STATE OF TEXAS * CITY COUNCIL COUNTY OF HOOD * REGULAR MEETIN CITY OF GRANBURY * OCTOBER 16, 2012

Transcription

1 STATE OF TEXAS * CITY COUNCIL COUNTY OF HOOD * REGULAR MEETIN CITY OF GRANBURY * OCTOBER 16, 2012 The City Council of the City of Granbury, Texas, convened on October 16, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 116 West Bridge Street, Granbury, Texas. Notice of said meeting giving date, place, and subject thereof having been posted as prescribed by Article V.A.T.V.S. Rickie Pratt * Mayor, Place 1 Tony Allen * Councilperson, Place 2 Mitch Tyra * Councilperson, Place 3 Nin Hulett * Councilperson, Place 4 Laurel Pirkle * Councilperson, Place 5 Mickey Parson * Councilperson, Place 6 And Wayne McKethan * City Manager Stuart Neal * City Attorney Kathy Ware * Recording Secretary 6:10 PM - MAYOR PRATT CALLED THE COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER. Invocation Councilperson Mitch Tyra Pledge of Allegiance Texas Pledge Consent Agenda Approval of Council minutes of September 18, Councilperson Allen made a motion to approve the minutes of September 18, Seconded by Councilperson Pirkle, the motion carried with 5 ayes and 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED Mayor Pratt announced that City Council was convened into open session, with all members present, and Council would at this time go into closed session: 6:15 PM - EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, the City Council may convene in Executive Session to deliberate regarding the following matter: SECTION Consultation with Attorney The City Council may convene in executive session to consult with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation, a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the provisions of Chapter 551, including open meetings, open records and the following item: Discuss Knox Ranch Development 7:15 PM - Mayor Pratt reconvened in open session and announced that the first item on the agenda, Knox Ranch was going to be postponed to allow the attorneys to discuss some issues, and this item would be brought back later in the meeting. Mayor Pratt announced that the second item, Consider Baystone Financial Group contract and the third item, Consider refinancing 2005 T-Hangar Complex would also be postponed, due to having some local interest, coming forward regarding both of these financing opportunities, so the City was going to allow some local bidders the opportunity. Deliberation Agenda (This item moved to be considered last on the agenda.) Consider and approve a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA), with CTMGT GRANBURY, LLC FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE Knox Ranch. The Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) shall also include the

2 Concept Plan and CP Standards (development design standards) as attachments to the CDA for the Council s consideration of approval. The property is located southwest of the intersection of Loop 567 and W. Hwy Mayor Pratt reminded those present that this item has been looked at since 2010 and in previous Council meetings recently. We hope to move forward with some sort of resolve in where we are in this Comprehensive Agreement between the City and CTMGT Granbury, LLC. This development involves over 2000 acres of land in the City s ETJ with approximately 4,999 residences in place in that location. There are to be phased in; 4 sets of development districts with 4 separate MUD s (Municipal Utility District) to be developed. Each district will be coming forth at separate times. The plan of the developer is that the City may take the development in after 15 years of any one of the MUD s establishment or after 90% build out, the City has the option to annex the property. There were a few areas of discussion at the last meeting and directed the Council to notice the copy of the Comprehensive Development redlined with language that has been updated. Wayne Olson, Attorney addressed the Council and brought them up to date on the proposed development. One of the major issues from the City s perspective is to have the developer agree to pay for all their proportional costs for improvements that are necessitated by the Knox Ranch Development. One of the issues the definition of this Comprehensive study or what is going to be required to serve the Knox Ranch Development. The Developer had concerns about participating in the costs of the Treatment Plant and other facilities that were beyond what they were contributing. An agreement has been reached between the Attorneys on the revised language that makes it clear that the developer is only required for their proportionate share and that is the costs that are necessitated by, and contributable to, the Knox Ranch Development. One of the recommendations we are making is that we revised the definition of the comprehensive study in accordance with what we discussed previously. Olson continued; another issue that has come up that needs further discussion is the limitation of the 25 year Bond Term. We had proposed language that only one bond may be issued per district and that would be a 25 year bond term. The developer s position is that they cannot agree to that limitation nor can they agree to any limitation on the number of bonds that will be issued for any district. The developer will agree whatever bonds are issued will have a maximum term of 25 years of which they will be discussing with Council this evening. With regard to the water and sewer rates we had proposed in our draft the outside the City limits rate be 1.5 times the in City rate for all of the lots in district 1A which is the first 40 lots discussed. The next 245 lots which constitute the estate lot development in District 1A. We have talked to the developer about whether they would agree to accept a 1.5 water rate just on the 40 lots, in exchange for only being able to drill water wells on just those first 40 lots and not being able to drill individual wells on the remainder 245 lots. This issue is something that needs to be discussed with the Council tonight. Olson said he believes the Attorneys have worked out the language or the concepts in this agreement in accordance to what we have discussed with the Council, previously. The City has agreed to some revised language that says if the city desires the Comprehensive Study to go further than is necessary to show the impact of the Knox Ranch Development then the City will participate in the cost of the study and the Developer has agreed with that. The agreement on the impact fees have been worked out, as well as the utility rates, just discussed. There is a provision in the agreement for the developer to dissolve the fresh water district immediately after the confirmation of the election is confirmed and canvassed. Another provision states; after the development agreement is executed the City will not provide any water service or construct any infrastructure improvements until the fresh water supply district is dissolved. The drainage and the roadways outside the district are going to be the developer s responsibility to the extent they are required on account of this development and because of the comprehensive study analysis. The developer is not willing to index the water connection fee but is willing to do a $1200 per lot connection fee. The developer will be addressing that issue. Mayer Pratt stated the overview Wayne Olson has presented has covered the five issues the Council previously had. Councilperson Tyra stated the only two issues that have not been resolved seem to be the 25 year Bond term situation and the Water Rate situation.

3 Kirk Wilson, Carrolton, TX, District Consultant for CTMGT Team, thanked the City Council and staff stating that he feels that most differences have been bridged. On the water rate issue on District 1A we had proposed 1.5X rate on the first 40 houses and when we hit the 41 st house the 1X rate would be applicable to all customers in that area within the entire Knox Ranch. In exchange for what we agreed to, a $1,200 fee, but we are not agreeable to indexing that fee. At $1200 a lot that equals to $6 Million Dollars which is over 4,990 equivalent unit connections and we feel that is a reasonable number and we are not agreeable to indexing that fee. Regarding the rate agreement; we predicated, on the ability for people within 1A, to have wells if they chose to. It doesn t make a lot of sense to most environmentally concerned people with large lots to irrigate with potable water. He thought a better compromise is to give them a choice. If a customer chooses to drill a well and is approved to do so, he can pay the 1.5 rate. If he chooses not to drill a well he will have a 1X rate. He said his proposal is; anyone who has a well will pay the 1.5 rate and those that choose not to have a well will pay the 1.0 rate for water. Mr Wilson stated that the first 40 houses pay 1.5 whether they have a well or not and when the 41 st connection is made, the 1.0 rate should apply to everyone that does not have a well. Councilperson Allen stated he felt it wasn t fair to citizens in other subdivisions outside the City limits to have to pay higher rates. Mr Wilson replied in saying that there is a huge difference in all the things this development is doing. If one considers the scope of the Knox Ranch Development as compared to putting in a small sub division, the City can explain this Governmental decision in a very easy and precise way to taxpayers. Councilperson Parson responded that the Developer has not brought forward a Comprehensive Plan for the Council to look at today and yet the City is asked to give a commitment to give the development water and sewer and don t know what the cost of that is. Parson said the issue is we are asked to give water at one flat rate and we don t know what the cost is going to be to the citizens going forward. Wilson responded that the Comprehensive Study that is in the Agreement will paint a very clear picture. Parson said he was reticent not to charge 1.5 without the comprehensive study. Wilson replied that they will not be able to get the 1.0 rate until that comprehensive study is done and the 41 st permit goes forward. He said that the City will be very informed; decision wise, after that study is there, and then the rate will apply. The Council agreed that they will not make a commitment on the 41 st lot until they have seen and approved the study. Councilperson Tyra stated that the Council has given two options; one proposal was giving your development the ability to drill wells which will help market your property well but because we grant that to you, Knox Ranch pays the 1.5 rate. The Council said if we charge you 1.0 then there will be no wells and that was the two options we gave to you. Wilson said, on the record, that we will agree to well ability only on the first 40 houses, and no wells outside the first 40 at the 1.0 rate application. Tyra asked to clarify Wilson s proposal which was that they want to agree to 40 houses with the ability to drill wells at the 1.5 rate and the remaining 245 houses will pay the 1.0 rate and not have the ability to drill wells. Wilson clarified that the first 40 lots will have the options to drill wells if they choose to and meet whatever permitting requirements. When we hit 41 we believe that the 1.0 rate should apply universally to everyone including anyone who had drilled a well on the first 40 lots. Mayor Pratt agreed that was the proposal when meeting with the Attorneys earlier. Wilson stated that he consulted with the principal and he wanted me to argue this compromise position. Councilperson Hulett asked if we were to go with this and property owners drill the wells, and the well goes bad, do they continue to pay the 1.5 rate. Mr. Wilson answered yes; they would still have to pay the 1.5 rate. Wilson stated that he feels he has lost his option. Mayor Pratt explained that Wilson has not lost his option. The Mayor continued that the City had given you a choice, either/or and you came back with a 3 rd proposal that the customer had that third choice. The Mayor expressed his feelings and questioned how does one conserve water on a ranch and keep it from being taken from your potable water, which is what everybody needs to survive. That would be putting a burden on our water system if you are allowing landscaping to operate off of our wells. He doesn t feel this is just an issue of making money. The Mayor clarified the two choices; (1.The 41 st lot, wherever it happens to be within District 1A, the 41 st lot triggering the 1.0 option. That would encounter everyone in District 1A. That means no wells following the first 40 lots. Councilperson Allen wanted to change the number to 175 lots instead of on the 285 th house.

4 Wilson disagreed saying they were defeating their purpose. Parson commented saying that neither side wants to take the risk of water is going to cost on the 41 st house because we do not have a study to work from. Wilson said there would be a study before the 41 st house. Parson replied he was willing to do what they want on the first 40 houses but will not commit to anything on the 41 st house. Wilson said the option was no wells beyond 40 and they can build a well if they want to. The rate will be 1.5 on the first 40 houses but when we hit the 41 st everyone ought to be at 1X. That is agreeable and this is something we can sign. He said he hoped that Council could see this is reasonable, along with our $1200 per lot connection. Parson said index the $1200 and I will go with you. Wilson said he couldn t do that because we have lot prices we charge and when builders buy, they take our lot price and add all the other fees going in. That $1200 is already taking off our lot price or to make our lots at a feasible price. Parson offered indexing the $1200, which is 2% of CPI, 1.5 on the first 40 with a well and 1.0 after that. Ken Hackett spoke from the floor. (inaudible) Parson said that is the same option that Mr. Wilson had. Mayor Pratt commented that he was looking at this proposal and he doesn t know about the decision of the consumer having the option of whether he has a well or not. That takes us back to where we were originally, where if you have a ranchette they are getting a well and paying the 1.5 for the entire district. The Mayor said he can t imagine those owning a ranchette not having a well on it. You are getting 1.5 for all the potable water. Throughout the entire District 1A if they put a well on their property they are going to be on board to pay the 1.5 water rate. At the time of the building permit they will have to say whether or not they are going to require a permit for a well on their property. The City will know up front that they are going to put in a well. The property owner will not have the option to get that permit afterwards. Ken Hackett explained a compromise or 3 rd option, if you are getting 1.5 on your potable water, which seems to be the issue; you are getting that rate without producing extra water. You will make more on that water than not allowing us to drill wells. You are looking for revenue at the least cost, which this is. He continued to say if the customer makes the option to go with a well or no well, which is a 1.5 rate or 1.0 rate, the City gets the best of both worlds. If the customer wants to put a private well in then they have to pay a premium rate for their potable water. Hackett asked if we indexed the water connection fee would you agree to that option. Parson stated the option for the first 40 wells at 1.5 and the customer has the option to drill a well, and then at the 41 st lot we do the consumer option. Mr. Hackett reiterated the 3 rd option is better for the City because you are getting a higher rate on the volume and you are not producing the water. It is a higher margin sale than if you take the other option. This way we get to sell our lots at higher absorption rate which is what we need to build houses. The City gets the higher rate on the potable water. If the property owner takes the water well, you are not being burdened with the lower rate because they chose to go with the well option. Councilman Tyra clarified that the option Mr. Hackett has given applies to all 285 lots of District 1A. After the 41 st lot anyone who wants water well gets one and will pay the 1.5 rate. Everybody else pays the 1.0 rate and this option is agreeable to indexing the $1200 connection, CPI. Tyra said this is a great compromise. Mayor Pratt brought up the issue the City needs to address our Ordinance requiring water wells so it is something that is contingent on this whole proposal. Kirk Wilson brought up the CPI and offered 2% or CPI, or whatever is lower. After some bartering, a 3.5% cap was agreed upon. The Mayor said the language of the Bond Fund needs to be discussed; there will be multiple issuances of different bonds for each district. Some of the bonds will cover the costs of the roads and another will cover the water. Kirk Wilson commented that multiple bond issuances are advantageous for the City and the Developer. He said the 1 st district is estimated for bond issuance of $9 million, with an issuance of $4.5 million once, and a second 4.5 million issued at build out. Wilson said the City will want to get that debt paid down at an earlier point. If we waited for one bond issue you would be at the end of the process and then you would start your 25 year clock. What is most productive is to limit the term of our bonds to a 25 year period at any one and then give us the option to refinance only within the term. If we have a 25 year term and we hit 10 years, we can lower the interest rate for the home owners. We should be able to do that. Wilson stated that this is a reasonable solution that accomplishes everyone s goals. Manager McKethan asked on the 2 nd issuance of 4.5, at 10 years, would you issue 15 or 25 years. Wilson answered 25 years because there is no way of knowing how long this could take. Mayor Pratt clarified that in the 1 st phase,

5 if there are two issues, they may be in 5 years or 7 years, but will have a cap of 25 years. Wilson gave an example of District A. In the 7 th year, based on my build out schedule, we would probably issue $4.2 million in bonds and the next time we issue would be in the 15 th year. We would be taking 25 plus 15 and say that s the end or zero debt. The City may choose to annex earlier than that which would make more sense because if you annexed before all the debt is paid you would finance those bonds in a different way. There will be a point that the City tax is more than the income received so it would make more sense to annex earlier, probably twelve years into the 2 nd issue. Further discussion on the bond issue ensued. The Mayor suggested turning this issue over to the attorneys to bring to fruition and asked the City Council if they were ok with language stricken out to allow them to issue bonds. Wayne Olson agreed to allow the attorneys to work this out. Mitch Tyra moved to approve a comprehensive Development Agreement with CTMGT Granbury, LLC for a development to be named Knox Ranch and allow the Attorney s to work out the details agreed upon during this meeting and authorize the Mayor to sign said document upon completion. Seconded by Councilperson Parson, the motion carried with 5 ayes and 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED Consider and approve financing as proposed by Baystone Financial Group through the City s contract with the HGAC Buy Board (Houston-Galveston Area Council Buy Board) for the 100 by 100 Airport Hangar Project currently under construction. ITEM POSTPONED Consider and approve refinancing of the 2005 T-Hangar Complex (three 53 x 294 Metal Airplane Hangers) with Baystone Financial Group/Kansas State Bank; and adopt an Obligor Resolution regarding the Government Obligation Contract between Kansas State Bank and City of Granbury. ITEM POSTPONED Consider and approve an interlocal agreement with Hood County to allow the Hood County Fire Marshall to take possession of the Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) Program and equipment and setting out certain duties and responsibilities of the parties. Mayor Pratt briefed Council. The Granbury Police Department, in conjunction with the Citizens Police Academy, created a Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) program some time ago. This program trains members of the community in basic first aid and how to help other people in the event of an emergency. To support this program, the city was donated a pickup truck and an emergency response trailer. Now, the city no longer has the manpower to fully support this program and the CERT truck and trailer are not being utilized. The County Fire Marshall has shown an interest in continuing this valuable program and has the necessary employees to do so. This agreement would allow the Fire Marshall to take possession of the CERT truck and trailer (with title forever remaining with the city) so that he can use the equipment to move the program forward. The City will provide: (1) a mechanic to repair the vehicle; (2) parts associated with normal wear and tear; (3) liability insurance for the vehicle and trailer. The County will: (1) coordinate the volunteers and run the CERT program; (2) take custody of the truck and trailer and maintain that vehicle in good working order, absent normal wear and tear; (3) work to coordinate training activities with members of the GPD; and (4) provide all parts and supplies that are not associated with normal wear and tear. Councilperson Tyra moved that Council approve the interlocal agreement with Hood County and to allow the Hood County Fire Marshall to take possession of the CERT Program and equipment. The motion was seconded by Councilperson Hulett and carried with 5 ayes and 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED Consider and approve a sublease agreement with ARC Enterprises to sublease the boat dock located at 1003 White Cliff Road, Suite 400 to allow for a large boat to utilize the dock to support dinner and weekend cruises.

6 Mayor Pratt announced, at the request of the applicant, to remove this item from the agenda at this time. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA Consider and approve closing sections of South Travis St, and East Pearl Streets on Sunday, Nov. 11, 2012 from 2:00 p.m. until 2:30 p.m. The Mayor announced this is for the Veterans Day Celebration. Only vehicles will be in the parade. The parade will begin at the Presbyterian Church on Bridge Street and ending at the City Beach on East Pearl Street. Councilperson Hulett moved to allow the street closings, seconded by Councilperson Pirkle, the motion carried with 5 ayes and 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED Consider an agreement between the City of Granbury and Scott Tucker Construction Company, L.L.C. to serve as the design builder for the redesign and renovation of the Granbury Opera House The Mayor asked Wayne McKethan, City Manager, to brief the Council and bring all up to date on the Opera House renovation. McKethan said at the last meeting a contract was brought forth that was around 2.3 million dollars. The Committee asked Scott Tucker Construction to go back and research more current bids and find out if they could lower the price. The contract said they would be through in 210 days and would agree to the $ late penalty per day. Everything was in there we wanted but the price was too high. They went back and rebid it and the new bid is $2,155, for the construction cost. The additional architectural fees to move the costs from $1 million to $2 million, plus. The latest estimate chair upholstery costs using the old chairs is $60,000 dollars. The total costs to renovate the Opera House would be $2 million, $285, 000 dollars. McKethan said the fly rail, sound and light are financed through other means. There is $250,000 related to those things as well. The funding of the cost of $285,000 will be to fund out of Bonds, except for the 65% of surplus transfer which we just generated from the last year of operation. The Opera House improvements are now at $1 million, 219,000. The south side square park funds were estimated to be $350,000 and it looks like the Park is going to be $150,000. We would get $200, 000 from the 2007 Bond related to that. The south side drainage funds $107,125 allows us to move from the 2003 Bond. We have not spent the interest available for projects money in the 2007 bond on the Airport or the Conference Center and the interest has accumulated to over $500,000 which could be applied of interest available right out of that bond to this project. The transfer and surplus on the closing about $400,000 after spending the other portion of the surplus, which was a total of $750,000, about 65% of the surplus transfer would not go to the general fund. It would simply be spent on this and we would be able to start construction on the Opera House. Manager McKethan said that it is his recommendation of how to fund the Opera House renovation. We have had two construction companies tell us about the same cost. He feels that is what it will cost, here is how we fund it, and he presented this to the Council to go forward. Councilperson Parson asked what was cut to get to the $2,155, McKethan said the Lincoln seats, the balconies on the side, and the ornate artwork on the stairways were cut. Bill Scott and Jeff Giles of Tucker Construction Company were introduced. They reported that $113,000 was cut when they rebid the project out to other subcontractors. Changes to the building that are included in that number were replacing GEO phone pulled out from the slab that we are saying we should replace with select fill? One of the changes was replacing some under slab Styrofoam fill with select fill, with dirt that meets certain specification as non expansive soil, which will not impact the foundation because it will never be seen anyway. Another cut was a voluntary alternate light fixture package which means using a different supplier at a lower cost for the same product. The last two cuts that were mentioned when Wayne McKethan briefed earlier, were 1) eliminating the balcony extensions, or overflow, from the seating area, to the Juliet balconies on the stage and 2) to change the material selection on the balcony railings and stair railings. The Mayor asked to know how far the cutting out or limiting of the 2 nd floor balcony. Mr. Tucker said it now has a couple of little radius edges in the corner, taking that to the outside walls, so there is no excess seating or box seat. Parson asked the amount of the cost cut of the change in the balconies which is $14,000 and for the cost cut in the balustrade which is $5,000. Tucker estimated the cost of a 6 ft. orchestra pit to be $20,000 unless a more expensive finish is used like a paneling finish. Tucker said the carpet and tile allowance is $70,000 which includes the stage. His business bid it at $59,000 so he feels sure the

7 carpeting, tile, and finishing will not exceed the $70,000. Mr. Tucker said what he has put in the contract is a cost plus guaranteed maximum price, which is the same as a fixed cost lump sum. He said if the cost goes over, it s our problem, and if the costs go under, there is a savings clause. Manager McKethan said Tucker Construction would like a 30% / 70% split which would motivate some of the savings. He explained if the cost is $2,155,000, but comes under that price as $2,000,000, then $155,000 is saved and Tucker would get 30% of that as incentive to keep the costs down. He also noted that the Opera House Guild is going to provide the curtains. Councilperson Tyra commented that this project has been sitting here since 2007 and he thanked Wayne McKethan for being able to find bond money to pay for this because the Citizens of Granbury need to know that we have been paying the debt payment on this since The 1.2 million dollar amount that was thrown out has been an issue for people. Tyra said he and others in the City got this 1.2 million dollar thought process, because that was the amount of money left over in the 2007 bonds and it never had anything to do with the cost of renovating the Opera House. He continued to say for the first time we have a detailed cost analysis. He hopes that this can be approved tonight and these gentlemen can get started. Tyra thanked everyone for getting this accomplished. 1 st Motion: Councilperson Parson made a motion to approve a contract with Tucker Construction in the amount of $2,325,000 which adds back the $14,000 for the Lincoln seats, the $5,000 for the ornate balustrade, and $20,000 for a pit that works. Seconded by Councilperson Allen. Discussion continued: 2 nd Motion: Mayor Pratt said there is a motion on the floor to develop a contract with Scott Tucker Construction Company, LLC. in the amount of $2,325,000 for the completion of the renovation of the Opera House. The motion was made by Councilman Parson and seconded by Councilman Allen. Councilperson Tyra commented he wanted to make sure and clarify that Councilperson Parson had in his motion used the word approve and not develop as the Mayor had stated. Councilperson Tyra commented he wanted the City to get this contract done and there was no language that would say that the Council would have to go back and negotiate anything, it was done. Discussion continued: Wayne McKethan stated that we would use the same contract that you saw 2 weeks ago just the price would change. He will use $298,237 of the surplus transfer. 3 rd Motion: Mayor Pratt corrected the wording to say entertain a motion to approve a contract with Scott Tucker Construction, LLC. in the amount of $2,325,000 for the completion of the renovation of the Opera House. The motion was made by Councilman Parson and seconded by Councilman Allen. Councilperson Parson stated that the total bond package of 2007 was $15 million which was spent prior to Councilperson Tyra coming on to the Council. The only remaining thing was the Opera House and it has taken three and a half years to get this far. Councilperson Tyra commented he was thankful they got started, then and it was going to be a great thing. Councilperson Allen questioned City Attorney, Stuart Neal regarding Workers Compensation. Neal reported that the statute is mandatory and we will be abiding by State, federal and local laws, as we do in all of our contracts. Mayor Pratt pointed out this particular contract will incorporate contractors and subs that are going to pay a fair wage and will be reporting their workers compensation. The motion passed with 5 ayes and 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED Mayor Pratt announced at this time the City Council would go into Executive Session in his office.

8 7:35 PM - EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, the City Council may convene in Executive Session to deliberate regarding the following matter: SECTION Consultation with Attorney The City Council may convene in executive session to consult with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation, a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the provisions of Chapter 551, including open meetings, open records and the following item: Discuss Jay Mills Lawsuit 8:35 PM - Mayor Pratt reconvened in open session and announced that Item 1, (12-169) Knox Ranch would be heard at this time. (1 st item on Agenda) 9:25 PM - There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Attest: RICKIE PRATT, MAYOR Dee Arcos, City Secy.