18. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Amending Resolution 192-2023 to Add Coleman County State Bank as an Approved Lender and to Amend the Incentive Payout for Major Renovations and Amend the Chapter 380 Agreement Forms (Tim Littlejohn)

[18. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Amending Resolution 192-2023 to Add Coleman County State Bank as an Approved Lender and to Amend the Incentive Payout for Major Renovations and Amend the Chapter 380 Agreement Forms (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YES, THE MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 18 AND COUNCILMAN REGAN

PULLED THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU. A FEW QUESTIONS ON IT AND I THOUGHT SINCE THIS WAS UP IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADDRESS THE 10% VERSUS STRAIGHT 20,000 AND ALSO ONE OR TWO OTHER QUESTIONS ON IT. ROBERT, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS, IF YOU CAN KIND OF EXPLAIN , IN SIMPLE TERMS WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR CHANGING FROM 10% , TO THE STRAIGHT 20,000?

>> WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM THE RENOVATION BUILDERS . THE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION BUILDERS, THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE ON THE PROGRAM, THOSE CONTRACTORS CITIZENS AND ENTREPRENEURS ARE TRYING TO RENOVATE EXISTING HOMES. THE 10% AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING THEM TO DO, THE LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT WE ARE ASKING THEM TO DO, IT DOES NOT PENCIL OUT THE WAY WE ANTICIPATED. SO BY MAKING EACH PROGRAM EQUAL WE HOPE , ONE WE THINK WE ARE ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE

[00:10:01]

ENTREPRENEUR COMMUNITY AND TWO THERE ARE A LOT MORE HOMES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RENOVATION JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE EXISTING HOMES THAN THERE ARE VACANT LOTS. IF WE CAN RENOVATE A HOME ALREADY THERE WE SAVE SO IT ALLOWS THE MONEY TO GO

FURTHER. THAT'S THE LOGIC. >> ON THAT POINT, FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE READ IT , WE UNDERSTAND, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK ON THAT POINT TO THOSE WITH THE CONCERN OF WILL USE THE MONEY BECAUSE I WANT A NICER KITCHEN OR PERSONAL RENOVATIONS, WHY CAN'T I GET THE MONEY? CAN YOU SPEAK ON THE SAFEGUARDS THERE

REAL QUICK? >> SURE, IT IS INTENDED FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. SO IT'S REALLY NOT INTENDED FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO REMODEL THE KITCHEN. IT IS FOR AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO GOES OUT AND MAYBE BUYS A $30,000 HOUSE THAT IS BEING HELD TOGETHER BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A HOUSE AND THEY GO COMPLETELY REPLACE ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING, THEY REPLACE THE MAJOR APPLIANCES AND ROOFING, WINDOWS EVERYTHING. THEN THEY SELL THE HOUSE AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY OCCUPANCY. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A WAY TO HELP LANDLORDS RENOVATE THEIR PROPERTY. IT REALLY MUST BE DONE THERE THE TITLE EXCHANGE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY OCCUPANCY. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND I THINK ALL OF THEM WILL END UP CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A QUALITY REBUILT HOME THAT WILL LAST ANOTHER 30 YEARS AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THAT PERIOD. ALL THE INCENTIVES WE PROVIDE ARE HANDLED TO THE TITLE CLOSING PROCESS SO WE CAN VERIFY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT JUST CUTTING A CHECK TO INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE. >> TWO MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS.

ONE, WE HAVE IT IN THE PROGRAM WHERE IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM AS A MAXIMUM YOU CAN SELL THE HOUSE 203,000. SO PEOPLE ARE NOT USING THE PROGRAM TO BUILD MANSIONS. THE 203,000 AS INFLATION HAPPENS AND THE MARKET INCREASES 2003 WAS THE NUMBER WE ARRIVED AT A YEAR OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

AS WE CONSIDER STRAIGHT 20,000, DO WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER ADJUSTING THE 203, UP TO REALISTICALLY INCENTIVIZE VENDORS TO COME TO THE PROGRAM? DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS NOW THAT WE HAVE WHEN YOU'RE UNDER OUR BELT AND PUMP IT UP TO 40 OR 270 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WOULD BE?

>> WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WERE GIVEN A HEALTHY INCENTIVE AND HELPING WITH SIDEWALKS AND POTENTIAL DEMOLITION COST, IN ADDITION TO THE CASH INCENTIVE, ESSENTIALLY WE ARE COVERING THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE HOME BUILD. IN EXCHANGE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS PRICED AT A RATE THAT IS AFFORDABLE. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT $203,000 IN TODAY'S WORLD IS CONSIDERED AN AFFORDABLE HOME , BUT IT IS . I WISH IT WAS LESS EXPENSIVE.

SO, WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE BUILDING COMMUNITY. IF WE DO, IF THE MARKET WITH INTEREST RATES COMING DOWN I THINK THAT WILL MITIGATE SOME CONCERNS, BUT IF WE HEAR THAT AND IT'S A PROBLEM IN BARRIER TO THE PROGRAM, WE WILL COME BACK AND ADDRESS IT. WE ARE DOING THIS NOW BECAUSE WE HAD A YEAR TO REBUILD. THIS IS A PROBLEM, WE ARE MAKING THE TWEAK , BUT IT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS SO FAR.

>> MY LAST QUESTION. AS WE ARE CONSIDERING GOING FROM 10% TO THE STRAIGHT 20,000 TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO DO THE RENOVATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS, NOT JUST BUILDING UP FROM THE GROUND UP. OUR END GOAL IS TO BUILD OR RENOVATE HOUSES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN AS THE HOMEOWNER AND NOT HAVE THIS PROGRAM FOR FLIPPERS WHO COME IN AND FLIP IT OR RENT OUT AND BUILD UP A RENTAL PORTFOLIO. I BELIEVE THE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THAT IS AS PART OF THE CLOSING PROCESS, THE BUYER SIGNS THE AFFIDAVIT SAYING THEY INTEND TO USE IT AS THEIR HOMESTEAD OR TO LIVE IN IT. AGAIN, NOW THAT WE CONSIDER SHIFTING MORE TO THE

[00:15:01]

RENOVATIONS, LOOKING BACK NOW THAT WE HAVE ONE YEAR UNDER OUR BELT, HAS THAT BEEN LOOKED AT TO SEE THEIR SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT BUT MAGICALLY TWO MONTHS LATER AFTER THEY MOVE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE CHANGES AND OUT OF THE 30 WE HAVE DONE, 20 HAVE TURNED AROUND AND STARTED RENTING OUT. HAVE WE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK BACK AT THE NUMBERS?

>> I HAVE NOT SEEN DATA THAT SAYS THAT, BUT WE ARE MONITORING THAT. I WILL SAY THE COMMITMENT I MADE TO THE COUNCIL WHEN WE STARTED THIS IS IF WE SEE BUILDERS THAT MAGICALLY HAVE CONDITIONS CHANGE, TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SELLING, WE WON'T APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH THOSE PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE. PART OF IT, THERE IS A LEVEL OF TRUST, WHEN THE TITLE IS DONE AND THE CHECK IS WRITTEN AND OUR ABILITY TO DO THINGS HIS THEN MINIMAL WHICH IS WHY WE GET THE AFFIDAVIT.

BUT THE REAL MECHANISM IS, IF YOUR INTENT IS TO DEFRAUD THE SYSTEM OR THE PROGRAM WE WILL NOT PARTNER WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE. AND WE'VE NOT BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD TO DO

THAT YET. >> IS THERE A PROCESS OR SOMEONE IN ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HEY, THIS COULD GO FIVE OR 10 YEARS SO WE HAVE SOMEONE LOOKING BACK AND GOING ALL RIGHT WE HAVE DONE 30 HOUSES, LET'S CHECK IN ONE YEAR FROM NOW AND SEE WHO IS STILL LIVING THERE. IF IT IS HIGH PERCENTAGE STILL THERE OR IF IT'S ONLY 5%.

>> TIM LITTLEJOHN AND HIS DEPARTMENT AND IT IS THE PROGRAM AND WE HAVE ASKED KATE ALVAREZ WHO WORKS WITH TIM IN HIS DEPARTMENT TO BE THE REBUILT PERSON. SO SHE HAS BEEN OUT THERE WITH TIM WORKING WITH THE BUILDERS AND KATE SPENDS TIME DOWNTOWN WITH THE CYBER PROJECT SO SHE HAS HER HANDS FULL . WHEN WE DO ANALYSIS WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT TO THE ANNUAL CHECK THAT WE DO ON THE PROPERTY. CAN GET APPRAISAL GROWTH WE WANT TO SEE IMPROVEMENTS OVER LONG-TERM AND HOW THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE WORKED. AND WE CAN ADD THAT .

>> OF NOTE THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIRES THEM TO SAY IT WILL BE THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCY FOR TWO YEARS.

>> ALSO, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN THAT MANY CLOSED YET RIGHT? SO WE REALLY CAN'T GET A MATRIX WHEN THEY HAVE NOT SOLD.

>> LIKE FOUR HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE MOMENT. THEY ARE NOT THAT OLD, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE TRACKING TO MAKE SURE .

SPOKEN OF THE HOMEBUILDER COMMUNITY ITSELF WILL HELP KEEP TRACK OF THIS. THEY WILL TRY TO FIND ANY OF THEM THAT REFUSE THE PROGRAM AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS HAVE COMMITTED TO HELP WITH THE PROGRAM. I AGREE THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO MONITOR, BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT MANY CLOSING YET SO THAT

IS A GOOD IDEA. >> TIM, SINCE YOU ARE UP HERE, COUNCIL ALLOCATED $1 MILLION LAST FISCAL YEAR FOR THE PROGRAM AND WE SPENT ALMOST ALL OF IT?

>> ALMOST ALL OF IT. I THINK 960,000. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ENCUMBER THAT FOR THIS BUDGET TO GO TOWARD MORE

DEMOLITION AND ABATEMENT. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 18, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING KNOW WHEN I

WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> TWO RESOLUTIONS ON THIS ITEM ORIGINALLY. THEY HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN REGAN. FURTHER

DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YES, THE MOTION CARRIES.

[24. Ordinance (First Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, Public Hearing and Take Action on Temporarily Suspending the Fluoridation of the City of Abilene's Water Supply, and Discussion Only regarding a Permanent Termination of Fluoridation of the City's Water Supply (Robert Hanna)]

>> ITEM 24 AND I WANT TO CLARIFY TODAY THAT THE ACTION WE WILL BE TAKING IT IF WE CONTINUE THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CONVERSATION , IF WE WANT TO CONSIDER PERMANENTLY REMOVING IT, BUT, THE ACTION TODAY ONLY DEALS WITH TEMPORARY SUSPENSION . THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AND HOW WE DO THAT AND HOW LONG THAT WILL LAST. I WILL ASK ROBERT TO PRESENT.

>> THANK YOU, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE ITEM IN WHICH WE SOUGHT COUNCIL DIRECTION ON LAST MEETING FOR A BRIEF SYNOPSIS, THERE IS A DISTRICT COURT IN CALIFORNIA THAT RULED FLUORIDE AT .7 PPM AS RECOMMENDED BY CDC AND APA

[00:20:07]

AND THE DENTAL ASSOCIATION , THE LANGUAGE WAS CREATING UNREASONABLE RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN TOXIC SUBSTANCE ACT AND REQUIRED TO MAKE A RULING ON IT. THE RULING COULD BE ANYTHING FROM A WARNING LABEL, TO HEY, REMOVE THIS MATERIAL OR WHATEVER. AND THE MAYOR AND I SPOKE AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND FLUORIDE SO THIS IS CONTINUATION OF THE ACTION AND DISCUSSION. IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE TODAY ON FIRST READING WE WILL HAVE A SECOND READING ON IT AND THE NEXT MEETING IT WOULD BE ADOPTED. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS ACTION ITEM FOR COUNCIL IS A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION , SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO PERMANENTLY SUSPEND FLUORIDE, THERE IS A LEGAL PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT REQUIRES NOTIFICATION OF WATER CUSTOMERS, 60 DAYS , A HEARING PERIOD WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.

AND SOLICIT AND ASK FOR INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY. I THINK

THAT WOULD BE A PRUDENT STEP. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> AS I AM THINKING THROUGH THIS , SO WHEN WE LEAVE HERE TODAY, WHEN WE LEAVE THIS PODIUM IT WILL BE, HE WILL HAVE PICKED A TRIGGER MECHANISM I GUESS IS THE RIGHT ORDER WHEN WE MAKE THE NEXT DECISION. IS THAT THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY IT?

>> IF COUNCIL PASSES THE ORDINANCE ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IS , LOOK AT PART THREE OR PAGE 424 AND 444 ON THE AGENDA PACKET ITEM A AFTER BLANK DAYS OR MONTHS SINCE THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE UPON FINAL ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS BY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OR UPON FURTHER RULING OF THE CASE WITH THE FLUORIDATION OF COMMUNITY WATER DOES NOT REPRESENT UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO THE SPACE THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN BY COUNCIL, TO YOUR POINT IS HOW LONG WOULD THIS LAST UNTIL WE PICK IT UP AGAIN? IT COULD BE RENEWED OR TERMINATED. IT COULD BE WHATEVER COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

>> IMPORTANT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY.

>> THIS IS THE ACTION ITEM WE HAVE TODAY, HOW WE VOTE WITH THE TIME LIMIT OF THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. BUT WE CAN DISCUSS IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMANENT SUSPENSION BUT IT

WOULD NOT BE ACTED UPON TODAY. >> THE LANGUAGE I CAME UP WITH BASED ON DISCUSSION LAST TIME. THIS IS NOT SET IN STONE. IT COULD BE ANY OF THESE THREE, MORE OR LESS. I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO HAVE A STARTING FRAMEWORK.

>> CAN WE CLARIFY THE FLUORIDE WAS TURNED OFF AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY MANAGER 2 1/2 WEEKS AGO. ROUGHLY . AND HAS NOT BEEN ON ALSO I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY THERE'S NATURAL FLUORIDE IN THE WATER .3 PPM THAT WE ARE NOT REMOVING.

THAT'S THE WAY GOD MADE IT. THAT'S THE WAY IT IS IN OUR PART OF THE WORLD. A VERY LOW LEVEL.

>> ONE MORE THING. FIRST READING TODAY, EVEN IF WE DECIDE TODAY WE HAVE ONE MORE CHANCE. SO THE ACTION WE TAKE IT IS NOT THE FINAL ACTION, THERE WILL BE ONE MORE

DISCUSSION. >> THAT'S CORRECT. OF THE

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE ONE FOR STANLEY. THIS IS A TEMPORARY MEASURE. I THINK COUNCILMAN BEARD MENTIONED LAST TIME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW LONG WE CAN GO UNDER A TEMPORARY MEASURE, BASICALLY. IS THERE CASE LAW OR SOME KIND OF DEFINITION OF HOW LONG WE COULD GO. IS THIS AFTER ONE YEAR IT'S NOT CONSIDERED TEMPORARY OR A THINK MENTALLY THAT'S WHERE I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING IF WE WENT TWO YEARS UNDER THIS THAT IT'S A

TEMPORARY MEASURE. >> THERE IS NOTHING HARD AND FAST ABOUT WHAT TEMPORARY MEANS. SINCE THIS IS CITY ORDINANCE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCRETION BY THE COUNCIL AS TO

[00:25:01]

WHAT TEMPORARY MEANS. I THINK IF IT WAS CHALLENGED, IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY A DISTRICT COURT WOULD SAY YOUR DISCUSSION WAS INCORRECT. IF IT WAS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME MAYBE THAT DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST OF TEMPORARY . MAYBE ONE YEAR OR TWO. THE COURT CASE WILL LAST A LONG TIME SO IT'S TIED TO THAT

SO THERE IS FLEXIBILITY THERE. >> THERE WE GO.

>> I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE WITH WHAT WE HAVE THERE ARE TWO TRIGGER MECHANISMS. THE EPA MAKES A FINDING OR THERE IS FURTHER RULING ON THE CASE WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE RESPONDING TO HEAR. WHERE WE KIND OF CAN ARTICULATE WE ARE WAITING ON THESE TWO THINGS, THE COURT CASE OR THE EPA. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AFFIXED TIME. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS WE DO YEAR BY YEAR UNTIL ALL OF THIS PLAYS ITSELF OUT AND WE KEEP IT OFF UNLESS WE DECIDE WE WANT A PERMANENT ORDINANCE REMOVING IT, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME. THE APPEALS AND WAITING ON THE EPA WILL TAKE QUITE A WHILE. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE , WE ARE BEING RESPONSIBLE WITH THIS IF WE HAVE A FIXED POINT AND TIME WHERE WE SAY WE EITHER HAVE TO EXTEND THIS OR STOP IT WHICHEVER WAY WE WANT TO GO. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE EPA OR THE APPEAL TAKING LESS THAN ONE YEAR.

>> I WOULD FAVOR A 24 MONTH, TWO YEARS CYCLE FOR THIS. I THINK THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION BASED ON WHAT STANLEY SAID. IF THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CHANGES I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE TIME TO BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN. WE ALWAYS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO BRING IT UP SOONER IF WE WANT TO AND CERTAINLY IF WE HAVE A DISCUSSION AND WANT TO MAKE A PERMANENT DECISION WE CAN DO THAT SOONER, AS WELL. BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS PRODUCTIVE, IF NOTHING CHANGES THERE IS NO PROGRESS FROM EPA OR THE COURTS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS EVERY THREE MONTHS OR REALLY EVERY YEAR. LET'S GO FOR A TWO YEAR

EXPIRATION. >> I THINK WE NEED OR AFTER THE END OF A, SAY WE DID 24 MONTHS , AFTER 24 MONTHS LAPSE FROM DATE OF PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE OR.

>> OR'S ARE IMPORTANT. >> OR YOU ARE DONE?

>> ANYONE ELSE? AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 24, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD. >> FOUR CARDS ON THIS TOPIC.

FIRST IS AMANDA HARDEN. DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT SHE IS IN SUPPORT. SOMEBODY WHO WILL WISH TO SPEAK IS

>> IF HE COMES HERE ENOUGH YOU WILL GET A NAME PLATE.

>> I KNOW, HE'S RUNNING FOR ELECTION IN 18 YEARS. JENNIFER BELL, LONGTIME RESIDENT. YOU KNOW I AM IN SUPPORT OF WATER FLUORIDATION. THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING THE PAUSE AND TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY. I KNOW YOU CONTINUE TO GET A LOT OF EMAILS, I REPRESENT A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE WANT TO END WATER FLUORIDATION IN ABILENE. IT IS FORCED MEDICATION WHICH SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED IN A FORCED SOCIETY. THANK YOU.

>> SOMEONE FROM BELIEVE HURLEY DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN FAVOR OF WATER

FLUORIDATION. >> IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ANYONE WHO ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 24?

>> GOOD MORNING TAMMY VOGEL PRESIDENT OF ABILENE. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT FORCE MEDICATING CONSENT. I KNOW THERE IS RULINGS GOING ON BUT THE ONLY WAY TO UNDO THE BAD LAW IS TO CHANGE WHAT WE DO. SO LET ME SAY AGAIN. THE ONLY WAY TO STOP BAD LAW FROM BEING ENFORCED IS TO STAND AGAINST AND RESIST THEM. I THINK THE PAUSE IS AMAZING. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT WAS A DENTIST WHO BROUGHT THIS BEFORE OR STARTED

[00:30:03]

THE PROCESS IN 2000. THIS IS NOT A REGULATED INDUSTRY SO I THINK THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR LAWSUITS WITH THE CITY IF YOU CONTINUE TO FLUORIDE , PUT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. SO YOU WANT TO BE CAREFUL ON HOW YOU MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGE IS OUT THERE THAT THIS IS TOXIC. I AM SO GRATEFUL YOU'RE WEARING PINK AND PINS IN HONOR OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH. WHERE WE PUTTING STUFF IN THE WATER THAT CAUSES CANCER? IF YOU STAND AGAINST IT, STOP PUTTING IT IN THE WATER AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT IT AS MUCH BECAUSE WE REMOVE AT LEAST ONE SOURCE OF IT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE COME YOU TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC HAVING OPPORTUNITY TO BE INFORMED, WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION AND CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD THE WHITE SPOTS ARE NORMAL ON YOUR TEETH, IT'S NORMAL TO HAVE, IS NOT CONSIDERED HARMFUL TO HAVE TOXICITY OF TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. ANYTHING AS POINTED OUT, WE ALREADY HAVE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF THE NATURAL STUFF IS WAY BETTER THAN THE TOXIC CHEMICALS THAT WE CALL FLUORIDE THAT THEY PUT IN THE WATER SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN COME OUT OF THIS. RAISING AWARENESS, THERE ARE A FEW OF US WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING ABILENE FLUORIDE FREE BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE CANNOT COME. I KNOW YOU HAVE GOT EMAILS, BUT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT HELD IN PUBLIC SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND. I THINK ANOTHER PUBLIC INTEREST MEETING WOULD BE GREAT TO HOLD SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND MAKE SURE WE DON'T JUST HEAR FROM THE EXPERTS, BUT FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE RESEARCH. I REMEMBER A YOUNG LADY WHO HAD A CHILD WHO HAD ADVERSE REACTION FROM THE VACCINE SO SHE BECAME AN ADVOCATE FOR UNDERSTANDING CHILDHOOD VACCINES. SHE WENT TO THE DOCTOR AND APOLOGIZED AND SAID I'M SORRY TO KEEP ASKING THESE QUESTIONS AND THE DOCTOR SAID DON'T APOLOGIZE, YOU HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH THAN I HAVE.

THEY HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE AND TIME STUDYING, BUT WE AS PARENTS HAVE DONE WAY MORE RESEARCH SO DON'T DISMISS US JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A M.D. BY OUR NAME OR YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERED AN EXPERT BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY WE SPENT RESEARCHING SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY PAUSING FLUORIDATION.

>> STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME ON ITEM 24? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE US TODAY TO CHOOSE THE WORDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE TO CONTINUE THIS TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. IF WE SO VOTE THAT WAY. I WOULD AFFORD A 24 MONTH PERIOD AND LIKE TO LOOK AT THE PERMANENT SUSPENSION. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT THIS COUNCIL COULD PASS ORDINANCE TO PERMANENTLY SUSPEND FLUORIDE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> LEGAL WAYS TO DO IT AND OR WE COULD SEND IT BACK TO THE VOTERS. I REALIZE THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT WAS PASSED IN 2000. THAT WAS 24 YEARS AGO. WE HAVE A LOT MORE INFORMATION NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PROTECT OUR PUBLIC. I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PERMANENTLY REMOVING FLUORIDE BEFORE A 24 MONTH PERIOD. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL.

>> IN 1964 BY BALLOT THE VOTERS ELECTED TO INVENT THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE AND IT WAS CHANGED TO ADD IT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING IT UP FOR THE VOTERS AGAIN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE PUT IT OUT, IF WE DO PUT IT OUT FOR A VOTE THAT IT SPELLS OUT SOME OF THESE TECHNICAL TERMS. POINTING OUT WE HAVE POTENTIAL AMOUNTS OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER AND DO THEY SUPPORT ADDING OR CONTINUING TO ADD WATER OR FLUORIDE AND RESUMING THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE WITH CHEMICAL FLUORIDE , BUT FROM A PERSONAL, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PREVENTED BY VOTE AND THEN ADDED BY VOTE. TO PERMANENTLY REMOVE AGAIN. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS. IF THE EPA COMES BACK AND HAS NEW GUIDANCE AND IT MAKES IT THAT MUCH EASIER THAN WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE REDUCTION AMOUNT AND WHAT

[00:35:02]

THE TARGET IS. SO I AGREE I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WAITING 24 MONTHS FOR A RESOLUTION. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS , WHEN WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE FUTURE I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE AT A TIME FRAME THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO SAY YES OR NO ON A BALLOT INITIATIVE. IF WE WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER, THAT'S TOO LATE FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION AND TOO EARLY TO TALK ABOUT THE MAY ELECTION. I WOULD RATHER IT BE AUGUST OR FEBRUARY TIMEFRAME SO WE ARE WITHIN THE WINDOW PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT, IF WE

CHOOSE TO DO THAT. >> SO TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR POINT COUNCILMAN PRICE. WOULD YOU BE WILLING AND IF WE WERE TO SAY FOR THE FIRST GO AROUND OCTOBER 17, MAYBE PUT THE TIMEFRAME , THE FIRST PART OF AUGUST TO REVISIT THE FIRST PART OF AUGUST, 2025. FOR THIS LOW AROUND AND SAY OKAY HERE WE ARE FIRST PART OF AUGUST. IS NOT BEEN QUITE ONE YEAR. IF NEW INFORMATION COMES OUT THAT GIVES US ENOUGH LEEWAY TO PUT IT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. AND IF, I MIGHT BE MAKING THIS WAY, LOCATED. AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST WE CAN SAY OKAY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, NOW LET'S LOOK AT IT A YEAR OR SO DOWN THE

ROAD. >> OR WE CAN SAY WILL DO IT WITHOUT PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT, BUT WE HAVE THE OPTION OF USING THE BALLOT OR NOT INSTEAD OF BEING IN A POSITION WHERE IT IS IN LIMBO AND AUGUST WOULD BE EARLY ENOUGH.

>> TO BE CLEAR THIS IS A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION WITH THREE TRIGGERS IN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER WE CONSIDER PERMANENT SUSPENSION. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> YES I KNOW THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TEMPORARY OR TRANSITION TO

PERMANENT? >> I DON'T WANT TO USE THE DATE ON THE TEMPORARY TO DRIVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. SO, I SAY THAT WE JUST PUSH IT OUT FOR TWO YEARS, IF NOTHING HAPPENS AND WE DON'T HAVE PERMANENT DISCUSSION, IN TWO YEARS WE TAKE UP TEMPORARY AGAIN. IF NOTHING HAPPENED. SIMULTANEOUSLY WE CAN DIRECT STAFF TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST WHATEVER TIME MAKES SENSE FOR A PERMANENT DISCUSSION AND SEE WHAT DEVELOPS. THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT THIS TO BE A BALLOT INITIATIVE OR YOU WANT TO TAKE ACTION OR WE CAN DO IT NEXT WEEK AS FAR AS A PERMANENT CONSIDERATION. ALL OF THAT IS FINE. THIS TEMPORARY SUSPENSION, THE DATE WE CHOOSE DOES NOT CONSTRAIN OR DRIVE ANY OF THOSE ACTIONS.

>> IT DOESN'T, BUT IT'S A NATURAL TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT.

IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH 12 MONTHS, IF WE DID AUGUST 2026 THAT GIVES US 20 MONTHS. 21 MONTHS FROM NOW.

>> I DON'T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG.

>> YOU ARE ASKING FOR 24 MONTH COMMENCING AUGUST 2026 IS 21 MONTHS. SO THAT GIVES US CLOSER , BUT A NATURAL TRANSITION POINT OF OKAY WE ARE AT A POINT OF CONTINUING TEMPORARY OR GOING PERMANENT. IF YOU WANT TO GO PERMANENT BEFORE THAT WE CAN, BUT IT'S A TRIGGER POINT THAT IS WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME THAT ALLOWS FOR THE ELECTION OPTION IF WE WERE TO DO THAT.

IT WOULD BE IN A EVEN YEAR WHICH WOULD BE A BIGGER ELECTION, NOT PRESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD BE CONGRESSIONAL.

>> OKAY. >> WE HAVE THE OPTION ANY TIME.

AS YOU MENTIONED IN THREE WEEKS IF SOMETHING COMES THE EPA RULES SOMETHING THEN WE CAN DO IT AT ANY TIME.

>> I AM OPEN , ANYBODY KNOWS ME I LIKE WHEN PEOPLE GET A CHANCE TO VOTE. WHERE I AM STRUGGLING WITH THAT IS WE ARE MAKING A PAUSE, ESSENTIALLY BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. SO IF WE'VE GOT JUSTIFICATION TO POSIT AND I KNOW WE ARE WAITING ON SOME COURT CASES WITH NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE ALREADY. I LEAN TOWARD STOPPING IT. IF WE ARE CONCERNED ENOUGH THAT WE ARE PAUSING IT WE NEED SOME THINGS TO RELAPSE IN THE COURTS AND I THINK WE HAVE TO AT LEAST THINK THROUGH. WE KNOW WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE TO STOP IT PERMANENTLY AND I WANT TO ADD THAT INTO THE MIX FOR THE

[00:40:01]

DISCUSSION. WHICH IS WHERE I KIND OF LEAN, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE FORCED MEDICATING PEOPLE. THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO GIVE FLORIDA PEOPLE CHOOSE TO. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY MIND IS GOING.

>> I VIEW THIS AS A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. WE HAVE INFORMATION FOR THE COURT GATHERED INFORMATION SET THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THIS MAY BE CAUSING INJURY. WE DON'T KNOW YET, THE EPA CAME BACK. WE HAVE AIRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION WITH A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AND IT IS JUSTIFIED UNDER HEY, LET'S PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH. I THINK SHORT OF, I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PRICE. CITIZENS VOTED IN 2000 TO SAY YES YOU NEED TO PUT IN FLUORIDE. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE COMING KNOW IT'S THE VOTERS WHO SAY YES OR NO ON THAT. IS NOT LIKE SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE WHERE THE VOTERS VOTED FOR IT AND THEN COUNCIL DID NOT COME IN AND SAY WELL, NO. WE CAME IN AND TWEAKED IT TO MAKE IT ACTUAL. I GET THAT QUESTION A LOT ON CENTURY CITY. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT? IN MY MIND IT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE VOTERS TOLD US IN 2000 THEY WANTED FLUORIDE AND FOR US TO SAY , WE HAVE THAT POWER AS COUNCIL THAT'S CLEAR. ANYTHING FROM THE ENGAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE IT'S GOOD FOR US TO GO BACK TO THE PEOPLE AND SAY YOU TOLD US TO DO X, DO YOU STILL WANT US TO DO THIS? INSTEAD OF JUST TWEAKING IT, RIGHT NOW WE ARE TWEAKING TO SAY WE HAVE NO INFORMATION 24 YEARS AGO AND WE NEED TO SUSPEND THIS. MY PREFERENCE COMING INTO THE MEETING WAS ONE YEAR FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE TEMPORARY, MAKES ME THINK OF WHEN YOU PASS ONE YEAR , THE DEFINITION, IT'S A LITTLE BLURRY. OVER WITH STANLEY'S POINT, AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE TWO YEARS BECAUSE IT GIVES US A BETTER TIMELINE OF WAITING FOR THE EPA TO COME BACK, IF THEY COME BACK, NINE MONTHS OR A YEAR THAT MERE FLEXIBILITY DO WE WANT TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE? MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE I'M GOOD WITH A TWO-YEAR TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AND THEN

WITH THOSE TRIGGERS. >> I DID SUGGEST 24 MONTHS . I HAVE SEEN ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT MAKES ME THINK THERE IS VERY LITTLE VALUE ADDED AND A POTENTIAL, NOT PROVEN BUT POTENTIAL RISK THAT'S NOT WORTH TAKING GIVEN THE VALUE ADDED. I WOULD BE WILLING TO TABLE THIS AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REDRAFT THIS TO BE PERMANENT.

>> I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE TEMPORARY.

>> CAN CONTINUE TEMPORARY WITHOUT DOING THIS.

>> LOOK AT THE PERMIT THEN IT HAS TO GO BACK IN.

>> I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD VOTERS AND THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, SO WITH THE MAYOR AND I HAVE DONE IS A VERY MEASURE UNTIL COUNCIL CAN ACT IN THIS IS COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY TO ACT. MY RECOMMENDATION FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD SO FAR IS PASSED ON FIRST READING TEMPORARY ORDINANCE FOR 24 MONTHS THAT IS A CONSENSUS POINT AND THEN IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A MORE FORMAL DISCUSSION WITH POTENTIAL ACTION OPPORTUNITY ON THE PERMANENT CESSATION OF FLUORIDE YOU PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AS WELL AS A SEPARATE ITEM AT THE TIME OF COUNCIL CHOOSING. IT COULD BE NEXT MEETING, IT COULD BE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW TO GIVE OPPORTUNITIES TO THINK, REALLY

AT YOUR DIRECTION. >> I'M GOOD WITH THIS, GOOD

WITH 24 AT FIRST OPPORTUNITY. >> I AGREE AND SAY IT ONCE TO STATE YOUR POINT, SAY IT TWICE YOU ARE POLITICKING. BUT I WILL SAY AGAIN, I FEEL THIS COUNCIL, WE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. 24 YEARS AGO ON THE VOTE AND IF THE VOTERS DON'T LIKE WHAT WE DO, THEN THEY REASON WITH THAT AT THE POLLS. I FEEL WE NEED TO PERMANENTLY SUSPEND. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION TODAY, SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS DEAL WITH TEMPORARY SUSPENSION THAT WE ARE ACTING ON TODAY. WHAT WE DO WITH WORDING AND WE KNOW WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PERMANENT SUSPENSION IN THE FUTURE. SO

[00:45:01]

LET'S GET THE WORDING HOW WE WANT TO ACT ON THIS ITEM TODAY.

>> LISTENING TO WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING , I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH JUST ADHERING TO THE TEMPORARY FROM WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, BUT DEFINITELY TO COUNCILMAN YATES POINT. JUST GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY AT DISCRETION TO COME BACK WITH PERMANENT. I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING EARLIER AND IT MADE ME THINK ABOUT ÚPROTECTING CITIZENS ENDED, I WOULD BE REMISS TO , YOU ARE THE CRIES OF THESE KIDS AND I THINK OF THAT WHEN I THINK OF FLUORIDE. I AM MORE INCLINED TO TALK ABOUT THE PERMANENT SUSPENSION AS FAST AS WE CAN, BUT TODAY, I WOULD APPRECIATE THE TEMPORARY, THE LANGUAGE

CLOSING AND CEMENTING THAT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR

POINTING THAT OUT. >> 24 MONTHS?

>> YES, 24 MONTHS. YES. THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER TO LAND ON 24 MONTHS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOST AND IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT AND TO ADD THE FOR. WE WILL LET IT

PASS. PLUS >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND . FURTHER DISCUSSION? TO VOTE

>> BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS ITEM WE TOOK ACTION ON THE TEMPORARY IN THE SECOND PART IS DIRECTION TO STAFF ON THE PERMANENT IS THERE DIRECTION TO STUFF ON THE PERMANENT? WITH THE SECOND-LEADING WILL HAVE 24 MONTHS. URGENT NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION STARTING NEXT MEETING?

>> IT GIVES US TIME TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERMANENT, BUT THIS COVERS NOW.

>> NOT DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING PERMANENT?

>> WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE TEMPORARY STOP.

>> ALL YES, THE MOST >> BEFORE WE MOVE ON. I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE AMOUNT OF INPUT FROM THE CITIZENS THAT WE GOT ON THIS. YOUR EMAILS, WE DO HEAR THEM AND READ THEM. WE APPRECIATE FOR OR AGAINST THE ITEM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT, WE LOOK AT THOSE AND REREAD THOSE AND WE APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF THEM. VERY THANKFUL. BEFORE WE MOVE TO ITEM 25 COUNCILMAN MCALISTER REMINDED ME AND WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR VERY OWN CITY SECRETARY. AS A NOMINEE FOR THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL CLERK OF THE YEAR.

>> I HAVE HER ROOKIE CARDS SHE WILL SIGN THEM.

[25. Discussion: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Direction on a Possible Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Regarding Off-Site Advertising (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US. MOVING TO ITEM 25 AND I WILL ASK TIM LITTLEJOHN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO PRESENT THIS ITEM .

>> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. UP FOR DISCUSSION IS POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING OFF-SITE ADVERTISING.

REQUEST TO POTENTIALLY AMEND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT OFF-SITE ADVERTIING BILLBOARD OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS IN NEW LOCATIONS WITHIN CITY LIMITS BY ALLOWING SMALLER OFF-SITE SIGNAGE. THE SMALLER SIGNAGE IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY COMING AROUND AND STARTING TO WANT TO BE USED IN AREAS WHERE OFF-SITE SIGNING IS NOT ALLOWED AT THE MOMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. STAFF AS RESEARCH WITH SISTER CITIES AND, CURRENTLY OFF-SITE SIGNAGE IS LIMITED TO ZONING DISTRICTS SIGNS ARE ONLY PERMITTED ON LOTS ZONE THE GENERAL RETAIL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE WITH 250 FEET AWAY FROM OTHER OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II AND FOR CLARITY TYPE I IS 600 , AS LARGE AS 672 SQUARE-FEET AND TYPE II IS 378 SQUARE-FEET WITH MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 750 FEET

[00:50:05]