[I) Call Meeting to Order, Roll Call, and Excuse Absences]
[II) Approval of Minutes]
[III) Citizen Comment Period with City Council]
[IV) Agenda Order]
[3) A proclamation recognizing Parks and Recreation Month.]
[4) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the 2025 Charter Review Commission's recommendations for amendments for the November 4, 2025 Special Election.]
[5) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and and provide staff feedback regarding an overview of the current status of the 2025 City of Kyle Mobility Plan.]
[6) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC).]
[VI) Consent Agenda]
[8) Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to purchase 0.0384 acres of right of way from Brooks Business Connection, LLC for the purposes of improvements to Jack C Hays Trail in an amount of $94,526, plus reasonable closing costs.]
[VII) Items Pulled from Consent Agenda]
[11) Consider approval of a resolution finding public convenience and necessity and authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn if necessary a 7.942 acre parcel of land in fee simple and a public utility easement over 1.055 acres of land in three parts (as described in Exhibits “A” and “A-1” to the Resolution) from certain real property owned by Nancy Steadman, Janice Williamson, Rebecca Franke, Don Franke, and Alton Franke for the public use and purpose of construction of public roadway Improvements and public drainage and utility infrastructure improvements for the Bebee Road West Roadway improvement project. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED)]
[12) Consider approval of a resolution finding public convenience and necessity and authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn if necessary a 1.1513 acre parcel of land in two parts and a public utility easement over a 0.3232 acre parcel of land in two parts, (as described in Exhibits “A,” “B,” “A-1,” and “A-2” to the Resolution) from certain real property owned by Robert E. and Catherine Lehman for the public use and purpose of construction of public roadway improvements and public drainage and utility infrastructure improvements for the Bunton Creek Road Improvement Project. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED)]
[13) Consider approval of a resolution finding public convenience and necessity and authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn if necessary a 4,187 square foot parcel of land in fee simple and a public utility easement over a 17,228 square foot parcel of land (as described in Exhibits “A” and “A-1” to the Resolution) from certain real property owned by Casetta Ranch Residential Community, Inc., for the public use and purpose of construction of public roadway improvements and public drainage and utility infrastructure improvements for the Bunton Creek Road Improvement Project. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED)]
[14) Consider approval of a resolution finding public convenience and necessity and authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn if necessary a 4,440 square foot parcel of land in fee simple and a public utility easement over a 4,467 square foot parcel of land (as described in Exhibits “A” and “A-1” to the Resolution) from certain real property owned by Noel and Maria Dolores Campos for the public use and purpose of construction of roadway drainage and utility infrastructure improvements for the Kyle Parkway/Lehman Road Extension Roadway Improvement Project. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED)]
[15) Consider approval of a resolution finding public convenience and necessity and authorizing the use of eminent domain to condemn if necessary a 3,741 square foot parcel of land in fee simple, a 253 square foot public utility easement, and a 1,154 square foot temporary grading easement (all as described in exhibits “A,” “A-1”, and “A-2” to the Resolution) from certain real property owned by Hometown Kyle Homeowner’s Association, Inc. for the public use and purpose of construction of public roadway improvements, public drainage and utility infrastructure improvements, and grading restoration for the Center Street Off System Road Improvement Project. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED)]
[16) Consider approval of a memorandum of understanding between Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and the City of Kyle for participation in the WaterSECURE initiative. ]
[19) Consider approval of a resolution supporting Hays County improvements to roadways that improve safety, mobility, and connectivity for the residents of Kyle.]
[02:34:42]
IN THE LONG RUN, A MORE STEADY MARKET OF THE COST. WELL, I GUESS THE OTHER THING TO THINK
[02:34:49]
ABOUT, TOO, IS WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE WATER MASTER PLAN. WHAT'S FIRM SUPPLY AND WHAT IS[02:34:55]
SUPPLY THAT COULD BE AFFECTED WITH DIFFERENT DROUGHTS? NOT ALL OF OUR WATER IS FIRM SUPPLY,[02:35:00]
MEANING THAT WE ARE GUARANTEED TO BE ABLE TO GET IT UNDER ANY CONDITIONS. SO WE HAVE RISK IN[02:35:07]
OUR WATER SUPPLY MODEL AS WE HAVE DROUGHT, DROUGHT ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE. AGAIN, YOU[02:35:13]
JUST WANT TO HAVE MORE DIFFERENT. A LOT OF DIFFERENT SOURCES AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT[02:35:17]
WAYS TO GET WATER TO MEET THE PROJECTED DEMAND. MIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY ADDITIONAL[02:35:22]
COMMENTS. THAT WAS WELL SAID. AND THE WATER, THE WATER MARKET CONTINUES TO BE MORE[02:35:27]
COMPETITIVE. AND THE WATER SOURCES ARE ARE BEING MORE HARD TO FIND. AND OUR BEST ADVICE,[02:35:38]
OUR BEST RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL IS WHEN PROJECTS LIKE THIS COME ALONG, THEY'RE LIKE[02:35:45]
ONE ONCE IN A LIFETIME TYPE PROJECTS. WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO[02:35:51]
WE'RE GOING TO REGRET IT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT WE DIDN'T DO THIS. BUT WE DON'T[02:35:57]
LIKE BRIAN IS SAYING WE TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME AND THE SCARCITY OF WATER IN THIS[02:36:04]
PARTICULAR AREA, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE IN SUCH A SEVERE DROUGHT. WE'VE GOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF[02:36:10]
THESE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE OTHER COUNTIES THAT HAVE THESE WELL FIELDS ARE BEING MORE AND[02:36:17]
MORE, YOU KNOW, PROTECTIVE OF THEIR WATER SUPPLY. AND SELLING THEM ACROSS COUNTY LINES IS[02:36:26]
PROBABLY GOING TO BE A THING OF THE PAST IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE. I KNOW THE STATE WAS[02:36:32]
THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN PASSING LAWS TO ALLOW US TO BUY, YOU KNOW, ACROSS STATE LINES AS[02:36:38]
WELL, BECAUSE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALLOWED RIGHT NOW. BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR SURFACE WATER,[02:36:43]
IT'S HARDER TO TREAT THAN GROUNDWATER. SO IT'S MORE CONTAMINANTS IN THE SURFACE[02:36:47]
WATER. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I WAS GLAD ABOUT THE GROUNDWATER. BUT THOSE I WAS[02:36:51]
WORRIED ABOUT THE RISK THERE. BUT THANKS FOR ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS. YEAH, I TOTALLY[02:36:55]
AGREE. I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE OPTIONS AND MAKING SURE[02:37:00]
THAT WE HAVE, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, WATER SOURCES. SO THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE DROUGHTS IN DIFFERENT[02:37:06]
PARTS OF THE STATES, IT DOESN'T AFFECT US AS HARD AS THE CITY. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS. WITH[02:37:10]
THAT. DO YOU NEED SOME ACTION FROM US, BRIAN, ON THIS? YES, SIR. WE'RE ASKING ABOUT A[02:37:17]
MOTION. WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL CONSIDER APPROVING THE MOU. YES, SIR. IT'S BEEN A LONG[02:37:20]
DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. ONE MORE QUESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. SO THIS CONTRACT WILL BE[02:37:27]
A FIXED AMOUNT. WE'LL WE'LL HAVE TEN MJ WILL AT SOME POINT WE'LL LOCK IN THE VALUE. I THINK WHAT[02:37:36]
BRIAN SAID WE'RE STILL IS STILL IN THE FEASIBILITY DESIGN PHASE, BUT WE WILL BE DESIGN. BUT WE'LL[02:37:41]
BE OBLIGATED TO DRAW THAT AT SOME POINT. WE WOULD. WELL THAT'S THE SAME WITH OUR WE'RE[02:37:48]
OBLIGATED TO DRAW A CERTAIN AMOUNT. WE HAVE A IS THAT DEPENDENT UPON WHAT WE NEED. DO WE HAVE ANY CONTRACTS THAT ARE NOT FIXED AMOUNTS? YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ARE THEY TAKE OR PAY CONTRACTS. SO THE SAN MARCOS IS A TAKE OR PAY CONTRACT. AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE OTHER ONES TO SEE. YEAH. SO DO YOU WANT TO JUST GRAY WATER. SO THE WAY WE STRUCTURE OUR CONTRACTS, THERE'S KIND OF THREE COMPONENTS. THERE'S THE THERE'S THE WATER WATER FEE ITSELF. AND THEN THERE'S THE DEBT SERVICE. THE DEBT SERVICE IS THE TAKE OR PAY. AND YES, YOU ARE LOCKED INTO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WATER BECAUSE THE WAY WE GO ABOUT SECURING FUNDING FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS BASED ON WHAT'S CALLED CONTRACT REVENUE PLEDGES. SO THOSE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS AND TOTALITY, YOU AND OTHERS WILL BE THE WHAT WHAT WE CAN GO GET BONDED TO GET THE FUNDING FOR IT. AND SO WE HAVE TO RIGHTSIZE THE PROJECT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FOLKS WANT AND THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR AND TAKE. SO AND SO ONCE WE WELL, WE'RE AT THE MOU STAGE. IT'S NON-BINDING. THE TEN MGD CAN BE CHANGED. I'D BE ON THIS WHEN WE GET TO THE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT AND WE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY COME BACK TO YOU AND GET YOUR BLESSING. JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVE STAFF SIGN THAT THEN WE WOULD THAT WOULD BE THE LOCK IN FOR WHATEVER AMOUNT THAT MIGHT BE. SO AND I WOULD JUST SAY AT THAT TIME TO THE EXACT AMOUNT OF WATER WILL BE DETERMINED. WE'RE ASKING WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TEN MGD. WE'LL SEE WHAT THEIR AVAILABILITY IS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER UTILITIES THAT PARTICIPATE OR NOT PARTICIPATE. AND THEY'LL COME BACK IN AND REFINE THAT FIGURE FOR US. WE'RE TRYING TO RESERVE STRATEGICALLY AS MUCH AS WE CAN FOR OUR FUTURE GROWTH, BUT THERE MAY ONLY BE 8 OR 9 OR SOME OTHER FIGURE. WE'LL LOOK AND SEE WHAT THAT IS, BUT THAT WILL BE PART OF THE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIZZO, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, I THINK YEAH, THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION REAL QUICK. SO WHO WOULD BE PURSUING GOVERNMENT STATE FUNDING WITH THE NEW BILLS THAT ARE PASSED ON WATER? WOULD THAT BE WOULD THAT BE THE CITY? GOOD QUESTION ROBERT. IT WOULD BE GRAY. GRAY WOULD BE PURSUING SWIFT FUNDING OR ANY. WE'RE OPEN[02:40:03]
TO OTHER FUNDING SOURCES. WE DON'T SEE WHAT'S MOST ECONOMICAL FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. SO IF THERE'S SOME OF THE NEW MONEY AVAILABLE THAT MIGHT LEND TO, YOU KNOW, A STATE PARTICIPATION OR A LOWER RATE WILL CERTAINLY GO AFTER THAT AS WELL. SOUNDS GOOD. JUST MAKING SURE AND YOU WILL PASS ON THE SAVINGS TO THE CITY. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. WE ESSENTIALLY OPERATE LIKE A NONPROFIT BUSINESS. I APPRECIATE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. NEXT UP IS AGENDA ITEM 17. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN[17) (First Reading) Consider approval of an ordinance to rezone approximately 5.01 acres of land from ‘A’ (Agriculture), to ‘W’ (Warehouse) for property located at 340 CR 158 in Hays County, Texas. (Z-25-0135) Public Hearing (The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval.)]
ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.01 ACRES OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURE TO WAREHOUSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 340 CR 158, IN HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS. Z 20 5-0135, MISS SHARP. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL. THIS ONE, JUST BEFORE I GET STARTED, DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IF IT WORKS FOR Y'ALL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. AND THEN WE CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO TONIGHT WE HAVE A REZONING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. IT'S JUST ABOUT FIVE ACRES. REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURE TO WAREHOUSE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 158. THIS IS A CITY INITIATED REZONING TO COMPLETE A 2007 ZONING APPLICATION THAT WAS NEVER FORMALLY PROCESSED. THE PROPERTY WAS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED IN 2008, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WAREHOUSE ZONING. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY. SINCE THIS IS KIND OF A UNIQUE CASE. THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED IN 2002, WHEN IT WAS IN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED AND PAID FOR ZONING, ANNEXATION, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IN 2007. THE SITE PLAN WAS THEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN MARCH OF 2007, AND ANNEXATION WAS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY OF 2008, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROPERTY HAPPENED SHORTLY AFTER. BASED ON CITY RECORDS AND RECORDS PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT THE ZONING APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND PAID FOR, BUT WAS NEVER FORMALLY PROCESSED. THEREFORE, ZONING WAS NEVER ASSIGNED AND IT'S REMAINED AGRICULTURE SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED. THAT'S WHAT WE AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGN FOR ZONING. WHEN ANYTHING'S ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT'S SURROUNDED KIND OF TWO PLAN, YOU KNOW WEST SOME EXISTING WAREHOUSE ZONING AND THEN PLAN SOUTH EAST RIGHT. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS AGRICULTURE ZONING. AND THEN ACROSS COUNTY ROAD 158 IS SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO PRIMARILY SURROUNDED BY WAREHOUSE ZONING AND OTHER WAREHOUSE USES. LIKE I SAID, PART OF THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT WAREHOUSE ZONING. SO GOING INTO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS ALSO IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PER OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH DOES ALLOW FOR SOME WAREHOUSE USES AS WELL. SO THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL ROOFING AND SHEET METAL CONTRACTING COMPANY. THIS USE IS PLANNED TO CONTINUE IN. THE COMPANY WANTS TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND AND BUILD OUT THE REMAINDER OF THEIR SITE.IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANY USES ALLOWED IN THE WAREHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALSO BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY, IF IT WERE TO BE REZONED TO WAREHOUSE. SO, BASED ON THE EXISTING USE AND THE CITY'S FAILURE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY IN 2007 2008, AND IN ADDITION TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE, LAND USE PLAN STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST. AND I APOLOGIZE.
THAT LAST SLIDE OR THAT LAST BULLET POINT DID NOT MAKE IT OFF OF THE SLIDES. BUT YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. YOU CAN ALSO APPROVE AN EQUAL OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT, OR YOU CAN DENY THE REQUEST. AND THEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED FIVE ZERO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. SO IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THIS I THIS ITEM IS POSTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOW OPEN IS NOW OPEN. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK MAY COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS SHARP? I DO, COUNCIL MEMBER ZUNIGA. LET ME GO FIRST. MR. MICHAEL, I CALLED ON YOU. YEAH. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE AREA HERE, OF COURSE I HAVE TO
[02:45:01]
LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IT. WHAT'S SURROUNDING IT? ALTHOUGH THIS WAS PROBABLY APPROVED IN 2002. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHETHER IT'S THE BEST LAND USE FOR THE SPECIFIC AREA, BEST FIT, AND I JUST DON'T THINK I DON'T AGREE THAT WAREHOUSE IS APPROPRIATE AROUND THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I SEE BUNTON CREEK ALL OVER AGAIN IN THIS SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE BUNTON ROAD, BUNCH OF NEIGHBORHOODS STACKED IN THERE, AND YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF WAREHOUSES AND IT JUST NOT IT JUST DOES NOT FIT, DOES NOT APPEAR APPROPRIATE. I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL RETAIL SERVICES, SOMETHING THAT ADDS VALUE INTO THAT LOCATION AND BREAK UP THE MONOPOLY OF WAREHOUSES, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO END UP GROWING. COUNTY ROAD 158 AT SOME POINT.SO JUST HAVING MORE WAREHOUSES IN THAT DENSE AREA DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, ESPECIALLY SPECIFICALLY ACROSS WHERE YOU HAVE MANY VEHICLES ON 158 AND MANY SURROUNDING SMALL NEIGHBORHOODS. SO IT'S JUST NOT, TO ME, A GOOD FIT THAT'S COMPATIBLE. IT REALLY QUICK BEFORE WE GO ON, LIKE LEGALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE THIS WAS ALREADY SIGNED, SEALED AND PAID FOR 18 YEARS AGO, ARE THERE ANY LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS ZONING? I WOULD IMAGINE THERE COULD BE. AND IF WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT, IT'S SOMETHING WE'D WANT TO DO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. CALL EXECUTIVE. SO, SO GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. CALL EXECUTIVE. ALL RIGHT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER. MY QUESTION IS. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S ALREADY A WAREHOUSE HERE. WHAT HE'S ASKING IS FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE WAREHOUSE. YOU'RE NOT GETTING SOMETHING NEW. THEY'RE JUST MAKING THE WAREHOUSE A LITTLE BIGGER BECAUSE THEY NEED ROOM FOR THE MATERIAL. SO IT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING. THERE'S ALREADY A WAREHOUSE THERE. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GET US BACK INTO EXECUTIVE
[XI) Executive Session]
SESSION HERE. THE UNDER 551.071. YEAH. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS AGENDA ITEM 17. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS.AND HE'S GOING TO ADD A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE HE'S. I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER OR THE TIME IS. 1005. I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
EXECUTIVE SESSION. ALL RIGHT. EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW ADJOURNED. DO I HAVE TO READ US BACK INTO THE MEETING? NOW? IS THE PUBLIC HEARING DONE? OKAY, WE ALREADY DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. SO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 17 SECOND. ALL RIGHT.
MOTION TO APPROVE. MADE BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOBIAS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FIVE ONE.
AND THAT WILL BE ALL. MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND NUMBER 18. NUMBER 1818. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT POSTPONING. OH I'M SORRY. YEAH OKAY. IN MY HEAD IT WAS POSTPONED OKAY. SO ITEM 18
[18) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff feedback regarding the creation of a city entity for historical archives.]
WILL BE POSTPONED TO A LATER A LATER MEETING IF YOU WANTED TO. I KNOW THAT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT ITEM FOR THE MAYOR AND HE COULDN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING. SO IT'S THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT OR IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE IT. POSTPONE? YEAH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AGENDA. DO I HAVE TO DO THAT? AGENDA ITEM 18 SECOND. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.THAT'S A THUMBS UP OVER THERE OKAY, SO DO I. DO I HAVE TO DO THAT OKAY. SORRY, LESLIE. NO.
SHE'S KNOWN. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, 60I DON'T. DO THAT. MOTION TO ADJOURN. ADJOURN. MOTION
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.