Aug 25, 2021 City Council Special Meeting

[00:01:20]

AND IT'S A REALLY, REALLY GREAT SPACE.

AND WE HAVE LOADS OF KIDS COME IN AND THEY KEPT ASKING FOR THE SLIDE OVER AND OVER.

SO I FIVE, THEY JUST STARTED A PETITION AND I HAVE AROUND 30 SIGNATURES, BUT I REALLY AM PLEADING FOR YOU TO GIVE THE PULL AS MUCH MONEY AS HE POSSIBLY CAN.

WE NEED A NEW VOLLEYBALL NET.

WE NEED NEW LANE LINES.

THERE'S A LOT OF UPKEEP NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND OF COURSE THE SPLASH PAD DOESN'T WORK.

ALL THESE THINGS NEED TO BE FIXED FOR IT TO ACTUALLY BE A FUNCTION THAT WILL PULL FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR KIDS BECAUSE I TAUGHT MY SON HOW TO SWIM THERE.

SO IT WAS IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PLACE TO ME.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS CAN GIVE AS MUCH MONEY TO THAT AS YOU CAN.

AND WHAT DID YOU WANT ME TO DO WITH THESE SIGNATURES? YOU CAN GIVE IT TO JENNIFER SHE'S OVER THERE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE CITIZEN COMMENTS.

IT IS NOW CLOSED.

NEXT UP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, UH, APPROVAL

[1.  Approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Kyle, Texas authorizing the grant award of $45,000, for the term September 1, 2021-August 31, 2022, from the Office of the Governor, Victim Coordinator and Liaison Grant Program, to fund a full-time Victim Services Advocate at Kyle Police Department and to include city matched funds of $18,616.88. ~ Jeff Barnett, Chief of Police]

AND TO INCLUDES, UH, CITY MATCHED FUNDS OF $18,616 CHIEF, THANK YOU MAYOR FOR THE RECORD.

JEFF BARNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE.

SO WE HAVE GOOD NEWS TO SHARE.

UH, LAST YEAR DURING OUR BUDGET PROCESS.

IN THE EARLY MONTHS, THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGED US TO, UH, SEEK A GRANT TO FUND AN ADDITIONAL PRIME VICTIMS, UH, EMPLOYEE THAT CAN HELP SERVE THE VICTIMS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR VICTIM SERVICES COORDINATOR.

KELLY DID A LOT OF WORK IN RESEARCH AND GRANTS TO FIND ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE US FUNDS TO BRING THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBER ON BOARD.

YOU GAVE US PERMISSION, UM, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO TO APPLY TO THE STATE FOR THAT GRANT.

AND, UH, AS TYPICAL, WE NORMALLY GET THE NOTICE IN AUGUST.

SO WE APOLOGIZE, BUT WE JUST RECEIVED NOTICE THAT WE HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE $45,000 GRANT FOR THE GRANT ARE FOR THE VICTIM SERVICES EMPLOYEE.

AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM STARTED.

IT IS A W UH, I DID MENTION WHEN WE APPLIED OR WHEN WE SOUGHT YOUR PERMISSION TO APPLY THAT WE WERE SEEKING A TWO-YEAR GRANT, WHICH IS CUSTOMARY, THEY WILL AWARD TO YOUR GRANTS.

HOWEVER, THEY ONLY AWARDED A ONE-YEAR GRANT.

I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT'S BECAUSE PROBABLY BECAUSE OF COVID AND BUDGETING, AND THEY'RE MAKING SURE THEY DON'T OVEREXTEND THEMSELVES INTO MULTI-YEAR GRANTS AT THIS TIME.

SO WE'RE ASKING PERMISSION TO ACCEPT A ONE-YEAR GRANT FOR OUR VICTIMS, UH, LIAISE OUR VICTIMS COURT, UH, I'M SORRY, VICTIM SERVICES, LIAISON POSITION AT THE NUMBERS THAT YOU STATED.

THANK YOU, CHIEF.

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO OUR, UH, WE SOUGHT YOUR PERMISSION COUNSEL APPROVED PERMISSION, AND KELLY WAS OUR LEAD PERSONAL NET GRANT IN FINDING IT, AND THEN ALSO HELPING US APPLY FOR IT ONCE WE HAD YOUR PERMISSION.

YES, SHE DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB WITH THAT.

ABSOLUTELY.

HE'S ABSENT.

HE IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.

COUNCILOR ELLISON.

UH, YES.

I APPRECIATE, UH, KELLY AND CH UH, UH, CHIEF AND EVERYONE WHO WAS A PART OF GETTING THIS GOING.

UH, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE DID TALK ABOUT LAST YEAR'S

[00:05:01]

SO I APPRECIATE, UH, STAFF'S WORK ON THIS AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BACK, CUSTOMER ELLISON AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR FLORES.

KAYLA, IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION JUST HOW HAS IT IN THE BUDGET, UH, FOR THIS UPCOMING BUDGET? SO, YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UM, REMINDING ME, SO I WOULD ASK, AND I MAY, I MAY DEFER TO PREVIOUS HERE TO GET THE RIGHT WORDING, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WHEN WE ADDRESS THE BUDGET IN SUBSEQUENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, THAT WE'LL NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL PASSAGE, PREVENTS COULD PROBABLY HELP ME WITH THE WORDING ON THAT, BUT HE DID REQUIRE WE'LL NEED A BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM COUNCIL.

SO IT'S NOT OCCURRED FTE IN THE BUDGET.

NO, SIR.

OKAY.

SO THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WILL BE FOR 18,000.

THE AMENDMENT WILL BE THREE PART MAYOR.

IT WILL BE TO INCREASE THE GRANT REVENUE BY $45,000, ADD AN ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITION AND PDS BUDGET AND ADD $18,616 AND 88 CENTS TO PDS BUDGET FROM THE GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.

OUR NEXT STEP, WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, UH, ON THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE.

UH, THE FIRST, UH, UH, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY'S PROPOSED BUDGET PERVEZ.

[2.  Conduct a public hearing on the City's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022, as amended by City Council, totaling approximately $172.6 million for all City Funds, including a tax rate of $0.5082 per $100 assessed valuation, a 6.0% increase in water service rates, no changes in wastewater service rates, no changes in storm drainage fees, a 2.51% increase in solid waste service charges (trash collection) per contract terms, all other fees and charges for City services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement program expenditures, and the addition of 23.0 new full-time positions for a total of 304.0 full-time equivalent positions.  ~ J. Scott Sellers, City Manager]

UH, FOR FISCAL YEAR, 2021, 2022, AS AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL TOTALING, APPROXIMATELY $172.6 MILLION FOR ALL CITY FUNDS, INCLUDING A TAX RATE OF 0.5 0 8, 2 PER $100 ASSESSED EVALUATION AT 6% INCREASE IN WATER SERVICES RATES, NO CHANGE IN WASTEWATER SERVICES RATES, NO CHANGES, STORM DRAINAGE FEES, A 2.5, 1% INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE SERVICES, A SERVICE CHARGES, TRASH COLLECTION PER CONTRACT TERMS, ALL OTHER FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FEE SCHEDULE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, AND THE ADDITION OF 23 NEW FULL-TIME POSITIONS FOR A TOTAL OF 304 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS.

UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THE BUDGET? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW CLOSED THE NEXT STEP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING

[3.  Conduct a public hearing to obtain comments on the proposal to set the City's ad valorem tax (property tax) rate at $0.5082 per $100 assessed valuation for tax year 2021 (Fiscal Year 2021-2022).  ~ J. Scott Sellers, City Manager]

UH, AND I HAVE A, AN ITEM THAT I HAVE TO READ OUT.

SO I'M GOING TO GO AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO READ THIS OUT.

THIS IS THE MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT, UH, AFTER OPENING PUBLIC HEARING ON TAX RATES.

UH, THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE CITY'S AD VALOREM TAX RATES FOR TAX YEAR 2021 FISCAL YEAR, 2021, 2022.

THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AT 7:00 PM ON AUGUST 17TH, 2021 AT CAL CITY HALL, 100 WEST CENTER STREET, KYLE TEXAS 7 8 6 4 0.

THE CITY'S AD VALOREM TAX RATES FOR THE YEAR 2021, OR AS FOLLOWS NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE 0.4977 PER $100 VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE 0.5 0 8, 3 PER $100 PROPOSED TAX RATE 0.5802 PER $100.

THE PROPOSED AVALARA TAX RATE OF 0.5082 IS A 0.0119 OR TWO PER 2.3% BELOW THE CITY'S CURRENT ADOPTED RATE OF 0.201 PER $100 ON AUGUST 17TH, 2021.

THE CALL CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ON FIRST READING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE ORDINANCE FOR THE TAX YEAR, 2021.

AT THIS MEETING TODAY, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ON SECOND AND FINAL READING OF PROPERTY TAX RATE ORDINANCE TO SET THE AD VALOREM TAX RATE AT 0.5 0 8, 2 PER $100 OF ASSESSED TAXABLE VALUATION FOR TAX YEAR, 2021 PUBLIC NOTICES WERE PUBLISHED IN THE HAZE FREE PRESS NEWSPAPER TO INFORM AND INVITE ALL KYLE TAXPAYERS, RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE CITY'S PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATES.

OKAY, WITH THAT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THE CITY'S TAX RATE? SEEING NONE? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT STEP.

CONSIDERING POSSIBLE ACTION.

SECOND READING

[4.  

(Second Reading)  Approve an Ordinance of the City of Kyle, Texas, adopting a budget totaling $172.6 million for all City Funds for the ensuing fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021 and ending September 30, 2022; appropriating revenue and expenditure amounts thereof for all City Funds, authorizing a 6.0 percent increase in water service rates, no changes in wastewater service rates, no changes in storm drainage fees, a 2.51 percent increase in solid waste service charges, all other fees and charges for City services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement program expenditures, addition of twenty-three (23.0) new full-time positions for a total of 304.0 full-time equivalent positions, carryover of encumbrances, all associated schedules and documents, and repealing all Ordinances in conflict herewith; and providing for an effective date. ~ J. Scott Sellers, City Manager

[00:10:01]

AS I OUTLINED EARLIER IN THIS AGENDA, MR. SELLERS, MAYOR COUNCIL SCOTT.

SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, ADAM WAS FOUR AND FIVE.

I CAN JUST SPEAK TO YOU VERY BRIEFLY.

THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH CHANGE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU, UH, ALREADY APPROVED EARLIER TONIGHT.

SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU ARE THE CHANGES MADE AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, NUMBER FOUR, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THE EARLIER ITEM TONIGHT AT THE TAX RATE BEING SET ON THE, UH, THE AGENDA.

AND REALLY WE HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU, SCOTT HAS ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BRING FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UM, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE LOBBYISTS.

UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I LIKE TO SEE A BREAKDOWN WITH A LOBBYIST ON TWO SEPARATE LINE ITEMS IN THE BUDGET, ONE FOR STATE AND ONE FOR FEDERAL.

UM, SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO BREAK DOWN INTO TWO LINE ITEMS AND PROVIDE THE COST FOR EACH SEPARATE LOBBYIST.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE ELLISON, SORRY, IT'S BEEN MOTION BY COUNCILMAN FLOORS, KALE SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ELLISON THAT WE BREAK DOWN THE, UH, PROPOSED LOBBYIST BUDGET INTO TWO FUNDS, ONE ALLOCATED FOR FEDERAL AND ONE ALLOCATED FOR STATE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SORRY, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.

SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET.

IF YOU BRING UP SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND.

WHAT WE DO, WE ASK THEM.

WE THINK THIS IS SIMPLY JUST MAKING THEM SEPARATE LINE ITEMS. IT'S NOT CHANGING OR YOUR DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST GOING TO THEM AS TWO SEPARATE ITEMIZED AMOUNTS IN OUR BUDGET.

CORRECT? YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK IT THROUGH THAT'S ALL.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT I CAN HELP YOU? LIKE IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT'S JUST HERE TO HELP.

YEAH.

UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? YOU KNOW, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE, THE WAY THE CONTRACTS WOULD BE TERMED, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, BUT, UH, SCOTT, YOU HAVE FEEDBACK ON THAT.

WE DO PLAN ON BRINGING FORWARD A CONTRACT TO THE SEPTEMBER 7TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE FEDERAL AUGUST.

WE HAVE NOT BEGUN THE PROCESS OF SOLICITING A STATE LOBBYIST.

OKAY.

COUNCILOR TOBY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

I THINK THE, UM, WHAT WE'RE, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST NOT ONLY JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF, FOR THE STATE AND FEDERAL, BUT MAYBE A DESCRIPTION AS ALSO POSSIBLY A WHAT THEY WILL BE DOING FOR THE CITY, UM, A FORM OF DIRECTIVE FROM THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL ON THAT END.

UM, I GUESS IF YOU WERE BRINGING IT FORWARD, AS YOU, LIKE YOU SAID IN SEPTEMBER, IT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THE MONEY FOR ON THAT END.

AND JUST A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THE STATE IS.

IF WE HIRE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE STATE, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR PRIMARY DUTIES, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL COSTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE VERSUS THE FEDERAL.

AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT, SIR.

THANK YOU.

SO I, I UNDERSTAND THEIR REQUESTS.

I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, BUT WE DON'T GET THAT UNTIL WE BRING FORWARD PROPOSALS.

THIS IS A, THIS IS BUDGETARY.

AND SO WE'VE YET TO EVEN LOOK AT OR CONSIDER ONE.

SO, I MEAN, WE COULD ALLOCATE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I SUPPOSE THAT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT WE DON'T EVEN, WE HAVEN'T EVEN YET VOTED ON THE FIRST OF THE CONTRACTS.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO OTHER, IF YOU WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND SPLIT IT ON THE LINES OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL THAT IS COMING, IF THAT'S THE MENTALITY OR, OR WHAT, BECAUSE THIS IS A BUDGETING MEETING, MIRROR, CUSTOMER AND LISTENING.

YEAH.

UH, I GUESS THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON, UH, THE REASON FOR KIND OF MAKING THE DIFFERENT LINE ITEMS.

[00:15:01]

CAUSE, UH, I MEAN, IF FOUR OF US VOTE FOR THIS TONIGHT, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S IN THE BUDGET IT'S, IT'S APPROVED.

UM, SO SEPTEMBER 7TH, UH, IS AFTER THAT, OF COURSE.

UM, BUT TH THIS, I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE KIND OF HELPED ALLEVIATE KIND OF WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND KIND OF ASKING THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO, BUT WE'RE PUTTING, UH, THE FUNDING I ALREADY, UH, APPROVED FOR THAT.

SO, UM, I, I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THIS PRESENTATION AND HAD THE OUTLINE AND THE PROPOSALS OF WHAT THESE FIRMS COULD DO, UH, EVEN BEFORE WE, WE GOT TO THIS POINT, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW CUSTOMER FIRST KALE.

UM, SO YEAH, THAT IS MY CONCERN IS HOW DO WE PLAN ON BUDGETING FOR A STATE LOBBYIST WITHOUT A PROPOSAL? I KNOW WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR A FEDERAL.

SO IF WE WANT TO TAKE THAT AMOUNT AND SUBTRACT IT FROM THE 300,000, THEN THAT'LL GIVE US A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ALLOT THE MONEY FOR THIS, OR HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO A LOT FOR THE STATE.

SO YOU'RE WANTING, YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO DIVIDE THEM UP BY AN ITEM THAT COUNCIL HAS YET TO VOTE ON.

UM, SO THIS ITEM, THIS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY HAS YOUR NAME IN IT.

AND SO YOU ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS PROPOSAL AND HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST.

SO I GUESS I'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS I THOUGHT THIS WAS, WE HAVEN'T, YES, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON IT, BUT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.

YEAH.

I'M AWARE OF IT.

I'M AWARE OF IT.

SO THEN YOU'RE AWARE OF THE COST, HOW MUCH WE SHOULD BUDGET.

HMM.

OKAY.

PEREZ, CAN YOU GIVE US THAT, THOSE TWO SEPARATE AMOUNTS TOO? UM, YEAH.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO CHANGE THE BUDGET.

IT HAS TO BE, IT HAS TO BE AN EXACT AMOUNT.

THAT'S FINE.

I CAN GIVE HIM THE FEE PROPOSAL.

I HAVE IT WITH ME.

DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT? AND WE CAN ALLOT THAT FOR FEDERAL.

WE CAN VOTE ON IT NOW.

SO AS WE SPEAK, THE BUDGET HAS ONE LINE ITEM FOR $300,000.

SO IF YOUR, IF YOUR MOTION IS TO SEPARATE THE TWO, I WAS ASKING SCOTT, IF WE HAVE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE FEDERAL, I DO ELIZABETH.

THIS ADDS A PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE USING.

SO I GUESS I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE MAKING ANY BUDGET WITHOUT USING THOSE STUFF THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY SEEN.

RIGHT.

SO, AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY THE, KIND OF THE UNDERLYING QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING IS WE'RE BUDGETING FOR AN ITEM THAT WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL COST, WHICH IS BURIED.

IT'S HOW WE DO IT.

IT'S HOW WE DO OUR BUDGETING.

SO WE HAVE MANY ITEMS IN THE BUDGET THAT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT WILL COST, BUT WE PUT AN ITEM BASED ON SOME, SOME KNOWN METRICS.

SOMETIMES IT'S FULLY ENGINEERED REPORTS.

SOMETIMES IT'S FTES, SOMETIMES IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, ALRIGHT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN MY LINE OF THINKING OR WE CAN JUST, WE CAN DO IT.

I DON'T REALLY CARE.

IT'S KIND OF A, WE CAN JUST CHANGE IT IF YOU WANT, BUT TO TRY TO ACT LIKE WE'RE SOMEHOW BUDGETING DIFFERENTLY ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAN WE ARE WITH OUR ENTIRE BUDGET IS I'M NOT, I JUST ASKED FOR A LINE ITEM FOR BOTH OF THEM THAT I SPLIT IT DOWN BASED ON A VOTE, THE COUNCIL HASN'T TAKEN ON A CONTRACT THAT IS FORTHCOMING.

SO THAT'S FINE.

IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, IT JUST, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

WHY WE, WHY WOULD WE MAKE, UH, THAT LINE OF DEMARCATION RIGHT NOW? WELL, MY FEAR IS IT SAYS LOBBY, SO IT COULD BE FEDERAL OR STATE.

IT COULD BE JUST FEDERAL.

IT COULD BE JUST STATE.

YES.

SO, BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE TALKING STATE AND FEDERAL.

NO, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE SAID ANECDOTALLY, THAT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL LAW, ANECDOTALLY, WHAT WE'VE SAID IS THAT WE WANT TO ALLOCATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR LOBBYISTS.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED FROM OUR VISIONING RETREAT AND MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THAT THE FIRST LOBBYISTS CAME IN AT A PARTICULAR NUMBER AND THERE WAS ADDITIONAL FUNDS AVAILABLE.

AND WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE

[00:20:01]

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE BEGINNING.

THE COUNCIL VOTED ON THAT, BUT THAT, THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED.

I HAD NO IDEA.

I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION AND EVERY, AND YOU CAN ROLL YOUR EYES, BUT IT'S, THIS IS THE TRUTH IS I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION IT WAS GOING TO BE FEDERAL AND IT WAS GOING TO BE STATE.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING OTHERWISE, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

OKAY.

THEN I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO REPEAT THAT.

COUNCILMAN TOBY IS.

YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WHEN IT COMES TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, ARE WE LOOKING AT JUST THE $300,000 WITH NO AMENDMENTS LATER ON? DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AT THAT CAP? DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA THAT LET'S SAY IT DOES GET APPROVED WITH 300,000? ARE WE GOING TO COME BACK IN FEBRUARY AND SAY, WE NEED TO AMEND THIS BUDGET TO INCREASE THIS, UH, FEDERAL OR STATE LOBBYISTS FUNDING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR? OR IS THIS, OR IS THIS GOING TO BE JUST THE, THE BASE SALARY WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW? I'VE GOT CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE ASKING.

SURE.

AND PRETTY MUCH IT COULD POSSIBLY PASS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT AMENDING THIS LATER ON TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO NEED AN ADDITIONAL 50 FOR TRAVEL.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED AN ADDITIONAL 10,000 FOR THIS, OR IT COULD BE EVEN LESS, WHICH COULD BENEFIT TO THE END.

IT'S JUST, THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ASKED.

SURE.

THANK YOU, SCOTT SANDERS FOR THE RECORD.

SO COUNSEL, IT IS BASED ON SCOPE, UH, PREDOMINANTLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE, COUNCIL IS ESTABLISHING A BUDGET BY WHICH WE WILL THEN NEGOTIATE WITH FIRMS TO ESTABLISH A SCOPE THAT FITS WITHIN THE BUDGET.

SO ASSUMING THE FEDERAL LOBBYISTS, AND YOU DO HAVE A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH A POTENTIAL SCOPE, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID THAT STILL HAS TO BE VOTED ON.

MAYBE THE COUNCIL DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE SCOPE.

WE CAN REVISE IT AS NEEDED THAT RELIEVED OR RELIEVES A CERTAIN NUMBER, YOU KNOW, 300 MINUS, WHATEVER THE COUNCIL APPROVES FOR A STATE LOBBYIST.

IF THE SCOPE IS, UH, ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNCIL THAT FITS IN THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, IN THAT DELTA AMOUNT, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BRING FORWARD FOR APPROVAL.

IF THE COUNCIL SEES THAT STATE SCOPE, AND THE QUESTION HAS BEEN, WHAT IS THE SCOPE? I DON'T KNOW.

I SENT COUNCIL AN EMAIL MAYBE A MONTH AGO STATING WHAT I THOUGHT THE SCOPE COULD BE, UH, BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE WITH STATE LOBBYISTS.

UH, PERSONALLY, I HAVE NOT WORKED WITH A STATE LOBBYIST BEFORE.

SO, UH, I GOING TO FIND THIS PROCESS INTERESTING TO DEFINE THAT SCOPE, UH, BUT WE WILL NEGOTIATE BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT'S THAT'S AVAILABLE AND PUT THAT SCOPE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.

THE COUNCIL WANTS TO INCREASE THE BUDGET AMOUNT, INCREASE THE SCOPE AND FEELS THAT THERE'S VALUE TO THAT.

THEN WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

UH, MOST LIKELY THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE.

YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT AND WE'LL TELL THE, THE STATE LOBBYING FIRM, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO PROVIDE A SCOPE THAT'S, THAT'S REASONABLE AND SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN OUR BUDGET.

I THINK THERE'S MOTION THE MOTION ISN'T FOR AN AMOUNT.

WELL IT'S FOR AN AMOUNT THAT HASN'T BEEN PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO, TO GIVE MORE CLEAR DIRECTION.

THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T FOLLOW THE MOTION YOU MADE.

ALL RIGHT.

I FIGURED OUT THE NUMBERS BEFORE I FIGURED OUT THE NUMBERS, I AM GOING TO NEED TO DISCUSS THE FEE PROPOSAL.

UM, SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE ACCURATE AND THE AKIN GUMP, UM, RIVER PUZZLE, THERE'S A TRAVEL BUDGET OF 3,500 TO $4,000 PER QUARTER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TRAVEL FOR LEADERS TO THE CITY, TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON ON PAGE TWO OF INTRODUCTION OF THE SAME PROPOSAL, IT STATES IT WAS A PLEASURE TO MEET THE TEAM REPRESENTING THE CITY OF KARL, INCLUDING MAYOR TRAVIS MITCHELL, MAYOR PRO TEM, COACH AND CITY MANAGER, SCOTT SELLERS IN WASHINGTON, DC, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THE TOTAL COSTS? THE CITY PAID FOR THIS TRIP TO WASHINGTON DC TO ENSURE AIKEN AND GUT PROVIDED AN ACCURATE TRAVEL ESTIMATE? WAS THAT A QUESTION? YES.

THE QUESTION, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO REPEAT IT IS COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THE TOTAL COST, THE CITY PAID FOR THE TRIP TO WASHINGTON DC TO ENSURE AIKEN INCOME PROVIDED AN ACCURATE TRAVEL ESTIMATE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST FOR US TO HAVE A FEDERAL LOBBYIST, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.

[00:25:01]

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME WHAT THAT TOTAL, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO GIVE YOU, SO YOU MADE YOUR STATEMENT.

I MEAN, DOES PEREZ, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN LOOK THAT INFORMATION UP? NO, MA'AM, THAT'LL TAKE SOME TIME TOGETHER IN THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS.

OKAY.

AND, UM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF THE CITY DID NOT PAY FOR THAT TRIP.

IS THAT A QUESTION TO THE STATE PROFESSOR? I'M JUST SAYING IF THERE'S A CORRECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE, PLEASE DO THAT.

.

SO CAN WE SAY WITH CERTAINTY 3,500 TO $4,000 PER QUARTER IS ENOUGH.

OKAY.

I JUST NEED TO KNOW IF THE FEE PROPOSAL ON HERE IS CORRECT.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN BREAK IT DOWN TO TWO SEPARATE THE PROPOSAL GIVEN IS A MAXIMUM NOW I'M OUT.

OKAY.

SO IT SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT $4,000 PER QUARTER.

OKAY.

SO I'M GOING TO DO THE 1 56, WHICH IS THE 12 TIMES 13,000, UH, PLUS THE 4,000 PER QUARTER, WHICH IS 4, 8, 12, 16.

SO 1 72 FOR FEDERAL.

SO DO WE SUBTRACT THAT OUT OF THE 300,000? I DON'T HAVE A CALCULATOR.

ONE 20.

THANK YOU.

SO, YEAH, SO MY EMOTION WOULD BE THEN TO BREAK DOWN THE TWO LINE ITEMS, ONE FOR, AND ONE PER FEDERAL LOBBYIST WITH A FEDERAL LOBBYISTS AT ONE 70 TO 172,000 AND THE STATE FOR 128,000 START AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S A GOOD RESTATED MOTION, UH, AND CLARIFIED WITH THE NUMBERS AND SECONDED BY COUNSELOR ELLISON.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES FIVE TO TWO.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS FUN.

START.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THING THEY WANT TO PROPOSE? UM, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

WILL ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? GO FIRST.

OH, WAIT, IF YOU WANT TO WAIT, YOU'LL GET TO GO AS LONG AS YOU WANT.

THAT'S WHERE TOBY'S.

YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, MAYBE I BROUGHT THIS UP DURING, UM, THE WORKSHOP.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LINED UP? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF LATE IN THE GAME TO BE ASKING FOR THINGS, BUT DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE FOR ANY KIND OF EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR IN CASE WE HAVE ANOTHER INCIDENT TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WATER FOR THE CITY AS FAR AS BOTTLED WATER OR CONTRACTS? I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE ANYTHING THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, OR I MIGHT HAVE MISSED, UH, I KNOW WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH COVID AND THE DELTA VIRONS, IF FOR KNOCKING ON WOOD, ANY REASON THAT WE HAVE TO GO INTO ANOTHER EMERGENCY RESPONSE, WOULD WE HAVE ANY FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE, UH, CITY STAFF WITH MASKS OR HAND SANITIZERS OR, OR WHERE ARE WE LOOKING FORWARD TOWARDS THAT? IF WE, WE GET EVEN WORSE, AS WE STARTING GETTING INTO THE WINTER FALL SEASON, WE'LL, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF AND RESIDENTS THAT COME INTO CITY HALL, OR IF WE NEED TO DISTRIBUTE IT OUT, WE HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE.

THANK YOU, SCOTT SELLERS FOR THE RECORD, UH, WE HAVE A, AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR IN THE BUDGET AND THAT POSITION IS TO HELP US NOT ONLY, UH, DRAFT OUR OWN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN, BUT ALSO TO PROCURE COMMODITIES FROM THE STATE.

SO IN THE EVENT OF ANOTHER DISASTER, WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE COMMODITIES, BUT AS SNOW VID TAUGHT US, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THAT ACCESS IS LIMITED BASED ON THE DEMAND OF THE WHOLE STATE.

SO, UH, PER THE PLAN THAT IS DRAFTED, THERE MAY BE THE ABILITY TO PRE STOCK.

SOME OF THOSE COMMODITIES, WATER, OR OTHER SUPPLIES RIGHT NOW HAYES COUNTY IS, YOU KNOW, IT DOES HAVE SOME OF THOSE STOCKED UP.

THEY HAD EXTRA PALLETS OF WATER AND EXTRA SUPPLIES, EXTRA MASKS.

I KNOW WE HAVE RETAINED SOME COMMODITIES, BUT NOT NEARLY ENOUGH TO SUPPLY THE COMMUNITY, BUT ARE THE LESSON LEARNED? THE BIG LESSON LEARNED WAS THAT WE NEEDED OUR OWN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR

[00:30:01]

ABSOLUTELY.

YOU GOT IT.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY ITEMS OR THOUGHTS? THANK YOU.

UM, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING WHAT THE CITY'S PLAN IS GOING TO BE.

IF EITHER SENATE BILL 33 OR HOUSE BILL 77 GETS PASSED.

WELL, THERE'LL BE A BACKUP PLAN FOR, FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH LOBBYIST.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE ANTI LOBBYING BILLS FROM THIS LAST SESSION.

YEAH, CORRECT.

WELL, NO, IT'S NOT FROM THE LAST ONE.

THE CURRENT LAST ONE IS, WAS SB 10.

THESE ARE, UM, HP 77 AND SB 33.

DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT? IT'S MORE OF A POLICY QUESTION, BUT, WELL, IT'S NOT GOOD.

IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE FEDERAL LOBBYISTS, OBVIOUSLY.

UM, THE STATE LOBBYISTS, IT MIGHT.

SO, SO HOW DOES IT BYPASS THE FEDERAL OBVIOUS, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION SENATE BILLS.

YOU'RE REFERENCING YOUR STATE LAWS, THE FEDERAL LOBBYIST LOBBYISTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

SO THE STATE CAN'T TELL US WHETHER WE CAN OR CANNOT LOBBY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

GOTCHA.

OKAY.

OKAY.

WELL THEN, UM, I GUESS WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THE STATE LOBBYISTS AND A LOT $60,000 OF THAT AMOUNT TO CONTRACT A GRANT WRITER, AS WELL AS THAT $30,000 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ALLOCATE THE REST OF THE GENERAL FUND, MAKE IT EMOTIONAL ON SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY VOTED ON LAST TIME.

YES.

THERE'S, THERE'S A MOTION ON EMOTIONAL BEFORE.

I DIDN'T HEAR IT ALL, BUT, UM, IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION SECOND SO WE CAN DISCUSS THIS.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPEAT THE MOTION SO THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON IT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THE ELITE.

I ORIGINALLY HAD THE FEDERAL LOBBYIST, BUT SINCE IT'S DUE TO HOUSE, DID THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE BILL THAT'S THERE.

UM, HOWEVER, SINCE WE'RE, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THE FEDERAL LAW MIGHT AS WELL STICK WITH THEM.

SO MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THE FEDERAL LOBBYIST AND A LOT 60,000 OF THAT TO CONTRACT A GRANT WRITER.

I THINK YOU MEANT STATE, YOU JUST SAID FEDERAL, FEDERAL, IF YOU WANT TO LET ME GO BACK.

AND WE DO THAT AGAIN, MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THE STATE LOBBYISTS AND A LOT 60,000 OF THAT AMOUNT TO CONTRACT A GRANT WRITER AS WELL AS A LOT 30,000 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ALLOCATE THE REST OF THE GENERAL FUND.

OKAY.

THERE'S A MOTION.

AND A SECOND, IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WHAT WERE THOSE? UH, YOU SAID IT WAS HOUSE BILL 33.

YES.

UM, THERE'S TWO OF THEM.

THERE'S THERE'S SB 33.

SO THAT'S THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE BILL 77.

AND THEY READ EXACTLY THE SAME CASPER TIBIAS.

WOULD YOU MIND REFRESHING MY MEMORY ON THOSE TWO BILLS FOR ME PLEASE? SURE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO SECTION 5, 5, 6 0.0056.

THAT'S HOW SENATE BILL 33, THE RESTRICTION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FOR A LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

UM, AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION MAY NOT SPEND PUBLIC FUNDS TO HIRE AN INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST UNDER CHAPTER 3 0 5 FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOBBYING MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR TO PAY A NONPROFIT STATE ASSOCIATION OR AN ORGANIZATION THAT PRIMARILY REPRESENTS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND HIRES OR CONTRACT WITH INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST UNDER CHAPTER 3 0 5.

SO THERE IS AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

IF THIS SHOULD GO THROUGH THERE, ISN'T AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

AND WHAT CONCERNS ME IS SECTION SUBSECTION B, WHICH STATES THAT IF SOME, IF A TAXPAYER RESIDENT WHO PREVAILS AN INACTION UNDER SUBSECTION B IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THAT TAXPAYERS OR RESIDENTS REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS INCURRED IN BRINGING THE ACTION.

SO THAT MEANS THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE ATTORNEY OF ANY RESIDENT THAT SUED AND WON.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I MEAN, SO WE VOTED TO KEEP THE STATE LOBBYISTS LAST WORKSHOP SESSION WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE AND WE CAN VOTE AGAIN ON, ON THOSE THINGS.

OKAY.

CORRECT.

STAFF, STAFF.

I MEAN, STAFF

[00:35:01]

CORRECT? UH, YEAH.

TH THE LAST BOAT WAS JUST TO KEEP IT IN THE BUDGET UNTIL FINAL READING.

RIGHT.

SO AT THIS POINT, UH, THIS WOULD BE YOUR FINAL ACTION TO EITHER LEAVE OR REMOVE THAT AT HIM.

GOOD.

SOMEONE THAT VOTED AGAINST IT, BRING IT FORWARD.

YES, BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS REALLY JUST TO KEEP IT IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE I REMEMBER I MET HIM WHEN I VERSUS COUNCIL WOULDN'T EVEN TO BRING IT BACK.

CAUSE I VOTED NOTE ON ITEM WHENEVER WE'RE BRINGING IT, SO, OKAY.

I NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN, UH, AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WAS VOTED ON BY COUNCIL AND MOVING FORWARD THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS.

CORRECT SCOTT? YEAH.

THE MOTION WAS AT THE LAST MEETING.

WHAT WE USUALLY DO IS WE, THE COUNCIL PUTS A MOTION AND VOTES ON WHETHER OR NOT TO, UH, SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME BOAT.

I MEAN, I CAN EXPLAIN THIS.

THIS IS ALL GOVERNED BY THE RULES.

I WOULD LIKE SCOTT TO EXPLAIN THAT.

AND THEN I WOULD LIKE FOR SCOTT'S RESPONSE ON, UM, I KNOW HE SAID IT WAS A POLICY THING, BUT JUST KIND OF LAY OUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF, UH, THE STATE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE LAW, WHERE WE COULDN'T ALLOCATE FUNDING TO A STATE, UH, FOR A STATE LOBBYIST, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THERE W WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET? JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

I THINK THAT'S NOT JUST A POLICY THING THAT THAT IS, UH, CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT MR. SELLERS CAN SPEAK ON.

HMM.

SCOTT SELLERS FOR THE RECORD.

SO TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION THAT THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE MANY AS MANY AMENDMENTS AND VOTE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS UNTIL THE FINAL READING.

SO THE, THE OFFICIAL ACTION ON THE BUDGET WILL COME HERE ON, UH, ITEM FOUR AND FIVE.

THE, THE SECOND QUESTION, JUST, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING ME ON MY OPINION ON THE, ON THE POLICY DIRECTIVE OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILL.

WELL, NO.

SO THE QUESTION WAS ASKED EARLIER IN THE MAYOR ANSWERED, UH, CAUSE YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED TO TAKE IT, UH, BECAUSE IT'S MORE OF A POLICY THING, BUT THERE IS PROCEDURES HERE AND THERE THERE'S A PROCESS.

SO IF, UH, THE COUNCIL VOTES TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR A STATE LOBBYISTS, AND THEN THE STATE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE LAW THAT THAT CAN NOT BE ALLOWED, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS FROM THERE THAT THE COUNCIL COULD DO OR NOT DO? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BUDGET THAT THE FUNDS GO BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND? WHAT I EXPLAINED TO THE COUNCIL.

SO WE CAN ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE, WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT INSTANCE? SURE.

SO THE FUNDS WOULD REMAIN IN THE BUDGET APPROPRIATED FOR THAT USE.

UH, THE, THE COUNCIL COULD DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT ANY POINT THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR TO REAPPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS TO A DESIRED USE OF COUNCIL.

SO SIMILAR TO THE VOTE OR THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

NOW THAT COULD COME OFFICIALLY AT ANY POINT DURING THE FISCAL YEAR TO REAPPROPRIATE $128,000, UH, TO, TO ANY GENERAL FUND RELATED OR ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE.

THANK YOU.

WELCOME.

SO TO CLARIFY, IF THE LAW CHANGES WE'LL JUSTICE HAS A LOT CHANGING THAT ONE.

THAT'S GREAT.

THE FUNDS OR THE FUNDS CAN JUST REMAIN IN THAT LINE ITEM.

SIMILARLY, THE COUNCIL COULD CHANGE THE SCOPE ON THE FEDERAL LOBBYIST SIDE.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE CAN'T TONIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE.

OKAY.

SO WHAT DOES THIS VOTE TO REMOVE THIS? HER IT'S HER ADDED NUMBER.

SO, AND I IS TO REMOVE THE, I IS TO REMOVE $128,000 INTO REAPPROPRIATE AND THEY MENTIONED GREAT.

UM, YOU READY? MITCHELL ELLISON FLORES.

KALE.

YES.

BRADSHAW.

TOBY IS COACH NICK RIZZO.

MARY.

ALL RIGHT.

MOTION FAILS THREE FOR ANY NON LOBBYIST RELATED ITEMS WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.

IT'S SO MUCH

[00:40:01]

UM, I DO HAVE SOMETHING IT WILL PERTAIN TO THE LOBBYIST SYRUP.

WE WANT TO GET OFF THAT.

I'LL ASK MY QUESTION OF THIS IS HAVE STAFF IS PAGE AVAILABLE TONIGHT? NO, SIR.

SHE IS NOT HERE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO THEN I'M GOING TO RELY HEAVILY ON YOU, SCOTT.

OKAY.

SO HERE WE GO.

SO, UH, I JUST WANT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE TO CONDUCTING MYSELF APPROPRIATELY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND SO, UH, THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING TO YOU, SCOTT AND I WAS GOING TO ASK PAGE TWO, SHE WAS AVAILABLE TONIGHT TO PROVIDE ME CLARIFICATION.

SO I KNOW HOW TO CONDUCT MYSELF GOING FORWARD AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CITY.

SO, UH, THE LAST COUPLE OF BUDGET WORK SESSIONS, UM, THERE WAS A PUBLIC, UH, COMMENT ABOUT ME DOING INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS BY BRINGING FORWARD AN IDEA TO, UH, THE TASK FORCE AND BASED ON OUR FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, UH, DOING THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS OF INPUT THAT WE WERE DOING AND THAT, UH, PERHAPS THAT I CONDUCTED MYSELF INAPPROPRIATELY.

SO IF, IF I COULD HAVE YOUR PROFESSIONAL, UH, UM, RESPONSE SCOTT, UM, IF, IF I WAS IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING BY DOING, UH, WHAT I DID AND IF SO, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT AND THEN EXPLAIN HOW TO, WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO HAVE CONDUCTED, UM, MYSELF AND, AND, AND BRINGING FORWARD FOR THAT ITEM.

CAN, CAN YOU MIND, DO YOU MIND CLARIFYING WHICH TASK FORCE, WHICH SO, UH, THIS IS THE POP AF TASK FORCE, SO, UH, I'LL JUST GIVE A REAL QUICK FEEDBACK OR REAL QUICK, UH, SUMMARY OF IT.

SO, UH, YEAH, ON THE MAY, UH, SECOND MAY MEETING THAT WE HAD, UH, THE COUNCIL, UM, GOD, I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO A PLEASANT WORKSHOP.

SO I MEAN, THE, I, THE, THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA CALLS FOR US TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE BUDGET OTHER THAN WHAT ARE YOU AFTER HERE, I'M GETTING, I'M GETTING TO THAT, IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO, UM, BUT YOUR COMMENTS ARE OUT OF ORDER.

THEY'RE NOT RELATED TO THE BUDGET.

THEY, THEY WILL BE RELATED TO THE BUDGET BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT BRINGING, UH, A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

OKAY, WELL, THAT IS AN UNFAIR QUESTION TO ASK.

THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT RIGHT TO PUT HIM IN THAT SPOT TO ASK HIM TO ANSWER FOR A WORD THAT CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH.

WELL, I WOULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF SHE WAS AVAILABLE ON HOW TO APPROPRIATELY BRING A BUDGET, UH, AMENDMENT OR A SUGGESTION TO THE COUNCIL.

SO IT IS BUDGET RELATED.

YEAH.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO EXPOUND ON WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

I WILL, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS MEETING IS FOR.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.

WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET, WHETHER IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND NOT THE VOTES WERE MADE.

AND THEY'RE MADE AGAIN JUST NOW.

SO WE, YES, SIR.

WE CAN TAKE IT UP ON A DIFFERENT AGENDA.

UNDERSTOOD.

I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS BUDGET.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND MOVED BY THE MAYOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR FLORES, KALE.

UH, THIS IS AS IT RELATES TO THE BUDGET AND WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM, I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO, UH, INCLUDE, UH, THE THREE ITEMS. ONE IS TO INCREASE, UH, THE FTES FOR THE VICTIM SERVICES COORDINATOR, UH, AND POSITION BY ONE, ONE IS TO INCREASE BY $18,616 AND 88 CENTS, UH, FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND, UH, AN AMOUNT IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, UH, FOR THAT VICTIM'S COORDINATOR POSITION.

AND ONE IS TO ACCEPT A $45,000 GRANT.

UH, DID I SAY ALL THAT RIGHT? THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S THE MOTION OR THIS UNIT.

OKAY.

TAX RATE AND THE BUDGET.

SO I, I, SORRY, I NEED A SECOND ON THAT.

UH, UM, UM, UM, MOTION TO AMEND SECOND.

OKAY.

UH, SO WE'LL THE FIRST VOTE WE'LL TAKE, UH, WE'LL

[00:45:01]

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.

I, NOW WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

THIS IS THE BUDGET FOR THE BUDGET.

SO WE, WE HAVE A SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION.

AND A SECOND BEFORE, UH, THE CO THE VOTE CALL ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY ONE THING BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT.

UH, CERTAINLY, UM, THIS HAS BEEN A CHALLENGING BUDGET PROCESS.

I CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE.

UM, EVERY DEPARTMENT, UH, THERE'S, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM, BUT EVERY DEPARTMENT WORKED REALLY HARD ON THIS BUDGET AND THE DIRECTORS AND TRYING TO FIND OUT THE BEST WAYS TO, TO CONTINUE THE MISSION FORWARD, UH, CONTINUED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE PROVIDE TO OUR RESIDENTS AND, AND INCREASING THAT, UH, UPON THE EXPECTATIONS AS WELL AS THE EXPECTATIONS OF THIS COUNCIL.

AND SO, UM, IT, IT IS A CHALLENGING PROCESS.

IT TAKES A LOT OF HOURS AND A LOT OF, UH, MENTAL CAPACITY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.

AND I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK OUR STAFF, UH, FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS.

CERTAINLY, UH, UH, WE'LL PROBABLY BE PRETTY CLEAR.

I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT EVERY THING IN THIS BUDGET, BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I'M EXTREMELY HAPPY ABOUT AND EXTREMELY, UM, ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT MOVING FORWARD, UH, WITH A LOT OF THE INITIATIVES THAT WE PUT FORWARD, AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, NEARLY 70% OF OUR BUDGET IS, UH, ALLOCATED TOWARDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, IMPROVING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER ASSETS THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

UH, THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW, AT LEAST THAT I RECALL THAT IT'S, IT'S BEEN OVER 60% OF OUR BUDGET ALLOCATED TOWARDS THAT.

SO THIS COUNCIL AND PAST COUNSELORS, AFRICAN SUBSISTENTLY MADE AN EFFORT TO, UH, ALLOCATE FUNDING TO IMPROVING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, WHETHER THAT BE, UH, ROADS, UH, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO I WANT TO APPLAUD THE COUNCIL FOR CONTINUING THAT EFFORT AND CONTINUING TO STAY STEADFAST WITH THAT.

UH, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, SOMETIMES YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING THAT DID YOU WANT, BUT THAT'S THE PART OF, OF THIS AND WORKING AS A GROUP AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO, UM, I CERTAINLY, I, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, THIS PROCESS AND APPRECIATE STAFF EVEN BEEN ADDING AN ADDITIONAL WORK SESSION.

UH, I APPRECIATE THERE ARE CITIZENS THAT CAME AND SPOKE THIS EVENING.

WOULD'VE DEFINITELY LOVED TO HAVE HEARD FROM YOU AND ONE OF THE EARLIER BUDGET WORK SESSIONS, BUT NONETHELESS, IT'S STILL IMPORTANT FOR US TO HEAR WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO SAY.

AND, AND, AND, AND FOR THAT, FOR US TO BE MINDFUL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND I CERTAINLY, UH, APPRECIATE BOTH RESIDENTS COMING FORWARD THIS EVENING, UH, AND, AND, AND MAKING THEIR STATEMENTS.

UH, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, I I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THIS, UM, AND I FEEL LIKE I CAN GO FORWARD WITH SUPPORTING THIS BUDGET.

OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? RIZZO BRADSHAW ELLISON.

TOBY IS COACH FLORES.

KALE.

YES.

MITCHELL AYE.

MOTION CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.

NEXT UP SECOND READING APPROVE AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KYLE TEXAS

[5.  (Second Reading)  Approve an Ordinance of the City of Kyle, Texas, fixing the ad valorem tax (property tax) rate for Tax Year 2021 (Fiscal Year 2021-2022) at $0.5082 per $100 assessed valuation and providing for the levying of ad valorem taxes for use and support of the municipal government of the City of Kyle for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021 and ending September 30, 2022; providing for apportioning each levy for specific purposes; and providing when ad valorem taxes shall become due and when same shall become delinquent if not paid. ~ J. Scott Sellers, City Manager  ]

MR. SELLERS, UH, MAYOR, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT THAN WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE TAX RATE COMES FROM.

OKAY.

UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TAX MODEL, WHERE WE'RE AT, WE'RE LOWERING IT IN A SENSE, BUT THE BIG QUESTION IS JUST LIKE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THE PROPERTY VALUES GOING UP.

ARE THOSE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES? IS THAT A CITY ISSUE OR IS THAT A REAL ESTATE ISSUE INNOCENCE, RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M GOING TO PROVIDE A TECHNICAL ANSWER BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF A POLICY TYPE QUESTION, BUT THE, THE, UH, APPRAISALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY HAVE INCREASED, AND THAT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY.

UH, THAT'S THAT COUNTY ENTITY THAT ESTABLISHES THOSE

[00:50:01]

THE, SO THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS NOT A CITY ISSUE, I GUESS, CONCEPTUALLY IT IS A CITY ISSUE BECAUSE WE DO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE ARE PART OF THE GROWING CITY AND THE INITIATIVES THAT COUNCIL PUTS FORWARD ARE INTENDED TO GROW THE CITY IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE.