[2) PUBLIC COMMENTS]
[00:09:52]
>> I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT -- I GET EXCITED ABOUT NATURAL SPACES
[00:09:57]
AND I'M ALSO A COMMUNITY BUILDER AND WAS ON THE PTO AT OUR LOCAL[00:10:03]
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT NOBLE. THE COMMUNITY PIECE AND THE NATURE PIECE IS JUST DEEPLY ENGRAINED IN MY HEART AND THE VALUE OF HAVING A THIRD SPACE FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS SO HUGE.SO I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING ME.
>> THANK YOU, NICOLE. ALL RIGHT, THAT IS ALL FOR OUR
[3) CONSENT AGENDA]
PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION?>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> MOTION SECONDED.
[4) REGULAR AGENDA]
05 MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM FOR A DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDNANCE 2026 OF INSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY OF LIBERTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.THIS IS RELATED TO FISCAL SURETY AND ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. PRESENTED BY OUR DEPUTY CITY
MANAGER. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
SO THIS PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, THE BIGGEST THING IS YOU KNOW WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.
I WILL RUN THROUGH THIS JUST TO GET AN IDEA.
AGAIN, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURETY IS TO BE A PERFORMANCE AND CREDIT AND DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO SECURE THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS PUBLIC ROADWAYS, PUBLIC WATER WASTE AND WATER LINES, PUBLIC DRAINAGE, IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE BUILDING AS THEY'RE BUILDING OR WHATEVER THEY'RE BUILDING AS THEY'RE BUILDING.
THIS IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE CITY WILL MAINTAIN AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. SO HOW THESE KIND OF GENERALLY WORK, SO THERE WILL BE A CONSTRUCTION PLANS APPROVED, GO CONSTRUCTED, GO THROUGH INSPECTION PROCESSES OBVIOUSLY THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL.
THOSE ARE ALL BONDED AS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MEETING THE INTENT OF WHAT OUR STANDARD CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AND SPECIFICSES ARE. SO AFTER WE'VE ACCEPTED IT, FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS DONE, THE DEVELOPER OR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FILED A MAINTENANCE BOND, THAT MAINTENANCE BOND IS WHAT SECURES THE FUNDING SHOULD THAT IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FAIL WITHIN A CERTAIN WARRANTIED PERIOD.
SO, AGAIN, AS Y'ALL SEEING THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES AT THIS POINT.
GIVE YOU AN IDEA. ONE YEAR, 20%.
PROPOSING TWO YEARS AT 80% LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.
NOT TRYING TO BELABOR AND BEAT A DEAD HORSE HERE.
BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO KEEP YOU ALL NIGHT HERE.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT Y'ALL SEEM TO -- LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT WE JUST RECEIVED AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST.
LIKE 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET THAT AS PART OF -- TO GIVE Y'ALL THAT FEEDBACK. THE ONE THAT IS NOT SPECIFIED IS THE ONE WE WERE WAITING ON FOR THE OPEN REQUEST.
THAT WAS IN A WEEKLY UPDATE RIGHT AFTER THAT MEETING.
THAT WAS A -- THEIR BOND AMOUNT WAS TWO YEARS AT 100%, THEY WERE REQUIRING 100% OF THE BOND AMOUNT FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. ALL THE REST OF THEM ARE CODFIED IN THE UDC OR THROUGHOUT THEIR ACTUAL CODFIED SPECIFICATIONS.
AS WE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY BEFORE TOO, THERE ARE OTHER CITIES THAT REQUIRE 100% MAINTENANCE BONDS, THOSE ARE WIDE RANGING ACROSS THE STATE. WE'LL MENTION I THINK WHAT'S BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE. IT DEPENDS ON EVERY COMMUNITY, EVERY COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY REQUIRE.
DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY'RE AT IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT CURVE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHAT THEY'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY.
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, A LOT OF THE VALUES ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE CONTRACTOR, THE DEVELOPER AND LIKE WHAT THEIR ABILITY IS HERE AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR CREDIT RATING -- IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A CREDIT RATING BUT THAT'S WHAT THE IDEA IS.
WHAT THE PREMIUM THES THEY PAY ON THAT.
TALKING ABOUT A $1 MILLION PROJECT, THEY'RE NOT PUTTING UP $1 MILLION. THEY'RE PUTTING UP A PERCENTAGE OF WHATEVER THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS TO A BONDING COMPANY TO SECURE IT. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT OUR PROPOSED PROPOSALS WERE. WE TALKED ABOUT MOVING TO TWO YEARS. WE HAD GENERAL ALIGNMENT ON THAT AND TALKED ABOUT REMOVING LETTERS OF CREDIT AS WELL.
I WILL GIVE YOU A COLOR TO THIS, MAINLY WHEN LOOKING AT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, IF THEY LOWER THAT BOND AMOUNT -- I'LL SAY IF I'M AN INSPECTOR, NO INSPECTOR IS GOING TO TRUST A GENERAL CONTRACTOR. I THINK WE CAN ALL PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND A GENERAL CONTRACTOR DOESN'T TRUST AN INSPECTOR. THEY ARE NOT AT ODDS BUT THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR AIMS. THE INSPECTOR FROM OUR INSPECTOR ROLE FROM A PUBLIC FACILITY INSPECTOR, THEY'RE GOING TO START REQUIRING MORE AND MORE HOLD POINTS AND THE HOLD POINTS
[00:15:02]
ARE IMPORTANT. A HOLD POINT IS LIKE THEY'RE SAYING I NEED YOU TO STOP UNTIL I INSPECT THIS.IF THEY KNOW THERE'S LESS ASSURANCE ON THE BACK END, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE MORE HOLD POINTS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IF I'M CONSTRUCTING SOMETHING IN IT MEANS MORE TIME. TAKES LONGER.
OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW, TIME IS MONEY.
THE LONGER IT TAKES, MORE INSPECTIONS WE GOT, THE MORE TIME IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO COMPLETE A PROJECT, WHICH MEANS IT'S LONGER AND LONGER THEY HAVE TO CARRY THAT CARRYING COST.
THEY BEING THE DEVELOPER. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR TO THAT TOO THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE -- THE MORE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE VERY MUCH IN THEIR BUSINESS A LOT WHICH MEANS IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE TIME TO BUILD A PROJECT, UNFORTUNATELY. THE FISCAL IMPACT -- THERE ISN'T ONE TO THE CITY, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE.
THEY RECOMMENDED 0 -- 3 TO 0 AT THEIR MEETING.
WE'LL BRING AS MUCH AND TALK FOREVER, KEEP YOU HERE ALL
NIGHT, IF YOU WANT. >> I'LL START, IF COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH THAT. I DID TALK FOR A GOOD WHILE WITH A GENTLEMAN WHO DOES THIS BONDS FOR CITIES, COUNTIES FOR A LIVING AND HE'S BEEN DOING IT FOR OVER 25 YEARS.
I'M GOING TO SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING NOW TEXAS PROPERTY CODE AND, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENTS FROM DEVELOPERS TO THE CITY AND THEN EVEN FROM THE CONTRACTOR TO THE DEVELOPER JUST FROM THE TEXAS PROPERTY CODE, I KNOW THAT THIS IS ANOTHER INSURANCE IN A SENSE FOR THE CITY.
GIVEN WHAT OUR CITIES DO AROUND US, GIVEN -- KNOWING SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, I'M GOING TO -- FOR ME I'M GOING TO SUGGEST 20% AT TWO YEARS. EXTEND -- I KNOW RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE WE HAVE IT AT ONE YEAR. I DO BELIEVE WE COULD EXTEND THAT AT TWO YEARS. BUT AFTER JUST LOOKING THAT OVER AND HAVING THAT CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT BONDS . . . AND THE DIFFERENCE TOO BETWEEN THE MAINTENANCE BOND AND A FISCAL SURETY BOND, THEY ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. TO NOT PROLONG THE -- YOU KNOW, MAKE THIS CONVERSATION LONGER THAN WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE, FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT A LOT AND I'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE QUITE A BIT ON THIS ISSUE. SO I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO SAY WHERE I'M AT AND THEN OPEN IT UP OF COURSE FOR CONVERSATION OR
QUESTIONS. >> I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING IT VERY SHORT. I PROBABLY HAVE BEEN SAYING LET'S DO THIS, BUT NOW I MAY MAKE IT LONGER.
SO I DUG DEEPER INTO THIS ITEM, I THINK FOR ME -- AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS -- I FEEL LIKE OUR CHALLENGE IS REALLY HOW TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF THE PAST AND APPLY BEST PRACTICES APPROPRIATE FOR US AS WE GROW INDEED TO PROTECT OUR CITY WHEN WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH PAST INFRASTRUCTURE AND ARE POTENTIALLY FACING EVEN MORE BECAUSE OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WERE DONE PRIOR TO MOST OF THIS BEING DONE.
HOW DO YOU TURN THAT SHIP WHEN YOU'RE STILL DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF THE PAST AND THE FACT THAT THE DAS MAY NOT PROTECT US THE WAY WE HAD HOPED? SO MY CONCERN IS ARE WE FIXING THE ROOT CAUSE WITH THIS? BECAUSE IN MY EXPERIENCE AND I'M SURE HOPEFULLY Y'ALL WOULD AGREE.
IF YOU'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH MAINTENANCE, IT'S USUALLY CAUSED WITH CONSTRUCTION. IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH CONSTRUCTION IT'S OFTEN CAUSED BY DESIGN.
HAVING TROUBLE WITH DESIGN, IT'S OFTEN TIMES BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING RIGHT, RIGHT? SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING THE RIGHT PERSON ACCOUNTABLE? WE ARE NOW PUTTING IT ON THE BACK END AND I'VE HAD THIS CHALLENGE WHEN I WORKED ABROAD WITH THEM SAYING LOOK WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS FOR TEN YEARS AND I'M LIKE, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SIT OUT THERE WITH A CAMERA AND SHOW OVERLOADING AND IT NEGATES IT.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY OUT IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT IT WASN'T AN ISSUE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS AN ISSUE IN THE SPECS OR THE DESIGN OR WHATEVER. LIKE, MANY THINGS WITH THE OVERALL LIFE CYCLE AND I'M PREACHING TO THE CHOIR WITH YOU, IS THAT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING THE RIGHT ASPECT ACCOUNTABLE? BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY HOLD THE DESIGN ENGINEER, CAN WE? ALL WE CAN DO AFTER IS THE PROFESSIONAL FEES NOT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS WHAT I'M TOLD
BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED. >> JUST TO POINT OF CLARITY.
>> CAN WE -- >> IF IT'S A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
IT'S NOT OUR ENGINEER, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.
>> THEIR ENGINEER IS THE CEILING ENGINEER, IT'S THEIR
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY -- >> SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
BUT STILL THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY AS WE'VE EXPERIENCED IS NOT THAT HIGH TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGES.
SO I GUESS I'M NOT GOING TO -- I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF IS WE'RE SITTING HERE SAYING WELL, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT EASIER UP FRONT, BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
[00:20:01]
EVERYBODY STAYS IN THE PATH THAT YOU'RE NOT RELEASING ONE AND PUTTING IT OVER ON THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER.OR THE CONTRACTOR, I MEAN. WHEN IN REALITY WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY COME AND PROVE IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE? BECAUSE THEN WHERE IS THE LIABILITY? WE DON'T GET ANY MONEY. BUT WE SAY THERE'S NO FISCAL IMPACT, BUT THERE REALLY IS. THE COST OF THE JOB IS GOING TO GO UP. WE KNOW THAT.
YOU'VE SHOWN IT. MAYBE NOT SIGNIFICANT, BUT IT IS. SO I DON'T DISAGREE IN DOING A MAINTENANCE BOND. I DO BELIEVE HAVING LOOKED AT OTHER BEST PRACTICES ON THIS IS THAT WE HAVE OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. BEFORE THAT MAINTENANCE BOND STARTS TO EXPIRE, WE SHOULD BE OUT THERE INSPECTING THINGS THAT PROBABLY HAVE FALLEN SHORT ON PERHAPS IN THE PAST.
NOT WITH Y'ALL, BUT IN THE PAST. AND THEN IF WE HAVE ISSUES, WHY CAN'T WE WRITE IT WHERE WE CAN THEN EXTEND THE BOND ON THOSE ITEMS? LIKE EVEN AFTER -- EVEN WHEN WE APPROACH GO YEARS, IF THEY'RE STARTING TO FAIL, CAN WE SAY, WAIT, THESE ARE STARTING TO FAIL, YOU'VE GOT TO FIX THEM? DOING IT AFTER THE FACT WHEN THEY FAILED IS GOING TO BE OUR POINT OF CONTENTION. SO I'VE LOOKED AT BEST PRACTICES AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE SOME OF OUR PROCESSES AS WELL, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. AND I KNOW Y'ALL ARE WORKING ON THEM, I DO. BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY JUST SAYING, OKAY, WE CAN INCREASE SOME BUT I REALLY AM WORRIED THAT WE NEED -- WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC ISSUE HERE AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO FIX IT DOWN HERE, ONLY OFTEN TIMES YOU FIX A PROCESS HERE ONLY TO CAUSE A PROBLEM SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT WE NEED TO STEP BACK TOO AND SAY THIS PROBABLY WILL NOT SOLVE IT, BUT HOW DO WE SOLVE IT? BEST PRACTICE WILL PROBABLY SAY, IF YOU'RE IN A DA, YOU PUT UP A PERFORMANCE BOND AND YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD IT IN THREE YEARS OR WE TAKE THE PERFORMANCE BOND.
BUT WE CAN'T BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY SITUATION RIGHT NOW.
WE NEED TO STEP BACK AND SAY IN AN IDEAL WORLD, THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, NOW HOW CAN WE ADAPT IT DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PROJECT IS IN THE LIFE CYCLE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. AND AGAIN I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION IS MAINLY OF, YEAH, KIND OF HOW -- AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN HISTORICAL OF WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE OUR TIME, WHICH IS A FAIR ASSESSMENT. I'M NOT --
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I'M SUPPORTING IT, WE HAD TO PUT
THEM IN RECENTLY, YEAH. >> I AGREE.
I THINK THERE CAN ALSO BE A STAIR STEP LOOK AT IT WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT IN INCREMENTALS.
YOU SAY, CAN WE DO AN INCREMENTAL CHANGE NOW AND SEE HOW IT GOES AND ANOTHER CHANGE LATER.
WHERE YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU'VE GOT A LOWER AMOUNT THAT'S FINE, BUT IF WE'RE STILL SEEING INCREMENTAL ISSUES GOING ON, WE MAY NEED TO UP THAT AMOUNT DEPENDING HOW MUCH IT IS.
>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS AN INCREMENTAL ONE HERE, BUT THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ASPECT OF IT AND SAY, CAN WE LOOK AT A BROADER FIX TO THE WHOLE LIFE CYCLE? I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AS PART OF THE CIP PROGRAM AT THE 17 DAS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IF ONE OF THE DAS GETS OPENED, WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE TO PROTECT US? I'M SAYING I JUST WANT US TO SIT HERE AND SAY, WE HAVE THIS AND WE CAN SIT BACK AND IF IT FAILS WE'RE COVERED BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WE ARE
>> IF YOU WERE TO TALK TO THE INSPECTORS, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM ARE HAPPY TO SIT BACK AND --
>> GOOD TO HEAR. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS IF THEY'RE INSPECTING?
>> I THINK IT'S MORE OF THERE'S LESS SECURITY ON THE BACK END THAT THE INSPECTORS KNOW, RIGHT? IF I'M AN INSPECTOR AND I KNOW THERE'S LESS ASSURANCE ON THE BACK END, IF I MISS SOMETHING, THAT MEANS I HAVE TO WATCH IT EVEN MORE CLOSELY THAN I WOULD
NORMALLY. >> AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU MAY HAVE A CONTRACTOR TODAY DEALING WITH THE DESIGN THAT WAS
DONE WAY BACK BEFORE YOUR TIME. >> RIGHT.
>> AND THERE MIGHT LIE THE ISSUE IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> IF YOU HAVE A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE -- THEY SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION -- IF THERE'S AN OLD SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEY HAVE A WINDOW IN WHICH THEY HAVE TO CONSTRUCT IT. BUT FOR A DA THEN THAT'S A -- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD REQUIRE SOME OF THOSE BEING VESTED. SOME OF THEM MAY OR MAY NOT BE
VESTED -- >> THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN, THE 17 DAS OUT THERE. AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY TO COVER WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST.
I DO AGREE MOVING FORWARD, US WRITING UP DAS IS GOING TO BE
VERY DIFFERENT THAN IN THE PAST. >> YES.
>> THE SECOND THING IS BY TEXAS PROPERTY CODE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S 100% BOND WITH -- I MEAN, THAT THE STATE REQUIRES WITH THE DEVELOPER TO THE CITY.
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO -- NO? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE? OR . . . FOR -- I'M THINKING FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, WHAT THEY SUBMIT A BOND TO US.
IF THAT'S A . . . ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A MAINTENANCE BOND
OR THE FISCAL SURETY? >> WELL, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS ALREADY BEING COVERED IN A SENSE BY TEXAS STATE CODE AS FAR
[00:25:01]
AS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY AND THEN THE CONTRACTOR TO THE DEVELOPER. BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS FROM THECITY TO THE CONTRACTOR. >> IT'S GENERALLY, YES, PROBABLY THE CITY TO THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE BOND IS WITH. THEY PROVIDE THE MAINTENANCE BOND AT THE END OF THEIR PROJECT.
>> RIGHT, BUT THE STATE IS REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE A COMMITMENT TO THE CITY THAT IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
WHAT THEY'VE AGREED TO . . . >> I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
SECTION -- >> I'M GOING TO ASK FROM -- I DIDN'T ASK FOR HIS PERMISSION TO SHARE HIS NAME, SO THAT'S WHY
I'M NOT SHARING HIS NAME. >> TOTALLY, I'M JUST --
>> I DON'T WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PREVIOUS DECISIONS THAT WE MADE THAT WERE PRIOR TO ALL OF US.
BUT I ALSO -- IT SEEMS AS IF THE CITY IS ALREADY COVERED FROM ANYTHING BEING UNCOMPLETED AND USUALLY IF ANYTHING IS -- GO
I JUST WANTED -- I'M SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO STEP IN JUST REAL QUICK. MAYOR, EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS EXACTLY CORRECT AS FAR AS PERFORMANCE -- PAYMENT BOND, FISCAL SURETY BOND IS CORRECT WHEN SOMEONE IS BUILDING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CITY AND WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THEM TO SAY HOW MUCH MAINTENANCE BOND, AND THAT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THIS. THIS ONE IS THE ORDNANCE SAYING WHEN THE DEVELOPER IS OUT THERE BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY, THEN THAT'S -- AND THAT -- THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT BETWEEN -- THAT MY UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE DEVELOPER UNTIL THE CITY GETS INVOLVED. AND THE CITY DOESN'T GET INVOLVED UNTIL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS COMPLETED.
>> THAT'S WHEN THIS WOULD -- WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS COMPLETED, THAT'S WHEN THIS WOULD GO INTO --
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. FOR PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE GIVEN VERSUS WHEN WE ARE CONSTRUCTING SOMETHING, WE AT
>> -- WE OFTEN MAKE IT -- WE DO MORE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE CITY LIKE YOU AND THE MAYOR --
>> THANK YOU. YOU SAID THAT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I DID AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAW BETTER THAN I DO. SO WITH THAT SAID, I MEAN, I WOULD IMAGINE INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO SHOW SOME SORT OF SIGNS OF FAILING AT A TEN-MONTH, 11-MONTH MARKER AND IF WE HAVE AN INSPECTOR TO GO OUT AND DO GOOD DUE DILIGENCE ON IT, THAT'S FROM THE CITY, THEN IT COULD GO TO THE ENGINEER AND REQUEST A YEAR EXTENSION OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT TO GIVE US MORE LEEWAY TO UNDERSTAND -- IT DOESN'T -- SO THAT WAY IT'S NOT A BLANKET FOR ALL, BUT THERE'S A MEANS OF COVERING -- YOU'RE LOOK AT ME
LIKE YOU'RE CONFUSED IS. >> WE'D HAVE TO WRITE I -- WRITE IT THAT WAY TO HAVE LIKE THE ABILITY TO EXTEND.
>> YES, OF COURSE. >> BUT YOU'RE SAYING -- THERE'S WARRANTY WALKS, WHERE WE NORMALLY CALL IT WHEN YOU'RE DOING NOTICE WALKS. IF IT'S A 12-MONTH WARRANTY BOND AND YOU'RE IN MONTH 10. I THINK THE TWO-YEAR -- THE REASON IS WHY A LOT OF CITIES MOVE TO TWO-YEAR IS BECAUSE A LOT CAN CHANGE WITH SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, ESPECIALLY WHEN TALKING ROADS. ROADS ARE A -- SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IF YOU HAVE A RAINY SEASON, THAT CAN CHANGE HOW THE SOIL SHIFTS AND IT MAY NOT SHOW UP.
THAT'S WHY THE TWO-YEAR IS USUALLY MORE BECAUSE YOU'LL GET A WIDE VARIETY OF TEMPERATURE SWINGS, MOISTURE SWINGS, THAT KIND OF THING. BUT YOU USUALLY DO A WARRANTY WALK 20 MONTHS ON A TWO-YEAR BOND.
>> SO GOING BACK TO WHERE I HEARD -- UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A DIFFERENT THING -- 20 AND TWO, BUT IF WE WROTE IT AT A CERTAIN POINT BEFORE THE END OF THE TWO-YEAR WARRANTY, WE COULD INSPECT IT AND SAY, LOOK, THESE ITEMS ARE NOT GOOD.
NOW YOU NEED TO FIX THEM. BUT ALSO THEN EXTEND THE WARRANTY. THERE IS THAT POTENTIAL ON ITEMS THAT FAIL TO EXTEND IT OUT FURTHER.
IS THAT -- >> YOU NEED TO CONFIRM A LITTLE BIT HOW THE LANGUAGE WORKS ON IT.
>> RIGHT. HAS TO BE AT THE FAULT OF THE
CONTRACTOR TOO. >> YEAH, THERE'S SOME LIABILITY TOO. THEN THERE'S GOT TO BE A ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS THAT'S DONE, IF I'M TALKING A PIPELINE OR A ROADWAY, I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROVEN THAT IS THE FAULT OF THE DEFICIENT WORK MANCILLASHIP OR DEFICIENT DESIGN. SO THAT YOU GOT TO SHARE --
>> IF IT'S DEFICIENT DESIGN, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COVERED BY
THIS MAINTAIN BOND. >> IT WOULD BE COVERED BY PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ON THE -- BUT THERE'S A LOT OF LIKE CHECKING OFF THERE AND WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY IS.
>> GO BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE SAYING THE OTHER CITIES WERE AROUND US. DO YOU MIND?
>> OKAY. >> OUR CURRENT AMOUNT IS 20 KT?
>> WHAT IS MAKE LIBLT SO DIFFERENT THAT Y'ALL -- THIS IS
[00:30:02]
WHY I WAS GOING BACK -- I MEAN, IF WE HAVE THESE SPECIFIC ONES HOW CAN READDRESS THAT? THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO BUMP IT UP SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THESE?>> I THINK IT'S THE RANDOM ONES WE FOUND THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT SPREAD OUT ACROSS THE CITY. AND SOME OF THEM ARE NEWISH, SOME OF THEM AREN'T. I THINK THE TWO-YEAR PIECE IS A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT FOR US -- THE PERCENTAGE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S RISK THERE ON THE CITY SIDE, BUT I THINK THE TIME IS THE -- PROBABLY WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF RANDOM ONES THAT ARE RIGHT PAST THE WINDOW, RIGHT PAST THE WINDOW OF --
>> IT'S NOT ALWAYS ON THE ROADS IT'S THE MORE COSTLY ONE ON OUR UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURES, SOME OF THAT, THAT WE HAVE PAID FOR
>> BUT IF WE DID THE -- IF YOU SAID THE TIME IS MORE IMPORTANT.
IF WE DID THE TWO YEARS IN THE 20, AND THEN WE HAVE AN ADDITIVE TO THAT THAT SAYS IF WE INSPECT BEFORE THE END OF THE TWO YEARS AND THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, THEN WE WANT THE ABILITY TO
>> -- FOR ANOTHER YEAR ON AT LEAST THOSE ITEMS OR SOMETHING.
>> WE CAN EVEN -- >> WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING PEOPLE WOULD BE AMENABLE FOR, IF THE TIME IS MORE IMPORTANT?
>> WE CAN MODIFY THAT LANGUAGE. I JUST -- I'M --
>> THE ORDER NANSZ, THAT SOMETHING --
>> YOU GOT TO BE TRANSPARENT, BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN BE --
>> THE CONTRACTOR ISN'T UP FRONT OR SOMETHING --
>> WE WOULD BE ACCUSED OF DOING IT FOR SOME AND NOT OTHERS.
>> YEAH, IF IT WAS TOO VAGUE OR --
>> I THINK IF THAT WOULD ADDRESS IT, FOR ME THAT MAY BE THE SOLUTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS OVERALL THING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES
OF EVERYTHING. >> I GET THIS FIXED, BUT I THINK WE COULD USE IMPROVEMENT ON THE ROOT CAUSES.
>> I THINK WE'VE MADE SOME PRETTY -- WITHOUT GOING INTO THE WEEDS, BECAUSE I'LL HAPPILY DO IT.
WE'VE MADE STRIDES TO MAKE SURE THAT --
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE, YEAH. I KNOW YOU HAVE.
IS THAT SOMETHING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE WE COULD DO?
>> YES, AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR. AND OF COURSE IF WE DO HAVE AN DPRAEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OR IF IT'S OUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE, WE CAN CATER IT TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE THEN I FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT -- I MEAN, THE REALITY IS NUMBER ONE, WE SHOULD NOT BE HOLDING A CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING SOMEBODY EARLIER IN THE PROCESS DID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO
FIGHT US ON IT. >> THEY WILL FIGHT US ON IT NO
MATTER WHAT. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY?
>> THEY WILL FIGHT US ON IT NO MATTER WHAT.
>> VALID POINT. NOIB WANTS TO TAKE THE HIT FOR IT. DOING THIS, IT MIGHT MAKE PEOPLE PAY MORE ATTENTION AS WELL. FOR ME PERSONALLY, I'M GOOD WITH THE TWO YEARS. IF . . . I APPRECIATE STAFF WANTING HIGHER PERCENTAGE, BUT IF THE SOLUTION TO THAT -- IF YOU SAY THAT THE TIME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SOLUTION AND THE PERCENTAGE IS IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG, THEN WE EXTEND IT.
>> WARRANTY -- >> DO WE PASS THE MOTION ASKING FOR CHANGES OR COME BACK AND GIVE US THE ORDNANCE.
>> NO, QUESTION JUST VOTE -- I JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF TOO
AND EVERYBODY ELSE BEFORE -- >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- I'M GREAT WITH THE TWO YEARS, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT.
I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT NOT SPECIFIED ON THE BOND AMOUNT AND WHAT THAT MEANS. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WHEN WE'RE TALKING NOT JUST 20%? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, IF IT'S BETWEEN 20 AND 80? I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT
>> THESE ARE JUST -- >> THAT GOT CORRECTED.
>> IT DOESN'T -- >> MOST CITIES DO IT THROUGH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OR A CODIFIED THING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED. THEY DID NOT SPECIFY IN THE CODE OR ANYTHING WE COULD FIND, SO WE HAD TO DO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE THEY -- GIVE US A ONE-OFF EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY REQUIRING FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WAS TWO YEARS AT 100%.
AND SO WE JUST COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN ANY LITERATURE --
>> WE PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION BUT IT'S JUST NOT OUT THERE.
>> IT'S NOT OUT THERE ON THEIR WEBSITE OR EDC OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT. >> PROVIDED TWO EXAMPLES, RIGHT? AND IT WAS IN OUR SEPTEMBER 25TH WEEKLY AND IT WAS 100% OR
SOMETHING >> 100% FOR TWO YEARS.
>> BUT THEY DON'T SPECIFY IN THE ORDNANCE AND --
>> CLEAR -- >> YOU HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT.
>> YEAH, YOU HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT AND CLEAR.
AGREED. >> THERE'S A LOT OF AMBIGUITY WITH THAT AND A LOT OF LATITUDE WITH STAFF IF IT'S NOT SPECIFIED. I'M NOT ARGUING TO NON-SPECIFY ANYTHING. IT'S WAY TOO VAGUE.
>> AGAIN, BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION, I WANT TO HEAR IF THERE'S ANY APPREHENSION ABOUT THIS THING.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WROTE THE NOTES RIGHT.
[00:35:02]
TWO YEARS - OH, AND THERE'S A LETTER OF CREDIT, WE AGREED -->> EVERYTHING -- YEAH, EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ORDNANCE
WE'RE FINE WITH. >> TWO YEARS AND THEN IF THERE'S A FAILURE UPON -- WITHIN THAT TWO-YEAR WINDOW PROVEN THAT IT'S THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR IT'S NOT THE LIABILITY OF THE CITY, THEN IT WOULD BE EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
CORRECT? >> I CAN'T -- I NEED YOU TO INSERT THAT INTO MY MOTION WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHEN I MAKE IT.
OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDNANCE 2026-O-019 AMENDING SECTION 705 FISCAL SURETY OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY OF LIBERTY HILL, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO THE FISCAL SECURITY, WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CHANGES TO HAVE A TWO-YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD AT 20% AND THE POTENTIAL TO EXTEND THAT MAINTENANCE PERIOD SHOULD -- WHAT YOU SAID. FOR ITEMS --
>> SHOULD A FAILURE OCCUR IN THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> FOR FAILURE OF THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE END OF THAT PERIOD OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? SORRY.
>> WORKS FOR ME. WORKS FOR ME, I --
>> LET ME -- TWO YEARS 20% WITH THE OPTION OR THE REQUIREMENT TO
EXTEND THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD -- >> FOR ONE YEAR.
>> -- FOR ONE YEAR TO COVER ITEMS THAT POTENTIALLY
FAILED . . . >> WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR --
>> -- WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW.
ARE WE DOING IT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT OR ARE WE DOING IT JUST
FOR THE ITEMS THAT FAILED? >> YOU WOULDN'T -- THAT'S A GOOD
QUESTION. >> WE'RE ANALYZING ON THE SPOT.
THIS IS WHAT WE DO. >> TYPICALLY ON THE WHOLE PROJECT, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU --
>> FINE, SO POTENTIALLY EXTENDING IT FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT SHOULD ANY ITEMS FAIL.
>> I'M GOOD IF -- >> MOTION IS MADE.
>> SECONDED IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
>> MAYOR, BEFORE WE VOTE, CAN WE READ THE CAPTION OF THE ORDNANCE
THAT WAS THE AGENDA TITLE. >> OH, SORRY.
CAPTION OF THE ORDNANCE READS AN ORDNANCE OF THE CITY OF LIBERTY HILL -- NO, ORDNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TEXAS AMENDING THE CITY OF LIBERTY HILL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 7.05 FISCAL SURETY PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AN ACT AND CODIFICATION OR NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEATING IN EFFECTIVE DATE.
MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNSELOR HENNESSY.
ALL IN FAVOR? 5-0 MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU ALL. >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM 4B.
DISCUSSION ON CASTING THE VOGUE IN THE LEAGUE LIEGE 10
DIRECTOR'S ELECTION. >> THIS SOMEONE FOR Y'ALL.
YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CANDIDATES IN FRONT OF YOU FOR REGION 10 DIRECTOR AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU JUST NEED TO
TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. >> TO WE DISCUSS IT?
>> IF YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND THROW OUT A
NOMINATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE, I MEAN I'VE MET NA'COLE THOMPSON, I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER GENTLEMAN. I READ HIS RÉSUMÉ.
>> I HAVE THE REGION 10 TML EVENTS AND I APPRECIATE WHAT JIM JE NE SAIS QUOI HAS DONE FOR -- JIMMY JENKINS HAS DONE IN THE PAST. NICOLE IS OUR NEIGHBOR AND SO I WOULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, WANT TO THANK JIMMY FOR HIS SERVICE AND GO WITH NICOLE. AND I HEARD THEM BOTH SPEAK --
>> YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> IS THAT A MOTION?
>> I CAN MAKE A MOTION. >> OKAY, GO FOR IT.
>> LET ME FIND IT. YES, THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO CAST THE CITY OF LIBERTY HILL'S VOTE FOR NA'COLE THOMPSON IN THE DIRECTOR ELECTION.
>> SECOND IT. >> MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? 5-0 MOTION PASSES.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS COUNCIL -- WELL, THIS CITY, WE WILL BE HAVING A TML EVENT POSSIBLY HERE IN THE CITY OF
[00:40:02]
LIBERTY HILL -- A REGIONAL EVENT INSTEAD OF GOING OUT TO BUTA IN 2027. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE MOREINVOLVED WITH THAT. >> ITEM 4C DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ACTION ON APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON THE BOARDS COMMISSIONS FROM APPLICATION ON FILE FROM APPLICATION WITHIN THE APPLICABLE 12 MONTH WINDOW INCLUDING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER SEPTEMBER 15TH.
>> MAYOR, I HAVE -- I'M SORRY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE COMBINED ITEMS 4C AND 4D SO WE'RE NOT GETTING CONFUSED ON WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR EFFICIENCY.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
COMBINING ITEMS 4C AND 4D WHEN MAKING MOTIONS.
>> IN THIS CASE AS LONG AS IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR, THE MAYOR AND THE REST OF COUNCIL, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
>> WHEN WE MAKE THE MOTION, WE MAKE SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR EACH
COMMISSION -- >> CAN'T WE JUST --
>> JUST ONE MOTION FOR ALL OF THEM?
>> ONE MOTION FOR EVERYTHING. >> I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT AND WE'LL KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THEN THAT'S HOW WE
WILL PROCEED. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE -- OH, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?
OH, LET ME WAIT FOR THAT. >> WE WERE JUST GOING TO JUMP
>> I WAS PREPARED. >> GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE CITY'S ANNUAL BOARD COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT REVIEW.
I'M GOING TO HAND OUT SOME APPOINTMENT WORK SHEETS SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE. ALL RIGHTY.
THE CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS IN OCTOBER WITH SEPTEMBER 15 DEADLINE FOR TIMELY APPLICATIONS.
UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFY, TERMS OF OFFICE BEGIN NOVEMBER 1ST AND END OCTOBER 31ST TWO YEARS LATER.
COUNCIL RECEIVED 36 TIMELY APPLICATIONS FROM 34 INDIVIDUALS. THE APPLICANT LIST IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AND YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THEM IN ADVANCE.
WHETHER HE REVIEW EACH BOARD INDIVIDUALLY AND RECEIVE THE SELECTIONS. I WILL READ BACK THE NAMES, POSITIONS AND TERMS BEFORE COUNCIL TAKES ACTION ON THE BOARDS AND IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL OF THE VACANCIES AND
MAKE ONE MOTION AT THE END. >> OKAY.
>> IF A SELECTION REQUIRES A QUALIFICATION REVIEW OR RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS I WILL PAUSE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GUIDANCE BEFORE ACTION.
WE ARE COMBINING THESE ITEMS. SO INCLUDED IN THE 36 TIMELY APPLICATIONS ARE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE APPLICATIONS WERE SENT TO COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 5TH AND I DID RECEIVE ONE JUST RECENTLY THAT I HAVE TO PASS OUT.
SO I'M GOING TO DO THAT NOW. >> ALL RIGHT, SO THESE ARE THE GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
I DID INITIAL REVIEW TO CONFIRM THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF EACH APPLICANT'S REPORTED ADDRESS. THE APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO SHARED WITH BOARD LIAISONS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS. NO CONCERNS WERE REPORTED IN THAT REVIEW. CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE, ALL COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WERE PROVIDED (REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, UNDER LEGAL GUIDANCE, COUNCIL MAY WAIVE CITY ORDNANCE AND VOTER QUALI QUALIFICATIONS, STATE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE WAIVED. WE WILL REVIEW EACH BOARD'S SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BEFORE APPOINTMENTS.
IF IT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE OR RAISES AN ELIGIBILITY QUESTION, I WILL DEFER TO THE LEGAL COUNCIL.
COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO POSTPONE THIS AT A COMING MEETING.
THE FIRST BOARD IS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
>> CAN WE HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND? SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT THE ONES THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, THAT WE KNOW, AND WE MAY NOT APPOINT ALL THE POSITIONS? OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> YEAH, FOR CLARITY, NOT ALL
[00:45:02]
POSITIONS NEED TO BE DONE TONIGHT.>> THANK YOU. >> ALL FIVE POSITIONS ARE VEY CAN'T, THE PROPOSED INITIAL TERMS END OCTOBER 31ST, 2028 REPLACES 1 THROUGH 3. AND THE NEXT ONE REPLACES FOUR AND FIVE. AS COUNCIL CONSIDERS THESE SELECTIONS, WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED INDUSTRY AND GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND THOSE ARE INDICATED IN THE REQUIREMENTS AT THE BOTTOM, THE ONES THAT CANNOT BE WAIVED.
AND I WILL TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN POSITION 1 WADE ASHLEY AND IN POSITION 2 ROBERT WATSON. ROBERT WAS ON OUR TRANSPORTATION. FOR THE OTHER APPLICANT, I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD ON THESE AND GO OUT FOR MORE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE GUIDANCE FROM STAFF ON THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS IN MAKING SURE WHEN THE APPLICANTS COME IN, WE ARE KIND OF SAYING HERE IS THIS REQUIREMENT, HERE IS WHO FITS THOSE.
SO I'D LIKE TO START WITH TWO AND GO OUT AGAIN FOR ME.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. WE ALSO NEED MORE CITY -- I BELIEVE MORE CITY PARTICIPATION WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
>> YES, YES. >> MAYBE A BIGGER EFFORT JUST FOR -- TO TARGET RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS IF
THERE'S A WAY OF DOING THAT. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU
PROPOSED. >> SO IS THAT A -- ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? >> YES, MA'AM, BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTOOD -- WE'LL WAIT UNTIL THE END, BUT I WILL CONFIRM.
I HAVE WADE ASHLEY RECOMMENDED FOR PLACE 1, THAT TERM WOULD END OCTOBER 31, 2028. AND ROBERT WATSON FOR PLACE 2?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> YES, PERFECT.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. PLACES 3 AND 5 ARE FOR APPOINTMENT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW. CRYSTAL LEBARON IS THERE AND
PLACE 5 IS VEY CAN'T. >> I CAN TAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER STAY ON IN PLACE 3.
>> YEAH. >> I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE LISA MCKINON FOR PLACE 5. SHE LIVES DOWNTOWN AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER IN THAT POSITION.
>> SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. >> I'M GOOD WITH IT.
>> FANTASTIC, THANK YOU. NEXT WE --
>> ALL FIVE POSITIONS FILLED? >> YES.
>> NEXT WE HAVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
FOUR POSITIONS ARE BEFORE COUNCIL FOR APPOINTMENT REVIEW.
COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER TIMELY APPLICANTS OR UNTIMELY SINCE WE'VE COMBINED THE TWO, INCLUDING CURRENT MEMBERS SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT. BOARD MEMBERS WITH AN ASTERISK HERE HAVE SUBMITTED TIMELY APPLICATIONS FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
THE EDC PALAUS REQUIRE DIRECTORS TO DECIDE AND PROHIBIT EMPLOYEES FROM SERVING THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE NARROWER THAN STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. AND I CAN TAKE YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS. >> I'M GOOD WITH HONESTLY ALL OF THEM. I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE THAT
>> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT, I HAVE NOTED THAT.
NEXT WE HAVE THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.
PLACES 4 AND 5 ARE BEFORE COUNCIL FOR APPOINTMENT REVIEW.
PLACE 4 IS VACANT AND NICOLE BOWER SERVE Z AS A HOLDOVER.
I RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FROM MS. BOWER AND IF YOU NOTE THE VACANCY FOR PLACE 4 IS AN UNEXPIRED TERM.
IT WILL BE BACK FOR CONSIDERATION NEXT YEAR.
>> I DO KNOW THAT IN OUR PACKET THE -- I THINK FOR MY CHALLENGE HERE IS -- AND YOU'RE NOT -- IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT IS IN OUR PACKET. I'M HAPPY FOR NICOLE TO HOLD OVER. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY ZERO CITY PEOPLE ON THIS COMMITTEE, THIS ADVISORY BOARD FOR OUR PARKS.
YOU KNOW, THE -- PAY THE CITY TAXES AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICANTS. FOR ME I WOULD LIKE US TO DO MORE EFFORT OR SIT BACK WHEN WE'RE DONE HERE AND IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE CITY LEFT THAT DID NOT GET AN APPOINTMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY BE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE PARKS AND ADVISORY BOARD.
>> SO LEAVE POSITION 4 OPEN FOR THAT?
>> I BELIEF STRONGLY THAT WE NEED CITY REPRESENTATION.
KEEPING NICOLE BOWER AND IN PLACE 4 TAKING THE APPLICANTS WE HAVE NOW, POLLING THOSE THAT ARE IN CITY LIMITS AND CALLING THEM TO SEE IF THERE'S AN INTEREST IN ANY OF THOSE AND BRING THAT BACK
[00:50:03]
ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
ONE VACANT POSITION AND TWO OCCUPIED POSITIONS DUE FOR APPOINTMENT REVIEW. STATE LAW REQUIRES THE ZONING COMMISSION, THE VOTER RESIDENCY QUALIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE ARE CITY ORDNANCE REQUIREMENTS.
MEMBERS WITH AN ASTERISK HAVE SUBMITTED TIMELY APPLICATION FOR
REAPPOINTMENT. >> I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO HAVE MATTHEW MILLER ON. HE HAS APPLIED FOR THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AND I KNOW HE'S PASSIONATE ABOUT THE CITY AND GROWING WITH THE CITY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM
>> THAT IS AN UNEXPIRED TERM, SO I WILL RETURN NEXT YEAR.
>> OKAY. >> HE'S IN LIBERTY PARK?
>> HE IS IN CITY LIMITS. HE DOES LIVE IN LIBERTY PARK.
>> AND OF COURSE I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OVER TYLER JAMES.
>> YES. >> IN PLACE 4, AND I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP CATHERINE CONTINILLIO. I'M SORRY I BUTCHERED THAT ONE
I'M SURE, INTO PLACE 5 1Z. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>> SO THAT FILLS ALL THE POSITIONS?
>> LAST BUT NOT LEAST -- >> OR --
>> YEAH, ALL POSITIONS -- >> WE HAVE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE ROSTER IDENTIFIES FIVE VACANT REGULAR POSITIONS ON THE ZBA.
EACH PROPOSED APPOINTMENT WOULD BE TO CONFIRM PLACE AND TERM.
WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE APPLICATION FOR THIS BOARD.
SO IF YOU DID CHOOSE TO APPOINT, THERE WOULD STILL --
>> YEAH, FOR ME I'M VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE OUT THERE IN OUR HOME ROW THAT WE ARE JUST STRUGGLING AND ELIZABETH DID A FANTASTIC VIDEO AND I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY BACKED OUT WHEN THEY REALIZED WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT IT WAS GOING TO DO FOR THEM, BUT WE ONLY HAVE ONE. I REALLY -- WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THIS INCREASED UP, AND IN THE FUTURE, REALLY -- AS THESE DEADLINES APPROACH, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO MONITOR THESE. IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE IN, WE GO OUT AND HIT WHATEVER IT IS TO GET MORE AND I KNOW THIS ONE IS A CHALLENGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. BUT FOR ME I'M NOT READY TO MAKE
ANY APPOINTMENTS PERSONALLY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, WHY FIVE POSITIONS AND TWO ALTERNATES ON THIS BOARD IN PARTICULAR?
>> WAS IT SET UP THAT WAY -- >> THAT'S NORMALLY -- IT'S NOT STATUTORY, BUT MOST COMMUNITIES DO ALTERNATES BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A STRICT SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR EACH MEETING AND EACH ACTION. SO ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY THAT
HAS A BOA HAS ALTERNATES. >> YEAH, AND I KNOW THAT WE
NEVER HAD LUCK WITH THAT ON PNZ. >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS IF WE WENT BACK OUT TO THE APPLICANTS THAT DID APPLY FOR MAYBE ANOTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION, MAYBE WE CALL THEM ON THIS AND INDIVIDUALLY DISCUSS WITH THEM WHAT THE ZBA IS AND IF THEY HAVE INTEREST AND BRINGING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL.
I'D LIKE TO START THERE BEFORE WE PUT EFFORTS.
LET'S SEE WHERE THESE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP TO SERVE, IF THEY'RE
INTERESTED. >> THE ONES THAT ARE QUALIFIED OF COURSE. THIS ONE HAS TO BE -- I THINK YOU HAVE TO RESIDE IN THE CITY LIMITS OR HAVE A BUSINESS IN THE
CITY LIMITS. >> I KNOW MR. BRIGHT, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO APPOINTMENT IF WE CAN'T FILL THE BOARD ANYWAY. SO I'M WITH YOU --
>> SO THIS ONE WE'LL POSTPONE. >> BEFORE WE MAKE THE MOTION AND VOTE ON THE ONES THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED I WANT TO JUST GO THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT I CAPTURED IT ACCURATELY.
CAPITAL APPROVAL ADVISORY ECONOMY I HAVE WADE ASHLEY FOR PLACE 1 WITH A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 31ST, 2028.
I HAVE ROBERT WATSON PLACE 2 FOR TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 31, 2028.
FOR DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE, I HAVE KRISTEN LEBARON FOR REAPPOINTMENT AND I HAVE LISA MCKINON FOR PLACE 5 WITH THE TERM ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2028.
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WE HAVE REAPPOINTMENTS OF ALL OF THE INCUMBENTS.
FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, I HAVE NICOLE BOWER BEING RE APAPREAPPOINTED. FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I HAVE MR. MILLER FOR PLACE 3 SERVING IN AN UNEXPIRED TERM, EXPIRING OCTOBER 31ST, 2027.
AND I HAVE MS. PONTELLO FOR PLACE 5 WITH THE TERM EXPIRING
[00:55:06]
OCTOBER 31, 2028. >> AND TYLER JAMES.
AND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF TYLER JAMES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE WILL RETURN AT A FUTURE TIME WITH --
>> SO HOW DO WE MAKE THAT MOTION? LAURA? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT MOTION? DO WE NEED TO LIST ALL THE NAMES OR SAY STATED AS IS?
>> STATED AS STATED BY THE CITY --
>> OKAY. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE BOARD AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS AS STATED BY THE CITY SECRETARY.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> OKAY, MOTIONS MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR?
5-0, MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, 4E DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADDITIONAL POSITIONS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE COMMITTEE.
YOU HAD US FOOLED FOR A MINUTE TH THERE. OKAY, SO TIM DO YOU WANT TO
START THIS OFF? >> YES, I WOULD --
>> I DID REQUEST THIS AND I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T HAVE A COVER SHEET FOR THIS. I THINK AFTER THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, A TWO-HOUR DISCUSSION, WE SAW A LOT OF GREAT WORK BEING DONE BY EVERYBODY, THEY DID A FANTASTIC JOB ON IT ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE STAFF AND THE COMMITTEE.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS A FEW THINGS THAT WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS ON, WOULD BE NICE TO -- AND WE'RE GOING TO CIRCLE BACK TO THAT, RIGHT? AND I WANTED THIS BEFORE, BUT I WANT TO BRING UP A POSSIBLE NOMINEE, JENNIFER JENSON FROM THE BUSINESS FAMILY. THEY MAKE A COMMITMENT TO LIBERTY HILL. ONE OF OUR BETTER DEVELOPERS HERE. THEY MADE INVESTMENT, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESS HERE, THEY LIVE HERE.
THEY MAKE IT TO EVERY ONE OF OUR MEETINGS.
THEY MAKE IT TO OTHER MEETINGS AS WELL.
SO THEY NOT ONLY INVEST THEIR CAPITAL, BUT THEY INVEST THEIR TIME AND ENERGY INTO HELPING THIS CITY.
RIGHT? THIS IS NOT A -- WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S A GIVE AND TAKE FOR ALL OF US.
WE'VE HAD THIS ON OTHER ISSUES IN OUR CITY AND WHEN WE COME TOGETHER, WHEN WE DISAGREE. I COULD EVEN MENTION ONE OF THEM, BUT I DON'T. WE HAD A DISAGREE AT ONE OF THEM AND WE CAME TO A COMPROMISE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE HAPPY.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DEVELOPER EYES ON THAT AHEAD OF TIME. I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MORE MEETINGS COMING UP, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE JENNIFER SENSON TO BE PART OF THAT UDC COMMITTEE.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP. >> I'D LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT TO YOU, THOSE THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT AND TO THE RESIDENTS THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING.
WE DO HAVE THE UDC REWRITE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS A COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER AND THE INTENTION WAS TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH TYPE OF MARKET, SO THE DEVELOPMENT -- THE DEVELOPMENT MARKET, SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE MARKET, RIGHT, OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO GROW. WE HAVE THOSE WHO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.
KRISTEN LABARREN IS ON IT. THAT WAS THE INTENT AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S BEEN THE CHOSEN PERSON TO SIT FOR THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY, JUST TO HAVE FEEDBACK OR TO GIVE FEEDBACK, I SHOULD SAY. UNFORTUNATELY JUST HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND JUST DUE TO LIFE EVENTS AS WE KNOW, THAT ALL HAPPENS. SO IT'S BEEN KIND OF CONSISTENT OF THEM NOT BEING PRESENT, AND AS Y'ALL HEARD AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION WHERE THERE SEEMED TO BE QUESTIONS JUST ABOUT WOULD THE MARKET SUPPORT CERTAIN DECISIONS. SO WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT, I BELIEVE TIM WAS -- THIS WAS ALREADY FROM MY -- FROM US TALKING, YOU SAID THIS WAS KIND OF ALREADY ON YOUR MIND --
>> YEAH, FOR DR. >> -- KNOWING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO BE PRESENT TO GIVE FEEDBACK. SO WE WANT THIS PROCESS TO GO THROUGH AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE BACK HERE TO REWRITE IT AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE WASTING TIME OR TAX DOLLARS AND HAVE THIS PROLONGED. SO REALLY THIS IS JUST TO REPLACE SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DECIDED ON AND HOPEFULLY HAVING THAT REPRESENTATION. SO THAT'S THE BACK STORY OF WHY THIS HAS COME UP NOW AND WHY THIS IS -- YEAH, WHY THIS MIGHT BE A NEED DURING THIS MOMENT AS A CITY WITH REWRITING THE UDC.
[01:00:04]
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS --
>> IT IS ON. >> WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
>> IT'S RARE FOR ME THAT YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.
SOMEBODY IS INTENTIONALLY DOING THIS TO ME.
I DO APPRECIATE AND I GET INPUT FROM JEN, ET CETERA, AND I DO TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN I GIVE MY ADVISORY COMMENTS AS WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE. I JUST NEED TO PUT OUT WHERE WE'RE AT IN TIME. THERE IS ONE ADVISORY TEAM LEFT.
SO -- AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, IT IS UNFORTUNATE.
WE HAVE A GREAT PERSON ON IT FROM THE EDC, NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME. BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ONLINE.
I THINK THIS KIND OF GOES IN LINE WITH OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
SO I MIGHT WANT TO HOLD OFF UNTIL WE DO THAT TOO.
BUT THERE'S ONE LEFT. NOW, I JUST STILL WANT TO POINT OUT FOR THIS -- EVERYONE WHAT THE STAFF AND THE CITY HAS GONE THROUGH AN PUBLIC INPUT. FROM THE CITIZENS AS WELL AS DEVELOPERS. AND WE ACTUALLY INCREASED THE COST OF THIS CONTRACT ALREADY BY $100,000.
WE'VE HAD TWO OF THE SEVEN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTES WERE DEVELOPER ROUND TABLES. THEY WERE PLANNED TO GRAB AS MUCH -- AND THEY WERE WELCOME TO THE OTHER FIVE.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING INPUT.
THE UDC IS SUPPOSED TO BE USER FRIENDLY AND NOT REQUIRED EXPERTISE AS WELL, ET CETERA, WHICH I WOULD LOVE IF WE STARTED WITH FLOWCHARTS. FOR ME ESPECIALLY.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE PUT IN 100,000 TO THIS ALREADY. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COST OF MAILERS, FLIERS, ET CETERA. BUT IT'S TIME AND MATERIALS.
FROM JUNE TO JULY, WE HAD STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS WITH PLACES OF WORSHIP, NON-PROFITS, DEVELOPERS AND REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS. DECEMBER 11TH WE HAD THE UDC REWRITE OPEN HOUSE. APRIL 9TH, DEVELOPER ROUND TABLE. APRIL 9TH, OPEN HOUSE AT THE LIBERTY HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL. WE HAD WHIMSY AND WONDER.
JULY 3RD WE HAD THE INDEPENDENCE DAY SPECTACULAR.
ON JULY 30TH, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THEY GET A CHANCE TO HAVE COMMENTS.
AND ON THAT, THERE WERE 1,301 PAGE VIEWS, 364 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM 215 CONTRIBUTORS. SEPTEMBER 16TH WE HAD A DEVELOPER ROUND TABLE, THE MAYOR AND I WENT.
IT WAS STANDING ROOM ONLY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INPUT INTO THIS.
A LOT. WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY INCREASING THE COST AGAIN ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WE'RE WAITING TO SEE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT THAT I OPPOSE ADDING SOMEONE TO IT BUT THERE'S ONE
>> THERE'S ONE MEETING LEFT. >> EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS EXCELLENT. I UNDERSTAND.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH
EFFORT THIS -- >> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THE DEVELOPER ROUND TABLE THAT YOU AND I WERE AT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A ROUND TABLE THAT WAS.
MORE JUST RECEIVING INFORMATION AND SOME FEEDBACK.
BUT IT WAS . . . IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT WAS NOT A
COLLABORATIVE SETTING AT ALL. >> YES, YES -- COLLABORATION. THAT ROUND TABLE THAT I EXPERIENCED WAS NOT AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLABORATION.
>> YEAH, AND THINK -- >> IT WAS A PRESENTATION.
SO, YES. SO THIS IS REALLY PROBABLY JUST TO FILL -- EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE'S ONLY ONE MORE
ROBERT? >> I WASN'T GOING TO SAY HIS NAME. NO, BUT HAS HAD CONVERSATIONS.
I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE.
HE CAN'T ATTEND. HE KNOWS HE CAN'T ATTEND.
HE SAID HE CAN'T. I MEAN, HE'S OKAY WITH BEING FINE WITH IT. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE COUNCIL PUTTING SOMEONE ON THAT'S GOING TO SHOW UP TO THE MEETINGS TO HAVE REPRESENTATION, EVEN IF IT'S JUST FOR ONE MORE
MEETING. >> I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW TOO, WE HAVE A COPY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED AND THE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. I REALIZE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE IT'S A FLUID THING WHERE THEY'RE CHANGING AND I WOULD PREFER FLOWCHARTS --
>> THERE'S 300 PAGES. >> THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TO THAT, BUT ANYWAY. BUT WE HAVE THIS BY THE WAY.
WHERE -- WHERE I HAVE GONE THROUGH IT AND LOOKED JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMENTS THAT ARE COMING OUT.
THERE ARE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND I'VE SHARED THAT WITH STAFF. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEFORE POLICY DECISIONS COME TO COUNCIL, LIKE WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME, I WOULD HAVE LOVED IT IF THE ADVISORY TEAM COULD HAVE LISTENED TO THOSE FIRST. CATHEDRAL FEEDBACKS ARE GIVEN.
I DON'T OPPOSE IT, I JUST WANT TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS THAT
>> I JUST KNOW MY EXPERIENCE BEING ON A LOT OF COMMITTEES AND I.T. AND STUFF, WHEN I DON'T ARE ON THE WORKING -- WHEN YOU ARE
[01:05:01]
ON THE WORKING COMMITTEE, THE FOCUS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHEN YOU'RE SEEING THE DRAFT OF THE FACT.YOU MAY NOT SEE ALL THE OTHER THINGS YOU MAKE.
SAUCE PIZZA -- ANYWAY, I UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY ONE MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE JENNIFER ATTEND THAT MEETING IF IT'S OKAY.
>> YEAH, IS THERE SOME REASON -- CAN'T ANYONE ATTEND -- ARE THESE NOT PUBLIC MEETINGS? I JUST WANT TO BE CLAIRE ON THAT TOO. IF OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO COME.
>> PROBABLY. I MEAN, IT'S NOT --
>> MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT --
>> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, BUT REST ASSURED HER COMMENTS DID MAKE THEIR WAY INTO THAT DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME.
>> I UNDERSTAND. >> SO IS THERE A MOTION? HOW DO YOU MAKE A MOTION -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE MADE A MOTION FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO BE HONESTLY PUT TOGETHER.
BUT I'M GUESSING SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT JUST FOR
CLARITY? >> IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE SUB COMMITTEE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION --
>> GREAT, TIM, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?
>> SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION TO JENNIFER TO THE COMMITTEE HENCEFORTH.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> NOT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS DISCUSSED FOR ME.
SO . . . I DON'T OPPOSE IT BUT I DON'T WANT TO SECOND IT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM AND MOVE IT TO AFTER THIS
NEXT ITEM. >> ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MAKE --
>> ITEM NUMBER 4F. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED PLANS, SCHEDULE, AND ESTIMATED COST FOR AN ADDITIONAL JOINT STAKEHOLDER MEETING RELATED TO THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WILL DO MY BEST TO GO AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, BUT FEEL FREE TO STOP AND INSTRUMENT ME ANY TIME.
BUT PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK RECAP.
THIS IS WHAT MAKE SURE THAT I GOT EVERYTHING CORRECTLY.
SO ADDITIONAL MEETING IF WE CAN ALL JUST -- WE'RE GOOD WITH CALLING IT THAT.
SO MEETING WAS REQUESTED SIGN UP TO PRESENT HOW THE DRAFT CODE WORKS FOR POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT THEY REPRESENT OR THAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO REPRESENT. CASE STUDIES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND FOR THE UDC REWRITE CONSULTANT. FOR THE FREESON NICKEL TEAM THEY PRESENT ON THIS AS WELL. CASE STUDIED BASED UPON THE EDC DRAFT. THE MEETING WOULD FOCUS ON FOUR AREAS AS REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS, VERTICAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THESE ARE THE FOUR ITEMS THAT I TOOK AWAY FROM THE FEEDBACK -- THE LISTEN BACK ON THE WHOLE THING.
SO OUR PROPOSED MEETING FORMAT. SO THE CITY WOULD PUBLISH -- I KNOW WE BRIEFLY TALKED ABOUT THIS.
THERE'S A SIGN-UP LINK FOR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERING FIRMS TO SIGN UP TO PRESENT PRESENTATIONS WILL BE LIMITED TO TEN MINUTES. IT WOULD BE ONE PRESENTATION PER FIRM SLASH COMPANY. THEY MUST BE EITHER ACTIVELY WORKING ON LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN LIBERTY HILL OR PURSUING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN LIBERTY HILL.
THIS SHOWS WHERE SIMILAR CODE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE AND PRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PACKETS SO Y'ALL HAVE IT SIMILAR TO THE PACKETS, YOU HAVE IT FIVE DAYS AHEAD OF TIME.
WHICH I BEREAVE I CAPTURED GENERALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED. LIKE I SAID, I'VE WATCHED THAT MEETING BACK A COUPLE OF TIMES AT THIS POINT.
SO THIS WAS WHAT I GATHERED FOR THE FORMAT WITH WHAT Y'ALL ARE REQUESTING. DID I MISS ANYTHING BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE OR WE CAN COME BACK TO IT LATER.
>> I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION THAT THE CONSULTANT FOR THE UDC, THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEIR OWN PRESENTATION TO SHOW WHERE SIMILAR CODE PROVISIONS HAVE PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE.
>> OR DEVELOPED OR DEVELOPED OR BUILT OR THAT -- WHERE THEY HAVE WORKED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. IT MIGHT NOT BE OBVIOUSLY HERE, BUT IT MAY BE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT THEY HAVE SEEN
THAT WORK. >> AND ONLY IN COMMUNITIES THAT THEY'VE WORKED IN? NOT TAKING FEEDBACK FROM . . .
ANY CITY. JUST ONLY CITIES THAT THEY'VE
WORKED IN? >> I MEAN, COULD BE ONLY CITIES THEY WORKED IN. THE PROBLEM IS ONE IS SIMILAR TO ANOTHER ONE. YOU'RE NARROWING IT QUITE A BIT THEN, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY DON'T DO THIS EVERYWHERE. IT WOULD BE IF THERE'S A SIMILAR ONE IN ANOTHER CITY THAT MAYBE THEY DIDN'T WORK IN THE SAME LANGUAGE, THEN IT WOULD BE A LIKE FOR LIKE COMPARISON.
[01:10:03]
MEETING SCHEDULE REVIEW. TAKES PLACE NOVEMBER 30TH.NOVEMBER 30TH WAS THE SOONEST WE COULD MAKE IT WORK WHILE USING THE FINAL DRAFT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR BOTH THE -- ANYBODY SIGNING UP AS WELL AS THE UDC SUBCONSULTANT TO DO IT ON A NON-FINAL DRAFT.
SO THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE TIME WITH THE FINAL DRAFT OF WHAT'S ALREADY TAKEN ALL OF THAT PEDIATRIC BACK AND BE -- FEEDBACK AND BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO IT.
SO THAT GIVES THEM TIME TO DO THAT AND ENSURES THAT WE CAN HAVE EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE FOR THAT AS WELL.
GIVEN THE HOLIDAYS ARE ALL IN THAT AREA, RIGHT? SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT -- GET IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECT ON SCHEDULE.
AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL PARTIES AVAILABLE WITH ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE FOR IT. SO LOCATION WILL BE HERE.
THAT WAY IT CAN BE AN OPEN MEETING.
MEETING START TIME JUST LIKE WE NORMALLY DO AT 6 P.M. SO IT'S AN OFF WEEK, SO IT'S A NON-COUNCIL MEETING WEEK.
SO THAT WAY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TWO MEETINGS WITH US TWICE IN A WEEK TO HANG OUT HERE. SO THAT WE ARE PLACED ON CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BASED UPON WHEN THEY SUBMIT, THAT WAY THERE'S NO LIKE PERCEIVED -- OH, IT'S ALPHABETICAL OR WHATEVER.
AS THEY SUBMIT THEM, THEY'RE TIME STAMPED.
WE THEN PUT THEM IN THAT ORDER FOR PRESENTATION.
MEANWHILE, MAKE SURE THAT WE COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND STATE LAW. SHOULD TURNOUT BE LARGE ENOUGH, WE'LL MAKE SURE COMPLIANCE WITH LITTLING OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT THE LIMITS ARE FOR THIS BUILDING, BUT IF WE HAVE IT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, THEN WE CAN HAVE PEOPLE STAGED OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING IF WE NEED TO.
SO I THINK THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO THIS.
COULD BE AN IDEA OF WHERE THIS ENGAGEMENT IS COMING FROM.
SOME OF THIS IS BEFORE MY TIME WITH THE CITY.
YOU HAD UDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND JOINT MEETINGS AND OPEN -- MY SECOND WEEK, I THINK HERE, WE HAD THE FIRST OPEN HOUSE, HOSTED BY CITY STAFF. THERE'S A LOT OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY PUBLISHED DRAFT AS WELL.
SO THAT HAS THE ATTENDEES, BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS, ALL THE WAY THROUGH. YOU HAVE A LOT OF THE DIAGNOSTIC REPORT, REVIEW. AS WE KEEP GOING THROUGH IT THERE'S A LOT OF WEBSITE, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THINGS HAPPENING ALL ONLINE AND SOME IN-PERSON.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF THESE ROUND TABLES, YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPEN MEETINGS, WHETHER IT'S DEVELOPER OR RESIDENTS THAT CAME IN FOR OPEN HOUSES. YOU KNOW, OF COURSE WE'VE BEEN WHIMSY AND WONDER INDEPENDENCE DAY AS WELL.
BUT THEN WE HAVE A LOT OF CONTRIBUTIONS, A LOT OF CONTRIBUTORS. SO KEEP GOING MOVING THAT FORWARD, YOU HAVE ALL OF THE UDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROUND TABLE AND THEN THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT WAS AT THE LAST MEETING AND AS THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO, OUR LAST ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS LATER THIS MONTH IN OCTOBER WITH THE FINAL DRAFT OF MODULE 4, WHICH IS THE FINAL DRAFT. SO TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FISCAL AND SCHEDULE IMPACTS. THERE ARE FUNDS REMAINING, SO THIS COUNCIL APPROVED A $99,000 AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT WAS IN -- I HAD IT LOOKED UP EARLIER -- IT WAS MARCH THAT HAD ENHANCED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A LOT IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT THAT WAS $314,000.
SO WE BROUGHT AN AMENDMENT FORWARD TO Y'ALL, DID NOT USE THE FULL AMOUNT OF THAT YET. SO DEPENDING ON KIND OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT, WE MAY NOT NEED AN AMENDMENT, BUT WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT MEETING IS -- THIS MEETING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE.
COULD BE THAT WE MAY HAVE TO COME TO AN AMENDMENT DEPENDING ON WHAT WE COME BACK WITH. SO IT COULD VARY WILDLY.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU A BALLPARK NUMBER.
COULD BE ZERO DOLLARS, COULD BE $150,000.
I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT THAT COULD BE.
IT WILL DEPEND ON THE FEEDBACK WE GET FROM Y'ALL.
>> DO WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW?
>> DON'T QUOTE ME. I THINK WE'RE AT 40,000 SPENT -- ROBIN, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE SPENT ON THE AMENDMENT? 44,000. SO THEN THIS MEETING WOULD COME OUT OF THAT. SO THAT -- THAT BUCKET OF MONEY OUT OF THAT AMENDMENT, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON TOP OF THAT, THEN OF COURSE WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO Y'ALL FOR AN AMENDMENT.
BUT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEOUT COME OF THAT MEETING IS, IT'S HARD TO IDENTIFY WHAT THAT COST IS.
THE CURRENT CONTRACT VALUE, THAT INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT TOTAL VALUE IS $413,475. WE SAID WE WOULD COME BACK WITH THE IMPACTS. IT WILL REALLY DEPEND.
AGAIN, IT CAN VARY WILDLY. CURRENT SCHEDULE HAS IT BEING ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY 2027. DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION, IT
[01:15:03]
COULD BE WE ARE STAYING ON TRACK OR WE ARE ONE MONTH FURTHER BACK, IF WE HAVE A LOT OF -- A LOT OF CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE DONE, IT COULD BE WHERE WE ARE SPRING OR SUMMER DEPENDING ON HOW -- WHAT THE VOLUME OF WORK THAT WAS NEEDED.AND IF WE HAVE TO BRING AN AMENDMENT BACK, THERE'S THAT PROCESS AS WELL THAT ADDS TO THAT SCHEDULE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A FULL BREADTH OF HERE IS NO IMPACT AND A LOT OF IMPACT COULD BE SPRING, SUMMER OF 2027 BY THE TIME IT'S FULLY ADOPTED AND THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
OH, SORRY, THAT WAS MY LAST SLIDE.
SO THIS IS A CONVERSATION SLIDE. IF Y'ALL ARE GOOD WITH THAT, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US FEEDBACK ON THAT, HOW WE HAVE IT PLANNED, QUESTION COORDINATE DATES. WE WERE HOPING THE 30TH WOULD WORK FOR EVERYBODY. I NO ETHAT'S A -- KNOW THAT'S A LONG WAYS OUT AND DURING THE HOLIDAYS.
BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SEE IF THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.
>> I'M FINE WITH THE NOVEMBER 30TH SCHEDULE.
LET'S START THERE. NOVEMBER 30TH? OKAY. NOVEMBER 30TH.
WE'RE GOOD FOR THAT, 6 O'CLOCK. >> YEAH.
>> GOOD TO HEAR THAT WE HAVE ONLY OUT OF THE 99,000, WE ONLY HAVE 44,000 AROUND THAT ROUGHLY SPENT, SO THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.
I AM VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT DOING THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE FOR A REWRITE IS BECAUSE -- AND I THINK WHY SOME OF US MAY BE A LITTLE FRUSTRATED IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN -- GOT STARTED OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT, EVEN BY THE WAY THE CONTRACT WAS DESIGNED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT HERE WE ARE.
AND LIKE YOU SAID, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS NEXT MEETING, BUT IN MY OPINION IT IS BETTER TO DO THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, EVEN IF IT MAY TAKE AN EXTRA WEEK OR THREE WEEKS.
LET'S GET IT RIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY THIS -- IT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR CITY FOR GENERATIONS.
SO WE NEED TO GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
BUT THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK PUT INTO THIS.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR BRINGING IT BACK QUICKLY.
I'M HOPING WE CAN STAY IN THIS BUILDING AND WE DON'T HAVE TO MOVE. BUT I HAVE FULL FAITH THAT Y'ALL WILL FIND A PLACE IN LIBERTY HILL BIG ENOUGH.
>> THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO WAIT FOR THIS ONE.
I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN ONE LAST MEETING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE -- ALL OF COUNCIL IS GOING TO GET TO HEAR THAT INPUT. AND THIS IS WHY FOR ME I WOULD FOCUS ON THIS AND THE ADVISORY -- I MEAN, ANYBODY CAN COME. THE INPUT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.
INPUT STILL BEING PROVIDED, BUT I JUST -- JUST ONE LAST MEETING I'M NOT SURE. I WANTED TO BE CLEAR.
I'M NOT SURE. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE MATERIALS GETTING READY. SO I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT THAT'S AS PRODUCTIVE AS THIS WOULD BE. THAT'S JUST ME.
>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I STILL THINK IT'S WORTH THE -- THE LAST MEETING TO HAVE THE -- JENNIFER THERE FOR THE COMMITTEE. DOESN'T HURT.
WOULD HELP. I AGREE THIS IS GOING TO BE REALLY THE -- WHAT THE FOCUS IS GOING TO BE ON.
>> YEAH, WE DON'T GET TO VOTE, RIGHT? ADVISORY? WE DON'T VOTE
>> WELL, I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND.
>> FOR ME I THINK IT'S ABOUT KEEPING OUR COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT WE WOULD HAVE THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN THE UDC COMMITTEE AND IT'S JUST US MAKING SURE THAT WE STAY TRANSPARENT AND WE DO THAT.
IF THAT IS JUST ONE MEETING THEN IT'S JUST ONE MEETING.
BUT WE STAY WITH OUR WORD AND WHAT WE COMMITTED TO.
I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST BENEFICIAL. BUT I ALSO AGREE, TIM, THAT JUST TO GO AHEAD AND FILL THAT -- THAT SLOT AND STAY WITH WHAT WE COMMITTED IS ALSO DOING DUE DILIGENCE AND STAYING TRANSPARENT TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO . . . WE NEED TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS LET'S START WITH THIS ITEM BECAUSE WE SWITCHED THEM UP. SO LET'S DO -- IF ANYBODY DOESN'T -- DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> NO. >> LET'S START WITH 4F.
IS THERE A MOTION TO BE MADE? NOT EVERYONE JUMP OUT AT ONCE.
>> MAYOR. >> I GUESS THERE IS NO MOTION.
ON 4F, WE'RE JUST DECIDING ON THE TIME AND DATE.
WE'RE ALL GOOD THERE. >> MY MAIN CONCERN -- GO AHEAD,
SORRY. >> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED
OKAY. SO I THINK IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. MAKING A MOTION BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS MOVING FORWARD WITH A -- OKAY.
WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT? >> IT WOULD BE LIKE, I MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WAS PRESENTED
>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> MOTIONS MADE AND SECONDED IT.
ALL IN FAVOR? 5-0 MOTION PASSES.
[01:20:05]
OKAY. THEN WE GO TO ITEM 4E AND, TIM,DO YOU -- >> COUNCIL MEMBER HAS MADE THE MOTION. LY SECOND THE MOTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE -- MANAGING EXPECTATIONS.
>> BECAUSE I WELCOME JEN ON BOARD, AND IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT EVEN THE CHAMBER COULD HAVE USED THE SLOT FOR AS WELL. SO YEAH.
>> THANK YOU THANK YOU. >> MOTIONS MADE AND SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? 4-0 -- OR 4 IN FAVOR, ALL
[5) CONVENE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]
OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED.ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT WE MOVE TO -- WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE ARE GOING IN FOR ITEM 5A PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551-.071 AND PURSUANT TO
SECTION 551.074 AND >> ALL RIGHT.
[6) RECONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION]
WE ARE RECONVENING TO SESSION AT 8:12 P.M. AND WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN AT 8:12 P.M. BECAUSE THERE'S NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN FROM THE EXECUTI* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.