2. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 20211109-002 amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton, Texas to modify all masculine and feminine language to gender neutral pronouns; providing for severability; providing for repeal; and providing an effective date.

[2. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 20211109-002 amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton, Texas to modify all masculine and feminine language to gender neutral pronouns; providing for severability; providing for repeal; and providing an effective date.]

DISCUSS YOUR POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20211109-002 AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, TEXAS, TO MODIFY ALL MASCULINE AND FEMININE LANGUAGE TO GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUNS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR APPEAL AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

STAFF. SO I'LL TALK.

SO I THINK IT STARTED PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

WE HAD ORDINANCES ISSUES AND STARTED TO FLIPPING THEM THROUGH IT AND REALIZED THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, HE'S AND SHE'S AND FIREMEN AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

AND SO OUR INTENT IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE DON'T HAVE CODED POSITIONS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE CITY MANAGER IS REFERRED TO BOTH IN THE CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCE AS HE.

AND SO I FEEL THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RECOGNIZE OFFICIALLY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A HE AS THE ONLY CITY MANAGER, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN FEMALES BEFORE.

AND SO AGAIN, WE'RE JUST KIND OF DOING A LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING.

I FEEL TO RECOGNIZE TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND AND BE PROGRESSIVE.

THANK YOU, SIR. SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUN.

SO BOTH IN TERMS OF POSITION AND...

I'M ASKING WHAT THE EXACT PRONOUN IS, IS GENDER NEUTRAL? SO I THINK THEY HAS BEEN BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE HANDOUT YOU HAVE.

SO IT'S NOT NEITHER HE OR SHE IT'S OR IN SOME CASES IT'S REWRITTEN TO NOT SAY, YOU KNOW,

[00:10:10]

HE IS, THEY WILL, THEY SHALL.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY WAS PLURAL.

BUT THE POSITION WILL BE HELD BY A SINGULAR PERSON, RIGHT? SO THIS WORK WAS DONE BY MUNICODE.

SO WE'RE GOING WITH STANDARD LANGUAGES OR LANGUAGE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US.

IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE CODE THAT'S DIRECTLY STATES THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL BE A MAN? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

OK. SO BECAUSE IT STATES THE WORD HE YOU READ IT AS THAT WE SHALL HIRE A MALE CITY MANAGER. NO. ARE THERE ANYWHERE IN THE CODE WHERE THE PRONOUN SHE IS USED? I THINK THERE IS. AND DO WE READ THAT TO MEAN THAT ONLY WOMEN SHOULD BE HIRED FOR THAT POSITION? AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THE ORDINANCE OR THE CHARTER SAYS THAT.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING PUSHED TO US THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS THE THING TO DO RIGHT NOW OR WHAT? WHY DID WE BRING THIS NOW AT THIS TIME? SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AGO, WE JUST TOOK A LOOK.

WE'RE LOOKING AT PROCESSES, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW WE DO BUSINESS, AND IT WAS AN IDEA THAT WE BE GENDER NEUTRAL.

AND SO AS I'VE BEEN ASKED, THERE IS NO COMPLAINT, THERE IS NO OUTCRY.

THERE IS NO WHATEVER RIGHT.

SEEMS LIKE WE'RE A BUNCH OF HAMMERS LOOKING FOR NAILS.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.

I'VE SERVED ON COUNCIL WITH FEMALE CITY MANAGERS.

BEFORE I GOT ON COUNCIL, WE HAD A MALE CITY SECRETARY, BUT THAT WAS THE LAST ONE WE HAD.

DAVE INSWELL, RIGHT, SINCE THEN IT'S BEEN A FEMALE, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S EVER SAID THAT. I'VE NEVER LOOKED AT THE CHARTER AND SAID, OK, LOOKING AT IT THIS WAY, THIS HAS TO BE A MAN OR THIS HAS TO BE A WOMAN, OR I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS AT THE MOMENT.

THAT'S MY BIG TAKE THAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN IT WAS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW [INAUDIBLE] I THINK JUDGE MAY HAVE A COMMENT.

GO AHEAD, JUDGE. WELL, IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO COUNSEL, BUT FOR AN EXAMPLE TO ANSWER COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND'S ISSUE IS IF THERE'S A SITUATION IN GENDER NEUTRAL FOR CONTRACT PURPOSES. AND YOU KNOW THIS AS AN ATTORNEY, IF YOU DESIGNATE THE CITY MANAGER WITH AUTHORITIES, YOU'LL SAY THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF ANGLETON SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO X.

THEY WILL THEN IN THEIR ROLE, YOU KNOW THAT SOLE USE OF THEY, IT IS NOT A PLURAL.

IT'S IDENTIFYING, YOU IDENTIFY SOMETHING AND THEN YOU USE THE WORD THEY YOU CAN ALSO USE THE WORD PERSON.

I DON'T KNOW FROM JUST READING WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.

IT'S NOT. IT'S BASICALLY TO GET IT, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT YOU WANT.

BUT AS YOU SAY, IT'S NAILS LOOKING FOR HAMMERS OR HAMMERS LOOKING, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S BASICALLY TO TAKE ANY FUTURE BENT NAILS FROM GETTING OUT OF WHACK BECAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST BEING NEUTRAL FOR INAPPROPRIATE PLACES.

SO THAT WAS JUST THE EXAMPLE THAT CAME IMMEDIATELY TO MIND OF THE USE OF THEY IN A CONTRACT OF HOW IT'S DONE.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S AN EXAMPLE.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU.

I WAS TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH THAT THEY WAS PLURAL.

THEM WAS PLURAL.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS A TENDENCY TO MORPH INTO STUFF, SOMETIMES IT'S ACCEPTABLE AND SOMETIMES AND A LOT OF TIMES IT'S NOT.

THE TERM HE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS BOTH A MALE AND A NEUTRAL PRONOUN.

JUST HOW THINGS WERE.

[00:15:05]

ATTITUDES CHANGE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US UP.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT NO ONE'S BEING HARMED.

I DON'T SEE WHAT WHAT THERE IS TO FIX.

I WENT THROUGH THIS PRETTY HEAVILY READING THESE AGAINST THE EXISTING CODE.

AND HONESTLY, THERE'S JUST TO GO THROUGH AND GLOBALLY CHANGE, HE TODAY MAKES THE TEXT A LITTLE BIT CUMBERSOME.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON SPOKEN ABOUT IN THAT ITEM AS A HE WOULD THAT COULD COULD EASILY BE CHANGED TO THEY.

BUT WHEN THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE PERSON SPOKEN ABOUT IN THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, ONE OF WHICH BEING TO SAY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO AS HE, THAT PERSON HAS CHANGED TO THEY.

IN FACT, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE IN A BUILDING OR THEY ARE THEY ALSO. SO THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO.

I JUST WANT TO MUDDY UP THE WATER JUST BY GLOBALLY GOING THROUGH HERE AND CHANGING EVERYTHING IN ONE FELL SWOOP WITHOUT MORE OF A REVIEW THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT.

I CAN SPEAK TO OUR MICROPHONE FOR JUDITH.

WE HAVE ONE SLIDE HERE.

OUR FIRM DID REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPREADSHEET THAT CAME FROM YOUR CODIFICATION COMPANY, MUNICODE HAD REFERENCES IN THERE THAT WERE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING CHANGED.

IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY IN A STATE STATUTE, AS HE, THEN, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT, BUT THE INTENT WAS JUST SIMPLY TO MAKE IT NEUTRAL SO THAT NO WOMEN IN CITY HALL FELT THAT ANGLETON WAS MORE INTERESTED IN MEN THAN WOMEN.

SO I CAN SAY THAT.

OK, THANK YOU, JUDITH.

WOULD IT BE OFFENSIVE, JUST TO SWITCH EVERYTHING TO SHE? I MEAN, AS A MAN, IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME WHEN I READ IT.

I DON'T SEE SHE AND THINK OF MYSELF SUDDENLY AS A WOMAN.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE TAKING ON A SOCIETAL ISSUE THAT IS A NATIONAL ISSUE, PERHAPS EVEN IN ADDRESSING AT THE CITY LOCAL LEVEL.

WHEN I JOINED CITY COUNCIL NOT TO ADDRESS SOCIETAL ISSUES, I JOINED CITY COUNCIL TO ADDRESS ANGLETON ISSUES.

WE AGREED. WELL, ALL I COULD SAY IS THAT THE INTENT WAS NEUTRALIZATION, NOT GENDER IDENTIFICATION, AND THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO I CAN SAY THAT AND I CAN SAY THAT WE MADE CERTAIN THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW. THE REST IS UP TO YOU.

THANK YOU, JUDITH. WHENEVER I FIRST READ THIS AGENDA ITEM, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH GENDER.

I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH NEUTRALITY LIKE JUST MIDDLE OF THE ROAD NOT ASSIGNING LIKE SAYING THIS IS MAN'S POSITION OR A WOMAN'S POSITION OR A BINARY POSITION, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. THAT'S NOT HOW I READ IT.

I READ IT AS JUST.

TAKING HE OR SHE OUT OF IT.

NOT CLAIMING EITHER ONE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM.

BUT I MEAN, I DON'T I THINK THIS IS MOVING FORWARD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE WORK'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE JUST STARTING SOMETHING OR THE CITY STAFF HASN'T DONE THE LEGWORK.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW MY FEELINGS AREN'T HURT BY IT.

I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN TOWN OR BOOTH ON THE FACT THAT BEING THIS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT AND I WOULD LIKE AND I UNDERSTAND, I AGREE THAT SOME OF THE WORDING WHEN YOU TRY TO TAKE OUT CERTAIN WORDS AND PUT THEM IN WITH OTHERS, IT DOESN'T FLOW THE SAME WAY.

SO I MEAN, I'M NOT IN A POSITION WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE ADOPTING THIS TONIGHT, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION AND MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECTED THE WAY WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT BECAUSE IT IS OUR OUR CODE INSTEAD OF OUR CITY. NOT SOME PUSH DOWN FROM MUNICIPAL CODE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, OUR LAWYERS ARE GOING TO REVIEW IT AND THEY'VE DONE THEIR JOB AND DUE DILIGENCE. BUT IT THAT'S WHERE IT NEEDS OUR SET OF EYES A LITTLE BIT MORE.

[00:20:01]

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF SECTIONS IN THIS, IT APPEARS THAT THEY ALREADY TRIED TO MAKE IT GENDER NEUTRAL BECAUSE IT SAYS HE SHE HIM, HER HIS HER VARIOUSLY THOUGHT, NOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, BUT SOME OF IT WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

I DON'T KNOW. PROBABLY JUST BECAUSE I ASSUME BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, ADD IT ON OR, YOU KNOW, IF WE CLEAN UP A CODE AT SOME POINT, WE PROBABLY UPDATE AT THAT POINT.

WELL, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AT THE TABLE, AND I'M KIND OF LIKE COUNCILMAN GONGORA WHEN I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS BEING OFFENSIVE.

I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS BEING ANYTHING.

I DO REALIZE THAT.

I MEAN, WE DO HAVE MANY FEMALES THAT WORK HERE, MANY MEN THAT WORK HERE.

I THINK ALMOST HALF OF OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE FEMALES.

AND SO I THINK TO ME, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT AND SAW IT, IT WAS JUST MAKING EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD, SO TO SPEAK.

YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN THE CITY, WE DO TALK, WE DO SAY A POLICEMAN VERSUS MAYBE A POLICE OFFICER OR FIREMAN VERSUS FIREFIGHTER.

IF THERE IS ALTERNATIVES.

RIGHT? BUT, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY DIDN'T TAKE IT AS BEING OFFENSIVE OR TAKING A STANCE, IF YOU WILL. IT'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT LEVEL ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND I DO SEE SOMETIMES WHERE WE HAVE SAID HE WHEN IT WAS ACCORDING TO A SHE.

WE HAVE DONE THAT. AND I THINK LIKE SOMEBODY JUST SAID AS WE CLEANED ITEMS UP OR NEW THINGS CAME ON BOARD, WE PROBABLY MADE IT, WHEREAS THE HIM AND THE SHOWED UP OR THE HE OR SHE SHOWED UP. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT STAFF WAS LOOKING AT THAT AND TO MR. TOWNSEND POSITION AS WELL.

YEAH, IT'S IT'S OUT THERE.

IT'S NOT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

BUT YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST THINKING, THINKING THE CITY STAFF ARE KIND OF GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF IT BEFORE.

IT MAY HAVE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT CERTAIN THINGS AGAIN.

SO I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT Y'ALL DID AND COUNCIL.

WELL, CERTAINLY IF WE WANT TO TABLE THIS AND PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE MEAT INTO IT, A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERSIGHT, A LITTLE BIT MORE REVIEW, I'M CERTAINLY GAME FOR THAT AS WELL.

JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

PLACE OUR COMMENTS LET STAFF HEAR IT AND THEN GO WITH ANOTHER PATH FORWARD IF NEED BE.

I HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

I DON'T, I'M ONE PERSON.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TABLE IT.

I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT.

I THINK ANY MORE TIME THAT WE SPENT ON IT IS TIME THAT WE COULD USE SPENT BETTER ELSE.

AND I'M JUST BEING HONEST.

SO IF I LOSE MY VOTE, THAT'S FINE.

Y'ALL CAN VOTE, HOWEVER.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DO OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL VOTES.

BUT I THINK ANY MORE TIME SPENT DEBATING THIS ISSUE TO GO TO A COUNCIL, TO GO TO A WORKSHOP, TO HAVE SOME ATTORNEY PRESENT, IT'S JUST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE TIME THAT WE HAVE IN HERE BEFORE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE WAITING PATIENTLY TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. ALRIGHT COUNCIL WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER TWO AT THE TABLE.

WE CAN EITHER MOVE FORWARD OR IT CAN DIE FROM LACK OF MOTION.

COUNCIL. GOING ONCE.

I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER TWO, I FIND IT.

UH. YEAH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20191112-014 AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF ANGLETON, TEXAS, TO MODIFY ALL MASCULINE AND FEMALE LANGUAGE TO GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUNS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA, IS THERE A SECOND? I THINK THAT'S AN INCORRECT ORDINANCE, NUMBER THAT WAS RECITED.

IN THE, HE SAID IT RIGHT 014, AT LEAST THE ONE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S NOT ITEM 14 ON THE AGENDA AND TODAY IS NOT THE 12TH OF NOVEMBER THE AGENDA SUMMARY FORM THAT HE READ IS THE ONE HE READ, SO

[00:25:08]

. COUNCILMAN GONGORA, DO YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO REFLECT WHAT ITEM NUMBER TWO STATES ON THE AGENDA? YEAH. YES.

OK. HAVE A MOTION TO REFLECT THE MOTION HAS PRESENTED ON ITEM NUMBER TWO AS PRESENTED BY OUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? HEARING THAT MOTION DOES NOT CARRY, MOVING RIGHT ALONG, ITEM GO INTO OUR REGULAR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS. NUMBER NINE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER

[9. Conduct a public hearing, discussion and possible action on Resolution No. 20211109-009 electing to participate in tax abatement agreements and setting guidelines.]

20211109-009 ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS AND SET SETTING GUIDELINES. WHO IS THAT? CHRIS, IS THAT CHARLES, NUMBER NINE? OH, WE NEED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING.

YEAH. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE ARE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER NINE.

IS THERE ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER NINE? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

NUMBER TWO, GOING TO THE PODIUM.

NUMBER THREE. ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE ON THE PART ABOUT EITHER A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION.

GO AHEAD, MR. CHRIS. OKAY.

OUR CURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE TAX ABATEMENTS HAS EXPIRED.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE RENEW THOSE.

JUST ANY FUTURE AGREEMENTS WOULD STILL COME TO COUNCIL.

BUT THIS WOULD GIVE THE STAFF GUIDELINES ON THE PROCESS AND IT WOULD SET, YOU KNOW, SET THE BASIC RULES FOR FUTURE TAX ABATEMENTS.

IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED.

AND THE OTHER IN 312 DOES REQUIRE THAT WE APPROVE IT SINCE IT HAS EXPIRED.

AND THE ONE THING THAT IS WE WILL RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS IT WAS BEFORE AND SET THE SAME GUIDELINES.

THE ONLY CHANGE WOULD BE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO THE TAA COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD BE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR.

AND BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A COMMITTEE, IF WE DON'T, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY 312.

WE COULD JUST ASSIGN IT TO SAY THE CITY MANAGER, AND HE BRINGS, YOU KNOW, THOSE ITEMS TO COUNCIL. OR WE COULD KEEP IT LIKE IT IS AND NOT HAVE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OR WE COULD, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT LIKE IT IS AND ADD THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO THE COMMITTEE, THE CURRENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.

WHAT'S THAT? I WAS GOING TO ASK..

WHO ARE THE CURRENT MEMBERS, RIGHT? IT IS THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S ASSIGNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THREE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ACTUALLY DO BUSINESS IN THE CITY AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY, THEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

SO THERE'S EIGHT MEMBERS NOW.

WE WOULD JUST ADD A NIGHT IF WE WANTED SOMEBODY FROM FINANCE ON THE ON THE ON THE COMMITTEE. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE BUSINESS, I DON'T THINK UM...

SO ISN'T THERE JUST ONE TAX ABATEMENT RIGHT NOW? IS THERE MORE? WELL, WE HAVE TERMS, NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY A TAX ABATEMENT, AND WE HAVE THE 380 AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THESE.

WE HAVE THE INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS AND INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD THEY FALL IN THIS.

THERE'S THEY'RE SIMILAR, BUT BECAUSE THEY DO ALLOW.

BUT THEY'RE ALREADY THERE OUTSIDE THE CITY SO THAT RIGHT NOW THEY THEY WOULDN'T BE HAVE ANY TAXES. SO WE'RE NOT REALLY EVADING TAXES THERE.

AND IN TERS, WE HAVE A TERS BOARD, BOARD RIGHT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST THE THREE M AND THAT'S IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GIVE [INAUDIBLE]

[00:30:04]

DOESN'T HAVE A TAX EVASION.

HE JUST HAS A 380 AGREEMENT.

CORRECT. WELL, HE HAS A 380 AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS.

OK. OK.

I'D BE CURIOUS TO GET A FOLLOW UP ON WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE THREE M, SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT ONE? YEAH, YEAH.

JUST FOR FYI. OKAY.

A MEMO FROM Y'ALL. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE TONIGHT AND ADOPTION AND DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND DO AN APPOINTMENT FOR THESE SLOTS FOR TONIGHT? WAS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS WELL? WELL, TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING TO JUST APPROVE THE RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN REESTABLISH THE GUIDELINES. AND IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE'LL BRING BACK UP TO THE NEXT TO ANOTHER NEXT AGENDA OR WHENEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, AND THEY WOULD APPOINT THE MEMBERS.

I RECOMMEND AT THIS POINT WE DON'T APPOINT ANYONE UNTIL WE HAVE SOME ACTION AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS.

OKAY. OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, WHAT IS Y'ALL'S PLEASURE? WE'LL MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20211109-009 TO PARTICIPATE IN TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS, SET NEW GUIDELINES AND ADD, WAIT A MINUTE AND ADD NEW OR NOT.

DO WE WANT TO ADD A FINANCE PERSON OR NOT? OH, AND THEN IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT ON THERE.

DO WE, BE BEST THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL THAT HE GETS ADDED, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT TONIGHT. IT'S IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO IF YOU PASS THE RESOLUTION, IT'LL BE DONE.

OK, AND ADD FINANCE DIRECTOR TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.

ALL RIGHT, SECOND THE MOTION.

YOU SECOND. HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? JUST ONCE AGAIN, IF WE CAN JUST GET A FOLLOW UP ON THREE M AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.

THAT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE WE PROBABLY VISITED THAT ONE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CHRIS.

THANK YOU. NUMBER 10, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE OR ACTION ON

[10. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on Ordinance No. 20211109-010 rezoning 35.89 acres from Chapter 28, Zoning, Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-57 C-G - Commercial-General District to Chapter 28 Zoning, Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-52 MFR-29 Multifamily Residential-29 District (Apartments) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton, Texas; providing a severability clause; providing for a penalty; and providing for repeal and an effective date.]

ORDINANCE NUMBER 20211109-010 REZONING 35.89 ACRES FROM CHAPTER TWENTY EIGHT ZONING ARTICLE THREE, ZONING DISTRICT SECTION 28-57 CG ALSO KNOWN AS COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TWO, CHAPTER TWENTY EIGHT ZONING ARTICLE THREE ZONING DISTRICT SECTION 28-52, MFR-29 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL-29 DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS DEPARTMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SO NOW WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A QUICK BRIEF MS. LINDSAY? GO AHEAD.

YES, MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A QUICK BRIEF.

ONE OF THE MISTAKES I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO IN CREATING THE AGENDA ITEM IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP.

MR. WYNNE, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE FIFTY FOUR OF THE PACKET, WHICH IS THE SURVEY, THAT'S A, THAT'S THE REALISTIC REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL AREA THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT IN THE ELONGATED RED RECTANGLE.

THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY NEAREST, IT'S APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES OF THAT APPROXIMATE 40 ACRES NEAREST SH35 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REZONING REQUEST.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. OK.

MR. MAYOR I MOVE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I SECOND THE MOTION.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 10.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON [INAUDIBLE] NUMBER 10, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME. YES, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, CHRIS.

CHRIS PELTIER. ALL RIGHT.

AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, I LEARNED TO SAY Y'ALL INSTEAD OF THEY OR HE OR SHE, SO THAT WILL HELP WHEN Y'ALL GET THERE.

I SPOKE AT THE P&Z ABOUT THIS.

I WAS JUST CONCERNED WITH THE SIZE OF THE TRACK BEING PROBABLY 30 ACRES OF THAT WOULD BE CONCRETE SINCE IT'S A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX.

SO MY CONCERN WAS DITCHED END BECAUSE ITS CAPACITY IS LIMITED AND THAT RUNS IN A DITCHED END OUT TOWARD WHERE RUDY SANTOS LIVES.

SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN THEN.

BUT SOMEBODY REACHED OUT TO ME TODAY WITH CONCERNS THAT LIVES ON WESTERN AVENUE, AND THEY ASKED ME IF I COULD SAY SOMETHING AND THE CONVERSATION, BASICALLY, THAT WOULD BE THE BY

[00:35:01]

FAR MANY TIMES THE SIZE OF ANY CURRENT APARTMENT COMPLEX WE HAVE.

THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING ON TO THE HIGHWAY RIGHT THERE CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION WAS KIND OF PROBLEMATIC.

AND WHAT THE CONVERSATION WENT IS THEY CAN'T TURN TO THE LEFT AGAINST THE LANE OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT RIGHT THERE, SO THEY HAVE TO TURN RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL.

WE ALREADY KNOW WHO THE PROBLEM SCHOOL HAS, TXDOT HAS THERE, SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AND IN HER CONVERSATION WAS EITHER MAKE A U-TURN, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WORK ON HIGHWAY 288 OR YOU TAKE THE FIRST EXIT FROM THE CENTER TURNING LANE WHICH IS WESTERN AVENUE AND CONCERNED WAS IT PUT A LOT OF CARS IN THE WESTERN AVENUE AND IF THEY FILLED THIS UP WITH A DENSITY, THEY CAN.

YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE 1000, 2000 CARS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LEVELS IT'LL BE, AND WESTERN AVENUE DOESN'T HAVE THE WIDTH FOR THAT. EITHER THAT OR THEY FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO TURN AROUND IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO WORK. SO THAT WAS CONVEYED TO ME BY TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE A DAY, SO I JUST TOLD THEM I WOULD SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER 10? COME ON UP, SIR. WE ALL KNOW YOU AS WELL BUT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

MY NAME IS BOB PELTIER, AND I REPRESENT ANGLETON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.

WE OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.

I'M NOT TOO THRILLED ABOUT SEEING APARTMENTS THERE.

I CHECKED WITH SOME APARTMENT GURUS IN HOUSTON AND THEY SAID NO IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HELP YOUR PROPERTY VALUE MORE THAN HURT IT.

BUT I HAD TALKED TO SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN THE HERITAGE OAKS SUBDIVISIONS.

WE'VE GOT SOME, YOU KNOW, PRETTY FINE PEOPLE THAT'S RETIRED OUT THERE.

THEY WERE BUSINESS COMMUNITY LEADERS HERE IN THE PAST, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY CHOSE TO RETIRE. BUT MANY OF THEM ARE VERY CONCERNED.

I KNOW ONE IN PARTICULAR WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TONIGHT IF HE COULD HAVE HIS NAME'S WAYNE OSWALD. THIS CAME UP YEARS AGO ABOUT PUTTING APARTMENTS IN THIS SAME PROPERTY.

I'M GLAD THAT SOME OF YOU REMEMBER BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID HE WAS TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER, BUT. OK, THANKS.

YEAH, THEY MENTIONED YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

THAT'S GOOD. I'M GLAD YOU REMEMBER, BUT IT WASN'T REAL POPULAR BACK THEN.

MY APARTMENT FRIEND IN HOUSTON, HE OWNS THOUSANDS OF COMPLEXES, BUT HE SAID IF IT ENDS UP BEING, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN KINDS OF APARTMENTS, THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT WHAT GOES ON OVER THERE. AND IT MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE FOR THAT END OF TOWN WHERE WE HAVE THE BEST HOUSES IN ANGLETON REALLY.

I JUST HAD TO SAY, WHERE ELSE IN ANGLETON WOULD WE HAVE A FUTURE WHERE THEY COME OFF THE FREEWAY OR THIRTY FIVE AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN APARTMENTS TO COME INTO TOWN TO SEE? YOU KNOW, I THINK UTMB'S BOUGHT ALMOST TWO HUNDRED ACRES ON THE CORNER ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S JUST UNBELIEVABLE POTENTIAL FOR WHAT GOES ON THERE TO TAKE A QUICK BUCK NOW AND PUT APARTMENTS THERE.

I THINK IT WOULD, I DON'T THINK IT'D BE THE BEST MOVE FOR FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

I'M PERSONALLY AGAINST IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER 10? SECOND TIME, THIRD TIME.

COUNCIL.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOONE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE HAVE NOW CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE 20211109-010, MS. LINDSAY ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? ALL THAT I REALLY HAVE TO ADD IS THAT PLANNING AND ZONING DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

SIX IN APPROVAL, ONE ABSENT, ZERO OPPOSED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, THIS IS SIMPLY A REZONING.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PLANS, NO SCHEMATICS.

THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, INCLUDING THE DRAINING, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS WILL BE FULLY VETTED DURING THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST TO REZONE THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

OK? MY QUESTION IS WHY, WHY ARE WE HERE? WELL, BECAUSE WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM AN APPLICANT TO REZONE THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WHY AREN'T THEY HERE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US TO CHANGE.

I AGREE WITH MR. BOB PELTIER, BUT ALSO AGREE WITH THE OTHER PELTIER.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US TO CHANGE WHAT COULD BE A MAJOR BUSINESS INTERSECTION TO A

[00:40:04]

APARTMENT COMPLEX, NOT AGAINST APARTMENT COMPLEXES, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GREAT LOCATION. YOU SHOULD BE HERE AND THEN YOU WANT TO DO IT BLIND WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION.

I DON'T. I MEAN, I GUESS I THINK WE'RE DESPERATE.

I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF INSULTING, HONESTLY.

SO COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND ALL I CAN REALLY SAY TO THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THEIR MOTIVATIONS OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S ON THEIR APPLICATION.

BUT I CAN SAY IT IS CONGRUENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS ALSO REALLY OLD, BY THE WAY.

IT MAY BE SOMETHING TO RECONSIDER AT THAT LOCATION BECAUSE I COMPLETELY AGREE IF WE'RE BUILDING A HOSPITAL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE OR AT LEAST A COMPLEX OF SOME SORT.

THE INTERSECTION ITSELF IS GOING TO BE, I'M ALREADY THINKING, IT'S 518.

YES, 288.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE.

AND IF WE I JUST DON'T SEE THAT JUST WORKING, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO COME SELL IT TO US AND THERE'S NOT ANYBODY HERE TO SELL IT TO US.

I DON'T KNOW HOW SERIOUS YOU ARE ABOUT YOUR PRODUCT IF YOU'RE NOT EVEN MORE AND WE'RE NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. THIS MR. BOB PELTIER MADE A GOOD POINT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD APPROVE REZONING SOMETHING TO A MANUFACTURER OR NOT MANUFACTURER, BUT A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WITHOUT THE PLANS AND AND NO GOOD IDEA WHEN THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED BEFORE AND FAILED.

AND I TO ME, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY IT MIGHT BE IN THE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THAT TO ME, IN THE CITY, FOR THE MOST PART, I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS BEEN LOOKED AT AS PRIME COMMERCIAL AND I WOULD NEVER WANT TO REZONE SOMETHING FROM A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY TO MULTIFAMILY WITHOUT SEEING PLANS AND SEEING SOMETHING I WOULD NEVER PUT THAT RECOMMENDATION BEFORE ANYONE ELSE.

SO IT DOESN'T SPELL IT OUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THAT'S WHAT IT'S USED FOR.

IT JUST SAYS THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE APPROPRIATE USES, BUT AGAIN, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED IT.

IT IS STAFF RECOMMENDED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN.

BUT IT'S A, IT'S YOU GUYS CALL.

WE'LL TAG ON TO WHAT COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND WAS BRINGING UP.

WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER WHOSE LAST NAME IS RON.

APPLICANT'S NAME IS GUERRIERO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS THE PERSON WHO'S BEEN ASSIGNED BY MR. RON TO TO REPRESENT MR. RON, OR IF HE JUST SOME GUY OFF THE STREET THAT FILLED OUT THIS APPLICATION.

BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL WITH THE SAME, THE SAME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

NO IT SAYS THE APPLICANT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OWNER.

RIGHT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I EXPLAINED TO PLANNING AND ZONING WAS THAT IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO MATERIALIZE AT WHATEVER POINT THERE WITH THIS IDEA DOING A MULTIFAMILY 29, THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY MORE THAN TWENTY NINE UNITS PER ACRE.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME.

DRIVEWAY SPACING FOR ONE, GETTING A TXDOT PERMIT FOR TWO.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON.

BUT IF WE REZONE IT AND THEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME ALONG, WE'VE BASICALLY CLOSED THAT DOOR OFF TO THEM.

HAVE THEY NOT? I MEAN, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF US REZONING IT BACK TO COMMERCIAL? CORRECT.

IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A GOOD GOOD.

I WOULD RATHER SOMEBODY COME IN WITH A HARD CONCRETE PLAN AND OK, IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LIVE WITH AND STOMACH VERSUS SHUTTING THE DOOR ON COMMERCIAL AND SOMEBODY SNIFFING AROUND IN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN ANGLETON, TEXAS.

AND THEY'RE LIKE, MAN, THIS LOCATION IS GREAT, BUT I SEE IT ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET IT TO COMMERCIAL? I JUST IT'S WE'RE TRYING.

WELL, I MEAN, IT'S DEBATE UPON I MEAN, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYBE DIFFERENT MEMBERS HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE JUST A BEDROOM COMMUNITY.

WE WANT THERE TO BE SOME BUSINESS.

WE WANT THERE TO BE AVAILABILITY IN THE CITY FOR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN BUSINESSES, WHETHER IT'S SMALL BUSINESS OR MAYBE ONE DAY WE'RE LUCKY AND BLESSED WITH THE NEXT DELL.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, OR THE NEXT AMAZON, BUT I WOULD HAVE CLOSED OFF THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT. I MEAN, I AGREE THAT DEVELOPERS PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT DEVELOPING, COME TELL US WHAT YOU'RE DOING, INSTEAD OF HAVING US, GUESS WHAT THE WORST CASE IT COULD BE OR WHATEVER.

[00:45:03]

IT'S NOT SIMPLY JUST A REZONE, ONCE IT'S RE ZONED, IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR A LOT OF ANYBODY ELSE. IF THEY IF THEIR PLAN DOESN'T WORK, THEN THEY GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WILL TRY.

I WOULD RATHER JUST SEE THIS STAY COMMERCIAL.

AND I DO HAVE TO AGREE ON SEVERAL OF THE TALKING POINTS THAT YOU KNOW WE HAVE DEVELOPERS COMING HERE WHO ARE FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET A DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY AND WE HAVE ONE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT AND OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE MAYBE DONE A LITTLE BIT OF HOMEWORK TO FIGURE OUT KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT AS FAR AS OUR COMMUNITY'S INVOLVED.

I WAS HERE WHEN THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHICH IS CALLED KOSTA CLEMENTE AND RICHWOOD NOW, CLUTE, I'M SORRY IT'S IN CLUTE.

I WAS HERE AND I REMEMBER THAT BATTLE THAT KIND OF WENT ON.

CALL IT WHAT IT IS. IT WAS IT WAS A BATTLE.

BUT BUT I'M ON THE SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, LIKE TRAVIS SAID, OR YOU OPEN THE DOOR NOW.

HAVE WE CLOSED THE DOOR? HAVE WE OPENED IT UP AS WRIGHT SAID? YOU KNOW, IF IT DOESN'T WORK, SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN, THEN WHAT WE GET.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF IN THAT SAME BOAT.

THEY BROUGHT US THE PACKAGE.

WE OPENED IT, BUT NOW WE CAN'T ENJOY THE PACKAGE OF WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

SO I'M KIND OF I THINK THE SENTIMENT FOR ME IS IT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST RIGHT NOW IN THAT AREA. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? NO, THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM, SO IF ANYBODY SO CHOOSES? FEEL FREE TO MAKE A MOTION.

GOING ONCE. TWICE, THREE TIMES AND NO LACK, THEREFORE, NO MOTION WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER. MR. MAYOR. YES. I WANT TO GET LEGAL OPINION.

IF WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS, CAN IT COME RIGHT BACK TO US AND IF WE TAKE ACTION NOW AND NOT APPROVE IT IS THERE A DIFFERENCE THAT? OK. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

I SECOND.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE'VE HEARD IT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.

THAT THE MOTION IS TO DENY THAT THE REZONE? DENIES THE REZONE. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES TO DENY.

THANK YOU, MS. LINDSEY. ITEM NUMBER 11, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON LIVING ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY WITHIN

[Items 11 & 12]

THE GRAYSTONE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS PID, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 372.

NEED A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

MAKE A MOTION OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER 11.

FIRST, ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF MY NAME IS TIM GREEN, I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE COATES ROSE LAW FIRM AND I'M REPRESENTING MR. RIDGE APLIN, HIS COMPANY GRAYSTONE ANGLETON LLC, WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER FOR THE CREATION OF THE PID.

HE'S THE DEVELOPER OF THE PID.

HE IS ALSO A HOMEBUILDER WITHIN THE PID, AND I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO STEP UP HERE IN A MINUTE. AND I THINK WHAT HE'S GOING TO TELL YOU, I ASSUME WHAT YOU'D NEED TO HEAR IT FROM HIM IS THAT WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE WHAT I CALL THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON BETWEEN HIM AND THE CITY FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THAT HE IS GOING TO STATE THAT HE'S IN FAVOR OF YOU ALL ADOPTING THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS.

HE ALSO HAS HIS CONSULTANT SCOTT BEAN HERE, WHO'S BEEN WORKING WITH HIM FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND I THINK SCOTT'S GOING TO GET UP AND AND SAY THE SAME THING.

BUT I THINK WHAT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND I'M ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS THAT IS THAT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING OR DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS IT UNDER ITEM 12? AND I ASSUME YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, THE FACT THAT THERE ISN'T ONE THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED YET AND THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.

SO IS THAT IS THAT A TOPIC THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING WHEN

[00:50:04]

YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE LEVYING OF THE ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER.

SO I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN.

DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT UNDER THIS ITEM 11 OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO HEAR THAT PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR OF THESE ASSESSMENTS AND THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER BY YOUR PID ADMINISTRATOR? AND THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT UP UNDER ITEM 12.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NUMBER 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE CAN ALLOW FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST FOR THAT ITEM AND THEN THE NUTS AND BOLTS WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY TALK BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PEOPLE AT THE PODIUM.

WE'RE PROBABLY BEST SUITED ON ITEM 12.

OK, THEN LET ME GET MY FOLKS UP HERE TO SAY THAT THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF PUTTING TOGETHER THIS ASSESSMENT PLAN AND THAT WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, MR. RIDGE, I DO HAVE YOU HERE AND MR. BEAN AS WELL, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. IF I TIM ON THIS, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS I'M APPROVING THE ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR PROPOSAL IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSMENTS WE'RE PROPOSING.

MAKE SURE I'M DOING IT RIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

HI, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

I'VE SEEN Y'ALL QUITE A FEW TIMES BEFORE.

I'VE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN THAT THREE PUT TOGETHER, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED WHEN THE PID WAS SET UP IN 2020.

SO ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT NUMBER 11, ON, FOR OR AGAINST EITHER NUMBER 11? LESS, SECOND CALL, THIRD CALL.

COUNCIL. SO MAYOR, I MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

2ND.

HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGNS.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE HAVE NOW CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW THAT MOVES US RIGHT ALONG INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. NUMBER 12, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 20211109-012 DETERMINING COST OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GRAYSTONE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS A PID, APPROVING A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLE AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

STAFF, OR SOMEBODY WANT TO KICK IT OFF OR CHRIS OR THIS CHRIS. SO THERE'S A PROPOSED PID THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK A YEAR OR SO AGO, AND WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS A STAFF TO MOVE THIS FORWARD BECAUSE Y'ALL APPROVED IT.

WE WE HAVE A HICCUP AND THE HICCUP IS THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. AND SO THE PID IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO FUND THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN GET DONE SO THE CITY CAN ACCEPT THEM.

AND SO THEY'RE THE CITY'S, IT'S THE CITY'S UTILITIES RIGHT NOW.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND UNDER A BOND PID, IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY AND UNDER A CASH BID, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT WE'VE REVIEWED THIS WITH OUR BOND ATTORNEY AND OUR ATTORNEY AND.

YOU KNOW, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE BID.

GOT YOU. OK.

[INAUDIBLE] WE'RE JUST GOING TO HOLD IT FOR RIGHT THERE BECAUSE I DO WANT TO GIVE THE GENTLEMAN THEY ASK TO SPEAK AS WELL, SO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

OK, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND COME RIGHT BACK.

SO MR. GREEN, IF YOU WANT TO COME ON BACK AND THEN WILL GIVE MR. APLIN THE OPPORTUNITY AND THEN MR. BEAN THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL.

THE TERM THAT THERE'S A HICCUP, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH PIDS FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS, AND IT IS AN INDUSTRY THAT'S GONE FROM BEING ZERO 12 YEARS AGO TO BEING A SIGNIFICANT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLAR

[00:55:04]

INDUSTRY. AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GROWING PAINS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THEM, AND THAT'S PEOPLE BOTH ON THE CITY SIDE AND ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE.

AND THIS ISSUE THAT YOU ALL ARE DEALING WITH TONIGHT, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE.

AND WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS THE WAY WE HANDLED IT BEFORE IS WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED TO THE CITY, AND I'LL GO OVER THAT WITH YOU IN A MINUTE.

BUT THE ISSUE THAT HAS ARISEN IS THAT AND THERE'S NO REASON TO GO INTO ALL THE WHYS AND THE WHAT FORS, LET'S JUST WRITE IT OFF TO A LEARNING PROCESS.

AND THAT IS THAT THIS THIS PID WAS CONCEPTUALIZED TWO YEARS AGO, WAS CREATED A YEAR AND A HALF, THE NORMAL PROCESSES FOR GETTING ALL THE PAPERWORK IN PLACE, JUST DRUG OUT AND DRUG OUT AND DRUG OUT.

AND I'M SURE THAT'S PART YOU'VE CHANGED OVER CITY MANAGERS.

I KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT, GRADY RANDALL WAS HANDLING YOUR WORK.

NOW JUDITH IS YOU'VE HAD SOME NEW CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE AND ON AND ON AND ON.

THERE PROBABLY REASONS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE THAT WHAT COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO DRUG OUT.

AND SO I THINK THE QUESTION THAT REALLY COMES BEFORE THE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IS, DO YOU ALL WANT TO WORK WITH US TO HONOR THE DEAL THAT WAS STRUCK TWO YEARS, 18 MONTHS AGO? OR DO WE WANT TO BREAK DOWN AND ARGUE OVER LAWYERS ARGUING AND DISAGREEING OVER, YOU KNOW, DETAILS OF THE LAW, IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT? AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND YOUR BOND COUNSEL HAVE ONE OPINION.

I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.

I WOULD CONCEDE TO THEM THAT THAT WE'RE IN A GRAY AREA.

YET I THINK THEIR RESPONSE IS, OH NO, THAT'S BLACK AND WHITE.

I WOULD TELL YOU IT'S NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING BLACK AND WHITE.

SO YOU'VE GOT TWO GROUPS OF LAWYERS WHO DISAGREE, AND THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

BUT AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO DO YOU ALL IS BUSINESS.

PEOPLE WANT TO HONOR THE DEAL THAT WAS STRUCK, YOU KNOW, 18 MONTHS AGO AND AND CARRY IT THROUGH. AND IF SO, LET US TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO IN OUR MINDS, ELIMINATE THE RISK.

IF YOU'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE RISK, WE'RE MINIMIZING THE RISK.

AND IF THERE IS A RISK, WE'VE AGREED TO INDEMNIFY YOU AND HOLD YOU HARMLESS FROM IT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

AND THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE, AS YOUR CITY MANAGER SAID, IS IS THAT THIS THING TOOK SO LONG TO GET PAPERED UP THAT MR. APLIN PROCEEDED WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT, REACHED, YOU KNOW, REACHED OUT TO THE CITY AND ASKED YOU TO CREATE THE PYD, WHICH YOU DID.

AND THEN WHEN MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PAPERWORK ON IT, HE PROCEEDED FORWARD SIMULTANEOUSLY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, AND HE GOT THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED BEFORE THE PAPERWORK GOT DONE.

AND SO WITH THE, YOU KNOW, TACIT AGREEMENT OF THE CITY HE COMPLETED IT, RECORDED HIS PLAT. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE IS HE RECORDED HIS PLAT AND ALL THIS WHILE HE WAS ASKING THE CITY WE NEED TO GET THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT DONE WE NEED TO GET THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT DONE. IT NEVER GOT DONE.

AND SO NOW AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, WE SAY, OK, WE NEED TO GET THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT DONE BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS.

WE'RE HERE TO WRAP THIS UP.

AND THEN THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS, WHICH I PROBABLY GIVE CREDIT TO MR. SNYDER, WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME AND HAVE DEALT WITH HIM IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. I'M SURE HE POINTED OUT TO THE CITY, HEY, THERE'S THIS ISSUE HERE, AND THE WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT IS THERE IS AN ISSUE AS TO ENTERING INTO A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONVEYED TO THE CITY.

AND WHAT MR. SNYDER WAS REFERRING BACK TO WAS A LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY AN ATTORNEY, THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE SECTION AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT SAYS, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THESE STATUTES ANEW IN 2009, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS FIRST COMING ABOUT.

AND THE LAWYER AT THE PUBLIC FINANCE SECTION SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING BRING A BOND ISSUE THROUGH OUR OFFICE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE BEFORE THE FACILITIES ARE CONVEYED TO THE CITY.

[01:00:03]

NOW THAT'S HER LETTER.

THAT'S HER OPINION.

I WOULD TELL YOU IT'S NOT IN THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PID STATUTE THAT SAYS THAT THERE ARE NO COURT CASES ON IT THAT SAY THAT THAT'S HER INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

I WILL TELL YOU, I'VE INTERFACED WITH HER AND HER DEPARTMENT ON PIDS AND THE OTHER MATTERS, AND THEY TAKE POSITIONS THAT ARE THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW.

THEY ARE NOT THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

BUT THOSE OF US WHO ARE PROCESSING BOND ISSUES THROUGH HER DEPARTMENT.

YOUR CHOICE IS YOU, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH HER OR SHE'S NOT GOING TO APPROVE IT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WE'VE GOT LAWYERS ON DIFFERENT SIDES WHO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND WE'RE ARGUING OVER IT. SO THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH YOUR STAFF IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN CONVEY THE FACILITIES BEFORE YOU ENTER INTO THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO LAW THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T TURN TO IT.

IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

IT IS LAWYERS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW.

NOW, THE SECOND ISSUE THAT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH THE CITY STAFF IS HAVE THE FACILITIES BEEN CONVEYED TO THE CITY? WHEN I FIRST HEARD THE CITY'S POSITION THAT WHAT YOU'VE CONVEYED THEM TO THE CITY, MY ASSUMPTION WAS IS THAT IT ALL TIED INTO THE RECORDING OF THE PLAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY KEPT SAYING AS WELL YOU RECORDED THE PLAT.

AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WHY DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A CONVEYANCE OF THE FACILITIES? AND IF YOU GO READ THE PLAT, THE ONLY THING THAT I COULD COME UP WITH AT THE TIME WAS, WELL, YOU DO CONVEY THE ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY TO THE CITY.

AND WHEN YOU CONVEY THE ROAD RIGHTS AWAY TO THE CITY, THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDING ARE FIXTURES TO THE ROAD.

AND SO THEREFORE THEY GO WITH THE ROAD.

BUT AS I LOOKED INTO IT IN MORE DETAIL AND GOT OUT MY SPYGLASS AND SQUINTED AT THE AT THE PLAT, THE PLAT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ROADS ARE CONVEYED TO THE CITY.

THE PLAT SAYS THAT THE ROADS ARE CONVEYED AND FEE FOR PUBLIC USE.

IT NEVER SPECIFIES AS TO WHOM THE ROADS ARE CONVEYED.

THERE IS NO DOC.

THERE IS NO DEED CONVEYING THE ROADS TO THE CITY.

THEY'RE JUST CONVEYED TO THE PUBLIC.

AND I WORK IN A LAW FIRM THAT'S GOT HALF A DOZEN LAWYERS WHO DO NOTHING BUT REAL ESTATE.

SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR 50 YEARS, AND I WENT AROUND TO THE LAWYERS AND I SAID, IF THE IF CAN YOU CONVEY A ROAD BY PLAT? CAN YOU CONVEY FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE ROAD BY PLAT? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY CAN REALLY GIVE YOU A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT.

I'VE HEARD LAWYERS WHO SAY NO.

I'VE HEARD LAWYERS IS KIND OF SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS AND GO, WELL, MAYBE.

AND THEN YOU ASK THEM, CAN YOU CONVEY FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE PUBLIC? WHO ARE YOU GIVING IT TO YOU, GIVING IT TO THE CITY OR YOU? YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? THE COMMON LANGUAGE THAT I'M USED TO SEEING IS YOU GIVE AN EASEMENT TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEN ALL THE PUBLIC ENTITIES CAN UTILIZE THE EASEMENT.

SO THERE'S AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE CONVEYED THE ROADS.

HAS HE CONVEYED THE ROADS TO THE CITY? SO I MENTIONED THAT TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THEN I GOT BACK A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CITY HAS ACCEPTED THE ROADS FOR MAINTENANCE. WELL, AGAIN, THERE'S NO BILL OF SALE OF THE ROAD TO THE CITY.

AND THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON IS FOR A DEVELOPER IF HE'S CONVEYING FACILITIES TO A CITY TO DO A BILL OF SALE OR TO DO A CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT, WE DO THEM ALL THE TIME.

THERE IS NO CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT.

THERE IS NO BILL OF SALE SPECIFICALLY CONVEYING THOSE ROADS TO THE CITY.

ALL THE PLAT SAYS, IS THAT THEY WERE CONVEYED TO THE PUBLIC.

SO WE DON'T THINK NECESSARILY, A, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE BEFORE YOU MAKE THE CONVEYANCE OR B, THAT YOU ACTUALLY HE ACTUALLY DID MAKE A CONVEYANCE. AND SO WE THINK YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND ENTER INTO A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HIM. AND WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS WITH THE STAFF, WE SAID AND I RECOUNTED MY PREVIOUS PROBLEM WITH ANOTHER CITY WHERE THIS CAME UP AND WE SAID WE WOULD COME IN HERE AND WE'LL INDEMNIFY THE CITY OVER THE LIFE OF THE ASSESSMENTS THAT IF ANYBODY EVER CHALLENGES THEM OR SUES THE CITY, WE'LL INDEMNIFY THE CITY AND HOLD THEM HARMLESS.

AND YOUR LAWYERS LOOKED AT IT, THEY HAD SOME COMMENTS ON THE LANGUAGE AND WE SAID, OK, WE'LL ACCOMMODATE THAT LANGUAGE.

[01:05:02]

SO WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN WE CAME UP WITH ANOTHER IDEA THAT ONE OF THE OTHER REAL ESTATE ATTORNEYS CAME UP WITH AND THEY SAID WELL WHY DON'T YOU JUST ABANDON THE PLAT AND REPLAT? YOU'VE ALREADY ABANDONED ONE PLAT OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND REPLACE IT.

SO IF WE ABANDON IT, THEN THAT THAT CONVEYANCE UNDER THE PLAT WOULD GO AWAY.

AND THEN WE WOULD ENTER INTO THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, THEN WE WOULD REPLAT.

BUT YOU ALL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO ON THAT LANGUAGE.

AND SO WE SAID THAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO ELIMINATE WHAT WE DON'T THINK IS AN ISSUE, PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THE COVER THAT THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL MAY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED AND ALLOW THE PARTIES TO LIVE WITH THE DEAL THAT WAS STRUCK 18 MONTHS AGO AND THAT MR. APLIN IS RELYING ON.

AND SO THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL IS WE DON'T THINK THERE'S THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT YOUR CONSULTANTS THINK I GET IT, THAT THEY'RE THERE TO PROTECT YOU.

AND SO THEY PROBABLY HAVE NO UPSIDE IF THEY THINK YOU'RE TAKING ANY RISK WHATSOEVER.

SO I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK THEM HOW GREAT A RISK IS IT? WE'RE GOING WAY OUT OF OUR WAY TO POINT OUT THE ISSUES THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO GET OVER TO CHALLENGE YOU.

WE THINK THAT BETWEEN THE ABSENCE OF A CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT, WE THINK THE RE-PLATING GIVES YOU PLENTY OF PROTECTION WILL INDEMNIFY YOU.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS IS THAT ANYBODY WHO IS A POTENTIAL PARTY WHO MIGHT HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THIS, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY OUT THERE NOW ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT IN TOTAL SYNC WITH THE CREATION OF THE PID, THE LEVY OF THE ASSESSMENTS AND IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, THEY WILL BE CONVEYING HOMES TO HOMEBUYERS.

AND WHEN WE CONVEY TO THOSE HOMEBUYERS, WE WILL GIVE THEM, THEY HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE OF THE PID, WHEN THEY ENTER INTO THEIR CONTRACT.

THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PID AGAIN WHEN THEY CLOSE, AND WE CAN HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO MAKE THEIR PAYMENTS.

AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING ALL OF THAT TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONCERNS IN THE SENSE OF A RISK FOR THE CITY.

SO AGAIN, I THINK IN SUMMARIZING IT, THIS IS A HICCUP.

I'LL AGREE WITH THAT.

I WOULD SAY IT'S A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR EVERYBODY.

AND WE'RE WORKING TO ELIMINATE IT, MINIMIZE IT AND INDEMNIFY YOU SO THAT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN LIVE WITH THE DEAL THAT WAS STRUCK 18 MONTHS AGO.

LIVE, FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT AND DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ANY RISK WITH IT.

SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE WITH THAT AND I'LL LET REG GET UP HERE AND TALK.

AND MAYBE SCOTT TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE LAST 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS.

BUT BUT I THINK THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

HELLO REG APELIN, GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT, YEAH, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE HISTORY OR REALLY IT'S PRETTY QUICK.

THE, YOU KNOW, WE CONTRACTED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN OCTOBER OF 2019.

THAT PROPERTY HAD JUST BEEN DROPPED BY ANOTHER DEVELOPER BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DO 40 FOOT LOTS. THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS DIDN'T WANT IT, SO IT WAS DROPPED IN AN OPPORTUNITY.

SO WE PUT IT UNDER CONTRACT AND IMMEDIATELY MET WITH THE CITY.

IT WAS THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER, BUT WE HAD MANY MEETINGS AND UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, HE WAS OBVIOUSLY EXCITED BECAUSE WE WERE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPERS HE WAS TALKING TO.

WE WERE DOING, YOU KNOW, THE 70 FOOT LOT AND WE GOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PID.

SO WHEN WE GOT TO UNDERSTANDING OF THE PID, THEN WE COULD DO THE 70 FOOT LOTS BY DEFERRING THAT PAYMENT OVER TIME.

SO IMMEDIATELY, WE MOVED FORWARD WITH PROJECT AND WE'RE INSTRUCTED BY HIM TO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY'S CONSULTANT, WHICH WAS HAWES HILL SCOTT BEAN, TO HANDLE THE PID.

[01:10:04]

THAT'S HIS BUSINESS.

AND I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE BOTH SCOTT ALBERT AND SCOTT BEAN EXPLAINED TO ME THAT JUST IN AUGUST OF 2019, TWO MONTHS BEFORE I WAS EVEN UNDER CONTRACT, THEY HAD COMPLETED THE GREEN TRAILS PID ALL THE WAY THROUGH WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE SAP AND DEVELOPER AGREEMENT, I GUESS, AND EVERYTHING.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH PIDS, I WAS COMFORTABLE THAT THE CONSULTANT THAT THEY HOOKED ME UP WITH AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS GRADY. IT WASN'T JUDITH, BUT GRADY AND SCOTT HAD JUST COMPLETED ONE THAT WAS IDENTICAL TO OURS, SUPPOSEDLY MEANING SCOTT AND SCOTT ALBERT AND GRADY WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THESE WERE BASICALLY GOING TO BE THE SAME EACH ONE OF THESE PID.

OURS WAS THE SECOND IN LINE.

SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE NOW AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

WE'RE BUYING THE PROPERTY AGAIN.

THIS IS AT THE END OF 19, OK.

SO IN JUNE OF 2020, SCOTT HAS EVERYTHING COMPLETED FOR THE PID.

IT'S TURNED IN THROUGH THE CITY.

YOU GUYS LOOK AT IT, YOU ALL GO THROUGH THE WHERE IT'S GOT TO RUN IN THE PAPER AND THEN EVERYTHING PASSES THE RESOLUTION, THE AMOUNTS, ALL THE DETAILS WERE PASSED.

AND WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE CONTRACT WITH BUILDERS USING THOSE SAME NUMBERS TO SELL LOTS.

WE START SELLING FINAL HOMES USING THE SAME NUMBERS THAT WERE AGREED UPON, SO NOTHING HAS EVER CHANGED. SO AT THAT POINT, WE'RE STARTING WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE HIRING MATULA, WE'RE DOING THE UNDERGROUNDS, WE'RE MOVING.

AND YOU KNOW, WE DID THE 110.

INSTEAD OF BREAKING UP IN TWO PHASES, WE DID THE WHOLE THING.

SO IT WAS A BIG DEVELOPMENT. SO IT TOOK A LONG TIME.

BUT WE HAD APPROVAL FROM THE PID AND ALL THE DETAILS.

EVERYBODY KNEW THE DETAILS.

THE ONLY THING THAT HAD TO HAPPEN IS APPARENTLY THREE DOCUMENTS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT A RESOLUTION OF PAYMENT AND AN SAP.

AND THAT WAS IN JUNE OF 2020.

WE RECORD THE PLAT IN JUNE OF 2021.

SO 12 MONTHS GO BY.

SO PAUL'S HILL, SCOTT BEAN IS TELLING ME WE'RE HAVING REAL TROUBLE GETTING ANYTHING THROUGH THE CITY, YOU KNOW? AND I WAS SAYING, LOOK, MAN, WE GOT PLENTY OF TIME.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S TURNED OVER.

WE GOT A NEW CITY MANAGER, NEW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, JUDITH AT THAT TIME.

I JUST HEARD HER NAME.

SO I'M SAYING IT'S OK.

WELL, IT JUST CONTINUES ON AND CONTINUES ON, AND WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE STARTING TO GET CLOSE TO WHERE YOU KNOW, FINANCE POOR AND STREETS DOING MAYBE FINAL GRADE.

THIS IS IN MARCH.

WELL, I'M MAKING SURE I'M HITTING UP SCOTT NOW THIS, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE ALL MESSING AROUND? WHAT'S GOING ON? SO IT WAS MARCH OF 2021.

SCOTT ACTUALLY DELIVERS EVERYTHING THROUGH.

IT WAS ACTUALLY ROBIN WHO, YOU KNOW, WITH BAKER LAWSON, THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PART.

SHE WAS ALWAYS A PART OF ALL OF THIS.

SHE WAS WORRIED SHE WAS TRYING TO GET THIS STUFF THROUGH TOO AND SHE WAS FRUSTRATED.

AND IT ALL GOT BACK TO, WELL, WE CAN'T GET THE CITY ATTORNEY OR WE CAN'T GET THIS OR THERE'S ALWAYS REASONS, BUT NOBODY.

WE WEREN'T GETTING ANYTHING DONE.

OTHER DEVELOPERS WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS A LOT.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'M LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO GET OURS DONE.

BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW.

I WASN'T WORRIED ABOUT THE PLAT DATE BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A PLAT DATE EVER SET BY ANYBODY. I'M JUST WANTING TO GET IT DONE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF BUSINESS.

ROBIN BRINGS UP THAT AGREEMENT IN MARCH AND DELIVERS IT TO CITY HALL TO LINDSAY AND THEN LINDSAY PASSES IT ON, AND THAT IT'S TAKEN THAT LONG FROM MARCH WHEN THOSE WERE ALL THE AGREEMENTS AND ALL THAT WAS, IT WAS REAL SIMPLE.

IT WAS THE GREYSTONE AGREEMENT AND THEN IT WAS THE [INAUDIBLE] AGREEMENT, OR IT WAS I'M SORRY, IT WAS THE GREEN TRAILS AGREEMENT THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETELY APPROVED.

AND THEN RIGHT NEXT TO THAT WAS THE GREYSTONE THAT MIMICKED IT.

AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT WAS KIBER.

NOTHING HAPPENS.

WE GET NO ACTION.

NOTHING WE MOVE THROUGH.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS THAT DEADLINE WE MOVE THROUGH AND WE'RE IN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN CONTRACTS WITH BANKS AND BUILDERS, AND WE'VE GOT DEADLINES AND WE'RE MOVING.

WE PLAT THIS THING, WE SELL LOTS, WE START BUILDING.

WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PERMITTING BUILDING HOUSES, SELLING HOUSES.

THEN ALL THE SUDDEN WE HEAR FROM THE CITY, OH, THERE'S A GOT YOU, IN HERE.

YOU FILED YOUR PLAT TOO EARLY.

SO THAT'S WHEN I CALL TIM GREEN.

I FIND OUT WHO'S THE SMARTEST LAWYER IN THE WORLD ON THIS AND FIND OUT IT'S TIM GREEN.

AND IT'S NOT LAW.

[01:15:01]

IT'S THE WAY, I WOULD EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN TIM IS.

IT IS AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM, LIKE 2011.

I BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS REFERENCING PIDS THAT WERE BOND PIDS.

THE BOND PIDS GO THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, RIGHT? THE CASH FLOW PIDS, WHICH THIS IS CASH FLOW PIDS IT DOES NOT GO THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGN OFF.

IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT LEGAL.

IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.

SO IN MY OPINION, THIS CAN GO JUST LIKE IT IS.

WELL, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE TIM, WHO HAD DEALT WITH IT BEFORE, COMES UP WITH THE IDEA IN OUR FIRST MEETING WITH Y'ALLS CITY ATTORNEY WHEN WE HEARD THERE WAS A PROBLEM WHICH WAS TWO MONTHS AGO, WE COME OUT AND WE SAY IT'S NOT LETTER OF THE LAW, WHICH EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT LAW.

IT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.

BUT IT'S REALLY FOR A BOND PID I COULDN'T GET THROUGH WITH THIS IF I WAS TRYING TO GET THE CITY OF ANGLETON TO SELL BONDS BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, NO WAY.

WE'RE NOT. SO THAT WAS OUR.

SO WE WORKED FOR TWO MONTHS ON GETTING THE RESOLUTION AND SAP TWO WEEKS AGO BEFORE COUNCIL MEETING, WE FIND OUT FROM THE ATTORNEY SORRY FOR THE LATE NOTICE, BUT WE'VE REVIEWED THIS AND WE DON'T LIKE IT NOW.

BUT MY GOSH, WE TALKED WE HAD A MEETING ABOUT THIS SIX MONTHS OR TWO MONTHS AGO, THREE MONTHS AGO. YOU DON'T LIKE IT NOW.

SO I SAID, WHOA, THAT'S WHEN I CALLED MAYOR PEREZ AND SAID, I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON.

PULL IT FROM THE AGENDA.

SO WE DID TWO WEEKS AGO PULLED IT FROM THE AGENDA.

SO WE SAID WE GOT TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.

WE MET WEDNESDAY SIX DAYS AGO, AND WE COME UP WITH AGAIN, WE REITERATE OR TIM DOES VERY WELL. THAT'S WE'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

NO ONE'S BREAKING THE LAW.

THAT'S AN OPINION FOR SOMETHING TRUTHFULLY DIFFERENT.

BUT IT'S NOT LAW.

WELL, HE AND JUDITH ARGUED ABOUT THAT.

JUDITH WAS SAYING, NOPE, I THINK IT'S ILLEGAL.

TIM SAYING, NOPE, IT'S NOT.

BUT THEN THE OTHER IDEA, WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE AND BEEN CHECKED OUT BY LOCAL ATTORNEYS, IS THE REPLATING.

SINCE THERE'S NO ONE IN THE SUBDIVISION, THAT'S THE FINAL HOMEOWNER.

IT'S ONLY OWNED NOW BY DEVELOPER AND BUILDERS.

WE REPLATED RE CONVEY IT'S DONE.

GET THESE THINGS DONE NOW LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE AND THEN PLAT AGAIN.

BUT EITHER WAY, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER TO ANGLETON BECAUSE GREYSTONE LLC IS INDEMNIFYING IN EVERY DIRECTION.

THERE'S NO RISK AT ALL.

AND SO THAT'S OUR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, OUR PART IS OR OUR POINT IS WE HAVE AN OUT TO SOLVE THIS WITHOUT ANY ISSUES AND THERE'S NO LEGALITY.

AND WITH THE INDEMNIFICATION AND THE SECURITY THAT WE'RE GIVING, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE THAT OPINION. AND TRUTHFULLY, THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE IT DONE IS BECAUSE THINK ABOUT IT, THIS 18 MONTHS BEFORE I OR 18 MONTHS AGO WHEN I FIRST CONTRACTED, THEY HAD JUST COMPLETED THE WHOLE THING. ALL THREE PARTS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, AND SAP WITH GRADY AND THAT MAN RIGHT THERE, SCOTT BEAN AND 18 MONTHS LATER, WORKING ON OURS, EVERY DAY, ALL THE TIME.

WE CAN'T GET THE SAME THREE THREE THINGS DONE IN 18 MONTHS.

THAT'S NOT.

THERE'S CULPABILITY EVERYWHERE, I THINK.

SO OUR REQUEST IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERY BIT OF INDEMNIFICATION WE CAN, EVERY BIT OF SECURITY WE CAN. THERE'S NO RISK TO ANYBODY IN Y'ALL'S CHAIRS OR IN THE CITY OF ANGLETON, AND WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

SO IF YOU RECALL, THIS PID WAS CREATED IN JUNE OF 2020 BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

IT HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE RESOLUTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RUN IN THE PAPER BY THE CITY, WHICH ACTIVATED THE PID, AND THERE'S A 20 DAY, ESSENTIALLY A MONTH DEAD PERIOD AFTER THAT, WHERE THE DEVELOPER CAN'T START A CONSTRUCTION THAT PUT US CLOSE TO THE FALL OF 2020.

AND WHAT BECAME APPARENT IS THAT THERE HAD BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE, MAYBE IN PHILOSOPHY BASED ON WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY COME TO UNDERSTAND FROM SCOTT ALBERT.

WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN TO DO THE PIDS, HE WANTED TO LINE UP GREEN TRAILS, GREYSTONE KIBER RESERVE AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF OTHERS.

AND SO I WAS TRYING TO RUN SEVERAL OF THOSE CONCURRENT AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT IT BECAME APPARENT IN THE FALL THAT MAYBE WE HAD TO DO A LITTLE MORE WORKSHOPPING AND

[01:20:02]

THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND THAT I REALIZED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WE WERE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO RE LOOK AT ALMOST REINVENT IT BECAUSE SCOTT ALBERT WAS NO LONGER HERE. SO IF YOU ALL RECALL WE DID, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO A WORKSHOP IN DECEMBER.

WE GOT PUSHED TO LATE JANUARY AND THEN ON INTO FEBRUARY WITH THE FREEZE.

AND THEN WE ACTUALLY DID DELIVER THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS IN MARCH, EARLY MARCH.

AND IT'S THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS ARE MODELED EXACTLY ON THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR GREEN STREET GREEN TRAILS.

ALL IT CHANGED WAS THE DEVELOPER NAME, THE COST AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.

SO WE FEEL LIKE WE WERE WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE CITY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, TO COME ALONG MAYBE A LITTLE SLOWER WITH THE WORKSHOPS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

UNFORTUNATELY, BEFORE YOU KNOW, REG FIT, WHEN REG FINISHED THE PROJECT, WE HAD NOT FULLY EXECUTED THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BY THEN.

SO. OK.

OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

NO, NO, THIS IS THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM.

OK. SO MUCH TO UNPACK HERE.

I DID FORGET TO MENTION, YOU KNOW, THE ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LEVIED ARE ABOUT $2.2 MILLION DOLLARS.

AND SO IF YOU VOTE THIS DOWN, THEN THE CONSEQUENCE TO MR. APELIN IS A MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO HIM, BUT ALSO UNDER YOUR PID POLICY, THEN UNDER YOUR PID POLICY THAT HE'S AGREED THAT HE WILL PAY YOU 10 PERCENT OF WHAT HE WAS GOING TO GET IN HIS ASSESSMENT. SO THAT'S TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT THE CITY WILL GIVE UP AND FORFEIT BY NOT WORKING WITH US TO KEEP THIS PID STRUCTURE IN PLACE.

SO I DID WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE'S CONSEQUENCES ON BOTH SIDES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND THAT JUST SINCE HE BROUGHT IT UP, THE NORMAL PID POLICY SAYS YOU PAID UP FRONT WHEN YOU GET YOUR BONDED MONEY BECAUSE THIS IS A CASH BID.

HE'S REQUESTING THAT IT BE PAID OUT OVER 30 YEARS.

YEAH, I WOULD.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT.

YES, ON THE. SO GOING THROUGH THIS, THE TIME OF WORKING THROUGH THE PID, WE NEVER KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN ANGLETON PID POLICY AND A FEE TO ANGLETON.

OK. YOU ALL MADE THE PID POLICY AND SAID 10 PERCENT FEE FOR THE PID, WHICH WAS NEW TO ALL OF EVERY DEVELOPER, WAS ON THE PHONE GOING, WOW, HOW'D THAT HAPPEN? WELL, IT HAPPENED. WELL, THE BOND PIDS, I CAN UNDERSTAND BEING PAID UP FRONT BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE DOING A BOND.

THE GUY'S GETTING THE $2 MILLION DOLLARS OR WHATEVER IT IS.

HE PAYS HIS TWO PERCENT OR 10 PERCENT, SO HE PAYS 200 GRAND.

BUT IN OUR DEAL, THE WAY THAT WE GOT PRESENTED WITH FROM YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS WE GOT TO PAY IT UP FRONT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE A CASH.

SEE, WE'RE THE ONLY ONE. WELL, THERE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT WE'RE CASH FLOW.

SO OURS DOESN'T. WE DON'T GET BONDED.

WE GET PAID OVER 30 YEARS OVER THE TIME.

SO MY SUGGESTION, WHICH CHRIS I THINK AGREED WITH OR I FELT HE DID WAS IT'D BE FAIR THAT WE JUST DO THAT OVER TIME.

SO IT'S AS ALMOST LIKE A COLLECTION FEE.

IT'S AN EXPENSIVE COLLECTION FEE BECAUSE THE CITY OF ANGLETON OR CITY OF OR I'M SORRY, BRAZORIA COUNTY HAS AGREED TO THE COLLECTIONS AND AT THEIR FEE OF LIKE THIRTY FOUR CENTS OR SOMETHING A PIECE. AND THEN THAT THAT LUMP SUM CHECK COMES TO THE CITY AND THEN THE CITY SENDS A LUMP SUM CHECK TO THE GREYSTONE MINUS 10 PERCENT EACH YEAR.

SO BASICALLY, THE PID WILL COLLECT ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND.

THE CITY KEEPS 10,000, GREYSTONE GETS A HUNDRED.

THAT'S THE WAY IT WOULD WORK IF WE KEEP US FROM PAYING UP FRONT WHEN WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, THE MONEY'S NOT THERE. WE'RE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING A BOND, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO A BOND WITH YOU KNOW THE COMPLICATIONS OF THAT AND THE POTENTIAL RISK OF THAT THE CITY, I GUESS POSSIBLY COULD HAVE WITH THE BOND.

SO, OK, ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M GLAD I GOT TO TALK TO YOU GUYS.

I WOULD THINK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK WE'LL COME UP REG WITH SOME QUESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH DISCUSSIONS UP HERE.

OKAY. YEAH. THANKS.

CHRIS ANYTHING ELSE? NO.

MS. JUDITH ANYTHING. I AM NOT CERTAIN WHERE WE ARE ON THE RESOLUTION.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE EVENT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING INTO DECEMBER TO RESERVE ALL ABILITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING

[01:25:01]

RIGHT. SO THIS HAS BEEN ON YOUR AGENDA TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT TIMES AND I DON'T REMEMBER.

I BELIEVE THAT YOU APPROVED THE RESOLUTION LAST TIME, CALLING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SAP.

BUT JUST TO PRESERVE ANY.

I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO GET ANY OBJECTION FROM TIM GREEN ON THIS.

YEAH. TO JUST KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN IN THE EVENT WE NEED IT.

GOTCHA. JUST TO BE CAUTIOUS ON THAT.

OK, SO OUT OF THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND ADVISEMENT OF COUNSEL, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 11 AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING IN THE EVENT WE NEED TO KEEP IT ONGOING. SO MOVED. AND YOUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KEEP IT OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

GOTCHA. OK, SO MOVED.

SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS.

HOLD ON. WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS REAL QUICK.

SO I GOT A MOTION DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 11 AS AN OPEN MEETING, OPEN ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING, ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

I'M ALL TONGUE-TIED.

ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS.

HEARING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN THAT MOTION CARRIES.

NOW BACK TO YOU MS. JUDITH.

SO AS YOU HEARD, THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS MADE A SUGGESTION, BUT YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND YOUR BOND COUNSEL DON'T THINK IT'S FEASIBLE.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO ADD IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS EXECUTED BY THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO HIM HIRING AN ATTORNEY HAS NO PROVISION IN THERE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATES EVERYTHING THAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO PAY.

BUT THE DEVELOPER EXECUTED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITHOUT ANY TERMS ON THE REIMBURSEMENT. SO, YOU KNOW, AS TO EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE FACTS, I'M SURE WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE FACTS.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LEGAL OPINION, MR. GREEN IS SAYING THAT IT'S A GRAY AREA.

I AGREE. MR. GREEN IS ALSO SAYING THAT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC BLACK AND WHITE PROVISION, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT CITIES OPERATE DIFFERENT THAN BUSINESSES.

A CITY NEEDS AN AFFIRMATIVE STATUTORY PROVISION ON WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO, NOT JUST THE SIMPLE ALLEGATION THAT THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF LANGUAGE ON THIS.

SO THAT POSES A PROBLEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, NOW IT'S TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

SOMEBODY. SO I GOT LOTS.

SOMEBODY ELSE WANT TO START, YOU WANT ME TO.

I MADE A COUPLE COMMENTS.

WE'LL, LET COUNCILMAN BOOTH GO.

I MADE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO MYSELF AND THAT.

IN GOOD FAITH TO SEE INTENDED TO GO INTO A PID WITH THE DEVELOPER THE DEVELOPER INTENDED TO GO INTO A BID WITH THE CITY, BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER INTENDED TO GO INTO A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

AND AS EVERYBODY INTENDED TO DO ALL THIS TO START WITH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ALL KIND OF HAND IN HAND THAT'S JUST GOING THROUGH THIS STUFF.

SO MY MEMORY OF THE TIMING OF THE FILING OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE WAS DRIVEN BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO GET THE POWER COMPANY ON BOARD TO DESIGN THE POWER SYSTEM TO SERVE THE SUBDIVISION.

THAT THE POWER COMPANY HAD NO INTENTION OF EVEN BEGINNING THE DESIGN OF THE POWER TO SERVICE THIS DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THEY HAD A RECORDED PLAT IN HAND.

AND THAT TRIGGERED THEIR START.

I DON'T KNOW THE TIMING OF ALL THIS, BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER POINT OF TRYING TO GET THE PLAT RECORDED SO THAT THEY COULD GET THEIR POWER GOING ON BECAUSE WE HAD ALL THIS ONGOING [INAUDIBLE] WITH TEXAS TO MEXICO POWER COMPANY.

GOODNESS, THEY WENT TO FORT WORTH TRYING TO FIND CLIMBED THE LADDER TO FINALLY GET TO THE RIGHT PERSON, TO TALK TO ABOUT PUTTING TRANSFORMERS IN THE REAR.

TRANSFORMER IN THE BACK I'M SURE EVERYONE INTENDED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE CORRECTLY.

YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, IT'S BEEN GOOD FAITH EVERYONE WAS TRYING TO GET THIS THING ACCOMPLISHED AND THEN.

[01:30:03]

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ALL THE LEGALITIES, BUT AGAIN, IT LOOKS LIKE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A MISTAKE WAS MADE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE AND TOTALLY UNINTENTIONAL.

WHICH NOW GOES BACK AND REFUTES ALL THE GOOD INTENTIONS WE HAD TO START WITH.

MY QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

BUT. MAYBE I WAS LOST SOMEWHERE IN THE WEEDS HERE, BUT WHAT'S OUR LIABILITY? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO PREVENT? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.

WELL, I MEAN, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO NOT GO THROUGH WITH THIS? THERE'S GOT TO BE A REASON THE CONCERN FOR US, FOR YOU AND THE BOND.

OK, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S OUR RISK, WHAT'S THE LIABILITY YOU ASKED WHAT THE RISK WAS EARLIER, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S OUR RISK? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? I'M KIND OF RISK AVERSE, SO I WANT TO KNOW.

I CAN SPEAK TO THAT TO SOME DEGREE, BECAUSE SOME OF THAT MAY BE PRIVILEGED, BUT I CAN SAY THAT THE PID ACT IS WRITTEN IN A WAY, AND I AGREE WITH MR. GREEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT TELLS YOU THE TIMING, BUT THE PID ACT ITSELF. SECTION 372015A STATES AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF SPECIAL BENEFIT, EXCEPT THAT ACCRUES TO THE PROPERTY.

THE PROBLEM HERE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER THAT MR. GREEN IS TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED SOMETHING YOU ALREADY OWN THE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WHERE IS THE BENEFIT? YOU ALREADY OWN IT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN CONVEYED TO YOU.

YOU'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED IT IN YOUR MAY 25TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

AND THAT WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL PLAT IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.

SO YOU ALREADY HAVE DONE THAT.

AND THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT ONCE THAT ACTION IS TAKEN, THEN YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ENTER INTO A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER THAT.

AND IN FACT, THAT IS WHY ANOTHER DEVELOPER IN THE CITY SPECIFICALLY PULLED PLAT ACCEPTANCE. AND THAT GENTLEMAN IS ALSO ANOTHER CLIENT OF MR. GREEN'S, AND HE PULLED IT UNTIL THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED.

THEN HE CAME BACK FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT.

BUT LET ME BACK UP ON THE PLATING.

SINCE WE ACCEPTED THE PLAT, YOU ACCEPTED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

OK, WE ACCEPTED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID THE PLAT, I'M CONFUSED.

THESE ARE ONE IN THE SAME.

THAT'S WHAT I'M MAKING SURE.

OK, BUT THE ARGUMENT IS ON THE ROAD.

SO THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT, IS IT? DID WE NOT ACCIDENTALLY JUMP AHEAD BY ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE PLAT? DID WE NOT ACCIDENTLY GO? NO, WE DID NOT.

SO THE TIMING WAS CORRECT.

DEVELOPMENT, IT'S THE DEVELOPER'S DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO DO TO PURSUE HIS DEVELOPMENT IS DONE.

COME ON UP MR. APELIN.

WELL, ON THAT POINT, LET'S DO REMEMBER THIS OCTOBER IN 19.

THE CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME ASKED ME TO EMPLOY THIS CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY, WHICH WAS HAWES HILL TO TAKE CARE OF THE PID BECAUSE HAWES HILL HAD ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF A PID WITH GRADY, NOT JUDITH, BUT HAWES HILL AND GRADY HAD DONE IT.

NOW IT TAKES 18 MONTHS AND HAWES HILL AND JUDITH CAN'T GET IT DONE.

AND TRUTHFULLY, I DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS THAT DATE, BUT NO WAY SHOULD IT HAVE TAKEN THAT LONG. AND HONESTLY, WE CAN.

IT'S WHAT THE YOUR ANSWER, WHAT'S OUR RISK? WHICH IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE SAYING.

I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANY RISK BECAUSE I'M INDEMNIFYING YOU IN EVERY DIRECTION.

I DON'T AGREE WITH JUDITH BY SUGGESTING THAT YOU ALL SHOULD DENY THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT DENIABLE. THERE'S TOO MUCH.

THERE'S TOO MUCH. THE CITY HAS WORKED WITH ME LIKE MR. BOOTH SAID, WHICH IS TRUE.

WE'VE BEEN HAND IN HAND THE WHOLE TIME.

AND THEN WE GET TO THE VERY END AND IT'S KIND OF A GOTCHA.

OH, YOU REALIZE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNEW THAT IF SCOTT BEAN DIDN'T KNOW IT WITH HAWES HILL AND JUDITH, WHO AT THAT TIME APPARENTLY DIDN'T KNOW IT, OR SHE WOULDN'T HAVE LET IT

[01:35:02]

BE DONE? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE JUST GONE.

OH NO, BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNEW WE WERE.

BECAUSE WE DID. WE FOUGHT THE UTILITIES AND GOT THEM MOVED IN THE BACK.

THAT TOOK TONS OF TIME AND TONS OF THE.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT WAS SO THE PROPERTY'S ALREADY BEEN REPLATED ONCE.

SO MY QUESTION AGAIN IS THE REPLATING AND RECONVEYANCE TWO WAYS WE CAN DO IT.

ONE IS GO FORWARD.

THAT'S NOT BREAKING ANY LAW LIKE RIGHT NOW.

AND IT'S NOT.

IT'S AGAINST THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

THAT'S ONE WAY WE CAN DO IT WITH COMPLETE INDEMNIFICATION OF ME INDEMNIFYING THE CITY.

THAT'S ONE. THE OTHER WAY IS A REPLAT.

REPLAT IT, SEPARATE THE VALUE FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME, GET THE AGREEMENTS DONE LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. THERE'S NO WAY IN A CITY LIKE THIS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A PID AGREEMENT IN JUNE OF 2020 AND THE DEVELOPER'S DEVELOPMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE A DOCUMENT APPROVED BY 2021, THAT'S ON Y'ALL'S PART OR NOT, IT'S ON THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S PART.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AND YES, WHEN I WALK INTO THE CITY AND HE SAYS, YOU GET WITH THIS PERSON AND THAT PERSON GETS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT. I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE BOTH WATCHING US.

LET ME ASK JUDITH SOMETHING.

OK. IN THE PID ACT. YOU STATED STATUTE THREE, SEVEN TWO, I THINK IT WAS POINT ZEREO ONE FIVE A. SO IF YOU WERE TO VIOLATE THAT PORTION OF THE STATUTE, WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE? WHAT IS IT THAT LAYS OUT IN THE STATUTE? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? WELL THERE'S NO DIRECT PENALTY FOR DOING THINGS CONTRARY TO LAW.

THERE'S AN OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE OF DOES THE CITY OF ANGLETON WANT TO DO THINGS CONTRARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE? I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THERE IS ANYTHING IN THERE THAT SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATES WHAT THE PENALTIES WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING INCONSISTENT WITH.

I DON'T THINK SO. STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

I'LL DOUBLE CHECK. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, TRAVIS, NOW WE HAVE A PLAYBOOK, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE ADOPTED JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT NOW ANY NEW DIRECTION, ANY NEW POTENTIAL PIDS AT LEAST HAS A ROADMAP THAT HAS ALL THESE TIMELINES IN IT AND MAYBE THE STEPS THAT MAY NEED TO TAKE PLACE.

WE SPENT GOOD MONEY ON THAT TO KEEP US FROM NOT GETTING IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT.

AND KIND OF CORRECT IS THAT KIND OF CORRECT, CHRIS? I MEAN, YEAH. OK.

JOHN, ARE YOU FINISHED TRAVIS.

YES, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, GOOD JOHN'S PAGE ISN'T TOTALLY FILLED UP.

BUT THERE'S A FEW LINES.

I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN.

SO, MR. GREEN, AND YOU KNOW, WE CAN QUIBBLE OVER CERTAIN THINGS, BUT IF ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS WAS THAT YOU DIDN'T REALLY CONVEY THE ROADS, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF YOU ALL ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS TOO, BECAUSE IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT USUALLY WHEN YOU CONVEY THE INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU'RE CONVEYING THE ROADS.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE MR. APELIN WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE LEGAL LEGAL.

SO YES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S POINTED OUT THAT I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THE ROADS ARE PART OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN IT GETS CONVEYED, BECAUSE THEN AND THAT'S THE CASE, THEN A LOT OF SUBDIVISIONS SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING THEIR OWN ROADS. BUT I THINK IT COULD BE UNCONVEYED WITH THE UNPLATING AND THE REPLATING, RIGHT? AND I WON'T ARGUE WITH THAT.

ABANDON. THE PLAT IS.WHAT IT IS AND THEN RE CONVEYING IS THE WAY THAT WOULD BE RIGHT.

AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS CONVEYED IN MAY OF 25, BUT MR. BEAN MR. GREEN AND YOU MR. APELINE HAVE ALL REFERENCED BACK TO SCOTT ALBERT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL YOU KNOW FOR ANY DEVELOPERS THAT ARE LISTENING OR WHATEVER. THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO.

LET'S LEAVE THAT IN THE PAST.

WE'VE HAD TWO YEARS ALMOST WITH CHRIS HERE.

AND SO FOR ME, IT'S MOVING FORWARD AND THAT'S ON Y'ALL.

AND IT'S ON US MOVING FORWARD.

NO MORE REFERENCES BACK TO THE PAST AND WHAT HAPPENED AND WE'RE HERE NOW.

SO LET'S ALL WORK TOGETHER ON FIXING THIS.

THE AND WE TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT AND EVERYTHING IS FINE.

THE ONLY THING THE REASON I HAD TO REFERENCE IT IS MY FIRST PORT OF CONTACT WAS THE CITY MANAGER OF ANGLETON IN OCTOBER OF 19 RIGHT.

CITY MANAGER OF ANGLETON SHOWED ME THE ROADMAP AND INCLUDING THE PERSON TO HIRE.

SO I DID, RIGHT.

THEN HE WAS GONE LIKE WITHIN A MONTH.

I THINK I THINK IT WASN'T VERY LONG.

JANUARY OF 19 OR OF 20.

OK, SO IT WAS TWO MONTHS LATER, THREE MONTHS LATER THAN WE WERE DEALING WITH CHRIS AND

[01:40:04]

CHRIS IS EVERYTHING'S BEEN FINE WITH CHRIS AND THE PERMITTING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT IN ANGLETON.

THE WAY THAT ANGLETON HANDLED THE DEVELOPMENT, THE WAY ANGLETON HAS HANDLED PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES.

I CAN TELL YOU, WE'VE GOT LAKE JACKSON, WE GOT THREE LAKE JACKSON BUILDERS RIGHT NOW IN GREYSTONE, AND THEY'RE ALL VERY HAPPY SO THAT PART OF IT IS FINE.

WE JUST GOT A OH NO OR A HICCUP OR OH, THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT'S SOLVABLE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE OUR FOCUS NEEDS.

AND THEN ON MARCH 30TH, THIS IS WHEN WE HAD OUR BIG WHAT ALL THE DEVELOPERS CAME TO GIVE US OUR ISSUES.

AND I DON'T REMEMBER IF THIS WAS RAISED BACK THEN THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOUR PID AGREEMENTS AND EVERYTHING IN PLACE.

I REMEMBER THE ISSUE THAT YOU RAISED IN THE MARCH 30TH MEETING WAS REALLY AROUND THE PARK DEDICATION. AND THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S ALL.

SO I, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, I WISH THAT YOU HAD SAID AT THAT POINT, HEY, WE'RE FALLING BEHIND HERE. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT TOOK 18 MONTHS TO GET THAT, THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT ON OUR MARCH 30TH MEETING YOU WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO US AT THAT TIME.

WELL, MAYBE MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETIME IN THE MIDDLE OF MARCH WHEN HE ACTUALLY TURNED EVERYTHING OVER AND STARTED REALLY PUSHING THAT WAS THIS MARCH 30TH OF TWENTY ONE? THAT'S RIGHT. TWENTY ONE. THAT'S WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO THAT'S WHEN IT WAS TURNED IN.

WE DIDN'T SIGN THE PLAT OR RECORD THE PLAT UNTIL JUNE.

SO IT WAS MARCH, APRIL, MAY OF EVERYTHING BEING READY AND TEED UP AND NOTHING HAPPENING.

NOW, IF I KNEW THERE WAS SOME LINE IN THE SAND, WHETHER IT'S THE LETTER OF THE LAW OR NOT, IF I'D HAVE KNOWN THAT SOMEONE EVEN SUGGESTED YOU HAD TO DO THAT, I'D HAVE BEEN SAYING MAKE SURE AND I'D HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING CHARLES VON SCHMIDT DID.

CHARLES VON SCHMIDT GOT HIS DONE IN MARCH, AND HE'S BEEN SITTING OVER THERE AT KIBER RESERVE, BUT HE WOULDN'T START IN THE HOUSE.

HE KNEW THE RULE. WE DIDN'T OR THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO HE HAS SAT OVER THERE AND NOT BUILT A HOUSE FROM MARCH ALL THE WAY TILL NOW.

RIGHT? BECAUSE HE. COULDN'T GET WHAT HE COULDN'T GET THE SAME THING I COULDN'T GET.

AND IT'S COST TIM A A LOT OF MONEY AND IT WAS ALL UNFORTUNATE.

SO THE ONLY THING WE DID DIFFERENT IS WE PLATED ACCORDING TO OUR BANK CONTRACTS AND OUR CONTRACT WITH EVERYBODY, EVERY CONTRACT, EXCEPT THE ONLY CONTRACT WE DIDN'T KNOW IS SOME ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING, DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

AND HERE WE ARE. MR. APELIN WHEN WAS THE PLAT RECORDED IN THE COURTHOUSE.

JUNE. JUNE OF 21.

TWENTY ONE. YES SIR.

AND THEN WE'VE ALREADY REPLATED IT ONCE BECAUSE.

BUT THE MOST RECENT PLAT IS JUNE OF 21.

NO, THE FIRST ONE WAS JUNE 21.

THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS AUGUST, WHEN WE REPLATED MOVING THE UTILITIES.

REMEMBER THE FIRST PLAT WE DIDN'T.

WE HADN'T COMPLETELY WON WITH TEXAS, NEW MEXICO IN OUR BATTLE, SO IT WAS PLATED WITH THE UTILITIES IN THE FRONT.

AND THAT WAS JUNE. JUNE OF TWENTY ONE.

OK. YES, SIR. AND THEN WE'VE ALREADY REPLATED ONCE.

AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS WE DO A REPLATING AND AN ABANDONMENT. GIVE THE TIME FOR TO GET THE PAPERS IN ORDER AND THEN REPLAT.

AND I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF WITH COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND ON RISK ASSESSMENT HERE.

SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS REALLY FOR MR. BEAN, IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM, I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON.

SINCE YOU'RE THE EXPERT ON THESE PIDS, SINCE THIS IS A CASH PID, CORRECT.

THE DEVELOPERS PUTTING ALL THE MONEY UP FRONT, HE'S ALREADY PUT IN THE MONEY AND THEN HE'S GOING TO GET REIMBURSED OVER TIME.

THAT'S CORRECT. THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO BE OUT ANY MONEY ON THIS.

WE'RE NOT ISSUING ANY BONDS OR ANYTHING FOR THIS.

NO, AND IN THE CASE WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT, LET'S SAY HE PUTS IN TWO STREETS AND HE DECIDES, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M DONE, I'M OUT.

WHERE DOES THAT STAND? THE NEXT PERSON COMES IN CAN STILL GET THE ASSESSMENT THAT HE.

RIGHT THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT ONCE EXECUTED THE PIDS IN PLACE.

IT'S TRANSFERABLE. RIGHT? AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THE BANK THE LENDER TAKES IT OVER, FINDS ANOTHER DEVELOPER. THEY FINISH IT AND THEY GET THE SAME DEAL IT WAS ALREADY SET UP FOR THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER.

I'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE IN CONROE.

EXACTLY. SO, OK.

GO AHEAD CHRIS. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW JOHN SNYDER, OUR PID ATTORNEY OR PID COUNSEL, SORRY, IS ONLINE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM TOO.

OK, I MEAN, WE'VE DEALT WITH MR. BEAN SO MUCH AND HE WAS STANDING THERE.

SO THAT'S WHY.

I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW HE'S AVAILABLE.

I CAN TELL YOU ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO IT.

[01:45:02]

BOND DEBT PID I WOULD REFER YOU TO JOHN SNYDER.

I DON'T. I DON'T HANDLE THOSE.

SO. BUT THIS ONE'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

CORRECT. WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL PIDS, HONESTLY, IS WHERE IT'S CASH BONDED AND THE DEVELOPERS TAKING THE RISK, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHERE WE'RE ISSUING BONDS. AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE DID TWO THINGS WHEN WE WERE INTRODUCED TO THE PID, WE HEARD THE BOND PID AND THE CASH PID OR CASH FLOW.

WELL, AS A DEVELOPER THE BOND PID SOUNDS REALLY GOOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO INVEST ALL THAT MONEY, BUT THEN REALLY QUICKLY YOU GET.

ALL OF IT BACK. PART OF THAT BACK.

THE CASH FLOW IS NOT IT'S DRUG OUT, BUT THE CASH FLOW WAS LESS EXPENSIVE AT THE END FOR THE CUSTOMER. RIGHT? AND WE INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE PID AND I WOULD THINK MOST DEVELOPERS UNDER THE RULES, YOU CAN QUALIFY X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FOR DEPENDING ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT, NOT LIKE OURS. WE COULD HAVE QUALIFIED LIKE THREE POINT THREE, BUT WE ONLY USED TWO POINT TWO BECAUSE THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE THE WHOLE NUMBERS WORK FROM BANKING TO INVESTMENT RETURN.

WE DIDN'T GO FOR THE THREE POINT THREE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE PID NUMBER DOWN AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL AND THAT WAS A GOOD SALES POINT FOR ME AND THE OTHER BUILDERS TO SAY WE'RE THE LOWEST PID IN TOWN.

WE'RE NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS, RIGHT? THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT WITH BUYERS AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND BUILDERS AND BY EVERYBODY. SO SURE.

AND I GUESS MY QUESTION SINCE MR. SNYDER IS ON THE PHONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK YOU, ARE YOU THERE? YES, SIR. OK, SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PID AND LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, HALF A DEVELOPMENT IN LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GETTING PAID BACK AS QUICKLY ALL THE OWNERSHIP IS ON THE DEVELOPER AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? YES. OK, SO AND IF HE GOES BELLY UP AND HE CAN'T, HE'S NOT MAKING GETTING THE MONEY BACK THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO GET.

PEOPLE AREN'T BUYING THE HOUSES BECAUSE OF THE PID ASSESSMENT AT THAT POINT CAN HE WALK AWAY SOMEBODY ELSE, COME IN WITHOUT THE PID ASSESSMENT OR WILL IT STAY IN PLACE OVER THE LONG LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT? SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, IF THE DEVELOPER WENT UNDER AND SAY THE BANK STEPPED IN, THE BANK WOULD ASSUME THE RIGHTS TO THAT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.

RIGHT. AND IF THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY FUTURE REIMBURSEMENTS, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S A WAY THAT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS MAYBE JUDITH OR TIM.

I'VE NEVER DISSOLVED A PID.

NEVER DISSOLVED A PID.

SOME MECHANISM IN THERE TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH.

YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE TO IT.

BUT I WOULD THINK THERE'S A WAY TO WAIVE THE ASSESSMENT IF A FUTURE DEVELOPER CHOSE TO DO SO. YEAH, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, THE CITY DIDN'T PUT UP THE MONEY.

THE DEVELOPER PUT ALL THE MONEY IN AND THEN HE WALKS AWAY OR GOES BANKRUPT.

YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KEEP ASSESSING? BUT I GUESS THE BANK WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO BE PROTECTED IN THAT CASE, SO I COULD SEE THAT POINT. I MEAN, THE ASSESSMENT, ONCE THE ASSESSMENTS LEVIED, IT IS ON THE LAND IT RUNS WITH THE LAND.

SO ANY FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER IS SUBJECT TO IT.

AND SO I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE EITHER TO BE I WOULD THINK YOU'D NEED A PROVISION IN THE ORIGINAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT OR IT WOULD REQUIRE CONSENT OF WHOEVER THE ENTITY THAT'S ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE REIMBURSEMENTS, BUT HAVE TO WAIVE THAT.

YEAH. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET, I GUESS THE POINT OF THE QUESTION IS THAT REALLY EVEN IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE CITY IS STILL IN A GOOD POSITION.

WE'RE NOT OUT ANY MONEY AT THAT POINT.

CORRECT. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I REALLY AM DEFERRING TO CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY BOND COUNSEL ON THIS.

BUT JUST FROM MY MY PAST EXPERIENCE WITH PIDS, I WOULDN'T THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD BE OUT OF MONEY. OK.

AND THEN MY LAST.

NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M PRETTY SURE I VOTED TO CREATE THIS BID BACK IN THE DAY BECAUSE WE WERE ALL PRETTY MUCH KNEW AT THE TIME ON PIDS.

AND AS I'VE GROWN, I'VE LEARNED A LOT MORE ABOUT THESE.

AND YOU KNOW, IF I HADN'T ALREADY VOTED FOR THIS, MR. APLIN, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF IT BECAUSE I'M DONE WITH PIDS.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS FROM HOW MY VOTING RECORD HAS BEEN LATELY.

BUT ON THIS ONE BEING THAT IS A CASH PID AND THAT WE STARTED THIS TWO YEARS AGO AND I I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD BE A PERSON OF MY WORD WHEN I CREATED THE PID THAT I SHOULD STAND BY

[01:50:02]

IT, THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT, BUT.

OK. OH, MARK, YOU HAVE ANYTHING? OH, YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

YOU KNOW, AFTER THAT MARCH 30TH MEETING, [INAUDIBLE], I'LL SIT BACK AND SAY, YOU'VE BEEN ONE OF THE EASIER DEVELOPERS TO WORK WITH.

I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT YEAH, AFTER THAT, THAT MEETING, I THINK WE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS SQUARED AWAY FOR YOU.

AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WITH YOUR TENACITY.

YOU, YOU HIT THE ROAD RUNNING.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST MAYBE GOT CAUGHT BY THE WAYSIDE.

AND IT'S OKAY, THOUGH.

YEAH. AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANYBODY'S POINT ON THIS COUNCIL OR STAFF TO SAY TO GET, YOU KNOW, I GOT YOU.

YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NEVER OUR AGENDA.

WE STAND TO MAKE NOTHING EITHER WAY.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? UM. YEAH, BUT I'LL SAY THIS IF I EVER, IF I NEVER HEAR ANOTHER DEVELOPER SAY OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER'S NAME, [INAUDIBLE].

I GOTCHA. MARK, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NOW BECAUSE ALL THE DEVELOPERS MAYBE KNEW, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS.

YEAH.

BUT WHEN YOU START SELLING THE T-SHIRTS, I WANNA BUY THE FIRST ONE, I THINK.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ONLY COMMENTS I'VE READ, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU TRANSFERRED TITLE TO ANY OF THOSE LOTS YET? TO OTHER, TO THE DEVELOPER, TO BUILDER DEVELOPERS, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS? OK, WELL, I JUST THINK OF THINKING THE COMPLEXITY OF WHO ALL WOULD HAVE TO SIGN THE PLAT IF IT REFILED.

JUST TO THE THE GROUP OF BUILDERS.

THAT'S IT. AND JUST FOR TRIVIAL MR. REG, HOW MANY HOUSES ARE OVER THERE BEING CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK? OH, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT SIX TO PROBABLY 14, MAYBE 15.

OK. IT'S IT'S LOOKING, WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF EXCITEMENT.

YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE WE'RE GETTING ONE OF OUR BUYERS WAS, THEY LIVE IN RICHWOOD NOW AND THEY KIND OF HAVE THE SPLIT.

HE, SHE WORKS AT BASF.

HE WORKS IN HOUSTON.

IT'S PERFECT FOR THEM.

BUT AND YOU KNOW, THEY LIKE THE CREEKSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WERE LOOKING THERE.

AND THEN WHEN THEY SAW THIS AND THE THE SPLIT, IT WAS AMAZING THE TIME DIFFERENCE HE LIKE. HE WENT FROM AN HOUR 10 TO LIKE 42 MINUTES AND IT'S ALMOST HALF AWAY FROM WHERE THEY WERE. SO IT WAS KIND OF GOOD.

SHE WAS LIKE TWENTY NINE MINUTE DRIVE AND HE WAS LIKE THIRTY EIGHT MINUTES.

SO IT'S A GOOD SPLIT.

AND BEING ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN, THAT'S ATTRACTIVE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY.

SO YEAH, WE'RE ROLLING A LOT OF GOOD, A LOT OF GOOD STUFF AND.

WELL, I SEE THE ACTIVITY OVER THERE, PASS IT EVERY DAY.

WELL, KEEP LOOKING, YOU CAN BUY ONE, WE WANT ALL OF Y'ALL.

WE'RE CUSTOM BUILDERS, REMEMBER.

ALL RIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD SOME, SOME DISCUSSION AND WE'VE HAD SOME DEBATE AND WE'VE HAD POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND SOME NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.

AND THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. BUT WE DO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM NUMBER 12 ON THE TABLE.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ONE LAST THING.

SORRY, IT'S UH, I'M JUST TORN BOTH WAYS.

SO THAT'S RIGHT. NO OFFENSE, I MEAN, IT'S LEGALITY IS WHEN I TOLD YOU ABOUT BEING RISK AVERSE FOR MYSELF.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, I AGREE WITH JOHN'S SENTIMENT.

WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD.

WE'VE BEEN MOVING THE BALL.

UM, I'VE TRIED TO BE DEVELOPER FRIENDLY, SOME PEOPLE PROBABLY SAY I'M NOT, BUT UM, ANYWAY, SO I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL.

SO ARE WE TAKING THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING SINCE WE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE WE GOING JUDITH? AND THAT'S THE ROADMAP THAT WOULD BE.

[01:55:02]

THAT'S, THAT'LL BE THE ROADMAP.

BUT THE REASON FOR OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS FOR YOU TO SURE. SO IF WE DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE, WE IF WE DECIDE TO VOTE, DO WE THEN GO BACK AND CLOSE THAT HEARING AND THEN GO BACK TO THE VOTE OR LEAVE IT VOTE AND THEN GO CLOSE THE HEARING FIRST? OK? GOTCHA.

GOTCHA. IT'S HARD TO THINK THAT THROUGH, BECAUSE WHAT IF WE CLOSE AND THEN NOTHING HAPPENS AFTER THAT? SO THAT'S JUST I'M THINKING THAT ROAD MAP THAT AVENUE.

SO YEAH, BUT SO THEN THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS OF YOU CAN PUSH THE ITEM TO ANOTHER COUNCILMAN . GOTCHA. SO YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT IF YOU FEEL CAN.

BUT WHAT DO WE GAIN? YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S FINE.

NO, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE.

I JUST REALLY DON'T, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE WHAT WAS WHAT IS IT WE GAIN BY PUSHING IT BACK? I KNOW THEY THEY'RE GOING TO BE UPSET, BUT I CAN VOTE FOR RESOLUTION.

OK, BUT WHAT DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT INFORMATION WE'RE LACKING THAT WE WOULD GAIN.

[INAUDIBLE] LIKE HEY, I WANT TO KNOW X, Y AND Z.

WE'RE NOT READY TO DEAL WITH THIS, SO WE RECOMMEND PUSHING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

THAT IF THERE ARE NO THOSE THINGS, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO DO SOMETHING, WE JUST PUSH FOR IT, RIGHT? I GOT YOU. I'M STAYING ON THE POINT THAT I THINK WE NEED TO EXECUTE THIS PID.

WE WE WENT INTO THIS HAND IN HAND.

THERE'S A HICCUP. WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET RID OF THE HICCUPS AND DO THIS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M I GOT EGG ON MY FACE.

IF WE IF WE NOW TURN AROUND AND SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

BUT JUST PERSONALLY, THAT'S HOW I VIEW THIS AND WHATEVER PROCEDURE WE'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH HERE TONIGHT, I'M WITH YOU ALL.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT MR. CECIL. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHEN WAS OUR WHAT WAS OUR PROCEDURES FINALIZED? A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. IT WAS LIKE JULY OR SOMETHING, SECOND MEETING IN JULY, MAYBE.

OK. IT WAS DURING THE SUMMER, I MEAN, I DO REMEMBER AT SOME POINT SOMETIME DURING THE SUMMER. SO THIS FELL RIGHT BEFORE THAT.

A LOT OF THIS FELL BEFORE THAT.

WELL, YEAH, OF COURSE.

WELL, AND AGAIN, IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. APLIN HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T CHARGE THE $15000 FEE.

WE DIDN'T CHARGE THE $50000 YOU KNOW, OTHER FEE TO MAKE ALL THIS WORK BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY FELL IN BETWEEN THE THE CRACKS OF THE POLICY WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T IN PLACE BEFORE THEY FILED THEIR ORIGINAL PID POSITION AND TOOK IT TO COUNCIL AND ALL THAT AND AND HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE POLICY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT POLICY TO BEING AMENABLE TO WHAT'S GOING ON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR THE RESPONSE.

MR. MAYOR I MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

2ND. A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 12.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 20211109-012 DETERMINING THE COST OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GRAYSTONE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, APPROVING A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLE AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS AND TERMINATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

SECOND, A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES. GO AHEAD, SIR.

AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY MORE PIDS, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HONOR THIS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT STARTED WAY BACK AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WAS RIGHT HERE WITH.

AND I FEEL BAD IF I IF I TURNED MY BACK NOW AND SAY, NO, I'M GOOD.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW YOU ARE TAKING THE RISK, NOT US.

IT'S A CASH PID.

SO IF YOU CAN FIND PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BUY IN YOUR SUBDIVISION AND WANT TO PAY YOUR

[02:00:03]

ASSESSMENT, THEN THAT'S ON YOU.

AND I'LL SAY THIS, I'M WITH MR. BOOTH AND SHARE SOME SENTIMENTS WITH JOHN.

I HAVE A DIFFERENT CONCERN.

MINE IS PURPOSELY.

YOU KNOW, SIDESTEPPING OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, IT'S ADVICE, SO THAT'S ONLY A HANG UP FOR ME.

YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING TO THE TABLE TRYING TO FIND RESOLUTION.

I DO SEE SENTIMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE.

I MEAN, I DO SEE IT. JUDITH, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING AND YOU'RE THERE TO GIVE US THE ADVICE THAT YOU GIVE US. AND I APPRECIATE MR. REG AND HIS FOLKS.

LIKE YOU SAID, CECIL SOMEBODY SO HERE, PERSISTENT, STAYED WITH US, STAYED ON US, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES.

THAT'S WHY THEY PAY US THE BIG BUCKS TO SIT UP HERE AND MAKE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS.

AND JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS TO KNOW, IT'S 150 FOR ME, 100 FOR EACH OF THESE GUYS A MONTH, BARELY COVERS THE COST OF A FULL TANK OF GAS THESE DAYS.

BUT AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE AND WE SIT HERE, MAKE THESE THESE TOUGH DECISIONS AND AND LOSE A LITTLE SLEEP AND GET SOME HEARTBURN BECAUSE MR. REG AND I HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS.

AND SO BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND AND WHERE WE'VE COME FROM DAY ONE SINCE OCTOBER 2019.

I APPRECIATE IT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANKS, GUYS. APPRECIATE IT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG NUMBER 13 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

[13. Discussion and possible action on the Riverwood Ranch Subdivision Section Two final replat.]

ON RIVER WOOD RANCH SUBDIVISION SECTION TWO FINAL RE PLAT.

MR. WALTER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH SECTION NUMBER TWO.

AS YOU RECALL, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE DEVELOPER HAD ASKED FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO HAVE THIS COME BACK TO YOU ALL AT TONIGHT'S MEETING.

THE PLAT ITSELF MEETS ALL OF THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROJECT IS IN.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTED ON IT ON THEIR OCTOBER MEETING, WHICH DATE NOW ESCAPES ME FOR SOME REASON AND ON A VOTE OF TWO IN FAVOR AND FIVE AGAINST ON A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE FINAL PLAT.

IT DOES MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROJECT IS IN AND UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE IT.

THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL RIGHT. AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE FROM RIVERWOOD, NOT HERE.

MICHAEL, OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOU SITTING OVER THERE.

YOU GOT A LITTLE MORE FACIAL HAIR OVER THERE, OK? ALL RIGHT. WELL, SO DOES ANY OTHER STAFF.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS OR ANY COMMENT AS FAR AS WHAT MR. WALTER SAID? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, WE'RE GOOD. TALKING TO YOU.

OH, YEAH, IN REGARDS TO THIS ONE, HE JUST SAID, I'M SORRY.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN A LONG. OH, IT'S NOT NINE O'CLOCK.

I KEEP THINKING IT'S NINE O'CLOCK.

I'LL SAY THAT IT'S EIGHT O'CLOCK.

OH, WE'RE GOOD.

GOTCHA. OK. ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN I GUESS JUST A LITTLE, I MEAN, IF I CAN REMEMBER JUST JUST FOR SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION, THIS SUBDIVISION MOVED FORWARD BASED ON PRIOR CONVERSATIONS, HOW THEY WERE GOING TO DO THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS FOR HOW THEY WAS GOING TO MAKE THIS SUBDIVISION WORK.

AND THAT'S JUST WHAT I REMEMBER.

JUST THOUGHT I'D HAVE TO AT LEAST, SAY THAT THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT AT THE TIME WE WENT THROUGH BASED ON THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS BEING BUILT IN ACCORDANCE TO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE.

SO THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS.

THIS WAS THE KIND OF THE DIRECTION THEY GOT FROM THE GET GO WHEN WE FIRST ENTERTAINED RIVERWOOD JUMPING FROM GREYSTONES PROPERTY TO THE DAVIS PROPERTY.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I RECALL JUST FOR A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

IF ANYBODY REMEMBERS ANY DIFFERENT, LET ME KNOW, BUT I THINK THAT'S HOW I RECALL IT.

[02:05:02]

OH, SURE. YES, SIR.

SO YOU'RE CORRECT, WE CAME UP WITH AN OVERALL GENERAL LAND PLAN FOR THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS GOING TO BE FORTY FIVES, FIFTIES AND SIXTIES, AND THAT CONCEPT PLAN WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN TWENTY NINETEEN, I THINK.

SO THIS IS SECTION TWO OF THAT CONCEPT PLAN.

GOTCHA. OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

DUDE, IT'S JUST SO YOU STATED THAT WE HAD TO ARTICULATE A REASON TO OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANS THE CODES.

WHEN YOU REVIEW. DO YOU SEE ANY GROUNDS? YEAH. AND HE KNOWS THE LEGAL COUNSEL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR I MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINAL REPLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH, SECTION TWO SUBDIVISION AS PRESENTED.

I'LL SECOND IT.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES. GO AHEAD, SIR. WE'RE NOT THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT, BUT I WILL MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT RESIDENTS ALONG THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE ASKING ABOUT IN REGARDS TO WHERE THE WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS GOING AND ON, ESPECIALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE.

I KNOW THAT'S NOT IN SECTION TWO SPECIFICALLY HERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE SECTION TWO IS ALONG THE HOSPITAL DRIVE SIDE.

SO THE FRONT SIDE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, SINCE YOU'RE HERE AND I HAVE THE AGENDA ITEM FOR RIVERWOOD RANCH, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I PASS THAT ALONG TO YOU THAT YOU KNOW, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR YOU AS A DEVELOPER TO TO FIX THAT ISSUE BACK THERE.

YOU TALKING ABOUT COLONY SQUARE.

YES. OK. AND THAT'S STILL VERY MUCH ON MY MIND AND OTHERS THAT ARE GETTING EMAILS, SO OK? ONE THING WE DID DO WAS WE ACTUALLY RE-PLATTED SECTION ONE AND ADDED A 10 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT BACK THERE AND PUT IT IN A SWELL.

AND ONCE WE GO TO COLONY SQUARE, WE DISCUSS THIS AT THE BEGINNING, WE WERE GOING TO PROVIDE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH THEM. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE TO.

AND WHEN YOU SAY A BUFFER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN? SO ONE, THERE'S GOING TO BE SPACE GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND THERE ARE 60 FOOT LOTS AT THAT CORNER, WHICH WAS THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE FORTY FIVE.

THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE SIXTIES UP THERE.

OK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY MORE HEAVY RAIN COMES THROUGH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I DO HAVE TO JUST DO RECALL.

I DO REMEMBER WHEN THAT THE WORK STARTED OVER THERE, GUYS THAT I WAS CALLED OVER THERE TO GO LOOK. AND THE SWELL IS A PRETTY DECENT SWELL THAT'S OVER THERE WHERE THEY RAISE THE GREAT LINE. I WILL SAY THAT RIVER WOOD AND THEIR ENGINEER, OUR ENGINEERS VERY RESPONSIVE AT THE BEGINNING. ONCE THAT WORK STARTED THAT THEY DID GO OVER THERE TO START ADDRESSING THE ISSUE WITH WITH SOME OF THAT WITH THOSE RESIDENTS OVER THERE BECAUSE I WAS CONTACTED AS WELL JUST BY SHEER, BY LOOKING AT THE DIRT.

SO I'LL AT LEAST GIVE THEM KUDOS IF THEY JUMPED ON IT RIGHT OFF AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND WITH OUR TURN WITH JOHN PETERSON AS WELL.

AND THEY WENT OVER THERE, START KIND OF WORKING AND LOOKING HOW THEY CAN MITIGATE THAT ISSUE. SO MIKE, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO MICHAEL? THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT DITCH DRAINAGE LINE? WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? IT'S GOING TO BE CONVEYED TO OUR HOA AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT.

GOOD. GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT APPROXIMATE TIME WHEN THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE RESOLVED ONCE THE HOA IS GOING TO START MAINTAINING? NO, NO CURRENTLY THE ISSUES STILL TRYING TO FINISH THAT UP OVER THERE.

SO IT'S REALLY JUST GOING TO BE THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SWELL IS IN.

IT'S JUST OVERGROWN AT THIS TIME, SO IT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE MOWED AND GETTING BACK THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE JUST BECAUSE HOW YOU HAVE TO MOW IT, GETTING A TRACTOR DOWN THERE WHEN IT'S BEEN WET HAS BEEN AN ISSUE.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S A LITTLE DRY FOR MY GUY TO GET OUT THERE.

AND THAT'S ALL DRAINING BACK INTO YOUR DETENTION PONDS.

YEAH, IT'S ALL LEVELED TO GO BACK DOWN.

OKAY. YEAH, JOHN, IF YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THE ADDRESS I WENT TO WITH THE I FORGOT THE RESIDENCE, IT'S FORGOTTEN ME.

BUT YOU CAN STAND AND LOOK AND YOU CAN SEE THAT SLOPE THAT DOES GO TOWARD THE CENTER OF Y'ALL'S PROPERTY FROM THAT BACK CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW, IF IT'S TOWARDS THE ROAD, IF IT'S TOWARDS, YES, IT DOES SLOPE.

YOU CAN VISUALLY SEE THAT SLOPE GOING STRAIGHT DOWN.

YOU CAN SEE IT GOING DOWN. SO THE BACK SIDE DOES ALSO DAM UP A LITTLE HIGHER.

YES. YEAH. THAT'S ALL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY THERE AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND OUR CONCERN.

THERE'S MY CONCERN IS, IS WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE NOW.

FORTUNATELY, THAT NORTHWEST CORNER, THAT'S THE SECTION ONE THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED.

YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T PROPERTY HOMES DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT.

[02:10:01]

BUT AS YOU DO MOVE TO NORTHEAST CORNER AND YOU GET FROM COLONY SQUARE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO BE FLOODING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL.

SO IT'S JUST I KNOW YOU HAVE ALREADY SOUND LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS MATTER.

I JUST WANT US TO BE VERY CAREFUL ON THAT.

SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT LAST NIGHT I DROVE THROUGH YOUR SECTION ONE AT PROBABLY AROUND NINE O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT AND DEER RAN ACROSS THE ROAD.

REALLY? HMM.

LOTS OF IT WAS MORE THAN TWO, FOR SURE.

THAT'S INTERESTING. OK.

I THOUGHT I'D LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING.

IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING. MAYBE THAT'S THE NEW BAR X.

PRETTY SHOCKED. ALL RIGHT.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE. THANK YOU, MR. MIKE, FOR ANSWERING THOSE.

ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT IS FOUR YEAS, ONE NAY, MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG NO.

[14. Discussion and possible action on the Mulberry Fields Subdivision preliminary plat and variances.]

14 DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON MULBERRY FIELDS SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE. MS. LINDSEY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, SO AS I TOLD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAST WEEK, THERE WERE NUMEROUS COMMENTS THAT WERE UNRESOLVED FROM OUR ENGINEERS AND BECAUSE OF THE NUMEROUS COMMENTS AND THE EXTENT AND TYPE OF COMMENTS, NAMELY INCLUDING A RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS THAT DOES NOT MEET 60 FOOT, AS IS REQUIRED BY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THEREFORE, PLANNING AND ZONING UNANIMOUSLY DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I GOT IN CONTACT OR ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM ON THIS PROJECT.

IN A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION, I HAD ASKED THERE.

THAT PROJECT'S ENGINEER IF, WELL, IT KIND OF GAVE HIM A HEADS UP.

I DIDN'T THINK IT'D BE APPROVED, SO I DID THAT AS KIND OF A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY.

SEE IF THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE US ANY COMMENTS THAT WE COULD CONSIDER.

WE NEVER GOT ANY.

SO IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

AND WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THEM WAS TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION TONIGHT, OR IT WOULD LIKELY BE DENIED BY COUNCIL.

THESE ITEMS ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND DO NEED TO BE RESOLVED BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF PROPERTY AND CAN BE DEVELOPED TO THE CITY STANDARDS.

WITH THAT BEING SAID.

THEY DID ASK FOR A DEFERRAL OR AN EXTENSION.

AND IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO DO THAT WITHIN A 30 DAY TIME FRAME CONSIDERING THE DATE OF THE DECEMBER MEETING.

SO IT'S ABOUT THIRTY FIVE DAYS OUT.

WE HAVE 30 DAYS, SO WITHOUT YOU, YOU HAVE PRETTY MUCH ONE OPTION.

MAYOR I MOVE WE DENY THE PRELIMINARY PULLOUT OF MULBERRY FIELD.

SECOND, ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY COUNCIL OR MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS RIGHT HERE. I COULD HEAR IT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, GO AHEAD. NO, I THINK THERE WAS A TIME THING.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND TIMELINES AND I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THINGS.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO SOUND TOO HARSH, BUT TELL THESE PEOPLE DON'T SUBMIT STUFF TO THE CITY THAT IS SO WAY FAR OFF BEING CORRECT.

THEY GOT TO FIX IT, AND THERE AIN'T NO SENSE IN EVEN PRESENTING IT UNTIL IT'S CLOSE, YOU MIGHT THEY'LL PROBABLY CALL AND SEE WHAT THE ANSWER WAS TONIGHT, IF THEY'RE NOT ONLINE RIGHT NOW, BUT. YES, SIR.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, YOU'RE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS PRESENT A PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENT TO US. AGREED.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. BOOTH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR THE DENIAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. IT BRINGS US TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE CITY COUNCIL NOW CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 551 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED THEREIN.

NO. 15 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 20211109-015 CASTING VOTES FOR THE CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES FOR A POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BRAZORIA COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, SECTION 551.074 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE NUMBER 16 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20211109-016 APPOINTING JEFFREY R.

[02:15:04]

GILBERT AS THE MUNICIPAL COUNTY, THE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SECTION 551.074 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AND NUMBER 17 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE SALE OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON PROPERTY SECTION 551.072 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. I WILL NOW SHOW US GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:16.

YOU CAN SHOW US OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION BACK AT THE TABLE 10:08 WITH YOUR PICKS TO WALK, NO, IT'S 10:08 IT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU LUPE.

COUNCIL ANYTHING COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES. FOR ITEM NUMBER 15, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 20211109-015

[15. Discussion and possible action on Resolution No. 20211109-015 casting votes for candidate(s) for a position on the Board of Directors of the Brazoria County Appraisal District. Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code.]

CASTING ALL VOTES FOR CANDIDATE DEBORAH SPOOR FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE BRAZORIA COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT SECTION 551.08 I DON'T NEED THAT LATE.

GO AHEAD. HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM COMING OUT.

YEAH, MR.

[17. Discussion and possible action on the sale of City of Angleton property. Section 551.072 of the Texas Government Code.]

MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FOR SEALED BIDS TO GO OUT FOR THE PARCEL OF LAND BETWEEN SOUTH OF MYRTLE STREET, EAST OF ERSKINE STREET, APPROXIMATELY ZERO POINT FOUR FOUR ACRES TO BE SURVEYED FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE AND INSTRUCT CITY STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SALE.

CAN I CORRECT YOU AND SAY APPRAISED? ABSOLUTELY, YEAH.

PRIOR TO GOING UP FOR BID.

SO MOVED. SECOND.