[1. CALL TO ORDER ]
          [00:00:10]
          ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. TODAY IS MONDAY, AUGUST 18TH, 2025. WE'LL NOW CALL THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS QUORUM. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. ITEM NUMBER THREE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS. CITY SECRETARY, DID WE RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REQUESTS FOR THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? NO, MR. MAYOR, WE DID NOT. OKAY. AND NUMBER FOUR, OUR DISCUSSION OF 
          [(a) Receive a Presentation - 2025 Texas Legislative Session.]
POSSIBLE ACTION FOR A IS RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE 2025 TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION BY EACH CITY ATTORNEY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. HAPPY MONDAY MONDAY. 
          THIS IS THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ITEM. AS YOU ALL KNOW, EVERY TWO YEARS MY OFFICE COMES TO YOU ALL TO ASK YOU TO REVIEW POTENTIAL PRIORITIES. YOU ALL GET TOGETHER. YOU AGREE UPON WHAT THOSE PRIORITIES ARE. WE DID THAT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEA, AND THE 89TH REGULAR SESSION HAS ENDED. AND I STRESS THE WORD REGULAR BECAUSE THE STATE IS CURRENTLY IN A SECOND SPECIAL SESSION. BUT WE'LL BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THAT LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. SO THIS BRIEF PRESENTATION PROVIDES YOU ALL WITH JUST AN UPDATE ON A FEW BILLS THAT RELATE TO CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES THAT YOU ALL AUTHORIZED BACK IN JANUARY. YOU AUTHORIZED STAFF TO WORK ON THESE SPECIFIC PRIORITIES VIA RESOLUTION, AND YOU AUTHORIZED STAFF TO WORK ON THEM WITH THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT, WHO IS HERE FROM AUSTIN. SHE TOOK A BREAK FROM THAT SPECIAL SESSION TO COME DOWN TO JOIN US. KAREN KENNARD WITH GREENBERG TRAURIG, THE STATE RECEIVED OVER 9000 BILLS AND OVER 9000 BILLS WERE FILED THIS PAST SESSION. REGULAR SESSION 1200 BILLS PASSED. OF THOSE 1200 BILLS, ABOUT 20% OF THEM COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON CITY, ON THE CITY AND OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE. AND AGAIN IN JANUARY, YOU ALL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDED MULTIPLE PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY. SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THAT WE SAW INCLUDED JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY. THE CITY HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING AN INFLUX OF TRAVELING HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COME INTO THE CITY OR INTO THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO OPEN UP DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING AND TAKE HOUSING AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING OFF OF THE TAX ROLLS IN FORT BEND COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH THOSE COUNTIES OR THOSE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS ARE LOCATED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE, THEY HAVE BEEN COMING IN TO TRY TO ATTEMPT TO TAKE AGAIN THE TAXES OFF OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY TAX ROLLS. ANOTHER IMPORTANT PRIORITY WAS JUST THE TAX APPRAISAL PROCESS, MAKING SURE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT TAX APPRAISAL PROCESS WHEN THEY LOOK AT THEIR TAX BILLS EVERY YEAR, AND THEN ALSO CONCRETE PLANS. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PLANS THAT HAVE COME INTO THE CITIES AREA WHERE ETJ THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OPEN UP. SO OF THE CITY'S PRIORITIES, THERE ARE SEVERAL BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED THAT RELATE TO THOSE PRIORITIES. I WILL FOCUS ON SOME OF THE KIND OF BIG SIGNIFICANT ONES FOR US. I THINK ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BILLS IS HOUSE BILL 21. THAT IS THE BILL THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE IN THE CITY AND ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 
          HOUSE BILL 21 REQUIRES TRAVELING HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS TO OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF A CITY BEFORE OPENING IN THOSE THOSE CITIES OR IN A CITY. THIS IS PROSPECTIVE. SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAVE A FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OPEN OR HAVE MADE CERTAIN CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS IN OUR AREA. THIS BILL, UNFORTUNATELY, IS PROSPECTIVE, SO IT ONLY APPLIES TO HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS IN THE FUTURE. THE ANOTHER BILL THAT RELATES TO IS THE CITY'S PRIORITIES IS HOUSE BILL 148. THIS BILL ACTUALLY REQUIRES 
          [00:05:04]
APPRAISAL BOARDS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EDUCATION AND ADDITIONAL HOURS SO THAT THEY'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE MORE THEY KNOW, AND I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE, PROBABLY THE MORE EFFECTIVE THEY'LL BE IN PROVIDING THEIR SERVICES TO THE COUNTY. SO THAT IS AN IMPORTANT BILL. ANOTHER BILL IS SENATE BILL 763. THIS WAS ACTUALLY FILED BY SENATOR ALVARADO, WHO'S OUT OF HOUSTON. AND IT REQUIRES A NEW A REVIEW OF A PERMIT FOR A CONCRETE PLANT TO OCCUR AT LEAST ONCE EVERY EIGHT YEARS. NOW, THIS BILL IS NOT SPECIFIC TO OUR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL NOTICING, BUT IT DOES ADDRESS OR IT DOES PROVIDE SOME SORT OF REVIEW FOR THE PLANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING. SO IT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY REQUESTED. AND AS YOU'LL SEE, MOST OF THE BILLS ARE NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR. BUT THEY DO MAKE SOME PROGRESS, AND THEY DO ASSIST THE CITY IN ACCOMPLISHING THE GOALS AND PRIORITIES THAT YOU ALL SET OUT. SO THE NEXT QUESTION YOU MIGHT ASK IS WHAT CHANGES WILL THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY SEE? YOU KNOW, OVER 250 BILLS PASSED. STAFF IS REVIEWING THOSE BILLS, WORKING WITH DEPARTMENTS TO COME UP WITH IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE DIFFERENT BILLS. BUT OF THE BILLS THAT PASSED, THE ONE BILL THAT THE PUBLIC AND RESIDENTS WILL PROBABLY ACTUALLY BECOME MORE AWARE OF IS HOUSE BILL 1522. THIS BILL MOVES THE TIMING UP FOR THE POSTING OF PUBLIC NOTICES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. SO YOU ALL WILL NOTICE THAT AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, YOUR POSTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU ALL IN THE PUBLIC, NOT 72 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT THREE BUSINESS DAYS. SO THAT EQUATES TO THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING. SO THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BILLS THAT THE PUBLIC AND RESIDENTS WILL ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE FROM THE LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE STATE IS CURRENTLY IN ITS SECOND SPECIAL SESSION FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE REGULAR SESSION. THAT SPECIAL SESSION ADDRESSES A MULTITUDE OF TOPICS. 
          SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INCLUDE FLOODING RELATED LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE 4TH OF JULY FLOODS THAT TOOK PLACE IN CENTRAL TEXAS. ADDITIONALLY. ADDITIONALLY, REDISTRICTING IS ALSO A HOT TOPIC. CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IN THE SPECIAL SESSION. SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO ASK IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AGAIN, MOST OF THIS LEGISLATION, IT RELATES TO ITEMS THAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES THAT YOU ALL IDENTIFIED BACK IN JANUARY. STAFF IS, OF COURSE, LOOKING AT THE MULTITUDE OF LEGISLATION TO MAKE CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE NECESSARY. 
          BUT WE DID WANT TO UPDATE YOU SO THAT YOU ALL KNOW KIND OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. RECOGNIZING COUNCILMEMBER RILEY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, JOYCE. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THE SB 763 AND 2351? LIKE WHAT IS CHANGING OR WHAT THAT BILL ACTUALLY IS DOING? SO SENATE BILL 763 ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO DO TO REVIEW PERMITS FOR THE PROTECTIVENESS. SO FOR THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT THOSE CONCRETE PLANTS PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC EVERY EIGHT YEARS, RIGHT NOW, THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT IN PLACE. SO IT'S A NEW ADDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION, THE STATE AGENCY THAT REGULATES THOSE PLANTS, TO REVIEW THOSE PERMITS ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING? SO IF OUR SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE ZONING THAT PROTECTS SOME OF THOSE LAND, THOSE PROPERTIES THAT THOSE LANDOWNERS OWN, WILL ANY EITHER OF THESE BILLS? 2351 DOES IT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE HOW IT IMPACTS OUR ZONING? SO 2351 OR EITHER OF THE BILLS? NO, NO, THESE ARE THESE ARE REALLY KIND OF STATE AGENCY LEVEL BILLS. SO THEY DON'T IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ITS ZONING. 
          OKAY. YES. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS KIND OF GENERIC, GENERIC, ARE THERE ANY OTHER BILLS OUTSIDE OF THE ONES THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT CITY MUNICIPALITIES? YES. 
          OUTSIDE OF THE ONES THAT YOU KIND OF WENT OVER? YES. AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE ABOUT 250 
          [00:10:02]
BILLS THAT PASSED THIS SESSION THAT MAY IMPACT CITIES. STAFF IS REVIEWING THOSE BILLS AND PROVIDING DEPARTMENTS WITH UPDATES. MOST OF THOSE BILLS ARE OPERATIONAL IN NATURE, IN THAT THEY MAY REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE. THEY MAY REQUIRE SOME SORT OF PROCESS CHANGE BY CITY STAFF. SOME ARE JUST INFORMATIONAL NEW GRANT PROGRAMS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT STAFF THE CITY MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, BUT THESE ARE JUST HIGHLIGHTS THAT RELATE TO THE PRIORITIES THAT COUNCIL SET OR THE ONES THAT I TALKED ABOUT HERE. ARE YOU GOING TO BE LISTING THESE PARTICULAR BILLS ON OUR WEBSITE, OR HOW DO RESIDENTS GET ACCESS TO THEM? WHICH BILLS? THE ONES THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING. SO THE ONES THAT IMPACTS OPERATIONS, THOSE ARE BEING DIRECTED TO STAFF, SO THAT STAFF WITH LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT STAFF CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE BILLS. SO THOSE WOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC BECAUSE THAT'S LEGAL ADVICE TO THE OPERATIONS TEAM. THESE ARE JUST BILLS THAT RELATE TO PRIORITIES. 
          WE CAN CERTAINLY POST THIS WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CITY'S CONSULTANT. WE CAN POST THIS PARTICULAR POWERPOINT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE IF THAT MIGHT BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. RECOGNIZING COUNCILMEMBER CLAUSEN. YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS, IS THIS THE ARE YOU GOING TO GO OVER THIS CONTENT ON SATURDAY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE OR. NO. SO THAT IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT PROGRAM THAT'S BEING HOSTED BY A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE CITY. I THINK THAT SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO HOAS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION IS IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO KEEP GOING BACK WHERE YOU LISTED THE HOUSE BILLS, RIGHT THERE. HOUSE BILL 1555. YES. THE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS. CAN YOU GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THAT? CERTAINLY. AND SO THIS IS A NEW BILL THAT CREATES A PROGRAM THAT ESTABLISHES A GRANT PROGRAM FOR RAILROAD CROSSINGS, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON A NON STATE HIGHWAYS AND RAILROAD CROSSINGS, AS WELL AS CERTAIN PEDESTRIAN AREAS. SO THE CITY THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE THAT STAFF HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WE WILL LOOK INTO ONCE IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR CITY THAT WE CAN UTILIZE THIS FUNDING FOR. YES. YES, MA'AM. YEAH. AND IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, SINCE WE'RE ALREADY WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH TXDOT AND THE RAILROAD THAT WE STAND TO GAIN A BENEFIT FROM THIS, BECAUSE THOSE FUNDS WILL BE FUNNELED THROUGH TXDOT. OKAY, OKAY. AND SO WE ALREADY HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A LOT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT ON CRAVENS ROAD. AND THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE GESSNER. GOOD ROAD. 
          OKAY. SO WE'RE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE FOR THAT RIGHT. THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS HOUSE BILL 21. I KNOW THIS RELATES TO TRAVELING HOUSING, FINANCE CORPORATIONS. 
          WHAT ABOUT IF THESE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TRAVELING OR THEY'RE OUT OF STATE? WHAT DO WE CONSIDER? NOT TRAVELING? NOT TRAVELING WOULD BE A HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION THAT'S LOCATED IN THE AREA. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CITY WERE TO CREATE ITS OWN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A TRAVELING HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. OKAY. SO IF IT'S A AN ENTITY THAT'S IN ROSENBERG, IS THAT TRAVELING? IF IT'S COUNTY AND THEY'RE AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MUCH OF THE LEGAL ADVICE OR LEGAL ADVICE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          BUT THIS SPECIFIC LEGISLATION DEALS WITH TRAVELING, HOUSING, FINANCE CORPORATIONS, NOT THOSE THAT ARE OPERATING WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. OKAY, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. RECOGNIZE AND COUNCIL MEMBER BONNIE. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I HAD A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A YOU OR KAREN QUESTION OR BOTH. WHERE ARE WE? I KNOW ONE OF THE PRIORITIES HAS BEEN THE GROUP HOME CONVERSATION. LAST SESSION WE HAD SOME SUCCESS WHERE PIECE OF LEGISLATION PASSED IN THE HOUSE THANKS TO REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS, BUT THEN IT DIDN'T GET A HEARING IN THE SENATE, SO I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS ANY TRACTION THIS YEAR AT ALL ON 
          [00:15:01]
GROUP HOMES FROM THE HOUSE AND OR THE SENATE. SEEING THAT WE HAD SO MUCH PROGRESS IN THE, I WANT TO SAY, 88TH SESSION. SO WE'RE WHAT WAS UP. TELL ME ABOUT WHAT WHAT CONVERSATIONS OR. 
          SURE. AND THAT WOULD BE A THAT WOULD BE A KAREN QUESTION. AND YOU KNOW, ONE REASON WE DO HAVE THE CONSULTANT IS BECAUSE THE CONSULTANT CAN BE KIND OF THE CITY'S EYES AND EARS ON THE GROUND IN AUSTIN DURING THE SESSION. SO I WILL TURN IT OVER BEFORE SHE GETS STARTED. I JUST WANTED TWO MORE THINGS THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO. YOU TALKED ABOUT HER BEING A CONSULTANT. I KNOW THERE'S A BILL THAT IS PART OF THE AGENDA. IT'S LIKE 19 ITEMS THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS LISTED, AND ONE OF THEM IS BANNING TAXPAYER, TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYISTS. WOULD GREENBERG BE CONSIDERED A TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBY FIRM FOR US OR WOULD THEY BE A CONSULTANT? SO IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN WHICH I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH LEGAL ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. BUT AT THIS POINT, I RECOMMEND THAT WE KIND OF FOCUS ON THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS PASSED. THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA THAT COULD IMPACT THE CITY. THOSE ITEMS CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU ALL AT A LATER DATE AS THE SESSION PROGRESSES. WELL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE SESSION ONLY LASTS FOR 30 DAYS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY AND WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS SO SHE CAN HAVE HER PRESENTATION AND THEN MAYBE AFTERWARDS WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE INVOLVES THE ANOTHER ITEM, WHICH IS ABOUT REDUCING THE WATER IMPACT FEES, WHICH WOULD IMPACT OUR CITY AS WELL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE MIDST OF THE SECOND SESSION NOW. THANK YOU. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER. MY NAME IS KAREN KENNARD. I'M WITH THE GREENBERG TRAURIG LAW FIRM. COUNCIL MEMBER BONNIE, YOU ARE CORRECT. WE DID HAVE BOTH YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES FILE BILLS RELATED TO GROUP HOMES, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, ACTUALLY, FOR THE LAST THREE SESSIONS. AND. THOSE BILLS DID NOT GET ANY TRACTION THIS YEAR. WE WORKED REALLY CLOSELY WITH HARRIS COUNTY, WHICH HAS BEEN A LEADER ON GROUP HOME ISSUES, TO MAKE SURE CITY ATTORNEY AND I WORK WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T INTERFERE WITH ANY OF THE PREVIOUS DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED BEFORE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN OWNERS OF THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES WHO WERE JUST OPPOSED TO ANY NEW REGULATIONS. AS YOU KNOW, THE CATEGORY OF GROUP HOMES THAT YOU GENERALLY DEAL WITH HERE KIND OF FALL INTO A GRAY AREA WHERE THERE'S REALLY NO STATE LEGISLATION AND OR REGULATION. AND ONE OF THE BILLS THAT SENATOR MILES AND REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS HAD WOULD HAVE TRIED TO BRING THEM WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SOME TYPE OF REGULATION. BUT SOME OF THE OWNERS OF SEVERAL OF THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES WERE JUST VERY OPPOSED TO THAT. SO THEY DIDN'T GET A LOT OF TRACTION THIS SESSION. ALL RIGHT. I RECOGNIZE AND COUNCIL MEMBER EMERY. GO BACK TO THE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING 55. MY QUESTION IS THERE ARE GOING SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY FOR OUR ISSUE IS THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION OR SITUATION LIKE OR GRANT TBO WOULD MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR A GRANT. SO THE GRANT PROGRAM OF AT LEAST THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO MY KNOWLEDGE. CORRECT. SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. IT SAYS NON STATE HIGHWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS. WE WOULD REALLY NEED TO DELVE INTO WHAT THAT MEANS FROM THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE BEFORE WE COULD ANSWER THAT. AND THERE'S A SECOND PRONG OF THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AS WELL. SO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS IN CHARGE OF SETTING OUT WHAT THE CRITERIA WILL BE FOR THAT GRANT PROGRAM. AND ONCE THOSE CRITERIA ARE ESTABLISHED, THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE RULEMAKING. AND I'M SURE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY FOLLOWS THE TEXAS REGISTER, WHERE THOSE THAT RULEMAKING WILL BE PUBLISHED. AND SO ONCE THAT CRITERIA IS ESTABLISHED, THEN YOU WILL THEN BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT 
          [00:20:03]
PARTICULAR INTERSECTION IS ELIGIBLE FOR THAT FUNDING. CAN WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO SHARE WITH YOU TO THE, TO THE, I GUESS, LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT WOULD. 
          QUALIFY THAT LOCATION. IT'S GOING TO BE THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. AND SO THIS LEGISLATION GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE RULES AND THE CRITERIA. AND THEN I KNOW DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THE MAYOR AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE SET UP A MEETING FOR THEM TO MEET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TXDOT. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES. SO ONCE THEY ADOPT THOSE RULES AND CRITERIA, THEN WE WILL NEED TO OR THE CITY WILL NEED TO THEN CONTINUE TO DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR LOCAL DISTRICT REP ABOUT HOW YOU MIGHT POSITION YOURSELF TO BE QUALIFIED FOR POTENTIAL FUNDING. FINAL QUESTION UNDER ASSIGNING PRIORITY IN WHICH SITUATIONS THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE GRANTS. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE RULEMAKING. I MEAN, THE STATUTES, JUST A GENERAL KIND OF GRANTING OF AUTHORITY FOR THEM TO ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA FOR FUNDING. BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO WATCH THE TEXAS REGISTER FOR THAT RULEMAKING AND THOSE CRITERIA. WHAT CAN WE DO OR HAVE WE DONE TO TRY TO GET OURSELVES PLACED HIGH UP ON THE PRIORITY? SO ONCE OH, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT SINCE WE'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH TXDOT, THEY'RE ALREADY COVERING A LARGE PART OF THE COST THAT WE ARE INCURRING AS WE'RE LOOKING TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ON CRAVENS THEN FOLLOWING WITH GESSNER, I WOULD THINK THAT THOSE THE CRITERIA IS ALREADY SET AND THAT WE'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH THEM TO COVER THE COST AS WELL AS WITH THE RAILROAD TO COVER SOME OF THOSE COSTS. SO I ONLY SEE THAT. I ONLY SEE THAT CREATING A NEW AND MORE DEFINITIVE SOURCE OF REVENUE GOING FORWARD. NOW, I DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING ON THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM AN IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM PERSPECTIVE. AND THEN WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT FLYOVERS AND ALL OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE IN THAT FUND, WHETHER THAT'S IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. AND SO THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED, I GUESS. BUT WE ARE WE'RE ALREADY POSITIONED IN A GOOD SPACE TO GET THOSE SOME OF THOSE FUNDS. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT CRAVENS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME BACK WITH THE FLYOVER, YES, TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS ON 90 AND ON CRAVEN. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, HAS ANY, ANY STANDING OR OF COURSE, THAT'S GOING TO BE A, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY MASSIVE FUNDING REQUIREMENT TO DO THE FLYOVER. WELL. AND THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A DETERRENT FOR US IS PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS HAVE TO BE SHOVEL READY. AND SO WE'VE NEVER HAD THE FUNDS TO GET A PROJECT TO BE SHOVEL READY. SO MAYBE THESE FUNDS COULD BE USED TO GET US TO THE POSITION OF BEING SHOVEL READY. AND THEN THAT WOULD POSITION US TO QUALIFY BETTER FOR FEDERAL FUNDS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WHAT YOU LISTED UP IN HERE IN THE PRESENTATIONS ARE SEVEN HOUSE BILLS. I MEAN SEVEN BILLS. THAT SHOWS IT AS A PRIORITY RIGHT. THERE'S FIVE ON ONE PAGE ON SLIDE NINE. AND THEN THERE'S SLIDE TEN. THERE'S ONE AND THEN SLIDE 11 THERE'S ANOTHER ONE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT SLIDE EIGHT, WHICH IS A MISSOURI CITY PRIORITY LEGISLATION. SO THESE WERE THE ITEMS. THAT WAS I GUESS THAT THIS BODY KIND OF VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD. YES, SIR. YOU ALL VOTED IN JANUARY TO ADOPT THESE ITEMS AS YOUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. SO OUT OF THAT, YOU'RE SAYING 250 BILLS HAVE PASSED THAT AFFECTS THE CITY? YES, SOME OF IT IS, OR MAJORITY OF IT IS IN THE OPERATION SIDE WHICH YOU'LL WORK WITH. BUT THEN THE REST OF IT IS WHAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING. SO WHY THOSE SEVEN? THESE SEVEN WERE HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE THEY EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THE EXACT LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, THEY RELATE TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AND THEY RELATE TO THE GOALS. I THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BACK IN JANUARY WHEN YOU SET YOUR YOUR PRIORITIES. OKAY. AND I WILL ALSO SAY, MAYOR, MANY OF THE PRIORITY BILLS THAT ARE PRIORITY LEGISLATION THAT YOU SET ARE THINGS FOR OPPOSITION. SO IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING 
          [00:25:01]
ABOUT PROPERTY TAX REFORM. IT TALKED ABOUT PROTECTING YOUR ABILITY TO FUND THE CITY. AND SO THERE WERE A LOT OF NEGATIVE BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED YOUR ABILITY TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE STREAM. SO THE WAY THE PARTICULAR PRIORITY LEGISLATION WAS WORDED, IN SOME CASES, IT WAS JUST BEING IN OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN TYPES OF LEGISLATION. OKAY. SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE MAY ELECTIONS? SO WITH THE MAY ELECTIONS, THAT BILL DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED NOVEMBER ELECTIONS THAT ADVANCED. THERE'S ALSO A BILL ACTUALLY THAT DID PASS THAT WOULD ALLOW CITIES AND ENTITIES WITH MAY ELECTIONS NOW TO MOVE TO NOVEMBER ELECTIONS. SO THERE WAS JUST NO THAT BILL JUST DID NOT MOVE. OKAY. SO THE TWO BIG TICKET ITEMS, THE PROPERTY TAX REFORM AND TAX APPRAISAL PROCESS, WHAT WERE THOSE TWO CHANGES OR WAS THERE ANY CHANGES? SO AS KAREN MENTIONED, WITH AT LEAST PROPERTY TAX REFORM, PART OF THAT WAS TO BE ON THE DEFENSE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW THE CITY AND OTHER ENTITIES ARE LIMITED TO INCREASES OF 3.5% PER YEAR. THERE WERE BILLS THAT WERE PROPOSED THAT WOULD HAVE LIMITED THAT AMOUNT EVEN FURTHER IN THE SPECIAL SESSION. NOW THERE'S A BILL THAT COULD STILL LIMIT THAT AMOUNT THAT THE CITY CAN RAISE PER YEAR. AND OF COURSE, THAT LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ITS RESIDENTS SO THAT THAT IS THE TYPE OF BILL THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE OR THAT THE TEAM WOULD HAVE. YEAH, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING ON A PARTICULAR BILL THAT'S ALSO BACK IN THE SPECIAL SESSION RELATED TO CHANGING THE CALCULATIONS. NOW FOR YOUR NO NEW, NO NEW REVENUE CALCULATION. THAT BILL IS BACK IN THE SPECIAL SESSION. LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A THERE WAS ALSO A REALLY BIG BILL THAT GOT LOTS OF HEARINGS RELATED TO REDUCING THE CURRENT 3.5% CAP TO 2.5%. THAT PARTICULAR BILL HAS NOW PASSED THE SENATE IN THE SPECIAL. SO WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME PLAYING DEFENSE UNDER YOUR PROGRAM RELATED TO THOSE TYPES OF LEGISLATION THAT LIMIT YOUR REVENUE. THERE WAS ALSO A BILL IN THE SESSION THAT IS THAT IS ALSO MOVING IN THE SECOND SPECIAL RELATED TO NOT JUST THE PROPERTY TAX CAP THAT YOU HAVE, BUT ALSO A REVENUE CAP. AND UNDER THAT REVENUE CAP BILL, THAT MEANS THAT THEY WOULD THE CURRENT BILL AND THE BILL FROM THE, FROM THE, FROM THE REGULAR SESSION WOULD SAY THAT YOU CANNOT RAISE ANY MORE REVENUE OR SPEND, EXPEND ANY REVENUE THAT IS MORE THAN YOU SPENT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AND SO IT WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE REVENUE, BONDS, CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AND REVENUE THAT YOU GET FROM YOUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS. SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE HAVING NOT ONLY A TAX CAP BUT A REVENUE CAP, AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO YOUR ABILITY TO FUND YOUR CORE SERVICES, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME OPPOSING THOSE THREE TYPES OF BILLS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION FOR JOYCE. SO OUT OF THE ITEMS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON TO MOVE FORWARD, HOW MANY WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S THAT WE GOT DONE. AND I THINK GOT DONE IS RELATIVE. WELL, MAYBE MAYBE NOT GOT DONE. BUT ARE WE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT OR CERTAIN THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING? I DEFINITELY THINK WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE EDUCATION FOR TAX, THE TAX APPRAISAL PROCESS. I DO THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT. AS I MENTIONED, I FEEL LIKE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WITH THE TRAVELING HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS WAS VERY IMPORTANT. WE ARE STILL DEFENDING A LAWSUIT AS IT RELATES TO THAT. SO I THINK THAT WAS HUGE. THERE WERE SOME BILLS ON INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE, NOT NEXUS, NOT NECESSARILY INDEPENDENT LIVING, BUT FOR ASSISTED LIVING. I DO THINK THAT WAS THAT THERE WAS PROGRESS THERE. RAILROAD CROSSINGS. I THINK THAT THERE'S PROGRESS THERE. AND CONCRETE PLANTS. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED. I THINK THAT THERE IS PROGRESS ON THOSE ITEMS. OKAY. SO AS SOME OF THESE 250, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ON THE OPERATION SIDE, WHEN WILL THAT BE IMPLEMENTED? OR DO YOU HAVE A DATE THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THOSE BE IMPLEMENTED BY. SO SOME OF THEM HAVE SEPTEMBER 1ST IMPLEMENTATION OR EFFECTIVE DATES, BUT MAY NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ACTION FROM STAFF. 
          OTHERS DO REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE WILL BE FORTHCOMING BETWEEN NOW AND PROBABLY DECEMBER 31ST. WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE WILL NOT BOMBARD YOU, OR AT LEAST WE'LL TRY NOT TO 
          [00:30:03]
BOMBARD YOU ALL WITH SEVERAL ORDINANCE CHANGES AT ONE TIME, BUT WE'LL PRESENT THEM AS AS NECESSARY AS THEY COME UP. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, KAREN. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU 
          [5. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION]
FOR COUNCILMEMBER. YES, MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO GO INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CURRENT SPECIAL SESSION. IT'S BEEN A MOTION A SECOND. DO I NEED TO PUT IT ON HERE? YES, PLEASE. IS THERE A SECOND? YEAH. SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BONNIE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLOUSER. DO YOU WANT TO ROLL CALL? IF WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL, THAT'D BE GREAT. MAYOR. YES, MAYOR. PRO TEM BROWN. MARSHALL. MEMBER. CLOUSER. YES. 
          MEMBER. RILEY. YES. MEMBER. BONY. YES. MEMBER. O'DEKIRK. YES. MEMBER. EMERY. YES. THE MOTION ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS 6:18 P.M. CITY COUNCIL IS BACK IN TO THE 
          [6. RECONVENE]
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING. OKAY. SEEING NO ONE ELSE ON THE QUEUE ON ITEM FOUR A, WE'RE 
          [(b) Consideration and Possible Action- Authorize staff to seek potential b...]
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD ONTO ITEM FOUR. B IT'S A CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEEK POTENTIAL BUYERS AND NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF PARTIAL GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLANS OWNED OVER CONVERSATION CREDITS. WE HAVE NICHOLAS COOK, ASSISTANT UTILITIES DIRECTOR. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING. OKAY, SO TONIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SALE OF OVER CONVERSION CREDITS. SO FIRST WHAT ARE OVER CONVERSION CREDITS? SO THE FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT REGULATES HOW MUCH WATER CAN BE PUMPED OUT OF THE GROUND. ANY OTHER WATER USED WE CALL ALTERNATIVE WATER. SO SYSTEMS THAT USE MORE ALTERNATIVE WATER THAN THEY'RE REQUIRED TO OR OVER CONVERTING CAN PURCHASE THOSE BACK AS CREDITS, AND THE CREDITS CAN BE USED TO AVOID PAYING A DISINCENTIVE FEE, OR THEY CAN BE SOLD TO OTHER ENTITIES. SO HOW MANY OVER CONVERSION CREDITS DO WE HAVE AND WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? SO WHEN THE GRP WAS CREATED, IT MADE IT A PRACTICE TO PURCHASE THE CREDITS. CURRENTLY THE GRP OWNS 19 BILLION. THAT'S WITH A B GALLONS OF OVER CONVERSION CREDITS, AND THEY WERE PURCHASED AT A RATE OF $0.02 PER 1000 GALLONS. AND THE PURCHASES WERE MADE KIND OF AS AN INSURANCE POLICY. IT WAS TO PROVIDE A BACKUP, TO MAKE SURE THAT IF OUR GROUNDWATER NEEDS EXCEEDED WHAT WAS WHAT WAS REGULATED, THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE DISINCENTIVE FEE, WHICH IS $6.50 PER 1000 GALLONS. SO AGAIN, $0.02 INSTEAD OF 650 MADE GREAT ECONOMIC SENSE. SO IS THERE A MARKET TO SELL THESE OVER CONVERSION CREDITS. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LIMITED MARKET THAT EXISTS. THE MARKET CONSISTS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES THAT ARE IN ZONE A. SO IN YOUR MAP THE YELLOW PORTION IS ZONE A. AND THIS IS ALL OF THE MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS OF THE OF THE COUNTY. SO YOU'VE GOT FULSHEAR, ROSENBERG, MISSOURI CITY, SUGARLAND, CINCO RANCH, ALL LOCATED IN THIS AREA. THE TEAL AREA IS NOT CURRENTLY REGULATED. THAT'S ZONE B AND THAT'S MORE OF THE AGRICULTURAL AREAS. SO THERE ARE ENTITIES THAT CANNOT OR DO NOT MEET THAT ALTERNATIVE WATER USE REQUIREMENT. AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY PAYING THE DISINCENTIVE FEE, OR THEY'RE PURCHASING CREDITS FROM OTHER FROM OTHER PEOPLE. THE FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT PROVIDED US WITH A LIST, AT OUR REQUEST, OF ANY OF THE PERMIT HOLDERS THAT HAVE EITHER PAID THE DISINCENTIVE FEES OR HAVE PURCHASED WATER CREDITS TO AVOID THE DISINCENTIVE FEES, JUST SO THAT WE KIND OF KNEW WHAT KIND OF MARKET EXISTED. AND THERE'S ONLY ABOUT TEN ENTITIES THAT WERE ON THAT LIST. HOWEVER, WE HAVE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL REQUESTING 20 MILLION GALLONS IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN SELLING CREDITS, WHICH WE'D STARTED THIS CONVERSATION IN EARLY JULY. THIS PHONE CALL HAPPENED AT THE END OF JULY, SO THE TIMING OF IT WAS PERFECT. SO THE GRP MET IN JULY AND THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL TO ALLOW STAFF TO SELL UP TO 5 BILLION GALLONS AT NO LESS THAN $3.50 PER 1000 GALLONS. SO WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? SO BECAUSE THERE'S A LIMITED MARKET, I COULD EXPECT THAT WE COULD SELL BETWEEN 20 AND 40 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER IN A YEAR. SO DEPENDING ON WHAT IT SELLS FOR, AT $3.50, THAT'S $70,000, $90,000. IF WE SELL IT FOR 450, WHY DON'T WE WANT TO SELL IT ALL? ONE THE MARKET DOESN'T EXIST. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH BUYERS. SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE REGULATION IS STILL PENDING FOR 2027, MEETING A HIGHER REQUIREMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE USE, WE DON'T WANT TO SELL AWAY ALL OF OUR INSURANCE POLICY. SO WHAT ARE OUR NEXT STEPS. SO WE GOT THE GRP RECOMMENDATION. WE'RE 
          [00:35:02]
NOW HERE JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SELL THE NEXT STEP. IF YOU APPROVE, THE STAFF WOULD START TO SEEK TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF SOME OF OUR CREDITS AND THEN ACTUALLY SOLIDIFY THOSE CELLS. SO I KNOW THAT I WENT THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICK, BUT I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED. WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, NICHOLAS. THAT WAS VERY QUICK. CITY MANAGER TOLD US YOU HAD 30 MINUTES, BUT. THIS PRESENTATION MIGHT WELL. SO NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SO I WAS JUST SAYING. 
          WELL THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE A MOTION. YES. OKAY. SO COUNCIL MEMBER EMERY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE STARTED BANKING THESE THESE CREDITS, THE WHOLE IDEA WAS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO FROM $0.30 BECAUSE I THINK THE NEXT STEP IS $0.60, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT, IT'S LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY. LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT CAN COVER US SO THAT WE DON'T GET HIT WITH, YOU KNOW, A 60 CENT A GALLON FEE BECAUSE WE COULDN'T MEET THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT. SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, HOW COMFORTABLE ARE WE THAT IF WE START SELLING OFF THESE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND OURSELVES IN A SHORTFALL. SO GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. SO AS THE GRP DISCUSSED THIS, THAT WAS WHY THEY WANTED TO PUT A LIMIT OF 5 BILLION GALLONS. SO THE 19 BILLION GALLONS TOTAL BASED ON OUR CURRENT WATER USE, IF THE 2027 REGULATION WERE EFFECTIVE TODAY, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE OUR CREDITS FOR 27 YEARS. SO IN 27 YEARS, CAN WE COMPLETE THE PROJECTS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET US TO THAT NEW REGULATION? RIGHT NOW? WE'RE ON PACE TO DO THAT IN 2028. SO BY SELLING OFF JUST A PORTION, WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH THAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SAFE FOR OUR OWN OUR OWN CUSTOMERS AND OUR OWN GRP. BUT WE'RE ALSO ABLE TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME TO MAKE SURE THAT PROJECTS HAPPEN AND TO DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO, TO RAISE THE GRP FEE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE WHEN WE SEE WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE WE'RE SEEING AND THAT, YOU KNOW. 
          REQUIRE THE WATER. IT DOES. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, AT THE WATER PROJECTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ULTIMATE BUILD OUTS. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT ULTIMATE BUILD OUT OF SIENA. BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE BUILD OUT OF THE MUSTANG BAYOU AREA, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS GROUNDWATER. THAT NEXT PROJECT IS THE TRANSMISSION LINE, WHICH WOULD CONVERT PART OF THE MUSTANG BAYOU AREA TO USING SOME OF THE SURFACE WATER. AND SO THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY GETS US TO THAT, THAT NEXT THRESHOLD. OKAY. YEAH. AND I, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY GALLONS WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO SELL OFF. SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS UP TO 5 BILLION GALLONS AND WE'VE GOT 19 BILLION TOTAL. SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE'RE STILL HAVE 14 BILLION GALLONS BANKED OKAY. WE USE APPROXIMATELY 5 BILLION GALLONS EVERY YEAR AS A AS A COMBINATION BETWEEN THE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER. OKAY. WELL. I LIKE THE IDEA OR THE THOUGHT THAT WE WHEN WE INITIATED THIS, THAT IT WAS A, AN INSURANCE POLICY. SO LET'S MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE ON SOLID GROUND BEFORE WE START, YOU KNOW, SELLING OFF THAT THAT INSURANCE POLICY. SO I KNOW WE NEED REVENUE, BUT LET'S DON'T, YOU KNOW, TAKE REVENUE IN SPITE OF WHAT WE MIGHT BE FACED WITH, YOU KNOW, EITHER IN THE SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM, THIS IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE ALL THE WAY AROUND. VERY. OKAY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL REVENUE, 90,000. IT COULD BE $90,000. THAT'S FOR 20 MILLION GALLONS. SO IF WE FOUND ADDITIONAL BUYERS AND IT ALSO DEPENDS ON THE NEGOTIATED PRICE. SO ANOTHER WATER AUTHORITY SOLD SOLD THEIR CREDITS FOR $5.50. SO I WAS CONSERVATIVE PROJECTING 350 TO 450 OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. RECOGNIZING COUNCILMEMBER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. QUESTION ON THE FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT. THEY FORMED THIS GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. WHO WHO'S ON THAT COMMITTEE? WAS ANYONE FROM MISSOURI CITY OR SO THE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FORT BEND? YES. THE GRP OR THE FORT BEND? WELL, IT SAYS THAT THE GRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WAS THE ONE THAT MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION. SO THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF THREE PEOPLE ACTUALLY APPOINTED BY THIS BOARD EVERY YEAR. ONE OF OUR MEMBERS, IT'S A 
          [00:40:01]
CITY REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH IS SHASHI KUMAR. WE HAVE A CONVERTING MEMBER, MEANING THAT THEY'RE USING WATER OTHER THAN GROUNDWATER. THAT CONVERTING MEMBER IS CARL BOLES REPRESENTING THE SIERRA REGIONAL MUD. AND THEN WE HAVE THE NON CONVERTING MEMBER WHICH IS A GROUNDWATER MEMBER. AND HAVE HEARD. COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES, SIR. ON THIS MEETING THAT YOU ALL HAD THE SPECIAL MEETING WHERE YOU DISCUSSED THE SALE OF THE OVERSIGHT CONVERSION OVER CONVERSION CREDITS, IT SAYS THAT YOU ALL UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE AS A COUNCIL, APPROVE THE SALE. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH HOW YOU ENDED UP WITH THE 5 BILLION GALLONS AT 350 PER 1000? I THINK GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I THINK NICHOLAS DID A GOOD JOB IN EXPLAINING. I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE PRELUDE AND GET TO YOUR QUESTION. IT'S CHEAPER TO PRODUCE GROUNDWATER. IT COSTS NEARLY 25% THAN SURFACE WATER. 
          HOWEVER, WE'RE HAVING TO PRODUCE SURFACE WATER BECAUSE IT'S A MANDATE. THE CITY HAS DONE EXCEPTIONALLY WELL IN OUR CONVERSION PROJECT THAT WE HAVE BANKED ENOUGH CREDITS, 19 BILLION GALLONS, WHICH CAN SUPPLY EVEN WITHOUT ANYTHING FOR THREE PLUS YEARS OF WATER. NOW WE ARE ALWAYS PLANNING FOR A RAINY DAY SCENARIO, AND WE HAVE ENOUGH INSURANCE IN THE BANK THAT WE HAVE EXCESS OF THESE CREDITS. SO CURRENTLY IT APPEARS THERE IS A MARKET FOR SELLING SOME OF THESE CREDITS. SO THE DEAL IS IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO CONVERT AN ENTITY, A CITY OR A MUD IS NOT ABLE TO CONVERT FOR EVERY THOUSAND GALLONS, THEY HAVE TO PAY $6.50 IN PENALTY. 
          THERE ARE SOME ENTITIES THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET IT. WE ARE. WE HAVE MET IT WELL AND ABOVE. AND WHAT WE ARE, THE GRP SAID, IS WE HAVE SO MUCH EXCESS CONVERSION CREDITS, IT WILL HELP, AT LEAST IN THE FUTURE, TO STABILIZE OUR WATER RATES. IF WE CAN SELL SOME OF THESE OVERBANK CREDITS AND MAKE SOME MONEY, WHICH GOES INTO THE GRP FUND, WHICH WILL HELP KEEP OUR WATER RATES LOW IN THE FUTURE. SO THERE HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE AND THEY'VE ASKED US TO SELL UP TO 5 BILLION GALLONS. AND WHAT WE'RE BANKED IS 19 BILLION GALLONS. AND AGAIN, AS NICHOLAS SAID, WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE READY TO BUY 5 BILLION GALLONS. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS ABOUT 20 MILLION GALLONS. SO THIS IS A VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE. BUT I THINK WE'RE IN VERY GOOD SHAPE BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE HAVE MANAGED THE GRP PROGRAM HERE AT THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          SHASHI. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION FOR ME. IT SAYS CURRENT REQUEST FOR 20 MILLION GALLONS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT SIR. WHY DID WE LEAVE IT AT THAT NUMBER? I'M SORRY. WHY DO WE LEAVE IT AT THAT 20 MILLION MARK? WELL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE SEEING THE MARKET THAT'S APPROACHED US AFTER GRP MADE THIS DECISION. I THINK SOMEBODY HEARD IT, AND THEY REACHED OUT TO THE STAFF AND SAYING THAT, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR 20 MILLION GALLONS. WE MAY GET SOME OTHER POTENTIAL BUYERS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT THE CAP THAT THE GRP HAS TOLD US IS 5 BILLION GALLONS. OKAY. AND THIS IS JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHERS. 
          YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. IS THERE ANY OTHER? OTHER ENTITIES, CITIES OR THAT ALSO HAVE BANKED CREDITS THAT SO DO WE HAVE ANY COMPETITION WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO SELL? YES. SO THE NORTH FORT BEND WATER AUTHORITY HAS ALREADY SOLD CREDITS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY'RE THE ONLY ENTITY THAT HAS SOLD CREDITS. BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE GROUPS THAT HAVE CREDITS, INCLUDING SUGAR LAND. I THINK THERE'S LIKE TEN CREDIT HOLDERS BASED ON THE LIST THAT I SAW. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE ON THE QUEUE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BONEY, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RILEY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. WE HAVE EVERYONE ON THE MACHINE OR. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FIVE ARE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY. NUMBER SEVEN WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.