>> I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 9:01.
[00:00:07]
>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
[1. RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Government Code, the Council reserves the right to convene in Executive Session(s), from time to time as deemed necessary during this meeting for any posted agenda item, to receive advice from its attorney as permitted by law. Pending or Contemplated Litigation or to Seek the Advice of the City Attorney Pursuant to Section 551.071]
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071 IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: SECTION 551.071, PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
MAYOR, IF YOU COULD CALL FOR A MOTION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BROUGHT ON AND SECOND BY VICTORIA.
ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS.
>> IF YOU COULD STATE THE TIME, MAYOR.
>> DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO RECONVENE?
>> I GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA, SECOND BY DAN.
ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS.
REOPENING THIS SESSION UP AT 9:28.
>> [NOISE] I THINK MY MICROPHONE ISN'T WORKING.
THERE WE GO. MAYOR AND COUNCIL,
[2. CITIZEN APPEARANCES Other than public hearings and items listed on the posted agenda, citizens in attendance who desire to speak to City Council may speak during this section. Speakers in attendance: Each person will be allowed three (3) minutes to speak and will not be interrupted by City Council or staff. If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card and give the completed card to the City Secretary prior to addressing City Council. Speakers not in attendance: Each person must fill out an online speaker card. Online speaker cards will be for items posted on the agenda only and must be submitted 30 minutes prior to the posted start time of the meeting. Online speaker cards will be read aloud by the City Secretary at the time the item is presented. Online speaker cards can be found on the city’s website, www.burlesontx.com on the agenda/notices page. Please note that City Council may only take action on items posted on the agenda. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the City Council from deliberating or taking action on an item not listed on the agenda. City Council may, however, receive your comments on the unlisted item, ask clarifying questions, respond with facts, and explain policy.]
THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 2, CITIZENS' APPEARANCE.OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS LISTED ON THE POSTED AGENDA, CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE WHO DESIRE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL MAY DO SO DURING THIS SECTION.
SPEAKERS IN ATTENDANCE WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
YOU MUST FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND PRESENT THAT TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE OVER HERE, AND THEN SPEAKER WHO'S NOT IN ATTENDANCE, EACH SPEAKER MUST FILL OUT AN ONLINE SPEAKER CARD, AND HAVE THAT SPEAKER CARD PRESENTED OR SUBMITTED ACTUALLY 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE POSTED START OF THE MEETING.
TODAY I HAVE TWO ONLINE SPEAKER CARDS.
I HAVE NO SPEAKER CARDS FOR ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA TODAY? WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER CARD.
FIRST SPEAKER CARD IS SUSAN CATO, 820 CEDAR RIDGE LANE.
I HOPE EVERYONE ON COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF WILL READ THE ARREST WARRANT FOR JIMMY STANFORD [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXCUSE ME AMANDA, MAY I INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND?
>> MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR A COMMENT CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS AN OPEN INVESTIGATION AT THIS TIME.
>> IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO TRY AND ENTER INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC RECORD ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION THAT IS PENDING WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
HOWEVER, I WANT TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN FAR ENOUGH IN THE CARD FOR ME TO TELL WHAT THE PERSON IS SAYING.
THIS [INAUDIBLE] AS IT APPEAR THAT THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO OFFER.
>> I WOULD SAY WE TAKE A SMALL RECESS AND YOU CAN REVIEW THE TWO BECAUSE I HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS.
>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE MORE THAN TWO BUT THE OTHER TWO ARE RELATED TO A POSTED ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
>> MR. MAYOR, COULD WE JUST DEFER THIS PARTICULAR ELEMENT TO THE END OF THE MEETING AND LET ME GET THE CARDS FROM THIS [INAUDIBLE] OKAY?
>> DOES EVERYBODY AGREE? [BACKGROUND] WE WILL LET THAT.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 3 GENERAL.
[A. Consider and take action on a motion to reconsider the approval of an ordinance calling a special bond election to be held May 7, 2022. (Presenter: Dan McClendon, Mayor Pro Tem)]
3A IS CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD MAY 7TH, 2022.THE PRESENTER TODAY IS DAN MCCLENDON, MAYOR PRO TEM. MAYOR PRO TEM?
>> THANK YOU, AMANDA. I HAVE FARNESS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC WAS A MEMO THAT I WROTE OUTLINING MY POSITION.
I DON'T INTEND TO READ THAT TO YOU AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT.
I THINK WE FIND OURSELVES AS A COUNCIL IN A RARE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE ARE CALLING FOR A BOND ELECTION.
IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE COUNCIL TAKES AN ACTION, A MAJORITY VOTE IS TAKEN, THE ITEM IS RESOLVED, THAT'S FINAL.
WE TYPICALLY ARE ACTING ON THE [NOISE] ADVISEMENT OF EITHER STAFF OR IN THE CASE OF ZONING MATTERS AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
WHEN WE HAVE MATTERS SENT TO US FROM P AND Z FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS PARTLY,
[00:05:05]
AT LEAST I DO BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT THAT SEEMS TO HAVE COME FROM THE P AND Z MEMBERS.IF WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT'S COMING TO US WITH UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I THINK WE TEND TO LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY THAN WHEN WE GET ITEMS REMANDED TO US FROM THEM OR FROM OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEES THAT DO NOT SHOW UNITY.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE, IN THIS PARTICULAR VOTE OR ACTING AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IN A SENSE TO THE CITIZENS TO SHOW THAT OUR SUPPORT IS UNIFIED IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THEM TO VOTE YES OR NO ON SUPPORTING OUR DECISION.
I DON'T LIKE BEING IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE CALLED FOR A VOTE WITH IT CLEARLY BEING A SCANT MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE BEHIND ASKING FOR THE BONDS TO BE APPROVED.
BECAUSE AS I SAID IN MY MEMO FIRST OF ALL, IT INCREASES, AND THIS HAS BEEN STATISTICALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT INCREASES THE CHANCES OF THE BOND ELECTION FAILING IF WE DO SO.
UNDER STATE LAW, AS I ALSO REFERENCED IN MY MEMO, IF A PROJECT IS ON A BOND ELECTION AND FAILS, THEN OUR COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING ACTION TOWARDS THAT ITEM FOR THREE YEARS BY STATE LAW.
OUR ATTORNEY CAN QUOTE THE CHAPTER AND VERSE, BUT WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT SHOULD WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS AND RECEIVE A NEGATIVE VOTE FROM THE CITIZENS THEN WE ARE PREVENTED FROM GOING FORWARD WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE WANTED TO DO FOR THREE YEARS.
IN THREE YEARS TIME, WE WILL BE WAY TOO LATE ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, PARTICULARLY THE FIRE STATION OUT IN THE [INAUDIBLE] SUMMIT AREA.
WE WILL NOT HAVE GOOD RESPONSE TIMES FOR OUR CITIZENS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IN THAT AREA UNTIL WE HAVE A PRESENCE WITHIN THE AREA.
WE CANNOT HIT IT IN A REASONABLE RESPONSE TIME FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IN ORDER TO STAY AHEAD OF THAT, WE NEED TO BE THERE AND NOT RISK THAT WE HAVE A THREE YEAR DELAY IN STARTING THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT STATION ONLINE, THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN.
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I DID VOTE IN FAVOR OF SENDING THE BOND ISSUE OUT, AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE A MOOD OF UNIFORM SUPPORT.
WE HAD ONLY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER SPEAKING HIS OPINION IN OPPOSITION.
I THINK A GOOD STRONG MESSAGE OF THE SIX-ONE VOTE IS ACCEPTABLE MESSAGE TO SEND OUT, BUT A FOUR-THREE VOTE IS SIMPLY NOT THERE.
I THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE APPROACHED BY CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY DON'T SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK IN GOOD CONSCIENCE THEY WILL ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND THE MIXED MESSAGE WILL GO ON AND ON UNTIL WE FIND OUT HOW THIS CAME OUT.
I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO TAKE MY DESIRE TO RECONSIDER THIS AS EITHER ONE OF TWO THINGS, I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE TAKEN AS A NO VOTE ON HAVING AN ELECTION.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SEEK TO DO.
I WANT TO HAVE AN ELECTION, BUT NOT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE SIMPLY WE ARE NOT READY TO PUT OUR FULL SUPPORT BEHIND THE INITIATIVES THAT CAME OUT OF THE BOND COMMITTEE UNTIL WE GET SOME ISSUES RESOLVED.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE TAKEN AS A YES OR NO VOTE ON BUILDING SOMETHING THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEED. THAT'S NOT IT AT ALL.
IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON MAKING SURE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GETS SOMETHING, WE NEED TO TAKE TIME AND VET THAT SOMETHING AND MAKE SURE WE KNOW THAT WHAT THEY'RE GETTING IS WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AS WE EXPECT THEM TO DO FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME GOING FORWARD.
I THINK I'M SPECULATING A LITTLE BIT PERHAPS, BUT I THINK IT WAS BASED ON RONNIE'S COMMENTS, AT LEAST, THAT ONE ITEM ON THE BALLOT WAS THE ITEM WITH WHICH HE HAD SO MUCH HEARTBURN AND FRANKLY SO DO I. I DON'T WANT TO SEND SOMETHING OUT TO THE CITIZENS SAYING WE WANT YOU TO SUPPORT US SPENDING $36 MILLION ON A POLICE STATION UNTIL WE'RE PRETTY DARN SURE THAT THAT IS EXACTLY THE APPROACH WE NEED TO TAKE AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET.
I WANT US TO GET THERE, I WANT THAT PROCESS TO CONTINUE, AND I WANT US TO BE MORE SURE OF HOW WE WISELY SPEND $36 MILLION THAN WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
AS I SAID, IN THE MEMO, LEADING UP TO THIS, WE'VE HAD TO BE ON A FAST TRACK.
THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL EXPRESSED ITS WILL TO CREATE AND TO ACCEPT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
BY THE WAY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT DURING THEIR DELIBERATIONS,
[00:10:02]
THE BOND COMMITTEE THEMSELVES WAS SOMEWHAT DIVIDED ON WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEND.HOWEVER, THEY HAD THE GOOD JUDGMENT TO WORK THESE SITUATIONS OUT AND GET TO THE POINT TO WHERE WHEN THEY DID SEND A RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION.
I'M HOPING THAT OUR COUNCIL CAN FOLLOW THAT BY AN EXAMPLE AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T DO IT ON THE FAST-TRACK THAT WE'RE ON AND TIME TO CALL AN ELECTION BACK FOR, MAY SEVENTH, 2022.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE.
WHEN I VOTED, I WAS CONSIDERING MYSELF TO BE ANSWERING THE QUESTION, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT WANT TO SEND OUT A BOND PACKAGE FOR ELECTION SHOWING THE UNIFIED SUPPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
MY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD BE YES.
WHAT I WAS ANSWERING WAS THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO SEND A MIXED MESSAGE TO THE CITIZENS ABOUT INCURRING AN $88 MILLION DEBT ON PROJECTS THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT SURE HOW WE WANT TO BUILD THEM.
MY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD'VE BEEN NO.
THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING THE REQUEST.
MAYOR IF YOU'RE READY FOR A MOTION.
BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION, TAKE SOME TIME TO FOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.
>> I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT HERE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT I'LL SUPPORT YOU 100 PERCENT.
THE POSITION I'M IN RIGHT NOW IS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKUP HERE.
I WENT TO THE TTS SUMMIT LAST WEEK.
WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS GROUP.
THIS IS TOWARD THE RTC, THE TRTC AND COG, ALL OF THESE MAYORS, ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS GO TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO.
I'M SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AND HERE WE HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS OUT THERE, TWO OF THEM, CEO OF BELL HELICOPTER AND ALSO OF NFSF, I THINK I'M SAYING IT RIGHT.
HEAD OF BELL HELICOPTER SAID, IF YOU FAIL TO PLAN, YOU FAIL.
WHAT I HAVE SEEN RECENTLY IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TYPICALLY, IS WE'RE NOT BEING PROACTIVE, WE'RE BEING INACTIVE.
WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS. WE GOT TO A DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUMMIT.
THAT'S $1.4 BILLION IN REVENUE TO THE CITY ON FINISHED PRODUCTS.
THAT'S THROUGH THE COPS, NOT COUNTING THE SALES TAX AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WE ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE LAND UP THERE.
MY POSITION IS NOT TO HAVE THE ELECTION SIMPLY BECAUSE IF THERE'S AN OUTSIDE CHANCE OF IT FAILING, WE ARE IN A BOND, WE'RE NOT JUST REACTING, WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS.
WE HAVE A SITUATION RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE TURNING DOWN TO DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY, REALLY HARD WITH THE TRTC, THE RTC, COG, PHIL CANE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH DWYANE AND I'M NOT USING PROPER TITLES HERE, SO I'M NOT THAT WAY.
THEY CALL ME CHRIS, I'LL CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE.
BUT I'M WORKING WITH ALL OF THESE TRUCK GUYS TRYING TO GET THESE ROADS DONE AND NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY FOR US TO GO TO AN ELECTION, I'M SURE, I'M NOT A GAMBLER.
BUT IF WE GO TO AN ELECTION I'M SURE, THIS IS GOING TO PASS AND HISTORICALLY, IT WON'T.
I WAS THE ONE THAT CALLED FOR THAT COMMITTEE.
THAT BOND COMMITTEE CAUSE WAS A CALL I POINT-BLANK SAID WE NEED TO GET THE CITIZENS INVOLVED.
THEY DID THEIR JOB AND THEN WE FAILED IT.
WE DIDN'T FAIL IT. BUT THE CALCULATED RISK HERE IS JUST NOT GOING TO PASS.
NOW WE'RE UNDER A WAR SITUATION. WE GOT THREE YEARS.
WE'VE GOT TO SIT ON OUR HANDS.
IN MY OPINION, WE NEED TO END THE ELECTION.
I'M DOING MY SUPPORT TO DAN ON THIS.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAID.
WE WISHED WE HAD MORE INPUT FROM THE ONES THAT SAID NO, WE COULD'VE GOT THROUGH THIS.
BUT IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED TO US THAT COUNCIL IS NOT VOICING YOUR OPINION.
BLACK, WE OCTAVIAN, I'M GUILTY ON THAT.
SOMETIMES I'M MORE PLATINUM AND I NEEDED TO BE, I NEED TO SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, WE ALL NEED TO DO THAT.
RIGHT NOW, I STAND WITH DAN ON THIS.
I THINK WE NEED TO SAY NO. ANYBODY ELSE.
[00:15:02]
>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. CERTAINLY, COMMENT ON THIS YES, I DID SPEAK OUT.
MY WHOLE GIST OF IT WAS YES, WE NEEDED EVERYTHING HERE.
I ALSO SAID I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE ECONOMICAL CLIMATE FOR US TO DO IT AT THIS TIME.
NOT THAT I WAS AGAINST ANYTHING, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT TIME.
I CAN TELL YOU, I ALWAYS SPEAK MY FACE.
ALL OF YOU THAT KNOW ME KNOW THAT.
I MADE MY DECISION, AND I'LL STICK WITH MY DECISION, AND I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE A POPULAR DECISION.
BUT I DIDN'T MAKE IT AND I MADE IT FOR THE COUNCIL.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT NEVER DO WE BLAME OTHERS OWN THIS COUNCIL FOR NOT SAYING SOMETHING BECAUSE VERY OBVIOUSLY THERE'S TOO MORE THAT HAD MADE THEIR DECISION.
DID THEY SPEAK? NO. IS THERE ANY BLAME THERE? NO. I WEIGHED OUT AS THEY WEIGHED OUT THE SITUATION AND I SAID IT'S NOT THE TIME AND I'LL READ THAT WAY.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A DUEL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHERE WE CALLED AN ELECTION, AND THEN WE CANCEL AN ELECTION.
NEVER BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, I'M NOT CHANGING MY MIND.
WE'RE ABOUT TO CANCEL THE ELECTION TODAY, I WILL NOT.
WE SAID WE VOTED FOR THREE FOR AN ELECTION.
FOR I'M CONCERNED, THERE'S NO ELECTION THAT SHOULD BE HELD.
THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT.
>> SO, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WE HAVE THE CRP THAT WAS GIVEN TO US.
THAT CRP IDENTIFIES SOME EVENTS OF THE LAST COUNCILS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THAT'S CRP WAS 163,542,116 THAT NEEDED TO BE SPENT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
MARTIN, OUR WONDERFUL FINANCE MAN SAYS THAT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN COME UP ABOUT 88 MILLION AND NOT RAISE TAXES FAR SHORT OF THE 163 MILLION.
THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THIS COUNCIL REGARDS TO HOW THE BOATS GO, A DECISION MADE BY THIS COUNCIL TO APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS TO FIND OUT FROM CITIZEN INPUT, WHAT ARE YOU ALL COMFORTABLE WITH? ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH AN 88 MILLION? WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT WE GOT IN THE BUDGET.
WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO SPEND, 88 MILLION.
WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE 163.
WE LET THE CITIZENS COME THROUGH, PICK THROUGH THE PROJECTS, FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS, THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THEM TO PUT ON THAT PUT ON THE BALLOT.
AND THEY CAME BACK TO US WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, BY THE WAY, THIS IS A CITIZEN GROUP THAT WAS PICKED TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS.
AND HERE'S THE COOL THING, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE IT IN THIS CITY.
IT'S NOT UNUSUAL, BUT TO PUT STUFF ON A GO BOND.
THIS GO BOND ACTUALLY INVOLVES TWO COMMITTEES.
IT INVOLVES THE COMMITTEE THAT WE SELECTED, BUT ALSO INVOLVES A COMMITTEE OF EVERY SINGLE, EVERY SINGLE REGISTERED VOTER THAT LIVES IN BURSTS IN TEXAS IS ON THAT COMMITTEE.
AND THEY GET THAT RIGHT IN BAY TO CAST THEIR BALLOTS TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT THEIR TAX DOLLARS SPENT.
I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO HAVE THAT RIGHT.
IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE FIRE STATION.
I WANT TO TELL YOU, CITIZENS, THE FIRE STATION HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT AT ALL ON THIS BOND.
AND I CAN SAY THAT WITH CONVICTION BECAUSE I HAVE THE PRINT I HEAR FROM MARTIN.
THE FIRE STATION IS BUDGETED IN 2027.
WE'RE NOT TALKING $88 MILLION WILL BE SPENT NEXT YEAR, WE'RE TALKING A PHASED-IN PROJECT, 2027 IS MORE THAN THREE YEARS OUT.
WHETHER THE CITIZENS DECIDE TO VOTE FOR THE FIRE STATION OR NOT.
WE CAN MAKE THAT FIRE STATION HAPPEN. WE REALLY CAN.
IF THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MONEY TODAY, WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN IN 2027, THAT'S MORE THAN THREE YEARS PASSED.
SO DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE, WE'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU VOTE NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE YOU POLICE AND FIRE SERVICE.
THERE'S WAYS AROUND THAT BECAUSE WE JUST CAN'T DO IT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
NOW. DOES THAT MEAN WE GOT TO TIGHTEN OUR BELT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS? DOES THAT MEAN WE SHIFT SOME STUFF FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS? YEAH. MAYBE WE USE THAT TIME TO BUY DOWN DEBT. I DON'T KNOW.
ALL I KNOW IS FOR THE CITIZENS TO HAVE A VOICE.
THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AND I THINK IT'S WRONG OF A COUNCIL IF WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, TO HAVE THE PEOPLE COME TO US IN A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND SAY, WE WANT THIS, AND THE COUNCIL DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT AND SAY, NO, WE'RE GOING TO GO AGAINST WHAT YOU WANT.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE.
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MY VOTE 100% OF THE TIME IS THAT I REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.
[00:20:05]
I'M NOT HERE FROM MY OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP OR ANY OTHER PERSON OUT THERE.I'M HERE FOR THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
AND IF THE PEOPLE IN THE EMBASSY TOLD ME THEY WANT THIS ON THE BALLOT, THEN THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND.
>> FOR ME, IT JUST GOES BACK TO SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE COUNCILS.
I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT RONNIE WAS SAYING.
WE'RE NOT UP HERE TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE OUR VOTE, UNFORTUNATELY.
I MEAN, WE VOTED ONE WAY, WE FELT THAT WAS THE WAY THAT WE WANTED TO GO.
AND I THINK ALL THIS DOES FOR FUTURE COUNCILS TO SAY BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THE VOTE WENT, I WANT TO CHANGE MY VOTE NOW.
WELL, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, WE NEVER HAD THIS HAPPEN IN THE CITY OF BURLESON.
I THINK WE'RE SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT BY ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN.
AND THERE'S NO WAY I CAN VOTE FOR.
I'M GOING TO STICK WITH MY DECISION THAT I MADE.
I'VE ALREADY VOTED, SO THAT'S THE WAY I VOTED AND I MIGHT KEEP IT THAT WAY.
>> I HAVE MY OWN REASONS FOR WHY I DON'T SUPPORT CHANGING THE VOTE.
AND SIMILAR TO WHAT RONNIE SAID, IT WASN'T ABOUT THE PROJECTS OF THE BOND.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEEDS LISTED ON THERE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT TO THAT POINT.
BUT I ALSO BELIEVE GO PUTS THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE LISTED ON THERE AT RISK OF FAILING.
AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
PUTTING PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS ON GO MAKES THEM POLITICAL, IT MAKES THEM OPTIONAL AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE OPTIONAL.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE COULD HAVE, BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT.
I THINK IT SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT TO CHANGE OUR VOTE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARLIAMENTARY RULES SAY THAT WE CAN, BUT SO AFTER EVERY SINGLE MEETING, THE VERY NEXT MEETING, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING SPECIAL SESSIONS TO REVISIT EVERY VOTE THAT WE MAKE? EITHER TAKE US OUT OR OUTER WORD AND I RESPECT THAT BOTH COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN HAVE SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT LIKE, THIS IS HOW THEY VOTED AND THIS IS WHERE THEY'RE SAYING AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
THERE'S A LOT MORE DISCUSSIONS IN MY OPINION THAT IT COULD'VE TAKEN PLACE ON THE PROJECTS AND THE AMOUNTS AND EVEN COUNCIL MEMBER STANFORD JUST TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THINGS HERE WE HAVE THE FIRE STATION NOT LISTED UNTIL 2027.
THERE'S SO MUCH OF THIS I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THERE SO MUCH ABOUT THIS THAT I FEEL LIKE WE COULD CONTINUE TO DELIBERATE, BUT I COULD ACKNOWLEDGE I MISSED ONE OF THE WORK SESSIONS BECAUSE I, UNFORTUNATELY, GOT COVID.
I MEAN, I'M OWNING THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T GET MY OPPORTUNITY TO ASK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
I HAD A LAUNDRY LIST OF QUESTIONS TO ASK AND I STILL DO.
AND I CAN STAND BY THAT, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS SETTING A GOOD PRECEDENT AFTER EVERY SINGLE MEETING, ARE WE GOING TO REVISIT THE SAME ISSUES AND THE SAME ISSUES? AND MAYOR, YOU'VE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES THAT YOU JUST LIKE, WHEN DO WE MOVE FORWARD? ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUOUSLY DELIBERATE PAST ISSUES? I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS GOOD. I DON'T THINK IT SENDS A GOOD MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE REPRESENT.
WE VOTED, STAND BY YOUR VOTE AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
MY FEARS THAT SOME OF THIS COULD FAIL, BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT'S THE CASE AND WE NEED TO GET COME BACK TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT NEW WAYS.
MAYBE IT'S THAT WE LIKED COUNCIL MEMBERS.
STANFORD SAID MAYBE IT'S WE RESHUFFLE SOME THINGS AROUND.
WE LOOK AT OPTIONS AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IS LOOK AT ALL OF OUR OPTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. I RESPECT MY COUNCIL MEMBERS' OPINIONS.
I'D LIKE TO, FOR THE RECORD, GO BACK TO AUGUST 21, 2021 WHEN MARTIN [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTED, I BELIEVE THE FIRST PRESENTATION ON THE BONDS WHEN $88 MILLION WAS BROUGHT UP.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING NEW, THIS WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE RAM-SHACKLED IN THE LAST MEETING THAT NOBODY WANTS THAT THREE OF THE FOUR DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE 88 MILLION, BUT NOT A WORD HAS BEEN SAID.
LET'S GO TO SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021 WHEN MATT [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTS TO US TO HAVE A CITIZENS' BOND COMMITTEE.
IN THAT, HE TALKS ABOUT 64 MILLION FOR STREETS AND DRAINAGE, 10 MILLION FOR POLICE, 12 MILLION FOR FIRE STATION, AND THEN 2 MILLION FOR THE CARD; $88 MILLION.
PRESENTATION IS TO BRING FORWARD A BOND COMMITTEE.
I SPOKE WHOLEHEARTEDLY AT NOT BRINGING FORWARD A BOND COMMITTEE,
[00:25:05]
THAT WE AS A COUNCIL, SHOULD BE REVIEWING THESE ITEMS, CONFERRING WITH OUR STAFF AND REVIEWING THIS AT NAUSEUM, WHICH WE NOW DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO DO, BECAUSE IT WENT TO A BOND COMMITTEE.THE MAYOR SPOKE UP ON THAT, SO DID COUNCIL MEMBERS STANFORD.
I WAS WHOLEHEARTEDLY OPPOSING THE BOND COMMITTEE BECAUSE I FELT WE, AS A COUNCIL, NEEDED TO REVIEW ALL OF THESE ITEMS. HOWEVER, COUNCIL MEMBER VICTORIA JOHNSON, MADE THE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A BOND COMMITTEE.
IT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER REED GREEN, KNOWING THAT $88 MILLION WAS GOING FORWARD TO THE BOND COMMITTEE.
SO YOU GUYS CAN GO AND WATCH THAT IT PASSES FOUR THREE.
THE FOUR THAT VOTED FOR IT: COUNCIL MEMBER RONNY JOHNSON, COUNCIL MEMBER VICTORIA JOHNSON, COUNCIL MEMBER REED GREEN, COUNCIL MEMBER DAN MCCLINTON.
THE THREE THAT VOTED AGAINST THE BOND COMMITTEE: JIMMY STANFORD, THE MAYOR, AND MYSELF.
OKAY. SO IT PASSES TO GO TO A BOND COMMITTEE SO THAT THE CITIZENS CAN REVIEW ALL OF THE ITEMS IN THE PROPOSED $88 MILLION BOND.
MIGHT I SAY, THIS IS NOW SEPTEMBER, SEVEN MONTHS AGO.
THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE, THIS $88 MILLION.
THE BOND COMMITTEE PROCEEDS TO MEET.
ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOND COMMITTEE ARE PRESENTED TO US.
ARE WE READING THE FRIDAY REPORTS? ARE WE SEEING WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOND COMMITTEES? THAT IS OUR JOB AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.
NOT A SHOCK THAT IT'S $88 MILLION.
NOW, DO WE AGREE COMPLETELY WITH WHAT THE BOND COMMITTEE IS COMING UP WITH? DO WE AGREE COMPLETELY WITH HOW IT WAS BEING, SOME OF THE PARTS OF IT THAT CAME UP WITH? NO. HOWEVER, FOUR OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTED TO HAVE A BOND COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THIS AND FOR US TO NOT REVIEW THIS AS A COUNCIL.
LET'S TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION NOW.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD TO OUR SPECIAL SESSION ON JANUARY 10, 2022. [INAUDIBLE] WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE BOND COMMITTEE, COMES FORWARD AND MAKES A PRESENTATION TO US BASED ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE HAS COME UP WITH.
AFTER MUCH MUCH DEBATE, A LOT OF BULLYING AND SEVERAL MEMBERS FEELING THEY NEVER GOT THEIR VOICES HEARD BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME INTENTIONAL PEOPLE PLACED ON THIS BOND COMMITTEE FOR POLITIC PURPOSES, INCLUDING WHEN SOMEONE ACTUALLY SUGGESTED THAT EVERYTHING GOES TO A CO BOND AND NO GO BONDS AT ALL.
WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER VICTORIA JOHNSON JUST STATED, THAT PUBLIC SAFETY SHOULD NEVER BE A GO BOND, BECAUSE, WHAT IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH? LET ME STATE FOR THE RECORD RIGHT NOW, I WILL NEVER VOTE TO PUT A CO BOND FOR $56 MILLION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
THAT SHOULD NEVER BE ON A COUNCIL OF SEVEN, THAT SHOULD BE ON THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE REPRESENTING.
WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING CO BONDS TO BE SPENDING ANYTHING OVER A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS.
THAT IS HOW WE GOT IN THE DEBT WE'RE IN NOW BECAUSE THE COUNCIL OVER LESS 17 YEARS HAS DONE NOTHING BUT CO BONDS.
CO BONDS ARE NOT CLEARLY OUT THERE, THEY ARE SPOKEN ABOUT IN COUNCIL, BUT THEY'RE NOT COVERED MUCH LIKE A BOND-BOND IS COVERED, A GO BOND PACKAGE.
SO IF THE GOAL OF THIS SWITCH OF THE PEOPLE WHO SAID TO BRING THIS TO THE BOND COMMITTEE IS SO THAT WE CAN NOW PUSH CO BONDS LATER ON, OR THAT WE CAN SAY THAT POLITICALLY POTENTIALLY, I'M JUST SHOOTING THIS OUT THERE, THAT WE WHO SAID YES TO GOING FORWARD WITH THE BOND AND ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR DECISION ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO SPEND MONEY AND NOT REDUCE DEBT.
WE CERTAINLY ARE IN A PREDICAMENT NOW, AREN'T WE? TO SAY THAT THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
TO SAY THAT THIS WAS POTENTIALLY CALCULATED, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
NOW, BY EVERYBODY, I'M NOT STATING WHO, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THE BOND COMMITTEE, WHO KNEW ABOUT THE $88 MILLION, THEN SIDESWIPED US WHEN IT CAME TO MAKING THE VOTE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
AS MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] SAID, NOW I'M SITTING HERE SAYING, IF I KNEW I WAS VOTING NOT ON A MAJORITY FOR AN ISSUE THAT COULD BE CRITICAL, I'M GOING TO SET ASIDE POLICE AND FIRE FOR A SECOND AND SAY, STREETS ARE CRITICAL.
BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? POLICE CAN'T GET THERE WITHOUT THE STREETS, FIRE CAN'T GET THERE WITHOUT THE STREETS.
YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE DRIVING OVER POTHOLES AND CRUMMY ROADS.
SET ASIDE THE POLICE AND FIRE NEEDS RIGHT NOW, AND LET'S SAY, THIS DOES PUT US IN A PREDICAMENT THAT, WHAT IF THIS DOESN'T GO THROUGH? NOW I'M IN THIS SITUATION WHERE IF I HAD KNOWN ALL OF THIS MONTHS AGO,
[00:30:04]
NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS OVER MONTHS OF TIME-FRAME.IT'S SHOCKING, YES, FOR THE OTHERS OF US, WE WERE ALL BLIND-SIDED.
I FIND IT ULTIMATELY WHAT I ALWAYS SAID THE TAKING IT OUT OF THE BOND COMMITTEE'S HANDS WAS SO THAT WE COULD DEBATE THE ISSUES IN HOW MUCH DO WE EXPAND THE POLICE STATION? HOW MUCH DO WE DO IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? IT WAS SO WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THE DUE DILIGENCE WAS BEING DONE.
OKAY? BUT ULTIMATELY, MY GOAL WAS TO BRING THIS TO A VOTE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE END.
I JUST FELT WE AS A COUNCIL, SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS AND MAKING THE DECISIONS ON OUR OWN.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN PUT IN A POSITION TO WHERE IT'S GOING TO LOOK HORRIBLE, HONESTLY NO MATTER WHAT, AND IT'LL BE USED AGAINST US COME RE-ELECTION TIME.
AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THIS.
I'M GOING TO LET IT FALL ON YOU GUYS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE THING REAL QUICK.
I KNOW AS MENTIONED ABOUT THE POLICE AND FIRE.
I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT THE GO BONDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NEW TO OUR CITY, THEY'RE NOT NEW.
THEY'RE DONE REGULARLY OR DONE CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT.
IN FACT, SAN ANTONIO, JUST THIS MONTH, SAN ANTONIO APPROVED $1.2 BILLION GO BOND TO GET TO THE VOTERS SAME TIME OURS IS GOING.
BUT THEY'RE [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S 1.2 BILLION.
I'M LOOKING AT THE LIST RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE NUMBER FIVE ON THAT LIST, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, 78 MILLION ON A GO BOND.
THIS IS COMMON. IT IS COMMON THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
THIS ALL INVOLVES WHERE DO WE ALLOW THE CONTROL TO BE? DO WE ALLOW THE VOTERS TO HAVE A VOICE? IT'S ALL THIS IS ABOUT. I'LL BE QUIET AND LET YOU HAVE IT.
>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS WHILE THE TOTAL AMOUNT HAS STAYED THE SAME.
I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP SEPTEMBER WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE INITIALLY PRESENTED TO US.
10 MILLION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEN WHILE IT WAS IN REPORTS AND I WAS READING, I WAS SHOCKED IT WOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD'VE BEEN IF WE WOULD'VE PAUSED THE BOND COMMITTEE AND SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, I THINK COUNSEL SHOULD BE BRIEFED ON.
THIS JUMPED FROM 10 MILLION TO 36 MILLION.
BY THE WAY, THAT WASN'T EVEN THE HIGHEST AMOUNT THAT OUR BOND COMMITTEE WAS PRESENTED WITH.
THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH A $50 MILLION OPTION.
EVEN AT THE 36 MILLION, THERE'S STILL CONVERSATIONS.
WE HAVE OUTSTANDING CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO HAVE ABOUT JAIL, THERE NEEDS TO BE A STUDY IN MY OPINION ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE CURRENTLY CONTRACT WITH MANSFIELD.
WHAT IF THAT CONTRACT NO LONGER, AFTER FIVE YEARS THE SPACE THERE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO US.
THERE'S SO MUCH THAT WE STILL NEED TO CONSIDER.
HOW WOULD VOTERS FEEL IF WE PASSED 36 MILLION FOR AN EXPANSION? BUT THEN THERE'S STILL OUTSTANDING PIECES THAT WE LEARN AS SOON AS WE PASS THIS THAT NOW YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT BUILDING YOUR OWN JAIL POTENTIALLY, OR GOING IN PARTNERSHIP.
THERE'S SO MUCH STILL THAT ARE OUTSTANDING.
THE NUMBERS CHANGED AND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS LOOKING AT CHANGED AND I BELIEVE.
I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO POSE IT. WHAT DO YOU DO? ASK EVERYONE TO COME BACK OR RE-ADJOURN? I THINK THIS SHOULD'VE COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON HOW THOSE NUMBERS WERE CHANGING AND THEN IT WAS PUT ON THIS BOND COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT.
WELL, WE'RE GOING TO STICK WITH THE 88 MILLION BECAUSE THAT NUMBER IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD DOESN'T TOUCH OUR TAX RATE, IT DOESN'T NECESSITATE A TAX RATE INCREASE.
SO STAY WITHIN THIS REALM, BUT SHUFFLE THINGS AROUND AND I JUST FELT LIKE THE CHARGE CHANGED AND I'M COMPLETELY STANDING BY HAVING A BOND COMMITTEE.
I CAN APPRECIATE THAT WE HAD A WHOLE MIX OF CITIZENS THAT CAME TOGETHER AND WORKED, LOOKED AT THESE IDEAS, BUT WHAT I TRULY WANTED TO HEAR IS, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH $88 MILLION? THAT'S HALF OF OUR CURRENT DEBT RATE.
IN MY OPINION, IF THINGS CAN WAIT, WHY ARE WE HAVING STATION 4 ON THERE? WHY ARE WE VERBALLY AND IF THE VOTERS APPROVED AND SAID, "YES, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH THIS AMOUNT", WHY ARE WE ON PAPER COMMITTING OURSELVES TO THIS AMOUNT IN 2022 WHEN WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO SPEND IT UNTIL 2027.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING I WANT $56 MILLION IN CO'S, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE COULD HAVE DELIBERATED IT MORE.
IT WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING THAT JUST BECAUSE WE HAD A BOND COMMITTEE WE THEN COULDN'T DELIBERATE IT.
I RECOGNIZE WE DIDN'T, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A RECOMMENDATION AND EVEN [INAUDIBLE] SAID THAT.
WE DEBATED THIS, WE HAD DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS.
[00:35:01]
IT WAS A COMMITTEE OF HOW MANY, 15.THEY CAME TO A CONSENSUS, BUT I SPOKE WITH SEVERAL OF THEM THAT STILL HAD LIKE, WELL, I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THIS OR THAT, IT JUST FELT LIKE THIS WAS THE BEST ROUTE, AND THEN COUNCIL COULD TAKE WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND DELIBERATE IT THEMSELVES, BUT WE DIDN'T.
I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHEN THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY GAVE US. NOW WHAT? WE HAVE SUCH STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT NOT ISSUING CEOS FOR CERTAIN THINGS.
COUNCIL-MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] YOU RAISED VERY GOOD POINTS WHEN YOU WERE AGAINST THE BOND COMMITTEE AND SAYING, WE HAVE A CAPABLE STAFF THAT CAN PRIORITIZE PROJECTS.
THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT FROM THE BOND COMMITTEE.
I WAS LOOKING AT, CAN YOU DIGEST $88 MILLION? THEN IT BECAME LIKE, CAN YOU DIGEST $10 MILLION FOR AN EXPANSION, AND THEN THAT JUMPS TO 36? AS VOTERS, I GENUINELY WANT TO PULL THEM ON AND SAY, DO YOU AS A VOTER SUPPORT $36 MILLION FOR ONE PROJECT? WHAT ABOUT THE STREETS THAT WE NOW PROLONG? YOU BROUGHT THAT UP TOO, AS FAR AS LIKE, THERE ARE STREETS THAT GAVE YOU PAUSE BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE, WHAT IF SOME OF THESE FAIL? THOSE ARE ALL MY THINGS.
I HAVE RESERVE ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER, YES BUT THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE NUMBERS CHANGED AND IT DIDN'T COME BACK TO US AND SAY, "HOLD UP." HAVE WE DONE A STUDY? HAVE WE TRULY WEIGHED ALL THE THINGS THAT PD NEEDS? I STILL THINK THERE'S OUTSTANDING THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT WITH FIRE.
THEY HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS.
IN PARTICULAR WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU ALL, AND THIS PROCEEDS A NUMBER OF US THAT WE RETROFITTED A BUILDING, WHEN IT WAS COMPLETE, IT WAS NOT EVEN ENOUGH SPACE WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED FROM WHAT THE STUDY OR WHAT THE INFORMATION YOU TRULY NEEDED.
ARE WE STILL TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE BY KEEPING IT AT THIS LOCATION AND BUILDING ON AND THEN YET WE STILL HAVEN'T HAD THE JAIL DISCUSSION.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OUTSTANDING THINGS THAT GIVE ME RESERVATION BUT I STILL DON'T.
I STILL STAND BY WE MADE A VOTE AND I BELIEVE THE VOTERS SHOULD TELL US MAYBE THEY'LL SURPRISE US AND SAY NO, WE HEAR THE NEEDS, WE SEE THEM IN PARTICULARLY WITH ROADS, THEY NEED TO BE FIXED BUT I'M TORN.
I REALLY AM, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE WAVERING ON OUR DECISIONS LIKE YOU VOTE AND YOU NEED TO STAND BY IT.
>> COUNCIL-MEMBER JOHNSON, CAN I REBUT YOUR COMMENTS VERY RESPECTFULLY HERE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MOST OF THE CASE YOU JUST MADE WAS TO SUPPORT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AND LET'S HIT THE RESET BUTTON AND WORK OUT ALL THESE ISSUES.
I KNOW SEVERAL OF US ARE UNSURE ABOUT JUST EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE BUILDING AND I THINK WITH ALL OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW BEFORE WE COMMIT TO THAT EXPENDITURE AND ASK THE CITIZENS TO COMMIT TO IT.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY UNSURE UP HERE ON THE COUNCIL JUST EXACTLY WHAT THAT $36 MILLION PRICE TAG SHOULD COVER.
I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO GO OUT AND ASK THE CITIZENS TO SUPPORT SOMETHING WHEN WE'RE VERY CLEARLY UNSURE ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE WANT THEM TO SUPPORT.
I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE VOICED YOUR CONCERNS WITH REVERSING A DECISION AND SETTING A PRECEDENT.
I'M SORRY, I DON'T SEE THAT EVER HAPPENING AGAIN. WHY WOULD IT? THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN OURSELVES UNEXPECTEDLY INTO A VERY UNSETTLED DILEMMA AND ALL WE REALLY NEED TO DO IS PUT A PAUSE IN IT.
LET'S CANCEL THE CALL FOR THE ELECTION ON THIS DATE, WORK OUT ALL THESE ISSUES, DECIDE WHAT WE NEED TO BUILD FOR PD AND WHERE WE NEED TO BUILD IT AND WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE.
THEN IF IT'S STILL THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL THAT WE GO OUT FOR A GO VOTE BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT INCURRING CEO DEBT IN ORDER TO GET THESE THINGS DONE, WELL AND GOOD.
WE CAN DO THAT SIX MONTHS LATER.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN WORK OUT ALL THESE THINGS AND BE CERTAIN ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO, WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY UNCERTAIN ABOUT RIGHT NOW FROM ALL THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD.
THE ONLY STICKING ISSUE HERE SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE FEAR OF SETTING A PRECEDENT. I'M SORRY.
I'VE BEEN ALWAYS BEEN TOLD WHEN YOU DUG YOURSELF INTO A HOLE, STOP DIGGING.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO HERE IS STOP THE PROCESS UNTIL WE'VE HAD TIME TO VET OUT ALL THESE THINGS.
NO SENSE IN COMMENTING ON HOW THE PROCESS RAN OFF THE RAILS OR WHY OR WHEN OR WHO VOTED WHAT, WHO VOTED IN.
I CAN LOOK AT IT FROM WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW TODAY.
THE CLEAREST PATH TO GETTING A CLEAR RESOLUTION ON THIS IS TO HIT RESET, WORK IT ALL OUT,
[00:40:01]
AND GO BACK TO THE VOTERS WHEN WE HAVE A UNIFIED WILL AS TO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO SUPPORT.>> FOR ME I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANOTHER SEVEN MONTHS IS GOING TO DO.
WE'VE HAD SEVEN MONTHS. THIS IS NOT NEW. NONE OF THIS IS NEW.
IT'S BEEN HERE. I'VE BEEN KEEPING UP WITH IT.
I'VE BEEN STUDYING IT, I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH STAFF.
I'VE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING I NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IN FRONT OF OUR COMMITTEES AND ULTIMATELY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF VOTERS.
WE DIDN'T JUST ALL OF A SUDDEN TWO WEEKS AGO DECIDED WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS AND NOW WE'RE VOTING ON IT.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN YEAH, I'D BE ALL FOR PUTTING THE BRAKES ON.
THIS'S NOT NEW, WE STARTED ON THIS LAST YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANOTHER SEVEN MONTHS OR ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER FIVE YEARS IS GOING TO DO. I JUST DON'T.
I THINK ALL THAT DOES IS PUSH THESE PROJECTS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD AND IF WE'RE CONCERNED THAT WE WANT TO GET THESE PROJECTS DONE, THEN HOW FAR DO WE WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD? WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO START THEM? THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
>> WELL, THE POLICE STATION RECOMMENDATION, THE $36 MILLION PRICE TAG CAME OUT OF A BOND COMMITTEE, NOT OUT OF A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, NOT AS A RESULT OF A MASTER PLANNING STUDY LIKE WE DID FOR FIRE JUST RECENTLY WITH FITCH AND ASSOCIATES, WHERE THEY REALLY EXAMINED THE MISSION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM THE GROUND UP AND CHARTED A COURSE FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH ANY OF THAT PROCESS.
WE JUST STARTED OUT THINKING WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADD SOME ROOMS ON THE POLICE STATION, WHICH WE PROBABLY DO, AND WOUND UP SPENDING $36 MILLION.
PROPOSING TO SPEND $36 MILLION, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW THAT $36 MILLION IS GOING TO EQUIP OUR BOYS IN BLUE TO POLICE OUR CITY PROPERLY THROUGHOUT ALL THE GROWTH THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT TO SEE OVER THE COMING YEARS.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE ANSWERS.
FRANKLY, A COMMITTEE TO DECIDE WHAT TO BUILD AND HOW TO BUILD ON A POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE SOLID INPUT FROM PD.
IT SHOULD HAVE SOLID INPUT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SERVE ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
IN MY MIND, IT SHOULD HAVE AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT STUDY.
A COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE VIEW FROM PEOPLE WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH THESE MATTERS, NOT JUST IN BURLESON, BUT ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND HELP US GET A FIX ON WHERE WE WANT TO GO, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT.
WE JUST LOOKED AT IT FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE ONLY AND THAT WAS FROM THE FINANCING OF SOMETHING.
WE WANT TO FINANCE SOMETHING, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS.
I DON'T WANT TO GO OUT TO THE CITIZENS AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT SOMETHING IF I CAN'T CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE WHAT IT IS I'M ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS WORSE FOR OURSELVES IF WE DO THAT PREMATURELY BEFORE WE'VE ANSWERED ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS AND SETTLED THIS ALL DOWN AND GOT US IN A POSITION LIKE WE GOT INTO OVER THE AMBULANCE THING.
WE WORKED THAT OUT VERY CAREFULLY AND WE CHARTED A COURSE OF ACTION AND WE ALL AGREED THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THAT'S THE MESSAGE I WANT TO SEND TO THE VOTERS IF I'M GOING TO ASK THEM TO INDEBT THE CITY TO THE TUNE OF $88 MILLION.
I DON'T WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT WE WANT TO DO, BUT GO AHEAD AND SIGN AND GIVE US THE AUTHORIZATION TO INDEBT YOU $88 MILLION, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T REALLY VOICE WHAT WE WANT YOU TO SUPPORT ON THE LARGE PART OF IT.
WHY NOT JUST STOP THE PROCESS, GO BACK, GET ALL THIS STUFF OUT, COME BACK WITH A UNIFIED IDEA, AND VOTE FOR IT ON ANOTHER TICKET.
WE WERE ONLY TRYING TO HIT THIS ELECTION DAY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ELECTION DATE THAT WOULD GET POLITICIZED WITH COUNCIL SEATS THAT WERE OPEN AND PEOPLE TAKING POLITICAL POSITIONS ON, WHY WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO THIS.
IT WOULD CLOUD THE PUBLIC'S WILL AND MAKE IT PARTLY ABOUT THE DEBT AND PARTLY ABOUT WHO'S RUNNING FORWARD AND THEN WHAT THEIR POSITION IS RELATIVE TO THE DEBT.
WE DIDN'T NEED THAT COMPLICATION, BUT WE CAN DO THAT IN NOVEMBER.
IF WE THINK WE GOT SIX MONTHS TIME TO WORK ALL THIS STUFF OUT AND CALL FOR AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WE CAN DO THAT AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO MATERIALLY AFFECT THE PROGRESS OF ANY OF THESE ISSUES.
IF WE DO THAT, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA ABOUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AND WE'LL HAVE TIME TO PUT IT IN MOTION. WHY NOT?
>> I DO WANT TO REBUT SOME OF THE STUFF YOU SAID.
I DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE THE ANALOGY OF A FINANCER OR THE BOND COMMITTEE HAVING A DARTBOARD AND THROWING A DART AT THE BOARDS.
I LOOK AT 33 MILLION, THAT MUST BE WHAT WE GO WITH.
I DON'T THINK THAT HAPPENED AT ALL.
IN FACT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, THERE WERE FOUR OPTIONS, LOW OF 30,439,784, A HIGH OPTION OF 52,413, AND THEN THEY WOUND UP COMING OUT IN THE MIDDLE AND THEY'RE SOMEWHERE AROUND 39,650.
I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, THE CHIEF IS HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHIEF HAD SOME INPUT IN THIS.
I'D LIKE TO THANK HE ACTUALLY CAME TO THE FINANCE IN THE CITY AND SAID,
[00:45:04]
"HEY, HERE'S WHAT I NEED FOR MY DEPARTMENT." BY THE WAY, I WOULD HOPE HE WAS AT SOME OF THESE BOARD MEETINGS, AND CHIEF CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS.I THINK AT LEAST HIM OR SOME OF HIS STAFF WAS THERE MEETING WITH OUR BOND COMMITTEE AND BEING NOT ONLY PRESENTING BUT BEING AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THOSE TOUGH QUESTIONS AND ASKING THEM AND LETTING THAT FEEDBACK GO BACK FORTH OF, "OKAY, HERE'S WHAT I NEED, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?" I KNOW IT WENT BACK AND FORTH.
I KNOW IT DID. I'VE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS.
I'VE ASKED AND I KNOW WHAT WENT BACK AND FORTH, WHETHER IT WAS HIM SITTING IN A ROOM OR WHETHER IT WAS HIS STAFF.
I KNOW HE HAD PEOPLE THERE, AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'VE HEARD WRONG ON ANY OF THIS CHIEF.
THIS IS NOT JUST SOME PULL-OUT-OF-THE-BLUE NUMBER.
NOW, THAT'S THE DIRECTION THIS COUNCIL DECIDED TO GO IS TO HAVE THAT OUT THERE THAT DIRECTION, BUT THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD, THEY WEREN'T JUST PULL OUT OF NOWHERE NUMBERS OR DARTBOARD OR WHATEVER AND WE CAME UP WITH THAT.
I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO CONTINUE BEATING A DEAD HORSE.
>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AREN'T IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR POSITION THERE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE.
>> I'M GOING TO AGREE THAT MY WHOLE POSITION ON THIS IS THE FACT THAT IF THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED, WE'RE IN A BOND. PERIOD.
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING ITS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
I'VE TALKED TO OTHER MAYORS ABOUT THIS TOO.
THERE'S DANNY BEHIND EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING TOLD TO ME.
WE TAKE THIS TO THE ELECTION AND WE DON'T HAVE OUR DUCKS IN LINE.
AS FAR AS COUNCIL, WE COULD VERY WELL BE STRUGGLING TO GET SOME OF THESE PROJECTS DONE AND WE NEED THEM.
CHIEF [INAUDIBLE] HE'S GOT NEW HIRES COMING AND HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PLACE TO SET THEM RIGHT NOW.
PERIOD. WE GOT NEW KIDS COMING AND THEY'RE IN TRAINING.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS PRETTY CRITICAL IN MY OPINION.
BUT WE GOT ROADS WE GOT TO GET DONE.
NOW, IF THIS GOES AND IT FAILS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR THREE YEARS? IF WE FAIL TO PLAN WE'LL FAIL AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
WE NEED TO BE TOGETHER ON THIS.
I DON'T HAVE A FAULT WITH YOU ALL SAYING NO.
I DON'T. THAT'S THE WAY THIS IS SET UP.
IF YOU GOT CONCERNS AND YOU FEEL THAT WAY, I'M HAPPY FOR YOU. I AM.
IT CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD, BUT THAT'S FINE.
IF OTHER THINGS KICKS ME OFF GUARD EVERY DAY SO, THAT'S OKAY.
BUT I SAY WE NEED TO JUST, GET BRIAN OVER HERE TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA AS SOON AS YOU CAN AND BE MORE OPEN.
[NOISE] BE MORE OPEN UPFRONT BEFORE WE DO THIS [NOISE] NEXT TIME.
BE MORE CANDID, OKAY? I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE ROADS AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARE SPLIT APART IS FOR THAT REASONING.
SOMETHING CAN'T GET APPROVED AND SOMETHING CANNOT GET APPROVED IF THEY DON'T AGREE.
THE ONLY THING I THINK AT THIS POINT I WISH I HAD SAID AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD CHANGE THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE CHANGE, IS TO ACTUALLY SPLIT POLICE AND FIRE OUT.
NOW WE'VE GOT POLICE, FIRE, AND STREETS.
>> LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION LATER. [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE WON'T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION LATER IF.
>> WE CAN IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IF IT ENDS UP STICKING AND GOING THROUGH WITH THE ELECTION, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE NOW.
YEAH, ISN'T THAT WHAT WE LEGALLY SAID? AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES, THAT'S A SIMPLE CHANGE.
TO SPLIT POLICE AND FIRE AND ROADS.
>> I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THE THIRD PROPOSITION OR TO DIVIDE THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROPOSITION INTO, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY GET THAT DONE.
BUT NOTHING ELSE. THAT WOULD BE THE MOST THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.
AGAIN, I HAVE ADVISED THE COUNCIL OF THIS AND SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT IT.
AS COUNCILMAN JOHNSON POINTED OUT, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ROUTINELY HAPPENS FOR A COUNCIL CHANGES A POSITION OR SCHOOL BOARD CHANGES A POSITION ON AN ELECTION.
WE ARE ON THE LAST DAY THAT THE ELECTION CODE ALLOWS AN ELECTION TO BE CALLED OR ANY ACTION RELATIVE TO AN ELECTION TO BE TAKEN.
CDS DO RECONSIDER COORDINATES OR MINUTE ORDER DECISIONS. IT DOES HAPPEN.
IT'S DONE UNDER PARLIAMENTARY RULES THAT REQUIRE THAT IT'D BE DONE AT THE NEXT MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING IN WHICH THEY TOOK ACTION, AND THEY CAN RECONSIDER AN ITEM.
THAT IS TRADITIONALLY DONE WHEN NEW INFORMATION HAS BECOME AVAILABLE,
[00:50:01]
THAT WOULD AFFECT THE DECISION.YOU CANNOT DO IT AD [INAUDIBLE] ON INTO THE FUTURE.
YOU HAVE TO DO IT AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING.
WE'RE CONSTRAINED TODAY BECAUSE THE ELECTION CODE PROVIDES THAT AT FIVE O'CLOCK TODAY, THE WINDOW CLOSES FOR ANY CHANGE TO THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ON A BALLOT MEASURE FOR MAY.
WE HAVE TWO ELEMENTS BEFORE US; ONE IS THE ORDINANCE THAT CALLS THE ELECTION, THE SECOND IS THE RESOLUTION WHICH SETS OUT A CONTRACT WITH THE VOTERS IDENTIFYING WHAT WE PROPOSED TO DO.
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE VOTERS IS TO DEFINE HOW THE MONEY WOULD BE USED IF EACH PROPOSITION PASSES.
>> ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT [NOISE] WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY DEAD IN THE WATER IF IT DOESN'T PASS.
ALL THAT MEANS IS WE GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AND WE ACTUALLY HEAR THEIR CONCERNS.
WE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS OF BURLESON, FIND OUT WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE, WHY THEY VOTED NO.
WE CAN BRING IT BACK FOR A VOTE.
IF IT DOES NOT PASS, THEN IT DOES NOT PASS BECAUSE WE FAILED TO COMMUNICATE TO THE VOTERS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, OR WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEEDS AND WANTS OF OUR CITIZENS ARE.
>> [INAUDIBLE], WE CAN'T REACT ON THOSE PROCREATE PROJECT FOR THREE YEARS.
>> THROUGH A VOTE. WE CAN COME BACK TO VOTE WITHIN THREE YEARS.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. [BACKGROUND]
>> WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION WITHIN THAT WINDOW.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OR SOME OTHER DEBT MECHANISM TO FUND THOSE PROJECTS.
WE CAN GO BACK FOR ANOTHER BOND ELECTION VOTE.
>> EXACTLY. THAT'S MY POINT, IS THAT IF THE VOTERS TELL US THAT THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION THEY WANT US TO GO, AGAIN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING THEM.
IF THEY DON'T WANT THIS, THEN WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS THEY WANT.
WE FAILED TO KNOW WHAT THE VOTERS WANT US TO DO.
>> I THINK THE STRATEGIC MATTER IN WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR AS FAR AS THE BOND, IS MORE OF THE AMOUNT THAN THE ACTUAL PROJECT.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS.
JUST TO HOLD OFF ON THE ELECTION TILL NOVEMBER, JUST ALLOWS US TO ADJUST AND MAYBE GET SOME CITIZENS INPUT WE NEED TO.
BUT IT BOTHERS ME THAT WE'RE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO STRUGGLE TO PAY FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.
WE GOT SOME STUFF COMING OUT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I AGREE WE GOT STUFF COMING UP.
I AGREE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CITIZEN OUT THERE THAT DRIVES A WHEELCHAIR AND SAYS, "MAN, I LOVE THIS TRAFFIC.
THAT'S THE REASON I'M COMING TO BORROW [INAUDIBLE]. I WOULDN'T MOVE HERE.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN I CAME AND MAN I'M SITTING IN TRAFFIC FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF AND BY GOLLY THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO".
CITIZENS AREN'T HAPPY WITH OUR ROADS.
THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME.
I BELIEVE AND WHERE MY BELIEVE COMES FROM IS NOT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, BUT IT COMES FROM A COMMITTEE THAT WE SELECTED THAT UNANIMOUSLY SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
>> I'M SORRY, MAYOR, I HAVE A SPEAKER CARD SO YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH YOUR DISCUSSION IF YOU'D LIKE TO VOTE, BUT BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE, I WOULD NEED TO DO THE SPEAKER.
>> AMANDA, DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS SECTION OR DID WE CLOSE THAT OUT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
THESE ARE JUST SPEAKER CARDS ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL ON AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE FIRST SPEAKER CARD I HAVE AS AN IN-PERSON SPEAKER CARD.
>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
COUNTS READ IN 201 MEANDERING LANE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A TWO-STEP ISSUE.
THERE'S THE VOTE WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE WHAT HAS TAKEN FORWARD, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOND COMMITTEE THAT CONTINUES TO BE BROUGHT UP.
COUNTS MEMBER BEING, THE BOND COMMITTEE WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER.
THERE WERE SOME DISAGREEMENTS AND THERE WERE SOME CONVERSATION, BUT I KNOW JJ IS HERE.
EVERYBODY WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT WE ALL HAD TO HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS, BUT THERE IS AN OVERARCHING CONVERSATION HERE BETWEEN THE GEO AND THE CEO.
WHAT WAS CLEAR EVEN AT THE BOND COMMITTEE, I WANT TO LAY OUT THE STEPS OF WHAT TOOK PLACE.
WHEN WE STARTED THE BOND COMMITTEE, WE STARTED WITH A FULL CIP OF 88 MILLION, THAT WENT FOR FIVE MEETINGS WHEN WE WENT THROUGH EACH PROJECT.
BY MEETING FOUR, THE CIP CHANGED FROM 88 TO 136 MILLION.
OUR SCOPE AND OUR JOB COMPLETELY CHANGED AT THAT POINT.
WE WENT FROM HAVING AN ENTIRE LIST OF 88 MILLION, MAYBE A FEW ALTERNATE PROJECTS, TO 136 MILLION.
WHEN THAT CHANGED, WE THEN BECAME TASKED WITH PRIORITIZING STREETS.
[00:55:03]
CITY MANAGER LANGLEY WILL PROBABLY VERIFY THAT THERE WAS LOTS OF CONVERSATION AND CONTENTION THAT I HAD TAKEN UP AT THE TIME SAYING, "WE'RE NOT REALLY PREPARED TO PRIORITIZE STREETS.WE DON'T HAVE A MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN IN FRONT OF US.
THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE MORE PRIORITY THAN OTHERS.
THERE IS SOMEWHERE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC MONEY IS ALREADY BEEN INVESTED.
DOES THIS SOUND LIKE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO BE RE-EVALUATED?" IF IN THOSE WEEKLY REPORTS, THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE READING, THEN THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT SEEMED TO HAVE HAPPENED.
BUT NONETHELESS, WE CONTINUED THROUGH THE MEETING.
EVERYBODY WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER.
WE WERE ABLE TO VOICE DIFFERENT SITES AND OPINIONS, TAKE A VOTE, AND COME TO A CONSENSUS.
BUT HERE'S THE THING WITH THE GEO AND THE CEO.
YOU'RE CHANGING THE WAY THE GOVERNING OF THE CITY FINANCES IN DEBT AS A WHOLE.
IF MY STREET NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, I SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT GO UP TO A VOTE.
SOMEBODY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE DECLINE MY STREET TO BE REPAIRED.
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT REPAIRED.
TRADITIONALLY, IN THE CITY OF BURLESON, CEOS WERE ISSUED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXPECTATION OF THE TAXPAYER THAT IF MY STREET OR SIDEWALK GET REPAIRED, THIS WASN'T POLITICAL, SAME WITH CEOS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
THESE WERE ALL THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THE BOND COMMITTEE.
THE PREVIOUS FIRE STATION THAT YOU WERE ALL AT, ATTENDED, WAS DONE WITH CEOS.
THERE IS AN ELEMENT TO CEOS THAT PLAYS IN GOVERNING, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE, AND THE BOND COMMITTEE HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS, WHICH IS WHY I'M SPEAKING TO IT, IS THAT THERE'S NOT A CONSENSUS OF HOW TO BUDGET AND SPEND BETWEEN CEO AND GEO AMONGST THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THAT'S THE OVERARCHING CONCERN, AND THAT TRICKLED DOWN INTO THE BOND COMMITTEE THAT WE HAD TO DISCUSS AND NOBODY HAD A REAL CLEAR DIRECTION AS FAR AS DOES COUNCIL.
I REMEMBER MAYOR FLETCHER, YOU ASK DIANE, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ON GEO VERSUS CEO? THERE REALLY WASN'T.
I BROUGHT UP THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ON THE BOND COMMITTEE.
WHETHER OR NOT A BOND COMMITTEE PASSED ON A FOUR, THREE, OR NOT, IT'S A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT IT MADE CLEAR TO US THAT WE WERE ONE PART OF THE EQUATION.
THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE DECISION.
WE DID THE BEST WITH WHAT WE COULD, WITH THE TIME THAT WAS ALLOTTED, AND WITH THE SCOPE THAT WAS CHANGED.
THE BOND COMMITTEE COMPLETELY SUBMITTED THEIR VOTE AS, THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE WE WERE CHARGED WITH AT THE TIME, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU HAVE PLENTY OF COMMITTEES, PLENTY OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME THROUGH.
THEY'RE NOT AN AUTOMATIC THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN.
US 15 MEMBERS, WE WORKED HARD.
WE WERE AT EVERY MEETING, WE THREW OUT GREAT CONVERSATIONS.
GREAT DISCUSSIONS, ENDED WITH HANDSHAKES AMONGST PEOPLE THAT MAY BE IN THIS COMMUNITY DIDN'T THINK THAT IT COULD HAPPEN.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE MADE IT HAPPEN AND WE GOT ALONG, AND WE WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE FRUIT OF THIS BOND ELECTION.
WHAT I CAN APPRECIATE THIS VOTE BEING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT I DON'T WANT THE BOND COMMITTEE TO TAKE THE HEAD OR WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH OR HOWEVER, WE WERE A COMMITTEE OF RECOMMENDATION WITH A SCOPE THAT CHANGED FROM 88 MILLION TO 126 MILLION, AND THEN WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT GEOS TO CEOS, TO WHICH NOBODY TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T A WHOLE LOT THAT UNDERSTOOD.
AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT THERE ARE SOME ON HERE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GEO AND CEO, AND IT'S BECOMING POLITICAL.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT OPTIONAL.
THE CITY NEEDS TO GET APPROVED FOR, STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, TRADITIONALLY, IN THE CITY BURLESON IS ONE OF THEM.
AND PUBLIC SAFETY EVEN BEFORE, WAS ONE OF THEM.
AND RISKING AT FAILING WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD ON THE BOND COMMITTEE.
THE QUESTION TO US WAS, WAS IT WITHIN OUR SCOPE TO DISCUSS IT? THOUGH WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS, NARROWED THAT DOWN, THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE WE ARE ONLY ONE PIECE TO THIS VERY BIG PUZZLE.
BUT THE BOND COMMITTEE GOT ALONG VERY, VERY WELL AND THERE WAS NO POLITICAL AGENDA.
THERE WAS FRUITFUL CONVERSATIONS IN DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PERSONAL.
AND WE DID IT WELL, BUT THERE DOES SEEM TO BE AN OVERARCHING CONFUSION THERE.
NOW, WHAT YOU GUYS DECIDE ON HOW TO CHANGE HIS VOTES, TOUGH DECISION.
I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
BUT THE REMARKS ON THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS SOMETHING THAT I FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO TAKE A STAND AND SAY, "LISTEN.
WE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT WE'RE ONLY PART OF THE PUZZLE." WE HAD TO ELIMINATE STREETS AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND THAT WAS AFTER WE HAD FOUR MEETINGS THINKING THAT WE HAD EVERYTHING THERE.
I WANT PUBLIC SAFETY TO GET THEIR STUFF TO ME.
IT'S NOT OPTIONAL. IF IN MY OPINION, I WOULDN'T HAVE PUT IT ON A GEO BOAT, I WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH IT.
I THINK WE'RE IN A BETTER NEGOTIATING POSITION PHYSICALLY ALSO WITH THE CEO. THEY NEED THIS STUFF.
THIS ISN'T POLITICAL, SHE GET DONE.
BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT DO NEED TO BE VOTED ON A GEO VOTE.
[01:00:04]
I VOICED THAT ALSO IN THE BOND COMMITTEE.THAT I WOULD APPROVE THIS RACIOS BECAUSE THEY NEED IT, SHOULDN'T BE UP FOR DEBATE.
SAME WITH THE FIREHOUSE, JUST AS I APPROVE THE BONDS FOR THE FIREHOUSE TO THE PREVIOUS ONE.
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON, AND I GET THAT.
BUT I THINK THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE AND THE FRUITFUL DISCUSSION AND THE UNITY THAT REALLY CAME FROM THAT WAS FANTASTIC.
WE DID A GOOD JOB, BUT WE WERE JUST ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
I WANTED TO BRING THAT CLARITY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? NO. I'D JUST LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT YOU REPLAY BACK THE VIDEO, AND SAY, FIND OUT THAT I NEVER SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE BOND COMMITTEE.
I DO BELIEVE THERE WAS POLITICIZING ON THERE.
I BELIEVE YOU'RE MAKING IT VERY CLEAR RIGHT NOW THAT YOU ARE FOR THE CEO BONDS AND NOT THE GEO BONDS, AND THUS THAT'S WHY WE STAND HERE RIGHT NOW.
YOU MADE YOUR VOICE VERY LOUD AND CLEAR IN THE MEETINGS.
YES, FRUITFUL DISCUSSION WAS HAD, BUT SINCE YOU CAME UP DIRECTING THIS AT ME, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE BOND COMMITTEE.
BUT I DO KNOW WHAT WENT DOWN THE BOND COMMITTEE.
I'VE SPOKEN WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
BUT YOU CALLED FOR CEOS AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND HERE WE ARE.
I THINK THAT THIS ISN'T A PERSONAL THING.
THIS IS A POLICY [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS NOT PERSONAL FOR ME EITHER.
THAT IS WHY I'M SITTING UP HERE MAKING THIS DECISION.
YOU BROUGHT IT PERSONAL WHEN YOU, I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE BOND COMMITTEE.
I THINK THE BOND COMMITTEE DID AN AMAZING JOB AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE BOND COMMITTEE, OF WHICH YOU ARE A PART OF THE VOTE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE FIGHTING AGAINST RIGHT NOW.
MY POINT WAS THAT THE GEO AND CEO CONVERSATION, WAS A BROADER CONVERSATION AND WHAT IT CENTERED AROUND WASN'T THAT WE DECIDE NECESSARILY GEO AND CEOS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS OUR SCOPE.
THAT WAS WHAT IT CENTERED AROUND.
THERE WAS NO POLITICAL AGENDA OR VOICES HEARD.
IT WAS A TOUGH DISCUSSION TO HAVE WHEN IT WAS BEING INTRODUCED.
THAT WAS IT. THAT WAS THE POINT.
I'M JUST ADDRESSING WHAT IT WAS.
THE DIRECTION OF MY COMMENTS ARE TO ALL SEVEN OF YOU, NOT ONE.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS A PLACE FOR CEOS, AND THAT WHEN YOU START CHANGING FROM CEOS TO GEOS COMPLETELY AND PUT IT JUST ALL OUT TO THE VOTERS AND RISKING THAT FAIL, PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPECTING TO GET THEIR STREETS FIXED OR SIDEWALKS FIXED, PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES THAT EXPECT FOR THESE THINGS TO GET DONE, THAT NOW BECOMES A POLITICAL AND OPTIONAL ISSUE. THAT WAS MY POINT.
I HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS ON THIS ITEM, ONLINE SPEAKER CARDS.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I'M GOING TO CALL FORWARD BILL JANICE.
>> BOND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE ONLY ONE I DIDN'T GO TO WAS THE ONE WHEN THEY TOURED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOT ON. THANK YOU.
>> BILL JANICE, 117 NORTH EAST CLINTON. I ATTENDED ALL.
BUT ONE OF THE BOND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, IT'S ONLY ONE I DIDN'T GO TO.
IT'S WHEN WE TOURED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I KNEW IT'S ALREADY OVERCROWDED AND NEED TO BE THAT EXTRA BODY OR EXTRA HEAT IN THAT BUILDING.
WHEN I FIRST GOT THERE, I SAID FOR THE FIRST TIME, I'VE SEEN THE ROOM DIVIDED.
YOU CAN SEE THE POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS ON BOTH SIDES YOU NEED IT.
SOME OF THEM WERE PUT THERE ON PURPOSE TO HELD OTHERS, BUT IT WENT REAL WELL.
I'M GOING TO ASK FRIENDS OR SOMEONE, I THINK IT HAD NO BUSINESS THERE.
THE DISCUSSIONS WEREN'T REAL GOOD.
THE $88 MILLION DID JUMP UP, [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S A FEW IN THERE THAT WANTED TO FISCALLY BE RESPONSIBLE AND TRYING TO SAVE SOME MONEY.
IT DIDN'T END UP THAT WAY. IF THERE'S A BUCK LEFT OVER, THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND IT.
MONEY WAS MOVED AROUND, THEY MIXED OUT, IT'S STATED WHOLE TIME.
I'M A TAXPAYER, I'M A CITIZEN OF THIS TOWN, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR SINCE 1967. I'M CONCERNED.
I SEE THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU ALL, IT'S RETURNED.
NO SPRINKLES ON IT, NOTHING DRESS IT UP.
THESE STREET PROJECTS ARE GOING TO SINK, IT'S NOT GOING TO FLOAT.
YOU'RE PUTTING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, PUSHED THROUGH.
THE BOND COMMITTEE, THE LAST TWO MEETINGS AHEAD IS RUSH, WE'VE GOT TO GET IT DONE BY THIS DAY.
WITHIN FIVE MINUTES, THE MEETING IS GOING TO BE OVER, THAT'S WHEN HE DID THE VOTE, HE WAS PUSHED.
STAFF SHOULD HAVE DONE A LOT BETTER.
THIS THING SHOULDN'T COME UP FOR A VOTE ME.
IT NEEDS TIME. IT SOUNDS IT'S GOING TO GET SCREWED UP.
LIKE I SAID, I WAS THERE, I HEARD IT ALL, I TAKE SOME NOTES.
[01:05:02]
YOU GUYS ARE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN THIS.I'VE HAD COUPLE OF DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS LIE TO ME IN THE PAST, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS I'LL SPEAK OUT ON.
ONCE I GET ON MY SOAPBOX, I'M GOING TO STAY THERE.
I'LL CALL OUT NAMES WHEN NEED TO.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE HERE ON THE BOND COMMITTEE.
LIKE I SAID, POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, I FULLY TRUST BOTH CHIEFS, THEIR STAFF, I THINK, GREAT PEOPLE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM GET TWICE WHAT THEY NEED BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE ROOM, THE MONEY, THE PERSONNEL, THE EQUIPMENT.
BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU PUT THIS BEFORE TO VOTER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE POP UP OR JUST SAY, MY STREET WAS TALKED ABOUT EIGHT-YEARS AGO, IT'S STILL NOT FIXED, BUT THIS ONE OVER HERE GET FIXED RIGHT AWAY.
CHRIS, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS PEOPLE.
BUT CHRIS, I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SPOKE EARLIER, THAT GUT FEELING, YOU KNEW SOMETHING WAS WRONG.
[NOISE] THIS CHARGE IS GOING TO SINK.
>> I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO PUT THAT ON.
>> [BACKGROUND] I APOLOGIZE. IS IT ON NOW?
FIRST SPEAKER CARD IS ALICIA MO.
DAN MCCLINTON, THE DIRTY POLITICS YOU'RE PLAYING ARE ONLY FOR YOUR BENEFIT IN THE UPCOMING MAYORAL ELECTION AND NOTHING MORE.
I SEE THIS AS A CALCULATED ATTACK ON OUR CITY, POLICE, AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS, AS WELL AS USING US AS PAWNS IN THE GAME YOU, VICTORIA, RONNIE, AND RICK ARE PLAYING.
YOU HAVE ALL FAILED THOSE [NOISE] WHO PUTS YOU IN OFFICE.
I SUGGEST, TAKING A LOOK AT SAN ANTONIO'S UPCOMING BOND ELECTION, IT'S THE SAME AS OURS WITH NO TAX INCREASES.
THE NEXT ONLINE SPEAKER CARD I HAVE IS FROM BROCK OSTANDER TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
I URGE YOU TO KEEP THINGS AS THEY ARE REGARDING THE BOND ELECTION.
A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED TO PROVIDE INPUT ON PROJECTS THAT MATTER MOST AND THE COMMITTEE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.
IT'S THE COUNCIL'S JOB TO LISTEN TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS COMING FROM THOSE THEY ARE ELECTED TO SERVE, ALLOWING CITIZEN RESIDENTS TO VOTE ON BONDS SUCH AS THIS IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AS WE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED OUR OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKER CARDS I HAVE FOR ONLINE FOR THIS ITEM.
>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YOU KNOW HOW TO WORD IT DAN?
>> [LAUGHTER] IS THERE A VERBIAGE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THEN I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS VOTE TO CALL THE BOND ELECTION.
[BACKGROUND] THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR THE MATTER DOES NOT COME ON THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE.
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND THEN THERE IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND IT'S VOTED ON.
THEN ONCE THE ITEM IS UP FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE COUNCIL WOULD THEN REVOTE ON THE ORIGINAL ITEM.
IF THE FIRST MOTION TO RECONSIDER FAILS, THE WHOLE MATTER STOPS.
IF THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES, THEN WE MOVE TO A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
>> THEN I HAVE MADE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
IS THERE A SECOND? IF THERE IS NO SECOND THEN THE MATTER FAILS ON ITS FACE AND THE COUNCIL PROCEEDS UNDER THE ORDINANCE AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.
>> MR. ATTORNEY, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU BACK HERE WHEN YOU TURNING YOUR HEAD.
>> WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE COUNCIL [LAUGHTER] HEAR ME.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE A MOTION.
IF WE DO NOT HAVE A SECOND, THEN THE MATTER TO RECONSIDER DIES AND NOTHING REMAINS ON THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA; IS THAT CLEAR? THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SECOND IF YOU SHOULD CHOOSE TO.
>> [NOISE] THE ITEM TO BE VOTED ON THEN WOULD BE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF WHETHER OR NOT TO RECONSIDER THE PRIOR ORDINANCE AND A MOTION IN SECOND IS NOW PENDING.
THE COUNCIL WOULD VOTE SIMPLY ON THAT ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE TO ANY OTHER ACTION.
[01:10:03]
>> IT FAILS. MAYOR, THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA ARE MOOT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO TAKE AT THIS MEETING OTHER THAN THE LAST [NOISE] CITIZEN COMMENT CARDS THAT I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, ONE OF WHICH IS CERTAINLY PERMISSIBLE AND I'LL TAKE IT TO MISS.
CAMPOS. THE OTHER I HAVE QUESTION ABOUT, IT REFERS TO CRIMINAL EVIDENCE AND IT ASK THE COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE AN ACTION THAT BY LAW, IT CANNOT CONSIDER OR TAKE.
I'M HESITANT TO HAVE THAT ONE READ INTO THE RECORD THAT THE OLD ONES, PARTICULARLY [INAUDIBLE].
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT TAKES US BACK UP TO SECTION TWO CITIZENS APPEARANCE BACK TO SPEAKERS NOT IN ATTENDANCE ONLINE SPEAKER CARDS.
THE SPEAKER CARD IS FROM JAMIE JONES.
THE PUBLIC HAS RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE FAMILY OF A COUNCIL MEMBER.
THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MANY QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS AND IT WILL TAKE TIME TO FIND ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT IT MAKES ME VERY PROUD TO SEE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TREATS EVERYONE FAIRLY REGARDLESS OF THEIR POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY SPEAKER CARDS THAT I HAVE.
WE'VE DISPENSED WITH EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO.
AT THIS TIME MAYOR IF YOU COULD CALL FOR A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT REQUIRES A FIRST AND A SECOND, AND NO VOTE AND PLEASE STATE THE TIME.
>> YOU'RE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> NO VOTE. WELL, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS SESSION AT 10:39.
[NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.