting that up a little bit farther and I'll explain exactly why but the right of entry >> for a boundary survey what's an ROC can you explain like >> all right so so the uh within the um within the federal governmental system >> they utilize three different classifications and that they're not just locked on to those classifications But there's an ROE, which is right of entry A, there's a right of entry B, and there's a right of entry C. Right of entry C allows all of it allows everything from a boundary survey all the way up to a finalization of the construction. And so it it it it's a very wide openen uh system within that to get to the ROEC. They have they have different levels of the our right of entry because depending on what their needs are depending depending on what they're looking at they will take a smaller version of that. What we are working with Jackson Walker with with the consultant is allowing uh within some of our less sensitive areas and I'll I'll explain that again as as we walk through this but that there are areas that they are only seeking additional easements for different reasons. And so we are walking through all of that that data and that information to determine what type of an ROE would we allow if we were to allow any right of entry of of that as nature. There's nuances within that structure. I think that's the thing that you need to understand from an ROE to an ROEC. There are these different nuances and our conversation with the Border Patrol and our conversation with the consultants is that they're comfortable with our conversations about understanding the sensitivity of certain areas that we have as well too. All right. The current phase right now and this is where we are alluding to it a little bit here in this conversation. We are trying to transition from this 50,000 foot level down to a project specific analysis where you're trying to get down to very details. We're walking through each one of these parcels individually and saying what does this parcel mean and how does this affect this relationship and this conversation as to how we go with that. We have a we have a major we have a number of parcels that are out there because the old city system is laid out as parcels even though it's not all all together there. We we serve it as one one piece but there's multiple parcels. What our conversation with Mr. Chavez and I as we sat down with their engineers as well too is that some of the definitions or some of the the partial information is out of whack with exactly what they're asking for. And so these conversations have been really good about narrowing that focus and saying what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? We are awaiting alignments uh proper alignments. We are awaiting hydraulic modeling and and design schematics u based upon the the first conversation we had I think once the riverfront committee had had brought forward the recommendation to have a conversation uh where they had talked about the the Tomkins report. Uh that request came from that and we went and asked the border patrol for any of their design specs, any of their information as to what they're building. I I showed you the standardized versions. We're asking for that as we as we walk through this and they have agreed that they will provide any of that data that they are allowed and capable to do. So they are willing to provide that data. Just know that and this will be part of the conversation. And I'll drive it home a little bit farther in the conversation here. Some of this data will not be available until they can get on the property to do actual geotechnical borings and and actual down because they don't know how deep the footings have to be for a wall structure. They don't have to know that. And all of that information will be important as we move forward into what type of flood study, what type of struct, what type of analysis we need to do on that thing. The evaluation depends on that data. And so that is where we're kind of at. Uh somebody mentioned about it being the chicken and the egg and it's like there are there there's some truth to that that analogy as to what that is and that's where we're walking through this on a project specific analysis. So, we're narrowing down that 50 foot 50,000 foot level. We're bringing it all down to a parcel by parcel conversation. When we talk to the border of patrol about providing us with the design specs and everything, this is also what they've agreed to. We are asking for them to give it to us in a definitive process because again we want to make sure that we lay out some letter from one of the officials out there saying these are the what we're going to build to because this actually helps us when we start trying to study what flood impact is on any of our infrastructure. But they are intending to build this infrastructure to the 100year base flood elevation evaluation. That is what the that is where the base flood elevation is today within FEMA's guidelines. I I want to make sure you understand that as well too because what we had a conversation on with the Tomkins report as well too. The FEMA information is it goes all the way back. The last time we had the fully updated map for FEMA for our flooding was 2008 and some of that data goes back to 2003. We are in the year 2026. So, there is something to be said about updating this information as to what the impact on the flooding in our area is and where we want to go. By the way, mayor, this is something that we talked about early on in December that flooding was one of our key things if we can improve our city and and eliminate some of the flooding. That is one of the biggest one of the biggest things that we thought we could work with on the dual purpose. The second thing is that there is a requirement in the IBWC and the treaty between Mexico and the US that there can be no no more than 5% diversion of the water. So any infrastructure that they put into it has to be designed so that it does not deflect any more than 5% of the river based upon the 100redyear base flood elevations. And so that they have they are building to this. These are actually two requirements that they were not able to wave within their structure. These are these are the ones that we recognized early on that will stay strong all the way through there because they don't have the ability within the uh the the nature of their the federals federal rules and guidelines to wave these these pieces. And so this is where we we've been there. Border Patrol again very good conversations with the Border Patrol. they have committed to providing that data as we go through that. The nice thing is that we do know what our base flood elevation is. We we utilize it all every day. Anytime we construct a a building within the city or construct a road, we utilize that information. We also can do the deflection because that is a known fact as well too for that. Once the once the border patrol does get that information done, we are recommending an an independent review or audit of that data just to confirm that they've utilize the correct analysis as to what that is. So this is where when we talk about the uh where where the riverfront committee has talked about the the wanting wanting a larger study wanting to get certain other professionals online. We should commit to an at least an independent we we want to confirm trust but verify is is the intent for what we're trying to do with that one. Our recommendation on the city side is to do a lot larger uh flood study but I will I will give you the uh the the challenges that we'll have with that one as well too. So, our right of right of entry position on this right now, right of entry is not project approval. I know in some people's minds it's like giving up ground that that we shouldn't give up. Right of entry doesn't do that. Our intent in working with with the federal government again is to find a solution and an alternative solution that works for the city as well as what their needs are. are concerned and we've talked about this in in in the past as well too. If we are not at the table with them, that is not going to prevent them from doing their work. They will just take a different path in order to get there. And that's where we want to make sure that we can stay at that table because our voices are being heard. The right of entry is not project approval. It allows for the surveying, geotechnical work, and data collection. Some of this design information that we are asking for, we will not have and the border patrol will not have until they can do a full engineering design process. And so that'll be the nature of that. I I would argue to a certain point, at least on our side, I think we can get the buoy data easier because it does not take any other nature. Once they get that engineering done, they'll provide that data. But if they can't get on the on the properties to get the geotechnical work done, they can't finish the design. We can't we can't finish an analysis in order to determine what if any negative impact is on this. So we do support limited controlled access on certain port parcels and certain reasons exactly for what the reasons why I'm stating it to you. There are certain areas that are be easement driven. There are certain areas that are actually for purchase, but we do have sensitive areas that we want to help protect and have a longer conversation prior to allowing any of that work to happen. Right of entry, why does it matter? Again, I' I've driven this home, I think, enough right now. The border patrol has agreed to provide the data. Engineering requires borings and surveys of the property in order to determine if the alignment's good. If it if it matches up to everything. Does the terrain have anything to do with it? Does the soil types have anything to do with it? It all has a lot to do with this. Without the access, any analysis, whether it be from the federal side or the city side, will be incomplete and it will not be accurate enough in order to legally defend us within any any structure. And so the data and the access are directly linked within that. That's why this that's why the conversation that's why we are having a conversation on the right of entry within that nature of that. I I wanted to share this with you because I don't think anybody has gotten to see any of this yet other than maybe the council. In our last conversation with the Border Patrol, we shared the alternatives. And if you notice, um, we we sh we we were a little creative in what we would contemplate as being potential barriers along the river uh, in order to help meet the conditions of of both sides of this thing. I want to tell you when we shared this with the Border Patrol, I did not get a hell no. I did not get a no. They said, "Let us consider that because the the the picture at the bottom right is of course that's that that's that burm type structure and everything." And so they had a version of that that they shared with us back in November. And all we all we're trying to do is we're we're trying to find out exactly what they want to do. The Max Mandel on the left side at the bottom there again uh just like with Father Magnambo on the map, they've actually pulled their line back. It is not crossing any of the holes that we have out there. It is actually staying off the fairway, which is a nice nice thing to do. Now, we're asking what about some type of feature that will be aesthetically proper and and could actually look a little bit better. We understand the need for control and everything. Um, I I thought the picture at the right at the top there uh just because we've had past conversations about fishing on the river as well too. What about installation of fishing peers along with this rot iron type fence in order to make it aesthetically pleasing? Again, I did not get the word no from them. I got let us consider the alternative. Let let us consider how that >> go ahead. >> Um quick question. Is it I know that there's some kind of I don't know what law it is that you can't we can't go into the river. Uh I don't know if I'm sorry >> as far as the structure itself >> the structure that we can't go into the river of uh halfway >> uh halfway or how far can we go into the river? >> I'm not I'm not aware of any legislation that would that I'm not aware of any legislation like that. But what I will say that the river is considered international waters. So in order for the government to have to build something it would have to be on something that is American territory. And and I would say more than likely what you're talking about it it is a controlled river through the IBWC because it is a border as well as that. And I think that there if we were if we were to make any type of a structure to this level, it would take coordination and approval from the IBWC in order to get this done. Yeah. All right. Um so the agenda status on Monday, we do have the agenda item. We had it on the last council meeting. We're moving it forward to this council meeting. We are still awaiting some information and data. So, I don't know if we're not going to request a tableabling of the item again because until we we have certain information, we can't make a full determination in order to provide you with a recommendation. We are working every day on this information, but it is scheduled on the council meeting. If we're not able to get to that item, if the information, I almost guarantee you we'll probably have that information available by by uh by May. We are we're waiting on that updated map is really what we're waiting on because we want to know uh those locations. I think the alternative structures will be an ongoing conversation and the design specifications will be an ongoing conversation. So, we're not holding back on the right of entry request or the recommendation. We're waiting for that map so that we can understand which parcels are actually being affected. And so that's where we're trying to bring that up with that. Um, and so we are coordinating on a daily basis. Uh, either through Jackson Walker with Bowman Consulting or or through Border Patrol. We have we have a lot of different conversations going on on a regular basis. Um, really quickly on the evaluation of the current studies, I appreciate what Dr. Tomkins put together within his report the challenge is and he states it within that report it is based upon a lot of assumptions because the data is not available the design data and everything. So that this that is one version of what could happen if if if everything was to go a certain way it lacks project specity uh and the data for that. I only say that because I think that is the reason why there's an additional request going let's do a larger study on this but it is all it is all commiserate it is all it has to have data before we can do a better study or another study as well too additional studies will still face the same limit limits I would I would state that um right now I think the request from the riverfront committee was to hire a geommorphologist in order to do a study Just so you know, they study rivers. They are not a hydraulic engineer. Some are some do both duties and everything. I think Dr. Tomkins actually serves in both both fields. What we need in order to determine flood impact is a hydraulic engineer. Uh that's all I'm saying is that I I think it's nice to understand how the river moves because we have a sedimentation river that it it moves all the time. That's why we have islands. That's why we have buildup of sedimentation and that's why uh that's why I think the concern of anything put into that river will actually cause the sediment to build differently within that. So I I just wanted to make sure we did we walked through uh Dr. Tomkins report we shared it with other geomorphologists. We shared it with other engineering firms as well too in order to determine that because it doesn't have the specificity within that document. We can't come to the same con conclusions that have been done before. But that doesn't mean that the data is not valid data. And I I just want to make sure I share with that we need project specific design. We need hydraulic modeling. We need evaluation against standards. We need some kind of base factor in order to go against. We can't determine that impact without this data and we have requested that data mayor and and city council. We've requested that data. We are just waiting for for what they can provide us and then we'll find out if it is actually substantial enough to actually initiate any type of a study of what's happening. I wanted to go in a little bit though because uh we're talking about what the future's going to have and I want to talk a little bit about where we're currently at because in 2010 we flooded. 2010 there was a tractor trailer that was in the river that we were very we were very uh worried about actually hitting up against one of our bridges and everything. We already currently have 300 structures within the flood plane. And so if we go back to 2010, I would argue that the city did not finish their work from 2010 forward because within the flood plane within the flood zone and the floodway and the flood zone, there are two different areas and I'll show you a map of that as well too. But we have we have some structures and we have a lot of loose trailers, vehicles, and everything parked in the flood way currently. We have over 300 structures within that area and the flood zone area already. So when we talk about the potential of flooding, we have a lot of people already in the way of flooding today. And I want to make sure that you understand that because the flood plane itself is actually wider than the proposed uh alignment of the of just the smart wall. This is a larger issue than just buoys and border wall. and and all of this existing stuff actually represents a risk today. Really quickly, just a picture of the 2010 flood. Uh we we walk through this conversation. Uh the over on the left and off the picture, this is Elportal, but uh if you if you on the left side of the picture off of that is of course the outlet mall, that water goes all the way up to where the pedestrian bridge between the buildings go. That's the flood area of what we're talking about in the downtown area. This is off the FEMA website and this is uh this is a portion of Laredo up a little bit farther north. The the red striped area is actually in the flood way. the uh the blue area right next to that is fl AE flood zone and then the area next to it uh so essentially the blue area is the hund the 1% the 100redyear flood the brown area right next to it is the 500year flood and each one of them has a has a piece of that if you look through the colors you can see all this infrastructure and all of the uh all the structures that are currently within those areas that are in danger of flooding anytime this river hits to those levels. I brought it down a little bit farther because I wanted to I wanted to draw attention and draw it to it because of what happened in 2010 with the tractor trailer uh carrier that was in there. If you look at all these uh structure just right underneath the 406, all of those are loose trailers within the flood way itself. we really need to be looking at this as a as a larger thing than just our our current current issue. And I believe that there there is something to be said for that. And so, uh, I just wanted to draw your attention to it that it's not like we weren't aware that we have the possibility of flooding because we are along the Rio Grande River. Our city approach moving forward. I'm I'm right toward the end of what I what what I wanted to make sure I covered today, mayor, and I'll I can answer any questions, but we we will be recommending some level of access to obtain the data that we need in order to make a determination as to whether or not uh whatever they're going to build will have a a negative impact on our city. I we believe that we're going to have to get to that level for that conversation. Uh we are we are waiting awaiting the federal modeling because if we if if they can do that modeling then we can at least go back and analyze within it do an independent audit and say yes or no that whether or not the the modeling is correct. Conducting an independent review always uh we we will hire a professional in order to get that work done. uh but our recommendation to you and and we'll bring this forward in in the near future is to initiate a broader flood plane study because the data that we are utilizing on the river is from 2008 and the city has grown significantly since then. We want to use the best data possible and uh and so the what the city study will provide understanding of current flood risk. The data that we put together because we already have over 300 structures within there. The data that we put together will help us for future conversations. It will because we will now have that baseline in order to get there. We will have the evaluation of existing conditions uh within that study and it supports our long-term planning and our CIP and and in my mind I think I'd said it to somebody once before it's completing the work that we started back in 2010 because we we started very heavily on there. I think that at one point in time we were talking with FEMA about removing 60 homes out of the FEMA off off of Chicone Creek and removing them out of there because we couldn't find a solution that would eliminate the flooding for that area. It was better to remove the individuals out of that and that's why FEMA is very important to us within this conversation. What the city study does not do, and this is the thing that I I wish I I I need to make sure that everybody understands, any study we do will not stop or delay the federal government from completing their project, the border security. I I think that's the thing that we have to we have to be very cognizant of that and that's is why we continue to negotiate. It does not replace the CBP analysis. if we update our FEMA maps, it's a two to fouryear cycle in order to get them adopted that the federal government will actually recognize our maps in order to get there. So, I want to make sure that you understand that there is no silver bullet here. The studies are good because it's going to help protect our community. There's not there's no way that it helps us do what what some would hope that this data would do. uh it does not impact near-term term uh timelines. I think I announced it one of the last council meetings as well too. If I didn't, I'll say it again as well too. In our one of our last conversations with uh Chief Dion as well as the uh as some of the other individuals, their timeline is to complete this project by 2028. And that is the and so if you back off of that date there and you come backwards to 2026 this is why there's a sense of urgency within the federal government. This is why uh we're very careful about how we walk through those conversations. They are on I hate using the word fasttrack. They are they're going to move fairly quickly within that um world trade bridge expansion is actually supposed to complete in July of 28. And so that's why we're having the conversations on the bridges as well too. Any study that we do will not change that. What we do know is that the Border Patrol is going to build to the 100red-year base flood elevation, which is we already know what it is currently. We actually just believe the data is bad. We we believe it's too old. I I I shouldn't say it's bad. We may find that it's just right on right on track with it, but we haven't done that analysis yet. On top of that, um the and we actually believe that they they will abide by the IBWC treaty requirements because they are both both countries are are required to do that and they will do less than 5% diversion. They their data will show that our job will be to confirm whether or not their data is accurate or not. So the flood study flood plane study FEMA maps are 15 to 20 years old. Um, we want to explore the FEMA risk map coordination. What I'm saying there is that we are not on FEMA's plan right now in order to update our mapping. And this this um this this larger flood study is about a million dollars plus or minus depending on where you go with this in order to analyze. And it really it actually goes up even higher as you spread out. So, uh, about a million dollars fits us about 20 miles along the river. All of Laredo is 41 miles and and so if you go even upstream or downstream a little bit farther than that, that increases it out. There's a 100 miles in Web County. I I would actually recommend working with Web County and maybe having a shared expense within a better flood study for the entire county utilizing the city as well too. um this we have to plan out this comprehensive study because we want to be on FEMA's list because if we are on FEMA's list for for a study we can be reimbursed back this money. If we start the study on our own we will not be reimbursed any money that we put into the study. And so that's the balancing act on that. The independent review I I don't I know I don't have it in here. We are into estimating that anywhere from 75,000 to $150,000 for an independent audit, but it's going to be based upon data. And so we have to wait for that data in order to to do it to that level. The FEMA maps, this is our bigger recommendation because we already have flooding concerns. We already have things that are happening. We believe this is the better way to go. Um, in the cost and reality, we have just a layout there for you. And I've I've talked about all of this. Any study we go out there, if we were to do a uh just a study on the buoys and the and the barrier walls and we were able to get the data that we needed in order to make a a good study, it's a 9 to 18 month anyway. It's got we're going to run toward the end of the year before that. And I think this is why Jackson Walker says, "Let's focus on the things that are right in front of us and let's let's let's continue preparing for the future stuff as well, too. But let's focus on what's happening right now today because the clock is ticking very quickly. But this uh this study will run uh 500 to a million dollars depending on what that severity how how big that needs to be. Uh if you look on our flood maps or FEMA maps, anything up along Sakata Creek as it goes into the city and Chong Creek as it goes up into the city, we have flooding up in that area as well too. I think it was talked about a little bit when uh uh when uh when they talked about the Tomkins study. As that river flows up, it goes to the lowest area and and it balances out and it finds that balance. And so we need to study all those connecting pieces within that structure. And so and difference is that even if it floods off the river, then we then the river has a tendency to flood as these confluences of these creeks go into the river. Mayor, City Council, that's my report as far as an update and where we're going. Uh there is no action that I'm asking for on right of entry. I I just wanted to make sure because we didn't get an opportunity because we tabled at the last meeting. I wanted everybody to hear exactly what we're looking at with the right of entry uh process and what the request is from the federal government and what we are thinking and looking at as we're moving forward. So, >> all right. >> Any questions from me? Yeah, go ahead. >> A couple of questions. Um, Mr. Deb, is it possible or can we uh look into partnering up with the county? You mentioned that earlier. Uh, I know that they're um I recently found out that they have a water treatment plant in Rio Rao that's probably going to get affected by this also. So, I would think that in partnering up with them, NLC is also being approached right now. And then the reason why I want us to partner up with them is also so that we can have one voice and in in all of this. Uh I think if I don't know where they're at that might affect us and and they they might not know where we're at that might affect them. And so I'm wondering if we can bring everybody to the table and and and and get something like that going just so that we can I I don't want to find out next year that that because we could have we could have done that some of the things could have been avoided and and uh just because we didn't communicate with them. So, I'm wondering if we can bring those people to the table and and really have a good conversation about uh what you just mentioned right now. >> No, and I and I think we can incorporate uh all of those conversations and and making sure that they get there. Um I know and I know Laredo Collies, I think there was an article out there on Laredo Collies and we had conversations with them as well too. they have a uh some of their some of their concerns are different than ours, but we can match up to those kind of uh conversations because >> we're all talking to the same people. I mean, the nice thing is on the border patrol side is that they're only there what we are learning is that there's there's three or four pe individuals that that we can talk to that are responsible for the entire Laredo sector uh on their side. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that yeah because I know that they are talking to them and I just want to wanted to make sure that we both I mean all of us have the same language and uh we're talking the same uh processes and procedures to go through this smoothly as possible that we we're not lacking any information from either party so that we can move forward. Uh second one was um in bringing the uh the ad hoc committee um I'm not sure where we stand with them um and and this information you just gave us you already gave to them. >> I I provided them an update on the letter as to what I was going to cover with you as well too. And uh the uh the the challenge is is that I I truly believe because we we have we have more concerns than just the buoys and the border wall because of the 300 structures we already have in in our flood flood zone as well too. I actually believe that I I would rather have that committee focused on um our our more sensitive areas and and focusing on that rather than to worry about this because again if we initiate if we hire professionals if we hire a study we're talking six to eight months before that study is even done I would expect that that ad hoc committee will be eight months down the line I would like them focused on that the question that came out of our framework. What does success look like in working between the city of Laredo and the border patrol? What does border security look like for for that matter? And I I think the expansion of of what we're doing with the committee as well too is not not an issue. I mean, because I the river is it does impact our our our structures as well too because that's that's where our our intakes are at. And so, but I I don't want them uh to spend a lot of time on the uh building a litigation situation. I want them to look at what does that success look like? And that's that matches up closer to our framework. And so, uh you know, the the danger we have is that we've got a lot of lot of great people on that committee that are looking at it. We have we have people that have wall on their property >> as well as ones that are uh totally against having a wall on their property and I think it's a really good mix to have that conversation and I think that's the strength of that committee as well too. But so yeah, I I provided them an update with where this was at. Um I I I share and I've shared, you know, now I've publicly shared as well too. My only concern with the Tomkins report is that it is based upon assumptions, not actual data because they could not get the data in order to make a full assumption. And so that's why I want to be careful about the use of those studies within our our strategy and everything because uh again, if we're in front of a judge or a jury or anything else like that, we want we want stuff that's going to fully protect us within that structure. >> Yeah. So that and the reason is obviously that I want to be in lock step with everybody from this point on. I know that this data or this information which is a great presentation right now. I just want to make sure that everybody is involved that that that can be involved that we're in lock step with them and that we're all speaking the same language. Obviously there's strength in numbers. Uh so more people who get involved in this process the I think the better. >> Would that require a like an agreement or some something written or some kind of You know, I I I think that um to a certain level because the challenge we're going to have a little bit and we talked about this way back in December as well too is that the the Border Patrol is going to negotiate with every property owner along there. the the ch the ch difference for us is that we're a governmental entity within that structure. And so we are we we can speak for a larger body of people. We can't get into the the specific property rights of of an individual as well too because like I said, some some are okay with a wall, some are not okay with the wall, and we don't want to we don't want to get into that. But where we can kind of match up Yes, Mayor. I I believe that some type of a um uh an agreement kind of helps and I I think that's where what we learned from Laredo College is that there some of their challenges are so different than our challenges as to what we're what we're concerned with, what we're trying to match up. We do have similarities within that structure. You mentioned Rio Bravo. Um and and uh that you know that anytime we have a treatment plant out there and I I didn't talk about it on here as much but some of the areas where the smart wall goes across our our uh our treatment plants it blocks us off from an easy expansion of the plant. And so is there is there the opportunity that we can kind of move whatever the security line is different from having it right up next to ours. And this is where the conversation actually with the alternatives actually plays in as well too is that they have and and it's all along the it's all along where there is wall the the use of gates and the ability to access on both sides of the of the of that fence as well too. And so all those conversations can happen with that. But I mayor, I I would think that anytime we can do uh at least that that balance within there, I I think the big thing is making sure that uh everybody understands where we can match up with them and where we can't. And I think that that'll that that'll that'll be within the document itself, I would think. But >> but I think we should Yes. Go ahead. cause reality of it's just the estimate of five uh 500k and one minute and one minute for the uh targeted study. Where do we where do we get those numbers from? Where was it? It >> it's based upon previous studies. It's based upon things that have happened. The the nature of it is that and and what we do is that once we develop out the scope because we have not created a scope of what exactly are we completely looking at, right? And so until we create a scope I our engineers cannot put a cost estimate based on >> and my question is >> so these are these are very broad level these are based upon past studies >> what what past studies do you have like >> from from within the state >> from what other >> within the state of Texas so I I I would be I would be hardressed to tell you this one came from Denton this one came from Dallas there are studies out there Mr. Chavez can probably help me with this one a little bit. >> Mayor, if I may. Yes. So, we have similar studies that we've done uh for Manadas and Sakata Creek. And so, based off some of that information and some of that data that we already have on those recent studies as of last year, that's where the numbers are. >> But, do you have the the amount of that the cost of those studies? >> Yes, we do. >> Do you have them with you right now? >> It's $800,000 that we paid for uh study to study both Manadas and Sakate Creek water ched. Well, it's like 400 400 400 >> uh basically, right? >> This is a larger uh scope in my opinion. >> Well, and yeah. And do those actually change the uh the lomars and everything as well too or is this just studying to that? >> They do not. And then those are the next steps to >> Yeah, we would have to take it even deeper than that in order to get to where what I'm recommending. >> Yes. Go ahead, >> Mr. an internal agreement with the other entities around our community for these initiatives like we brought up LC um you know we have web county other our other government >> we don't we don't have an interlocal to that level I I think the closest that we have with web county is of course the the the structure that we've had previously done where we work in partnership with different things um at best I would argue that uh because it We're we're very specific on this one. Uh we have broad level relationships with all these other governmental entities and not not necessarily to that level of I think where you're headed. I think that it would be wise for us to create an interlocal agreement on this particular issue and whatever studies or initiatives that we undertake that are going to benefit the entire community that we all band together in in these initiatives instead of us taking care of it by ourselves and then LC kind of left to their self and then web county kind of dealing with it on their own. I think this is a time that we all need to come together. >> Thank you. >> All right. Okay. Any other questions? No. >> Yes, Mayor. Oh, >> yes. Go ahead. >> Apologies. Thank you so much. Um well, first, um I I I continue to share the concern. I understand Mr. what you're saying about the studies, but relying on the right of entry to allow for technical data to be collected and then not having um an ability to ensure that that data will be collected and then turned over to the city so that we can use it in our own calculations about what the impacts would be on our riverside is very concerning. We know that there was an agreement to allow the wall to be built under Colombia with the stipulation that that that section not interfere with the bridge plans. And early indications seem to indicate that now we're going to have to figure out how to remove it for that bridge to be built as is intended. And so it is an an example of how it's it's not if it's not clearly understood what we're requesting then perhaps the technical data that we need is going to get subsumed by this effort to build infrastructure and and law according to the law they don't have to weigh these really important considerations for our city and and that is why I think that we need to continue to develop our own studies to look at the flooding that we could experience to to undertake these these studies. Now, if that means going to FEMA and getting on the FEMA list so that we can do this and then get reimbursed, then with all haste, we should do it. But there also needs to be an effort to ask CBP to wait until we have this incredibly important technical data about what the flooding risks will be to our city before we allow the construction to begin because what you have presented or or what you understand I think from these negotiations is that CBP is ready to begin even though we still have questions even though we haven't received uh the information that we need to understand if flooding is not going to be worsened in our city and and that is incredibly concerning. I will say that I'm I'm here in Washington DC and uh Congressman Henry Quayad, our congressman held a hearing where he interviewed CBP um FEMA and DHS and his one he did submit the Tomkins report because currently it is the only study that exists of the Rio brand in our area. He did submit that to the congressional record and he did press CBP commissioners to evaluate it and please to provide data to the city and I think we have an avenue as a council to have our questions or even the engineering department to develop these questions and he will be able to submit them to the commissioners so that we can deal with the decision makers and get the data that we need or insist that they take the time to do the proper studies. You know, this this flooding risk will be dramatic. We've seen the floods. You showed what what that flood water how high it rises. And what the Tomkins report told us is that water increases in velocity underneath where we can't see it as it rises. And the wall will make the space that the water can spread short um more narrow and that increases pressure and it increases velocity and the risks of of flooding become that much more dramatic. So I just think that we need to take the course, find the information that we need, insist on it before we move forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Mr. I think we did we them to agree to hold off on the on the wall around the expansion of the bridge projects already. >> Yes sir. Mayor on city council we had a conversation directly with the World Trade Bridge and uh everything that we keep hearing uh again I we want to get more definitive as well too is that they do not intend to conflict with our our expansion. they want to they want to work in partnership with that. Our our goal still right now is to look for an alternative type structure rather than just that the one the standardized structure. But it is our understanding based upon what we've heard all the way up to Commissioner Scott, they do not want to interfere with the expansion of our bridge for them. uh with what council member Cigaroa said with the Columbia Bridge as well too. We actually believe that uh the state or the feds will provide the funding or the they will they will remove anything that is in conflict with our expansion of that bridge. Again, those conversations are preliminary. They're not complete yet, but uh if it if it helps at least provide so everybody has a a good understanding of what conversations we're having. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mayor. >> All right. Yes. Go ahead. Um, I'd like to make a motion to create an interlocal agreement with the Laredo College and the county um in an effort of unity so that we can all work together to address these border security issues with the understanding that we are going to negotiate with the federal government on these issues. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> Post. Motion passes. Hi. >> Yes. >> Hi, Mr. I just my question just said we see that we have a conversations and we all always have conversations. were going back and forth that you're having a conversation. Is there any way or is there any person a representative from the federal government that could come to our meeting and just say we are working in good faith. We are going to, you know, see that conversation. We're going to we're working in good faith. We're not saying they're they're going to guarantee us anything, but at least we're putting a face to somebody that, you know, we're hearing somebody from the federal government coming in down here, put it in public record, saying, "Hey, we are trying to work with what the city of Larredo. We're not trying just to come in and enforce ourselves and take over whatever we would want to take over. Is there any possibility that we can do that or that we can request that?" Now, council member, it can be requested, but be be aware that the challenge we have because of the bure bureaucracy of the federal government, most of the people that we were talking to, the boots on the ground and everything, some of these people that are making the preliminary decision, they are not given the blessing to come and publicly speak. And that'll that'll be the challenge we have with with having uh having our legislative body uh talk with some of these individuals is that they're not they're not allowed to put >> Oh, is there any way we can get a letter from them? >> Yes. And and but I will I will pass the request on and my request and the mayor's request actually has been can you put this in writing that this is what it means? I mean because >> you get tired of hearing and that's what that's what I'm hearing the council you get tired of listening to the thing is I understand >> but no it is it is to back that data up it is to back that information up because again I want that definitive at least something we can lean on and say all right we now understand we we can now at least hold somebody's >> yeah the thing is that we we're we're trying to tell them that we're working on working on this and we're going to put projects on this and we're going to do this and we're going to do that we're going to do the studies But at the same time, well, that's your word. We haven't heard from them. But having somebody or having a document saying this is what what's going to happen or we're trying to figure to figure out what's the best plan. It I think it's okay. Now we understand that there are listening to us. There are you know the everything that we're telling tell the public or the the community that is that that we are working for them. >> Right. So, >> no, I and I agree with you and if we can get that done, I I'd be happy to get there. Um, you know, I I guess my responsibilities within the charter, of course, is to help negotiate for you as well, too. Uh, you guys have the ultimate authority as to whether or not that negotiation or that recommendation is good. So, I think we got we got a good balance. I think the challenge we have with trying to get the federal government to come in here and stand in a public meeting, we've not been very successful with those because they're not they're not allowed to speak for Yeah, mayor. >> Go ahead, council. >> Um, would it help for us to put a resolution together with the official city position? I know we've sent them before, but we did create that study and we did have those results where, you know, more than half of the community was against the border wall. I think just to solidify the understanding of where we're coming from because we know what they're trying to do, but we understand that we're trying to advocate for the position of the community and we're trying to come to an agreement and the public want we need the public to understand that we are trying to work with that in mind and not that we're just trying to >> council member and I I I like that uh because the same way goes the other way, right? I mean, because we're sitting at the table, we're we're talking as well too. Anything that I can have definitive from our group here, we are talking about that. Mayor Mayor does a great job of that in the conversations to share where the council stands and all of that. I think any of that documentation would help. So, >> a resol uh uh >> a resolution or any of that any of that stuff as a body does help within these conversations. Well, I'd like to make a motion to create a resolution just to solidify our stance and the fact that we are working and get one request one back from them that that this is a two-way >> process. We can we can put that together. >> There's a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion pass. >> Mayor, can I ask one more question? One of the things that I didn't know that I did notice on this um on your presentation um is there is no timeline on to as to when the next meetings are going to be uh what those discussions are going to look like and because I'm I'm kind of worried about the the ROEC and and I'm not sure that if we're going to come back next month and we're going to say there okay we we've approved an ROEC for them uh for our property and we don't have any details this too, but you're saying that they need that so that they can come up with their specifications. >> So the so the the good or bad about this as well too is that as I have stated to them, I don't make a decision. All I am doing is sharing what the what what the thing is. They they could go ahead and they could go go ahead and bypass and come right directly to you and provide this is what we want. >> Okay? They're willing to negotiate within that and they're willing to make those adjustments within that structure. And that's what we're we're that's why there is no no direct timeline because we are still trying to find out exactly what they're what they're what they're willing to discuss and willing to negotiate. And right now they have not closed the door on anything that whether it may brought it up or whether I brought it up or whether whether we've had those conversations. I mean those alternative structures and and everything. >> Yeah. My my concern is that they can come in. >> We do know and I I think council member I think one of the things I will probably to press upon that as well too. We do know that we have actually received only two letters from the federal government on the right of entry in the first place. I have heard that we have property owners out there that have received their fourth one. And this is where the sense of urgency comes into this thing because uh my concern with the the federal administration that we have right now and this being such a very important issue for them to resolve. I don't know when somebody's going to just say enough's enough. We're not getting anywhere within those conversations. I believe that what we're hearing from our side is that we're having a great conversation going forward at trying to find the alternatives for that. But my fear is is that uh they may go ahead and just say we're going to go ahead and and provide imminent domain condemnation on the property and we're trying to we're trying to we're trying to make sure that the city's insulated from that as well too that so the idea then for me is is that >> you know they're it's kind of they're they're in a lull right now and the conversations are going slow and slow and slow and then once once they they pick up the pace on this thing they're going to come in and they're just going to take off and and and uh and it catches, you know, catch us asleep basically in in a lot of and a lot of these things. So, right now they're going slow and then all of a sudden once they get that right of entry first time, my my fear is that they're just going to take off and and not uh give us any sense of direction as to what they're going to do. They're just going to go >> and and and I and I do I do disagree a little bit with Council Member Cigaro and and exactly what you said there on the right of entry. The right of entry is not one thing. The right of entry is about 15 different things within that from from the start of a boundary survey. You know, going on and checking to make sure that the boundary matches what the parcel says it will match all the way uh the geotechnical the borings in that all the way up to the proper use of that all the way up to the construction. It's more nuanced than if we if we allow or don't allow right of entry. They're on our property today. I mean because we have a we have an agreement with them crossing that property. I mean they're on they're on everybody's property for that purpose today. What we are trying to do is manage what what the nature of that is and they have very specific requirements that they have to walk through. So I we're not talking about giving up any ground. We're not talking about giving any final resolution. And that's what I tried to share in that report as well too is that it is not that's not the end end result of that. What what the danger is is that within imminent domain and condemnation is that they could do it first and then worry about what's under the ground. >> Yeah. Well, I mean I guess these questions come from uh rise because there there's a certain certain lack of trust in there that we're that the people out there are not really trustworthy of what they want to do. because um some of it because of lack of information and some of it is because we don't know what they're doing at this particular moment. Are they working behind the scenes to to to create an action plan that's just going to bypass everything and just move forward? So I from my on my point of view, I want the city to be available and ready just in case anything like that happens that we can we can either have an alternative to to put a stop to it or to figure out a way that slow slow them down. >> Council member and and I will answer that very quickly. Yes, we are prepared within within the within the uh the within our u our hiring of Jackson Walker. And again, I I we're not going to get too much in the strategy out and out in a public conversation, but we are prepared for whatever level of the conversation is. And and I I think I want to make sure you understand that because and I'll I'll drive it home a little bit because um we don't talk about we don't talk about some of this stuff outside of that. Yes, they are working very diligently on their side. I can't I'm assuming that they're having meetings every week on how they're going to implement this model. If if they're not, shame on them. I think some of the stuff that works to our favor though is that with the disruptions that we've had within the uh the funding on the federal side, that actually works to our advantage a little bit. It kind of kind of gives a little hiccup within the conversations, but most of the funding that they are utilizing is out of the big beautiful bill. And that means that uh the the people that are already working on that, the consultants and everything, they're meeting on a regular basis. What we're And again, I I can't I can't I can't fix the entire trust issue. I I there's just no way to do that. I mean, we're the government. We're here to help is all I can think about, right? And uh but it is it's like we actually believe they they have been honest with us in their intent, which is a nice thing to do. We don't we may not agree with that intent, but they've been honest in that intent. And if we don't ask the right questions, we won't get the we won't get the answers that we're we're hoping to see. Because I if if we're if we're told no, we're we're done we're done negotiating. We're going to go this route. That's going to set us into a different direction. >> We're going to go down that that path and do what we believe is necessary in order to protect our community. >> Mayor, >> right now we're not hearing that. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Can we get citizen comments back up here because they've been waiting for over an hour and a half. I think they see what they have to say, please. >> Okay. All right. I'm sitting. >> Thank you. We'll proceed with citizen comments. >> Um, Manuel Ramirez on item number one. >> Good afternoon, city council. My name is Manoz. Um, so that's a lot of really concerning information uh that Mr. provided here. Um, the idea that we need to and I understand, but I think that's more of an argument that we need to do the work first and then get the data right. Tommpkins report although it can be argued to be assumption um I think there's still a lot of truth uh within that report that we can use to defend ourselves because at the same time it's not like the federal government has provided anything substantial to say otherwise. Um I mean first point here we don't even have an updated map. So, how can we even trust that they are taking the best interests of this community when something as simple as a map hasn't even been provided to the council? Um, I think this proposal is mostly halfbaked at this point. I think Mr. uh neep gave more thought to this presentation that the federal government has given to anybody in the public and that does affect that that aspect of trust because in my perspective um roe is approval regardless of whatever they say and it's like an imminent threat to uh to the community um that should be at least halted to the best of our abilities because I I recognize that, you know, there's only certain certain things you guys can do, right? City government, federal government, whatever. Um, I understand that. But if you truly want to stand with the people, then we should make it very well known at the local level that this is something that we absolutely oppose because we're not getting a fair um a fair assessment here. It's like, hey, let's do it first and then we'll figure out whether this works or not. Damage has already been done. Um that that's primarily my concern and there's already been we already have these similar structures throughout the country where it may be beneficial to look there to find the information we need to legally support some of the things that Tomkins writes in his report. Um cuz I I don't think I don't think it's fair to say that it's it's all assumption and that we can't use it because again the government the federal government hasn't provided anything substantial to the public that says oh this wall isn't going to do anything >> and another thing >> mayor three minutes mayor. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Next is Margarita. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. Um, I would like to ask Mr. Leanda to speak for me. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Mayor members. >> My name is Ricardo Deanda. I'm appearing before you as a representative of the Rio Grande land owners association. That's how I'm appearing before you. But uh I'd like to speak to you as a member of the uh riverfront advisory committee as well. We've asked you, we've recommended to you that you commission a hydrarology or geomorphology study or whatever is necessary for you to find out what the effect of the walls and buoys will have on the city of Laredo. Because the information that we have, the studies that we've conducted show that it would have devastating consequences that would cause the structures that the city council that the city managers told you in the flood plane, it would cause them to be in the flood way and actually float down the river because of the stronger current that would be caused by the walls in the buoys according to Dr. Tomkins. Now, you all can either look at that report and say, "Oh my god, maybe he's right." Or you can say, "No big deal. Nothing to look at here. He doesn't know what he's talking about." We suggest that the important thing to for you to do as stewards of our safety, because that is your ultimate duty, is to take that report seriously and to conduct your own studies. I can't imagine that we spent the landowners association conduct uh commissioned this study, paid for it. We paid $15,000 for that study. I can't imagine that it would run six figures, let alone a million dollars. Besides, the question as to how long it'll take. The question as to whether there's sufficient data. The question as to how much will it cost, is a question best answered by a professional, not by an administrator. That's not me saying that. That's Sister Rosemary Welsh, who's also on the advisory committee, saying that to Mr. need and to yourselves saying hire someone and if that person who's an expert tells you there isn't sufficient data then you can bank on it otherwise not I'll tell you what an ROC means and I can't imagine that the city manager would bring that to you an ROEC means that they pay you $5,000 to build a wall they have 36 months to build a wall and the only thing you get back is a promise that they will sue you if you can't negotiate a settlement. Well, what if they ignore you? That's bad faith. What if they ignore you? Then you don't get paid for the money that they've taken even though they've built that wall unless you sue them in the court of claims in Washington DC. I can't imagine that would come before you. But that's the bad faith that you're dealing with here. Now, what does border security look like? City manager asked you that. I'll tell you what it looks like. minutes. >> Okay. Wrap it up, please. >> Could I speak under my three minutes? >> We can share minutes. >> Uh, she can speak for her minutes, but you can't share minutes. But go ahead and wrap it up. >> I'll tell you what I'll tell you what border security looks like. It looks like It looks like cameras. It looks like sensors. It looks like blimps. It looks like towers. It looks like boots on the ground. doesn't necessarily look like walls and buoys. City manager hasn't told you they've closed the door on that. Why don't we ask for that? More importantly, why would they do that? Well, because your report shows that people would die otherwise, that the city would get flooded otherwise. Now, the federal government says not to worry. We have a we have a treaty with CILA that says we can't allow anything to deviate the river more than 5%. Well, guess what? CIA has not gotten a bit of information as to what they have planned, Border Patrol has planned for these walls and buoys. In fact, they have protested to the state department by the fact that they do not have the information that is required under the 1944 water treaty. We also interviewed the committee also interviewed your your bridge engineers. Your bridge engineers have gotten approval from IBWC. They've not gotten approval from CILA. And maybe the Trump administration will bully its way and run over Cila and force them to sign off on your bridge. But maybe not. They've not gone before CIA. The US government can build the structures because it's on, as your lawyer says, US land. But you can't bridge your you can't build your bridge unless Mexico agrees to it because it's on Mexican land. You don't have CIA approval. There are the more I look into this, the more I peel this onion, the more issues that I find. As a member of this committee, we found out that the city of Laredo is in danger if this these walls and buoys are constructed. We found out that there's an issue with whether you may get approval from CILA. Sila has protested the fact that as Mr. Tomkins found out, Sila has said the walls in the buoys will flood. No. We protest. That's what sila said. Maybe Trump will pull pull his bully. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Well, one last thing. It's okay for you guys to sit down and negotiate, but don't sign anything. You can't trust them. You don't want to sign something and then find out that it'll flood Laredo. Find out the hard way that it floods Laredo. Find out that in your district there's flooding because you signed off on something even though you had the Tomkins report waving a red flag. >> Thank you, Mayor. No, mayor. I was just going to say that I think when with the committee uh I don't know if it's appropriate to report on the committee reports. Uh I think it's there's a practice there with we should get a report from the committee on what they've discussed and be represented to us because I think only the committee chair can present to us what the committee is found or discussed. >> Suggested going to the chair for that. Mayor Mr. had already had also signed up for for making comments. So this will this will be his uh those were his three minutes. Yes ma'am. >> Okay. >> Mayor there's two more comments. Uh we have Karen Munoz. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Karen Moss. I live in district 8. Um, first, I don't think it's irrational for any of us to be skeptical about the federal government um and their actions or what they may be. You all talked about the lack of trust. We've seen them break the law. We've seen them disobey court orders. We've seen them send people to a country that they've never been to to a dangerous dangerous prison after they deported them illegally. Um, and we see them do these actions what weekly. So, I just want to speak to kind of the distrust that you all are talking about, right? And I don't envy the position that you all are in. Um, it often feels like the federal government again, we can get we maybe we give them a limited right of entry. We don't have a reason to trust that that's going to remain limited. again, uh, okay, we the federal government, federal courts will say, "Hey, you can't deport people." They say, "Okay, we're just going to deport them at 2 a.m." when no one knows Labor Day weekend, right? So, just think it's really important to know that that's the context that we're speaking in. Um, and I hope I trust that you all will keep that in mind whenever you all make these decisions. So, we again urge you to do everything that you can, everything in your power to ensure that the health and safety of this community is protected. Um, again, I understand that the federal government has put you in this very difficult position. I don't envy your position. Like I said, it feels like the federal government is often fighting us. It often feels that way with the state government, too. Earlier this, maybe last week, the city of Houston passed a policing ordinance and Governor Abbott on Twitter said, "Hey, we're going to take your funding." Right? It feels like our hands are tied. It feels like you all's hands are tied. It feels like no one is fighting for us. Um and that's why that's why we come here in the middle of the day to the eight of us that who who could make it you know come here in the middle of the day to say please fight please do not sign anything I agree yes in good faith know who you're negotiating with know that they are likely maybe again we hope that they are negotiating in good faith but we understand history we understand what they are doing weekly and don't sign anything um until you have trust and is that going to come until you have trust that that they are actually negotiating in good faith here and I don't think you have that. I don't believe that you need to give the government the right of entry onto property to conduct these studies. Again, the Dr. Tomkins has already released some there are other border communities who already have buoys similar to the kind that you know have been discussed here. So, we need to just use all of that context. We don't need to sign anything at this point when the federal government has given us no information. Um, I would be remiss to say, you know, I know this is the middle of the day again. I was here maybe three weeks ago. um when there was uh an hour and a half of public testimony. Um so it feels it feels a little difficult to I don't I didn't even have time to write comments today because we had to be here in the middle of the day, right? So um we all know that many more people would be here in the evening if this meeting was in the evening. It's unfortunate that my representative is not here, though I'm happy she's in DC advocating for the same. Um so again, I just we urge you to not sign anything and um just know who you're dealing with. The distrust is not coming from nowhere and we are here in good faith too. Thank you. >> Next is uh mayor, city council members, and my fellow citizens of Laredo. Good afternoon. My name is Sidalo. I'm a resident of district 4 and a proud member of the Laredo Democratic Socialist of America. I thank you for the opportunity to speak here as I'm here concerning the construction of the border wall along that stretch of the Rio Grand. Now, I'm not here to take up much time when it comes to the environmental risk of this proposed border wall. Much has already been said by Martin by Dr. Mark Thompson's report, which you heard this Tuesday. No, what I'm here to address is what many people in Larredo have already been feeling. We do not want this border wall. We pride ourselves here in Laredo for being the safest city in Texas. And yet here we are being fed this dribble that we need this border wall to keep our community safe. And I'm here to ask city council to not cooperate with the Trump administration for the construction of the border wall. Laredo city council must stand with its people against this border wall. You must hold the line. We cannot cooperate and offer a helping hand to a hyron and its goons who threaten our immigrant communities here in this city. Mass thugs who have shown that they will use the instruments of the state to commit violence against its very citizens. We need transparency from you on what the federal government is asking from us. We cannot have a patron system again where only backroom dealings are being had between the federal government and some people here in city council. We can't keep wasting money. We could be better using this money spent on the wall to offer better services to the people of Laredo or build infrastructure that will meaningfully impact their lives. This current presidential administration is trying to intimidate our city into following its agenda. Let it be known if Laredo gives even an inch, the government will take a mile and we must not allow that. When you took office, you did so understanding that you were in charge of representing and defending the entire city of Laredo. And I'm sure that you understand the responsibility the office entails. After all, was it not that in 2024 you voted to give yourselves a raise because you believe there should be fair compensation for your work? In fact, four of those city council members who voted to approve this are sitting here right now. Gilbert Gonzalez of District 1, Ricardo Raquel of District 2, Ruben Gutierz of District 5, and Vanessa Perez of District 7. to you four. If you truly believe in the value of your hard work as city council members, then you must stand with the people of Laredo at this crucial moment when the full weight of the responsibility is on your shoulders. You could, for example, join your fellow city council members in DC to advocate for us instead of totling our thumbs while we wait for the government info for a government who our city manager admitted is wanting to fasttrack this process. Do we trust them to conduct the study with care and rigor we really need? I would also like to address my representative Ray Gara of District 4 and implore you to speak with your colleagues and dissuade them from working with ICE in the Trump administration. Listen to the voice of your constituents. And here we stand now at the crossroads of history. The decisions you make now will echo for the decades to come. And this will be your legacy, not your achievements. This decision and the people of Laredo will not let you forget about this should you decide to cower and bend the knee towards this authoritarian regime. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. All right. >> Are all the comments, mayor? >> No. All the comments. Okay. We proceed with executive session >> unless we have anything else. >> All right. >> Motion for second. >> Motion. Second. All in favor. >> Mayor. >> Yes. Who is it? >> Oh, it's Alisa. I just wanted to thank all of the those that spoke for public comment and we're here listening. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Executive session. Thank you. >> All right, back to the executive committee. Uh, no agreements were made. >> We'll proceed with We have corn. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Number two. >> Number two. Item number two, >> presentation. >> All right. Mayor, I if um I don't think we're going to get through this one as far as we want and um because we we took we took the amount of time that was necessary to have the border wall conversation. So, if you'll at least allow me to lay this out, we'll continue this conversation on this. But I I do want to lay out exactly where we what we've been working on, where we're going because um short of the frustrations that each of you feel with how our meetings operate and everything else, we actually have some state responsibilities that we have to adjust for. and and uh I think one of the conversations was even how the Zoom meetings are utilized and how they work within the system. So I I just wanted to walk through and I'll just set the table for for lack of a better way. The intent for this conversation was to walk through the current agenda and highlight what was working well, identify those areas of improvement, discuss the best practice from the other city, and then gather council endpoints. So, we weren't really seeking a lot of I was hoping for the dialogue with you guys, but I believe that based upon that other important item and topic that we had, uh, I'm just going to lay out some of this stuff in there. The the data that I will send you uh from this point forward as well too is that we want to preserve the council policym authority. I think that's the big thing that within the charter, within all of our our rules, we want to make sure that because these meetings, these business meetings are your meetings. These are the ones that are are meant to provide for how we move the city forward. And so, and of course, the nature of the staff makes it easier when we understand exactly what you're trying to accomplish and and where we're going. So, we want to maintain transparency and public access. We want to improve the clarity and flow. going to support the informed decision making and build on existing strength. So, I'm assuming that I'm not going to hear anybody up there say anything different, but these are the guiding principles of how we want to operate our meetings. Um, our current agenda structure is that we do have an established and adopted structure. Uh, I would say that over time in our priority procedures manual, we actually have the agenda written in there. We don't really follow that that are adopted. We've adjusted as time has went and that is only for the standardization of the system because all it takes is a vote of the council when you get here and we we see that as we move things around because we're trying to be respectful of people's time and and when when people come to see us in the evenings and uh and so we are we do try to follow a standard structure. I think the frustration is is that we we find certain items take a little bit longer than what we have to get to. This is essentially our current agenda structure and I know that you have a copy of of a handout as well too. This is essentially as to how we how we walk through when we place everything in there. Some of the some of the uh categories that we have here are actually u locally independently uh adopted from how we do our business. We can actually combine certain things and we can kind of move things around a little bit. uh we there are some things that we're going to have to adjust just because of the way the laws have changed with open meetings act and everything else but but uh so it breaks it down there the uh the document that you do have we broke it down into essentially different categories of the meeting as well too and uh and so we have opening items we have some of the work that's in the middle and then we have this stuff that's at the end what what I would ask for you to do is that be considering um how we how we how we walk through these things. The opening items, I'm assuming most of them they're they're very consistent. The the call to order, the uh the the pledge of allegiance, the uh the the moment of silence, all of those things down through that first part of that opening items there. I don't see a lot of challenges within how we operate that that's setting the table in order to get to our business. >> Right. When you when you in a while, I'd like to put some uh my thoughts just go and resume everything. >> Yeah. The next section of course is into those communications and recognitions and uh what we what we do is that you it shows the strong community engagement within our our recognitions and communications. I think that and and we heard that in from some of the the ones that were here to speak this morning or this afternoon as well too is that they want to hear from you. They want to know what you're thinking. They want to know how things go. We just don't have a lot of time because we got so much work that we're trying to accomplish within that. But all of those communications recognitions do extend the time of the meeting. So I I think if you can find a ma method of how to do that uh that would help. Um and then there is uh you know the appropriate structure and timing of that is what's important I think and and trying to walk through that. The next item there is public comment. Um I I will state and we've been discussing this and debating this through legal administration and everything else is that agenda item comments are in the opening meetings act as well too is that we have to allow public comment on any item that is on the agenda. We do not have to allow for general comment. It can it can and cannot be. It is recommended that we we do have general comment because that may be the only interaction that somebody could have. The challenge we have is that if it's not in a controlled fashion, uh we could be talking about the price of wheat in China if we're not careful. That's what the general comments. It could be anybody not necessarily from even inside of Laredo. It could be anybody coming up and saying, "I want a little bit of time." and and I think at at times we have seen that utilized to a negative side of that because we we appreciate what our people are saying and we want to make sure we understand that. So when we talk about public comment I think the the balance of the access and the efficiencies of those are going to be the most important piece on that public comment. The appointments, I think that would that moves fit really well. Making sure that the appointments go through there. There's clear council authority, straightforward process, minimal minimal challenges. The public hearings, uh, we actually have a lot of internal stuff that we do with the public hearings. We don't necessarily have to read them verbatim to enter them into the record. We can do them by title. We can do them a lot of different ways. I'm sorry, Mr. Rodriguez. It's a I know that we'll find him something else to do. All right. >> Thank you. >> But but but it does you know the the public hearings we we were just supposed to put it on the table. I think we found a very creative way of the for and against as we come out of that and moves it that way, but it does it interrupts the flow as we walk through those. We can we can manage those in in a couple different ways, but we don't have to set them on the table the way they have been set before. And that'll save us a little bit of time when we have 15 to 20 of them and uh and long dissertations within each one of them. But uh we we will provide that recommendation to you as we get into the ordinances. Um, this is where where we actually see within the ordinance and we see it a little bit in the public hearings as well too, but and you're going to hear this a couple different times today. Uh, sometimes first time discussion occurs, that little green box there. When we do first time discussions, they go longer. The the topic goes a lot longer within those conversations. If if if you're not aware of why it's there and how it's there, then that's where all the questions come about. And then that's why some of these items take longer to cover for that. Uh the ordinances have to be laid out there a certain way. And that's why we always talk about with the the uh the first reading of those ordinances, there's really no action that has to happen other than we have to get it on the table so it can be discussed. And and I guess in our opinion is that those should go without a lot of conversation. If you have a question after it's been laid on the table, then please come and talk because we'll normally have two to three different times chances to to tackle that one. Uh the discussion with that is that if we can get some earlier engagement opportunities that'll help with that. The consent agenda actually operates pretty well. Other than I think the concerns that I have heard from some of you is that you're not even aware why the consent agenda item is on from from a departmental level. One of the things that we are talking about doing is that and this is at a later slide is that within our agenda process consent agenda items are actually supposed to be resolutions and motions. There's two different sections. We break them down by department which creates this other little beast within the structure. And um and so I think that's where you're using the consent agenda correctly where if you don't agree that it is full consent then that item has to be pulled off and it gets discussed. That's the way it's supposed to work. But I think there's ways that we can kind of strengthen that out and and actually follow a little bit closer to our model. Staff reports, they do provide important information, but they do a lot of times they become firsttime discussion items, which draws it out even farther from what they are. uh if we can find a different way of handling some of these staff reports. Uh I think sometimes we utilize them very well and then other times they get to be a lot of noise and clutter because I want to keep you guys focused on the work that you have to get done. Uh executive sessions legally required to handle sensitive matters. No structural concerns with that. Um I think unless unless you have anything specific that you want to talk about wi with those we can walk through those as well too. But uh the general counsel discussions the this is the most flexible discussion space we have and um and at times the conversations are unstructured because these items come onto the table and then it it is actually and I I go back to one thing that council member Perez said at one point in time. This is actually your first blush at some of these items. But what we try to do is we try to put the discussion and the decision all on top of everything. And sometimes you want time to consider what's being requested. And I think we can actually change that model just a little bit and try to structure it a little bit further where you want the ability and I I talked about that early having the ability to put it on there because this is your meeting, but then finding a way that you can kind of walk through that. There are some best practices out there. I know San Antonio runs them through a committee system or a briefing meeting. essentially they go to a briefing meeting before they go to the business meeting. I don't know if we need to get to that level. San Antonio is five times larger than us. But but that'd be an area. Um the key observation items often introduced, discussed, and decided all within the same meeting. I I think if if there are certain things that we can slow down, lay them on the table, have a have a general discussion on that, give a direction saying please bring that report back or please bring that information back, which we we do on a lot of the different things. I think the difficulty is is that we're trying to take care of all of that business at one meeting and that's what makes it that's what draws it out when we're trying to uh make the sausage at the same time as we're trying to discuss what sausage we're going to make. Um the resulting challenges in that is that we do have longer meetings. We have limited preparation time for that because depending on how long we have uh if it's a general report, we can do that. Um you know, I think I provided a document last year or a year and a half ago that said when you put your directives on there, give me 30 days for this type. If it's a staff report, I'll I'll get you the information back. If you're going to need an ordinance revision, then I'm going to go back and it'll take maybe 60 days. and a 90-day window. The thing is, we don't want to leave any of those directives out there standing because we want to get that work off the plate because it was important enough for you guys in order to have the conversation and actually provide that that u that directive. The best practices that we heard, we went through ICMA, which is the International City County Management Association. We looked at San Antonio, we looked at Austin, we looked at Corpus Christie, we looked at uh Macallen, we looked at a lot of different ones and the best practices that we have found in most of these and some of them do it some of them do the same works very similar to us as well too but separate the discussion from the decision and I think if we can get that to happen then you're going to see at least it moves a lot smoother with that uh where we don't we don't feel uh complicating it with direct uh with decisions before the discussion is ended because uh you guys do a great job of this but I like to think about things for a little while long little longer than normal uh because I want to make sure it's the best possible decision because there's a cause and effect with every decision that we make use briefings and workshops we do have the ability already built into our protocols and our priorities to you utilize briefings they're not formally done they're informal but they are have the ability there we are utilizing workshops a lot more now to try to cover these these important things that's why we're here today u prep preparing the items before the action I think understanding exactly why they're there so that we can have a good discussion and then a final decision and then uh the use of the committees I don't think there's anything wrong informally or formally utilizing committees to a certain source when they're when there are bigger it's essentially it's another type of workshop or a special session and I think those are where These complex t topics can actually be part of that conversation as well too. But the core concept within those best practices is have the discussion first then determine what that decision is and then that improves the clarity without eliminating that authority. Everything gets laid on the table. We talk about everything. There's nothing that is that is taboo or it can't be talked about. It's just where we talk about it and how we talk about it. And um and so where this can help in is that the consent agenda confidence I I you know I I think having two or three items off that consent ages that have to be there. um the staff report efficiency making sure because I think that's a very difficult thing to take up a lot of time and at least uh talk about exactly why what we're trying to accomplish unless it has a clear direction for that council clear council deci discussions and improved meeting flow should happen within within trying to have the discussions separate from the decisions what it does not do um these are slides that I I keep adding to because I want to make sure everybody understands it does not limit your authority. It actually just changes how we actually walk through it. It does not prevent items from going on there. Does not change the charter. Does not remove the flexibility. You guys still maintain all of that within the structure of your meetings. And um but what what what what we're recommending a little bit for consideration is is that if you can separate discussion and decisions out, we have earlier engagement, we have better preparation, we have clearer discussions and more effective meetings as to how we walk through these things. Um some of the agenda layout refinements that I wanted to lay out there because these are ones that have come up because I I think one was about the Zoom meetings. We I know there's been a lot of conversation about how those Zoom meetings uh how participating by Zoom should happen and everything and we've we've talked about that. So we need to have a longer conversation about that because u during COVID life was a little bit different. Everybody was a little more lax and how we would allow the communication because we wanted to keep everybody safe as we were trying to do our work. But as we got away farther away from COVID, we're trying to get back to that more traditional system. Uh but all those all those influences remain out there. The Zoom conversations and everything else. The public hearings and ordinances evaluating the form of the introductory to the finals consider streamlining the reading requirements were allowable. the final ordinances. Uh, one of the recommendations that came out of a training that uh, that Karen actually had attended on on agendas within the state was the potential to include final readings within the consent agenda. By the time it gets to a final reading, just put it on the consent agenda. It does not need to come up separately on its own. We just place it in the consent agenda. If somebody has an issue, they pull it off just like we do with any consent agenda items. The appointments, consider handling uh, as announcements when appropriate. just do do it all at that same block of time. I think it works fairly well. Uh it'll save a little bit of time. The consent agenda structure organized by resolutions and motions rather than department. Uh as I was walking through that one, I think the challenge is making sure that we understand where where that consent agenda item came from because that's where we'll have those conversations. I don't think it changes when we pull them off. We have the director here in order to cover that item. Um, and then there is a requirement uh that we have to include budget language on our agendas as well too. This is effective as of September of this year. And so we're going to have to add some additional disclaimers essentially on the agenda based upon the open meetings law for where it's at. Hopefully we can get to the council discussion at some point. I'm happy to stay today but if you guys uh want to think about this farther because again discussion first decisions later right and uh what works well today what what are the where are the challenges what I'm hoping that document that I provided to you by breaking it up in those sections we can actually eliminate some of those areas saying no those aren't the areas that we want to talk about and we'll narrow down exactly where our challenges are within the agendas where can the improvements help and what can we what can we suggest us. I actually have a um a best practice guideline where uh if we were to do a complete overhaul and we implemented a committee system, we implemented the brief a formal briefing system and that that one that one felt like we shifted the model so far where it's like let's let's walk through these pieces a little bit slower and a little bit more identified in order to get there because I think any adjustments that we do make within those conversations are going to help us. So, and so what level of change? These are the four questions that I would hope that the council could consider and get in there and then what we'll do from that point and actually what we can do from today if you go home and think about those four questions as well too, we can at least pull the uh the feedback together. We can ask build out some more incremental type options where we kind of evolve this thing a little bit slower and a little bit more direct and then we can return it for further discussion. >> Mr. Mayor I I'd rather just kind of get into it because >> we're all good. >> I think we already got the point of >> Yeah. >> what we're doing. >> So, this that was my last slide, I think, mayor. So, uh happy to start the conversation. >> Motions to do before we leave >> be because of this um consideration that we want to improve the way we function here. The motions I thought about was to move council agenda items to the beginning of the meeting. This way we don't take till 11:30 or 12 midnight. Take citizen comments at each time of the agenda item is called. Schedule recognitions prior to the business meeting and if included during the business meeting, limit them to not more than two per meeting and I I'll make an effort not to put a lot of recognition. >> Yeah, I'm I'm in there too. And one more thing, add section covering video conference call in line with section 551.127 of the Texas government code which I think you have a copy of there, Mr. >> Yes. >> It says some guidelines on how to participate on Zoom. >> That is correct and it's in the Texas government if I may. >> Yes, go ahead. Um, just to kind of enhance your item on the council member items, I do think it would be prudent for us to possibly get three co-sponsors, a requirement of three co-sponsors for our items just to ensure that, you know, there's some viability to the discussion and not just using it as >> and mayor and what councilwoman Perez is talking about, San Antonio actually does that. they require co-sponsors within those those those topics in order to have them laid on there. And again, it's just to make sure that it's vetted out well enough in order to move. >> Well, the reason why I'm saying it, it's not that I want to limit our abilities at all. It's just that sometimes agenda items um they they get used in ways that um are not productive for us as a policym and it's more of a distraction. we are not able to get to some of the city business that we need to. You have land owners, you have business owners waiting on final approvals. They're going through the ordinance process and we're tableabling their items and then we hear from the public that we're not efficient as far as businessfriendly and I mean we can't we're not business friendly if we keep tableabling city business, >> right? The other thing would be uh to come prepared. we all need to come prepared to avoid all these questions and education on what they're talking about that takes an hour to get education on what the item is. >> So to come a little bit prepared >> and also mayor if I may um I I don't like the suggestion of taking out the department uh consent agenda like um organization factor there. But um I do agree that some of these consent agenda items are it's not clear to us what they're tied to. we're approving a contract or we're approving an expenditure that we don't know what project it's tied to. If we're going to do any kind of modification, I think it should be on a project basis. For example, uh water pipe replacement project. These are the consent agenda items for that project. Like clarify for us what the project is or you know the district whatever project this is the approval for that because a lot of times we're asking what is this about and then oh it's this project. would be it would be better if it was just clear for us so that we can go through um our research that we need to do before the meetings and um items like for example the water. We had made a motion as a council to require staff updates for the water because we we wanted the public to know that we were focused on that. Those were removed from the agenda. I think we need to keep our priorities consistent as far as staff reports even It's just a two-minute report. It'll eliminate us having to put an agenda item asking for updates because the public does want to know that we are prioritizing water. >> So, I'd like to move on this agenda on what I mentioned. Move council agenda items to the beginning of the meeting. This is going to be one one motion. Take citizens comments at the time of each agenda item. Schedule recognitions prior to business meeting. If included during the visited meeting, limit to no more than two per meeting and add section covering video conference call in line with section 551.127 of Texas government code. That is my motion. >> Mayor, if if you would second that, >> mayor. >> Yes. Go ahead. Just um a couple of concerns with that. Moving council agenda items to the beginning of the meeting, I I think moves us from what this actually was supposed to be. This is supposed to be taking care of business, city business. So when the consent agenda comes up, that's important. When first, second, third readings ordinances come up, that's important. having them in the middle of the meeting. I think if you'd accept the amendment, mayor, to put those prior to our >> Yeah. City business, >> right? City business before having our council agenda item before. I I I think we should put that before we have our items. I I think it's very similar to what it is now. >> Um except for moving those items, you know, even further up ahead instead of having them as far back as they are now. I'll accept that to a motion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh no, just a quick comment on the recognitions. I know most of us staff and and management uh think that they take too long until one until we bring up a recognition and it's dear to to uh to to us, right? Then that's when we say, well, I mean, they they deserve to uh be recognized citywide. Uh what what does your your outline say, Mayor? a business day prior. >> Move city council agenda to council agenda items to the beginning of the meeting. >> No, the the recognitions, sir. >> Oh, recognitions uh says schedule recognition prior to the business meeting like earlier than 5. >> So would that be 5:00 p.m. May? >> 5 p.m. >> Okay. Yeah, that's reasonable because I've done some when we when we started, mayor that we were doing some at 4:30 and you know some of these recognitions these speakers were talking to empty chairs and stuff. So five I said five is great. >> Yeah. May Yeah. May I? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Right. So this council voted on having him at 4:30 the recognitions. >> Um and and and we voted on that already. >> For some reason it got out of whack and we started bringing them in. >> We voted we voted the other direction afterwards. >> Right. After that right after that and that's something, you know, I do agree with Council Member Gonzalez for Mayor Promp. Um, you know, when it's somebody that's calling us, hey, you know, we need to recognize this team, this team, this team, because they did so, you know, great in in whether it be federal, state competition. I think it's something extremely important for our city, right? Because our students are representing the city of Laredo at the end of the day. Um, and it's extremely important to do so. Um, I agree. I think 5:00 would be a good time to be doing that. That people are able to get out of work and hopefully be here before. >> Go ahead. if I may. It's just for me it's kind I I find it just kind of you know um not responsible like for us not being responsible of our time like if I I suggest my colleague like I was the one that brought up that coming up at the 4:30 the not the 4:30 the starting off of the first of the month that's where we're going to do the recognitions every first of the month all the recognitions we're going to do every first of the month >> at 5:00 we we we veered off from that the other one I think we we've been here for a while. I think we just take we don't take responsibility on doing if you if you know what you're topic is or your cons your agenda is or your item you have you fight it to the point that you you are argue with or you discusses the point to the point but we got to limit ourselves as well. I know we got we every every one of us up here, we're up here because we're passionate of what we do and I know that it's it's u we try to prove it to to our colleagues that this is the way I want you to support this and I you know but at the same time we got to police ourselves you know going through this and having the mayor you know trying not to sanction us but at the same time trying to you know hey stop it time out you guys are taking over the meetings I think that's our responsibility as council and as as as uh as hold uh chairholders to say, "Hey, this is this is how far I'm going to go and this is far how far we can we can do this on doing recognitions." We know we get out of hand. We know that there's a lot of recognitions. At the same time, we see how um we see how the the the the what? The crowd gets u everybody comes in, especially when it comes to like right now the the water the water when it comes to the the the border wall. At the same time, we got to tell yes, we want you to come in and advocate, but let's let's keep in mind that we also we're in a in a building that in case of an e that there's an emergency, we got to have a way out. Everybody has to have a way out. If there's an emergency and just imagine having this this room filled, which we have before, and nobody's ever said anything and say, "Hey, sir, we're over capacity. You know, we're over capacity. We can't let them in." So we we can't and we're not trying to be mean. We're just trying to to control it and say, "Hey, if there's an emergency, there's nothing we can't we can't do. We everybody's going to be running around everywhere." So I think as as shareholders up here, as council members, we as well, we got to understand and limit ourselves and put ourselves say this is important. If you can discuss it, say, "Hey, can I figure it out before I put the item?" make sure that you already went through all the channels to put the item in the agenda. Now, if the recognitions, we can control that. I want to do the recognitions. I you might you might want to do two, might want to do three. But at the same time, I think it's for me to be up here to tell me have Mr. Neb have a paperwork or having a like have a a presentation to how to how to perform ourselves or how to conduct ourselves. It's crazy. >> Sure, >> ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry. It's crazy. I think it's it's not we're not being professionals. So, we got to start limiting ourselves. Say, you know what? We understand this is what we're going to do and we're going to control this. But, we got to work as a as a council to make sure we're we're not doing this and bringing things up again and making things over and over. But, mayor, having a referee, yes, >> to tell us what to do, >> I think that's not professional. Go ahead, >> Councilman Rael. I'm I'm glad you brought that up about the the capacity of this room because during the public safety meeting which we have in 8 minutes uh there's a presentation going to be spoken about that. So we're going to the marshall's going to be was spoken about too about that about a month ago and he's bringing in recommendations of what he's going to do because I asked him specifically to start enforcing that here in this building because as you mentioned if we do have an emergency we're going to have a hard time getting out of here and that's something that's going to be brought up like I say in the next 8 nine minutes so because I'm going to need to leave to go to bed. But thank you. Uh, I mean the answer is simple. We just follow Robert's rules. >> Exactly. >> We probably need a Robert's rules training for some, you know, maybe for all of us, but um it's very clear. You know, you're not supposed to bring up items. You're not supposed to be redundant. Everything's supposed to flow efficiently. >> Um, you can't you can even limit the amount of time on a discussion on an item. You can limit the amount of time that a each of us has to speak. I mean some of the are my colleagues have clocked in you know 20% of the meeting and speaking time um you know just asking questions and asking for clarification and asking for things that you know we have a week and a half of the agenda that we can use to to go and ask questions and at the same time I do think that um one of the practices that that you have Mr. Neb with the staff is you have staff meetings where they have to present what they're going to present to us. I think we should be allowed to go to those meetings and I understand that there's some reasons why you might not want us there. But if you're presenting content and facts on, you know, I need this pipe, it's going to cost this much for this project. I don't see why we can't go and and use that as an in factf finding information finding resource so that when that item gets to our desk we already have a familiarity with it for those of us that need it. So, I think staff meetings where um these things are going to be discussed for us to vote on that, we should be able to go to those and that would be on all of us to take that initiative. But we just need to follow Robert's rules and if you know cuz I've I've had it before where I try to utilize Robert's rules and then it becomes an adversarial thing where oh, you don't want me to speak or you're trying to limit me. It's not about limiting your freedom to speak or whatever. It's about controlling the meeting so that we can get business conducted because we've gone way too many meetings where we don't finish the agenda and it's unacceptable for the public. >> All right. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> And you know, we also have a city secretary there. He has a time there and and if it's like if we're going through discussion more than 3 minutes if the if there's a you know I think mayor if if you're I think right now mayor I I respect your your your your decision your motion. Uh but I think at the same time I think we have a city secretary that has a that has a timer that can control the time and if there's a speaker that bill goes off. Hey, sorry. Thank you so much. Next and I think that we should just be more a little bit more strict on what we're doing on on when people are speaking up here or trying to to have their public comment. >> Yeah, we could do that and I think u that's necessary to move everything along but sometimes I give them a little time to finish off. >> Of course. Of course. That that would do it. But uh yeah, we need to >> I think before we do all this, mayor, I'm mayor. Before we do a motion or before you did a motion and I respect your motion, but before we do all this, I think we should start working on ourselves first before we have something something implemented on ourselves and say, well, we're not going to let you I'm not going to allow where you need signatures or you need this or you need that. I think we should work on ourselves first and then we we can we can start looking into that before we do that. That's my opinion. >> Mayor, if I may. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> All we're really working on is just just moving the way the agenda is is written out so it's not really uh hindering us from doing anything in particular right now. Just kind of moving agenda items around so we can put business before our our stuff. Um and I think with the motion the mayor made and somebody seconded it. Um right. and then mayor accepted the the amendment. Um I think it's a good move. I think that these are changes that I think are necessary and we're putting business before our items and and I think that'll help us plenty my opinion. >> Can I can I can I can I can we repeat the motion? What was the motion? >> Okay. Uh it's um council agenda item to the beginning of meeting takes it in comments at each agenda item when it's called. schedule recognition prior to the business meeting and at 5:00 p.m. It was 5:00 pm that was added. If uh included during the business meeting, limit them to no more than two per meeting. >> And then the the amendment, mayor, >> the amendment was to have the consent agenda and the readings to be before the the council items. >> Yes, that was the amendment. And one more thing, add section covering video conference call within the section 551.127 under Texas government code. >> Mayor, I just want to make one point if I may. >> Yes, go ahead. >> I think it's difficult for for the public to get here at 5 just because there's a lot of traffic issues at to be here by 5. Um, I think maybe a better solution would be just one meeting a month for recognitions. That way we get several of them. Maybe in one month. >> Well, I just don't know because if we do it at 5, it's going to be hard for them to get out of work, do what they need to do, and get here through traffic. But we can keep it at five. It's just >> I I just think that that might be a little hard for them. >> What what what I'm trying to Let's That's what I'm saying. Like that first of the month, we we decided last time it was a there was there was a motion of the first of the month. that first a month you could bring three, four, five because there was there unless it was a very a time-sensitive item that we needed or consent then that's where we're going to take where we're going to move it in front but other than that it was you had Monday of the first of the month we could put all the all your recognitions that you want let's say four or five recognitions you can put them on the first of the month they can start off at 5 and they can go all the way to 8:00 at So that's that's my that's the decision we had before >> and we did the only thing is we uh found out that the first meeting of the month with recognitions was taking uh 3 hours off of the meeting >> but that was >> they stack up may but that would that that was the point. So for the net the following meeting of the month it would be it will be just go for a business all business and city government. So, mayor, may I? >> Yes. >> Unfortunately, mayor, three of us have to leave for the public safety meeting, so we won't have formal. So, we need to take vote, please. >> So, that's the motion. >> It's been second with >> the amendment with >> correct. Yeah. With amend. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. All in favor? >> I oppose. >> Motion pass. >> Mayor and council, on that item, just know that our agenda is approved by ordinance. And so what we'll do is legal will prepare the the actual documents in order to walk through the adjustments that have just been motioned by the commission. >> Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor? >> I meeting. Very good.