9.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2022-085 approving a lease agreement between the City of Hutto and The Sandbox at Madeline's Place for the property located at 10700 South FM 1660 commonly known as the Saul House. (Jeffrey White)

[9.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2022-085 approving a lease agreement between the City of Hutto and The Sandbox at Madeline's Place for the property located at 10700 South FM 1660 commonly known as the Saul House. (Jeffrey White)]

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 9.2, PROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND THE SANDBOX AT MADELINE'S PLACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10700 SOUTH FM 1660 COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SAUL HOUSE.

[00:45:01]

I THINK THESE MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT LEGAL QUESTIONS.

SO IN THE AGREEMENT, OUR EMAIL WAS DOWN MOST OF THE WEEK, I WOULD HAVE SENT THIS. I THINK THE EXHIBITS ARE OFF BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND IS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT B, BUT EXHIBIT A SHOWS A ONE ACRE TRACT OF LAND.

BUT THE LEASE SAYS THERE'S FIVE ACRES THAT WE'RE LEASING.

AND THEN AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT B SHOWS A 156 TRACT OF LAND BUT NOT THE FIVE ACRE LAND. IF WE WERE TO GO TO COURT, I WOULDN'T KNOW. AND THEN THERE'S TWO EXHIBIT AS.

IT'S GOT EXHIBIT A WHICH IS A PROPERTY THAT LOOKED LIKE EXHIBIT B IS THE PROPERTY SITE MAP.

AND THEN THERE'S AN EXHIBIT A, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER EXHIBIT A. SO I THINK THE THIRD EXHIBIT A IS THE FIVE ACRES. AND THEN SO SOME THINGS THAT I WANT THE COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT. SO WE HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF SITUATION I THINK WITH THE YMCA, IS THAT CORRECT? WE OWN THE BUILDING AND WE LEASE IT TO THEM.

WE HAVE A LEASE WITH THEM? SO LIKE IN PART THREE USE, IT WILL BE USED FOR TEEN-CENTERED PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY SPECIAL EVENTS. I WOULD THINK RELEASE IT TO THEM THAT THEY GET TO USE IT AND MAINTAIN IT.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY CITY EVENTS THERE.

BUT IT SEEMS ODD THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY INFRINGE ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING BASED ON CITY EVENTS.

THAT'S A THING I THOUGHT COUNCIL SHOULD THINK ABOUT.

HOURS SEEM VERY RESTRICTIVE, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 8:00-11 DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR. IT SEEMED A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERREACH TO ME TO WHERE THE YMCA I THINK DOESN'T HAVE TO TELL US EVERY TIME THEY DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF HOURS.

TO ME WE'RE SHORT ON STAFF AS IT IS AND I DON'T THINK THERE ARE MANY STAFF MEMBERS WHO SAY I HAVE PLENTY OF WORK.

IF WE TRUST THEM TO WORK LIKE THEY HAVE FOR THE LAST 3 OR 4 YEARS, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THEM EVERY TIME THEY DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE IN THE SUMMER IF THEY HOLD AN EVENT THEY HAVE TO CONTACT THE CITY, IT SEEMS LIKE NEEDLESS WORK.

LOOKED LIKE A FIVE YEAR, WHEN THEY FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP I WAS TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT IT, THE IDEA WAS I GUESS I SHOULD ASK EVERYBODY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER, BUT HAS EVERYBODY WALKED THROUGH THE BUILDING? IT'S EXTREMELY NEEDED. IT'S IN MAJOR NEED OF REPAIRS.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAD ORIGINALLY DONE WAS A LONGER TERM LEASE TO DO A CAPITAL PROGRAM AND FIX THINGS UP.

BASICALLY THEY WERE GOING TO FUNDRAISE.

SO WE'RE DOING THE FIVE YEAR LEASE WITH TWO ONE YEAR OPTIONS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND SAY FIX THE FOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE THE ROOF KNOWING THAT THEY'LL ONLY BE THERE FOR FIVE YEARS. I THINK THAT THEN FALLS ON THE CITY THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO MAYBE WE NEED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO SHORE UP A BUILDING THAT POTENTIALLY THEY'LL ONLY BE THERE FOR FIVE YEARS.

THEN THIS IS A LEGACY GOING BACK IN THE PAST, BUT CITY MAY TERMINATE AT ANY TIME, SO THE CITY CAN TERMINATE.

ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE OLD LEASE, IT WAS BASICALLY YEAR TO YEAR LEASE. AND ONE OF THEIR BOARD MEMBERS ONE TIME SAID SOMETHING NOT FAVORABLE TO THE CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME. AND THE WORD CAME DOWN VERY QUICKLY IF YOU SPEAK UP AGAIN, YOU GUYS ARE GONE.

SO I DON'T LIKE POLITICS PLAYING INTO THINGS.

AND SO I DON'T LIKE BEING CRITICIZED LIKE THE NEXT PERSON, BUT I WAS THINKING MAYBE THERE WE COULD SAY WE COULD TERMINATE THE LEASE BASED ON A VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL.

NOT THAT YOU WOULD GO ROGUE, BUT POTENTIALLY, YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, YOU TERMINATE IT, THE PUBLIC IS IN AN UPROAR, THE COUNCIL DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

>> ON THAT ONE PARTICULARLY, MAYOR, I WOULD NEVER, I'M SORRY FOR THE RECORD JAMES EARP, CITY MANAGER.

IF THE COUNCIL IS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE, I COULDN'T MANAGE THE CITY MANAGER HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE LEASE WITHOUT A COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION. I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ON THAT. IF IT'S WRITTEN IN THERE THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE LEASE WITH NOTICE

OR WHATEVER -- >> IT JUST SAYS THE CITY.

>> THAT'S YOU. LEGAL, I'M SORRY, CHRICHRISTIAN.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. GENERALLY IT'S THE ENTITY THAT APPROVES IT, SO IT WOULD BE THE COUNCIL.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE WE USED TO GET INTO THE WE'RE GETTING INTO THE DAY-TO-DAY.

[00:50:02]

SO EVERY TIME SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN YOU'D GO WHY DID WE TERMINATE THAT DEAL. AS LONG AS WE PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES SOMETHING, ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN REVOKE IT. COMPLETELY OKAY, I ALWAYS THINK IF A PERSON GOES ROGUE -- SO THE ONLY OTHER COUPLE THINGS I HAD WAS BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A DELIPIDATED BUILDING WE TELL THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MINOR REPAIRS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALTERATIONS AND COSTS NOT EXCEEDING 3500. BUT I'LL BE HONEST, IF YOU WALK THROUGH THERE, SHORT OF SOMEONE PUNCHING HOLES IN THE WALLS, I MEAN IT'S LIKE 1970 CABINETS. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT HOW DO YOU BEING IN THE RENTAL BUSINESS YOU WALK IN, YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING, IT'S A CERTAIN CLASS AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND EXPECT THE SAME THING. IF SOMETHING IS ALREADY KIND OF DE DELIPIDATED AND RUN DOWN, HOW DO WE THEY WILL THEM THEY OWE US $3,500 BECAUSE OF WHAT? THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION PUT INTO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A GRADE A OR GRADE B BUILDING HERE.

WE'RE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S 40 YEARS OLD THAT IS SINKS AS WE TALK AND PROBABLY HAS A ROOF LEAK.

THE LAST ONE IS THEY'RE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT DEEMED REASONABLY NECESSARY BY CITY TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO CONDITION EXISTING AT THE COMMISSION OF THE LEASE. I WAS LIKE WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONDITION WOULD WE CALL THAT? BECAUSE AGAIN IF WE WALK IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL PEOPLE LATER ON THAT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS MORE OF A STANDARD LEASE FOR LIKE A STANDARD TYPE BUILDING.

AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A ONE OFF TO WHERE IT'S AN OLD ASSET THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW.

IS THE CITY GOING TO KEEP IT LONG TERM.

AND IF IT IS, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PUTTING MONEY IN AND SOMEHOW INCENTIVIZING A NONPROFIT THAT CAN STAY THERE AND POTENTIALLY DO A CAPITAL CAMPAIGN AND FIX AND IMPROVE A CITY ASSET TO WHERE THE TAXPAYERS BENEFIT FROM THE

INCREASING ASSET. >> ALSO NOTHING IS MENTIONING ABOUT THE BARNS AND THE DELIPIDATED STUFF SITTING IN IT THAT'S CITY JUNK THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO BE USED AGAIN.

THAT'S ANOTHER PART, IF THEY'RE GOING TO IMPROVE IT, THEY COULD IMPROVE THAT AS WELL AND HAVE AN OUTDOOR EATING AREA INSIDE ONE OF THE BARNS. THAT'S WITHIN THE FIVE ACRES.

THEY WANTED TO HAVE A VOLLEYBALL PIT, BUT TECHNICALLY WHERE THAT LINE IS AND IT'S NOT VERY DELINEATED AND WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BUILD THE WATER TREATMENT ON THAT FRONT PART ANYWAYS.

AT SOME POINT I DEFINITELY THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION OF IT GOES UP TO THE CREEK LINE BECAUSE WE KNOW WE CAN'T PUT THE WASTE WATER ACROSS THE CREEK AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

>> WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES I'LL SIGN IT BECAUSE THAT'S MY JOB. BUT I WOULD PROBABLY ADVISE, JUST TRYING TO BE A GOOD GUY, JUST ADVISE NOT TO SIGN IT UNTIL THE EXHIBITS ARE WORKED OUT, THAT'S A CITY THING.

BUT AT LEAST THE EXHIBITS SO AT LEAST EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT'S BEING LEASED. JEFF MAY HAVE A BIG CAMP COMING OUT THERE AND IT MAY CONFLICT OR SOMETHING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I DON'T KNOW. SO I BRING THAT UP, I THINK IT'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL TO ME IF ANY OF THOSE THINGS STRIKE HOME WHAT WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR.

AND I THINK FROM THERE I THINK WE REVISE IT SOMEWHAT.

>> WERE THERE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HANES FAMILY ON THIS PARTICULAR LEASE AND WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS? OR ARE YOU JUST PRESENTING IT TO US AND THEN YOU'LL PRESENT THAT

TO THEM? >> GREAT QUESTION.

JEFF WYATT, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT.

JOHN IS HERE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AGREEMENT FOR MONTHS GOING BACK AND FORTH AND IRONING OUT ALL OF THE DETAILS.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSED AGREEMENT. I DON'T WANT TO PUT HIM ON THE

SPOT THOUGH. >> DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

>> YOU CAN COME UP TO THE MIC. >> THIS IS JOHN HANES.

>> IT'S NOT PROJECTING ENOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING

FROM HOME. >> I'M SORRY.

JOHN HANES. JEFF IS CORRECT, WE HAVE DONE THIS TOGETHER QUITE A BIT BACK AND FORTH.

SO THE VERSION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS PROBABLY VERSION THREE. AND THE MAYOR CALLED OUT SOME OF

[00:55:04]

THE EXHIBITS, JUST DIDN'T CATCH THAT SO APPRECIATE THE CLARITY AROUND THE ACCURATE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION.

BUT WITH REGARD TO THE LEASE, THE TIMING, THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

I THINK ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN THERE RECENTLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE BUILDING IS OLD, IT'S VERY DATED, THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES WITH THE BUILDING. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LEASE RECOGNIZES THAT, THE CITY COUNCIL, PARKS, REC, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE BUILDING IS SOMEWHAT DELIPIDATED AT LEAST IN CERTAIN AREAS. THE FOUNDATION PROBABLY BEING THE BIGGEST ISSUE, AND THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE PLANS TO INVEST IN THAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND ARE WILLING TO LEASE THE BUILDING AS IS AND GO FORWARD AS LONG AS WE CAN.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS WHAT YOU WERE INQUIRING ABOUT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT IF Y'ALL HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING BACK AND FORTH WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH A FIVE YEAR LOCK IN. I DON'T ANTICIPATE JEFF IS GOING TO PLAN A WHOLE EVENT OUT THERE WITHOUT TALKING TO Y'ALL.

Y'ALL DO SUCH GREAT WORK THERE. I JUST FOR ME WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS LEASE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND THAT Y'ALL COLLABORATED TOGETHER ON IT.

I JUST WANTED CONFIRMATION ON THAT.

>> WE DID, YES. AND WITH THE FIVE YEAR TIMELINE, THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO THIS, PART OF OUR VISION IS TO MAKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS BEST WE CAN. WITH FIVE YEARS, THAT VISION CHANGES A BIT. SO YOU MENTIONED THE BARNS, THE ONE THE BIG BARN I DON'T THINK IS SALVAGEABLE.

IT'S CONDEMNED RIGHT NOW AS YOU GUYS KNOW.

SO THAT KIND OF PROJECT WOULD BE WITH COUNCIL APPROVAL, A PROJECT REGARDING THAT BUILDING WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF THAT BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING NEW.

THE RUN IN BARN WHERE THERE'S SOME OLD EQUIPMENT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S BECOMING A BIT OF A DROP OFF POINT FOR PEOPLE'S TRASH THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE TO THE DUMP, THAT CAN ALL BE CLEANED OUT AND THAT BUILDING CAN BE REPURPOSED I BELIEVE AND

PUT TO USE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE MOVING FORWARD IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SANDBOX THAT THE CITY CAN COME UP WITH PLANS AND IDEAS HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND GET SOME OF THAT WORK DONE OUT THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I DON'T SEE THAT ANYONE WOULD SAY WE SHOULDN'T PARTICIPATE AND

HELP IMPROVE THE PROPERTY. >> IN ALL FAIRNESS, JEFF AND I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT SOME OF THAT AS WELL AND HE'S BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE AND TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE KNOW

NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING UP HERE AND ANSWERING HIS QUESTIONS AND TALKING ON BEHALF OF THE

SANDBOX. >> OF COURSE, THANK YOU.

>> ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, COUNCIL, OR ACTION FOR THIS

ITEM? >> I DO HAVE JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MAYOR. I THINK THE EXHIBITS ARE FINE, IT'S JUST ONE ACRE, IT'S NOT FIVE ACRES, IT'S ONE ACRE.

ALL OF THE EXHIBITS DESCRIBED ARE A ONE ACRE TRACT.

SO THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S THE CORRECTION.

>> EXCEPT FOR IT SAYS THE CITY ALLOWS -- CONSISTING OF FIVE

ACRES. >> YEAH.

>> UNDER NUMBER ONE GRANT, RIGHT.

>> SO THE EXHIBITS AND THIS KIND OF LITTLE DIAGRAM THAT'S THERE DESCRIBES THE LOT, THAT'S A ONE ACRE LOT, THEN THERE'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THERE, IT'S A ONE ACRE LOT.

THEN YOU HAVE YOUR PLAT SHOWING THE ONE ACRE LOT.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY CORRECTION. >> SO YOU'RE JUST DOING THE ONE.

ARE THE BARNS IN THAT ONE ACRE? ACTUALLY NO, SO THE ONE ACRE

DOESN'T INCLUDE THE BARNS. >> RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY THEY HAVE A VOLLEYBALL PIT THAT'S BACK IN THAT FIVE ACRE SECTION, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S NOT

CORRECT. >> THAT'S WHY THEY'RE WANTING TO USE THE FIVE ACRES. I THINK IT'S CORRECT IN THE LEASE, THEY WANT TO USE THE FULL FIVE ACRES, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. AS YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THAT ENCOMPASSES THE EXISTING HOUSE, IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IT

[01:00:08]

GOES TO THE BACKYARD AND THEN THAT FIELD BEHIND THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURES TO THE CREEK. AND INSIDE THE FENCE LINE.

>> I HAVE NO ISSUE WHETHER IT'S 1 OR 5, BUT IF IT'S FIVE WE'RE GOING TO NEED UPDATED EXHIBITS THAT SHOW WHAT THE FIVE ARE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EXHIBITS SHOW A ONE ACRE TRACT.

>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE HOUSE AND THE BARN IN THE BACK.

DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS THAT ARE OTHER BIGGER PROJECTS, SAY THE ROOF OR SAFETY ISSUES, OF COURSE A ROOF IS OVER $3,500 THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO COST SHARE WITH THAT.

IS THERE ANYTHING KIND OF THAT YOU'RE FORESEEING OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY MUCH AN AS IS THIS

IS WHAT WE'RE DOING? >> ACTUALLY WE HAD A HOME INSPECTOR OUT LAST YEAR AND THEY SAID THE ROOF WAS FINE.

THERE WERE CERTAIN BOARDS THAT ARE ROTTING UP TOP, BUT THE ACTUAL ROOF IS STILL OKAY. THUS FAR, I MEAN WE'VE CHANGED ALL OF THE SLIDING DOORS ON THE HOUSE.

THE NEXT PROJECT ITSELF WOULD BE THE KITCHEN AREA.

WHEN WE HAVE AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITIES WE ALWAYS PROVIDE DINNER AND FEED THEM. SO IT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED SINCE PROBABLY 1975, SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT INTERIOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WE WOULD FOCUS ON. ACTUALLY WE HAVE SOME GRANTS OUT RIGHT NOW AND IF THEY COME THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE OUR NEXT

PROJECT WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> CAN I ADD SOMETHING? I BELIEVE THE THREE MAIN AREAS OF CONCERN FROM THE HOME INSPECTOR REPORT WERE THE FACIA BOARD THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WOULD IT GET REPLACED THIS YEAR AS WELL AS THE ELECTRICAL PANEL. IT IS IN CODE BUT IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED SO WE'RE WAITING ON A PRICE TO DO THAT.

AND THE LAST ONE IS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE MAY HAVE A WATER LEAK FROM SOMEWHERE IN THERE THAT COMES WITH THE FOUNDATION ISSUES. THOSE ARE THREE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WE'RE LOOKING AT AS A CITY.

WE DID, LAST YEAR WE DID I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE SPENT ON IT, BUT IT WAS ROUGHLY BETWEEN 3 TO $4,000 ON A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM.

NOT NEW, BUT MOVING SOME OF THE TREE LIMBS, REPLACING SOME OF THE BROKEN PIPES, CLEANING IT OUT, THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK WE DO NEED TO UPDATE IT, BECAUSE WHEN I DO A GOOGLE MAP AROUND THE AREA, IT'S LIKE 3.3 ACRES.

IT'S EVERYTHING LIKE FROM THE ROAD TO THE CREEK TO 1660.

YOU DRAW AN AREA AROUND THAT, THAT'S 3.86 ACRES.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAYBE DRAW A DIAGRAM SHOWING EXACTLY THE PART YOU WANT TO LEASE. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU THE AREA TO GO ACROSS THE ROAD INTO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

SO I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

>> ONE QUESTION I HAD. >> IT'S JOHN, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR. >> TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, WOULD A TEN YEAR LEASE INCENTIVIZE YOU MORE TO CONSIDER DOING SOME KIND OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS OPPOSED TO THE FIVE YEAR LEASE?

>> THAT CERTAINLY HELPS, YES. WHAT WE FOUND IN THE GRANT WRITING WORLD IS PEOPLE AREN'T SO EAGER TO INVEST OR AT LEAST INVEST IN A PROJECT LIKE THAT, BECAUSE OUR VISION WOULD BE TO TAKE DOWN THE OLD BARN AND BUILD A SMALL GYM THERE.

THEY WON'T INVEST IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON A FIVE YEAR LEASE.

BECAUSE REASONABLY THE LEASE WOULD GO AWAY, THE ORGANIZATION WOULD GO AWAY IN FIVE YEARS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST WANT A LONGER VISION TO INVEST THAT KIND OF MONEY.

SO YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD HELP. >> YEAH, I HAD THOUGHT ALONG THE SAME LINES TOO. AND I THINK TO GO EVEN FURTHER WITH THAT, WE HAD FIVE YEARS WITH TWO ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS, I WOULD SAY TEN YEARS WITH TWO FIVE YEAR EXTENSIONS SO YOU HAVE TEN AND YOU CAN UP IT TO 15 OR 20.

THAT SHOULD I THINK HELP YOU BE ABLE TO TO ENHANCE THAT COMMITMENT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED IN.

>> RIGHT, PURSUE THAT GOAL. AND WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, GOING BACK TO THE HOUSE QUESTION, IT IS A 1975 HOME AND TO RUN IT AS KIND OF A TEEN CENTER, WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT

[01:05:04]

TO TAKE OUT WALLS ON THE INSIDE AND CREATE BIGGER SPACES INSTEAD OF A BUNCH OF SMALL ROOMS LIKE THEY'RE SET UP NOW.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY TRY TO DO AS

WELL ON THE CAPITAL SIDE. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND ASK STAFF IF YOU WOULD LIKE AT UPDATING THE EXHIBITS TO MAKE SURE THEY MATCH WITH WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE USING AND THEN CONSIDER SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT EXTENDING THE LEASE OR WE CAN JUST MAKE THAT AS A MOTION TO AMEND.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL HAVE STAFF USE OUR GIS TECHNICIAN TO DO A METES AND BOUNDS DISTRIBUTION OF THE AREA THEY WANT TO BE LEASING. BECAUSE THE AREA YOU WANT TO BE LEASING RIGHT NOW, THE HOUSE IS ON ONE ACRE, AND YOU HAVE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S VERY TRADITIONAL WHEN YOU HAVE A FARMHOUSE ON FARMLAND, THE HOUSE GETS CARVED OUT INTO ONE ACRE AND THE REST OF THE LAND REMAINS SO THAT CAN BE AN AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION AND THE HOME CAN BE A DIFFERENT TAX RATE. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE INHERITED AS FAR AS SURVEYS GO. SO TO INCREASE IT TO FIVE ACRES, THERE'S NO SURVEY FOR THAT THEREFORE THERE'S NO EXHIBITS.

BUT WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING BASED OFF OF THE PINS WHERE THE CORNER PINS ARE AND USING GIS TO SAY BASICALLY THIS MANY FEET THIS WAY, AT THAT ANGLE OR WHATEVER AND THEN THAT MANY FEET THIS WAY AND BASICALLY BUILD OUR OWN DESCRIPTION WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO SURVEY AND WE CAN MAKE THAT THE ATTACHMENT FOR THE EXHIBIT OF THE ACTUAL LAND THAT THEY'RE DOING AND INCLUDE THAT AS THE

EXHIBIT NEXT TIME. >> IF WE EVER WANT TO REPLAT IT

-- >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GET THAT THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS OR NOT.

>> ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO TABLE THIS?

>> BUT WE'RE TABLING IT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING SO THAT'S

DATE CERTAIN. >> THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, IS THAT GOING TO INTERRUPT ANY KIND OF PROGRAMMING OR ANYTHING ELSE OR ANYTHING WITH THE CURRENT LEASE? IS THAT GOING TO LIKE THROW OFF YOUR TIMELINE IF WE EXTEND IT?

>> NO, APPARENTLY WE'RE JUST OPERATING UNDER THE CURRENT

LEASE. >> OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE

[9.6. Discussion and possible action to execute Individual Project Order (IPO) 2022-06 for professional engineering services with Garver, LLC to provide design and procurement of temporary Ultraviolet (UV) equipment installation and develop contingency plans for supplemental disinfection at the South WWTP in the amount of $276,920.00. CIP Project WW03 (Wade Benton)]

SURE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT NEXT THAT BRINGS US UP TO ITEM 9.6, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER IPO 2022-06 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH GARVER, LLC TO PROVIDE DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY ULTRAVIOLET UV EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION AND DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL DISINFECTION AT THE SOUTH WWTP IN THE AMOUNT OF $276,920, CIP PROJECT WW03.

I'VE GOT THE SAME ISSUE I'VE HAD FOR TWO YEARS.

IT STARTED WITH DCS SO IT'S NOTHING AGAINST WADE AND THE GREAT WORK. BUT DCS USED TO COME UP, WE WOULD PAY THEM TO DO A STUDY, THEN WE WOULD PAY THEM TO ENGINEER WHAT THEIR STUDY TOLD US.

SO I ALWAYS WONDERED HOW DOES A PERSON KNOW THAT WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE -- A NORMAL HUMAN MIGHT OVER ENGINEER SOMETHING JUST TO BE SAFE. ANY TIME THERE'S A COMPANY THAT DOES ONE THING, LIKE IF I WAS GOING TO COME IN, I'LL TRY TO THINK OF AN ANALOGY BECAUSE IT'S SO CRAZY FOR ME.

BUT I GUESS IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO IN AND I WAS GOING TO INSPECT YOUR HOUSE, AND BASED ON THE INSPECTION I HAD OF YOUR HOUSE I'M THEN GOING TO COMPLETE THE REPAIRS, YOU MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME THAN IF I'M AN INSPECTOR AND I HIRE SOMEONE TO FIX IT. FOR ME, ANYTIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES UP, IT'S NOT A KNOCK ON THE COMPANY IT'S JUST THEY DON'T HAVE A SEPARATION. IT'S JUST A PERSONAL THING.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING I HAD ON 9.6, I COULDN'T VOTE FOR IT QUITE HONESTLY. AND I HOPE WE CAN SOMEHOW CONTINUE TO GET GREAT SERVICES FROM THE ENGINEERING COMPANY IN TIME OF NEED. WE ALSO GET GREAT SERVICE FROM COMPANIES TO DO STUDIES AND THEN WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S OVERSEEING THE ENGINEERS AND THEN OVERSEES IT, AND THE LAST PART I HAD THAT WAS WEIRD ABOUT IT, IT WAS TELLING US IN THE AGREEMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE CITY IS IN THE AGREEMENT, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S CITY ENGINEERING STAFF. BUT GARVER IS GOING TO DESIGN THINGS, AND THEN IT BENCHMARKS 30%, I THINK 60, 90, 100, THEY

[01:10:02]

SEND IT TO THE CITY, AND THEN THE CITY LOOKS AT IT AND GIVES FEEDBACK. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE COMPANY A DOING THE WORK, SENDING IT TO FOR LACK OF A BETTER THING, COMPANY A TO THEN SAY HOW DID WE DO, AND THEN I WOULD EXPECT I KIND OF WANT A PERSON THAT'S PUSHING BACK ON THINGS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY, THERE'S A CHEAPER WAY.

INSTEAD YOU HAVE COMPANY A DOING IT ALL AND IT COMES UP HERE AND WE VOTE FOR IT. IT'S NOTHING NEW FOR MOST PEOPLE. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. I KNOW FIRMS ARE SMALL AND THEY'RE BUSY AND I APPRECIATE THE ISSUE.

I JUST CAN'T. >> MAYOR, TO THAT POINT, THAT IS THE REASON THAT I HAD ASKED COUNCIL TO ALLOW ME TO GO OUT TO SEEK A CITY ENGINEER AND TO BRING A CITY ENGINEER ON STAFF.

WADE HAS BEEN DOING AN AMAZING JOB AND THE AMOUNT OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT HE'S GAINED IN JUST A SINGLE YEAR IS JUST ASTOUNDING TO ME. WHEN I FIRST HEARD WADE SPEAK AT A COUNCIL MEETING I THOUGHT HE HAD BEEN HERE FOR LIKE A DECADE.

HE'S BEEN DOING GREAT WORK. THAT SAID, I TOO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WADE AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT EVEN IF IT IS IN GARVER'S WHEELHOUSE, THERE'S ALWAYS THE PERCEPTION THAT GARVER IS GETTING THE WORK BECAUSE GARVER IS THE CITY ENGINEER AUGMENTED STAFF.

HE'S BEEN VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT AND I'VE BEEN PUSHING BACK ANYTIME HE SAYS MAYBE THIS IS A PROJECT FOR GARVER, I MAKE HIM DOUBLE CHECK IT AND TRIPLE CHECK IT.

THEY HAVE LOTS OF WHEELHOUSE, BUT WASTEWATER IS ONE OF THEIR BIGGER ONES. WITH THAT SAID, I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORK. BUT GARVER WORK CAN'T REVIEW GARVER WORK. WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR WORK, THE CITY INCLUDES OUR OTHER CONSULTANTS TOO.

FOR EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT'S COMING IN IS BEING REVIEWED BY K FREES. THAT'S JUST BEST STANDARD PRACTICES, YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR FIRM REVIEWING YOUR OWN FIRM'S WORK. BUT THAT SAID, AS I GO FORWARD WITH RECRUITING AN ENGINEER ON STAFF, THEN THERE'S NOT THE APPEARANCE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> IF I MAY, I AGREE WITH WHAT JAMES HAS SAID.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. >> LIKE I SAY WE'VE HAD THIS

CONVERSATION BEFORE. >> LET ME JUST SAY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, REALLY IN ANY PROJECT THAT GARVER MAY BE INVOLVED IN IN A DESIGN CAPACITY, THERE ARE FOLKS AT THE CITY AND OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE REVIEWING THAT WORK.

FOR INSTANCE IN THIS PROJECT, BRA OPERATES THE PLANTS.

WE'VE BEEN IN MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THEIR TECHNICAL FOLKS, WE'VE TOURED THE PLANT, YOUR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HAS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS ARENA, HAS BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. SO THIS ISN'T JUST US COMING AND SAYING WE'VE STUDIED IT, THIS IS THE SOLUTION.

IT'S BEEN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT.

WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THE CITY NEEDS TO DO AND NEEDS TO DO NOW AND MOVE FORWARD WITH.

VERY COGNIZANT OF SOME OF THE THINGS YOU JUST MENTIONED AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT VERY AWARE OF THAT THE WHOLE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE AND FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN FAIR WITH ALL CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

AND IF WE'RE PERFORMING A DESIGN OUR EXPECTATION IS SOMEONE IS LOOKING AT THAT AND IT'S NOT US. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES THE CITY AND BRA ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AND HAVING SOME INPUT ON IT AND OUR IMPACTED PARTNERS IN THIS. JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE OF THAT AND THE

SENSITIVITY TO THAT ISSUE. >> I WILL SAY YOU GUYS HAD THE BEST AGREEMENT. SO THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.

>> MAYOR, JUST TO ALSO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS, SO THIS WAS INITIALLY BROUGHT TO US WITH ALL OF THESE NUMBERS AND PROJECTS BACK IN JULY. SO WE HAD A HUGE SIT DOWN MEETING WHERE WE HAD THIS BIG CONVERSATION AND WE KIND OF AS A COUNCIL I BELIEVE, I DIDN'T LOOK IT UP FOR THIS MEETING TO HAVE WHO VOTED WHICH WAY, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL KIND OF AGREED ESPECIALLY THIS PROJECT WHERE IT'S AT HIGH, HIGH RISK, HIGH PRIORITY OF BEING IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH TECQ, THAT IT WAS IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SAME COMPANY THAT'S DOING THIS AND JUMP RIGHT INTO DESIGN SO WE'RE NOT CONSTANTLY RUNNING INTO THESE TIME BARRIERS.

[01:15:03]

AND THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I BELIEVE EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL AT THE TIME AGREED WITH THAT OUTLOOK BECAUSE WE KNEW THE SEVERITY AND THE TIMELINE THAT WE WERE ON.

SO I WOULD HOPE IF YOU WERE IN SUPPORT OF THAT, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU COULD THEN BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS NOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY COME DOWN TIME THAT WE HAVE IT THERE AND TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR DESIGN THAT I FEEL LIKE WE WERE ALL ALREADY IN AGREEMENT WITH. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF GOING WITH THE SAME DESIGNERS.

>> I DIDN'T GO BACK AND LISTEN, BUT I'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH WADE. I HAD IT WITH ISAAC.

I HAD IT WITH WARREN. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT A PROJECT ISSUE THAT I HAVE. IT'S NOT A DESIGN FIRM ISSUE.

IT IS THE OVERALL PERCEPTION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BUT I THINK WE'RE MIXING TWO ISSUES.

I WOULD SAY THIS, IF THE CITY WAS VERY, VERY SURE THAT THIS -- THAT'S THREE MONTHS TO FIND ANOTHER FIRM.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT. >> BUT IT'S AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, THAT'S THE POINT I'M GETTING AT.

COUNCIL DIDN'T BRING IT UP THEN BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THE TIMELINE AND PUTTING OUT RFQS AND RFPS, WHICHEVER IT IS.

SO TO ME THAT WAS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT COUNCIL GAVE SO FOR ME IT FEELS KIND OF B BACKHANDED TO SAY THAT WE AGREED AND NOW THAT IT'S COME TIME FOR A VOTE TO EDUCATION CUTE YOU

CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF. >> MAY I FINISH? SO AGAIN IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRM.

WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SEPARATE THINGS.

AND AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO NOT BE UNDER THE GUN.

SO I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS MORE EXPLANATION THAN THAT?

>> ARE YOU DONE? I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 9.6 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> YES, THE WAY THAT WE GET AROUND BEING UNDER THE GUN IS BY STOP BUDGETING YEAR BY YEAR BY YEAR.

WE NEED TO HAVE A VISION. >>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION OF WHO'S ALL INVOLVED IN DISCUSSING IT.

I THINK THAT HELPS WITH THE PERCEPTION OF THE COMMUNITY SO THAT THEY REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND WHO ALL IS INVOLVED AND IT ISN'T JUST THE SAME PERSON CHECKING THEIR OWN WORK KIND OF THING. ALSO WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, CITY MANAGER EARP AND I ABOUT HOW DO WE GET AROUND THIS, AND MAKING SURE THAT ONE FIRM DOESN'T ALWAYS GET THE BIG PROJECTS OR WHATEVER AND HE MENTIONED TO ME A GOOD PROCESS GOING FORWARD IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO ROTATE THROUGH AND WHOEVER IS THE NEXT UP IN THE LIST, MAYBE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT GET THE PROJECT AND JUST ROTATE THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FAIR AND THAT IT'S EQUITABLE FOR ALL. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT

PROCESS. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

[9.7. Discussion and possible action to execute Individual Project Order (IPO) 2022-03 for professional engineering services with Freese & Nichols to design the Frame Switch Pump Station Storage Expansion Phase 1 Project in the amount of $ 532,653.00. CIP Project W03 (Wade Benton) 9.8. Discussion and possible action]

>> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> NAY.

IT PASSES 6-1. THAT BRINGS US TO 9.7, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER, IPO 2022-03 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH FREESE & NICHOLS TO DESIGN THE FRAME SWITCH PUMP STATION STORAGE EXPANSION PHASE 1 PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $532,653, CIP PROJECT W03. SO HERE'S THE QUESTION I HAVE ON THIS, ON THE COVER PAGE, THE STAFF SUMMARY, IT SAYS THE DESIGN IS 1.491 MILLION, BUT THE WAY I READ THE AGREEMENT IT'S

FOR THE ENTIRE DESIGN OF IT. >> SO THE VALUES THAT WERE SHOWN THERE WERE THE ORIGINAL BUDGET FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AS IT WAS CONCEIVED. THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT MAY NOT BE NEEDED. THERE WAS SOME OVERLAP ON THIS PROJECT AND AN EXISTING PROJECT THAT THE CITY HAD.

THAT WAS JUST TRYING TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH Y'ALL IN TERMS OF WHAT HAD BEEN BUDGETED FOR THAT PROJECT DURING THE CIP PROCESS. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THE SCOPE DOES NOT INCLUDE BID PHASE OR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES RIGHT NOW. SO THERE WILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL EFFORT RELATED TO THAT. BUT THIS IS A, IT'S NOT A ROAD, IT'S NOT A PIPELINE, IT'S A FACILITY.

[01:20:03]

SO THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

AND THERE'S SOME DELIVERY OPTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO EXPLORE. AND SO WE'D RECOMMEND COMING BACK TO YOU WITH THOSE ONCE WE GET INTO THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THAT DELIVERY WILL BE AND WHAT SOME OF THE MATERIAL SUPPLY ISSUES WOULD BE THAT MIGHT DRIVE US TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE. RATHER THAN COMING BACK TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD IT WOULD HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU IS JUST TO GET THROUGH THE DESIGN PHASE AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL TASK ORDER TO COVER THE BID AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE ONCE WE HAD A BETTER IDEA ON HOW THAT DELIVERY WOULD BE ANTICIPATED TO BE.

>> OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD, I'M TRYING TO FIND THE PAGE WHERE IT HAD THE DIFFERENT EXHIBITS.

BUT I DIDN'T SEE ALL OF THE EXHIBITS ON THERE.

WHEN I GO TO, I CAN'T FIND IT NOW.

THERE'S AN EXHIBIT A, B, C, D, BUT I ONLY SAW A ON THE PROJECT.

IT'S 110 IN OUR PACKET. BUT A IS SCOPE OF SERVICES, B IS THE FEE SCHEDULE AND UNIT RATES, C IS DESIGN SCHEDULE, D IS HV89 VERIFICATION. SO I SAW THE OTHER ONES, THEY WEREN'T LABELED. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL I GUESS.

BUT EXHIBIT B I DIDN'T SEE A FEE SCHEDULE.

>> MAYBE THAT WASN'T IN THE PDF YOU HAVE.

THERE IS A FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO THAT THAT'S A DETAILED

BREAKDOWN. >> THEN I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY. SO IT'S GOT THAT HOUSE BILL 89 IN THERE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHAPTER 2274 PROHIBITIONS -- BECAUSE IT CONFUSES ME EVERY TIME.

BUT SB19 THAT WAS THE FIREARM RESTRICTION, OR THE ONE ABOUT FIREARMS I THINK THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT IS IF IT'S OVER $100,000, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PARAGRAPH IN THERE THAT THEY WON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FIREARMS. THEN THERE'S SB13 THAT YOU CAN'T IF IT'S OVER $100,000 YOU CAN'T ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES UNLESS THEY PROMISE NOT TO BOYCOTT ENERGY COMPANIES.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THOSE IN THERE.

SO I DIDN'T KNOW -- >> SO ON THOSE, SO THESE IPOS ARE PURSUANT TO THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT APPROVED IN JULY AND AUGUST. SO SENATE BILL 13 AND 19 ONLY APPLY TO CONTRACTS ENTERED AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST.

BUT IF YOU WANT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION YOU CAN APPROVE IT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION FORMS FOR THE NO BOYCOTTING ENERGY COMPANIES AND FIREARMS ENTITIES WHICH THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PREDATES THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAW WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 1, 2021.

>> SO ANY CONTRACTS, SO WE CAN KEEP THAT ONE CONTRACT THERE FOR TEN YEARS AND ANY CONTRACT BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY OF THAT?

>> WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS OR WHAT THE BILL SAYS IS THIS SECTION ONLY APPLIES TO A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO AT OR AFTER THAT DATE. SO YES.

>> OKAY. >> AND MAYOR, ON PAGE 121 ON ALL OF THOSE FEE NUMBERS, IT SAYS CITY OF HUTTO ATTACHMENT B IN EVERY ONE OF THEM. RIGHT THERE IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER. IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE SPREADSHEETS IT SAYS ATTACHMENT B, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE UPPER

RIGHT CORNER. >> OH THAT ONE LINE, OKAY.

>> FOR EVERY PAGE. AND THEN AFTER THAT, IT SAYS ATTACHMENT C AT THE TOP OF THE FRAME SWITCH STORAGE TANKS PROJECT SCHEDULE AT THE VERY TOP.

SO EVERYTHING IS THERE. >> OKAY SO WE DON'T NEED THE GUN

OR -- >> WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE, THAT'S A NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, WE CAN JUST ADD THOSE VERIFICATION FORMS TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CONTRACTS

EXECUTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. >> MAYOR -- IF HE CAN CONFIRM THIS POTENTIALLY, SO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE IN JULY,

THERE'S JUNE AND JULY -- >> THERE'S A FEW IN JULY AND

SOME IN AUGUST. >> THOSE ARE EFFECTIVELY THREE

[01:25:01]

YEAR CONTRACTS, THAT'S THE WAY MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS ARE USED TO WORKING, THEY USUALLY HAVE A DEFINITIVE TIME.

AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE ON CONTRACT THAT NUMBER OF ENGINEERING FIRMS, THEN THE TASK ORDERS WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT IS WE HAVE A JOB FOR YOU, WE NEED YOU TO DO THIS JOB. IN THREE YEARS THAT CONTRACT COULD EXPIRE ALTHOUGH THERE ARE USUALLY PROVISIONS FOR EXTENSIONS. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK THERE'S TWO ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IN

THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT. >> I'M OKAY WITH IT ON THE CITY SIDE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IF POTENTIALLY IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG THERE'S AN OUT FOR THE CITY.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY OBVIOUSLY UNLESS WE GET SERVICES. I'M OKAY WITH THAT THEN.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 9.7 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON.

PROVING 9.7 AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> WADE WAS SUPPOSED TO START IN JULY.

THREE MONTHS UNDER THE GUN. THE CURRENT STATUS IT WAS

SUPPOSED TO BEGIN IN JULY. >> OKAY.

>> HIT THE GROUND RUNNING. >> GO WADE GO.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

[9.8. Discussion and possible action to execute Individual Project Order (IPO) 2022-05 for professional engineering services with CP&Y, Inc. to design a 42” diameter waterline along Hwy79, a 30” diameter waterline along CR 132, and a 24” diameter waterline along FM 3349 (Southeast Loop) to serve the Megasite in the amount of $728,728.00. (Wade Benton)]

>> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> MOTIONS PASSES 7-0. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 9.8, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER IPO 2022-05 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH CP&Y TO DESIGN A 42 INCH DIAMETER WATERLINE ALONG HIGHWAY 79, A 30 INCH DIAMETER WATERLINE ALONG CR 132, AND A 24 INCH DIAMETER WATERLINE ALONG FM 3349 SOUTHEAST LOOP TO SERVE THE MEGASITE IN THE AMOUNT OF $728,728.

MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY MANAGER, THIS IS THE ONLY THING FOR ME, WHEN WE DO THIS WHATEVER THE AGREEMENT WAS OR WE JUST GO DOWN THE LINE AND PICK CONSULTANTS, HOW DO WE KNOW WE'RE GETTING THE BEST DEAL. THEY'RE NEXT IN LINE, AND I KNOW WE SAY WE NEGOTIATE PRICES, BUT WITHOUT US GOING OUT TO BID FOR THINGS AFTER WE GET TO THESE PROJECTS AND WE GET AHEAD OF THE

CURVE HERE, HOW DO WE KNOW? >> SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS YOU NEVER REALLY KNOW BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO ENGINEERING SERVICES OFF OF PRICE, YOU DO ENGINEERING SERVICES OFF OF QUALIFICATIONS.

WHAT YOU END UP GENERALLY DOING IS WHEN YOU CHOOSE THE FIRM THAT'S STRONG IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, WATER WASTE, WATER TRANSPORTATION, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, FACILITY, DESIGN, SO ON AND SO FORTH, THEN YOU BEGIN SCOPING THE PROJECT, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU START SEEING PRICE. WHENEVER YOU SEE THE PRICE, THEN GENERALLY YOU HAVE SOMEONE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE TABLE THAT'S SAVVY AND IS ABLE TO SAY WELL LOOK, YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO YOUR SUBS AND NEGOTIATE THAT DOWN AND WE DON'T REALLY NEED THIS COMPONENT IN THE SCOPE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOUR CITY ENGINEER FOLKS OR THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE HELPING YOU IN CITY ENGINEERING DO. SO YOU DON'T HIRE ENGINEERING ON PRICE. THAT'S JUST NOT FUNCTIONALLY HOW THAT WORKS. SO TO YOUR POINT, YEAH, MAYBE ANOTHER ENGINEERING FIRM COULD DO IT CHEAPER, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY THAT THE LAW IS SET UP.

SO I CAN DEFER TO CHRISTIAN FOR THE REST OF IT.

>> THERE'S NO WAY TO BID OUT A PROJECT FOR ENGINEERING THAT

SOMEONE CHARGES $500 AN HOUR? >> NO, I THINK IT'S 2254 THE GOVERNMENT CODES, THERE'S CERTAIN KIND OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT YOU HAVE TO PICK ON THE BASE OF THE QUALIFICATION. SO CITY MANAGER IS RIGHT, YOU PICK SOMEBODY ON QUALIFICATIONS, THEN YOU TRY TO NEGOTIATE FOR A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE. IF YOU KIND OF HIT AN IMPASSE, THEN YOU END NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. BUT THERE'S NO PROCESS TO WHICH YOU CAN HAVE THEM ALL SUBMIT PRICES AT THE SAME TIME.

ENGINEERING IS ONE OF THOSE PRICES.

>> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WE SAID IN THE WORKSHOP THAT PUBLIC PROJECTS TYPICALLY COST MORE THAN PRIVATE.

I JUST HAD THAT QUESTION FROM A LEARNING.

>> THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT YOU CAN DO ENGINEERING RATHER THAN JUST STRAIGHT, THIS IS A TYPICAL CONTRACT THAT YOU WOULD DO THROUGH AN RFQ PROCESS WHERE YOU QUALIFIED THEM AND THEN YOU WERE JUST SAYING HERE'S THE TASK ORDER, NOW LET'S NEGOTIATE ON SCOPE AND PRICE. YOU CAN DO CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

[01:30:06]

RISK, YOU CAN DO DESIGN BUILD. THERE ARE OTHER FORMATS THE STATE HAS ALLOWED US TO PROCURE THINGS THROUGH.

BUT THIS IS THE TRIED AND TRUE WAY IT'S DONE FOR MOST ENGINEERING PROJECTS UNLESS YOU NEED TO UTILIZE THE OTHER

ROUTES. >> AND JUST A CLARIFICATION, THOSE OTHER ROUTES YOUR CONTRACT IS WITH A CONTRACTOR NOT AN ENGINEER. SO TO JAMES' POINT, THERE ARE DIFFERENT DELIVERY METHODS, BUT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHETHER IT BE ENGINEERING OR OTHERS IN THAT CATEGORY, PRICE BIDDING IS NOT PART OF THAT. NOW I WILL SAY IN TERMS OF THE PROJECTS, ONE OF OUR ROLES IN ACTING ON YOUR BENEFIT IS AS THESE PROJECTS HAVE COME IN, WE'VE HAD A TEAM OF OUR FOLKS LOOKING AT THEM SAYING IS THIS REASONABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK IN TERMS OF THESE TASKS, THIS GENERAL EFFORT.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME FOLKS LOOKING AT THAT SAYING IS THIS IN THE REALM OF REASONABLE OF WHAT WOULD BE EXPECTED ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS. IT'S NOT JUST COMING IN WITH A NUMBER AND WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.

THERE IS SOME SCRUTINY GIVEN TO IT.

>> CAN I RISK BEING COY FOR A SECOND?

>> ALWAYS. >> I KNOW I'M ON THE RECORD, BUT SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GARVER AND GARVER GETTING WORK.

YOU SEE HERE TWO OF THESE THREE ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE GARVER PROJECT, THEN I HAVE THE GARVER PEOPLE BEATING UP THE OTHER PEOPLE AND GARVER IS NOT GETTING THE WORK.

SO IF THEY'RE LIKE I'M NOT GETTING THE WORK, THEY'RE GOOD AT BEATING UP THE OTHER FOLKS AND MAKING SURE THEY DOTTED EVERY I AND CROSSED EVERY T AND GOTTEN IT DOWN TO AS SMALL AS THEY THINK THEY REASONABLY CAN. IN OUR REGARD IT WORKS TO OUR

ADVANTAGE HAVING THEM HAWK IT. >> IF I WAS IN GARVER'S SHOES, I WOULDN'T BEAT THEM UP TOO HARD BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT CP&Y HAS OVERSEEN AND I DON'T WANT THEM STICKING IT TO ME.

>> OTHER RELATIONSHIPS? >> THERE'S A WHOLE THING, HOW DOES IT GO, PAT ON THE BACK BUT I FORGET HOW IT GOES.

NOT SAYING IT HAPPENS, I JUST WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS. ONE DAY WE WILL HAVE A CITY EMPLOYEE AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE RAISING HELL THEN I KNOW.

ANYWAY. >> MAYOR, I MOVE TO ACCEPT 9.8

AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR, PROVING 9.8 AS PRESENTED.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> THIS ONE IS RIGHT ON TRACK. IT SAYS OCTOBER 2022 THE DESIGN START DATE. GOOD JOB.

>> NOW WE NEED THE NEXT ONE TO BE EARLY TO MAKE UP FOR THE ONE

THAT WAS LATE. >> IT DOES SHOW WE ADOPTED THE

CIP PLAN ON 7/21. >> AND I JUST WANT TO COMMENT I REALLY LOVE HOW WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE WHICH PROJECT NUMBER THAT ALL OF THESE TIE BACK TO, IT'S SO HELPFUL FOR US TO JUST SEE HERE'S THE WORK WE APPROVED AND HERE'S WHERE THE WORK IS GETTING DONE. IT'S VERY HELPFUL.

>> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I BROUGHT UP ON ALL OF THESE IS I WANTED TO GET UPDATES OF WHERE WE ARE AT THE 30, 60, 90 DESIGN POINTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SLIPPING DATES.

SO WE HIT THESE FIRST DATES BUT THEN DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND AS I SAY THE BIGGEST PART OF THE WORK IS THAT LAST 5%, IT'S NOT THE LARGE CHUNKS HAPPEN QUICK BUT THEN GETTING IT TO THE FINISH LINE IS WHAT MATTERS. BUT GOOD JOB.

>> HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

[10.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. 2022-065 amending the City of Hutto's Public Improvement District Policy. (Legal, Ashley Bailey)]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO.

2022-065 AMENDING THE CITY OF HUTTO'S PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT POLICY. I HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK BEFORE OR AFTER THE PRESENTATION? AFTER? AFTER, OKAY. ASHLEY, GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

FOR THE RECORD ASHLEY BAILEY, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS A FEW TIMES NOW.

WE STARTED OVER THE SUMMER LOOKING AT AMENDING THIS JUST

[01:35:06]

FOR EVERYBODY'S ENTERTAINMENT, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WAS ADOPTED BACK IN JULY OF 2020. AND SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS PITS COME INTO THE CITY AND WE STARTED THINKING IT'S PROBABLY TIME TO ADOPT IT OR AMEND IT OR FIX SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT STAFF WAS SEEING INSIDE OF OUR EXISTING POLICY.

I WILL GO TO THE END, THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE HAD GONE OVER IN THE WORKSHOP. ONE OF THE MAIN EVEN AFTER WE DID THE WORKSHOP, ONE OF THE MAIN CHANGES THAT WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE PROPOSED THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE.

WE'VE LEFT BOTH OF THE OPTIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOU, SO YOU HAVE EITHER THAT PER LOT FEE OR YOU HAVE THAT 10% OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS GENERATED. SO YOU HAVE THOSE TWO OPTIONS AND THEN YOU MAY RECALL DOTTIE SENT AN EMAIL TODAY.

I ACTUALLY ADDED THAT IN HERE. IT'S A COMPARISON OF THE PER LOT FEE VERSUS 10% OF THE BOND. SO YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE OF THOSE TWO. BUT REALLY I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN MOST OF THE COMMENTS BACK FROM WHAT I COULD TELL AND WHAT I'VE BEEN GETTING BACK. WE HAVE RESPONDED TO ALL OF THE DEVELOPERS COMMENTS AND WE SHOULD BE IN A PRETTY GOOD PLACE. ONE OF THE MAIN COMMENTS THAT WE HAD IS ACTUALLY EXPLAINING WHAT WE WANTED AS A MASTER PID COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS FROM OUR WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER. SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE FROM ME? >> GO AHEAD AND ASK ASHLEY QUESTIONS THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> DID THEY WANT TO GO FIRST? >> RICK, COME ON UP.

GOOD EVENING. >> RICK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'VE ENJOYED WORKING WITH ASHLEY AND THE CITY TEAM TO GET TO THIS POINT. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE.

WE WANT TO JUST MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OR CONCERNS. IT WAS STRICTLY THE 10% OF GROSS

BONDS PROCEEDS. >> I'LL CLARIFY, WE ACTUALLY ADDED THAT BACK IN. THAT WAS EMAILED TO COUNCIL SO

WE DO HAVE BOTH OPTIONS. >> I THINK WE IN PRIOR MEETINGS SPOKE ABOUT THE CONCERN OF THE $5,000 PER LOT, I'M NOT GOING TO

SPEND ANYTIME ON THAT. >> IS THAT TOO CHEAP?

>> TOO HIGH. MUCH HIGHER THAN EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION. WE HAVE PREPARED TWO ITEMS OF CONCERN. ONE IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE. WHAT IS TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS IS THAT IF A JURISDICTION WANTS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, IT IS TYPICALLY 10% OF NET BOND PROCEEDS.

AND WE HAVE A LIST OF VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.

SPEAKING OF BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, WE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH 10% OF NET BOND PROCEEDS. THAT IS THE MORE TYPICAL AND KEEPS THE CITY IN A MORE COMPETITIVE POSITION.

THE OTHER CRITICAL AREA OF CONCERN WAS THE $75,000 APPLICATION FEE. WE REPRESENT FOUR CLIENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED PID APPLICATIONS AND I'M HOPING TO GET CONFIRMATION THAT THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND PAID SIGNIFICANT FUNDS TO THE CITY.

BUT GOING FORWARD THAT $75,000 IS FAIRLY HIGH COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE MARKET. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE A LIST OF WHERE THE HIGHEST THAT WE FOUND AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR DATABASE, BUT THE HIGHEST WE FOUND WAS $36,000. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THAT LIST, MOST CITIES CHARGE BETWEEN $15,000 AND $25,000.

OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPERS ARE ALSO PAYING FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT.

BUT THE MARKET SEEMS TO BE IN THE $15,000 TO $25,000 RANGE.

THE IDEA OF PROVIDING COST ESTIMATES TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE, WE WOULD TYPICALLY LOOK TO THE CITY ENGINEER TO DO SO BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT THE CITY WOULD GO THROUGH FOR ITS OWN IMPROVEMENTS. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TYPICALLY ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT AS PART OF PID PROCESS.

THE LAST ONE IS ON THE APPRAISAL, THE LANGUAGE IN THE

[01:40:02]

POLICY REGARDING ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FROM THE APPRAISER IN TERMS OF VALUE, HAVE NOT SEEN THAT BEFORE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS STILL BEING ABLE TO ACCESS HIGH QUALITY APPRAISERS WHO ARE COMFORTABLE OR WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT BE UNCOMFORTABLE MAKING THAT STATEMENT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THIS APPROVED

AND MOVING FORWARD. >> MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION?

>> SURE. >> READING THROUGH HERE, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT ANY KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS, NOT ALLOWING COMMERCIAL USES IN PIDS.

IF WE WERE TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IT HAD TO BE RESIDENTIAL ONLY, IT COULDN'T BE COMMERCIAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, DOES THAT BOTHER YOU? BECAUSE GOING BACK IN OUR HISTORY, IT SEEMED LIKE WE ALWAYS HAD THIS HOTEL POP UP IN EVERY PID DEVELOPMENT.

>> I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FOCUS OF RESIDENTIAL, DEFINITION OF MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY CAN BE VERY BROADLY DRAWN.

IF THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT IS OF INTEREST TO EVERYBODY, OBVIOUSLY THERE CAN BE A WAIVER OF THE POLICY, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN AT THIS TIME.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF CLIENTS ALL OVER THIS AREA. HOW MANY PIDS HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH TRAVIS COUNTY AS OF LATE?

DO YOU KNOW? >> THERE'S CURRENTLY A MORATORIUM ON NEW PID SUBMITTALS TO TRAVIS COUNTY.

THERE ARE AND JOHN MAY CORRECT ME BECAUSE WE WORK ON THE SAME ONES, THERE ARE 5 OR 6 THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED.

THEY WERE JUST IN THE PROCESS OF ISSUING ITS FIRST BOND.

>> SO TOTAL THEY HAVE 5 OR 6? >> 5 OR 6 THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. BUT THEY'VE ONLY COMPLETED THE PROCESS ON A COUPLE. THERE'S PROBABLY AT LEAST 6 OR 7 THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THAT ARE READY TO SUBMIT ONCE THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED WHICH IS EXPECTED THIS MONTH.

>> THANK YOU. >> ONE THING I WANTED TO BRING UP WITH THE PID APPLICATION FEE FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS, HUTTO HAS ALWAYS BEEN LATE TO THE PARTY, A LOT OF THESE MAYBE OUTDATED BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T UPDATED THEIR POLICIES BASED ON THEIR FEE SCHEDULE. I WAS CURIOUS WHEN YOU HAPPENED TO LOOK, AS YOU SAID $36,000 IF IT WAS MADE IN 1935, THEN CLEARLY CURRENT MARKET RATE WOULD SAY --

>> I THINK THESE ARE BETWEEN 2016 AND 2022.

>> OKAY. >> I WILL TELL YOU TRAVIS COUNTY IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING ITS POLICY AND WE EXPECT AN INCREASE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE NUMBERS, I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT THAT WILL BE AND HOW WE WILL REACT TO IT.

>> I HEARD THEY'RE WAITING ON HUTTO.

>> PROBABLY. >> PERHAPS SO.

>> LET'S GET THIS DONE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PROJECTS TO

GET DONE IN TRAVIS COUNTY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR RICK?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT WE HAVE JOHN LANGWARD. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

I REPRESENT THE MEADOWBROOK MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE CITY WITH FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW FOR THE PID. I WANT TO REITERATE BUT REALLY NARROW IT DOWN TO RICK MENTIONED $75,000 AND THEN 10% OF NET VERSUS GROSS. WHAT I'D LOVE TO DO IS REALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE HOMEOWNER IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE. SO RIGHT NOW FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 480 LOTS THAT ARE HOUSES.

AND THAT DIFFERENCE FOR US BETWEEN GROSS AND NET BOND PROCEEDS, IT EQUATES TO ABOUT $250,000.

AND SO IF WE BACK THAT IN, IT'S OVER $500 PER HOUSE AND THAT'S COST TRUTHFULLY. THAT COST IS GOING TO BE RELAID TO THE HOMEOWNER EVENTUALLY. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE THINGS. THE OTHER PIECE IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR TYPICAL, WE GENERALLY LOOK AT ABOUT $25,000 OF THAT APPLICATION FEE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROPOSING $75,000 IS WHAT THE CURRENT POLICY IS LOOKING AT.

THAT CHANGE REALLY IS GOING TO AMOUNT TO ABOUT $100 PER HOUSE.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $600 PER HOUSE THAT THAT HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS TYPICAL IN THE MARKET. SO THAT'S NOT, WE MENTIONED A PER LOT FEE. THAT'S THE $5,000 NUMBER.

THAT'S A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THAT HOME COST.

I MEAN A 1% FEE JUST THAT GOES TO THE CITY FOR THAT HOMEOWNER.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE VERY COGNIZANT OF WHAT THESE THINGS ARE. TRYING TO KEEP AFFORDABILITY, TRYING TO KEEP ATTAINABILITY. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT

[01:45:04]

MEADOWBROOK IS KEEP FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP GOING, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH A PID.

WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IF WE DON'T GET A PID BOND REIMBURSEMENT. AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO GO TO THE RENTAL MARKET LIKE MOST OF THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO.

I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS, BUT RICK IS REALLY THE EXPERT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND THIS IS JUST MORE FOR MY MEMORY.

WAS MEADOWBROOK ONE OF THE ONES THAT HAD A CONDO REGIME ATTACHED

TO IT ALSO? >> WE ANTICIPATED DOING THAT, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO DO A CONDO REGIME.

WE'RE ABLE TO FEE SIMPLE WITH PUBLIC ALLEYS ON THE TOWNHOUSES.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASE TO THE HOME BUYER OR HOMEOWNER, IS THAT

LIKE $600 A YEAR OR OVERALL? >> SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT, THE COST OF BRINGING THESE HOUSES TO MARKET, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL $600 THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE BASE COST OF THAT HOUSE. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY INTEREST OR CARRY OVER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE OF EVERY ONE OF THESE PIECES COMING

IN. >> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, BECAUSE IF IT'S A $600,000 HOUSE TELLING YOU YOU HAVE A $500 PROBLEM, I COULD TELL YOU THE REST OF THE PUBLIC AND YOU CAN ASK SOME OF THE PEOPLE I USUALLY VOTE FOR PIDS.

IF THAT HOMEOWNER HAS TO PAY AN EXTRA $600 TO HELP FINANCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FOR HIM TO BE THERE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MARKET THING. AND WHERE I GO WITH THIS IS PIDS IN GENERAL, YOU TELL ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, IT'S THE ABSOLUTE BEST THINGS FOR DEVELOPERS. THE OLD DEVELOPERS HAD TO BUY THE LAND, PUT $20 MILLION INTO THE LAND, ROADS, RUN WATER, WASTEWATER, CITY STUCK IT TO THEM AND THEY HAD TO DO IT.

THEN THEY'RE OUT $30 MILLION AND THEY GO WE HAVE TO BUILD 2,000 LOTS AND X AMOUNT OF PRICE PER HOME TO MAKE IT ALL WORK.

THAT'S KIND OF HOW THE OLD SYSTEM IS.

AND IT SEEMS TO ME PIDS IS NOW A SYSTEM WHERE YOU BUY THE LAND FOR 10 MILLION, YOU'VE GOT 20 MILLION INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU WORK WITH THE CITY AND 18 MILLION YOU CAN GET BACK.

AND BECAUSE THE MARKET IS SO HOT, THE OLD MARKET A PID HOUSE I THINK WOULD TRADE AT A LOWER VALUATION THAN A NON-PID BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE A HIGHER TAX. BUT BECAUSE THE MARKET IS SO BUSY, PEOPLE JUST WANT A HOME TO LIVE IN SO THEY'RE PAYING WHATEVER THEY CAN TO GET IN SO THEY BUY A PID HOUSE SO THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY GETS THE FULL 18 MILLION, THEY PUT THAT IN THEIR POCKET AND THEY'RE COMPETING AGAINST THE GUY BECAUSE THERE'S A PROMINENT PERSON IN AUSTIN WHO DOES NOT LIKE PIDS AND BUILDS HOMES OUT OF CASH.

WHAT WE STRUGGLE WITH SOMETIMES AT LEAST FOR ME, IF A DEVELOPER IS GETTING ALL OF THE UPSIDE, BECAUSE ONCE THEY SELL OR IF IT GOES BELLY UP, IT'S ON THE HOMEOWNER, IF THEY GET ALL OF THE UPSIDE, THE LEAST THEY CAN DO IS HELP PAY FOR THE ROADS.

I WAS LIKE DON'T BUILD THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BUILDING A ROAD AND WE ALL WIN.

I DON'T MEAN TO COME ACROSS TOUGH, BUT WHEN I HEAR $600, I GO IT SOUNDS LIKE A DEVELOPER PROBLEM.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION OF THAT.

AND REALLY WHAT THE PIDS AND REALLY THE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS, THE MUDS PRIOR TO THAT, THE TOOL WE USE AND THE REASON WE USE IT IS BECAUSE THE RATE OF THE BORROWING CAPACITY IS MUCH LOWER BEING A PUBLIC BOND ISSUANCE.

SO YOU'RE ABLE TO USE THAT 6%, 7%, 8%, VERSUS A COMMERCIAL LOAN, THAT'S WHERE TYPICAL DEVELOPERS WILL GO OR DO A CARRIED INTEREST. THAT COULD BE UP 15% 20% ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO USE A LOWER RATE OF DEBT TO PROVIDE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BECOME A MAJOR ISSUE IN THESE BIG PROJECTS. YOU GUYS JUST APPROVED A MILLION DOLLARS FOR DESIGNS, WE LOOK AT THE SAME THINGS AND THE SAME NUMBERS. I UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION OF 500 OR $600,000 HOUSES, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THOSE DOLLARS DOWN FOR THAT HOMEOWNER SO THEY CAN QUALIFY.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE BEDROOM TOWNHOUSES REMAINING FEE SIMPLE.

SO WE'RE SELLING THEM OUT, THEY ACTUALLY OWN THE BUILDING ITSELF. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THOSE IN THE $300,000 RANGE. TO DO THAT, WE NEED THE VEHICLE OF THE PID TO BE ABLE TO FINANCE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS ISN'T A DEAL WHERE WE'RE JUST TAKING ALL OF THE MONEY.

[01:50:02]

WE'VE GOT PROBABLY 15, 16, $17 MILLION OF INFRASTRUCTURE GOING INTO THE GROUND. THE PID IS PAYING FOR A PORTION OF IT, WE'RE PAYING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE OF IT.

IT'S JUST A FINANCIAL MECHANISM WE'RE USING TO TRY AND KEEP THOSE BASE DOLLARS AS LOW AS WE CAN.

IF WE WERE TO VALUE THAT HIGHER, FEWER AND FEWER PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO QUALIFY JUST ON THE MORTGAGE ITSELF.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH, I THINK IN A BALANCED MARKET I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. A MARKET WITH SIX MONTHS SUPPLY, BECAUSE THEN IF I'M LOOKING FOR A TOWNHOME, I SEE ONE THAT'S 300, THAT'S YOURS WITH THE PID TAX.

THEN I SEE ONE THAT'S 350 AND I SAY WHY IS THAT $350,000, OH IT DOESN'T HAVE A PID TAX. IT EQUALS OUT TO THE SAME.

WHEREAS IN A MARKET THAT'S HOT WHERE WE'RE SELLING LOTS THAT WE CAN'T EVEN DELIVER NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR FROM NOW, PEOPLE ARE PAYING, I'M CHARGING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY BECAUSE I'VE GOT MORE BUYERS. THE MARKET IS CHANGING, SO I THINK IN THEORY I THINK IT'S ALL CORRECT, IT'S JUST WHEN THE MARKET GETS OUT OF WHACK ONE WAY, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT, I WOULD SAY THIS, IF PIDS WEREN'T SO BENEFICIAL, WE'RE LIKE DROWNING IN PIDS, IF PIDS WEREN'T LIKE THE NEXT BEST THING, WE'D HAVE MORE PEOPLE COME UP AND WANT TO BUILD HOUSES. KEVIN DOES A GREAT JOB BECAUSE EVERYBODY WHO'S BUILDING A NEIGHBORHOOD, KEVIN IS PRESENTING BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A PID.

WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AS A CITY.

SO EVERYBODY IS TAKING THEIR PIECE.

BUT ONE OTHER QUESTION AND I DIDN'T SEE THE PID POLICY AND I WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE. I WAS AT A REALTOR DEAL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THE STACK OF PAPER TO CLOSE IS LIKE THIS ON A HOUSE. PEOPLE ARE JUST SIGNING, THEY'RE EXCITING, IT'S EMOTIONAL. AND THERE'S ONE PIECE OF PAPER LOOKS LIKE THIS, BY THE WAY YOU OWE $1,800 MORE A YEAR IN PID TAXES, SO THEY SIGN IT, THEY'RE EXCITING, AND FIND OUT A YEAR LATER. THEY SAID CAN YOU GUYS PUT A SIGN, YOU'VE GOT YOUR BIG ENTRYWAY SIGN RIGHT NEXT TO IT, CAN YOU DO A TWO BY FOUR SIGN THAT SAYS BASICALLY YOU'VE ENTERED PID NUMBER 52 IN HUTTO, SOME KIND OF NOTICE.

ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? >> WELL I AGREE WITH YOU, WE DO SUPPLY A NOTICE AT CLOSING. I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT THE THING THEY DON'T WANT TO READ THE MOST ARE THE HOA DOCUMENTS THAT COME ALONG WITH IT. THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE SEE. BUT I'LL LET RICK TALK ABOUT

KIND OF HOW WE NOTICE. >> I THINK THE PRACTICE IN HUTTO HAS BEEN THAT EACH FINANCING AGREEMENT INCLUDES A HOME BUYER DISCLOSURE PROGRAM THAT EVERYBODY AGREES TO.

I SAW BY LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION HOUSE BILL 1533 CODIFIES WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MANY YEARS AGO WHICH IS SIGNAGE, BETTER DISCLOSURE, THE REQUIREMENTS NOW BEFORE YOU SIGN A CONTRACT FOR A HOUSE, YOU GET A SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE THAT YOU NEED TO SIGN. FAILURE TO GET THAT DISCLOSURE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT WITHOUT PENALTY.

SO IT'S NOT JUST AT CLOSING NOW. >> YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SIGNED

COMMIT TO NEIGHBORHOOD. >> YES.

>> BECAUSE BEFORE I FALL IN LOVE WITH THE HOUSE OF MY DREAMS.

>> WE WANTED SIGNS IN NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE BEGINNING OF US WORKING ON PIDS. WE'VE ASKED FOR THOSE HIGHER DISCLOSURE STANDARDS, NOW IT'S PART OF THE STATE LAW.

>> WHAT SIZE SIGN DO THEY HAVE TO BE PER STATE LAW?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE IT.

THE DESIGN WE CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WAS THREE BY THREE. THREE FEET BY THREE FEET.

>> OH THREE FEET. >> NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND.

>> I HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT GO THEY TELL ME THEY LOVE THEIR HOUSE AND THEN THERE'S TWO THINGS I FIND IN THE HOUSING MARKET THAT'S KILLING PEOPLE, ONE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE PID, AND TWO THEY'RE GETTING THEIR TAXES ASSESSED ON THE LAND VALUE NOT ON THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY WAIT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING YEAR ROLLS AROUND AND THEIR HOUSE PAYMENT IS GOING UP $800 OR $900 A MONTH.

I DON'T HAVE ANY POWER IN THAT, BUT THIS ONE HERE I WAS LIKE --

>> WE WANT THE MORE DISCLOSURE THE BETTER.

WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED BEFORE THE SALES AND NOW THE LAW REQUIRES IT. THE SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED AT ENTRANCE AND ALSO AT SALES CENTERS.

WE AS PART OF OUR WORK FOR JOHN AND OUR OTHER CLIENTS, WE GO OUT AND EDUCATE THE SALESPEOPLE TO TRAIN THEM HOW TO EXPLAIN THE PID BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER AN OBLIGATION.

BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A BUNCH OF ANGRY HOMEOWNERS IS I HAVE TO TALK TO THEM.

I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THAT. >> I'VE BEEN BROUGHT IN SEVERAL

[01:55:05]

TIMES TO SPEAK TO ANGRY HOA GROUPS.

>> I JUST GOT A CALL FROM SOMEONE THEY WERE TOLD THIS WOULD BE A PARK BEHIND THEIR HOUSE NOW IT'S NOT.

SO I CAN'T. I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT MY JOB IS TO MAKE MONEY WHEN I SELL STUFF.

I MAY SKIP OUT ON A COUPLE IMPORTANT DETAILS BECAUSE I'LL

BE GONE BY THE TIME -- >> AND THE LAW NOW PREVENTS THAT FROM HAPPENING. THERE ARE PENALTIES IF YOU DON'T -- AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT OTHER THING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH JOHN, ALTHOUGH THE PIDS ARE RELATIVELY KNEW IN TEXAS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS BEING VERY ACTIVE, THE MUDS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 40 YEARS, SO MOST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS HAS HAD SOME TYPE OF FINANCING MECHANISM. I SAW A LEASE SURVEY FROM A MARKET RESEARCH FIRM THAT 87% OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MASTER PLAN COMMUNITIES IN THE COUNTRY ALL HAD SOME FORM OF PUBLIC FINANCING BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD ECONOMICALLY BE DEVELOPED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS. >> I VOTE FOR PIDS, DON'T I?

>> YOU DO. WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> A QUESTION FOR YOU IS Y'ALL ARE AS A DEVELOPER, YOU'RE REALLY HARD HIT WITH THIS NET VERSUS GROSS COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE. NOT NECESSARILY THE APPLICATION FEE. I KNOW THAT'S A BIG INCREASE GOING FROM LIKE $15,000 TO $25,000 UP TO $75,000.

BUT I GUESS WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE REALLY SHOWING ARE THE NET

VERSUS GROSS? >> YES, THE FOUR CLIENTS THAT WE WORK WITH, THE IMPACT, FOUR CLIENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND ARE WAITING FOR THIS POLICY TO HOPEFULLY BE APPROVED, THE IMPACT IS ANYWHERE FROM $250,000 TO $650,000.

SO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. WE HOPE THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED ON THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PAID FEES.

WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE CHOOSING BETWEEN A PROJECT IN HUTTO, A VERY DESIRABLE PROJECT OR IN GEORGETOWN WOULD PAY LESS IN FEES.

WE KNOW HUTTO WANTS TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY, HIGHLY DESIRABLE PROJECTS. WE JUST WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JOHN? >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR ASHLEY?

>> I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH KIND OF MY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT I HAD. SO UNDER REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER THREE WHERE IT SAYS OUTLINES THAT A MINIMUM LAND USE FOR CORRECTIONS AND GOES ON TO SAY IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MULTIPLE VARIANCES.

IS THERE A REASON THAT'S AMBIGUOUS?

>> YOU GET A PID AND THEN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT THE SAME TIME. WE WANT TO HAVE THOSE LOCKED IN AS FAR AS THE ZONING AND THE ENTITLEMENTS.

WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT DOING A PID THAT IS GOING TO BE VARIANCE OF THE STANDARD UDC. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND THEY JUST NEED THREE, BUT THEY CAN SHOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO OFFSET THAT. AND YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS ASKING FOR MULTIPLE VARY -- VARIANCES. BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD NUMBER ACROSS THE BOARD ON VARIANCES ASKED ON PUDS.

>> THE QUESTION I'VE GOT, THE MORE AMBIGUOUS IT IS, THE HARDER IT IS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO REALLY PLAN AROUND WHAT TO EXPECT ON THAT. AND ESPECIALLY IF MAYBE STAFF CHANGES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND YOUR IDEA OF MULTIPLE VARIANCES MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY ELSE'S IDEA OF WHAT MULTIPLE VARIANCES MIGHT BE. I KNOW I'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE DEVELOPERS SAY WE PREFER TO HAVE LESS AMBIGUITY SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. AND OFTENTIMES THEY'VE EVEN SAID HEY I'D RATHER HAVE IT NOT AMBIGUOUS AND SOMETHING I WOULDN'T PREFER THAN IT HAVE BE AMBIGUOUS AND NOT KNOW WHAT TO

EXPECT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

I CAN TELL YOU AS THE DIRECTOR NOW I ALWAYS TAKE MY CUES FROM COUNCIL. SO WHATEVER YOU SAY STRATEGICALLY IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR.

YOU PUT ME IN THAT DIRECTION AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO GO. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE IN THAT PUD, THAT'S STILL THAT LEVEL OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER I THINK YOU'VE MOSTLY SEEN IT WITH SOME OF THE SMITH'S CREEK WHERE THEY NEEDED SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING BACK, AND WE WERE ABLE TO SAY WHY DON'T YOU ADD

[02:00:01]

THOSE AMENITIES, TELL US HOW YOU'RE MAKING THIS BETTER THAN THE UDC. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THIS. WE DON'T WANT VARIANCES, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE MEETING THE INTENT OF THAT PUD SO THAT WE'RE GETTING BETTER THAN WHAT WE WOULD GET WITH JUST BASE

ZONING. >> RIGHT.

I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THAT LINE, WHEN DO YOU CROSS THAT LINE TO SAY WELL NOW YOU'VE GOT TO DO A PUD, VERSUS THIS IS MULTIPLE VARIANCES BUT IT'S NOT OVER THE LINE SO THIS IS OKAY WITHOUT A PUD, BUT HERE'S THE LINE THAT SAYS YOU'VE GOT SO MANY VARIANCES THAT NOW YOU'RE GOING

TO HAVE TO GO THE PUD ROUTE? >> PRETTY MUCH ANY VARIANCE IS

GOING TO BE THE PUD ROUTE? >> SO THEN SHOULDN'T IT SAY

DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY? >> I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE HARSH. PUDS ALWAYS HAVE VARIANCES.

>> I MEAN, BECAUSE HERE'S HOW IT'S WORDED, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MULTIPLE VARIANCES UNLESS IT PROVIDES FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SO THE WAY I READ IT, MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG, IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A FEW VARIANCES AND NOT HAVE TO GO THE PUD ROUTE, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THE PUD ROUTE

ONCE YOU GO MORE THAN MULTIPLE. >> A COUPLE IS TWO, A FEW IS THREE. I SAY MULTIPLE IS EVERY FOUR.

BUT YEAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING TO THE, WE WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE CREATIVITY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO GIVE AN ALPHABET OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

I WOULD SAY THE ONLY THING I WAS THINKING WITH THAT IS AS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE DEVELOPER, I GUESS A LITTLE BIT MORE BACK AND FORTH, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THOSE DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS COMING IN THAT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION MAY HAVE SOME VARIANCES IN THEM.

BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S LIKE MAN THEY'RE JUST REALLY ASKING FOR LOT SIZE WIDTHS AND STREET WIDTHS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT MAYBE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A UDC, BUT IF YOU WANT A NUMBER, LET'S DO A NUMBER.

>> ORIGINALLY, THE FIRST TIME I LOOKED THROUGH THIS, YOU'RE VERY NICE, VERY WELL RESPECTED IN THE METRO AREA, SO I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD DO THIS, BUT IN PREVIOUS TIMES THIS MAY HAVE HAPPENED.

>> IN THE BEFORE TIMES, YES. >> IN THE BEFORE TIMES.

SO SOMEONE REALLY LIKES A DEVELOPER OR THE DEVELOPMENT, EIGHT, THAT'S NOT BAD I LIKE YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

THEN SOMEONE ELSE COMES IN WITH A HIGH QUALITY BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD A SPLASH PAD IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN IT'S LIKE ONE IS TOO MANY. SO THE ONE THING THAT MADE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT THIS THAT WAS ADDED WAS THAT A DEVELOPER CAN COME TO COUNCIL BEFORE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS SO THAT THEN THE COUNCIL CAN TEAR IT APART SAY WE HATE IT, IT'S A HORRIBLE DEVELOPMENT. OR WE CAN SAY WE REALLY LIKE THAT, IT DOESN'T BOTHER US, THESE VARIANCES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND STAFF SHOULD TAKE THAT NOTE OR DIRECTION FROM THERE.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT.

BECAUSE BEFORE, IT WAS KIND OF A FIGHT IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL FIRST. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT THAT.

>> I JUST WANT IT TO BE FAIR, I WANT IT TO BE PREDICTABLE.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

>> I THINK THIS WILL START TO ADD THAT PREDICTABILITY EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALLOWING FOR THAT CREATIVITY.

THAT'S WHERE WE GET IN THAT STRATEGIC PLANNING AND THE REST OF IT, SO YOU CAN TELL STAFF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO IN AND WE'LL RUN WITH IT UNTIL WE HEAR DIFFERENTLY ON A CERTAIN PROJECT AND WE'LL WORK WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS YOU GIVE US. MAYOR, I KNOW YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE VERY LAST ITEM 23 WE INCLUDED IT IN THE PID POLICY AS WELL. IT'S ON PAGE 7 OF 11.

>> I'M JUST WONDERING HOW BIG THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITH BECAUSE I WAS THINKING A FOUR BY FOUR PERMANENT.

>> WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD SOMETHING IN.

BUT WE CAN PICK A SIZE, I DON'T THINK STATE LAW HAD A MINIMUM SIZE, BUT WE CAN PICK ONE IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> NOT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE IN SUPPORT OF PIDS AND I GET IT BECAUSE WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS.

I'M SITTING HERE THINKING IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN GO ABOVE AND BEYOND, STATE LAW SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THE

LIMIT. >> RIGHT.

JUST STARTING FROM THE BOTTOM NOW WE'RE HERE.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, PETER?

>> YEAH, SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY NOTES.

SO UNDER SAME SECTION REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER NINE, SO IT DOES SAY THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SUCH AS LARGE CUSTOM BUILT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. THAT'S KIND OF THE ONE EXAMPLE THAT IT'S REALLY GIVEN. BUT THERE MAY BE INSTANCES, I THINK IT'S THE ESTATES OF HUTTO WAS NOT A LARGE ONE.

BUT THEY WERE OFFERING VERY HIGH-END EXECUTIVE LEVEL HOMES.

WOULD THAT FIT WITHIN HERE TO WHERE THAT WOULD STILL MEET THIS BENEFIT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A LARGE, HUGE COMMUNITY THAT IS BUILT IN PHASES. BECAUSE THAT ONE WAS SMALL ENOUGH THAT I THINK IT WAS JUST ONE PHASE.

I THINK IT STILL MET THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR IN A

[02:05:04]

PID, MEANING IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE.

IT'S EXECUTIVE LEVEL HOUSING. HUTTO REALLY DOESN'T HAVE THAT SO TO ME THAT WOULD DEFINITELY FIT.

BUT IT DIDN'T FIT THE WORDING. >> I THINK IT STILL FITS BECAUSE IT MEETS THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR.

AND CERTAINLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A PUD OR CALL OUT THAT THEY WANTED THOSE 60-FOOT LOTS, MAYBE SOME 70S, I THINK IF YOU'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT THAT LEVEL WE CAN SAY OKAY, IT DOESN'T TECHNICALLY. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN WE'RE DOING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, HERE'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, HERE'S HOW THEY'RE MEETING THE INTENT OF THAT. AND IT'S THAT LITTLE MISSING PIECE OF THAT MARKET THAT WE NEED HERE.

>> I JUST DIDN'T WANT THE WORDING TO BE SO RESTRICTIVE THAT WE SEE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. AND I WANT THAT TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO WHERE WE CAN KIND OF HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

MY QUESTION AND WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE ALREADY, PETITION REQUIREMENTS NUMBER 18 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE $75,000 FEE. IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME IN THE WORDING, WAS THAT INTENDED TO BE THE NONREFUNDABLE PORTION, OR DID THAT INCLUDE, BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRING THEM TO PRELOAD SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY IN ORDER FOR US TO DRAW THAT DOWN SO THAT THE CITY ISN'T FRONTING THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND TO DO A PID RIGHT. TYPICALLY WHAT WE DID IS HAD SOME KIND OF A NONREFUNDABLE FEE AND THEY HAD TO DO AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT AROUND $75,000 THAT WE WOULD DRAW DOWN AND THEN ONCE IT GETS LOW, THEY KIND OF KEEP REPLENISHING THAT.

>> CORRECT. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE ORIGINAL PID POLICY WAS THAT IT WAS $100,000 TO GET TO THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THEN WE WOULD MONITOR IT FROM THERE.

AND THIS DOES ALSO SPEAK TO IF YOU'VE ALREADY PAID WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT $75,000 FROM THE MONIES THAT YOU'VE ALREADY PAID.

>> BUT $75,000 WAS INTENDED TO BE THAT NONREFUNDABLE PIECE, THAT IS WHAT YOU PAY AND IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO DO THE PID --

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT IS THAT NONREFUNDABLE PIECE.

>> YOU TAKING TIME AWAY FROM OTHER PROJECTS AND PERMITTING TO WORK ON THIS. SO THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS THAT OR IS THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. OR IS THIS JUST AN APPLICATION FEE, THERE'S NOTHING LINKED TO IT AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THERE'S THE CITY SERVICES AGREEMENT, DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS MORE SO FOR PAYING FOR THOSE THIRD PARTY REVIEWS BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, WE HAVE LEGAL REVIEW TO PAY OUT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT COVERS STAFF

TIME IF I'M ALREADY HERE. >> SO IS THIS NONREFUNDABLE,

THIS 75? >> I THINK SO.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AS LONG AS IT'S SUPPORTED BY COST, LIKE YOU CAN SAY HEY WE KNOW THIS IS WHAT IT COSTS US TO HAVE THE LEGAL, THE FINANCED

LEASE AND ALL OF THAT. >> I BELIEVE THE OTHER WAS DONE WHERE IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A REFUNDABLE AFTER THE FACT.

BUT THAT WAS ABOUT THE COST WE WERE SEEING ON MOST OF OUR PIDS.

AND WE WERE LIKE WE DON'T NEED $100,000, WE CAN LOWER THAT AND HAVE THAT BE PART OF THE APPLICATION.

>> BUT YOU'RE SAYING OUR COST IS $75,000 JUST TO CONSIDER --

>> THERE ARE SOME THAT WE'VE GONE A FEW TIMES AROUND AND THEN WE KIND OF PAUSED EVERYTHING. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ONE LATELY.

>> THEY GO AROUND FOR A YEAR OR SO, I IMAGINE THERE'S JUST A

BRUTAL PROCESS. >> I THINK ON SOME OF THE PID CALLS, I KNOW DURING COVID JUST LOOKING AT THAT LIST OF 40, SOME OF THEM ARE ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, BUT LOOKING ON WHAT THE CITY IS HAVING TO PAY OUT FOR THE EXPERTISE ON THOSE CALLS WITH BART AND JIM OR SOMEONE FROM HIS TEAM AND JOHN FROM P3, ANY OF THOSE, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR LEGAL, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T WANT THE PID TO BE RECOURSED TO THE CITY SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECOUP.

>> I HAD SEVERAL THINGS IF I CAN GO THROUGH THE POLICY.

>> AS WE UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THE $75,000 AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS NONREFUNDABLE, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO OUT OF POCKET COSTS THAT THE CITY PAYS TO ITS CONSULTANTS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAYING THROUGH THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.

THAT $100,000 GETS DRAWN DOWN, WE PUT MORE MONEY UP.

THIS $75,000 IS PURELY SEPARATE AND APART FROM DIRECT OUT OF POCKET COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS.

>> TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING IT'S JUST A BONUS TO US?

>> IT'S JUST A KEY TO THE CITY. >> YOU WANT TO DO A PID, THAT

WILL BE $75,000 AND -- >> AND WE HAVE TO PUT --

>> IF I MAY, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT THE ATTORNEY IN THE ROOM BUT

[02:10:02]

IF I READ WHAT IT SAYS, THAT'S USUALLY WHERE I START.

THE CERTIFIED CHECK OR WIRE TRANSFER OF THE APPLICATION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR THE COST OF EVALUATING THE PETITION, THIS APPLICATION FEE MUST BE PAID IN FULL WHEN THE PETITION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR EVALUATION AND REVIEW.

PETITIONERS MUST PAY ALL DIRECT COSTS, PROCESSING THE PID PETITION SUCH AS NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT, POSTAGE, CONTRACTORS PRUDENT TO THE CITY'S CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE.

IF A DEVELOPMENT FEE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND THE FEES PAID TO THE CITY, THE APPLICATION FEE AND REVIEW COST TO EVALUATE THE POSITION WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE FEES PAID TO THE

CITY. >> YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE $75,000 AND THEN PUT UP MONEY IN ADDITION TO THE ENGINEERING --

>> THE WAY I READ THAT AND THE LEGAL CAN CERTAINLY REINTERPRET IT, BUT IT SAYS THE APPLICATION FEE AND REVIEW COSTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE FEES PAID TO THE CITY.

>> IT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THAT, BUT THEN AS YOU INCUR THE COSTS OF LEGAL, FINANCIAL ADVISOR, AND PID CONSULTANTS, WE'LL HAVE TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO THAT ACCOUNT.

WE'RE ALWAYS HAVING TO PAY THOSE COSTS.

>> SO THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE INTENT? WAS THE INTENT FOR THE CITY TO POCKET $75,000 AND THEN TO HAVE THE PID PETITIONER PAY FOR EVERYTHING ON TOP OF THAT OR WAS THE INTENT FOR THEM TO PAY $75,000 AND TO DRAW THAT EFFECTIVELY DOWN BY THE USE OF OUR CONSULTANTS AND IF IT'S LESS THAN $75,000 WE KEEP IT, IF IT'S MORE THAN $75,000 WE EAT IT?

>> I THOUGHT THEY WOULD PAY EXTRA --

>> ONLY IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL SEPARATE AGREEMENT THAT'S IN

PLACE. >> CORRECT.

>> THE DEVELOPMENT FEE AGREEMENT.

IT SAYS IF THAT HAS BEEN EXECUTED.

>> YEAH, SO IT SAYS ON PAGE ONE UNDER PID PETITION THAT'S NUMBER ONE HAVE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT FEE AGREEMENT TO COVER ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY FOR LEGAL ENGINEERING, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND FEES FOR THE REQUEST OF THE PID. IS THAT SOMETHING SEPARATE?

>> IT'S SEPARATE EXCEPT FOR THAT WHATEVER YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE, THAT $75,000 COMES OUT OF THAT.

>> HERE'S WHAT I RECOMMEND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS WE ASTERISK

THAT. >> WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS. IF THAT'S A CREDIT THEY DRAW DOWN AGAINST, IT JUST NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. IF THE INTENT IS JUST A YOU WANT TO COME TO US AND YOU'RE GOING TO BOTHER US WITH THE PID, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE $75,000, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEAL.

THAT'S MORE LIKE THE $25,000. >> I THINK ALL WE'VE GOT TO DO IS ASTERISK IT AND HOPEFULLY WE DON'T PASS THIS TONIGHT WITH IT BUT COME BACK WITH SOMETHING CLEAR CUT THAT WAY THERE'S NO HARD FEELINGS. % STAFF IS NOT EXACTLY SURE AND THE CONSULTANTS AREN'T EXACTLY SURE, I ALREADY KNOW WE'VE GOT A

PROBLEM. >> I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO PUT IN HERE THAT IT'S $25,000 AND IT'S CALLED THE RICK FEE.

SO $25,000 FOR DEALING WITH RICK AND THEN YOU PAY FOR ALL OF THE

ACTUAL COSTS. >> SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I HAVE AND I ALREADY BROUGHT THIS UP WITH MY MEETING WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ABOUT THE FORMATTING OF HAVING, WE HAVE SPACES IN SOME, AND IT'S ALL RUNNING TOGETHER IN OTHERS, THE TABBINGS ARE NOT CORRECT, WE NEED ALL OF THAT FIXED BECAUSE IT DRIVES ME NUTS TO READ THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST AN ASIDE.

BUT WHAT I DID WANT TO BRING UP IS A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ON THE WHERE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TO THE BENEFIT FEE AND STUFF AND IT SAID SCHOOL SITES, I THINK THAT AND MAYBE WE'RE KEEPING IT THIS GENERIC, BUT WE'VE HAD MANY TIMES WHERE THEY SAID WE'RE PUTTING A SCHOOL SITE, BUT IT DOESN'T EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE THAT THE ISD HAS SET FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND HIGH SCHOOL. WE KNOW WHAT THOSE ACREAGES ARE, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE PUT THE ACREAGE IN HERE BUT PUT AS PER CURRENT ISD BUILD PLAN. WE KNOW ALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN ISD TODAY ARE 20 ACRE PLANS, SO DON'T WASTE OUR TIME AND WASTE P&Z'S TIME AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S TIME SAYING I'M DOING A SCHOOL SITE FOR TEN ACRES. IT'S NOT GOING TO FLY AND NO ONE IS GOING TO ACCEPT IT. ALSO WHEN IT WAS TALKING ABOUT TRUNK UTILITIES, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS CURIOUS AT THIS POINT OR IF WE NEED TO PUT IT IN UDC, BUT I WANT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS, ALL DEVELOPMENTS, BUT SPECIFICALLY PIDS, THEY

[02:15:03]

SHOULD HAVE FIBER RUNNING TO EVERY HOME.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO GET DELINEATED AS A UTILITY AS FAR AS A PID, I DON'T KNOW IF RIGHT NOW FOR RULES, WE CAN'T PUT IT IN THE STANDARD CITY RULES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE PID POLICY, SO EVERY PID DEVELOPMENT HAS FIBER TO HOMES SO THAT WE'RE FUTURE PROOFED. THE OTHER THING THAT HAS COME UP, THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN HUTTO THAT HAVE PIDS THAT THEY HAVE A SALES OFFICE THAT THEY HAVE KEPT OPEN TO START SELLING HOMES IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY'VE LEFT VACANT LOTS SO THEY'VE NEVER TURNED OVER THE ASSOCIATION TO THE HOA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS AFTER SOME PERIOD OF TIME AFTER FINAL PHASE BUILD OR WHATEVER NO MATTER WHAT IF IT'S AT 95% HOMEOWNERS IT NEEDS TO SWITCH TO AN HOA OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT LEGAL RULES ON

THAT. >> SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CHANGE IN OUR CODE THEN BECAUSE I'M USED TO THE DEVELOPERS TURNING OVER CONTROL AFTER THEY'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE THEY NO LONGER CONTROL THE MAJORITY OF THE

LOTS. >> OKAY.

>> THEY ARE NOT WAITING UNTIL THE LAST LOT SELLS AND THEN TURNING OVER CONTROL. THAT'S USUALLY, THAT'S WAY MORE

COMMON WHENEVER YOU HAVE -- >> RIVERWALK WAS AN EXAMPLE OF

THAT. >> YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE I'VE HEARD THAT FROM. SO THAT'S A RULE THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE WHENEVER THEY'RE ESTABLISHING THEIR HOAS.

BECAUSE USUALLY THE CITY DOESN'T CONTROL, WE DON'T SEE WHAT THE CCNRS ARE TYPICALLY, WE DON'T SEE WHAT THE HOA DOCUMENTS ARE.

SO I THINK CHRISTIAN, IF LEGAL NEEDS TO LOOK AT WHAT CAN WE ADOPT, CONTROL HOAS THAT ARE ADOPTED IN OUR JURISDICTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT TRANSFER OF CONTROL OCCURS AT THE RIGHT

TIME. >> OKAY.

AND LIKE I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW IF NECESSARILY THIS WAS THE PLACE TO PUT IT, BUT I DID WANT TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I HAD A RESIDENT THAT BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION AND SAID WAS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO AND I DIRECTED HIM TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO BE DONE.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAD ON THE THINGS WHICH IS THE FORMATTING AND LIKE I SAID ON PAGE LIKE THREE WE HAD SPACES BETWEEN EACH ONE AND WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO PAGE 7 OR 6 EVERYTHING IS NO SPACED.

>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RED LINE, CORRECT?

>> IT'S IN THE PDF ALSO. >> I WILL GET THAT ONE CORRECTED AND THEN JUST FOR A SPOILER, WE ARE LOOKING AT ADDING BOTH NATURAL GAS AND FIBER TO THE UDC UNDER OUR DEFINITION OF UTILITIES. SO I'M HOPING THAT I CAN GET THAT THROUGH TO YOU BY DECEMBER, BUT IF YOU WANT TO ADD IT, GO

AHEAD. >> I'D LIKE THAT ADDED TO THE

PID POLICIES AS WELL. >> WOULD YOU WANT THAT AS A

REQUIREMENT OR -- >> YES, IT'S A REQUIREMENT.

IF THEY'RE COMING FOR A PID, THEY NEED TO PUT IN FIBER.

>> I AGREE. IT'S AN EXPECTATION IT'S NOT A

BENEFIT. >> I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM CREDIT, IT'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, IT'S THE STANDARD GOING

FORWARD. >> NATURAL GAS IN THAT ONE TOO?

>> I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT. >> WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT ADDING NATURAL GAS, HAS ANYBODY TALKED TO ATMOS? IF I WANT TO BUILD 1500 HOMES, I CALL THEM THEY GO WE ONLY HAVE CAPACITY IN THE AREA BECAUSE YOUR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS TOOK IT ALL, THEN WHAT HAPPENS THERE? NOW WE'RE STARTING TO GET INTO REQUIRING THINGS THAT ARE KIND OF OUTSIDE OF SOME PEOPLE'S

CONTROL I WOULD THINK. >> WE HAVE MET WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT PROVIDERS NOT JUST ATMOS SO I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO BE COVERED, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE ASKING TO COME INTO THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR SERVICES TO BE A

COMPETITOR WITH ATMOS? >> DO WE WANT TO FORCE SOLAR PANELS ON PEOPLE'S HOUSES? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY, WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO IS NOW WE'RE STARTING TO GO INTO WHERE THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN'T DICTATE BUILDING MATERIALS. AND I KNOW WHEN YOU GET IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, YOU CAN SKIRT AROUND SOME OF THAT, BUT AT SOME POINT YOU'VE -- I'VE GOT ELECTRICAL OTHER THAN THE FREEZE

I'VE BEEN FINE. >> WE'RE GETTING MORE CALLS ON OUR SIDE GETTING A LOT OF CALLS FOR PROPANE AND TRYING TO GET A PROPANE TANK BECAUSE IT'S CONTROLLED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF ALL THINGS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER. WE HAVE RESIDENTS CALLING IN WHEN THEY FIND OUT THEY'RE ELECTRIC ONLY OF HOW CAN THEY REMEDY THAT SITUATION, BUT HAVING ONE HOMER BRINGING ATMOS TO THEIR PROPERTY GETS TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. >> YOU PAY FOR IT, NOTHING IS

FREE. >> OKAY, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS

[02:20:04]

FOR RICK ACTUALLY. >> WELL THANK YOU.

>> SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BOND PROCEEDS COSTING UP TO $600,000. THAT WOULD BE $6 MILLION IN BOND EXPENSES SO HOW BIG WAS THAT BOND MET?

>> I THINK IT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $38 MILLION AND

$32 MILLION IN NET PROCEEDS. >> THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH EXPENSE

RATIO IN THAT BOND, RIGHT? >> IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BOND FOR PIDS BECAUSE OF THE 10% DEBT FUND, COST OF ISSUANCE, UNDERWRITERS COST, IT'S ANYWHERE FROM 15% TO 25%, PRETTY STANDARD WITHIN THE PID WORLD.

IF WE WERE DOING REIMBURSEMENT BONDS, THAT WOULD BE LESS BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE CAPITALIZED INTERESTS.

>> SO CHARGING A FEE AGAINST THAT GIVES AN INCENTIVE TO KEEP IT CLOSER TO 15 THAN TO 25 BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER WHICH IS THEN CHEAPER FOR THE HOMEOWNER THAN IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AT ALL. IF YOU JUST DO A 25% COST AND PASS IT ONTO THE HOMEOWNER, THEY'RE GETTING CHARGED MORE THAN IF YOU DO 15% AND WE'VE GOT 15% OF THAT 15% ADDED ON.

>> FOR SOME PROJECTS, THE DEVELOPER NEEDS ACCESS TO THE MONEY ON A CONSTRUCTION SIDE AS OPPOSED TO IF YOU'RE A BIG

BUILDER WITH PILES OF CASH -- >> RIGHT, SO THE DEVELOPER NEEDS IT SO THE DEVELOPER BENEFITS FROM IT AND PASSES IT ONTO THE HOMEOWNER BECAUSE IT'S AN ADDED EXPENSE.

>> AND THAT COULD IMPACT THE MARKETABILITY OR ATTAINABILITY OF THE HOUSE. IT'S LIKE I SAID, IT'S BEING CONSISTENT AND COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT ARE CHARGING THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES.

NOT EVERYONE HAS IT. THOSE THAT DO TYPICALLY HAVE 10% OF NET BOND PROCEEDS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE USED TO SEEING. IF YOU SAID 8% OF GROSS, YOU'D BE IN THE SAME PLACE, THAT'S FINE.

>> YOU'RE ASSUMING WE WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER MARKETS.

YOU'RE ASSUMING WE WANT LIKE ANOTHER 4,000 HOMES BUILT NEXT YEAR. THERE COULD BE THAT POSSIBILITY THAT WE'RE OKAY BUILDING 800 HOMES A YEAR AND GETTING CAUGHT UP ON -- YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN OUR WASTEWATER MEETING WHERE WE GOT $400 MILLION IN UTILITY COSTS SO THIS IS ALL ASSUMING WE

WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE. >> I'M MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE MOST DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT YOU WANT THEM TO COME TO HUTTO.

>> I KEEP THINKING WE'VE GOT AVAILABLE LAND AND WE CAN GET IT PERMITTED, SOMETHING TELLS ME SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME BUILD.

SOMETHING TELLS ME IF THE MARKET IS HOT, YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD

WHEREVER YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD. >> A LOT OF THESE HAVE 0%, IF IT'S ALL ABOUT THAT, THEY SHOULD BE GETTING ALL OF THE PIDS AND WE SHOULDN'T BE SEEING ANY. AND I THINK MAYNARD HAS BEEN DEVELOPING PRETTY QUICKLY WITH 5% TO 30%.

>> THEY HAVE NOT CHARGED A FEE TO ANYBODY YET.

THE TWO PROJECTS THEY'RE WORKING ON, MAYNARD ONE WILL BE AT 5% AND ONE WILL BE AT 10%. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING

TO AGREE TO A 30%. >> WE'RE NOT ASKING 30%.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> YOU SAID WE MAY NEED 12% IF IT'S AN EXPENSIVE ISSUANCE. WE MIGHT BE 11% IF IT'S A MORE

REASONABLY. >> IT'S JUST INTERPRETATION.

ADVOCATING. >> I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S OUT OF BOUNDS. I THINK THAT THAT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE TO 10%. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A DEAL BREAKER FOR ANYBODY. I'D RATHER TAKE OUR 10% OF THE

ENTIRE BOND. >> YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT'S MORE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT VERSUS JUST

COLLECTING 5,000 PER HOUSEHOLD. >> CAN WE GO BACK A SLIDE TO YOUR 10% THING BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT. IT LOOKED LIKE THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DOING IT WAS MORE PROFITABLE TO THE CITY THAN THE WAY YOU'RE WANTING TO GO TO. SO I WOULD FEEL LIKE IF I'M READING THAT RIGHT WE SHOULDN'T BE ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING OTHER

THAN 10% AND GET OUT OF HERE. >> YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT.

CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT RULES WITH THE $5,000 PER LOT, THE CITY WOULD COLLECT MORE MONEY.

SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DURANGO FARMS AND THE COTTONWOOD AND DID THE COST COMPARISONS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF YOU USED THE 10% VERSUS THE $5,000 PER LOT. THE CITY COLLECTS MORE AT THE $5,000 PER LOT. THE REASON THAT I ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP THE 10% IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE I DON'T PARTICULARLY OUT IF WE WANT TO COLLECT 20% OR 30%, WHATEVER

[02:25:01]

ELSE THE CITY WANTS TO DO IS FINE.

TO ME IT'S MORE AN EQUITY ISSUE BECAUSE NOT EVERY LOT IS CREATED EQUALLY. SO IF YOU JUST CHARGE $5,000 A LOT, FOR THE LOT THAT'S WORTH $1 MILLION VERSUS THE LOT THAT'S WORTH $10,000, THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN COST PER LOT.

SO WHEN YOU DO A PERCENTAGE, IT ALLOWS IT TO BE SHARED EQUALLY AND THEN APPLIED AS A PERCENTAGE TO EACH LOT.

SO IF YOU HAVE FEWER LOTS, BUT SEE THIS IS ALSO A $5,000 PER LOT FOR PROJECTS THAT HAVE A LOT OF LOTS.

SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT HAS FEWER LOTS BUT A LOT OF BOND EXPENDITURES BECAUSE MAYBE THOSE ESTATE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE A LOT MORE INVESTMENT, THAT'S WHERE THE $5,000 DOESN'T EARN YOU AS MUCH MONEY.

SO THE PERCENTAGE ISSUE IS ALWAYS FOR ME AN EQUITY ISSUE.

AND WE CAN SET THE PERCENTAGE AT WHATEVER WE LIKE.

>> THIS 10% IS GROSS NOT NET? >> IN THE POLICY IT'S 10% GROSS.

>> I MEAN IN THIS PICTURE THAT'S GROSS.

>> I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T DO THAT MATH.

>> IT IS GROSS? RICK, I DON'T KNOW, MAN.

I THINK I'D BE HAPPY WITH 10% GROSS AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THAT

LOOKS LIKE A SAVINGS. >> I DIDN'T SAY I LIKED $5,000 OR NOT. IF MY CHOICE IS $5,000 OR 10% OF GROSS, I'D TAKE 10% OF GROSS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT KEVIN PREPARED PREVIOUSLY ON THE PRIOR PIDS IN HUTTO, YOU'RE ABOUT $2,900 PERY WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF THE MARKET.

$5,000 PUTS YOU WAY ABOVE MOST OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.

ONE AGAIN THAT'S A BURDEN THAT YOUR RESIDENTS WOULD BE PAYING.

>> EITHER THE NEW HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO PAY THE $5,000 AND SHARE THE BURDEN OR I GOT TO SHARE THE BURDEN AND EVERYBODY UP HERE HAS TO SHARE THE BURDEN AND EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN HUTTO HAS TO SHARE THE BURDEN. SO I THINK THE QUESTION COMES DOWN TO WHO'S SHARING THE BURDEN BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO WIDEN ALL OF THESE ROADS, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF ME, IT'S BECAUSE OF EVERYBODY THAT'S MOVING HERE. SO IF THEY PAY THEIR WAY AND WE KEEP PAYING OUR WAY, I THINK EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.

BUT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BRING IN 1,000 NEW HOMES AND THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY

GETS WOUND UP. >> I THINK FOR PEOPLE BRINGING 1,000 NEW HOMES, THEY ARE PAYING ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THEIR PROJECT FOR SURE.

>> BUT THEY'VE -- >> AND THEY'RE GENERATING A LARGE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY TO HELP PAY THEIR

SHARE -- I'M SORRY. >> BUT THE COST TO BUILD IS LIKE $8 MILLION TO ADD RIGHT-TURN LANES.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WIDEN THEM BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE NEIGHBORHOODS. I APPRECIATE THEY LIVE THERE.

BECAUSE I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR, RIGHT. BUT THIS IDEA THAT 1,000 HOMES COME IN AND WE'RE JUST FLUSHED WITH CASH AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN'T AFFORD TO PUT KIDS IN CLASSROOMS OR PORTABLES, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS WHERE I APPRECIATE IT'S EXPENSIVE, BUT SOMEONE'S GOT TO PAY IT.

IF ANNA IN HORSESHOE BAY AND ALL OF THEM ARE LOWER, MY GUESS IS LIKE COUNCILMEMBER CLARK SAID, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GO UP.

WE RAISED OUR IMPACT FEES AND WE'RE THE HIGHEST AND NOW EVERYBODY GOES TO WE NEED TO REASSESS EVERYTHING.

I GET IT, IT'S EXPENSIVE. WE EITHER PAY FOR IT AND FIGHT OVER RAISING TAXES OR THE DEVELOPER HAS GOT TO PAY FOR IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE SIDE OF THE DEVELOPER HAS TO PAY FOR IT. BUT ANYWAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANYMORE? >> NO, I HAVE ALL OF THE ONES I HAD. MAYBE THE REASON EVERYBODY SAID 10% OF NET PROCEEDS IS NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OF ANOTHER OPTION.

MAYBE WE'RE GOING TO INSPIRE THEM TO THINK OF OH MAYBE WE

SHOULD MODIFY THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THIS OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.

BUT AREN'T PIDS, LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF PIDS IN EITHER DALLAS OR FORT WORTH, THAT AREA IN THE SUBURBS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> I KNOW THIS IS LAYING IT OUT.

>> WE DO A LOT OF WORK IN THE DALLAS FORT WORTH MARKET.

PROBABLY 2/3 OF THE BONDS ISSUED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE DALLAS

FORT WORTH MARKET. >> OKAY, I KNOW IT SAYS RIGHT HERE JUST GENERALLY HAS DALLAS AND FORT WORTH AS HAVING NO PID FEE HERE. SO I GUESS THE SUBURBS OF THAT IS THAT KIND OF THE SAME? I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE PROLIFERATION OF PIDS HERE IN THIS AREA, BUT I

MEAN -- >> WE HAVE SEEN MORE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES IN AUSTIN AND SAN ANTONIO, AND I'M GOING TO ASK ROBERT WHO REPRESENTS TWO OF OUR CLIENTS WHO'S DALLAS BASED AND HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE DALLAS AREA TO COMMENT ON IT.

>> I GUESS COMPARE WHAT THEIR FEES ARE.

BECAUSE THERE'S SOME COMMUNITIES THAT THEY JUST THRIVE ON BEING ROOFTOP COMMUNITIES, NOT THAT THAT'S WHAT I WANT FOR THE

FUTURE OF HUTTO. >> HI, I'M ROBERT MICKLOS.

[02:30:09]

MY OFFICE IS AT 1755 WITTINGTON, FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, 75234.

AND I'VE DONE ABOUT 40 OR 50 PIDS IN THE DALLAS FORT WORTH AREA. I JUST GOT UP BECAUSE I COULD BE HELPFUL AND DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

FOR A VERY LONG TIME THERE WERE NO PID FEES AT ALL OR THERE WAS AN EVOLUTION WHERE CERTAIN EX-URBAN CITIES WERE STARTING TO CHARGE PER LOT FEES $2,000, $1,500, $3,000, YOU STARTED SEEING THAT. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY THAT'S THE MAJORITY YET IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA.

BUT YOU STARTED TO SEE AN EVOLUTION TOWARDS THAT AS A PER

LOT FEE IF THAT'S HELPFUL. >> SO IT'S JUST KIND OF ABOUT $3,000 I GUESS IS LIKE THE AVERAGE PROBABLY EVEN UP THERE?

>> OF THE ONES THAT CHARGE THEM WHICH IS I WOULDN'T -- AND JIM DOES A TON OF THEM UP THERE AS WELL.

>> JIM SABONIS WITH HILLTOP SECURITIES, WE REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PIDS UP THERE. AND I WANT TO STATE SOMETHING THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT STATISTICS, I THINK WE'RE ALL COMMON WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STATISTICS YOU CAN TELL ANY STORY THAT YOU WANT TO. BUT LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT REALLY TAKES PLACE IN PIDS AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THE METROPLEX BECAUSE I KNOW THAT REALLY WELL.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT INDIVIDUAL CITY AND WHAT THAT CITY IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THE EARLY PIDS WERE DONE IN NORTH TEXAS, AND THEY WERE DONE BECAUSE THE SMALL CITIES HAD LARGE HAND HOLDINGS IN THEIR ETJ AND THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF ETJ MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS, IT WAS OFFERED AS A TOOL TO INCENTIVIZE A DEVELOPER TO ANNEX HIS PROPERTY INTO THE CITY. A LOT OF THE EARLY PIDS IN AN ONGOING PROCESS NOW IN THE FOURTH RING OF GROWTH, THE CITY IS SAYING HOW CAN I INCENT A DEVELOPER TO COME IN A PID AND MAYBE A TURS, SO THE ECONOMICS THERE IS AN INCENTIVE TOOL.

I'LL ALSO SAY THAT MORE SOPHISTICATED CITIES AS THEY EVOLVE, THEY SAY WHAT IS A PID GOING TO DO, IS IT LAND THAT'S IN MY CITY OR IS IT LAND THAT'S IN MY ETJ COMING INTO MY CITY.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT -- THE CITY THAT'S BEEN THE MOST PIDS, CURRENTLY WE HAVE OVER 12,000 LOTS IN PIDS THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY SAID WE WILL CHARGE A FEE IF YOU'RE IN THE CITY, THE EXPECTATION IS SIMILAR TO YOUR POLICY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD FOR COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

AND WE CHARGE A FEE FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT PID BECAUSE WE WANT TO OFFSET THE BURDEN TO OUR CITIZENS FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

AT THE SAME TIME THEY'VE ACTUALLY WAIVED THE FEE AND GIVEN TERS MONEY TO DO SIGNIFICANT ANNEXATION OF ETJ PROPERTY. SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH SPECIFIC SITUATION AND NOT SAY EVERYONE IS FACING THE SAME ISSUE. AND I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING HERE IN THIS CITY. WHEN SOMEONE IS IN THE CITY, IF THEY ASK FOR A PID, ARE THEY BUILDING TO YOUR MINIMUM STANDARDS, ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD A HIGHER QUALITY STANDARD, DO THEY DO INFRASTRUCTURE? THERE MIGHT BE SELECT TIMES WHERE I'VE SAT MANY MEETINGS WHERE SOME OF THEM WANTED A MUD IN YOUR ETJ THAT WOULD BURDEN YOUR CITY, AND THE NEGOTIATION WOULD BE TO HAVE A PID/TERS. I WOULD SAY THAT LIST OF ITEMS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I KNOW SOME CITIES HAVE POLICIES AT 10%, SOME DO $3,500, IT'S EACH ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

AND I THINK THAT AGAIN STAFF LIKE WE HAVE HERE THAT'S EXPERIENCED, THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL.

>> OF COURSE, THANK YOU. >> ARE YOU DONE?

>> CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT TOO.

AND I WILL SAY THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE 10% FEE, THE 10% FEE DOES DO A PRO RATA BASIS, BECAUSE THE BENEFIT IS DONE, WHEN A BOND ISSUE IS DONE, EACH HOME IS BASED ON THE VALUE THAT HOME IS GOING TO BE AND THE BENEFIT PER LOT IS DIFFERENT FOR A $400,000 HOME THAN A $600,000 HOME.

SO IF YOU DO A PRO RATA PERCENTAGE, EACH HOUSE HAS THE SAME BURDEN ON IT ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS.

[02:35:06]

>> DEFINITELY THE BIGGEST ANTI-PID PERSON I THINK UP HERE.

AND MOST OF THAT THE REASON WHY AND ALTHOUGH MAYBE A LOT OF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW I BECAME INVOLVED IN COUNCIL, I THINK RICK KIND OF MAYBE DOES, HE WAS THERE. I THINK THAT A LOT OF THE EDITS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS PID POLICY HELPS TO NOT ALLOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO HUTTO IN THE PAST.

SO FOR ONE, PETITION SHALL BE SIGNED BY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT THE REASONABLE ATTEMPT OF MAJORITY.

BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE REASONABLE ATTEMPT LOOKED LIKE IT, IT LOOKED LIKE 51% AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN REACH OUT TO THE OTHER 49%. THAT HAPPENED, I COULD THROW A ROCK. IT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE IN HUTTO.

THEY WENT FOR 51%, AND GUESS WHAT THE 51% DIDN'T ANNEX INTO THE CITY. SO THAT 51% THAT SIGNED OFF ON THAT PROPERTY DOESN'T PAY CITY TAXES.

BUT THE PROPERTY THAT THEY SOLD, ALL OF THE HOUSES THAT ALIGN THAT OTHER PIECE AND THE PIECE THAT THEY ACQUIRED PAY CITY TAXES. SO FOR ME I THINK NUMBER ONE THAT IS REALLY BIG. IT MAKES ME FEEL A LOT BETTER IS THAT ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOING TO BE SIGNING OFF AND THAT THEY KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING, NOT JUST THIS REASONABLE ATTEMPT OF MAJORITY BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE. PROVE THAT THEY HAVE FINANCIAL BACKING TO MEET PROJECT COSTS. MY INTRODUCTION TO PIDS AGAIN WAS NOT A GOOD ONE. BASICALLY THE COMPANY THAT WE WERE GOING I GUESS YOU COULD SAY UP AGAINST AS RESIDENTS ACTUALLY THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE WAS ACTUALLY IN DEFAULT.

THEY NEEDED TO GET THIS PROJECT APPROVED SO THEY COULD HAVE MONEY TO REINSTATE THEIR OWN BUSINESS LICENSE.

AGAIN THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT DIDN'T REALLY GO TO COUNCIL AND OTHER PEOPLE SIGNED OFF ON.

SO THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THE FINANCIAL BACKING OR EVEN A GOOD BUSINESS STANDING. SO I FEEL LIKE THIS AGAIN CAPTURES THAT, PROVING THAT THEY HAVE THAT FINANCIAL BACKING TO MEET THOSE PROJECT COSTS. AND THEN COMMUNITY BENEFITS FROM 3 TO 5. I THINK THAT'S WHAT ALL OF US UP HERE AS INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE SAYING IS THAT WE WANT BETTER PROJECTS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE THE MOST COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET? MAYBE NOT, MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO BE THE MOST COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET. BUT WHAT WE DO WANT IS GOING TO BE A HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT. AND WE'RE GETTING THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. FOR ME LISTING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF GREEN OPEN SPACE AND THEN IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND IT FLOODS EVERY TIME IT RAINS AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE OUT AND DONE ALL OF THE LAND PROCESSING AND SURVEYING THEY KNOW THAT, IS THAT REALLY A COMMUNITY BENEFIT? AND WHEN THEY LIST THINGS LIKE PUTTING IN THE WATER LINES AND THE SEWER, FOR ME I UNDERSTAND IT MAY HELP WITH CONNECTIVITY OF THE CITY, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY A COMMUNITY BENEFIT UNLESS THEY'RE OVERSIZING IT OR TO ALLOW FOR THOSE EXTRA CONNECTIONS. SO FOR ME I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THAT THINGS ARE OUTLINED IN THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

I DO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY PUT IN THERE ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT THE PARK PIECE ACTUALLY BEING THAT USEABLE GREEN SPACE. IT TALKS A LOT ABOUT EXAMPLES OF PARKS AND BIKING AND TRAILS AND HIKING, THINGS LIKE THAT.

FOR INSTANCE THE ONE THAT I KNOW OF, THEY WERE PROPOSING A TRAIL, BUT IT WAS A TRAIL THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DIG UP THE SEWER LINE, SO THE TRAIL WAS GOING TO GO RIGHT OVER THE SEWER LINE. AGAIN THIS WAS BACK IN 2019 SO A LITTLE WHILE AGO. SO REALLY MAKING SURE THAT IT'S AN ACTUAL COMMUNITY BE EVIDENT AND ACTUALLY USEABLE GREEN SPACE SO WE CAN USE IT FOR THINGS, NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO FLOOD EVERY TIME IT RAINS OR IT'S REALLY OVER THE SEWER AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT A PLACE YOU WANT TO GO AND PUT A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND DIG AND IT'S JUST NOT GOOD.

I PERSONALLY LIKE THE 10% OF THE GROSS BOND AMOUNT.

I THINK THAT IT ADDS A LOT OF THAT EQUITABLE FAIRNESS ACROSS THE LOTS. I JUST PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED AN INCENTIVE TOOL. A PID IS ESSENTIALLY AN INCENTIVE TOOL FOR DEVELOPERS. IT IS THE CITIES TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO COME IN, AND THEY USE IT AS AN INCENTIVE TOOL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT HUTTO IS AT THAT PLACE WHERE WE NEED THAT

[02:40:02]

HUGE INCENTIVE TOOL. I THINK WITH A LOT OF THESE THE PERCENTAGE AND THE FEES, I'M OKAY WITH THINGS THE WAY THIS THEY ARE PRESENTED BECAUSE I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MAYOR, I THINK THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM AS MARKETABLE AND THEY HAVE TO LOWER THE PRICE OF THEIR HOME AND MAYBE THEY EAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANT AND NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR BECAUSE EVERYONE IS HERE TO MAKE MONEY AND WE'RE ALL IN BUSINESS. I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT HUTTO IS BEING INUNDATED WITH PIDS AND AUSTIN IS ON A MORATORIUM AND WE'RE NOT SEEING AS MANY PIDS IN A LOT OF OTHER AREAS, WHY? I THINK THAT A LOT OF THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED ARE GOING TO HELP HUTTO AGAINST A LOT OF THOSE SHORTFALLS THAT UNFORTUNATELY HAVE BEEN IN OUR PAST WITH PIDS AND A LOT OF THAT IS A LEARNING CURVE.

SO I PERSONALLY LIKE A LOT OF THE THINGS I SAW IN HERE IN THAT IT ALLOWS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE SENIORS, VETERANS, AND WORKFORCE. I HAD A QUESTION ON THAT, WHENEVER IT'S WORKFORCE IS IT A SLIDING SCALE? IS IT 50%? 80%? DO WE KNOW OR WANT TO SPECIFY THAT? I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S AN ASHLEY QUESTION OR WHOEVER WAS IN ON THAT. WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WORKFORCE, DO YOU WANT TO DO A SLIDING SCALE OR --

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE PID THAT SAYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WORKFORCE HOUSING?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO STATE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE A MINIMUM, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD EITHER.

I KNOW IN THE TWO REFERENCED IN THOSE EMAILS ONE IS A SMALLER SENIOR FACILITY, AND ONE I BELIEVE IS LIKE A 450, 40 AND 50-FOOT LOT SUBDIVISIONS. RIGHT NOW I CAN TELL YOU WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF THOSE 40S AND 50S, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO INCENTIVIZE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD INCENTIVIZE SOMETHING WE'RE GETTING AUTOMATICALLY.

>> THANKS, I JUST WANTED TO ASK. SO FOR ME I'M KIND OF OKAY WITH NOT LOOKING SUPER FAVORABLE AND BEING COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET TRYING TO GET PIDS TO COME IN UNLESS AGAIN IT'S THIS GREAT HIGH QUALITY PROJECT, THIS EXECUTIVE HOUSING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THEN WE TALK A LOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN MEADOWBROOK CAME I DIDN'T PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AFFORDABLE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE A $300,000 TOWNHOUSE, THEN YOU HAD AD VALORE M PID TAXES. I'M GLAD YOU'VE MADE IT MORE AFFORDABLE. I'M SORRY I'M NOT GOING TO BE YOUR FAVORITE COUNCIL MEMBER EVER.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

IF THE DEVELOPER THINKS I'M THEIR FRIEND, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I THINK THAT THESE HIGHER FEES AND WE'VE SEEN THE MATH IN SOME SITUATIONS, IT MAY END UP WORKING BETTER, IT'S MORE EQUITABLE. I AM ALL FOR WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, BUT I DO LIKE COUNCILMEMBER CLARK'S COMMENT ABOUT WHATEVER THE HUTTO ISD, I LIKE THAT AMENDMENT.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND. SO I GUESS IT'S JUST KIND OF A QUESTION OF DO WE WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE IN THE PID MARKET? DO WE THINK THAT HUTTO HAS ENOUGH PIDS GOING ON AT THE MOMENT. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PROVING PIDS, I'D RATHER WE ACTUALLY START TO SEE ALL OF THESE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THAT'S MY PIECE.

>> I DID HAVE ONE NOTE UNDER REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER SIX. I'M PROBABLY READING IT WRONG.

BUT IT SAYS PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY THE CITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. I FEEL LIKE THAT OUGHT TO BE A COMMA OR SOMETHING THERE. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PLANS, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS

THE INTENT. >> YOU'RE CORRECT, THAT IS

DEFINITELY NOT THE INTENT. >> OVERALL I THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD POLICY. IT'S NOT PERFECT IN MY MIND, BUT I DO THINK TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY SAID, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IF WE WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT 10%, I DEFINITELY WOULDN'T GO BELOW 10% GROSS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT COULDN'T BE 15% BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE DURANGO AND I'M NEVER GOING TO VOTE TO RAISE PEOPLE'S EXISTING TAXES UP. SO WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR IT SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT AS A COUNCIL AND AS A CITY HOW WE

[02:45:02]

WANT TO DO THIS GOING FORWARD AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PIDS, I AGREE, WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THEM WORK BUT NOT WORK AGAINST THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE.

THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK, YOU WANT TO COME BACK OR TRY TO PASS IT TONIGHT?

>> I THINK WE CAN PASS IT TONIGHT WITH CHANGES.

WE'VE BEEN PUSHING THIS THING AROUND FOR A WHILE.

>> I THINK WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT $75,000 THOUGH.

>> WE DO NEED CLARIFICATION. >> I THINK THAT ONE IS A LITTLE MUCH TO PASS FOR ME. I'D RATHER SEE THAT ONE COME

BACK AND HAVE FAIR LANGUAGE. >> YOU WANTED FIBER OPTIC SITES AND STUFF ABOUT SCHOOLS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT --

>> NO I DIDN'T SAY THE NUMBER WHAT I SAID IS THAT IT MATCHES

THE CURRENT ISD SITE PLAN. >> THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD HANDLE THAT IS WE SHOULD MODIFY OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO REQUIRE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SIGN OFF ON ANY PROPOSAL TO DONATE LAND

FOR A SCHOOL SITE. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S THE WAY WE HANDLE IT, THAT WAY IT'S NOT A NUMBER THAT WE'RE ARBITRARILY, BECAUSE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY NOT WANT THE SITE IN THAT LOCATION. SO THAT'S THE WAY YOU HANDLE

THAT. >> I DON'T EVER VOTE ON STUFF

THAT WE'VE GOT THIS MANY -- >> LET'S MAKE THE CHANGES AND COME BACK. TWO MORE WEEKS ISN'T GOING TO KILL THE DEAL. THEY'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS INVOLVED AND GIVE LEGAL THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED TO ADD THE

CLARIFICATION FOR THE RICK FEE. >> THE $75,000 FEE.

>> THE DEPOSIT. >> YOU STILL NEED FROM US IF WE

WANT $75,000 -- >> WHATEVER YOU WANT THAT FEE TO BE, THE STRAIGHT UP FEE FOR JUST DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR A PID, HOW MUCH IS THE CITY GOING TO CHARGE YOU, WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? AND THEY GAVE YOU EXAMPLES OF

OTHER CITIES. >> I CAN SEE THAT EASILY BEING A

$25,000 JUST TO APPLY. >> AND THEN YOU MAKE A DEPOSIT

AGAINST THE COSTS. >> I SEE THAT BEING A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN AN AMBIGUOUS $75,000, AT LEAST THAT WAY, BECAUSE YOU APPLY FOR A PLAT AND THEN P&Z MAY SHOOT IT DOWN AND THEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR MONEY BACK.

>> CORRECT, WE HAVE APPLICATION FEES.

>> RIGHT, SO I WOULD CALL THAT APPLICATION FEE.

BUT I WOULDN'T PENALIZE THEM. >> WHAT IS OUR CURRENT

APPLICATION FEE? >> IT DEPENDS, I BELIEVE ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR PIDS WE ARE STILL RUNNING AROUND THAT $100,000 EXCEPT FOR IT KIND OF GOES INTO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT THEN WE DRAW DOWN ON IT AND REIMBURSE.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO FEE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING IS PURE REIMBURSEMENT RIGHT NOW.

>> SO WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT FEE.

>> AND I WILL WORK WITH FINANCE TO ALSO MAKE SURE OUR FEE ORDINANCE WITH WHATEVER WE CHANGE OR MIGHT CHANGE THAT WE'RE BRINGING THAT BACK AS ABSOLUTELY QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOCTORING SOMETHING WE CAN'T CHARGE.

>> IF YOU WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PARKS MAYBE USEABLE OR SOMETHING, COTTONWOOD CREEK, THEY WANTED TO PUT FIELDS THERE, BUT THEN IT ENDED UP BEING ALL FLOODPLAINS AND REALLY IT'S JUST

-- >> ABSOLUTELY, AND THERE ARE TWO OF THEM LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT ALSO TIES BACK TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH PARKS AND WE'RE ACTUALLY FOLLOWING OUR ORDINANCES AND WE'RE ABLE TO LOOP JEFF IN WHEN WE'RE GETTING ANY DEVELOPMENTS AND PARKS SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SIGNING OFF ON ANYTHING THAT THE CITY WAS ACCEPTING AS PARK LAND.

THAT WAS NOT OCCURRING FOUR YEARS AGO, FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO. IT DOES NOW.

WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT THAT I BELIEVE STAFF SAID NO TO THE PARK LAND AND THEN IT MADE ITS WAY INTO THE PID AGREEMENT.

AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT PARK LAND ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT WANT IT.

SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT WE ARE CERTAINLY WORKING HARDER NOW, AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE COMMUNICATION ON THE TEAM SO THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT.

>> SO WE'RE TABLING THIS TO -- >> MY INTENT WOULD BE TO PUT IT ON CONSENT, TO HAVE LEGAL MAKE THE CORRECT CHANGES TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THEN FOR IT TO BE ON

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance 2022- Authorizing The Issuance Of The City Of Hutto, Texas Tax And Waterworks And Sewer System (Limited Pledge) Revenue Certificates Of Obligation, Series 2022; Levying An Ad Valorem Tax And Pledging Certain Surplus Revenues In Support Of The Certificates; Approving An Official Statement, A Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement And Other Agreements Relating To The Sale And Issuance Of The Certificates; And Ordaining Other Matters Relating To The Issuance Of The Certificates (First Reading) (Angie Rios)]

CONSENT. >> OKAY.

THANKS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 11.1, I THINK BART IS EXCITED, WAKE UP. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE 2022, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS TAX AND WATERWORKS AND SEWER SYSTEM, LIMITED PLEDGE REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION,

[02:50:02]

SERIES 2022; LEVYING AN AD VALOREM TAX AND PLEDGING CERTAIN SURPLUS REVENUES IN SUPPORT OF THE CERTIFICATES; PROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A PAYING AGENT REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES AND ORDAINING OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE

OF THE CERTIFICATES. >> BIDS WERE TAKEN THIS MORNING FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION.

OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT AND LET YOU

KNOW HOW THAT WENT. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. ON YOUR BEHALF WE TOOK BIDS FOR THE CERTIFICATE OBLIGATION. WE TOOK FOUR BIDS WITH A LOW BID BY JEFFREYS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS ESTIMATED BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE. BIDDING WAS PRETTY TIGHT.

TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WOULD BE ABOUT $95.8 MILLION.

IT'S A 25 YEAR AMMORTIZATION. DURING THE PROCESS -- THEY CONFIRMED OUR DOUBLE A MINUS RATING.

VERY SUCCESSFUL SALE. THESE ARE THE FOUR FIRMS THAT BID ON THE BONDS. THEY WERE ALSO INVOLVED AND BIDDERS ON YOUR LAST TRANSACTION.

THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FINAL SOURCES AND USES.

THE GOAL WAS TO FUND 51.6 MILLION PROJECT FUNDS.

WE'LL BE ISSUING 51.9 MILLION BONDS AT THE 4.5% INTEREST RATE.

THE BIDDER WILL PAY US A PREMIUM $415,000 SO WE'LL ACTUALLY RECEIVE PROCEEDS OF 52.3 MILLION TO PAY THE COST OF ISSUANCE IN THE UNDERWRITERS FOR OUR FUND. IT IS THE AMORTIZATION THAT WE HAVE. WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO LONGER THAN 25 YEARS ON THIS TRANSACTION. WE KEPT IT AT THAT LEVEL AND WE STRUCTURED THE NEW DEBT WHERE WE HAVE A LEVEL OVER ALL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AMORTIZATION ON THE UTILITY SYSTEM.

FROM HERE IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE ORDINANCE, YOUR BOND COUNCIL SUBMITS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WILL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE TRANSACTION. CLOSING IN BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 3RD. SUMMARY, EVERYTHING IN STRAIGHTFORWARD PLAIN VANILLA, FOLLOW UP TO A PREVIOUS SALE.

INTEREST RATES HAVE TICKED UP. BUT IT WAS IN THE ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATED WOULD TAKE PLACE.

I WANT TO THANK ANGIE AND JIM FOR DOING A GREAT JOB WITH THE RATING AGENCIES AND THE INVESTORS THAT SUBMITTED QUESTIONS. AGAIN THE CITY WAS WELL RECEIVED AND IT WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL SALE.

THAT INCLUDES MY FORMAL COMMENTS.

I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION THAT I CAN. >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> MY ONLY QUESTION WAS WITH THAT TAX IF YOU GO BACK A SLIDE OR TWO, OR YOU DO THE FEE SCHEDULE WITH THE DEBT.

>> YEAH, BEAR WITH ME. >> YES.

SO THIS MEETS WITHIN OUR CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE ALREADY

HAVE FOR WATER/WASTEWATER? >> IT'S VERY CLOSE TO IT.

WITHIN $100,000. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING A RATE STUDY ITSELF TO LOOK AT RATES FOR THE FUTURE FOR BOTH CAP CAPITAL AND IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THIS IS WITHIN OUR EXISTING CASHFLOW WITHIN $100,000 OF LAST YEAR'S AUDITED CASH FLOW.

>> $100,000 OVER THE 25 YEAR LIFE?

>> EXCUSE ME? >> $100,000 OVER THE 25 YEAR --

>> SORRY, YOU TALK SO SOFT WITH THE MICROPHONE.

>> WE WERE LOOKING AT TOTAL DEBT SERVICE.

SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS WE DID 25 YEARS BECAUSE 25 YEARS WAS WHERE WE WERE GOING TO GET TO A LEVEL OF DEBT SERVICE WITHIN YOUR EXISTING CASH FLOW SITUATION.

>> BUT IT'S FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT LIKE PER YEAR.

>> NO, IT'S FOR THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF YOUR EXISTING DEBT SERVICE AND YOUR NEW DEBT SERVICE COMPARED WITH THE CASH FLOW FROM YOUR SYSTEMS BASED ON YOUR LAST AUDIT.

>> SO IT IS ANNUAL? >> YEAH, SO $100,000 OVER.

>> BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE I THINK NEW NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE COME ONLINE SAY WITHIN THE PAST YEAR OR TWO, WHENEVER THE LAST RATE STUDY WAS? SO THERE'S A LOT MORE RESIDENCES

[02:55:05]

THAT WILL BE ON AND COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE UP FOR THAT $100,000. AM I CORRECT? AM I THINKING OF THIS IN THE RIGHT ASPECT?

>> I DO BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. AND I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN BOTH INCREASING CUSTOMER BASE FEES GENERATED FROM NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE INCREASING COSTS. SO I THINK IT'S OVERALL STUDIES BEING DONE TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT RATES IN PLACE FOR NOW FOR THE FUTURE. BUT WE'RE RIGHT AT ABOUT OUR EXISTING CASH FLOW WAS LAST AUGUST.

YOUR CURRENT BUDGET GENERATED MORE CASH FLOW THAN THAT.

>> A LOT OF WHAT AS WE ISSUE THIS DEBT A LOT OF THE FUNDING FOR THAT TO PAY FOR SOME OF THE DEBT SERVICE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COME FROM IMPACT FEES. THAT'S BEEN PLANNED OUT IN THE RATE STUDY. THOSE IMPACT FEES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE $50 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR PROJECTS. SO THE IMPACT FEES THEMSELVES, EXCUSE ME, WILL PAY FOR THE DEBT SERVICE, SOME OF THE DEBT SERVICE OVER TIME. SO THAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE IMPACT FEES AND THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THIS INCREASE IS COMING OUT OF, THE MAJORITY OF IT. BUT THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN ALL

ALONG. >> AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, I WANT TO MORE CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

WE TAKE THE CASH FLOW FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS BASED ON YOUR LAST AUDIT WITHOUT IMPACT FEES.

WE'RE ABOUT $100,000. YOU TAKE IMPACT FEES FOR THE YEAR ITSELF, IT'S GENERALLY MORE CASH FLOW THAN THAT.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE A MORE CONSERVATIVE VIEW.

BUT THE REALISTIC PERFORMANCE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME IMPACT FEES AND WE'RE GOING TO USE THOSE IMPACT FEES GOING FORWARD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU DID GREAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT WAS SO THOROUGH, WE WERE

DONE IN TEN MINUTES. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

11.1. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR, PROVING 11.1 AS PRESENTED.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

I FORGET THERE'S NO SPECIAL WAY WE HAVE TO WORD THIS SINCE WE'RE

DOING SOME KIND OF BOND DEAL. >> YOU WOULD ASK BART, BUT THE CHARTER DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYTHING SPECIAL.

>> SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION.

>> I FORGET, IS THERE A CERTAIN WAY WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT WE'RE

DOING? >> NO, IT'S NOT.

JUST PROVING THE ORDINANCE WILL BE SUFFICIENT.

>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action regarding possible appointments, re-appointments and/or removals to City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, Economic Development Corporations, Local Government Corporations and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Boards, City Council Liaisons, and Area Government appointments.]

>> AYE. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 12.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS, AND/OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, AND TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARDS, CITY COUNCIL LIAISONS AND AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.

>> SO MAYOR, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY NEW APPLICATIONS COME IN OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS SO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE DOES NOT

HAVE ANYONE TO PUT FORWARD. >> I HAVE A NOMINATION TO MAKE.

SO I WENT BACK AND FOUND THAT CURRENTLY WE HAVE FORMER COUNCILMEMBER PATTY MARTINEZ LISTED AS ONE OF OUR REPS.

SO THEY INSTRUCTED THE CITY MANAGER TO INFORM THEM THAT SHE'S REMOVED FROM THAT ROLE SO NOW WE HAVE A SECOND SLOT OPEN.

IN ADDITION I FOUND OUT ONCE WE HIT A POPULATION OF 50,000, WE GET A THIRD MEMBER. IN ADDITION I WENT AHEAD AND ENTERED MY APPLICATION TO BE PUT ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

WE'LL FIND OUT IF I GET NOMINATED IN THE DECEMBER QUARTERLY MEETING. SO WE DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE THAT CAN VOTE FOR THAT NOMINATING SLATE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE AMBERLEY KOLAR.

>> YEAH, WE DISCUSSED IT ABOUT THE REPRESENTATIVE.

SO I WAS LIKE YEAH, I'LL DO IT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> AYE.

[03:00:03]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> MAYOR, I DO HAVE ONE REMOVAL FROM THE DNR COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER RANSON HUDSON UNFORTUNATELY HAS MISSED THREE MEETINGS.

I'VE SPOKEN WITH HER, SHE'S HAD SOME FAMILY ISSUES AND AN ILLNESS AND FEELS SHE CAN'T COMMIT THE TIME AS WELL.

ACCORDING TO THEIR ORDINANCE AFTER THREE THEY MUST BE REMOVED. I DID REACH OUT TO HER TO LET HER KNOW THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING AND SHE SAID I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. AND I ENCOURAGED HER WHENEVER HER SCHEDULE OPENED BACK UP TO REPLY AND WE'D LOVE TO HAVE HER BACK. BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD SHE IS

REMOVED FROM THE DNI. >> WHAT WAS HER FIRST NAME?

>> LACY I BELIEVE. >> HUDSON?

>> RANSON-HUDSON, IT'S A HYPHENATED LAST NAME.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE RESIGNED VOLUNTARILY?

>> IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP, THE ORDINANCE READS MUST BE REMOVED. SO I REACHED OUT TO HER TO LET HER KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS UNLESS EXCUSED. SO I ASKED HER HEY I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW AND SHE SAID THAT SHE HAD SOME THINGS GOING ON IN HER PERSONAL LIFE AND THEN I ENCOURAGED HER TO REACH BACK OUT IF SHE WANTS TO REPLY. BUT FOR THE RECORD I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE TO SAY IT HERE WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS OR WHAT

THE PROTOCOL IS ON THAT. >> SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S IN CONFLICT WITH OUR PROTOCOLS. OUR PROTOCOL SAYS THAT MAY, BUT

YOU'RE SAYING THE ORDINANCE -- >> YES, IT SAYS MUST.

>> INTERESTING. >> THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, THEY MUST BE REMOVED. AT THAT POINT SHE HADN'T REACHED OUT TO ANYBODY, NO ONE KNEW WHY SHE WAS NOT PRESENT SO IT WOULD

BE CONSIDERED UNEXCUSED. >> SO THE CHAIR OF PLANNING &

ZONING NEXT WEEK -- >> SHE'S GOT A MOTION.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS -- >> DOES IT NEED A MOTION.

>> THE ORDINANCE SAYS THEY MUST BE REMOVED SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT NECESSARILY NEEDS ACTION, BUT I JUST WANTED IT TO BE ON THE

RECORD. >> YOU NEED TO REMOVE THEM SINCE

YOU APPOINTED THEM. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. REMOVING LACY RANSON-HUDSON FROM THE DNI. ANY DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON.

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

>> SO AS PART OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO ASK FOR AN ITEM NOW, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THAT ORDINANCE AND POTENTIALLY TAKE ACTION TO MODIFY THAT TO BRING THAT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PROTOCOLS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A

DISCONNECT THERE. >> REVIEW DNI ORDINANCE.

>> YEAH. RICK.

>> HI, RICK HUDSON, CHAIR OF P&Z.

IT'S EXACTLY THAT SAME SUBJECT. I'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MULTIPLE ABSENCES DURING THE LAST 12-MONTH PERIOD, AND I WANTED A CLARIFICATION WHETHER IT IS MAY OR MUST. AND JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL ON THAT.

>> THE DNI ORDINANCE SAYS MUST. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE P&Z.

>> BUT THAT ONLY APPLIES TO DNI. >> CORRECT, YES.

>> SO P&Z AND EVERY OTHER ONE IS MAY.

>> I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY. I WANTED TO COME UP AND ASK COUNCIL FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT AND GET A FIRM YES OR NO

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >> YOU MISSED THREE, THAT'S A FOURTH OF ALL OF THE MEETINGS, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A

MAY. >> I'M PULLING UP ALL OF THE PROTOCOLS HERE. ABSENCES, ANY CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR TASK FORCE MEMBER WHOSE ATTENDANCE FALLING BELOW 75% SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL.

THE CHAIR SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY SECRETARY, THE CITY SECRETARY WILL WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REMOVAL OF THE MEMBER.

SO IT DOESN'T SAY THEY SHALL BE REMOVED, IT SAYS THEY SHALL BE

CONSIDERED. >> OKAY.

>> THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL ALSO NOTIFY THE MEMBER OF THEIR

[03:05:02]

NONCOMPLIANCE AND ALLOW THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

[13.1. Receive legal advice pursuant to Texas Government Code Sec. 551.071 related to Pending Legal Requests, Potential Claims, Pending Litigation and City Council Legal Requests.]

>> ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THIS? NEXT WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION, ITEM 13.1 RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, RELATED TO PENDING LEGAL REQUESTS, POTENTIAL CLAIMS, PENDING LITIGATION, AND CITY COUNCIL LEGAL REQUESTS, AND ITEM 13.2, RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 RELATING TO TEXAS

[13.2. Receive legal advice pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 relating to Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-414.]

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION KP-414. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE TO PULL

13.2 OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> I JUST HAD A CLARIFYING THING, I'M SORRY ON THE PREVIOUS ONE I WANTED TO CLARIFY DOES IT SAY MUST. IT SAYS A MEMBER WHO IS ABSENT FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION WITHOUT VALID EXCUSE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED FROM MEMBERSHIP IS HOW IT'S

WORDED. >> SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO PULL 13.2 OUT OF EXECUTIVE. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING ON THAT TOPIC THAT WE WOULD BE IN ANY WAY RESTRICTED FROM DISCUSSING IN PUBLIC. I THINK IT'S BEEN SETTLED.

WE'VE GOTTEN THE OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I DON'T SEE A REASON THAT THAT HAS TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION.

>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION IS PUBLIC, RIGHT?

>> I MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE TO RELEASE IT.

>> IT'S ON THE WEBSITE. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER SUTTON.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

DID WE HAVE ANY PENDING LEGAL? >> NO.

>> IS THERE ANY PENDING LEGAL THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS? THAT'S A FIRST. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS 14.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, RELATED TO PENDING LEGAL REQUESTS, POTENTIAL CLAIMS, PENDING LITIGATION, AND CITY COUNCIL LEGAL REQUESTS. ANY INFORMATION THERE?

[14.2. Consideration and possible action related to legal advice received pursuant to Texas Government Code Sec. 551.071 related to Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-414.]

HEARING NOTHING, WE'LL GO ONTO 14.2.

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, RELATED TO TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION KP-414.

SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DOTTIE OR CHRISTIAN I TALKED TO. I THINK DOTTIE ASKED THAT WE GO BACK AND REVOTE ON THE INFORMATION BEING RELEASED.

AND BASED ON THE EMAILS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE NOT RELEASED UNTIL THE OPINION CAME OUT, SO I READ THE OPINION, ASKED CHRISTIAN WHAT EXACTLY IT MEANT AND WHAT I GOT OUT OF THAT WAS IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE.

>> YEAH, SO I SENT EVERYBODY THE PACKET.

I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT MEETING. THE COMPILATION OF FILES.

IF THAT'S WHAT WAS VOTED ON, I'M GOING TO WORK WITH ANGELA TO RELEASE THAT. BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OTHER EMAILS NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THE DIRECTION TO BE COMPILE ALL OF THE EMAILS TO AND FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE ATTORNEY WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION AND ALL OF THE MEMOS TO BE RELEASED WITH THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OPINION. >> THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER KRYSTAL AND I SAID WAS JUST WAIT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION AND THEN RELEASE EVERYTHING SO I DON'T KNOW WHY IT CAME BACK UP.

>> BECAUSE WHAT'S EVERYTHING? WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS JUST THE STUFF BETWEEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN QUESTION AND LEGAL.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS GOING TO BE EVERYTHING FROM EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER, EMAILING STAFF AND BACK AND FORTH TO

[03:10:01]

LEGAL, ALL OF THIS STUFF. THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO PRIVILEGED INFORMATION GOING FORWARD.